Is it just me, or does anyone else think the World is a little better off with one less brutal dictator around then?

Just me then.

I don't/haven't. My comment was a "how do you know that X wouldn't happen" rather than a "well X would have happened if..".
I don't pretend to know alternative outcomes.

Well let's throw that back at you El Bent. Are the Iraqi people better off than they were in 2003 ? The ones that are still alive that is.

Even more compelling, was Saddam the worst of the worlds dictators or the one who could most affect the wests oil supply?

Well let's throw that back at you El Bent. Are the Iraqi people better off than they were in 2003 ? The ones that are still alive that is.

Yes.

Even more compelling, was Saddam the worst of the worlds dictators or the one who could most affect the wests oil supply?

I think using chemicals on the Kurds puts him up there among the best so to speak, and remember the "west" is you.

one less brutal dictator

So what are you going to do with the rest of the brutal dictators El-bent ……….. leave them be I suppose ?

And if "the world is a little better off" without him, why then, the need for a whole pack of lies about him ?

btw, how do you feel about the world being without 100,000 to 1000,000 less Iraqis ?

I think using chemicals on the Kurds

Wasn't that in 1988 ? Why the need to invade in 2003 ?

And what was Tony Blair saying in 1988 – everybody knew what had happened ? Was Blair commending the West for supporting Saddam ?

in the late 1990’s Kim Jong Il presided over the death by famine of some 2 million people

Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Bashir launched the genocide in Darfur, but he also engaged in the slaughter of southerners in the north-south war in Sudan, as well as mass killings in other parts of Sudan

There's worse out there not to mention Mugabe, Teodoro Obiang or Ahmedinejad.

So what are you going to do with the rest of the brutal dictators El-bent ……….. leave them be I suppose ?

No. I propose a world tour of oppressive regimes.

And if "the world is a little better off" without him, why then, the need for a whole pack of lies about him?

No one should have lied, they should have said "we are going to get a guaranteed oil supply for all you lovely people and rid ourselves of this dictatorship by introducing Democracy." As you can imagine this wouldn't have gone down particularly well here in blighty because many of us while knowing what happens are not willing to acknowledge what actions Governments do in our name to maintain the consumerist lifestyle we have, and this is not just on this particular issue either. And when a few of us do acknowledge it, amazingly it's over the fact we were lied to!

Like the Germans who still have a guilt complex over WW2, we still have one over our imperial past, which is why we are not keen on intervening in other countries. Something we need to get over.

And as for introducing Democracy, we are not entirely keen on that in this country either judging by the blandness of the political parties, we are a dictatorship in that respect, not a one party state, more of a three party state practicing the same political/economic model.

btw, how do you feel about the world being without 100,000 to 1000,000 less Iraqis ?

How would you expect me to answer?

In the late 1990’s Kim Jong Il presided over the death by famine of some 2 million people

Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Bashir launched the genocide in Darfur, but he also engaged in the slaughter of southerners in the north-south war in Sudan, as well as mass killings in other parts of Sudan

What's the point of invading these countries? There's no oil there obviously. 🙄 Invading North Korea for instance would bring us into conflict with China(the maker of all those oh so lovely cheap goods flooding our shores) and we wouldn't want our "economic" interests damaged would we?

So since we don't want to invade countries for economic purposes would you lot be prepared to back military action against these dictatorships if it was only in the interest of freeing the people from oppressive regimes? Now don't go all politician on me now and start lying.

I am playing a sort of Devils advocate here, because some of you need have to have your sensibilities trampled on from time to time with a cold dose of realism.

Well let's throw that back at you El Bent. Are the Iraqi people better off than they were in 2003 ? The ones that are still alive that is.

Yes.

What utter bullshit.

Ernie wrote, "Yep, I find it a piece of piss criticizing an unrepentant liar. He now openly admits that despite what he told the British people, it had nothing to do with WMD – he would have gone to war anyway."

This interview is being treated as an admission of lying by many people, but it's clearly no such thing- he's saying "We were wrong, but even if we'd known that at the time we'd have done the same thing"- absolutely NOT saying "We knew there were no WMDs and intentionally lied".

Now, I think that's balls, but the simple fact is he's not been caught out or proven to have lied, and he's certainly not admitted it- he's been proven wrong but not dishonest. Personally I believe he did lie, but that's by the by. If he'd admitted wrongdoing and refused to apologies I could understand your position but expecting someone to repent for something they claim they didn't do, and have never been proven to have done, makes little sense.

No one should have lied, they should have said "we are going to get a guaranteed oil supply for all you lovely people and rid ourselves of this dictatorship by introducing Democracy." As you can imagine this wouldn't have gone down particularly well here in blighty because many of us while knowing what happens are not willing to acknowledge what actions Governments do in our name to maintain the consumerist lifestyle we have………

I don't know what you are talking about El-bent.

To maintain the consumerist lifestyle we have ? WTF you on about ? How has invading Iraq changed or maintained our "consumerist lifestyle" ? Has the price of petrol at the pump gone down as a result of the war ?
Are you under some sort of misguided impression that Iraq was refusing to sell oil to the West ?

Nothing's changed apart from the fact that the US now controls the Iraq oil industry. Sure the Bush family, the vice US President Dick Cheney, and many of the administration's top officials had extremely strong ties with oil industry, and I'm sure they've done very well, but how the fc*k do you think this benefits ordinary British people ?

This wasn't some sort of benevolent exercise by George Bush to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, and cheap petrol to ordinary British people.

.

btw, how do you feel about the world being without 100,000 to 1000,000 less Iraqis ?

How would you expect me to answer?

I expected you to avoid answering the question.

.

I am playing a sort of Devils advocate here

Well that's alright then ………… because obviously it absolves you from all your cretinous comments.

This interview is being treated as an admission of lying by many people, but it's clearly no such thing

So how do you figure out that he now openly admits that, despite what he told the British people, it had nothing to do with WMD – he would have gone to war anyway ?

Clearly he was lying.

This oil thing is a red herring. If it was about oil, shouldn't we have invaded Venezuela instead?

IMHO Blair, at least, really did think that Iraq would turn into a stable democracy a bit like Turkey, Lebanon would follow suit, and the people of the middle east would see an alternative to corrupt dictatorships or theocratic revolution. Suddenly the breeding ground for Islamism would be no more, and just as happened in eastern Europe, liberal democratic capitalism would ensure peace and freedom for all.

Of course, this was magical thinking.

Like the Germans who still have a guilt complex over WW2, we still have one over our imperial past, which is why we are not keen on intervening in other countries. Something we need to get over.

Unfortunately, that's exactly the thought process that affected Blair and others with the concept of liberal intervention. Did NATO sending the Luftwaffe to bomb Belgrade not strike anyone as being in bad taste?

Ernie wrote,

"So how do you figure out that he now openly admits that, despite what he told the British people, it had nothing to do with WMD – he would have gone to war anyway ?

Clearly he was lying."

Rubbish, he's said nothing of the sort and I think you know that perfectly well. What he's said is that he would have gone to war without WMD, but that's not remotely the same thing as saying that the reasons they did go to war were "nothing to do with WMD" as you claim.

To paraphrase, he's saying that the reasons were wrong but the decision was right. This is an admission of error, not deceit. I think you have to work pretty hard to interpret it any other way really.

Put it more simply- It's Tony Blair, he's incapable of admitting to dishonesty, so clearly this isn't an admission of lying. He's barely even capable of admitting to being wrong, even here when he admits to a mistake he still says he did the right thing.

This is an admission of error, not deceit.

It is very much an admission of deceit.

He told the British people (and Hans Blix and the UN and the rest of the world) that the reason for attacking Iraq was that it had WMDs. He said that the goal was not regime change and that war was not inevitable.

He has now openly admitted that he deceived everyone and that regime change was the goal, and more importantly, that war was inevitable.

He is a deceitful liar.

BTW, you would do well to read this excellent piece in The Times which quotes Sir Ken Macdonald who was Director of Public Prosecutions until last year :

British involvement in Iraq war blamed on Blair’s ‘sycophancy’

Quote :

In perhaps the most serious charges levelled by a former public servant against an ex-Prime Minister, Sir Ken says Mr Blair engaged in an “alarming subterfuge” with George Bush, and then misled and cajoled the British people into a war they did not want.

Mr Blair’s fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards those in power, he says. “Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him.”

Mr Blair’s mantra that he did what he thought was right was a “narcissist’s defence” because self-belief was no answer to misjudgment and no answer to death.

Ernie wrote,

"He told the British people (and Hans Blix and the UN and the rest of the world) that the reason for attacking Iraq was that it had WMDs. He said that the goal was not regime change and that war was not inevitable.

He has now openly admitted that he deceived everyone and that regime change was the goal, and more importantly, that war was inevitable."

Keep saying it, someone might believe it- though only those who wish to of course. You're still either making the exact same logical fail, or intentionally choosing to misinterpret his words, frankly I don't care which it is.

He simply has not admitted deceiving anyone, or said anything which can rationally be interpreted as such. Statement of fact. And since all of your "argument" is based on the belief that he has, you might as well stop. Certainly there's no room for further discussion once you've stated that black is white.

As I say, I believe completely that he DID intentionally deceive, but that's different.

He simply has not admitted deceiving anyone

LOL ! and so speaks a lawyer ! 😀

Yes OK, I'll give you that one…….. he hasn't used the words, "I deceived everyone"

He has however now said, that war was always inevitable, despite the fact that he had previously claimed that war was not inevitable.

I take that as an admission of deceit, despite any pedantic technicalities. And I suspect most other people would do so too 8)

And now quoting out of context too 🙄

Semantics. Everyone knows he's a lying bastard.
Our lives may not have been improved by the invasion, but they may well have been maintained. If petrol was £3/gallon, we'd be fecked in many ways.
I hope that his faith (which he also lied about) causes him to have unconsolable guilt and horrible nightmares.

I hope that his faith (which he also lied about) causes him to have unconsolable guilt and horrible nightmares.

Sorry backhander, he would need a conscience for that to happen. Something he is not in possession of.

Well that's alright then ………… because obviously it absolves you from all your cretinous comments.

Truth Hurts Ernie. Now go on, off you go back to your idealist dreamworld.

Our lives may not have been improved by the invasion, but they may well have been maintained. If petrol was £3/gallon, we'd be fecked in many ways.

Petrol in the UK is currently over £5 per gallon… did you mean litres?

It seems to me that oil prices went up in the years following the invasion of Iraq, so if the intention was to maintain a cheap supply of oil, it was a very bad plan.

Truth Hurts Ernie. Now go on, off you go back to your idealist dreamworld.

The truth ? So you believe all that stuff ? 😯

Why then, the disclaimer at the end of your long spiel claiming that you were playing Devil's Advocate ? 😕

Just say what you want to say.

And don't ponce about with, "this is what I think……………………….but not really"

Or was it an attempt to deflect the inevitable criticism ?

BTW El-bent, I find it surprising that someone as enlighten and progressive as yourself, should choose to believe that the Iraqi War was driven by a desire to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, and cheap petrol to the British people.

It is frankly absurd to believe that the main instigator of the war George W Bush was tossing and turning at night worrying about the lack of democracy in Iraq. Remember, this is the same George W Bush who would rather see his own people fall sick and die, than introduce a "socialist" health care system. The same George W Bush who would rather abandon the people of New Orleans and let them die, than spend money to defend them against hurricanes. The same George W Bush who's best pals included the Saudi Royals, and rulers of one of the most totalitarian regimes on earth. The same George W Bush who, as far as I am aware, only ever "proper" job, was as owner of an oil company.

The same George W Bush who our Prime Minister, worked hand in hand with, and according to Blair himself, "stood shoulder to shoulder" with.

This was never a war motivated by concern for the Iraqi people or poor hard-up British consumers. It was a war about greed and power; the oil industry which lay at the very heart of the Bush administration; and the Neo-Con dream of "Full Spectrum Dominance".

I'm mystified in understanding why you would support a war based on lies El-bent. Still, I suspect that it is a possibly case of 'misplaced loyalty' and if the British Prime Minister in 2003 had been a Tory, you probably would have opposed it.

The only thing that is "misplaced" is your conclusion.

Take a look at my post again.