Will Brits Blame Tony Blair for attacks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While i was in favour of getting rid of Saddam,i thought some of the anti-war people had a point when they said,"why not invade North Korea or Iran?"Of course,all these anti-war movements tend to be a real mixture of people,from outright pacifists to left-wing anarchists who are simply opposed to a Government which is too
right-wing for them.However,they would be only too willing to plunge us into war with a right-wing dictatorship.
Initially,the majority of people here supported Tony Blair,but stories of abuse by British soldiers followed by an increasing number of bodybags returned to Britain has drained away some of that support.That is happening in the U.S.as well.
A while ago,the Editor of the Daily Mirror was pushed out of his job
because he published a story of abuse.At first,it was suggested it was untrue because we could not see the soldiers’ faces and the guns in the picture were in pristine condition.Rather strange,since they were supposed to have been in the desert for quite some time.However,the stories of abuse turned out to be true,even if the picture was posed.One woman in particular,who lives near me, has harrassed the Prime Minister over the fact that her 19 year old son was sent to Iraq after just 6 weeks training.He wasn’t there long before he was killed.
I don’t think the nation as a whole will gang up on Blair,but some people will try to wind things up.
 
40.png
burnside:
some of the anti-war people had a point when they said,“why not invade North Korea or Iran?”
Click to expand...
It is a fair question. The flip side, though, is that if we would have attacked North Korea, they would have been saying “why not invade Iran or Iraq”, or if we would have attacked Iran they would have said “why not invate Iran or Iraq.” Truth is, its tougher to fight a tyrant after they acquire nukes, so waiting was even more dangerous.

Sure, there are more terrorist attacks in Iraq now than before. I mean, duh. Before we removed Saddam, Iraq was controlled by a brutal Arab who killed a million people and funded terrorism, so terrorists weren’t going to attack someone who enabled them.

To those who say that the terrorism in Iraq is an argument against our presence in Iraq, I would ask them this "Which target would they prefer the terrorist fight: our trained and armed military stationed in the Middle East, or our unarmed civilians in New York? If they weren’t attacking the former, they’d be attacking the latter.
 
I suppose attacking Saddam makes sense in that he was the one who was in clear violation of the UN sanctions imposed after the war which ended his aggression against Kuwait. The fact that most of the world (including the French and Germans) agreed that he had weapons of mass destruction was the final impetus.
 
40.png
mpav:
I suppose attacking Saddam makes sense in that he was the one who was in clear violation of the UN sanctions imposed after the war which ended his aggression against Kuwait. The fact that most of the world (including the French and Germans) agreed that he had weapons of mass destruction was the final impetus.
Click to expand...
Great points. Not to mention almost all the prominent democrats who scream “Bush lied” said the exact same “Bush lies” before Bush even took office.

Saddam tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands. He funded terrorists (he was never accused of 9/11 involvement, but he did fund al Queda). He violated sanctions, and he refused to prove he destroyed his weapons. So we searched him by force, and he now sits in prison where he belongs (instead of building palaces for himself and torture chambers for his people).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top