WWIII Prediction

[Nonnie]

Bush and Blair were both fighting a War on Terror, and on those grounds alone, Saddam was a legitimate target. On the issue of WMD's, not just Britain and America were convinced he had some, but so was the wider world .. including the UN, by the way.

Saddam may have agreed to inspections (but only then after much mucking-around, and a toughly-worded Resolution, the basis for which determined their Inspection Team's remit to act) ... but those inspections were very limited in what they could achieve. Even Blix admitted that all his people could do was verify that WMD's had been destroyed at sites they were taken to. The QUANTITY destroyed couldn't be verified, nor could the starting-point of the numbers NEEDING to be confirmed as destroyed.

So, no. The Iraq invasion was the only logical and reasonable course of action.

You don't call Churchill a 'war criminal' for fighting Nazis. Nor should you call leaders fighting a War on Terror 'war criminals'. Both commitments, and the actions taken in their name, were equally meritorious.

Blair and Churchill, it's not possible to liken two polar opposites. Also, are you seriously claiming the circumstances of Iraq and the world wars as having the same circumstances?

[Drummond]

Blair and Churchill, it's not possible to liken two polar opposites. Also, are you seriously claiming the circumstances of Iraq and the world wars as having the same circumstances?

Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!

[Nonnie]

Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!

Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.

[Drummond]

Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.

As you wish, although they do say that prevention is better than cure. If, as you say, 'The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine' .. then that surely argues for my case, not yours ? Why not hit them long before they act, before, in fact, they can act ?

The instability in the world is caused by those PLANNING for it, not those who 'dare' to REACT to it.

If you object to countries going in to sort a supposed threat or problem, then it follows that you thought it right for the US to not take pre-emptive action against the various terrorist training camps the Taliban permitted in Afghanistan ? In which case, you'd have what America did have, on 11th September 2001 ... terrorist camps able to plan, train for, then execute, their attacks on that very day against the US. NOT taking pre-emptive action, indeed, being complacent, did its bit to allow the Twin Towers atrocity.

[Nonnie]

Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!

Then it's just purely speculation.