^^^^^^
O/T ^^^^^^
^^^^^^
Reference: Ditty
Blimey Muf! Its rare I see you post about serious stuff... in fact this could be the first time I have read you post about serious stuff...
See Ditty, it's the opposite way round for me....I first encountered Muf (his name was a lot longer then) in a reasonably sane place on C4. I was knocked a bit sideways when he invaded the BB threads.
I don't think it was legal or on balance, justified. The UN have judged it illegal according to the UN Charter without holding formal court trials. Its aims have been debatable and at one end of the spectrum you have those who see it as entirely engineered by oil greedy Republicans to the other where it's seen as humanitarian crusade to get rid of a brutal tyrant.
Whatever the high ideals claimed by Blair and Bush, even giving it its best spin its pretty difficult to justify the invasion of another country that was no threat to British or American lives - or any other country for that matter. The argument that Saddam, left to his own devices, would have developed nuclear or chemical weapons is a valid one IMO but at the time of invasion, Iraq had been more or less disarmed. All that was needed was for UN weapon inspectors to tightly monitor the Saddam regime.
The potential of Saddam to destabilise the region was IMO overstated although obviously, the removal of Saddam solved a lot of potential problems.
The worst cost has been to the Iraqi civilians who account for a shockingly high ratio of casualties, compared to military personnel. The Iraq war and its aftermath has been much harder on civilians than most other interventions to the shameful point where the civilians would have probably been better off under Saddam.
IMO, it's a shameful mark on Labour's record in office. I remember thinking Thatcher and Major were the Devil incarnate when they were America's poodles but Blair took it to new levels of British subservience to right-wing American objectives that I'd have never predicted in 1997 when New Labour campaigned on 'The Third Way'. It was an intervention the like of which I'd like to see Ed Miliband promise will never happen under his leadership.
Electing Ed rather than David Miliband - who was up to his neck in the Iraq war - was definitely the right thing for the Labour party.
Whatever the high ideals claimed by Blair and Bush, even giving it its best spin its pretty difficult to justify the invasion of another country that was no threat to British or American lives - or any other country for that matter. The argument that Saddam, left to his own devices, would have developed nuclear or chemical weapons is a valid one IMO but at the time of invasion, Iraq had been more or less disarmed. All that was needed was for UN weapon inspectors to tightly monitor the Saddam regime.
The potential of Saddam to destabilise the region was IMO overstated although obviously, the removal of Saddam solved a lot of potential problems.
The worst cost has been to the Iraqi civilians who account for a shockingly high ratio of casualties, compared to military personnel. The Iraq war and its aftermath has been much harder on civilians than most other interventions to the shameful point where the civilians would have probably been better off under Saddam.
IMO, it's a shameful mark on Labour's record in office. I remember thinking Thatcher and Major were the Devil incarnate when they were America's poodles but Blair took it to new levels of British subservience to right-wing American objectives that I'd have never predicted in 1997 when New Labour campaigned on 'The Third Way'. It was an intervention the like of which I'd like to see Ed Miliband promise will never happen under his leadership.
Electing Ed rather than David Miliband - who was up to his neck in the Iraq war - was definitely the right thing for the Labour party.
Of course we can get quite hung up about the legality. The main point is that it was a very poor decision. Very poor.
I took ages writing my Iraq war contribution so don't want this thread to fall off the cliff. Shameless bump! 
Not taking intervention simply because there is no domestic threat, threat to one's own shores, is a load of selfish, cold-hearted horseshit.
So north Korea, Zimbabwe, next eh?
war
usually a fight between people over religion to see who has the best imaginary friend..
usually a fight between people over religion to see who has the best imaginary friend..
It was ilegal .. Ed Miliband said in his speech when he was elected leader of the labour party that he never agreed with the Irag war, as he said it the cameras zoomed in on David Milliband as he was one of them in the labour party who did agree we should go to war, in my opinion it was the right man who was chosen to lead the labour party, it would not stop me voting for labour because of a terrible decision Blair made .. I would not hold the labour party to account for his mistakes when he was PM, if he was still leading the labour party I just would not vote in a general election voting for conservatives is a big no no for me it could never be an option Im afraid.
No it's not legal. The allies invaded a country for nothing more than financial reasons and slapped a description of 'war on terror' on it. They march into another country and try and impose their views and beliefs on them because they think they're better? It really gets on my wick!
Reference: Joe
So north Korea, Zimbabwe, next eh?
If they find any black black oil. Yes.
All joking aside. This business about sandman's human rights record is a bit of a red herring.
The WMD argument was a loser since every time he got anywhere near completion the Israelis assassinated the people concerned. As a matter of fact they constructed his super gun round these parts.
If the west were concerned about state murder why didn't they invade Syria too? (thousands murdered after the last uprising against Assad)
I say again unto you. There was previously a secular state where young girls could wear make-up and study at University. That state is now sufficiently destabilised for the loonies to
take over.