Blair Refuses To Say Sorry

[makkun]

Joe Daley,

[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
IMO the media in England hate Blair because he is a Christian and actually believes in this ‘cause’. Our media is full of middle class white journalists who through a misguided sense of guilt over their priveledged (sp?) lives feel the need to constantly criticise their own country and always pander to minority interests.

The whole war on terror is largely viewed with digust by the media because ultimately they would never fight for any cause. The deluded idea that one can come to a compromise in a civilised manner only works when both sides are civilised. The enemy faced is an enemy that wants to convert the world or destroy it. That is what the whole Islamic thing is about. How the hell do you compromise with that?[/quote]

This brings up too many points I would like to argue against, but as this a threat about Blair, so I’ll stick to the discussion at hand.

At the end of the day, I am not of the opinion that we should go around rounding up Muslims and executing them, far from it. I am however of the opinion that when an enemy attacks your nation, you send a message out to all the arab nations that you cannot do such things without expecting a severe reprisal. Which is exactly what has happened.

Britain was attacked by an arab nation? If that were the case, I would support a war. But last time I checked the rationale was that the UK might in the future be attacked by Irak, if in the future it will be able to. That’s many “ifs” and “whens”.

Whether the war was over WMD or just to show the arab nations not to f**k with the US I quite frankly do not care. The WMD as far as I have heard from sources at GCHQ were moved to Egypt prior to the invasion of Iraq. But I do not see why the elected leader of my country has to apologise.

Here again - I fail to see which nation has attacked the US. On that Eqypt remark, I am a bit surprised as Egypt is one of the countries that has the most pro-western attitude in the region. Again - without a “smoking gun” as proof, the argument Blair has used is pretty useless.

Throughout history people have opposed wars, and although they often had good reasons, in this case it was simply that a large amount of anti-American sentiment (otherwise known as racism) meant that siding with Bush on any issue would have made Blair a hated man.

I seriously request you to rethink that. I was opposed to that war, and as many others, I am neither anti-American nor racist.
People opposed to this war were worried that a non-UN-route would split the western world (which has happened), make Irak a country torn by civil war (which has happened) and the “war on terror” would not be brought forward by it (which remains to be seen).

Makkun

[makkun]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makkun,

“But in this case people were currently being slaughtered and thousands were fleeing the atrocities.”

Same in Iraq - the humanitarian crisis there is well-noted. And it is foolish to suggest that a crisis wasn’t happening that minute - it was systemic, and I think it is a fair assumption that there is no statute of limitations on institutional torture and genocide.[/quote]

The incidents quoted in the runup to the war were mostly stuff from a few years back. The idea of self-defense, and helping others for that matter requires a current attack. That was not the case in Irak. Yes, Saddam was continuously a bastard in his country, and he should have been removed (instead of pampered) for years. But the whole thread is about the arguments Tony Blair gave for the UK to join the war. From these he had to step back. That raises valid questions.

[quote]“I am glad that there was an illegal consensus to stop him.”

Hey, me too. But do the actors in the war on Milosevic need to apologize to you for conducting an illegal war?[/quote]

If the arguments they used to catch him would have gone up in smoke - yes. But they didn’t. And Milosevic is getting a fair trial, as any human deserves.

[quote]“In the Iraq war there was none. This was very much a case of putative self defense - and it went wrong in the sense that there was not the threat in Irak to the UK as described by Tony Blair.”

This is fair, I think - it is incumbent on our leaders to explain the value of invading Iraq. I think Blair has done so, frankly, better than Bush.[/quote]

Yep.

[quote]“Is it so unfair to ask for an aplogy? I think not.”

If my doctor conducts surgery on a loved one for a tumor he thinks malignant, but it turns out to be benign, do I ask for an apology from him?[/quote]

If there is damage done during the operation - absolutely. You actually have the right to sue.

The intelligence was wrong - I think a better way to handle it is for Blair to say “I am responsible for making the decisions based on that intelligence”, but I don’t think he needs to say “I’m sorry” because I don’t think he did anything wrong. He acted in good faith on the information he had. That is entirely different from intentionally doing something deceitful, which would require an apology.

Valid point. I might be too influenced by the world of business, where people who do stuff like that are usually fired by their companies, who have to pay up for mistakes like these.

[ZEB]

BB:

Sometimes it’s difficult convincing foreigners how important US security has become. More importantly how unimportant the UN has become!

Not trying to use the word “foreigners” in a negative tone. However, living through terrorist attacks is not like reading about them.

[thunderbolt23]

Vroom,

“Staggering indeed. I can cooperate to the fullest and it proves nothing.”

So you were completely against inspections, as they would have been useless anyway?

"Now, before you think I am defending Saddam or his regime, I am not. I’m suggesting that suddenly using the UN as a validator of some actions while at the same time villifying it for other actions is silly.

Whether or not the invasion was justified in reality should have very little to do with the pronouncements of the UN. It was right or wrong whether or not the UN agreed or disagreed."

Is this Vroom I’m talking to? That was one of the major arguments going into war - if the UN can’t even enforce its resolutions, it has no validity to decide issues regarding war and peace.

Sophistry aside, there’s no question Saddam could have passed his ‘drug tests’ and still been in violation. The point was that the burden of proof was on Saddam to show compliance - and the arguments that we should take Saddam merely at his word was rubbish. Saddam could have bamboozled inspectors for years ahead, that’s not the point.

You make a great point, one that has been debated before. The pronouncements of the UN don’t necessarily determine whether something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to do. Nor does the word ‘multilateral’ describe any inherent rightness.

A realistic fact - countries use the UN when it suits their agenda and they ignore it when it doesn’t. I embrace that reality, and that’s why I think the UN should be stripped of many of its powers.

[JeffR]

Makkun,

I trully am getting tired of typing the same thing over and over.

Please read my earlier ONE-MILLION posts on this issue.

I’ll make this brief.

You say England and America weren’t attacked by Saddam?

Please tell that to the fighter pilots (English and American) who were being shot at almost daily for 10 years by Saddam. Remember the No-Fly zones?Please mention that to George H.W. Bush who was targeted for assassination by Saddam.

Perhaps you would like to argue about whether the no-fly zones should have been enforced? Before you do, type: www.google.com and read-up on the atrocities that they were put in place to prevent.

How about our ally, Israel?

Care to say to the families who lost loved ones in Israel that Saddam never attacked them?

How about the $26,000 paid by Saddam to the families of the suicide bombers? Remember the Scuds in 1991?

Now, as for being against the Iraq (with a q not a k) War, that is your perogative.

However, the absence of a viable political or diplomatic alternative should at least give you pause.

Anyone want to maintain that the U.N. would have had the beans to enforce it’s own resolutions put in place after '91?

Have a marvelous (and educational) day!!!

JeffR

[vroom]

So you were completely against inspections, as they would have been useless anyway?

Thunder,

I wouldn’t say I was against inspections. However, if you don’t trust the person you are asking questions of, it’s not like you are going to trust the answers you get. Getting compliance is better than nothing though.

However, to try to shift back towards the topic of the thread, I think how leaders, in Britain or in the US, acknowledge and own up to their mistakes says a lot about them. I would like to see leaders demonstrate accountability and acknowledge their failings.

It’s important that we remember that our leaders are people, not demigods. Does that require apologies? I don’t know. However, you can acknowledge and admit mistakes without explicitly apologizing.

[makkun]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,

I trully am getting tired of typing the same thing over and over.

Please read my earlier ONE-MILLION posts on this issue.[/quote]

No need for being redundant, I read your posts. Just mostly don’t agree.

[quote]I’ll make this brief.

You say England and America weren’t attacked by Saddam?

Please tell that to the fighter pilots (English and American) who were being shot at almost daily for 10 years by Saddam. Remember the No-Fly zones?Please mention that to George H.W. Bush who was targeted for assassination by Saddam.

Perhaps you would like to argue about whether the no-fly zones should have been enforced? Before you do, type: www.google.com and read-up on the atrocities that they were put in place to prevent.[/quote]

If I have to - yes. The fighter pilots knew what they were doing. They enforced a UN decision and they put their lives on the line - knowing the risks of flying over Iraqi territory. This is a rightful act, I give you that - but does it award a full scale war a few years down the line? Nope. BTW - just to stay in touch with the topic of this thread - Tony Blair did not use this as the main reason for going to war, for all I know.

[quote]How about our ally, Israel?

Care to say to the families who lost loved ones in Israel that Saddam never attacked them?

How about the $26,000 paid by Saddam to the families of the suicide bombers? Remember the Scuds in 1991?[/quote]

Yeah, that’s exactly what I mean: 1991. That is not a current action.
You see, we all know Saddam was a fuckwit - I just question the necessity and arguments of going to war in this instance, and if it did more damage than than help. Oh, no sorry… this thread is about Tony Blair…

Now, as for being against the Iraq (with a q not a k) War, that is your perogative.

Yep. And please stop correcting my spelling. English is not my native language, so I think I can “trully” make a few mistakes here.

[quote]However, the absence of a viable political or diplomatic alternative should at least give you pause.

Anyone want to maintain that the U.N. would have had the beans to enforce it’s own resolutions put in place after '91?[/quote]

Yes, if it had gotten its act together and Donald Rumsfeld hadn’t pissed of the US’s European friends when going for a final resolution whith the support of the security council, yes, I do.

[quote]Have a marvelous (and educational) day!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Now this is something that really annoys me - you tend IMO to talk down on people who do not agree with you. Not agreeing with you does not mean, I (or others for that matter) have to be educated. Please rethink this attitude, it is neither corteous nor helpful in a discussion.

Makkun

[makkun]

ZEB,

Sorry for answering this late - I was busy and I had trouble posting.

As the foreigner here, I shall respond.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
BB:

Sometimes it’s difficult convincing foreigners how important US security has become. More importantly how unimportant the UN has become![/quote]

First, a rebuttal: Sometimes it is difficult to see that other countries have gone through similar phases without going berserk on security. More importantly, the UN was made unimportant by the unilateral approach of one country’s administration that did not like its rules anymore - after having initially helped establishing them.

Not trying to use the word “foreigners” in a negative tone. However, living through terrorist attacks is not like reading about them.

There is no offense, where none is taken.
Having grown up in the 70ies in Germany and the UK, I know how it feels living in a country that is under a terrorist threat (RAF, IRA). I was in the US during the Oklahoma bombing, so I even know how it felt in the states. Hell, I was even in South Korea in 1987 during the political riots, so I was a pretty scared teenager then. And, yeah, almost lost a friend in the attack of Oumu Shinrikyo in Tokyo 1995.

My point? I think it’s about time to have a look around and acknowledge that the US is not the only country which has to deal with terrorism. I know that this is a new experience, but it does not help to be overcome by fear and act more vengeful than practical; “we” foreigners here just try to help our American friends to put things back into perspective, and go about the problem of terrorism in a more multilateral way. That’s what friends are for.

Makkun