Saturday, January 30, 2010

Andrei No Blair apology - the BBC seems disappointed

The Iraq war should be a dead issue, last week they hanged Chemical Ali, an event that went virtually unnoticed in the wider world.

And yet he was a monster who amongst his other crimes gassed 5000 people in the town of Halabja. Virtually nobody mourns his passing.

Meanwhile in London Tony Blair is being grilled by yet another inquiry into his role in the events that saw Chemical Ali, and his Cousin Saddam Hussein bought to justice.

Its a circus outside of course - the usual suspects accusing Tony Blair of being a war criminal whilst seemingly oblivious of the crimes against humanity committed by the regime he help to overthrow and the war criminals he helped bring to justice.

The BBC begins its reportage
Tony Blair's appearance in front of the Iraq inquiry was marked by his determination to justify his decision to take Britain into the war on Iraq in 2003.

There was no mea culpa moment and no apology. He made a brief admission about being "sorry" about the divisions the war caused but said he took responsibility and had no regrets. Saddam had been a "monster".
Now why the BBC should expect a "mea culpa" or an "apology" remains a mystery to me.

There seems little to apologize for - indeed the world is a better place without Saddam and his henchmen and it would be hard to argue otherwise.

18 comment(s):

Sean said...

The world is a better place without a lot of people Andrei, but not so sure that is reason enough to send ones country to war.

You have mentioned a couple of benefits from the decision to go to war, but what about the costs.

Andrei said...

You have mentioned a couple of benefits from the decision to go to war, but what about the costs.

What about the costs of not going to war Sean? They probably would have been a lot higher.

Like when England and France avoided going to war in 1938 which if they had done so may have avoided the cataclysm which all but destroyed Europe and much of the Far East costing over 40 million lives in the process.

Sean said...

Fair question. Since the 2003 invasion it seems the lives of Iraqis hasn't improved. Actually, they would have retained a corrupt, tough, but stable government in a society with a rule of law. Yes there was the Chemical Ali incident (way back in 1988) but isn't it stange how the hawks have only been mentioning it since the invasion? It would be a bit niave to assume the 1988 Chemical Ali incident played any part in the 2003 decision to go to war.

KG said...

"Since the 2003 invasion it seems the lives of Iraqis hasn't improved"

Go tell that to the Iraqis who no longer fear the state-sponsored rape squads, the children who were liberated from state prisons,the relatives who have sorted through the remains in the mass graves, looking for relatives...

You leftards have very short, conveniently selective memories.

Sean said...

I never said it was good before, just that it appears nothing much has really improved.

ZenTiger said...

Things are better in some regard with Saddam gone

I.M Fletcher said...

The fact that Ali and Saddam were both tried and found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed tells you something about what kind of men they were and what they were doing to their country.

No one likes war, but sometimes you have to stand up and fight for those who cannot and also when the peace of the world is threatened.

Peace comes at a great price sometimes. The PC idiots all like peace but with no idea of the sacrifice and effort is takes to achieve and maintain. They think it comes about by everyone just "being nice" and sitting around in a circle singing "what we are saying, is give peace a chance". That's because they've never suffered under a dictator, never had to go to war - to be in the trenches.

They like to sip their lattes, keep their hands clean and let others go and fight for them - and when those others do go and fight (for their families, for their country) the latte brigade gets their bums off the couch only long enough to go and protest about the same people who protect them.

leftrightout said...

andrei says "Like when England and France avoided going to war in 1938 which if they had done so may have avoided the cataclysm which all but destroyed Europe and much of the Far East costing over 40 million lives in the process."

Read your history, and understand it. Had England gone to war in 1938 it would have been anhilitaed by a far superior German war machine. Chamberlain may not have bought "peace in our time", but he did buy England a little more time to ramp up its military. And even so, its invasion at Dunkirk was soon repelled.

Had Hitler not thrown the dice on an invasion of Russia, and had chosen to invade the UK first, I doubt that "sceptered isle" would have stood the test.

I think we need another version of Godwin's Law for those who trot out this well worn mantra to forever justify their unjust wars.

leftrightout said...

IMF says "I.M Fletcher said...
The fact that Ali and Saddam were both tried and found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed tells you something about what kind of men they were and what they were doing to their country."

It says nothing of the sort, it simply represents the power of the current government in Iraq to do as it pleases.

Had Hitler prevailed in WW2 and hanged Churchill, what would that say about Churchill and what he was doing to his country?

KG said...

"...even so, its invasion at Dunkirk was soon repelled."
There was no Dunkirk "invasion", only an evacuation.

Like you just said--"read your history and understand it".

leftrightout said...

Yes, you are correct, I was writing rather quickly and missed a bit. However, I notice you have no rebuttal to the substantive points.

While we're at it it, while others are fighting for us, why is your bum glued so firmly to the couch?

KG said...

"While we're at it it, while others are fighting for us, why is your bum glued so firmly to the couch?"
perhaps because I've done my share of it and now I'm 60+ years old it's time to leave it to younger people?

And you're writing from a 'hot' zone, I take it, not a couch?

KG said...

"its invasion at Dunkirk was soon repelled."
You missed a bit?
Which bit would that be? I'm dying to know which missing bit would fix claiming a non-existent invasion. :)

leftrightout said...

Being an armchair general doesn't mean you have done your bit.

And no, I am not in a "hot zone" as there isn't one near where i live and there is nothing I need to defend against, except stupidity and dogmatism.

KG said...

"Being an armchair general doesn't mean you have done your bit."
If I were, it wouldn't.
But I'm not and I have.

"there is nothing I need to defend against, except stupidity and dogmatism."
It's refreshing to see such a level of self-awareness. :)

KG said...

And I'm waiting to hear from you about your alleged "missing bit".

KG said...

And perhaps I should point out the obvious, since you seem to be a bear of little brain--the real "armchair generals" are the leftist cowards who stay in the safety created for them by men and criticize the actions of the military from the safety of their armchairs.

ZenTiger said...

I think we need another version of Godwin's Law for those who trot out this well worn mantra to forever justify their unjust wars.

Just as we need some kind of statement for the casual disregard for millions dead by doing basically nothing.

Sierra Leone.
Rwanda.
DR of Congo.

We can debate the merits of going to war against Saddam for the second time, but I get the impression the immense amount of suffering Saddam caused seems to be acceptable because there was some "stability".

Unfortunately, even that though is not enough to make other countries intervene. It was Saddam's relentless push for nuclear capability (and we can see now that he was at least trying to keep pace with Iran's own nuclear ambitions), his arms deals with France and Russia on the side (and remember he had dealt with the French to build 2 nuclear reactors), his attack on Kuwait, funding of insurgents into Bosnia and countless other aggressive acts, such as paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers as a reward for their martyrdom.

Leftrightout, you said "at least Chamberlain bought time" but the point there was that he thought he bought peace, and he turned out to be wrong. Very, very wrong.

You have the luxury of thinking that you, in this particular case, are as right about the war as Chamberlain no doubt did.

That war is done. The Afghan war continues. That's the one we need to have a long hard look at.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.