Can someone please explain to me why Tony Blair states that this whole farce (not for the soldiers dying out there) in Iraq is vital to the national security of the UK ?
Bush goes further and says that the whole of the civilised world is dependant on defeating the Iraqi terrorists.
Have I missed something vital here?

Only that bush and blair are power hungry liars.

I think the idea is that if you continue relentlessly with your lie and nothing or no-one can deter you from your story, before long, people start to believe you.

It's a basic concept but it seems to work.

Originally posted by uniB
I think the idea is that if you continue relentlessly with your lie and nothing or no-one can deter you from your story, before long, people start to believe you.

It's a basic concept but it seems to work.


In think in this case the opposite is true,after all almost 50% of America now thinks it is a lie. In this country I supect the figure is now a lot higher than that.

its the lack of oil in the westen world,blair thinks if he talks enough about freedom and liberty eventually the brits will come to exept it,bush declared the war was over last year so why are we still out there ? next agenda...monitoring the elections,what comes after that,if a party is elected then surely our troops job is done, time to go home and count your dead,...bet your life our troops are still out there in five years time,shouldnt it be the job of the un to monitor the situation ? or has bush declared that usa will stay in charge ?if an elected party is in ( not paid for by usa ) then surely they can say thanks for the help but now its time for the allies to go home and we can sort it.......

Originally posted by matsalleh
In think in this case the opposite is true,after all almost 50% of America now thinks it is a lie. In this country I supect the figure is now a lot higher than that.

I originally agreed with the decision to go into Iraq (rightly or wrongly). I now think its time our boys came home.

In a situation like that we're never going to win so we should just get out and let them get on with killing one another rather than our soldiers.

Heard a good description on the radio of what's happening - its Vietnam all over again and this time we're involved!!

Not sure about the lack of oil in the Western World?

Do you honestly believe there is a shortage??

It is comparibly cheap for America to pump oil from the East, just "(COUGH)unfortunate" that the occupiers do not always agree that the black gold belongs to the U.S.

As for an explanation on the security issue, well...... erm..... ahem....

it`s like.... you see.... kinda.....

Well we sold them some weapons to them a few years ago, and commisioned Mickey Mouse to write a few words and y`know...

well we got bored? wanted blood? wanted to spend a few quid? (well tax payers can spend it)

I think you will have to fabricate some kinda lies in your own head to solve this one..... cos that`s all they have done!

Originally posted by venger
Not sure about the lack of oil in the Western World?
Do you honestly believe there is a shortage??

World production has hit a plateau. New discoveries are not matching increased demand. There isn't a current shortage but with expanding economies in huge countries like China,India and Indonesia, demand will soon exceed supply and not least because in 3-5 years production will begin a slow decline as world reserves start running down.
Rumsfeld and Cheney have been aware of this for the past 10-15 years. It may be a very good idea to secure your long term supplies now. Some convenient ways of doing this are to occupy any producer countries which may prove troublesome (independent) and by doing so put the "frighteners" on all the others. Other useful ploys are to support dictatorships (Saudi) or impose puppet governments (often the next step after occupation)

Originally posted by matsalleh
Can someone please explain to me why Tony Blair states that this whole farce (not for the soldiers dying out there) in Iraq is vital to the national security of the UK ?
Bush goes further and says that the whole of the civilised world is dependant on defeating the Iraqi terrorists.
Have I missed something vital here?



I thought the most recent justification was the liberation of Iraq from a murderous despot and the imposition of western style democracy ?

Anyway the real test starts today in Falluja, where there will inevitably be a further slaughter of the innocents. Perhaps Bush and Blair will be satisfied when their tally of Iraqi dead equals the number attributed to Saddan Hussein.

The remnant population can then take part in the 'democratic' elections, but voting of course exactly as their local Mullah instructs them to 'in accordance with the wishes of God'.

:rolleyes:

I'm not defending Bush or Blair, I hate both of them, but I don't think the invasion of Iraq is as simple as America wanting the oil. I think at least Bush does actually believe he is on some sort of crusade to bring good to the infidels.

Bringing stability to the Middle East would be a good thing, but not on the terms that Bush wants it, and the way we are going about it is incredibly dangerous.

No it's not just oil. The Fear Of Nightmares programmes clearly showed how much the neo-cons need enemies for us all to fear. In their weird world no evidence of threat becomes conclusive evidence of threat....and even more scary, they actually believe some of it themselves. Iraq was made doubly attractive by having the worlds 2nd largest reserves off limits to the US because of the rigid UN sanctions they had themselves sponsored...the only means of access to these was to remove UN sanctions and the only way this could be done was to remove Sadaam. The US had painted itself into a corner as regards access to these oil reserves

Yes, you have to remember that the US does have some regard (not much I grant you) towards international law and the UN.

If they didn't they would just take over Venezuela and nick all their oil (whereas now they just settle for trying to fix their elections)

Originally posted by Yodameister
I'm not defending Bush or Blair, I hate both of them, but I don't think the invasion of Iraq is as simple as America wanting the oil. I think at least Bush does actually believe he is on some sort of crusade to bring good to the infidels.

Bringing stability to the Middle East would be a good thing, but not on the terms that Bush wants it, and the way we are going about it is incredibly dangerous.

Quite definately propaganda Yoda

Originally posted by Greybeard
Anyway the real test starts today in Falluja, where there will inevitably be a further slaughter of the innocents. Perhaps Bush and Blair will be satisfied when their tally of Iraqi dead equals the number attributed to Saddan Hussein.

Sad but justly mentioned!

Originally posted by Yodameister
I think at least Bush does actually believe he is on some sort of crusade to bring good to the infidels.

And thats probably what makes him most dangerous!!!

Originally posted by Yodameister

Bringing stability to the Middle East would be a good thing, but not on the terms that Bush wants it, and the way we are going about it is incredibly dangerous.


Even a cursory glance at the history of this region reveals a story of almost continuous strife and attempted colonisation over a period of five thousand years. Ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottoman Turks and latterly the French, British and Germans. All have sought to exact tribute and impose their imperial dominance. And all have killed, maimed, raped, tortured and looted indiscriminately in pursuit of their goal.

...and now the Americans, - 'plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose'.

Originally posted by venger

Sad but justly mentioned!


A little more than sad I feel. The Americans have rather smugly claimed that there are now less than thirty thousand 'residents' remaining in Falluja. Presumably they mean non-partisan civilians.

There is the potential here for a massacre of huge proportions. The truth of what is about to happen will not be revealed for weeks, - months , - if ever at all.

On the spot correspondents are being asked what they are "allowed" to reveal about what is happening...what I wonder will be their fate if they reveal more than they're supposed to ?