Blair's fatal attraction

Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
gopher said:
Tony Blair being the butt wiping poodle that he is followed Bush and is now paying the price.
Click to expand...
Nice price to pay; good pension and offers of lucrative jobs. All politcal leaders leave under a cloud.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
Again, there was a reason to fight Hitler, none to fight Saddam.
Click to expand...

The reason to fight Saddam was that he was a brutal despot who killed thousands of his own people.

His sons - thankfully killed by the British and American-led invasion force - and a strange habit of torturing the members of the Iraq football teams and Iraqi sportsmen and women when they did badly at sport.

In 1988 Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds in Halabja.

But, obviously, according to Canadians there was NO reason to fight Saddam!

Yeah, just ignore the many Human Rights abuses and murders he commited.

Thank god Canada isn't the world's dominant power or else we'd also have no chance of getting rid of the Mugabes or the Kim Jong-ils.
 
Last edited:
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
Tony Blair being the butt wiping poodle that he is followed Bush and is now paying the price
Click to expand...

Was it not the case that it was BLAIR who came up with the idea of invading Iraq some 18 months BEFORE BusH (you have to thank God for the British otherwise Saddam could still be in power).

And if Blair is a poodle of Bush for sending troops to Iraq then what does that make the many other leaders around the world who sent troops to Iraq?

Here are the countries who fought who fought to get rid of Saddam:

THE COALITION
TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT, REGULAR TROOPS
297,494
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03 - withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 09/03 - withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (deployed 12/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03 - withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03 - withdrawn date unknown

NATO Training Mission - Iraq
  • Netherlands: 15 current (2/07) (1,345 Coalition troops deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
  • Slovenia: 4 current (2/07)(deployed 3/06)
  • Slovakia: 11 current(1/07) (110 Coalition troops deployed 8/03 - 99 of whom withdrawn 2/07)
ALL these countries sent troops to Iraq, so Bush has an awful lot of "poodles!"

Small countries such as Slovenia, El Salvador and Iceland (population just 310,000) put Canada to shame.

Apart from China, Russia (Saddam's biggest weapons suppliers), France (Saddam's 2nd-biggest weapons suppliers) and Germany (France's poodle), Canada is the ONLY major power that didn't send troops to Iraq.

Even Italy and Spain did.

Surely all these countries couldn't have been wrong.
 
Last edited:
talloola

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Blackleaf said:
Yeah. What a giant step backward ridding the world of an evil dictator is.

It's lucky the Canadian people and its leadership weren't so soft during World War II.

If Canada was the world's only superpower, Saddam would still be in power today.

Remember, though, that Brown - who will become Britain's Prime Minister on June 27th - is also very much in favour of the Iraq War.
Click to expand...

The dictator didn't threaten anyone, other than Kuwait, and he was removed long ago from that country.There was no reason for the U.S. to
invade Iraq. Bush obviously had his mind made up long before that, as he stupidly left Afghanistan,
and turned to Iraq, a purely senseless decision.
 
talloola

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Blackleaf said:
The reason to fight Saddam was that he was a brutal despot who killed thousands of his own people.

His sons - thankfully killed by the British and American-led invasion force - and a strange habit of torturing the members of the Iraq football teams and Iraqi sportsmen and women when they did badly at sport.

In 1988 Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds in Halabja.

But, obviously, according to Canadians there was NO reason to fight Saddam!

Yeah, just ignore the many Human Rights abuses and murders he commited.

Thank god Canada isn't the world's dominant power or else we'd also have no chance of getting rid of the Mugabes or the Kim Jong-ils.
Click to expand...

That was not the reason Bush went into Iraq, 'remember weapons of mass destruction that weren't there?'
 
Last edited:
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Blackleaf said:
The reason to fight Saddam was that he was a brutal despot who killed thousands of his own people.

His sons - thankfully killed by the British and American-led invasion force - and a strange habit of torturing the members of the Iraq football teams and Iraqi sportsmen and women when they did badly at sport.

In 1988 Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds in Halabja.

But, obviously, according to Canadians there was NO reason to fight Saddam!

Yeah, just ignore the many Human Rights abuses and murders he commited.

Thank god Canada isn't the world's dominant power or else we'd also have no chance of getting rid of the Mugabes or the Kim Jong-ils.
Click to expand...


Saddam was brutal to maintain control something the rag tag coalition hasn't been able to do.

Interesting how we label Saddam a monster for gasing the Kurds but consider Winston Churchhill a hero for doning the same. The Brits were just as brutal as Saddam to maitain control and if the Iraqis really wanted freedom they should have done it on there own like other nations have done like the USA.

Bush and Blair have only made things worse.
 
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Blackleaf said:
Was it not the case that it was BLAIR who came up with the idea of invading Iraq some 18 months BEFORE BusH (you have to thank God for the British otherwise Saddam could still be in power).

And if Blair is a poodle of Bush for sending troops to Iraq then what does that make the many other leaders around the world who sent troops to Iraq?

Here are the countries who fought who fought to get rid of Saddam:

THE COALITION
TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT, REGULAR TROOPS
297,494
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03 - withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 09/03 - withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (deployed 12/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03 - withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03 - withdrawn date unknown

NATO Training Mission - Iraq
  • Netherlands: 15 current (2/07) (1,345 Coalition troops deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
  • Slovenia: 4 current (2/07)(deployed 3/06)
  • Slovakia: 11 current(1/07) (110 Coalition troops deployed 8/03 - 99 of whom withdrawn 2/07)
ALL these countries sent troops to Iraq, so Bush has an awful lot of "poodles!"

Small countries such as Slovenia, El Salvador and Iceland (population just 310,000) put Canada to shame.

Apart from China, Russia (Saddam's biggest weapons suppliers), France (Saddam's 2nd-biggest weapons suppliers) and Germany (France's poodle), Canada is the ONLY major power that didn't send troops to Iraq.

Even Italy and Spain did.

Surely all these countries couldn't have been wrong.
Click to expand...

To bad half of those you listed have left with more to come as the conflict gets no better.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
Actually Canada was oposed to lies and non truths plus at least Saddam had the country under control.
Click to expand...

So it's good that a person keeps his country under control by murdering thousands of his own innocent people?

Have you ever thought about introducing that to Canada?

Blimey. If only the British were clever enough to think "I know. Let's keeo Saddam him power. After all, his evil torture chambers and the gassing to death of thousands of his owm people certainly keep them all under control."
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
If you're so in favour of Saddam's techniques of keeping a country under control, then why not introduce them to Canada?

After all, Canada is in the Top 10 of countries with the highest crime rates in the world (liberal countries like Canada will always have a high crime rate). Britain and America's aren't.

Maybe your people are in need of some Saddam-style torture and gassing.
 
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Blackleaf said:
So it's good that a person keeps his country under control by murdering thousands of his own innocent people?

Have you ever thought about introducing that to Canada?

Blimey. If only the British were clever enough to think "I know. Let's keeo Saddam him power. After all, his evil torture chambers and the gassing to death of thousands of his owm people certainly keep them all under control."
Click to expand...

It worked for the Brits in the colonial days.

If Iraqis want to risk their own lives to get rid of Saddam I applaud them for it but my kids aren't gonna do it for them.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
Avro said:
You're right and indeed the WMD attack on the Kurds was carried out by helicopters purchased from Americans.
Click to expand...

Where Iraq Purchased Weapons 1973-2002



The purpose of this post is to address one of the many mythical claims about the United States popularized by some Leftists who would have us believe that the United States is the cause of most of what is wrong with the world. The myth under examination here is the claim that the United States played an important role in arming Saddam Hussein. The data comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in the form of a table of the value of arms imported by Iraq from 1973 through 2002. (PDF format)
Figures are trend-indicator values expressed in US $m. at constant (1990) prices.​
Note: The SIPRI data on arms transfers refer to actual deliveries of major conventional weapons. To permit comparison between the data on such deliveries of different weapons and identification of general trends, SIPRI uses a trend-indicator value. The SIPRI values are therefore only an indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not of the actual financial values of such transfers. Thus they are not comparable to economic statistics such as gross domestic product or export/import figures.​
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002


Country.....$MM USD 1990.....% Total

USSR............25145..............57.26
France...........5595..............12.74
China.............5192..............11.82
Czechoslovakia..2880..............6.56
Poland............1681..............3.83
Brazil.............724................1.65
Egypt.............568................1.29
Romania.........524................1.19
Denmark.........226................0.51
Libya.............200................0.46
USA...............200................0.46
South Africa.....192................0.44
Austria...........190................0.43
Switzerland......151................0.34
Yugoslavia.......107................0.24
Germany (FRG)..84.................0.19
Italy...............84.................0.19
UK.................79.................0.18



Given the US's position as largest arms merchant in the world the fact that it ties Libya for 9th place with only 0.46% of Iraq's total arms imports makes it obvious that the United States was not an important source of arms for Saddam's regime (Great Britain - the world's 2nd-largest arms merchant was an even smaller contributor of arms to Saddam's regime), that the US didn't even seriously try to be, and that US arms sales gave the US little or no leverage over Saddam.


In a report published in 1998 Anthony Cordesman places an even lower estimate on US arms exports to Iraq. See page 22 of this PDF which shows the US selling Iraq $5 million in arms in the late 1980s. Cordesman's report has many charts which also show just how far Iraq's economy fell during the war with Iran and afterward.

  • Iraq seemed to be on the edge of sustained economic development in 1979. It was a nation of 12.8 million people with a per capita income well in excess of $10,000 in constant $US 1994. However, its economy was dependent on oil wealth and construction and infrastructure oriented with massive distortions in the state and agricultural sector.
  • By 1986, the worst year of the Iran-Iraq War in economic terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $2,174, and its population was up to 16.2 million.
  • By 1991, the last year for which we have hard data on the Iraqi economy in market terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $705, and its population was up to 17.9 million. Iraq’s GNP in constant $1994 had dropped from $48.3 billion in 1984 to $16.3 billion.
  • Iraq’s current per capita income is probably under $1,000. The World Bank estimates that its population will climb from 21.0 million in 1995 to 24.5 million in 2000, 28.4 million in 2005, and 32.5 million in 2010.
US policy in the 1980s favored a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war. But the US role in ensuring that outcome was very small as compared to the roles played by the USSR, France, China, and other countries in making sure Saddam's regime was not overrun. What intelligence and other assistance the US provided to prevent Iranian victory pales in comparison to the roles played by several other countries.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
Avro said:
It worked for the Brits in the colonial days.

If Iraqis want the risk their own lives to get rid of Saddam I applaud them for it but my kids aren't gonna do it for them.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, thank God that Canadians, British or Americans didn't have that mentality towards Hitler in World war II.

Thank goodness, when Germany invaded Poland, the British didn't say "If the Poles want to risk their own lives getting rid of Hitler, then I applaud them but my kids aren't gonna do it for them."

All you are doing by saying that is that you should just sit back and appease and dictator.

In fact, I don't think the British and Americans have done ENOUGH. We should also do what we did with Saddam to Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Kim Jong-il of North Korea - go in there and get rid of them.

Then again, Canada would probably complain.

I still don't know why the British have done nothing about Mugabe, a leader of a former British colony.
 
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Blackleaf said:
Where Iraq Purchased Weapons 1973-2002




The purpose of this post is to address one of the many mythical claims about the United States popularized by some Leftists who would have us believe that the United States is the cause of most of what is wrong with the world. The myth under examination here is the claim that the United States played an important role in arming Saddam Hussein. The data comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in the form of a table of the value of arms imported by Iraq from 1973 through 2002. (PDF format)
Figures are trend-indicator values expressed in US $m. at constant (1990) prices.​
Note: The SIPRI data on arms transfers refer to actual deliveries of major conventional weapons. To permit comparison between the data on such deliveries of different weapons and identification of general trends, SIPRI uses a trend-indicator value. The SIPRI values are therefore only an indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not of the actual financial values of such transfers. Thus they are not comparable to economic statistics such as gross domestic product or export/import figures.​
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002


Country.....$MM USD 1990.....% Total

USSR............25145..............57.26
France...........5595..............12.74
China.............5192..............11.82
Czechoslovakia..2880..............6.56
Poland............1681..............3.83
Brazil.............724................1.65
Egypt.............568................1.29
Romania.........524................1.19
Denmark.........226................0.51
Libya.............200................0.46
USA...............200................0.46
South Africa.....192................0.44
Austria...........190................0.43
Switzerland......151................0.34
Yugoslavia.......107................0.24
Germany (FRG)..84.................0.19
Italy...............84.................0.19
UK.................79.................0.18



Given the US's position as largest arms merchant in the world the fact that it ties Libya for 9th place with only 0.46% of Iraq's total arms imports makes it obvious that the United States was not an important source of arms for Saddam's regime (Great Britain - the world's 2nd-largest arms merchant was an even smaller contributor of arms to Saddam's regime), that the US didn't even seriously try to be, and that US arms sales gave the US little or no leverage over Saddam.



In a report published in 1998 Anthony Cordesman places an even lower estimate on US arms exports to Iraq. See page 22 of this PDF which shows the US selling Iraq $5 million in arms in the late 1980s. Cordesman's report has many charts which also show just how far Iraq's economy fell during the war with Iran and afterward.

  • Iraq seemed to be on the edge of sustained economic development in 1979. It was a nation of 12.8 million people with a per capita income well in excess of $10,000 in constant $US 1994. However, its economy was dependent on oil wealth and construction and infrastructure oriented with massive distortions in the state and agricultural sector.
  • By 1986, the worst year of the Iran-Iraq War in economic terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $2,174, and its population was up to 16.2 million.
  • By 1991, the last year for which we have hard data on the Iraqi economy in market terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $705, and its population was up to 17.9 million. Iraq’s GNP in constant $1994 had dropped from $48.3 billion in 1984 to $16.3 billion.
  • Iraq’s current per capita income is probably under $1,000. The World Bank estimates that its population will climb from 21.0 million in 1995 to 24.5 million in 2000, 28.4 million in 2005, and 32.5 million in 2010.
US policy in the 1980s favored a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war. But the US role in ensuring that outcome was very small as compared to the roles played by the USSR, France, China, and other countries in making sure Saddam's regime was not overrun. What intelligence and other assistance the US provided to prevent Iranian victory pales in comparison to the roles played by several other countries.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html
Click to expand...

None from Canada, thanks for that.
 
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Blackleaf said:
Like I said before, thank God that Canadians, British or Americans didn't have that mentality towards Hitler in World war II.

Thank goodness, when Germany invaded Poland, the British didn't say "If the Poles want to risk their own lives getting rid of Hitler, then I applaud them but my kids aren't gonna do it for them."
Click to expand...

Americans didn't get involved for nearly three years and Canada was there from day one, we saw the threat and responded.

Poland was a country outside of Grermany and so were the rest Hilter invaded, Iraq is Iraq.

See the difference.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,331
1,964
113
Avro said:
None from Canada, thanks for that.
Click to expand...

Well, Canada DID supply weapons to Saddam -

To continue the list....


Hungary....................30........0.07
Spain........................29........0.07
East Germany (GDR)......25........0.06
Canada......................7.........0.02
Jordan.......................2.........0.005

You can also see on the list why the Russians and French opposed the war.
 
A

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Blackleaf said:
Well, Canada DID supply weapons to Saddam -

To continue the list....


Hungary....................30........0.07
Spain........................29........0.07
East Germany (GDR)......25........0.06
Canada......................7.........0.02
Jordan.......................2.........0.005

You can also see on the list why the Russians and French opposed the war.
Click to expand...

The French and Russians were in negotiaions for Iraqi oil and now you can see why fibs were told to justify the conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom