Thatcher Dies

[Guest MattP]

You neesdto do more research on that woman in the audience finners.

She was exposed as a Labour stooge in quite a few rags afterwards.

She was on tge campaign in Eastleigh.

And Phillips did clearly win the argument.

[Finnegan]

I'm not saying Phillips didn't, I'm saying they weren't in the same weight.

I don't like Phillips' politics but I respect her intelligence and eloquence.

Even if the lass is on the take for the opposition's press department she's still just a political minnow.

[flowwolf]

Can't wait until Blair dies , now that's a piss up I'm really going to enjoy. If people think Maggie Thatcher is going to hell God knows where this war criminal will end up. I can just imagine the song now " Ding Dong the Blair Witch is dead "

[RedHux]

Can't wait until Blair dies , now that's a piss up I'm really going to enjoy. If people think Maggie Thatcher is going to hell God knows where this war criminal will end up. I can just imagine the song now " Ding Dong the Blair Witch is dead "

All that for one shit pun....If nothing else you have conviction.

[Deucalion]

Can't wait until Blair dies , now that's a piss up I'm really going to enjoy. If people think Maggie Thatcher is going to hell God knows where this war criminal will end up. I can just imagine the song now " Ding Dong the Blair Witch is dead "

Blair may have played a fair part in killing 100 000s of Iraqis, but how many of his electorate's lives did he ruin?

Truth be told, none. The Blair years were actually quite pleasant. He recently said he would've had a chance of winning the 2010 election. I think he is probably right, I think many would vote for him today.

There will be no mass movement to disrespect the corpse of Blair. He just isn't that unpopular.

[Guest Bilo]

Bloody hell, everybody wants to get involved in these anti-Thatcher protests.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/20130409_Specialty-Flier-Margaret-Thatcher.pdf

[Charl91]

Blair may have played a fair part in killing 100 000s of Iraqis, but how many of his electorate's lives did he ruin?

Truth be told, none. The Blair years were actually quite pleasant. He recently said he would've had a chance of winning the 2010 election. I think he is probably right, I think many would vote for him today.

There will be no mass movement to disrespect the corpse of Blair. He just isn't that unpopular.

None?!?!

I don't hate Blair, but you can't say that no-one got buggered by him. People who are saying that they can't find jobs due to immigration should be thanking Blair for that.

[Deucalion]

None?!?!

I don't hate Blair, but you can't say that no-one got buggered by him. People who are saying that they can't find jobs due to immigration should be thanking Blair for that.

The truth is, immigration brings wealth to a country.

There was some research done by the CBI while Blair was PM. I can't remember the details exactly now but the gist was that within 3 months of entering the UK, 97% of immigrants would be working. Furthermore, immigrants would pay around 130% the amount of income tax compared to someone already here because they would work more hours.

Not that this is the real point. Immigrants are just another weak group in society that right wingers can demonise to distract the population from those that truly oppress them.

[flowwolf]

Blair may have played a fair part in killing 100 000s of Iraqis, but how many of his electorate's lives did he ruin?

Truth be told, none. The Blair years were actually quite pleasant. He recently said he would've had a chance of winning the 2010 election. I think he is probably right, I think many would vote for him today.

There will be no mass movement to disrespect the corpse of Blair. He just isn't that unpopular.

Nice one lets just gloss over the " fair part " he played in the killing of 100,000s of Iraq's in what we now know was an illegal war, so long as he grinned at the right time and sobbed at the death of Dianna . Believe me if there is a Hell he will still be in the queue way in front of Thatcher.

[acooling08]

Blair may have played a fair part in killing 100 000s of Iraqis, but how many of his electorate's lives did he ruin?

Truth be told, none. The Blair years were actually quite pleasant. He recently said he would've had a chance of winning the 2010 election. I think he is probably right, I think many would vote for him today.

There will be no mass movement to disrespect the corpse of Blair. He just isn't that unpopular.

The Blair years were pleasant, living on billions of pounds of money that we didn't have, which we are now paying for.

Blair and New Labour have damaged this country massively with the debt problems we now have. We wouldn't need this painful austerity now if it wasn't for the unsustainable spending under Blair. Generations of the electorate are going to feel the pain in taxes paying it all back.

The years under Balir themselves may have been booming prosperity, but his legacy is terrible.

Oh, and he should be in prison for war crimes.

[Deucalion]

Nice one lets just gloss over the " fair part " he played in the killing of 100,000s of Iraq's in what we now know was an illegal war, so long as he grinned at the right time and sobbed at the death of Dianna . Believe me if there is a Hell he will still be in the queue way in front of Thatcher.

Not many in this country really care about dead Iraqis.

You are only pretending to to have a go at Blair.

[Deucalion]

The Blair years were pleasant, living on billions of pounds of money that we didn't have, which we are now paying for.

Blair and New Labour have damaged this country massively with the debt problems we now have. We wouldn't need this painful austerity now if it wasn't for the unsustainable spending under Blair. Generations of the electorate are going to feel the pain in taxes paying it all back.

The years under Balir themselves may have been booming prosperity, but his legacy is terrible.

Oh, and he should be in prison for war crimes.

Not true.

There was lots of money sloshing around in the Blair years because we had optimism and growth. While Gordon Brown was chancellor, he paid down the deficit and kept a tight rein on public spending, while redistributing wealth through Tax Credits and the like.

The Blair years were truly good.

It went wrong with Gordon Brown as PM. He allowed public spending to rise to the point where we had a structural deficit. This meant when the Credit Crunch hit and tax revenues dropped, the treasury was in trouble.

Brown was a bit of a disaster.

Why do I get the idea a lot of people citing Iraq against Blair would not be criticising the invasion had it been ordered by a Tory government? Only the Lib Dems voted against in parliament, the Tories would've done the same as Blair.

[Alf Bentley]

Not true.

There was lots of money sloshing around in the Blair years because we had optimism and growth. While Gordon Brown was chancellor, he paid down the deficit and kept a tight rein on public spending, while redistributing wealth through Tax Credits and the like.

The Blair years were truly good.

It went wrong with Gordon Brown as PM. He allowed public spending to rise to the point where we had a structural deficit. This meant when the Credit Crunch hit and tax revenues dropped, the treasury was in trouble.

Brown was a bit of a disaster.

Why do I get the idea a lot of people citing Iraq against Blair would not be criticising the invasion had it been ordered by a Tory government? Only the Lib Dems voted against in parliament, the Tories would've done the same as Blair.

What you say about the Tories on Iraq is true (they supported the war and would have been even keener to go in than Blair), though that doesn't remove Blair's guilt for ordering it, and lying about it - and I don't think you should downplay that. He also did some other very bad things, like ordering lots of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) spending that will cost more than public spending in the long run, and that future generations will be paying for. Also, the boom was partly a bubble, based on bank deregulation & irresponsible lending and we know where that got us.... though, again, the Tories were in favour of all this at the time!

From 2002, the Blair/Brown and Brown/Darling combinations ran deficits that were very similar until the crash hit. Here are some figures: http://www.guardian....#zoomed-picture

This chart shows that Britain has run a deficit every year since 1980, with just 2 exceptions: 1988-89 (the Lawson boom/bubble that led to the early 90s crash); and 1998-2001 under Blair (with Brown as Chancellor), when New Labour ran scared of making much needed investment and stuck to Tory spending plans that even Ken Clarke said he would not have stuck to. They reversed this policy and increased spending from 2000-01, under Blair. Brown didn't become PM until 2007....

The chart clearly shows that the deficit run by the 2nd & 3rd New Labour governments (first Blair with Brown as Chancellor, then Brown & Darling) was steady and marginally lower than during the Major government, if higher than Thatcher's deficit...until the financial crash transformed the situation for countries worldwide. Britain has been heading for a structural deficit, under governments of every colour, since WW2 (under-investment, lack of competitiveness, loss or imperial markets etc.).

Labour shouldn't have run a deficit during a boom (any more than the Tories should have in the mid-80s or mid-90s); if they wanted to spend more (rightly, after the years of Thatcherite destruction & under-investment), they should have increased taxes. But the idea that the debt problem was caused by Labour is a fallacy - as is the idea that Blair was great and Brown was not. Brown was also very globally influential in a positive way at the time of the crash.

I'm no big fan of Brown, and am aware that this is not a popular view - but I suspect accurate historical accounts will be kinder to Brown than to either Blair or Thatcher (who mostly ran a deficit, let us remember, despite massively slashing public spending - and having the enormous bonus of North Sea Oil!)...

[Deucalion]

What you say about the Tories on Iraq is true (they supported the war and would have been even keener to go in than Blair), though that doesn't remove Blair's guilt for ordering it, and lying about it - and I don't think you should downplay that. He also did some other very bad things, like ordering lots of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) spending that will cost more than public spending in the long run, and that future generations will be paying for. Also, the boom was partly a bubble, based on bank deregulation & irresponsible lending and we know where that got us.... though, again, the Tories were in favour of all this at the time!

From 2002, the Blair/Brown and Brown/Darling combinations ran deficits that were very similar until the crash hit. Here are some figures: http://www.guardian....#zoomed-picture

This chart shows that Britain has run a deficit every year since 1980, with just 2 exceptions: 1988-89 (the Lawson boom/bubble that led to the early 90s crash); and 1998-2001 under Blair (with Brown as Chancellor), when New Labour ran scared of making much needed investment and stuck to Tory spending plans that even Ken Clarke said he would not have stuck to. They reversed this policy and increased spending from 2000-01, under Blair. Brown didn't become PM until 2007....

The chart clearly shows that the deficit run by the 2nd & 3rd New Labour governments (first Blair with Brown as Chancellor, then Brown & Darling) was steady and marginally lower than during the Major government, if higher than Thatcher's deficit...until the financial crash transformed the situation for countries worldwide. Britain has been heading for a structural deficit, under governments of every colour, since WW2 (under-investment, lack of competitiveness, loss or imperial markets etc.).

Labour shouldn't have run a deficit during a boom (any more than the Tories should have in the mid-80s or mid-90s); if they wanted to spend more (rightly, after the years of Thatcherite destruction & under-investment), they should have increased taxes. But the idea that the debt problem was caused by Labour is a fallacy - as is the idea that Blair was great and Brown was not. Brown was also very globally influential in a positive way at the time of the crash.

I'm no big fan of Brown, and am aware that this is not a popular view - but I suspect accurate historical accounts will be kinder to Brown than to either Blair or Thatcher (who mostly ran a deficit, let us remember, despite massively slashing public spending - and having the enormous bonus of North Sea Oil!)...

Impressive as always.

I cannot accept Blair lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. However, Blair's claim that Iraq could attack Britain with WMDs with '45 minutes' was pretty fanciful. I don't know what he based this on but it certainly didn't seem to be based on the military capabilities of Iraq at that time or now.

But...WMD...

I won't cry crocodile tears for Saddam Hussein any more than I will for Thatcher.

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The bigger question is...where did they go?

[Alf Bentley]

Impressive as always.

I cannot accept Blair lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. However, Blair's claim that Iraq could attack Britain with WMDs with '45 minutes' was pretty fanciful. I don't know what he based this on but it certainly didn't seem to be based on the military capabilities of Iraq at that time or now.

But...WMD...

I won't cry crocodile tears for Saddam Hussein any more than I will for Thatcher.

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The bigger question is...where did they go?

I've got to work now, but here a few interesting links, found within a few minutes....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Foreign_support_to_Iraq_and_Iran (see section 8 re. foreign support for Saddam)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3631539.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/aug/21/foreignpolicy.iraq

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0123-Saddam.html

There is a long history of covert and not-so-covert British military support for Saddam, including after his atrocities against the Kurds and after the first Gulf War of 1991. British & American support for Saddam was largely a strategic means of keeping Iran in check, and avoiding Iraq (a colonial creation as a nation) splintering into Sunni/Shia/Kurd parts and imbalancing an economically important region (oil supplies)...but it did come with the bonus of big profits for UK & US arms companies ("military-industrial complex"). The above links explain how that happened under the Tories...maybe under Blair, too, for all I know?

As I recall, the "45 minutes" claim was based on the outside chance that - if he had still had the WMDs - Saddam could have mobilised them within 45 minutes, and hypothetically might have been able to hit British troops in Cyprus. Most experts at the time thought this impossible. They did think he still had WMDs, but only with a range of accuracy sufficient to hit his own people and/or immediate neighbours.....pretty paltry compared to either Iran or Israel (a nuclear state). However, as the lying scumbag ham actor that he is, Blair phrased his speech to parliament to mislead people into thinking that Britain itself was in imminent danger. The Murdoch press and others immediately ran with it (they were hand-in-glove with Blair at the time).

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/45-blair-ignorance.htm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/145007/Brits-45mins-from-doom.html

Blair:

Robin Cook's brilliant resignation speech:

Saddam did indeed once have WMDs (chemical & biological weapons, but not nuclear, I think) - a capability that arms firms from various countries, including Britain, had helped him build up. That is why the UN inspectors were sent, but found only minor irregularities and no WMDs. Their inspection was incomplete when Bush & Blair chose to attack anyway, with the mayhem that we all know about (and that has not ended yet): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

I've no idea where Saddam's WMDs went (maybe he sold/disposed of them?). Maybe we'd have found it if the UN had been allowed to complete its inspections? Why didn't that happen is a bigger question - and one that should see Blair in court in The Hague, as a leader who based his rationale for the war on the continued existence of WMDs, but who joined Bush in starting a war before the UN inspectors could confirm or deny that.

I won't cry crocodile tears for Saddam either, as he was a bloodthirsty tyrant (like Mugabe & others - shall we invade Zimbabwe?). Criticising Blair doesn't equate to sympathy for Saddam! It does equate to some sympathy for all those (mainly Iraqis, but also western military etc.) who were killed or had their lives ruined by that immoral, if not illegal war.

As for your photos, I'm sure similar photos exist of the thousands killed through Bush & Blair's defiance of the UN.

[Deucalion]

Isn't it true that the UN inspectors couldn't finish their work because they were hindered and sporadically banned from Iraq?

Every time there seemed to be imminent consequences pending for banning inspectors, Saddam would relent and allow them back in again. He probably would've continued this cycle indefinitely, however he was prevented from doing so by Bush wanting to finish his dad's war.

The point of the photos is not to say that the violence of Saddam Hussein was any worse than that of the US in many ways before and since. (Although the US hasn't used chemical weapons.) The point is to prove that Saddam Hussein was not some kind of kindly uncle who was deposed by the UK and the US. I think some people forget the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, and also forget that many in Iraq are much happier now he is gone. It is only the Sunnis around Baghdad and Tikrit who pine for their lost leader.

Does that sound like the end justifies the means? Maybe a little.

[Alf Bentley]

Isn't it true that the UN inspectors couldn't finish their work because they were hindered and sporadically banned from Iraq?

Every time there seemed to be imminent consequences pending for banning inspectors, Saddam would relent and allow them back in again. He probably would've continued this cycle indefinitely, however he was prevented from doing so by Bush wanting to finish his dad's war.

The point of the photos is not to say that the violence of Saddam Hussein was any worse than that of the US in many ways before and since. (Although the US hasn't used chemical weapons.) The point is to prove that Saddam Hussein was not some kind of kindly uncle who was deposed by the UK and the US. I think some people forget the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, and also forget that many in Iraq are much happier now he is gone. It is only the Sunnis around Baghdad and Tikrit who pine for their lost leader.

Does that sound like the end justifies the means? Maybe a little.

The UN inspectors stated that they believed the inspections could be concluded within a few months (4 months, I think?). Most of the UN, including France, Germany & Russia wanted to allow that time. Bush (who supported regime change regardless of WMDs) wanted to go ahead regardless. Having pushed for a new resolution and failed, Blair opted to join him.

Saddam had indeed prevented inspections for several years previously, but my recollection is that there was only minor disruption of the inspections preceding the war. He largely complied.

Even the suggestion that opponents of the war might have seen Saddam as a "kindly uncle" is a straw man argument. Anyone with half a brain knew he was a bloodthirsty tyrant (albeit one in receipt of covert western military support for years)...the tricky issue was what to do about it: Work through the UN? Work with opponents internally? Selected military strikes? Instead, Bush and Blair opted for mass bloodshed without international support (or domestic support in Blair's case) and without a proper plan as to what should happen after Saddam...hence the further mass bloodshed through civil war.

I've no idea how many Sunnis now pine for Saddam. My (superficial) impression from news reports was that it was more a case of a struggle for power and influence between different groups (Sunni, Shia - the Kurds seem to be doing better now).

The US/UK may not have used chemical weapons, but aren't there confirmed reports of very high rates of birth deformities in some areas that are put down to the use of depleted uranium in weapons? Again, superficial things that I've picked up in news reports, as I'm no expert and haven't the time or expertise to research in detail...

By allowing the UN inspections to conclude, moving forward with a broad international coalition - and thinking through a plan for post-Saddam Iraq, if war was appropriate - better means and better ends were achievable. But Bush wanted to flex his muscles and the deceitful, disingenuous scumbag Blair followed him, deploying all his verbal tricks and ham acting to bring parliament and part of the country with him. The way he talks, I get the impression he is such a deceptive trickster or is so psychologically flawed that he even convinces himself that he's "a pretty straight sort of a guy" as he famously called himself....Shameful!

[Deucalion]

In other words, Saddam did hinder the inspection process. I don't understand why people are not more concerned about Saddam's chemical weapons. The mythology has arisen around this that Blair lied about the existence of chemical weapons to justify a war. The weapons clearly existed and Saddam had shown a will to use them on many occasions.

You misunderstand me in regards to the 'kindly uncle'. What I mean to say is, the kind of man Saddam was is totally lost under the hysteria about Blair being a liar. The world, and more importantly the Iraqis, are much better off with him and his regime. How many people actually give any thought to the regime which was changed?

The years following the war were obviously not easy. There were many reasons for continuing conflict: Saddam's supporters, hostility to the West, the encroachment of Al Qaeda, a power struggle between different groups. In the end and to date, a Western style democratic government exists in Iraq. It is very easy to criticise it. However, the Kurds are now building a prosperous and peaceful region in the north, the Shias are able to live peacefully in the south. Who is to say history won't judge Blair more kindly than those who lived through this?

For the record, there are far more birth defects and people living with permanent disabilities from Saddam's use of chemical weapons than from any bi-product of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium was used to destroy hardened military targets; Saddam used chemical weapons to kill civilians. I cannot see the comparison.

I agree that Bush wanted his war and recklessly pursued a policy regardless of any advice. It would've been much better if the UN had acted to stop Saddam, but would it? While the UN response to the Kuwait War was impressive and based on a broad consensus, the UN has no record of note of removing dictators who keep their violence contained within their own borders. Look at Syria.

Blair claimed one reason for joining the war with Bush was to influence decisions from within. To be honest, this butters no parsnips with me. It is no more a convincing argument here than when Nick Clegg claims to be moderating the Tories.

To bring this thread back to Thatcher, many thatcherites seem annoyed that younger people form an opinion on Thatcher based on the 'negative myths' which have sprung up around her. Well, I see their point with the Blair the liar shenanigans. Basically, a myth has arisen around the Iraq War and people who don't remember it make their judgements based on this myth rather than the facts.

Here's a surprising little fact for you. I left the Labour Party over the Iraq War. Over time, my perspective has changed, I tend to believe, to some extend at least, that the ends justify the means in this case.

[flowwolf]

In other words, Saddam did hinder the inspection process. I don't understand why people are not more concerned about Saddam's chemical weapons. The mythology has arisen around this that Blair lied about the existence of chemical weapons to justify a war. The weapons clearly existed and Saddam had shown a will to use them on many occasions.

You misunderstand me in regards to the 'kindly uncle'. What I mean to say is, the kind of man Saddam was is totally lost under the hysteria about Blair being a liar. The world, and more importantly the Iraqis, are much better off with him and his regime. How many people actually give any thought to the regime which was changed?

The years following the war were obviously not easy. There were many reasons for continuing conflict: Saddam's supporters, hostility to the West, the encroachment of Al Qaeda, a power struggle between different groups. In the end and to date, a Western style democratic government exists in Iraq. It is very easy to criticise it. However, the Kurds are now building a prosperous and peaceful region in the north, the Shias are able to live peacefully in the south. Who is to say history won't judge Blair more kindly than those who lived through this?

For the record, there are far more birth defects and people living with permanent disabilities from Saddam's use of chemical weapons than from any bi-product of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium was used to destroy hardened military targets; Saddam used chemical weapons to kill civilians. I cannot see the comparison.

I agree that Bush wanted his war and recklessly pursued a policy regardless of any advice. It would've been much better if the UN had acted to stop Saddam, but would it? While the UN response to the Kuwait War was impressive and based on a broad consensus, the UN has no record of note of removing dictators who keep their violence contained within their own borders. Look at Syria.

Blair claimed one reason for joining the war with Bush was to influence decisions from within. To be honest, this butters no parsnips with me. It is no more a convincing argument here than when Nick Clegg claims to be moderating the Tories.

To bring this thread back to Thatcher, many thatcherites seem annoyed that younger people form an opinion on Thatcher based on the 'negative myths' which have sprung up around her. Well, I see their point with the Blair the liar shenanigans. Basically, a myth has arisen around the Iraq War and people who don't remember it make their judgements based on this myth rather than the facts.

Here's a surprising little fact for you. I left the Labour Party over the Iraq War. Over time, my perspective has changed, I tend to believe, to some extend at least, that the ends justify the means in this case.

Yeah so long as those ends don't affect you or your family ? Just because you and not many in this country in your words care about the deaths of Iraqi's does not make it right. A lot of people do care about our role in the invasion of Iraq and how Blair went along with Bush like his little poodle. No weapons of mass destruction were found on entering Iraq and none since we have been there. You repeatedly say the weapons of mass destruction DID exist and then produce not one shred of evidence to back it up ?

America has used chemical warfare before in Vietnam with no qualms even dropping it in a neutral country cambodia. Also to your great shame there was no point to those photos other than to bolster your own ego. Did you think no one had seen those things ? Yes Saddam was a war criminal but for every photo of the dead he was accountable for there are ten such photo's you can attribute to Bush and Blair.

[Deucalion]

How ironic !

A Thatcherite who cares nothing for the children of miners, a generation of young people with their hopes destroyed, old ladies dying on trollies in hospital corridors and whole regions of the country made into an economic wasteland; but his heart beats for the Iraqis !!

I didn't say I didn't care, I said most people don't care. By asking for proof that Iraq had chemical weapons, you show your ignorance. Look it up yourself...school children can find it !!!

I suppose you are talking about Agent Orange in Vietnam. Horrible though it was and horrible though the long term effects have been, it wasn't a chemical weapon, it was an exfoliator. It's purpose was to strip the leaves from the trees which hid the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong. The effects on human health were an unexpected bi-product, not the intention.

By the way, Cambodia was invaded by the North Vietnamese Army. It may have wished to be neutral but it didn't have the choice.

[ADK]

Even if you don't care about the government killing thousands of people in our name, the financial cost of being at war for over 10 years is huge.

The Blair government didn't really have any economic issues to deal with, perhaps only the decision to opt in or not to the Euro. We saw taxation increase along with public spending and most economic growth coming from immigration. It wasn't really a boom but there wern't any recessions. You could say that the Blair government didn't really manage to get much done considering the good economic climate.

[Deucalion]

Even if you don't care about the government killing thousands of people in our name, the financial cost of being at war for over 10 years is huge.

The Blair government didn't really have any economic issues to deal with, perhaps only the decision to opt in or not to the Euro. We saw taxation increase along with public spending and most economic growth coming from immigration. It wasn't really a boom but there wern't any recessions. You could say that the Blair government didn't really manage to get much done considering the good economic climate.

You could say the Blair government didn't do enough during a period of economic prosperity. I don't agree, but it's a valid point.

What isn't a valid point is stating I said I didn't care about the government killing thousands of people. What I actually said was 'people don't really care' and 'I resigned from the Labour Party' over the Gulf War.

[flowwolf]

How ironic !

A Thatcherite who cares nothing for the children of miners, a generation of young people with their hopes destroyed, old ladies dying on trollies in hospital corridors and whole regions of the country made into an economic wasteland; but his heart beats for the Iraqis !!

I didn't say I didn't care, I said most people don't care. By asking for proof that Iraq had chemical weapons, you show your ignorance. Look it up yourself...school children can find it !!!

I suppose you are talking about Agent Orange in Vietnam. Horrible though it was and horrible though the long term effects have been, it wasn't a chemical weapon, it was an exfoliator. It's purpose was to strip the leaves from the trees which hid the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong. The effects on human health were an unexpected bi-product, not the intention.

By the way, Cambodia was invaded by the North Vietnamese Army. It may have wished to be neutral but it didn't have the choice.

As a human being I care very deeply about the deaths of innocent children and for you to compare that with miners children is insulting to anyones intelligence. I said weapons of mass destruction nothing at all about chemical weapons. The so call reason we invaded Iraq was based on the lie that Sadam had weapns of mass destruction not chemical.

And what do you base your assumption that " most people " don't care about the deaths of Iraqi's ? perhaps it's based on your own sterile soul ?

[flowwolf]

You could say the Blair government didn't do enough during a period of economic prosperity. I don't agree, but it's a valid point.

What isn't a valid point is stating I said I didn't care about the government killing thousands of people. What I actually said was 'people don't really care' and 'I resigned from the Labour Party' over the Gulf War.

Yes and you then went on to say that you now believe the ends justfied the means which means you don't care about the deaths .

[Deucalion]

As a human being I care very deeply about the deaths of innocent children and for you to compare that with miners children is insulting to anyones intelligence. I said weapons of mass destruction nothing at all about chemical weapons. The so call reason we invaded Iraq was based on the lie that Sadam had weapns of mass destruction not chemical.

And what do you base your assumption that " most people " don't care about the deaths of Iraqi's ? perhaps it's based on your own sterile soul ?

Regardless of whether or not you consider chemical weapons to be WMDs, the UN and any other notable organisation does consider them to be WMDs. Iraq was manufacturing nuclear materials but the real focus of the UN search for WMDs in Iraq was for chemical weapons. The photos above prove Saddam had WMD and was prepared to use them. The question is, where did they go?

An interesting point, which cannot be answered, is how many women, children and for that matter, men, would've died at the hands of Saddam's regime if it had not been toppled?

My assumption that most people don't really care about dead Iraqis is based on my prejudice that many people jumping on this particular bandwagon only have a superficial concern for the people of the world, and only when it suits them.

Sterile soul? Interesting.