Reply to post: Re: Perspective

So, tell us again how tech giants are more important than US govt...

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Perspective

Yet Tony Blair, using fake news, blatantly lied to the country to start a crazy illegal war resulting in millions of deaths, dreadful injuries and immense numbers of displaced persons.On which the US no doubt played a leading role. And no doubt profited handsomely.

The Nazz,

If you're going to complain about fake news, then you have no place posting something as totally ignorant and fact-free as this.

So, let's take it in order:

1. Tony Blair did not lie about the idea that Iraq had WMD, seeing as he believed it to be true himself. Hence the worst it can be is a mistake, as it doesn't meet the definition of lie. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, as all the Western intelligence agencies and the UN all thought Iraq was still in possession of WMDs before the war. That's because the UN had found evidence in the 90s for most of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs and yet had only destroyed about 70% of what they thought Iraq had.

2. Illegal war. Debatable. The UK and US, and various other countries, were able to get their legal establishments to declare the war legal. Even without up-to-date UN mandate. This is partly because Iraq was in still breach of the UN resolutions that wound up the last war in 1991. They actually fired Scud missiles in the second war, so even if they didn't have any active WMD programs or stocks, they were still in breach. It's arguable, because it's one of the faults of international law that there's no proper court system, and so no way of resolving disputes between well-argued legal opinions. It's precendent in actual cases that makes for a working legal system.

3. "Resulting in millions of deaths." Bollocks! There was a BMJ study which held that the invasion of Iraq caused 500,000 deaths. Not millions. But that got quite badly demolished. That's also going to depened on what you mean by "led to", given that coalition forces didn't kill anything close to that many people directly - though many more were killed in an ensuing civil war. It's pretty likely that inter-communal violence would have happened on Saddam's death anyway, given that 1 section of the Iraqi population had a stranglehold on power in Saddam's regime, and that regime had visited repression, and sometimes genocide (the Marsh Arabs) on other sections. Are the US/UK also responsible for the deaths caused by the Iranian-backed Shia militias? Even the ones happening today? How far do you go back? Do we also blame Sykes and Picot? What about the Prophet Mohammed?

4. Finally, how clear is your memory of these events? You seem rather unclear on the US role, given that Blair was overtly speaking in support of the US position - and of course it was a majority of US troops in the coalition that invaded.

Anyway I suggest that you calm down with the hysterical language and try basing your arguments on the facts.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019