View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
area51newmexico Goddess
Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 10598 Location: East Yorkshire, England
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:53 pm Post subject: Sticking to what you believe in |
|
|
Imagine someone you know made a mistake or made the wrong decision (could be anything). Their friends/family/co-workers are in unison that it was a boo-boo and are generally pretty pissed off about it. Would you admire the person more if they admitted it was the wrong thing to do or would you prefer them to stick to their original decision and not bow to pressure?
Tony Blair's evidence at the Iraq Enquiry is what made me think of this thread. Although the majority of the UK are now against the war in Iraq and are pretty angry about his decision to go to war, he still says he believes the war was the right course of action. I still think he's a nobb but I do admire him for sticking (on this rare occasion) to what he thought. _________________ Helen, the Administratrix of www.area51newmexico.com
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lamiaceae Site Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 7651 Location: To the right of my computer
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hindsight has 20/20 vision.
From what I remember, he was told that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction on us inside 45 minutes.
Now, credibility is always useful. I will always take the view of Nick Robinson on politics ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/ ) over that of any fellow forumite, because it is Nick's job to follow and report on politics.
As far as i'm aware, not one of you does this for a job, your income does not rely on this. If he was found out to not of been entirely telling the truth about certain things his credibility would suffer and so would his job as a political correspondant.
I would no doubt find other sources of information who are more credible than the now ( in this example ) discredited correspondant.
I don't think Tony, woke up one morning and decided that this was going to be his reason. We can testiculate ( wave your arms about and talk bollocks ) all we like on here about there being no WMD's but somewhere in there, someone in the intelligence gathering services found enough details to convince enough important people to be worried enough to go to war.
If you were told that someone who has a track record of attacking his own people with chemical weapons now was planning to attack you, and probably could do it within an hour, would you want to start protecting yourself?
Or would you take the attitude, 'it'll be alright?'
The last time more proof was wanted it marched into Paris carrying a German flag.
As time passes, and things become clearer you realise that the story was different than what you thought.
You can say, yes I can see I was wrong now, but at the time I believed it was the right decision. And if the above is all true, then I stand by him in his decision because he did what he believed to be the right thing at the time.
It's all very easy for everyone to demonise him and say 'but he was wrong!' - yes, maybe so, but had he known then what he knows now, things would of been different.
If however, it was just about the oil and this is a cover story, then that slightly colours the water here.
But this is the aim of an enquiry...
And the opening line of my post still holds true regardless. _________________ I should update my sig. What to put here for $CurrentYear ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aalpha Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 8399 Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minty's nailed it. As you know all the Democrat leaders in Washington accuse Bush of lying to them and the rest of the country about Iraq.
They completely ignore the fact that Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, themselves, and all the European Leaders were in agreement about Saddam, his intentions, capabilities etc., etc.
And when the Democrats advocated the same thing Bush advocated and acted on, it was all true. It only became a lie when Bush got his hands on the issue.
That's what the left does. Now - The President is accusing the Republicans of being obstructionists.
Oh, that little ol' 50+ seat Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrat supermajority in the Senate all last year, well, it's still the Republican's fault Obama's agenda is a shipwreck. Uh-huh. It is. Because the Republicans are obstructionists. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|