Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

Interesting comments that you don't make comparisons. Saddam was a thug and I shed no tears for him but I would feel the same way about Blair. Not just for his Iraqi adventure.

I would compare them in only one way. Number of deaths.

So I wonder how many Iraqi's Saddam actually killed compared to Bush and Blair? Even taking just the official figures.

I wonder how many will die over the next few years compared to how many Saddam would have killed?

I wonder how many Westerners will die now we have put ourselves in the firing line?

Now we have lost the moral high ground how many other countries are killing their people under the guise of national security and pre-emptive strikes?

I see Saddam causing less deaths than the West caused and we wonder why they hate us.

@ Dave - there are worse things than a quick death.

This discussion would not have been possible living under Saddam Hussein's reign of terror - our lives and those of our families would have been at real risk of torture and death from the secret police.

How many casualties were there in the Iraq / Iran war ? Over a million ? How many of those can be blamed directly on Saddam Hussein , who, after all, instigated the invasion of Iran over the Shatt el Arab waterway ?

Saddam Hussein, unlike Tony Blair and George Bush was also personally a murderer, of members of his own inner circle and of his own family.

Tony Blair's fondness for foreign holidays at the homes the rich and famous is not in the same league of corruption as even one of Saddam Hussein's tasteless but opulent palaces, and his wholesale looting of the Iraqi oil revenues.

It does seem incredible that the Western governments who launched two successful military operations against Saddam Hussein's military forces, seemed to have made no proper plans for running the country after his regime was toppled.

There was corruption as well as incompetence under Paul Bremer's post-invasion administration of Iraq.

Which evil dictator is most deserving of being the next one to be toppled ?

Which one is the most likely to be removed next ?

Will we have to wait until nature takes its course and some of them simply die of old age ?

How many of the world's repressive regimes will continue to be repressive, even with a change of leader ?

Although we disagree with many of the policies of Tony Blair and George Bush, we also disagree with those people who somehow equate them with evil dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Your talking bollocks pal.Hint.Stick to the spy stuff.

@ philclinton - you are entitled to your opinion, but you only look foolish with such crass comments.

Bush contracted out 911 dim wit is that not evil enough for you??don´t believe me??have a look at Rick Siegels 911 eyewitness or google we know.http://911weknow.com/

Bush is many many many more times dangerous than hussain ever was

@ philclinton - perhaps you are trying to Win Friends And Influence People By Literally Insulting Their Intelligence ? 8-)

not at all I just found your comment about evil dictators stupid.I think your blog is a good one and still do.But when someone comes out with

Although we disagree with many of the policies of Tony Blair and George Bush, we also disagree with those people who somehow equate them with evil dictators like Saddam Hussein.

well it is a big blot on your landscape.

however keep up the good work in alerting us to the ever increasing government interference in everyones life.

911 Mysteries - Demolitions

Tony Blair's fondness for foreign holidays at the homes the rich and famous is not in the same league of corruption as even one of Saddam Hussein's tasteless but opulent palaces, and his wholesale looting of the Iraqi oil revenues.

Although the UK and US looting of the Iraq (and other) oil revenues surpasses all this.

Nuerenberg established that wars of aggression were the most serious of war crimes. Blair and Bush are certainly guilty of that and have achieved the unlikely task of killing more people in three years than Sadaam did in 35.

I think that an Imperial Lynching can hardly be seen to be justice (even if one did agree with the death penalty - which I do not). If world leaders are brought to justice, and many including Bush and Blair desparately deserve to be tried for their crimes, it is very hard to do this in a way that is impartial and just. A show trial by an occupation puppet government followed by a tawdry public execution is the very opposite of justice.

How many casualties were there in the Iraq / Iran war ? Over a million ?

The US and UK were behind the Iraq invasion of Iran both in encouragement and support. Our leaders were and are responisble for this and the supply of chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds. Again, our leaders have blood on their hands.

Which evil dictator is most deserving of being the next one to be toppled?

Which one is the most likely to be removed next ?

Will we have to wait until nature takes its course and some of them simply die of old age ?

Sadaam was not deposed because of his human rights record and indeed the human rights situation in Iraq has become much worse since the invasion. If anything, the Iraq fiasco should be a lesson that imperial intervention causes more problems than is solves, usually in the longer term, but in the case on Iraq in the immediate aftermath as well. There are plently other tyrants that the world would be better without, but our imperial world policemen can usually only make the situation worse.

Come on everybody...We invaded Iraq based upon lies. It was not an invasion just to remove Saddam ( So they tell us ) But to remove WMD's. I myself do not equate Blair or Bush the same as Saddam, But this war has been an excuse for many kinds of unwanted legislation here in the UK. I have always said that George Bush, As was as his father, Are the biggest terrorists this world had ever known., There are many atrocities in America that we never hear about. The same as here in the UK. We ourselves now have the beginnings of a Police State. We already have many wannabe dictators in Government. There are many faults in this country of ours. I myself am ashamed to be British. From our Housing Estates with small problems and corruption to the Government Corruption. I am 60 years old and disabled. I have been harrased. having worked for the communities most of my life. I meet many young people many good some bad. But they all say the same. They are more afraid of being on the streets alone and being stopped by the Police, Than they are of being followed by a druggy mugger, When we are afraid of our own Police then there are many things wrong.

@ bryanc -

Although the UK and US looting of the Iraq (and other) oil revenues surpasses all this. Nuerenberg established that wars of aggression were the most serious of war crimes.

Not as serious as genocide.

Blair and Bush are certainly guilty of that and have achieved the unlikely task of killing more people in three years than Sadaam did in 35.

Not if you count the 8 year Iran / Iraq war.

I think that an Imperial Lynching can hardly be seen to be justice (even if one did agree with the death penalty - which I do not). If world leaders are brought to justice, and many including Bush and Blair desparately deserve to be tried for their crimes, it is very hard to do this in a way that is impartial and just. A show trial by an occupation puppet government followed by a tawdry public execution is the very opposite of justice.

How else are dictators ever killed, unless by assassination or in battle ?

The US and UK were behind the Iraq invasion of Iran both in encouragement and support.

Their "support" was on a vastly smaller scale than that of, say, the Soviet Union, which supplied so many of Iraq's weapons systems, at a price.

Our leaders were and are responisble for this and the supply of chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds. Again, our leaders have blood on their hands.

Not, however, Tony Blair and George W Bush, who were not in positions of power at the time !

Sadaam was not deposed because of his human rights record

That was part of the justification used at the time.

and indeed the human rights situation in Iraq has become much worse since the invasion.

For a lot of people, it has got much better from the perspective of state repression of human rights e.g. a freer press, freedom of association etc.

That is no consolation to the victims of crime and terrorist and sectarian militia attacks.

If anything, the Iraq fiasco should be a lesson that imperial intervention causes more problems than is solves, usually in the longer term, but in the case on Iraq in the immediate aftermath as well. There are plently other tyrants that the world would be better without, but our imperial world policemen can usually only make the situation worse.

How do you propose getting rid of such dictators, if the usual methods of assassination, coup d'etat or a popular uprising have failed ?

Economic sanctions like these against "luxury goods" to North Korea, are never going to do the job.

That only leaves a war by a foreign army, which inevitably means that the trial of the dictator, if he is caught alive, will always be accused of being unfair, whether in country, by the new "liberated" or "puppet" local regime, or in the International Court in the Hague a la Milosovic.

@: Anthony - what atrocities do we not hear about in the UK ?

Not as serious as genocide.

The several hundred thousand deaths since the invasion makes it pretty similar.

Not if you count the 8 year Iran / Iraq war.

vs 300,000 in three years - seems on a pretty similar scale.

How do you propose getting rid of such dictators, if the usual methods of assassination, coup d'etat or a popular uprising have failed ?

Countries do not act out of ultruism and any "humanitarian intervention" is probably a misnomer. One set of thugs is invariably replaced with another thug, one that has an acceptable face to the western media. The Iraq interior ministry is responsible for pretty similar excesses as Sadaam, government death squads (US trained it would seem) are the order of the day.

For a lot of people, it has got much better from the perspective of state repression of human rights e.g. a freer press, freedom of association etc.

I don't think that the facts bear this out. You are still pretty likely to be killed in Iraq today for opposing the government (or a number of other organisations). There are numerous areas where groups' freedom has been curtailed, e.g. Iraqi Christians face opression that thhey never faced in the past to name but one example.

That was part of the justification used at the time.

The UK government was careful not to use regime change as a justification as that would have been illegal under international law. Also it would have been laughable as the US and UK support or even put in power dictators that have similar track records.

Our meddling has a terrible track record, whether deposing Mossadeq in Iran, Allende in Chile, setting up the mujahadin in Afghanistan or slaughtering 2,000,000 in Indochina. Perhaps diplomatic pressure is ineffective but it doesn't produce the terrible consequences that we see today.

The real answer is to stop meddling and putting these terrible people in power in the first place (a lesson that we seem to not have learned even now as evidenced by the UK/US helping put some bloodthirstly warlords in power in Somalia).

I think that the bottom line though is that we also lack the moral authority to intervene. A brief google on the "Winter Soldier Investigation" will show just one example of why we can not be trusted to act as a world policeman.

Aplogies for any negativity in my posts as I really like the strong advocacy of most of your posts and this site puts its point ov view forward extremenly well in opposition to government misuse of power.
It just seems odd that your post seems to applaud what seems to be another larger government misuse of power.

If the UK government can be trusted to kill, invade and sort out other countries' problems, I should think that they could also be trusted to listen in on all our private conversations. Unfortunately, I distrust our government in both these scenarios.

@ Bryanc - you are probably over estimating the actual power of the UK or even the US government to do anything effective at all in foreign affairs.

It is not often a case of actually installing warlords or dictators or repressive regimes deliberately, as the direct result of military power, it is more a question of reluctant diplomatic recognition of the status quo, where some dictator or other has seized power on their own.

To imply that every repressive government which the UK (or even the USA) has diplomatic relations with somehow has the full active support of the UK government or people, or that the UK has the ability to remove the madmen in charge at any time, is just not true.

That was true of a genuine imperialist colonial situation, like the old British Empire or the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact occupied client states, backed up by actual military occupation forces, but it does not apply these days, when the Royal Navy is reduced to a handful of active warships.

What use has all the diplomatic pressure, moral condemnation and trade sanctions, on say, Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe been ? What use have endless UN Security Council Resolutions and Peace Plans over Israel and Palestine been ? None at all.

Spy Blog does not think that Tony Blair and George W Bush have done a good job in Iraq, but the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime was well overdue, and should have happened much earlier following the war over the invasion of Kuwait.

Highly opinionated but ill-informed.

@ Someone - Why not show us if you are any better informed ?

"Although we disagree with many of the policies of Tony Blair and George Bush, we also disagree with those people who somehow equate them with evil dictators like Saddam Hussein."

Democracy is dictatorship. Just because they are democraticaly elected doesn't mean that they aren't dictators. I don't understand why you cannot equate the two.

Spy Blog does not think that Tony Blair and George W Bush have done a good job in Iraq, but the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime was well overdue, and should have happened much earlier following the war over the invasion of Kuwait.

wtu,

keep digging that hole.you want some more rope??
Regardless of what you think about Saddam.It is not the business of the UK to remove anyone.who are you to say what is right and wrong in another country??

the war in Iraq is was about Oil.you are an idiot if you think otherwise.

@ anon - you seem to be using the word "democracy" in the same sense as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea).

According to your definition, which Government is not a dictatorship then ?

@ philclinton - "more rope" in a comment thread about an execution by hanging ?

That is in poor taste.

What right have you got to claim to oppose the policies of George W Bush and Tony Blair, but at the same time you seem to refuse to effectively oppose the other repressive regimes and the dictatorships around the world, with the same vigour ?

That smacks of Orwellian doublethink.

Obviously oil is a factor in anything that happens in that part of the Middle East, but equally obviously that is not the only major factor - racism and religious or political extremism and hatred can also be found in abundance.

"According to your definition, which Government is not a dictatorship then ?"

That is my point.

Mark/wtwu: when you say "we" disagree with people who equate them with dictators like Hussein, do you mean yourself? You are welcome to state your opinion, but it would be rather misleading for you to make it sound like the considered view of, say, "we" the public, or "we" spyblog readers.

Your prolific output on the surveillance state is a valuable part of the fight against the disintegration of British liberty, and you will I am sure agree that it is on these topics that people come to you for news and comment. I imagine therefore that if you stray onto other topics - especially if you proffer your political views rather than your expert opinion - you may alienate some of your readership.

Of course, it is your blog, so at the end of the day, you can do what you like with it. But the suggestion earlier in this thread on "sticking to the spy stuff", might not be such a bad idea. After all, you wouldn't want to fail to convert a sceptic to the libertarian cause for your views on an unrelated topic, would you?

@ Thinker - what "libertarian" cause ?

You or anyone else are free to have your own opinions, and your own blogs to argue for active support or appeasement or passive tolerance of dictators like Saddam Hussein etc.

None of the the arguments put forward by such people above have been at all persuasive. If they are somehow alienated by Spy Blog's refusal to stereotype all our leaders into one single undifferentiated category, then so be it.

Most people do not equate Tony Blair or George Bush with Saddam Hussain, no matter how much they dislike them, or fear that their policies are leading us towards a police state, as much through ineptitude and tabloid populism, as any evil intent.

"Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy really is your enemy"

Amazing how little it takes to turn respectable people into an incoherent rabble. ;)

On that basis, how do we know for sure that Blair & Bush would not do equally nasty things in Saddam's position? What if they'd been raised in a similarly violent culture?

I suggest looking at Milgram's infamous experiments where 70-80% of intelligent Westerners will deliver a lethal electric shock to someone over their screams, if told to by an authority figure. What we're living in is not called a "civilisation" for nothing.

So...eh...who told you Saddam was an "evil dictator"?

The same people who told you he had WMDs and could attack the UK in 45 minutes?

Do you see a problem here?

What about the free education and health care and relatively secular government under Saddam? Sounds like the work of an "evil dictator"?

Wake up.

@Mark,

Maybe I've used the wrong phrase, but I'm pretty sure you can guess what I mean by the "libertarian" cause. For the record, I mean essentially the topics you deal with on this blog, relating to with freedom (or its destruction) in its various forms: the Identity Cards Project, ubiquitous surveillance, the police state, the breakdown of data protection, the DNA sampling of the innocent population, the Children's Database, the fingerprinting of children in schools, and so forth.

You used your reply to reiterate your opinion that Bush and Blair cannot reasonably be compared to Hussein, and as I say you are welcome to that view. I haven't agreed or disagreed with it here, as that's not my point (as I've already made clear). What I am saying is that your dealing with issues unrelated to privacy and computer security may dissuade people from the cause you ably represent.

This is important, in my view, as the privacy community has to recognise that authoritarianism (thanks to the tabloids and widespread media illiteracy in Britain) is in vogue at the moment, and much of the watering down of data protection and destruction of our freedoms, if/when they happen, will be as a result of calls from the hang-em-high brigade reading Littlejohn or Gaunt in The Sun (et al).

Examples these days abound: the failure of the Prison Service to circulate wanted posters of two absconders was initially and incorrectly blamed on the Human Rights Act, for fear of a privacy violation. Details of Ian Huntley's previous convictions were not shared as they might have been, and this failure was subsequently and erroneously blamed on the Data Protection Act. In both cases, the blame was unfairly placed, as both the HRA and the DPA allow for exemptions to prevent crime. However, this didn't matter a jot, as it provided a vehicle from which these essential items of legislation could be vehemently attacked.

You and I, and other people who agree with our position on freedom and privacy, therefore have a very hard task ahead of us. We have a lot of people to persuade. We will make this even harder for ourselves if we associate our views with unrelated opinions on the Iraq war, dictators, international relations, capital punishment, and so forth.

Best regards

Thinker