I can't believe this was filed in January already and we only got to see it on the news over the weekend!


Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls on Blair and Bush to admit Iraq war was wrong

Ananova: Story filed: 10:39 Wednesday 21st January 2004

Jan 25, 2004



Archbishop Desmond Tutu says Tony Blair and George Bush should admit the war in Iraq was wrong.

He said such a move would help persuade the people of Iraq the coalition is serious about the future of the country.

Archbishop Tutu, now visiting professor on post-conflict societies at Kings College London, has told the BBC: "I think the coalition would show considerable magnanimity if it was, in fact, to acknowledge that in the first place the assault on Iraq was wrong.

"If they were able to bring themselves to do that, it would go a very long way to making people say these people are, in fact, serious, they are not merely concerned about face-saving.

"The fact that the coalition has returned to the UN underscores precisely what people kept saying: that if the war was going to be legitimate, it needed to be declared by a legitimate authority, in this case the UN."

His comments come as a United Nations team is set to return to Iraq to examine ways to transfer power to an Iraqi government.

They would be the first UN staff in the country since a mass withdrawal in August following a bombing of UN offices in Baghdad which killed 23 people.

Edward Mortimer, adviser to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, said the UN wanted to help. But all sides had to understand the nature of the help on offer and be willing to accept it.

"We are not in control," he told the programme.

"In the end, Iraqis and the coalition need to agree on how to handle this. I think the fact they have to come to the UN shows they recognise they have got to reach agreement."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has attacked Tony Blair for his "mind-boggling" support for the US over a possible war in Iraq.
The Nobel Peace winner said he was shocked and saddened America was being "aided and abetted" by Britain.

His criticism came as preparations for a possible war continued with President George W Bush building-up US forces in the Gulf, currently totalling around 60,000 troops.

The British Government is expected to announce later this week that it is planning to deploy troops to the region, reportedly numbering 27,000.

Mr Blair came home from his family holiday in Egypt on Saturday to be met with the fresh controversy at home from the leading anti-apartheid campaigner.

Archbishop Tutu - the former head of the South African Council of Churches - demanded on LWT's Jonathan Dimbleby programme: "When does compassion, when does morality, when does caring come in?

"I just hope that one day that people will realise that peace is a far better path to follow.

"Many, many of us are deeply saddened to see a great country such as the United States aided and abetted extraordinarily by Britain."

It was "mind-boggling" the prime minister was showing such support, the Archbishop went on.

"I have a great deal of time for your prime minister but I'm shocked to see a powerful country use its power frequently, unilaterally.

"The United States says you do this to the world, if you don't do it we will do it - that's sad."

Archbishop Tutu asked why Iraq was being singled out when Europe, India and Pakistan also had weapons of mass destruction.

Archbishop Tutu asked why Iraq was being singled out when Europe, India and Pakistan also had weapons of mass destruction.


Good question that.

Cause Saddam actually used them, I'd say.

In the week that Iraq was invaded? Not that I'm aware of...

On the Kurds, around '88 I think

Without in any shape or form condoning that at all it is still a ridiculous excuse to invade and butcher a country 14 years later.

All the evidence I`ve heard about that only amounted to hearsay alone. There wasnt any US led invasion in the 80`s was there?

Invaded yes. Butchered? Not really. The yanks have one of the best records of any country from the 20th century when it comes to protecting civilians in times of war.

All things considered, they had good reason to invade.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I have to disagree. There was a bogus reason for the invasion, if they (all parties concerned) at least had the balls to admit to why they did in fact invade. And I have to say that certain footage showing unbelievable destruction, maiming of children and devastation was not aired in the US. For very obvious reasons....

There is hardly a sufficient "excuse/reason" to kill at random, and having woman and children as those the most affected/killed/maimed.

It was senseless, devious, inhumane and the purest example of greed and negativity. As if we haven't been shown through history what "war" leads to. As if we haven't "evolved" enough as a species to understand the virtue of communication and honesty. If those things could be applied to politics (as well as have more enlightened individuals as well as women involved) the world may just have enough time to recitify the fuck-ups of patriarchal ego-maniacal madmen.

Saddam had chemical weapons and used them. I tend to believe this based on what I've seen and heard, if I'm wrong then l digress the point.

Saddam also had a UN resolution telling him to submit to inspectors, which he never did do.

On Sept 11 2001 the US was attacked by a terrorist network. Although Saddam didn't align himself with them, my educated guess would tell me that Saddam would take an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' stance with them and turn a blind eye to their activities in his country and perhaps even help them out a little while not appearing to.

When you put all that together, I don't blame the US or UK for what they did. Enough was enough, and the UN just kept dragging their feet.

I've seen it...guess it's because I'm not in the US

War is a failing of humanity, but I must say the bulk of this particular failure rests with Saddam and his thugs.

The US and UK went out of their way to avoid killing civilians, it was hardly random.

You can't lay all the blame on the US, or even half of it. Very little, IMHO.

I place most of the blame on the dictator and his thugs who weren't the slightest bit interested in evolving, enlightening, or rectifying fuck-ups, rather being interested in money, power, and doing whatever it took to hold on to it.

Getting rid of a mad man and bringing a country over to democracy is wonderful and benevolent, but that was not the reason Bush attacked Iraq. It's more than obvious. You don't bring someone towards change, move them away from senseless killing, and try to eradicate hate by attacking randomly. Yes it was random otherwise civilians and school children would not have been in the line of fire. And not to mention the "friendly fire" is that what they call it? British troops being shot down by US troops?

To use 9/11 as an excuse to invade that country Bush should have declared as such, instead of the "reasons" he gave. First it was the WMD then it was because he (Saddam) posed a threat to the US and to the safety of the whole world (we're in 2004; I don't recall Saddam attempting to take over the world yet). Yes he was barbaric, yes he should have stepped down, yes that country should be free, but at what expense and by which means?

I have said many times before, if the reason was to "free the people of Iraq" then why on earth has Bush in all his years in office not once looked at all the tyrants that are still in power around the world? Mugabe and his tyranny is unquestionably so severe international intervention is sorely needed. But Zimbabwe offers Bush bugger all as far as resources are concerned, so why should he bother with a little third world country where the death toll rises daily?

If you can categorize by association then the US is as guilty as Saddam, for he was once backed by none other than the US. As was Bin Laden. Wonder what happened to him, probably enjoying his paid vacation.

The chemical weapon used to gas the Kurds was a type of chemical weapon different from what Iraq had, although it was the same type as that which Iran had.
Also, no evidence was provided which would support that Iraq itself was at the cause of that, when in fact it is possible that Iran could have used the chemical weapons themselves in an attempt to discredit Iraq, or make it so that the Kurds hated/disliked Iraq/Saddam.

Fear my worthless info.

So if a bunch of other countries are telling you to let some guys in so that they can see if you have the only weapons that you could possibly have which would allow you to bluff others into not attacking you, would you really want to?

Actually, Saddam was the only thing keeping Iraq from falling apart. A recent series of articles details how civil war is about to occur(planned by the AQ), and that now Kurds are busting into the northern area of Iraq and taking the homes of Arabs, who in turn flee out of fear of the Kurds. While Saddam might have proven to be one of the more unstable leaders ever, he kept his country running and together, not to mention didn't seem to suffer from much terrorism, and as such it would be quite plausible that he at least was allies with the AQ in such a manner that they wouldn't target his country. However, the AQ's main goal has been to draw America into the Middle East countries, which in turn would result in an increase of dislike/hatred toward America/Americans.
Look at my signature, too. I find it a tad funny

So you're saying that you're all for a country attacking another for no real reason? America is NOT the world's police, and the UK had information which supported that Iraq didn't have the WMD that they supposedly did BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. What does this all lead up to? Iraq was invaded for some reason other than what was given, and currently is suffering from a decimated infrastructure(again), Civil War is about to occur, people are being terrorized and murdered(not to mention put in prisons by American soldiers for no reason), and American soldiers are planning on setting up outside of Baghdad and will leave everything in the hands of the Iraqi police(who keep getting blown up and massacred).

Actually, the US and the UK have been using such weaponry as cluster bombs, in areas where civilians exist, and that in turn has resulted in a large amount of civilian deaths even when cluster bombs in that area are not allowed(Geneva Convention) due to the inability to discern between a civilian and military target. Also, before walking into Baghdad America conducted random bombing on the city, as was stated by a US soldier in charge of one of those cannon thingies(article from a year and fifty billion monkeys ago stated this..and no, I can't find it, yahoo seems to dump their older stuff).

...So you don't think that US is to blame for anything that they have done in their unwarranted assault on another country?

How would you have gone about it then?

Yeah he fibbed somewhat, and should be held accountable for it.

Saddam tried to take over a piece of the world in 1990.

Considering all circumstances, I'd say 'by whatever force necessary.'

Politics. There are those that profit from countries with tyrants, and those people profit other people, so it just comes down to appeasing as many people as possible in the name of the almighty dollar.

Then we're all guilty by association. Politicians get away with corruption because they do it and we let it slide, because we've resigned ourselves to the fact that they're all liars.

Perhaps the better part of the blame for Saddam and the war should rest with the Iraqi people.

Personally I would, in the interest of world peace, but then I'm not a murderous dictator who tried to take over a naighbouring country.

...so now the Kurds are being the bad guys?

...where in the jesus did you get that from?

...never heard about that...

If you say so...

...never heard that either...

Did you see me use the word 'anything'?

I'm not a politician, to ask me how I would have gone about it is superfluous to this topic. But for a start I would not have gone over the authority of the UN. He just couldn't wait to get his bombs in there.


He "fibbed somewhat"? Holy hell, that's a gross understatement and one that has as a result cost the lives of innocent children. You're awfully blazé about it I must say.

Saddam tried to "take over a piece of the world" with the backing of the USA. But then it was ok I suppose. And there are currently still occuring eslewhere in the world "land disputes" which are in effect "taking over a piece" of someone's world. (Read Isreal and Palestine, India and Pakistan)

Considering what circumstances exactly? What precisely was happening in Iraq during that period of time that caused two countries to make war on it? How can you discipline a whole country for something it did more than ten years ago? Oh because he (Bush JR) wasn't around back then?! So when a child does something naughty but you weren't there to witness it you end up punishing him for breaking a glass 10 years later? Yes that makes perfect sense.


Your reference to profit in regards to my statement about Mugabe seems not only cold and inhumane but lacking in basic knowledge as to the circumstances currently going on in that country.

We are all "guilty" of allowing the world to be destroyed. We have no respect or value for the sanctity of life, we don't care about our enviroment, we don't care about animals, and we certainly don't care about our fellow human beings. For if we did we could never condone the Iraqi war. No matter what...

Unless Saddam had declared war on the world, unless he had his finger on the proverbial trigger, I see no just cause for going in and killing people at random, and then have the audacity to think the public morons by using the stupid excuses he did.

Blame Iraqi people for what happened to them? Blame them for Bush and Blair? That's the most insane thing I've read yet.