I wonder what exactly it is that qualifies a leader for the left-wing title "protector of the reputation"?

Is it enough to protect a fascist dictator in the UNSC or does one have to actively support him by selling arms to him?

PCS,

why was it better then, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, than now, when his terrorists managed to kill a mere few thousand in two years?

Do you hate Iraqis?

And how exactly did Bush and Blair destroy US and UK reputation for democracy by replacing a mass murderer the vast majority in Iraq hated with a constitution the vast majority in Iraq approves of?

Please answer all three questions. Thank you.

"why was it better then, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis"

You cannot justify a unilateral war on those terms. If you do, then I could condenm Bush and Blair for not attacking Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc. because by your reasoning you cannot support democracy unless you attack all dictators. Blair must be gutless because he has not removed Mugabe who is one of the worst despots of recent times.

"Do you hate Iraqis?"

No, I feel sorry that the great battle between secularism and radical Islam is being fought with their blood.

"And how exactly did Bush and Blair destroy US and UK reputation for democracy..."

Firtsly, by acting unilaterally, secondly by allowing coalition troops to rampage throughout Iraq and now charaterizing abuses as isolated incidents when they are clearly widespread. Another exapmle would be Guantanemo, this goes against all of the democratic values we claim to be fighting for.

"Kurdish parents are naming their kids Tony and George"

Evidence please.

Firtsly, by acting unilaterally,

I gather you are talking about the US and UK, which by definition would make your statement completely moronic.  Plus since there were 49 nations involved, it is hard to see 49 armies marching on Bagdad with no coordination not killing each other, which doubly makes your statement moronic.

And in case you failed to understand, did we give all those German and Japanese Prisoners in WWII?  That is against the Geneva Convention, which I am sure you are unfamiliar with.

Why do Bush and Blair supporters think the only way to get democracy is by warfare? The long lasting democracies come about from within i.e. free peoples movements from within dictatorships. I am sick and tired of the armchair generals who love to spill the blood of others.

Why do Bush and Blair supporters think the only way to get democracy is by warfare? The long lasting democracies come about from within i.e. free peoples movements from within dictatorships. I am sick and tired of the armchair generals who love to spill the blood of others.

if we wait for your non-solution, there would be no people left to establish one.  And even tho the butchering has stopped in Rwanda, there is no democracy there.  Kosovo is struggling, but at least they are closer.  And gee, that was a war too!

I am sick and tired of faux peace activist that think non-american blood is somehow not as red as american blood.  They are the true leeches on society.  Producing nothing but hate and hypocrisy.

"I gather you are talking about the US and UK"

The war in Iraq was not the decision of the UK, it was the decision of Bush. Blair was part of his gang but the UK did not want this war which is why I say unilaterally. I.e. Blair simply joined the neo-con clique.

"why was it better then, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis" You cannot justify a unilateral war on those terms.

Of course you can. OTOH there is no such thing as a "unilateral war". There are always at least two parties involved in a war. Even if one party runs away.

If you do, then I could condenm Bush and Blair for not attacking Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc. because by your reasoning you cannot support democracy unless you attack all dictators.

Wrong. I did not say that. And it doesn't follow either. It is a fallacy to assume that since one cannot do everything one must not do anything. I walk a thousand foot, and I argue that it helps me, but I cannot walk a million foot. Following your logic, I would have to stay at home.

Blair must be gutless because he has not removed Mugabe who is one of the worst despots of recent times.

I do not advocate war against as many bad guys as possible. I merely advocate war against the worst and strategically most important. Mugabe is a pocket Hitler without much relevance. But a country right between Syria and Iran, now that is a lot more important.

"Do you hate Iraqis?" No, I feel sorry that the great battle between secularism and radical Islam is being fought with their blood.

Yet you have no moral problem with condemning those who saved the Iraqis for the act of saving them.

"And how exactly did Bush and Blair destroy US and UK reputation for democracy..." Firtsly, by acting unilaterally, secondly by allowing coalition troops to rampage throughout Iraq and now charaterizing abuses as isolated incidents when they are clearly widespread. Another exapmle would be Guantanemo, this goes against all of the democratic values we claim to be fighting for.

Firstly, the UN is not democratic. Ignoring the UN has nothing to do with being undemocratic. Secondly, the US did not "allow" coalition troops to rampage throughout Iraq. You have clearly fallen for the information-vs-facts fallacy and now assume that because the news focus on Iraq, Iraq must be worse than other places. It's not true.

And if your "democratic values" have a problem with Guantanamo, then I cannot help you. I believe everyone has a choice. And the terrorists chose to ignore the Geneva Convention. We owe it to them to treat them like they have chosen to be treated.

They could have quit any time. The US and UK did announce their attack, the terrorists could simply have left Afghanistan. It was THEIR CHOICE. They do not deserve anybody's help. Not even yours.

Read 'Tony Blair: Accidental American' to learn about this.

Why do Bush and Blair supporters think the only way to get democracy is by warfare?

In my case it's because in my country it was.

But do tell us how many dictatorships like Saddam's have become a democracy without bloodshed.

The war in Iraq was not the decision of the UK, it was the decision of Bush.

Yes, because Bush is the only person in America (or the world) who makes decisions. He is both the only decision-maker and a typical conservative sheep.

Never mind that regime change in Iraq was UK and US policy for ten years before the invasion. But who would know much about the facts and be a left-winger?

"And the terrorists chose to ignore the Geneva Convention. "

Many have been released without charge. Many of the captives were picked up in Muslim countries without even being engaged in combat. How do we know they are terrorists unless this has been proven independently by a court?

I don't accept the 'we must abandon our own liberties to beat the terrorists' because if we do we hand them an automatic victory.

Many have been released without charge. Many of the captives were picked up in Muslim countries without even being engaged in combat. How do we know they are terrorists unless this has been proven independently by a court?

I am beginning to wonder why you care so much about these 500 prisoners while Islamists and Arab nationalists kill hundreds of thousands in Sudan and elsewhere.

"picked up in Muslim countries": I assume the left need to make up simple-sounding explanations for their "opinions"?

I don't accept the 'we must abandon our own liberties to beat the terrorists' because if we do we hand them an automatic victory.

Which of my liberties where abandoned here? If I ever meet anybody whose liberties were affected by this, I'll run.

"Yes, because Bush is the only person in America (or the world) who makes decisions."

Away from planet 'God Bless America' we know that is bullshit.

"But do tell us how many dictatorships like Saddam's have become a democracy without bloodshed."

The perfect example would be the Ukraine. This was backed by the US, which I have no problem with. I wouldn't have had a problem with the Iraqis rising up and killing Saddam themselves. But I think it is a bit rich having abandoned the Iraqis when the were ready to rise up in the first gulf war to come back and bomb Iraq to pieces and play the heroes when it was through US/UK indecision it was not done in the first place.

Read 'Tony Blair: Accidental American' to learn about this.

I know what's better. YOU read some sort of history book.

YOU need to learn history. WE already know left-wing opinions.