John Humphreys 10 - Tony Blair 0

[paddy]

Even if there weren't any WMD, the ISG found plenty of documentary evidence to prove that Saddam was embarking on a strategy of re-armament in breach of SC resolutions.

(1) There were no WMDs.
(2) What they found were plans. There was no evidence that SH was capable of acting upon those plans and, even if he was had been able to do so, the weapons wouldn't have been a threat to either the UK or the US
(3) Breach of SC resolutions has never been a legitimate ground for invasion - you need a second resolution authorising action. This breaching resolutions argument makes absolutely no sense - no lawyer who has any genuine expertise in international law has ever endorsed that position (in fact, the deputy legal chief at the foreign office resigned because she felt so strongly over how flawed the UK's argument was)

Personally, in hindsight I very much agree that the reasons we went to war were flawed. Primarily due to the intelligence received but what can you do.

I think to call the evidence on which the dossier was based as intelligence 'received' is stretching the meaning of that word a little too far - part of it was invented, part of it was effectively taken from a flimsy report written by someone who had no expert knowledge of the situation.

 

[drew]

(1) There were no WMDs.
(2) What they found were plans. There was no evidence that SH was capable of acting upon those plans and, even if he was had been able to do so, the weapons wouldn't have been a threat to either the UK or the US
(3) Breach of SC resolutions has never been a legitimate ground for invasion - you need a second resolution authorising action. This breaching resolutions argument makes absolutely no sense - no lawyer who has any genuine expertise in international law has ever endorsed that position (in fact, the deputy legal chief at the foreign office resigned because she felt so strongly over how flawed the UK's argument was)



I think to call the evidence on which the dossier was based as intelligence 'received' is stretching the meaning of that word a little too far - part of it was invented, part of it was effectively taken from a flimsy report written by someone who had no expert knowledge of the situation.

Fact is you don't know that there weren't any WMD. There is evidence he had arms supplied via syria and it is equally plausible that at the first hint that he had overstepped the mark, SH got all his WMD out via the same route. I don't know and neither do you. As for these plans, I was referring to contracts in place with various countries to supply arms in contravention of SC resolutions, including long range missiles (1300km range. Not far enough to reach us but I suspect the Israelis would have been wetting themselves). Based on his previous unblemished character why would anyone question SH's motives!!!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Fact is you don't know that there weren't any WMD. There is evidence he had arms supplied via syria and it is equally plausible that at the first hint that he had overstepped the mark, SH got all his WMD out via the same route. I don't know and neither do you. As for these plans, I was referring to contracts in place with various countries to supply arms in contravention of SC resolutions, including long range missiles (1300km range. Not far enough to reach us but I suspect the Israelis would have been wetting themselves). Based on his previous unblemished character why would anyone question SH's motives!!!

drew - back away from this thread. We do know there were no WMDs. They could not find any.

 

[drew]

drew - back away from this thread. We do know there were no WMDs. They could not find any.

You know for an absolute fact they weren't moved to Syria. Fine then, that's sorted.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

You know for an absolute fact they weren't moved to Syria. Fine then, that's sorted.

I didn't realise you could actually hear the sound of straws being clutched.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

You know for an absolute fact they weren't moved to Syria. Fine then, that's sorted.

Why are you so desperate to clutch at straws?

 

[Don Quixote]

Do any of you really think Saddam Hussein didn't want Nuclear weapons? He was a psychotic dictator who killed millions of people.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Do any of you really think Saddam Hussein didn't want Nuclear weapons? He was a psychotic dictator who killed millions of people.

Wanting and getting are very different things.

 

[drew]

Wanting and getting are very different things.

I didn't think it was disputed that he was developing their nuclear capability right up until the time the Israelis bombed his reactor and mossad took out several of his leading nuclear scientists. Perhaps if everyone had just left him alone he might just have his nuclear capability now and maybe he would still have wmd that he had used on numerous occassions previously.

 

[murphy's law]

Having listened to the interview, Humphrey's main argument was that Blair's actions (invasion of Iraq, removal of Taliban rule in Aghanistan) had made the world more dangerous place.

Blair strongly disagreed with this, basically arguing that this is akin to blaming the victim of an attack, I agree with Blair.

 

[Samej]

B.Liar should be in front of a War Crimes tribunal for his complicity in the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. He cost the lives of untold thousands of people and has blood on his hands up to his armpits. Utterly shameful.

And he he is still earning millions a year from it through after dinner speaches and book writing, along with his disgusting wife

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I didn't think it was disputed that he was developing their nuclear capability right up until the time the Israelis bombed his reactor and mossad took out several of his leading nuclear scientists. Perhaps if everyone had just left him alone he might just have his nuclear capability now and maybe he would still have wmd that he had used on numerous occassions previously.

In 1981. And UN Inspectors were in Iraq looking for WMD's. I have no idea whether you have some vested interest - but you are making no sense.

 

[drew]

In 1981. And UN Inspectors were in Iraq looking for WMD's. I have no idea whether you have some vested interest - but you are making no sense.

I have no vested interest whatsoever. My comment was a rebuttal of you throw away remark that wanting and getting are two different things. Irrespective of time frames, SH had a nuclear programme, had used biological and chemical weapons, both on his own people and Iran during their war. The ISG found evidence of contracts with other countries to supply missiles and 'dual purpose' products etc etc. Despite your comment that the UN were looking, SH was not co-operating with the them and hadn't done so fully for 10 years and was almost certainly breaching many embargoes. It is a fact that no WMD were actually found but you cannot say for certain that SH did not ship them out as soon as the heat was turned on him. The invasion of Iraq didn't just happen overnight, it took time to build up the forces etc, plenty of time for SH to off load via Syria. Now it may well be that the Arab Spring might eventually succeed in Syria and documents might come to light to prove they did or did not receive wmd from SH.

I'm not clutching at straws, just merely stating what we know, ie that none were found post invasion but that we don't know whether he did anything immediately prior to invasion. Why do people have a problem with that!

 

[nicko31]

Listened to the interview, nothing new same old arguments.
What seems to get lost every time it that Iraq was a resources war. There was few places in the world where oil could be extracted as cheaply as Iraq, for Bush it would be far better to have control over oil in Iraq than have to keep dealing with Venezuela (a constant thorn in his side). But he didn't count on it costing the US 2 trillion, its credit rating and its decline in the world order.
Ultimately Blair thought he just better go along with it and the WMD thing was just a good excuse, and of once that decision was made there's no going back. No matter how many grillings Blair will never admit he hadn't really thought it through....

 

[paddy]

I'm not clutching at straws, just merely stating what we know, ie that none were found post invasion but that we don't know whether he did anything immediately prior to invasion. Why do people have a problem with that!

So if you support the Iraq war on the grounds that SH may have had WMDs which he may have exported to Syria prior to the Allies invading, I take it you would now support a similar invasion of Syria to track down those same, hypothetical WMDs?

 

[Weststander]

Wanting and getting are very different things.

But millions of Iraqi's and Iranian's died, directly because of him. That is a fact.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So if you support the Iraq war on the grounds that SH may have had WMDs which he may have exported to Syria prior to the Allies invading, I take it you would now support a similar invasion of Syria to track down those same, hypothetical WMDs?

And be prepared to fight yourself ?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

But millions of Iraqi's and Iranian's died, directly because of him. That is a fact.

In the 80's, armed by the west. What is your point ?

Actually do not bother. I am out of here.

 

[Weststander]

In the 80's, armed by the west. What is your point ?

Actually do not bother. I am out of here.

Because it was mentioned here that wanting & getting (re nuclear weapons) were very different. i.e. you can't label Saddam as having them for a reason for war.

But just like Hitler & Stalin, he orchestrated the murder, rape & torture of millions; as well as raging war against Iran & Kuwait. Real reasons, whether you are against the war or not, why it is great that he was deposed & executed.

 

[1959]

Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, why didnt/cant Blair or Cameron say no nowadays?

Harold Wilson wasn't in Number 10 at the start of the United States' then-limited involvement in Vietnam in 1955. The PM was Anthony Eden at the time. The US got much more involved in 1961, by which time it was Harold Macmillan. By the time Harold Wilson came to power in 1964, they were well entrenched, we had other things on our plate and were probably of no use to them anyway.

Still no answer to the question about which of the potentially-alternate Prime Ministers (Thatcher, Major, Duncan-Smith, Hague, Howard or Cameron) would have told the US President to get stuffed had they been asked, which they would have been.

I'd be really surprised if any of them would have done that. I'd be even more surprised if any of them could have done that. That's not the way the special relationship works anymore.