Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

[PILTDOWN MAN]

except yesterday's "evidence" where the attorney general at the time said that he had advised Blair (under no pressure from him) that the UN Resolution did in effect give authority to act which is what Blair said today.......

Now these guys are politicians and we can believe them or not.

We can also elect them or not

For 1 minute you believe he wasn't under duress. He had been put through the mill by Blair and his henchman and also at least 4 of Bush's. Added to which just because he made such a gesture to Blair, the Resolution Document did not give Bush/Blair the legal right. All properly documented. Blair blatantly used the UN to show justification for Bush/Blair's intentions. However when this was not concrete evidence for war they continued anyway.

America prior to this had for some time been ramping up ready for war (military wise) and there was no going back. The promise made by Blair to Bush carried us along with this.

Bush wanted a legacy, to do something his father had failed to do, get rid of Sadam.

 

[NMH]

Incidentally, the bbc radio reporter after the interview came across a 'layman' witness who somewhat oddly came out with an on-the-spot incredibly lucid and fantastically constructed reasoning that backed Blair completely.

They must think everyone listening is nodding their approval to that 'random' person, and not thinking they were planted for the sake of broadcast propaganda. Give me a break!

Blair's interviewer 'allowed' almost every answer from Blair, with an air of approval cleverly disguised behind 'telling and pointed questions'.
Uh-huh, oh yes - I'll fall for that, why not.

 

[Don Quixote]

Mike you sound like a Muslim lover and a trator. Maybe you should be sent to the gallows not Mr Blair.

 

[clapham_gull]

The Falklands wasn't a war technically.

Interesting one though that conflict, there was an enquiry about that afterwards which was largely ignored by the country.

If it had happened recently, the press (and possibly) the public would have far more critical of the Government in letting it happen in the place after many clear warnings from the military that the door was quite literally being left open for the Argentinians to invade.

We were even down there prior to that doing initial negotiations about handing it over. It's all in the history books.

The point I'm making being nothing more than it appears as a country we have become far critical and analytical when we send our troops to fight.

Would another party done much different under similiar circumstances in relation to Iraq? I fear probably not under pressure from the USA, which is why the Tories appear generally supportive/quiet on the decision to go to war, if not the process that lead to it.

I struggle to have a clear opinion on it. Having read a few books on Sadaam he was more of a fruit loop that I suspect a few on here could imagine, his sons probably worse.

I can't believe that he was a direct threat to the UK.

What's also clear from those books is that he is as far removed from the Bin Laden types of this world as Bush was. So for Blair to try and draw a connection is frankly bollocks.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Basically, Blair thought Saddam Hussein was a **** who needed to be taken out for the long-term good. On balance, I tend to agree, and Iraq will be alright eventually.

Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish altogether. Ther problem was, we got caught up in the moment and went with the "in for a penny, in for a pound" approach. I can't see how that situation can be resolved.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

...except it was very clearly sailing AWAY from the conflict area at the time and thereby posed no threat EXCEPT in the view of those (Thatcher) who made the decision.



Now I personally agree that it was tactically a good call but it was morally questionable and many at home and abroad called Thatcher a "criminal" as a result just as there were widespread calls in the international community against the "legality" of our fighting the war in the first place..........sound familiar?

What rubbish. The legality was never in question. British land and British people had been invaded and there is no law in the World that stops you from defending yourself. Argentina basically f**ked up, they didn't believe 1, we would send a task force, and 2, we would whip their sorry little arses. Argentina found out they had picked on a big boy that wasn't going to sit back and be defeated by a tinpot dictator.

 

[auschr]

too many saddos in uk too obsessed with twittering an iranian revolution when ignoring their own country gone to pot. tony blair is a disgusting man who is responsible for the deaths of not only uk soldiers but innocent iraqis. 45 minutes, wmd, collin powell going to the UN with drawings of what the iraqis have because there was no photographic evidence, no links with iraq and al qaeda, weapons inspectors knew that iraq had no wmds. not even 24 could write such a corrupt politican. hand him over to the families of the victims of murdered iraqi families. saddam paid the price for the gulf war, the west was happy, then 9/11 happened and bush and lapdog tony decided saddam needs to die... why saddam? why not any other dictators currently in power..

 

[Pavilionaire]

Saddam had already committed genocide on his own people and was stockpiling chemical weapons with intent. Look at the reaction of the Iraqi people to the news of his downfall, and the wretched way he met his end.

I haven't got a problem with intervention in Iraq, I just wish that the UN were a bit more organised about these things rather than leave the US, UK and a few non-French Euros to do the dirty work.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The Falklands wasn't a war technically.

Interesting one though that conflict, there was an enquiry about that afterwards which was largely ignored by the country.

If it had happened recently, the press (and possibly) the public would have far more critical of the Government in letting it happen in the place after many clear warnings from the military that the door was quite literally being left open for the Argentinians to invade.



We were even down there prior to that doing initial negotiations about handing it over. It's all in the history books.

The point I'm making being nothing more than it appears as a country we have become far critical and analytical when we send our troops to fight.

Would another party done much different under similiar circumstances in relation to Iraq? I fear probably not under pressure from the USA, which is why the Tories appear generally supportive/quiet on the decision to go to war, if not the process that lead to it.

I tend to agree, but back in the Falklands conflict 24hr news didn't exist and also I remember the wait.
"Right that's it off we go pull up the anchor" back to normal for weeks then " Right boys were here now off you go and whip the bastards" The period in between was really weird. The news would sort of mention what was going on, with pictures of loved ones waving at the dock side as the boats rolled out and also the time it took to convert the merchant ships.


In regard to the Tories yes I do believe they too would have gone but I do feel a lot more open debate would have taken place. Also their support for Blair was based on his evidence which was obviously doctored/sexed up. Given the actual facts would they have gone? Given that if the true facts were known more and more joe public would have been against it. Blair also knew this and that support from his party would have been demolished. That is why he stopped talking and properly communicating to firstly the anti's in the cabinet and secondly to the house and public at large.

 

[clapham_gull]

If I sum it up in my head it was attempt by the West to clear up a dangerous mess they had helped to create in the first place.

How Saddam got to the power in the first place, and the West supporting both sides at points in the Iraq/Iran war is fascinating.

We can add Iran into that as well. The USA did some quite remarkable things that eventually helped to produce the regime they have now. Quite easy to understand why many there, irrespective of how they feel about their own government despise the USA.

I can understand how seductive it must have appeared to try and sort it out once and for all.

I suspect some are now thinking it may have been better to attempt to bring Saddam back in the fold and help fight terrorism. May sound odd now, but who would have thought Gadaffi would be welcome at the table a few years ago.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Just a thought.

People now are worried that the void left in Iraq has basically given Iran the one and only super-power status (disregarding Israel for the moment) in the region. Apart from their obvious terrorist activity in Iraq they can not and will not attempt any major build up against Iraq as a nation due to us being there.

Now we all know that Saddam attempted to stop UN inspections, why?

Basically because he didn't have any. If this was found out and openly documented, would he be opening the door to aggression from Iraq, full in knowledge he could not fight back?

So he played the game, stopped UN inspections or at least made them difficult, and all the time keeping his charade up with Iran.

So what would have happened if Iran had invaded with Saddam still in power? What would we have done.

By openly attempting to display Saddam's WMD and his now apparent lack of WMD we were possibly creating a much more unstable region.

 

[clapham_gull]

Blair has killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever did!

I get the sentiment but probably not true.

 

[clapham_gull]

Just a thought.

People now are worried that the void left in Iraq has basically given Iran the one and only super-power status (disregarding Israel for the moment) in the region. Apart from their obvious terrorist activity in Iraq they can not and will not attempt any major build up against Iraq as a nation due to us being there.

Now we all know that Saddam attempted to stop UN inspections, why?

Basically because he didn't have any. If this was found out and openly documented, would he be opening the door to aggression from Iraq, full in knowledge he could not fight back?

So he played the game, stopped UN inspections or at least made them difficult, and all the time keeping his charade up with Iran.

So what would have happened if Iran had invaded with Saddam still in power? What would we have done.

By openly attempting to display Saddam's WMD and his now apparent lack of WMD we were possibly creating a much more unstable region.

Good point, his posturing was probably as much for the benefit of Iran as it was for the West. I'd never thought about it like that.

We still come back to the question, what to be done - irrespective of what we did to help create the situation in the first place.

Probably attempt to negotiate with him, but that was out of the question after the Republicans (who had theorised about going in when out of office) won the elections.

I honestly believe that Twin Towers simply speeded the process up, but inevitably complicated things vastly.

 

[bhaexpress]

At the end of the day the who thing is a complete and utter waste of time and money, what is the point ? What does this whole exercise intend to achieve ? What will we learn if anything ? No doubt the next time something like this happens the findings of this commission will be ignored anyway.

 

[drew]

So, exactly what 'war crimes' was Blair guilty of that would put him up before the Hague or do you just spout what you read in your crap red top papers or what your mates said down the pub. Do you honestly believe that orders were given to execute cold bloodly men women and children and bury them in mass graves? Or is it just the fact that you didn't agree with the decision to go to war? Perhaps Churchill should be posthumously put on trial, Maggie Thatcher for the Belgrano etc etc. Comments like the pair of you make are so dumb it is unbelievable.

Going to war to change another country's regime is prohibited by international law, while the Nuremburg judgment of 1946 laid down that "to initiate a war of aggression", as Blair and Bush clearly did against Iraq, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Blair's admission, that he "would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam]" regardless of the WMD issue, is also an acknowledgement that he lied to the House of Commons on February 25, 2003, when he told MPs: "I detest his [Saddam's] regime. But even now he [Saddam] can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war... But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation."although he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam but if he had co-operated with the inspections there would have been nothing we could have done to oust him. He is expressing an opinion but does not say that he would have started the war.

Today again he lied. This quickly pointed out by the BBC reporter, regarding the second resolution, it did not at any stage give him a justification to invade another country. He said it did.

except yesterday's "evidence" where the attorney general at the time said that he had advised Blair (under no pressure from him) that the UN Resolution did in effect give authority to act which is what Blair said today.......

Now these guys are politicians and we can believe them or not.

We can also elect them or not

Just to clarify, the quote included in your post was not mine, it was Piltdown Man.

As regards the resolutions, I believe reference to these continue to be a red herring. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was continuing to breach the terms of the ceasefire of the 1990 war and gave a final warning for co-operation. Some interpret it as giving licence for repercussions for failure to comply others don't. Blair states he would have preferred a second resolution but this was never going to happen because France were protecting their commercial interest in Iraq and had stated they would veto any resolution.

Also, let's not forget that it wasn't just the US and UK that thought Saddam had WMD. Chinese intelligence suggested that the WMD had been moved to Syria, presumably to avoid detection. In a report byt The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy they state 'In contrast (to blair and bush), according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq.' But France still put their commercial interests first!!!

As for the arguments about there being worse regimes, none of the others had attacked their neighbours, Iraq had on two occassions, and none of the others had, to our knowledge, used WMD previously, either on their own people or on their neighbours.

If Saddam had WMD it was right to remove him and we could only act on the intelligence we had at the time. Saddam may have played a dangerous game of bluff, either to keep Iran in check or to protect his own position from internal challenges, (remembering that the Iraq Research Group found that even some of his own generals believed he had the wmd) or he may well have had the WMD removed to Syria, as China believed, in which case he still posed a massive threat to the region.

I don't doubt for one minute that hindsight has enabled Blair to possibly 're-align' some of his arguments but equally, hindsight has allowed the anti-war protaganists to justify their views on the basis that no WMD was found.

You can only act on what you know at any given time and not what you might know in a few years time.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Just to clarify, the quote included in your post was not mine, it was Piltdown Man.

As regards the resolutions, I believe reference to these continue to be a red herring. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was continuing to breach the terms of the ceasefire of the 1990 war and gave a final warning for co-operation. Some interpret it as giving licence for repercussions for failure to comply others don't. Blair states he would have preferred a second resolution but this was never going to happen because France were protecting their commercial interest in Iraq and had stated they would veto any resolution.

Also, let's not forget that it wasn't just the US and UK that thought Saddam had WMD. Chinese intelligence suggested that the WMD had been moved to Syria, presumably to avoid detection. In a report byt The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy they state 'In contrast (to blair and bush), according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq.' But France still put their commercial interests first!!!

As for the arguments about there being worse regimes, none of the others had attacked their neighbours, Iraq had on two occassions, and none of the others had, to our knowledge, used WMD previously, either on their own people or on their neighbours.

If Saddam had WMD it was right to remove him and we could only act on the intelligence we had at the time. Saddam may have played a dangerous game of bluff, either to keep Iran in check or to protect his own position from internal challenges, (remembering that the Iraq Research Group found that even some of his own generals believed he had the wmd) or he may well have had the WMD removed to Syria, as China believed, in which case he still posed a massive threat to the region.

I don't doubt for one minute that hindsight has enabled Blair to possibly 're-align' some of his arguments but equally, hindsight has allowed the anti-war protaganists to justify their views on the basis that no WMD was found.

You can only act on what you know at any given time and not what you might know in a few years time.

Some thing weird happening regarding the quotes!!

 

[public school boy]

...except it was very clearly sailing AWAY from the conflict area at the time and thereby posed no threat EXCEPT in the view of those (Thatcher) who made the decision.



The sinking of The Belgrano was horrific but had to be done. At the time if The Belgrano was sailing away from the conflict area, which depends on where one defines the conflict area being, iand The Belgrano had been left to slip through the net and then come back to inflict casualties on the task force what would the responce have been then?

 

[Acker79]

Some thing weird happening regarding the quotes!!

Someone somewhere along the thread didn't check their mark ups. Often occurs when cutting down someone's post to the relevant line or paragraph and accidentally cutting off the "[/" bit.



For what it's worth my opinion is that Tony Blair genuinely believed invading iraq and ousting saddam was the right thing to do. Whether he truly believed the evidence about WMD etc I'm not so sure.

I think Bush wasn't so concerned with ousting Saddam or freeing the iraqi people from an evil dictator, for him it was politics, oil, etc. and he knew the evidence was shoddy, imo.

 

[severnside gull]

At the end of the day the who thing is a complete and utter waste of time and money, what is the point ? What does this whole exercise intend to achieve ? What will we learn if anything ? No doubt the next time something like this happens the findings of this commission will be ignored anyway.

indeed

on the positive side - no prime minister will take us to war again without much more careful consideration

as I said before - we can chose whether or not to elect them

 

[El Presidente]

The Chilcott IInquiry will do nothing more than reinforce the views of Blair's supporters and detractors, and of course cost the taxpayer a fortune.

Let's just hope that the bill comes to less than the £400,000,000 that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry has cost to date, and which has still not produced a report.