UK rules out military action in Iraq.

[LargeHadronZugzwang]

No. He just believed things that suited his view. Something that is going on throughout this thread.

Since when did people of this thread advocate using 400 tonnes of DU? You seem obsessed by the fact that he was justified in believing there was WMD: this is absolute cockamamie baloney. Do you know what it means to USE WMD? The hundreds of cases of cancer in children, a polluted landscape...There are over 300 sites now in Iraq that are heavily contaminated. Now, to argue that this has done any good thanks to a demented conviction is plain bananas.

 

[somerset]

Iran is more than capable, and as they are ISIS's target after Iraq and Syria,.

So how would the active involvement of Shia Iran be anymore of a recruitment opportunity for Sunni militants than America getting involved?

 

[Leighgull]

Not just on this thread, Blair misleading the country with sexed up intelligence was a national topic which has been highlighted again with recent events. I can assure you it is not a NSC fabrication.

Blair can hide behind saying he believed there was wmd for the rest of his life which I am sure he will. But if that really was his belief, it was because he was lied to, and fooled by Bush.

At best his excuse is that he was manipulated by Bush's lies, and on that basis whether he lied or truly believed, we invaded Iraq on the basis of a lie and under false pretences.

He was weak and fell for it hook line and sinker and he was party to it with his willful neglect of his duty to the world and incompetence.

Strongly disagree with that. He was the one who held Bush back, insisted on UN sanction and another round of weapons inspections.

Without him Bush would have gone in alone and without any further politicking and god knows what would have happened. He obviously felt that the English speaking world had to stand together on this and staked his legacy on Iraqi WMD.

If he had been RIGHT and WMD had been uncovered he would be totally vindicated. He has oft said that he still believes Saddam had to go but that it is a matter of huge personal regret that the basis for invasion turned out to be wrong.

Do people think that, if we hadn't gone in, that the Middle East would just calm down and sort itself out? The long game is important here. The US and UK sent a message to every Middle Eastern Dictator, whether it be the house of Saud or the Ayatollah...Mess with us and you'll end up like Saddam..on the end of a rope or like Gaddafi hiding in a sewage pipe.


It ultimately powered the Arab spring...we poked the wasps nest but it was always going to spill out sooner or later

 

[martyn20]

Strongly disagree with that. He was the one who held Bush back, insisted on UN sanction and another round of weapons inspections.

Without him Bush would have gone in alone and without any further politicking and god knows what would have happened. He obviously felt that the English speaking world had to stand together on this and staked his legacy on Iraqi WMD.

If he had been RIGHT and WMD had been uncovered he would be totally vindicated. He has oft said that he still believes Saddam had to go but that it is a matter of huge personal regret that the basis for invasion turned out to be wrong.

Do people think that, if we hadn't gone in, that the Middle East would just calm down and sort itself out? The long game is important here. The US and UK sent a message to every Middle Eastern Dictator, whether it be the house of Saud or the Ayatollah...Mess with us and you'll end up like Saddam..on the end of a rope or like Gaddafi hiding in a sewage pipe.


It ultimately powered the Arab spring...we poked the wasps nest but it was always going to spill out sooner or later

THEY WERE NOT THERE AND ALL THE EXPERTS ON IRAQ AND WMD TOLD THEM SO, where do you think these non-existent bombs would have come from that COULD have vindicated him?

 

[Leighgull]

THEY WERE NOT THERE AND ALL THE EXPERTS ON IRAQ AND WMD TOLD THEM SO, where do you think these non-existent bombs would have come from that COULD have vindicated him?

We know they aren't there NOW but Blair BELIEVED they were there THEN. Do you see the difference?

 

[martyn20]

We know they aren't there NOW but Blair BELIEVED they were there THEN. Do you see the difference?

How can he have believed it, everyone told him they were not! Everyone on the ground in Iraq said they did not have them. Surely you have to be very, very sure before you start a war, show me the evidence he had that the rest of the world, Hans Blix and the UN did not have?

 

[daveinprague]

So how would the active involvement of Shia Iran be anymore of a recruitment opportunity for Sunni militants than America getting involved?

Tradition.

They already hate Iran, and execute shia prisoners with such phrases as the Persian virus etc....and vow to deal with Iran in the future.

 

[symyjym]

Strongly disagree with that. He was the one who held Bush back, insisted on UN sanction and another round of weapons inspections.

Without him Bush would have gone in alone and without any further politicking and god knows what would have happened. He obviously felt that the English speaking world had to stand together on this and staked his legacy on Iraqi WMD.

If he had been RIGHT and WMD had been uncovered he would be totally vindicated. He has oft said that he still believes Saddam had to go but that it is a matter of huge personal regret that the basis for invasion turned out to be wrong.

Do people think that, if we hadn't gone in, that the Middle East would just calm down and sort itself out? The long game is important here. The US and UK sent a message to every Middle Eastern Dictator, whether it be the house of Saud or the Ayatollah...Mess with us and you'll end up like Saddam..on the end of a rope or like Gaddafi hiding in a sewage pipe.


It ultimately powered the Arab spring...we poked the wasps nest but it was always going to spill out sooner or later

So when the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Saddam did not have wmd capabilities we went in anyway. Why have weapons inspectors if you are going to ignore their hands on educated report.

If Blair had been right It cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives to prove the UN right.

You obviously do not care about the deaths of innocent people and feel it was totally justified. Just for a moment think of them as real people with families like we have, and if you had to bury your children, wife, sisters, brothers, parents and other relatives after collecting their scattered remains. Your home torn to shreds from bullets and missiles, your schools and hospitals becoming non existent, no water, no power and no infrustructure.

 

[daveinprague]

I'm fine with it , it just highlights what a know nothing plank you really are, for someone who professes to know something about this situation it was laughable, as for the bottle job comment , what do you mean ?? I'd be careful how you answer that , because I'm sure you're referring to your offer to meet me on St Georges day , which you eventually insisted was for "talks" , as I said be careful how you answer it because I have a link to the thread at hand, and even you wouldn'thave the front to edit your posts this far down tthe line.

Ah, Lack-bottle speaks...says nothing as usual.
'as I said be careful how you answer it because I have a link to the thread at hand' - Possibly one of the most tragic admissions ive heard on NSC.


Yeah, show everybody the link...where I said id meet you during my short weekend visit to Brighton, and you decided I should travel to Haywards Heath? That one?

#boo hoo...but you said you would meet anywhere blah blah blah#
Everybody knew what I meant....including you lack-bottle.

Try to keep with the thread instead of your usual playground bollocks.

 

[The Spanish]

I agree about the constant drip, the invasion of Iraq seemed to be the icing on the cake with regard the UN's total break down to ineffectiveness.

the icing on the cake was Cyprus in 1974, after that the UN was a busted flush in terms of political stabilisation. Ironically it can be strongly argued that Turkish intervention stabilised an unstable situation long term that the UN presence was exacerbating. Some sterling work done in Yugoslavia but to imagine it to be an organisation that can rectify issues on ethnic nationalist or sectarian faultlines apart from temporarily halting immediate shooting wars (and in fairness allowing negotiation, but rarely achieving long term solutions) is vastly overestimating its capabilities. And no disrespect to the people on the ground on this.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

We know they aren't there NOW but Blair BELIEVED they were there THEN. Do you see the difference?

Stop rewriting history. The UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD at the time.

To quote from Wikipedia 'In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.'

This from the BBC website:

Dr Blix said his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

As head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) between 1999 and 2003, Dr Blix was a key figure in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion as he sought to determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programme.

'No smoking gun'
Asked about the inspections he oversaw between November 2002 and 18 March 2003 - when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on the eve of the war - he said he was "looking for smoking guns" but did not find any.

While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond the permitted range, missile engines and a stash of undeclared documents, he said these were "fragments" and not "very important" in the bigger picture.

"We carried out about six inspections per day over a long period of time.

"All in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites and, in no case, did we find any weapons of mass destruction."

Although Iraq failed to comply with some of its disarmament obligations, he added it "was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they did not have any".


Just because B.Liar may (or may not) have believed Iraq had WMD, he had no evidence whatsoever to back up his belief.

The invasion of Iraq was immoral and illegal.

 

[Goldstone76]

For sure the West didnt help Iraq.. inasmuch as there was no thought about how to bring Iraq into a peaceful era. It was the minority Sunnis who ruled Iraq and not the Shias. Iraq's leader is being criticised for incompetance and creating even more of a divide than there was. This wasnt something that came as a surprise.. it had been suggested many months ago. In the grand scheme of things ISIS is taking advantage of Iraq incompetance and playing the religious divide card. They want a Sunni rising against the Shias and the West. Shias actually form the majority in Iraq and also Iran but not the world.. in fact the Sunnis are far more in number. The irony is that Saudi Arabians (Sunni) are more than happy with whats happening as it could well destabilise the SA Royal Family's control over the country. Iran who is majority Shia are now rather worried if this escalates hence the possible change of mind about relations with the USA/UK. ISIS know full well they cannot stay in control of the cities/towns so they are either going to become 'martyrs' or will merge back into civilians. This is all about sectarianism caused by government incompetance by the West and Iraq. Whats really interesting is how ISIS are using the media to get their message out to create fear but also a following..

 

[symyjym]

the icing on the cake was Cyprus in 1974, after that the UN was a busted flush in terms of political stabilisation. Ironically it can be strongly argued that Turkish intervention stabilised an unstable situation long term that the UN presence was exacerbating. Some sterling work done in Yugoslavia but to imagine it to be an organisation that can rectify issues on ethnic nationalist or sectarian faultlines apart from temporarily halting immediate shooting wars (and in fairness allowing negotiation, but rarely achieving long term solutions) is vastly overestimating its capabilities. And no disrespect to the people on the ground on this.

The UN have a very difficult job and are not perfect, I agree, but what makes it even harder for them is when it's founding members the UK and America ignore them. If we ignore them what message does it send to the wider world?

I have said earlier on this thread, we call the western world an advance civilisation, and we have a duty to lead by example, or practice what we preach. All we have taught the Middle East and the rest of the world is that war and killing is acceptable (if it's the West doing it, that is) which doesn't add up on paper when broadcasting a message.

A perfect UN may take a few hundred years, but the problem lays with the countries they have to deal with.

 

[beorhthelm]

... This is all about sectarianism caused by ...

... hundreds of years of sectarian division and misgudied belief. please stop this pretense that we in the west have created this scism in islam, its been there since the 7th century. they arent trying to create any rising against the west, they dont care about the west, only their medieval interpretation of what some chap said.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It'll be a whole new ball game when it spreads into Eastern Turkey.

 

[Goldstone76]

... hundreds of years of sectarian division and misgudied belief. please stop this pretense that we in the west have created this scism in islam, its been there since the 7th century. they arent trying to create any rising against the west, they dont care about the west, only their medieval interpretation of what some chap said.

I agree with you to a degree. The succession of Muhammad split Islam into Sunni and Shia plus many other variations. Islam has been in conflict with itself much the same as Christianity. They do for sure want to create an uprising in the West..and they also want to destroy anything Shia. The West has most definitely inflamed the situation..

 

[Dandyman]

the icing on the cake was Cyprus in 1974, after that the UN was a busted flush in terms of political stabilisation. Ironically it can be strongly argued that Turkish intervention stabilised an unstable situation long term that the UN presence was exacerbating. Some sterling work done in Yugoslavia but to imagine it to be an organisation that can rectify issues on ethnic nationalist or sectarian faultlines apart from temporarily halting immediate shooting wars (and in fairness allowing negotiation, but rarely achieving long term solutions) is vastly overestimating its capabilities. And no disrespect to the people on the ground on this.

Interesting comment about Cyprus. The situation there was also riven by superpower manipulation including the US support of the dictatorship in Athens.

 

[symyjym]

Interesting comment about Cyprus. The situation there was also riven by superpower manipulation including the US support of the dictatorship in Athens.

The US supported Turkey as well back then so that was probably why they turned their backs on Cyprus.

 

[The Spanish]

Interesting comment about Cyprus. The situation there was also riven by superpower manipulation including the US support of the dictatorship in Athens.

total myth. makarios's strength regarding the non aligned movement is vastly over rated on this issue. kissinger if anything tacitly supported attila 2 despite callaghans best efforts. of course there were NATO issues at play but if Greek nationalists hadnt started shooting British servicemens wives in Ledra Street there would be no invasion or partition, that would have happened in 64 ten years earlier if the US hadnt slapped turkey down. let alone the greeks going mental in tyrlliria which caused the first invasion threat (arguably legal) in the first place.


The global geopolitical conspiracy when it comes to Cyprus is a propaganda issue on both the enosis and taksim sides that has little bearing on fact designed to deflect blame from the terrible behaviour on both sides. The greeks (or at least sampson and his cronies) messed up phenomenally. the turks took appalling and unforgiveable and excessive revenge. not the US or the Briitsh fault.

 

[The Spanish]

plus the fact from christmas 63 the UN effort was almost entirely a de facto british military one. it was only after 74 that it became genuiely multinational.