General / Off-Topic Blair, Iraq, War.
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
"Let's talk soon
"Yours ever
"Tony
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36722312
He wasn't just Bushes poodle, he was Bushes female poodle, if you catch my drift.
"Yours ever
"Tony
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36722312
He wasn't just Bushes poodle, he was Bushes female poodle, if you catch my drift.
Sometimes, there are few words for something so disgusting.
Over the last couple of days, we've basically had Tony being told he was completely wrong in every way to go to war, and what do we get?
"I feel more sorrow and regret than you can ever imagine". Seriously...should you not feel sorrow when the death was caused, and not because you've been given a telling off?
And then a day later, "I stand by what I did and the world is a better place for the war I started". Everything considered, there are no words you can use other than a) imprison him immediately, and b) re-introduce hanging.
Over the last couple of days, we've basically had Tony being told he was completely wrong in every way to go to war, and what do we get?
"I feel more sorrow and regret than you can ever imagine". Seriously...should you not feel sorrow when the death was caused, and not because you've been given a telling off?
And then a day later, "I stand by what I did and the world is a better place for the war I started". Everything considered, there are no words you can use other than a) imprison him immediately, and b) re-introduce hanging.
Probably not.
I didn't want to presume the feelings of others here, which is why I tried to be as non-committal as possible.
It seems however, the verdict is set.
I hope some who may have different points of view will feel free to express these. I hope also that we can all treat dissenting attitudes intellectually.
So far, I haven't found any anywhere.
I would love to hear what Blair thinks the world would be like if we hadn't gone to war.
Maybe this path was the lesser of two evils and "alternate Earth" is a real mess, but I've never seen it articulated as to what not going to war would have unleashed, and how it's worse than now.
- What would Iraq look like? Would it be the sectarian mess it is now?
- What circumstances would have occurred to kill more Iraqis than the current situation?
- Would ISIS have still arisen in Iraq?
- How would the West be less safe than it is now?
Maybe this path was the lesser of two evils and "alternate Earth" is a real mess, but I've never seen it articulated as to what not going to war would have unleashed, and how it's worse than now.
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
People (Soldiers and Iraqis) lost their lives based on something that just wasn't true. We left a country in pieces that we should never have been in and created a complete mess. Someone needs to answer for that and in my view the man who oversaw the whole sorry mess was Tony Blair.
Bush and the CIA are to blame. I have stated this before on this subject. Yes Blair, should have had some 'balls' and said no to him, but the blame for the whole thing, should be put at Bushes door.
After 9/11. Bush stated. 'You are either with us or against us!' The UK is the USAs, No1 friend. Trouble was, Bush then ran amok.
Saddam, murdered probably millions of his own people and many from neighbouring states. He invaded Kuwait, Iran and tried to exterminate the Kurds, among others and; at the time, you could not ignore those facts. He HAD used chemical and biological weapons and refused to work with the inspectors, looking for such things. The same inspectors, were also looking for launch capabilities and that was the main fear. If he had mid range missiles, Europe, would be in range, of chemical weapons, he HAD used before. Blair was told, that the CIA HAD prove of missiles and a nuclear capability etc.. (The 45 minutes propaganda) British intelligence could not confirm, or deny the CIA claims and needed time. Hans Blix and about 400 inspectors were not out there on holiday, or to build sand castles; they were there, because the whole world was scared. Again: Saddam, had a history of USING such weapons. However: Bush would not wait, refused to go back to the UN and wait for ANOTHER resolution. Remember and understand; Saddam, had NOT complied with the UN resolution, already in place.
Yes Blair should have waited for the 2nd UN resolution; but would that have changed things? Only the date of the invasion, not the out come, not the mess we have now. (Most of the mess we have now in Iraq, is down to those in power afterwards. Iraqis taking revenge on other Iraqis, who supported the old regime and of course, a total lack of an exit strategy.) Just the date it all kicked off. Only to give Saddam more time to do as he wished. Yes; 100% Blair should have told Bush to prove the CIA intelligence, but to be blunt. The CIA was just doing Bushes bidding and would have probably fabricated the intelligence. So by the time MI6 had the balls to doubt the CIAs information, the invasion, was days away and could not be stopped. Also, remember, it was not just the USA and the UK. It was 40 other countries in that coalition. Most of which were afraid, that they would be Saddam's next target.
Yes: 100% agreed, Blair should and could have done things differently, but like it or not the choice was simple. The invasion would have had to happen, six months later maybe. Or Saddam would have escalated his aggression and other states, such as Israel, would have been hit. Also understand, that a greater percentage of Iraqis; than the British voted for Brexit, wanted Saddam gone.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and excellent for making judgements upon errors, made in the past.
After 9/11. Bush stated. 'You are either with us or against us!' The UK is the USAs, No1 friend. Trouble was, Bush then ran amok.
Saddam, murdered probably millions of his own people and many from neighbouring states. He invaded Kuwait, Iran and tried to exterminate the Kurds, among others and; at the time, you could not ignore those facts. He HAD used chemical and biological weapons and refused to work with the inspectors, looking for such things. The same inspectors, were also looking for launch capabilities and that was the main fear. If he had mid range missiles, Europe, would be in range, of chemical weapons, he HAD used before. Blair was told, that the CIA HAD prove of missiles and a nuclear capability etc.. (The 45 minutes propaganda) British intelligence could not confirm, or deny the CIA claims and needed time. Hans Blix and about 400 inspectors were not out there on holiday, or to build sand castles; they were there, because the whole world was scared. Again: Saddam, had a history of USING such weapons. However: Bush would not wait, refused to go back to the UN and wait for ANOTHER resolution. Remember and understand; Saddam, had NOT complied with the UN resolution, already in place.
Yes Blair should have waited for the 2nd UN resolution; but would that have changed things? Only the date of the invasion, not the out come, not the mess we have now. (Most of the mess we have now in Iraq, is down to those in power afterwards. Iraqis taking revenge on other Iraqis, who supported the old regime and of course, a total lack of an exit strategy.) Just the date it all kicked off. Only to give Saddam more time to do as he wished. Yes; 100% Blair should have told Bush to prove the CIA intelligence, but to be blunt. The CIA was just doing Bushes bidding and would have probably fabricated the intelligence. So by the time MI6 had the balls to doubt the CIAs information, the invasion, was days away and could not be stopped. Also, remember, it was not just the USA and the UK. It was 40 other countries in that coalition. Most of which were afraid, that they would be Saddam's next target.
Yes: 100% agreed, Blair should and could have done things differently, but like it or not the choice was simple. The invasion would have had to happen, six months later maybe. Or Saddam would have escalated his aggression and other states, such as Israel, would have been hit. Also understand, that a greater percentage of Iraqis; than the British voted for Brexit, wanted Saddam gone.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and excellent for making judgements upon errors, made in the past.
True, but lots of people were pointing out at the time exactly the things that the report has highlighted.
Yup, if the UK hadn't joined I'm pretty sure the US would have gone on anyway. I don't think that is in question.
Yes Saddam was a bad man, but the UK intel at the time was that the then strategy of containment was working. As you say the US was going to do this anyway, UN or UK be damned. But the question is should the UK have followed them over the cliff, given it's own intelligence was saying that he wasn't a threat and the status quo was maintainable. The report makes it clear that the UK intelligence was not pointing to war but as Blair had decided to go with Bush, everything had to be moulded around that fact. Sort of starting with the answer and working backwards to get the question.
THe report does also seem to be critical of the processes used to make the decision as much as the decision itself. Can we look at what appears to be a process where the PM has a closed doors personal agreement with POTUS and then all the processes and checks and balances of government are bent to achive that promise?
Even a small firm will have a process for deciding on, and signing off on stuff like procurement of new machinery or something. It appears that, for pretty much the most important decision a government can make, not only were the processes inadequate, but those that were there weren't followed anyway.
We do need a much better process for deciding to use force.
I did have a vague idea about this a while ago.
The MoD is funded in two sections, ongoing costs (wages, repairs, training etc) and capital items (new ships, planes etc). The MoD also gives a report on it's readiness levels (i.e. what capacity we have).
When the government wants to go to war it asks the MoD to achive an objective and the MoD replies with an outline in time and cost e.g. we expect this to take a force of 5000men 6 months with some 200 casualties and a cost of £60bn the aftermath will take 5 years at a cost of £10bn a year falling to 3£bn. Overall deaths are estimated to be sub 1000 military and between 1 and 10k civilians. Essentially a "quote" for the war.
Parliament can then vote on whether to do it or not.
This excuse won't wash.
Bush was very threatening, but other EU countries held firm. France was labelled 'Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys'. I even recall baseball renaming French Fries Freedom Fries.
Blair and his cabinet are wholly responsible and all should be sent for trial.
And given his wife's position she, at least, must be held culpable.
It's refreshing to see these opinions.
It's a rather different story on some American game forums. :x
It's a rather different story on some American game forums. :x
I found most US forums to be rather aggressive. But a few excerpts might be interesting.
blair, aznar and bush should, all three warmongering champions. and a lot of others too.
most importantly because they should reveal who/what exactly got these three pathetic puppets pressured/motivated to go forward with that atrocity, because these people are the real danger for our civilization, this whole planet, and the fact that this disgrace was even possible calls for a thorough review of our democracies.
i suspect we would soon find out that quite a bunch of people should face trial.
but of course it won't happen. this is just summer holiday news.
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
Probably minority here but I agree with Arry on a couple of points.
First, a lot of people are talking like the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened if Tony Blair hadn't have agreed to it. That is clearly not true. The US would sooner or later have gone ahead anyway without us. It was actually only through Blair's intervention that the UN got involved at all - prior to that the US was just going to go ahead on their own.
So most of the mess that happened in the last 13 years would have happened anyway, and I tend to agree that if Blair is a war criminal, Bush must be doubly so.
So what's really at stake here is why the UK made the decision to join in what was going to happen anyway, made on the same fake evidence that the US was using.
I do remember back at the time hearing that speech that they had chemical weapons that could hit the UK in 45 minutes, I never believed that for a second, and it always felt like a stitch up because the US had decided to do this anyway.
So all you who are calling for TB to be prosecuted, why not Bush also?
First, a lot of people are talking like the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened if Tony Blair hadn't have agreed to it. That is clearly not true. The US would sooner or later have gone ahead anyway without us. It was actually only through Blair's intervention that the UN got involved at all - prior to that the US was just going to go ahead on their own.
So most of the mess that happened in the last 13 years would have happened anyway, and I tend to agree that if Blair is a war criminal, Bush must be doubly so.
So what's really at stake here is why the UK made the decision to join in what was going to happen anyway, made on the same fake evidence that the US was using.
I do remember back at the time hearing that speech that they had chemical weapons that could hit the UK in 45 minutes, I never believed that for a second, and it always felt like a stitch up because the US had decided to do this anyway.
So all you who are calling for TB to be prosecuted, why not Bush also?
Blair is indirectly responsible for the Brexit
Last edited: