Beer now inside keyboard

 

I think it's a pretty futile argument for me, as ultimately I was wrong, and we made a bad situation worse.
All I can reflect upon is how I felt at the time. It was abhorrent to me that Saddam was allowed to carry on brutalising his people.
It wasn't pre-ordained to turn out the way it did. I think you know that; but it's easy to claim certainty now.
I completely take your point on Robin Cook, I have huge respect for him, but please don't use speeches by Benn and Corbyn as evidence. They gave virtually the same speech before ANY western intervention, largely framed by their anti-US predisposition.


Define the 'international community', as I fear more revisionism taking over here. If you mean France, Chirac (corrupt) fighting for re-election and using a popular anti-US platform, or Russia (being Russia) then they certainly did not represent the international community.
The US, UK, German, Chinese, French, Israeli and Russian intelligence services all believed Iraq maintained WMD capability, so on that, the international community were remarkably united.


It is just possible that people just got it badly wrong with terrible consequences, ultimately I believe that's what Chilcot said.

 

David, sorry I completely disagree with you on this...


Define 'strong', hopefully you don't mean sadistic murderer?


If you believe that people don't deserve self determination, and the only solution is murderous totalitarianism to control them, then that's a tragically cynical world view.


I believe that what people really want is the best for their families, representative governance and economic opportunity.

 

And it was those beliefs that ultimately led us to war.

We should NOT have interfered. What they HAD was 1000% better than what they now have. I'm afraid your post simply mirrors western arrogance..."it works for us, it'll work for them...."

 

Bizarrely I'm with Alcazar on this one. It's all well and good saying they deserved self determination and that's what we were going to give them but just look at the mess that created and not just in Iraq. We've quite successfully had a hand in destabilising a large part of Africa/the Middle East.

 

Agree wholeheartedly...and we are still reaping the whirlwind.

 

I'd say they're universal values, not Western values

 

No, I don't think so.

Very good point, Martin. I put forward the same point here a while ago.

 

On that very simple premise, do you think that punitive action should be taken against those ultimately responsible?

 

If they broke the law, then they should obviously be prosecuted. So yes.

 

We, or more precisely, "they" could argue all day long about the wording of the applicable UK and international laws. It could take decades to see any progress from that line action.

I'm thinking of punitive action based on more civil levels rather than legal; Say, if in a business, a manager was found to be incompetent; sacking, pay cuts etc. Or military; demotion, military courts.

On a political level I think we should review those currently in the employ and suspend them as per employment law, pending review. As for Blair, it appears to be smoke and mirrors in terms of facts to what he is getting from the UK coffers....for example there are stories about the cost of his bodyguards, true or not I care not to say. Then there his membership of the Labour party, and what level that currently is; and would it be in Corbyn's (or his successor) best interest to expel him.

 

See, that's where you go wrong. YOUR universal values just aren't.

 

I don't follow

 

It's not Western arrogance. People have the right to self determination.
It's arrogance to suggest they don't or are in some way unworthy of this.
The people of Iraq (and Afganiatan) risked their lives to vote, and had turn outs that would shame any Western democracy. So please explain why you think they are so very different to us?

 

Please explain in what way you think our interference in Iraq and Afghanistan has a) worked, and b) made either country better?

You cannot impose your values on everyone, Martin. That you would want to do so surprises me not.

"I'M right! YOU are wrong!!!"

LOL

 

What good is democracy if it ruins the country you give it to?

 

It was Western arrogance that gave rise to the delusion that an invasion of Muslim countries by the despised Christians was ever going to be successful once the initial targets had been removed or sidelined (Sadam/Taliban). Boot on the other foot, imagine a Muslim-led invasion of any European country, however justified. It would not go well and resistance to the invading forces would be almost immediate.

Legal or not, the Blair/Bush alliance would now be viewed as a great success had the aftermath not been so hopelessly handled. There was no plan of any sort in place to deal with this, so a successful operation turned sour very quickly. The invaders stood by and did nothing while the indigenous population literally tore Bagdahd apart. It set the scene for what followed.

It is now so important that the resulting Isis is defeated by Arab forces, the worst scenario being yet more Christian ground forces 'assisting'.

 

Do you and I speak different languages?


When did I say our intervention was a success, or make those country's better? So why are you asking me to explain that it did?


I don't want to impose my values on anyone, again when did I say anything like that?


My point was simply that self determination, wanting the best for your family, and economic opportunity, are universal values. To be honest I didn't think that was controversial.


I totally reject thee notion that what's good for these people is brutal totalitarianism, it's arrogant of us to suggest that.

 

I think that the initial involvement is not the issue, it's the complete ***** we made of after. Like teenagers, we make a mess and never clear it up.......


I do think that Saddam and the Taliban should have been removed, but ensured that what followed was suitable for them.


That said, I'm not sure there is a suitable answer for the Middle East.

 

 

It's arrogant of the West to believe it has the right to interfere in other people's business; Christians 'saving' Muslims will never be accepted. However oppressed they may be it's up to them to sort it out, as they are now doing with Isis.

 

The attempt to impose a western, Christian democracy on Iraq was consequential to killing Saddam Hussain and deposing the incumbent administration. It was not the reason for going to "war".

There have been, and probably always will be many other brutally oppressive regimes controlling countries that no one gives a **** about.

Whatever reason we really went to war with Iraq for, saving the poor people from a bad man wasn't one of them.

I wonder if you polled the general Iraqi population now whether they would think that what the US and the UK did to their country was a good thing?