66 Blue

If Blair admitted he messed up perhaps things wouldn't be as bad, I think a lot of the general public are just sick of him passing the buck and telling lies....
He is a spineless $hit in my opinion!

And is Blair to more to blame than Sadam?? two wrongs don't make a right!! they are both complete *****!

Alan C

The majority share of 50% is still a majority. Me being pedantic.

There was never any credible evidence to suggest the contrary. I could probably write a 10 word statement of fact that could be taken 3 different ways. Facts & figures, as we know, can be used to backup most cases. Gatso's anyone?

I'm not judging that's the point. I'm trying to give a balanced view becuase I/we don't have all the facts. I'm also trying to say that it's time to move on. The deed has been done. Arguing the toss about who said what, when and in what context only serves to complicate matters further and serves no real practical purpose when all energies whould be directed at making things better.

I Agree with the first part. Gatso statistics can be taken either way. They either save lives and are the answer or they are a recenue earning con.. This depends upon whether you drive a Scoob or Skoda (Non RS of course!).

Not quite. My son standing next to the wall of a drawing of a red scoob with a red pen blaming his 6 month old sister means I don't have too much trouble spotting the lie. Until there is some fact, rather than baseless speculation, then stating that he is a liar ruins any credible argument you may have put together.

Alan C

I'm quite enjoying this..

Echo

How do we know if those alleged weapons were not smuggled in to Syria or Iran? Seems like many of the 'terrorists' at the moment are reported as coming from/via there, so it could equally have been that the bad stuff exited that way?

Leslie

Alan C.

There is a great deal of evidence in the Butler report to show that we were all seriously misled over the need to attack Iraq in the first place. It is just that as usual the politicians are saying what they want us to hear regardless of whether it is the truth or not. If they say it often enough they almost begin to believe it themselves.

JIC gave warnings that the intelligence information was unsafe while we were being told that the information was more positive! Why?

The basic fact remains that we were taken into a war which was an internationally illegal act and that we lost 60 of our servicemen and many thousands of innocent Iraqi's were also killed. Regardless of whether Sadam Hussein's regime was halted which has never been an excuse for attacking a country, Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorism which is terrifying for the Iraqis and dangerous for the rest of the world. If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to continue then there would have been no need to go to war. Why didn't they wait for that confirmation or otherwise? All these points were obvious before we attacked Iraq.

Don't understand your remark about my "blind faith in writing a post". Bit too deep for me I'm afraid. I am as entitled as you are to comment of course, and even to say you are wrong too! Just as much as you are to blindly support the Government's actions.

Carry on enjoying it.

Les

Frosty The Snowman

As far as I'm concerned the guy was a complete fruit loop. He killed umpteen 1000's of his own populace because of their religious beliefs or that they were of a different ethnic culture. He deserved to be "dealt" with

I always consider it's the same as walking by someone getting knocked senseless by a couple of people and not lifting a finger to help, just on a much bigger scale. There will always be the secondary, or perhaps primary depending what you've heard, issue of oil and money but I think it's on balance a good thing that's happened. Trouble is we may just be in the same situation with the new guys running the place but only time will tell.

When Iran detained our forces blokes, who were having a nice day out on the water, the situation could of gone south very rapidly as I reckon that would have been all the justification needed to go to war and sort out two rather substantial trouble makers in one hit.


Mark

CrisPDuk

This was NEVER a widely held belief within the UN, in fact the French and the Germans categorically believed the opposite, and their intelligence sources in that part of the world are far more reliable, even now, than the US's will ever be.
But rather than listen to the reasoned arguments put forward by the French (backed up by the Russians and to some extent the Chinese) Dubya's government chose to engage in a campaign of vilification and hatred against them. Only now are the Americans starting to realise that their government may just be under the control of a dumb-assed redneck in the thrall of oil barons and arms dealers.

BTW it wasn't just Saddam that the Americans leveraged into power. Following several CIA reports saying that he was 'a good man to do business with', Jimmy Carter elected to withdraw US support from the Shah of Iran (admittedly not a very nice man) and offer it to the Ayatollah Khomeini! Then when he informed them that he wanted to run his country HIS way, not theirs, they got Saddam to start a war in an attempt to remove him! Another great call by the all seeing Central Intelligence Agency

gsm1

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Alan?

You're not giving any kind of balanced view. We DO have the facts. Already two reports (as biased as they were towards the govt) conclude that there was no WMD and Blair was talking out of his ar*e.

That really sums up your argument. You say you didn't vote for Blair? You sure you're not a paid up member of the Labour Party? That line comes straight out of the NuLabour hymn sheet.

Brendan Hughes

Brilliant.

Surely the same argument can be used by Saddam Hussain re gassing of Kurds, Slobodan Milosovic re genocide in Bosnia, **** war criminals etc etc? After all, it was at least six months ago, so why carry on worrying about it?

There were massive protests of citizens (sorry, "Saddam appeasers") before the war all over the world, resignations in the British government, revolts in the Security Council, all by people who could see that this was going to be pushed as a fait accompli by Bush and Blair. It would start with the pathetic premise built on 9/11 that we're all in mortal danger, and end up with "ah well, we weren't in danger but at least we got rid of that nasty dictator, so that makes it all OK." The end justifies the means.

If you believe in the accountability of politicians, then hold them accountable - Saddam, Bush and Blair. There is, or there should be, one legal system for all. If you're happy with the ruling system of "might is right" that the US and UK have gone for, then you should also accept that Saddam ruled his country by the same principle. You have remarkable double standards.

Brit_in_Japan

A good debate, provided it's illuminated with some facts, is always good fun.

Brian Jones, former head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the defence intelligence staff said this morning on Radio 4 that amongst the security agencies Iraq was not regarded as a large threat to the UK. In fact he said they would not even have used the word "threat" as that carries a certain weight in intelligence circles that was not supported by the intelligence. He said at the time there were "worries" and "concerns" regards Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Would Blair have got support in the House of Commons if he'd said "We are really concerned about Iraq" ? I think not.

The more we hear, the more it seems like the intelligence was not wrong, it was always incomplete and accompanied by caveats. If it had been presented in a balanced way by the govt it could not have been used as a justification to invade Iraq. So how did the balanced evidence of the intelligence services get spun into the concrete case for war that Tony Blair presented? This very issue still has not been answered by any of the inquiries.

Alan, there is a world of difference between the links between Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. He had training bases there and was protected by the Taliban. The single most effective move the west has made against Al Qaeda was taking out those bases in Afghanistan. The links (what tenuous links there were) between Iraq and Al Qaeda were so weak that no intelligence agency in the world links Saddam with what happened on 9/11. That was true then, it's still true today.

We were taken into war against Iraq on the premise that it was because of his WMD programmes. When that that started to look like a dodgy arguement they claimed it didn't matter because they had enough authority to invade based on many earlier UN resolutions. Not one resolution specifically authorised the invasion of Iraq however. 1441 only talked of "serious consequences", a term the other security council members considered insufficient to justify invasion. No wonder France and co got the hump when the US/UK then claimed that was the coded meaning behind it.

Alan C

Yes, when I found religion, won the lottery and became self styled cult leader.

Back to reality.

Blair did what he felt was right as he perceives it. We may never know the percentages made up of;

Regime change
Oil securing
WMD
Terrorist supporting
Finishing the job from Bush Snr
Power craziness
Etc etc.
that went into the final decision to go to war.

All the assessment of intelligence (or lack off) all the spin, rhetoric and posturing was done for more than just stopping WMD, as has been proved with the shifting of emphasis onto other areas. WMD was used because that appeared to be the strongest supporting case at the time.

As for ‘might is right’, it really depends on who’s wielding it. Ruling with might by gassing a whole village and killing thousands is a little different to morally using it to remove the tyrant wielding that might for indefensible reasons, ie securing his own despotic rule.

I do feel that by being weak and indecisive allows the bully’s to grow stronger. It was a failure of our own system over the years to support & allow Saddam & the other tyrannical puppets to prosper. It appears they’ve come back to haunt us.

Anyway, surely democracy, freedom of speech & social equality is right? If might has to be used to secure it, then so be it.

Maybe crass & clichéd, but what’s the problem with securing freedom and rights for everyone?

vindaloo

It's wrong when the only way you can get a mandate to secure those freedoms and rights is to mislead.

J.

Alan C

I don't think the millions who've celebrated the regime change care too much how it happened.

Maybe those in Sudan wouid fancy a regime change? If they prospered, would that be a bad thing?

You/we may have been mislead, but in this case, the ends may have justified the means..

gsm1

Iraq is now prospering? Whatever happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqi people, not up to you. It's not YOUR country.

Easy to talk rubbish when when it's not your house or family being blown to pieces. Who made you God?

Alan C

Excuse me? Your reply an my post don't seem to match.

1. When did I say Iraq was prospering?
2. When did I say what happens in Iraq is down to me?
3. When did I say it's my Country & responsibility?
4. God? I don't beleive.

Re-read it and reply again. I simply said that the millions who waited for the change are welcoming it with open arms. Many beleive it will be better. With their determination and resolve, I don't sdoubt it. I'm sure it's hell for the majority. But come back to me in say, 12 months, and we'll see what difference has been made. Far to soon to judge. OK?

You seemed to evade the bit about Sudan. Regime change or some kind words of support and a few million pounds in aid that can siphoned off by some corrupt officials?

Final thing. After 22 years in the military (leaving last year) I've done my bit in Sierra Leone, Mozambique and a few other places helping out. May I ask your contribution to these unfortunate peoples plight? Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not having a go. I just want to put my experiences into giving aid in the Mozambique floods into persepctive to what I'm posting.

Leslie

Any sensible person will decry the situation in the Sudan, but we were talking about Iraq which is not connected.

Of course the removal of Saddam is a good thing, but was it done in the best way when so many thousands of innocent civilians were killed, the infrastructure of the country was destroyed, and now it is the world centre for terrorism with all the fear that that entails. This was an illegal pre-emptive attack with no good reason and it has also never been regarded to be legal to carry out an attack purely for regime change. This country and the States will be tainted with that fact for years to come!

Reports that Allawi seems to feel that he personally has to carry out summary executions and chop people's hands off etc. dont engender too much faith in the US choice of a new leader either. Also the fact that he was an enforcer for Saddam Hussein doesn't help!

I have also done my bit in the military, a lot longer than you too.

Les

Alan C

Not in Blair's, the Tories, some of this Government, Spanish government or a percentage of the population etc it wasn't. That's my point. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm sure they all would have chosen to do things slightly different now. But the decision was made, right or wrong and now is the time to put it right.

It may never have been regarded legal in the past to have a regime change, but maybe the time's right now to change that view.

We'll never know.

Pleasent guy. Should we sit back and let this happen? I don't think so. people like that NEED to be removed. Period. I can't see how anybody could reasonably argue against it..

That's great to see. I'm not sure how much UN/Peace keeping/support work you did, but being in the military does give you a different perspective. Driving through Freetown certainly does put our life here in the West into perspective.

gsm1

Alan, giving aid is one thing, invading a country illegally and changing it's government is another.

You seem to believe that it's ok for the US/UK to invade sovereign nations, then why shouldn't any other country invade whoever they like for the same reasons?

Here's a quote from an American general which I believe is still relevant today. It's a pity the Americans still haven't learned:

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own -- and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

General David M. Shoup, May 14, 1966

Alan C

That's a great quote and, I agree, one I wish we could still find relevant today. But it is a quote that was said in a simpler time prior to the global terrorism we see today.

The same terrorism that is able to kill 3,000+ people in a single act, and probably the same terrorism that may be able to set off a nuclear or biological weapon in central London.

It's also before the time we could get to see these '..depressed, exploited people..' on out TV screens being massacred so clearly (Rwanda for example) or having the graphic details of the Sudanese disasater showing 24*7 on Sky. What about Daniel Perl & the others being beheaded on your PC screen?

A different time my friend, requiring different tactics, thought and resolution.

Surely you don't advocate leaving the Sudanese people to fend for themselves as they plead for your help?

Brendan Hughes

You really are a sucker for Fox News and GWB aren't you?

We're talking about Iraq. Not Osama Bin Laden.

THERE IS NO LINK.

Alan C

Brendan.

I've never said there's a provable link. The Government have though, and not just with Iraq. The'yve also mentioned Syria & the US are now looking at Iran. But the whole issue IS tied up with WMD, Terrorist supporting states etc.. there is a link.

No provable one with Iraq, but that won't stop them looking there and elsewhere.

So you feel that 911 was a 'one off' strike that couldn't be bettered or replicated?

If you do, then I wish I had your faith.

Brendan Hughes

1. No, you don't say a provable link, but you constantly link the worst terrorist atrocity in the world to justifications for invading Iraq. Just like Blair, Bush etc. Logical people, rather than the Government that you seem to have such faith in, would link it to Afghanistan where OBL lives or Saudi Arabia where most of the attackers came from. Saudi Arabia by the way also has a total dictatorship, repression of women, torture etc; and it funded wahabbism (fundamentalist Islamic) schools in Afghanistan throughout the 90s. Do I see you or anyone else advocating their invasion and regime change? No. Are they ever mentioned? No. Just 3000+ people, Iraq, always in the same sentence. And we're sick of it.

2. Iran. Yeah, don't make me laugh. They're under suspicion as they "passed through" Iran. You don't see the US Government under suspicion as they harboured 20 dodgy Arabs as residents for months and allowed them to take flying lessons unmonitored, do you? No, but let's all point the finger at Iran as another new, evil enemy, as they were allowed to transit there.

As someone who has apparently spent 22 years in the services, your naiivité astounds me. What rank did you leave as; Corporal?

OllyK

Iran a NEW enemy me thinks you jest!

Alan C

Thanks Brendan.

Your closed mind and need to shout people down, as well as throwing the odd insult, typify the chipped shoulder minority and ultimately loose you respect.

Ok, you have an opinion, you don't see me slagging it off. You see me with an open mind wanting to look at all sides carefully, with some consideration and intelligence.

This is called debating, not arguing your point with no consideration for any other point of view.

We are talking about the Invasion of Iraq and the reasons the US, UK, Spain etc went to war. Terrorism supporting state WAS ONE of the links, not the main one admittedly, so it is quite reasonable to put the two together.

And I completely agree with you about Saudi Arabia so you could add that to the list where Democracy should be nurtured.

BTW. I'm sure there's plenty of Corporals out there who would take great offence to that comment. I would happily replace 90%+ of the civilian workforce I've worked alongside with any Corporal I've worked with. I think you'd find their loyalty, professionalism, honour and work ethic quite refreshing.