Don't know if anyone else saw Blair on TV tonight calling for further intervention in Iraq. It was covered in the press here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/tony-blair-west-intervene-iraq-isis-military-options He said: "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not: and whether action or inaction is the best policy. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it." The barefaced arrogance of the man - not a shred of remorse. He advocates yet more British servicemen's lives to be put on the line in a clusterfuck of a country that was created out of the Blair/Bush unholy alliance, resulting in a man being put in power that alienated most of the country. IMO some countries can't handle democracy and aren't ready for it. They may never be. This is because of racial, tribal, and in this case, religious schisms. When we declared war I knew it would end in disaster as did many others. Saddam was a pig but he held the country together. God help China if the Communist Party ever falls because exactly the same thing will happen. But I was so incensed at Blair I had to vent here. Thoughts? And keep it civil if you're able.
In terms of causal factors for what we see in Iraq right now... I think the important question historians will mull over in the future when considering who is responsible for the disintegration of Iraq is "What was 'the Arab spring'?" I should add...I do share your distaste for Tony Blair and his statement Dragon (even though I'm not sure all of the blame for what's happening now in Iraq can be laid at his and Bush's door...their/our actions are certainly a major, major, factor in the misery that the Iraqi people have been subjected too and the horror that is unfolding)
It's sad to see the situation out there but its their way of life and belief. Let them get on with it and let the Arab world deal with arab way of life. I cant stand tony blair but he acted on intelligence given to him and acted accordingly with the majority of parliaments blessing....They had WOM there is no doubt about that as they used them but it has disappeared into thin air when the most likely answer is that its buried somewhere in Iraq's vast land......Never trust an Arab...
Dai do not try and re write history in your last post. Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes as he illegally dupted Parliament into thinking WMDs were there and thus took Britain into an illegal war. If you guys haven't seen the film yet, id suggest watching Green Zone starring Matt Damon. It certainly makes you wonder.
I said at the time that I didn't believe for a minute that Saddam had WMDs and told my other half I'd be amazed if any were found. The whole thing just smacked of a set up to me. We all know what happened. Bush was specifically asked about this and said "OK so Saddam didn't have WMDs...... but he COULD have had 'em!" So hundreds of thousands die because he "could" have had them. No connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam - in fact they were arch enemies and he was on their hit list. Bin Laden must have been laughing his socks off at Bush and Blair's stupidity following 9/11 because our troops did his work for him and have now created a vaccuum filled with his followers. What a legacy, fair play. What beggars belief is that Bush and particularly Blair haven't shown a shred of remorse or regret and how Blair has the brass neck to appear on TV and advocate further involvement, saying that these problems "would have happened anyway" makes me want to vomit. I swear I almost put my foot through the TV last night
I said at the time that I didn't believe for a minute that Saddam had WMDs and told my other half I'd be amazed if any were found. The whole thing just smacked of a set up to me. We all know what happened. Saddam Gassed 10,000 of his own people so he did have wmd and they probably still have somewhere. Tony blair is not to blame at all as it was passed by the majority of parliament at the time that we should get rid of Saddam and his wmd. I personally don't agree with the decision but i cant use Blair as a scapegoat either...
Blair 'sexed up' intelligence reports that convinced parliament to go to war. Fabricating evidence in order to start a war is an incredibly heinous crime.
Correct. And the premise of the war wasn't just gas, it was other, more powerful weapons. Bush was finishing his Dad's work from the Kuwait war and roped us in using the poodle Blair. Following 9/11 he got his chance despite there being no evidence to connect Iraq to the attacks. In fact, quite the opposite. Obama acknowledges that today.
....and that the late Dr Kelly told Andrew Gilligan that the document had been 'sexed up' and he was in a position to know. That toad Alistair Campbell of course was behind it along with Blair. When Gilligan refused to name his source the Government outed Dr Kelly - a shameful act. And isn't it funny how Dr Kelly, a man not known for being unstable or emotional killed himself shortly thereafter. Hmmm.... Major General Michael Laurie, a senior intelligence officer in MI6 has since confirmed to the Iraq Inquiry that Dr Kelly was right all along: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wmd-dossier-was-sexed-up-iraq-128286 And yes, I do believe Dr Kelly was murdered. The Hutton Inquiry failed miserably on this. It is almost unheard of for a person to die from a severed ulnar artery in the hand, particularly with the result that very little blood is left at the scene. There's a good piece on this here by Michael Powers, QC, who's also medically qualified: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-cause-of-the-death-of-david-kelly/30202
I agree that the war in the Gulf was set up on dodgey information regarding WMD. What i will say is yes a lot of people lost their lives, but the question I ask or think about. How many Iraqi's would have been murdered by now if we hadnt intervened. I dont know whether the end justifies the means. I believe that the wests intervention probably did save an awful lot of lives but at what cost to our troops. Was it worth it. I am not sure, then again when I watch what is happening now, then I probably lean towards no we shouldnt have gone in to Iraq.
probably less than 1 in 100 that got killed because we did. At least twenty times as many people died from violence in the ten years since Hussein left than in the 20 he was in power. I remember the news during the Iran/Iraq war and how it was always slanted to make him seem like the good guy, the Wests bastion against evil Iran, then kuwait happened, and he's an evil dictator, even though to them it's like Britain invading the Isle of Wight Oil was the reason. Then we had the chance to tearhim from power, his army was on the run, his people rebelling, but we didn't because we made an agreement with him for ten years of cheap oil, which ran out in 2002 and lots of Bush buddies got even richer than they were. Then the war repatriation agreement ended, no more cheap oil, a theoretical term paper by an oxford student is sexed up, banded about as a reliable source of intel, and we're off to wars those buddies of Bush can get richer again. There were no WMDs in Iraq, if there were they would've been used when America invaded as he would have had nothing to lose.
Dai, proof is what you show to support your argument that something exists. Lack of proof of something existing means it in fact doesn't.
That's not necessarily true! Lack of proof of something means you can't prove it exists. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
