blair

[sharona]

what do you say

[Phill]

Hague!



....

[Cattach]

what do you say

Didn't he do well. Answered all the questions well. Did a good job with mass murderer Saddam and we can all sleep safer in out beds.

[tonkatojo]

Didn't he do well. Answered all the questions well. Did a good job with mass murderer Saddam and we can all sleep safer in out beds.

Got to agree he answered OK and at this time of posting still is.

[joxville]

He should be tried for murder. He took is into a 'war on terror' on the back of no evidence of the existence WMD's, fed us lies and illegally removed Saddam from power, (regardless of how much a tyrant he was), and is complicit in the death of Dr. David Kelly. All this was done while sucking up to Bush jr., who's real goal was access to the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[tonkatojo]

He should be tried for murder. He took is into a 'war on terror' on the back of no evidence of the existence WMD's, fed us lies and illegally removed Saddam from power, (regardless of how much a tyrant he was), and is complicit in the death of Dr. David Kelly. All this was done while sucking up to Bush jr., who's real goal was access to the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This isn't what I have been/am listening to. I don't think there is oil in Afghanistan either.

[Phill]

fed us lies

He's a politician, what else did you expect.

And what do we really expect from this enquiry?
The guy is a good orator, this is a walk in the park for him.

[joxville]

This isn't what I have been/am listening to. I don't think there is oil in Afghanistan either.

He's answering questions in the Chilcott Inquiry qhich is looking at Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Bush wanted to lay a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and could only do that with a pro-America government installed, hence the reason for invading Afghanistan.

He's a politician, what else did you expect.

And what do we really expect from this enquiry?
The guy is a good orator, this is a walk in the park for him.

I don't expect anything from this enquiry, just like every other inquiry that's involved Blair, he'll never admit he was wrong.

[Stavro]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Bush wanted to lay a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and could only do that with a pro-America government installed, hence the reason for invading Afghanistan.

There was another reason, joxville; the international trade in opium/heroin was almost completely destroyed by the government of Afghanistan. Those that fund the US and UK "governments" make a very large amount of money out of Afghan opium poppies. Now, lo and behold, the production is "back to normal."

[Alan16]

I think he answered the questions fairly well. The impression I got of the whole thing is that he genuinely believes that the decision he made was the correct one, and for this he has my respect - it would have been easy for him to come out and just be hyper-apologetic. And I'm sorry Jox, but I find the "tried for murder" comment to be ridiculous. The same goes for the Hague comment.

[roadbowler]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Bush wanted to lay a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and could only do that with a pro-America government installed, hence the reason for invading Afghanistan.

jox, I completely agree with your first post. You forgot to mention that Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's chosen one used to be a consultant for an oil company. Unocal. Strange that.

[fred]

I don't expect anything from this enquiry, just like every other inquiry that's involved Blair, he'll never admit he was wrong.

Sir John Chilcot, he was a member of the Butler Inquiry which whitewashed the evidence of Iraqi WMDs. He's not going to be too keen to contradict those findings.

Sir Roderick Lyne, he was our Ambassador in Russia in 2003, it was his job to sell the lies to the Russians, he'd be finding himself guilty.

Sir Lawrence Freedman, here's what he said to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution on 18 January 2006:

"Iraq was a very unusual situation where it was not an ongoing conflict. If we had waited things would not have been that much different in two or three months' time and so, instead of responding either to aggression by somebody else, as with the Falklands, or to developing humanitarian distress, as in the Balkans, we decided that security considerations for the future demanded immediate action."

He's already decided it's permissible to break international law if it suits you and based on what you say might happen in the future.

Martin Gilbert, he sees Blair as another Churchill
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...379819,00.html

Out of five panel members three were pro war and none spoke against the war.

They'll find a scapegoat to heap the blame on.

[hunter]

He should be tried for murder.

The decision to invade Iraq was debated in UK Parliament and a majority approved. Now, however much I disagree with the decision, and leaving aside its legality in international law, that represents a reasonably democratic process that legitimises the decision in a UK context.

The real question is whether the information presented to Parliament, and upon which MPs made their judgement, was knowingly misleading or flawed at the time. If the inquiry detects dishonesty or manipulation in the presentation of that information, the individual or individuals responsible should be punished.

The subsequent strategy adopted by the UK and its consequences can be debated till the cows come home. But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.

[Tristan]

Weapons of mass destruction was as much of lie then as it is now - although some numpites here believed it.
He is a politician and a lawyer, not being questioned by lawyers. We will keep up with his twisted lies and the world will go on except for those soldiers he sent to their deaths over oil.

[Boozeburglar]

To be fair, there was an atmosphere of horror and trepidation after 9/11 and those ideas about WMD played on that.

He did not have to do much magic to conjure up those scenarios.

Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?

Yes, I mean the UK as a nation!

[gleeber]

Weapons of mass destruction was as much of lie then as it is now - although some numpites here believed it.

Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you.
It would be a waste of time trying to defend the actions of Western leaders on this thread because there is no argument against the phantasies of so many respected orgers.
Good to see you back Fred. Still as abstract as ever too. Theres plenty of it on the org. Welcome back. You belong here.
I wondered, if nuclear weapons are purely defensive do you think it would be an idea if some of those extremist religious types our troops are fighting in Afghanastan and Iraq were allowed to develop them too. Then they could just wiggle their ears at each other and the religious types could go home and beat their wives or go to a stoning in the town square or kick a poof to death or even censor the internet and anyone who calls their leaders bad names could be hung by the necks until they were dead.
There were surely be a few hangings on the org if that was the case.
I believe in the war on terror and although Iraq was a different kettle of fish, as Tony Blair said we are now in 2010 and whether Iraq had been invaded or not the problem of extremist religious groups was not going to go away. September 11 changed all that.
These people hate us and our way of life. Its just sad to see that our own people are hating us too although they may change their minds very quickly if the oil they accuse the Americans of chasing was suddenly denied them when they did their weekly shopping in Tescos or if your luucky Asda. Mind you it wouldnt take long for that weekly shopping to be under threat too if those extermist types were allowed to wander the globe willy nilly.

[fred]

The decision to invade Iraq was debated in UK Parliament and a majority approved. Now, however much I disagree with the decision, and leaving aside its legality in international law, that represents a reasonably democratic process that legitimises the decision in a UK context.

The real question is whether the information presented to Parliament, and upon which MPs made their judgement, was knowingly misleading or flawed at the time. If the inquiry detects dishonesty or manipulation in the presentation of that information, the individual or individuals responsible should be punished.

The subsequent strategy adopted by the UK and its consequences can be debated till the cows come home. But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.

I don't think we can leave aside the legality in international law, Parliament was lead to believe that the war would be legal, they were not told that the Foreign Office legal experts had said that the war would not be legal.

Blair lied again today when he said "You would be hard pressed to find anyone who in September 2002 doubted that Saddam had WMD", according to Craig Murray, who was Britain's ambassador to Uzbekistan at the time, there were no shortage of people in the Foreign Office and security services doubting it. Yet it was presented to Parliament as fact, Blair even itemised and gave the amounts of the chemicals and nerve agents we knew for a fact he had.

Had Parliament been told there was doubt both to the existence of WMD and to the legality, which there is no doubt there was, I think the vote would have gone differently.

[Phill]

I feel with this situation like some miscarriages of justice, the right thing was done the wrong way.

Saddam had to go and mainly on humanitarian grounds, he did some sabre rattling but I do not think he was ever a serious threat to world security or stability. As for Middle Eastern stability that is never going to be reconciled as long as Israel exists as it does now.

If the UK was genuinely concerned for humanity why are we still saying "strong words" about Mugabe?

On a somewhat contradictory note I believe we should have just given some special forces mercenaries a brown envelope full of McGarretts and had Saddam potted and then let them sort themselves out whilst doing a bit of funding in the background. Job done, saved UK soldiers lives and £billions.

[northener]

what do you say

I say he's answered the questions, Sharona.

Any chance of you doing the same regarding your parking thread?

[ducati]

what do you say

I don't think there were any surprises in Blair's testimony (unless that he pretty much denied what he said in the Fern interview).

What will be interesting is Browns pitch. Will he stick with his decisions to back Blair or will he try and wriggle out?

Its obvious after 9/11 that GW had to go to war with someone and that in his circumstances it was legal. What is still in question is: was Britain dragged in to add legitimacy or was there a separate, legal need for the UK, for instance, as a matter of self-defence?

I don't know