Chilcot report

dejavuatbtn · Jul 6, 2016

It is worrying that nobody in Parliament or the Lords was in a position to stop Blair at a time when popular opinion was that there were no WMDs and no good reason to invade. This is all a prime example as to why people like Blair and Trump shouldn't be in a position to having a finger hovering over the red button.

dangull · Jul 6, 2016

Was it right to remove Saddam? Whatever you think of his regime, Sunni and Shia seemed to be coexisting without the violence after the invasion and still today.

The middle east should become democratic countries when they choose to be, not forced on them by the USA/UK alliance

Hamilton · Jul 6, 2016

I think Blair was 100% wrong in going to war in Iraq, and I really struggled with this at the time too. Saddam was a monster and I have no doubt that had he remained he would have killed many of his own countrymen and like Gadaffi, eventually he would have been deposed leading to the disintegration of Iraq regardless.

However, I think Bill Stewardson, whose son was killed in Iraq, put it well when he said:

"This whole thing's been blown out of all proportion into some sort of media circus. I'm not particularly bothered about Blair's head on a stick or careers being ruined, people being sent to The Hague - which is being banded about and is quite ridiculous. However, if it turns out that some individual has acted illegally, they should be taken to task. Tony Blair didn't wake up one Tuesday morning, yawn and think, 'I know, let's go and invade Iraq.' A long, long process was gone through, there were many, many advisers, other nations took part in that decision, the whole of Parliament voted for that action to be taken and I'm absolutely staggered that this is being hung round the neck of one person."

AmexRuislip · Jul 6, 2016

Bold Seagull said:
To suggest Blair was responsible for this deception strikes me as believing our PM has authoritarian powers I just cannot believe actually exist. I find it a huge leap to suggest that in the corridors of power, the intelligence community, military, civil service etc. that Blair's lone presentation of this led an ignorant parliament to the decision to go to war.

This went far deeper than Tony Blair, or even George Bush. Blaming those two is a convenient veil of where power actually resides, something that is perhaps too frightening to contemplate.

George Bush, as many of the other elected Presidents, are just puppets to the industry of defense and war in the U.S..
It didn't help that GB not having an ounce of sense was followed some of the way by an educated Blair.
It's all the people who have to deal with aftermath I feel for.
Money talks I am afraid to say.

symyjym · Jul 6, 2016

AmexRuislip said:
George Bush, as many of the other elected Presidents, are just puppets to the industry of defense and war in the U.S..
It didn't help that GB not having an ounce of sense was followed some of the way by an educated Blair.
It's all the people who have to deal with aftermath I feel for.
Money talks I am afraid to say.

To a degree, but I don't believe the Clinton government would have gone to Iraq. He would have concentrated on Afghanistan and chasing Bin Laden.

The US military machine was planning for a war in Iraq scenario before 9/11, and Bush wanted to carry on where his dad left off.

9/11 was more of an inconvenience to Bush because he had to go to Afghanistan first, but it also gave him the excuse to go to Iraq.

I can understand Blair trusting Clinton, but how the fk could anyone trust monkey face Bush?

Bold Seagull · Jul 6, 2016

symyjym said:
To a degree, but I don't believe the Clinton government would have gone to Iraq. He would have concentrated on Afghanistan and chasing Bin Laden.

The US military machine was planning for a war in Iraq scenario before 9/11, and Bush wanted to carry on where his dad left off.

9/11 was more of an inconvenience to Bush because he had to go to Afghanistan first, but it also gave him the excuse to go to Iraq.

I can understand Blair trusting Clinton, but how the fk could anyone trust monkey face Bush?

Funnily enough, reading some of the memos Blair sent to Bush in full and you do read one man trying to talk sense to another, but perhaps realising it is probably futile. At the end of the day, it came down to whether we remained very good friends with the Americans or not. Our involvement while not in anyway essential to them militarily, was essential for global creditability. Under that weight of expectancy from the US, I find it hard to imagine a UK prime minister who wouldn't have still gone with them into the conflict.

Bold Seagull · Jul 6, 2016

dejavuatbtn said:
It is worrying that nobody in Parliament or the Lords was in a position to stop Blair at a time when popular opinion was that there were no WMDs and no good reason to invade. This is all a prime example as to why people like Blair and Trump shouldn't be in a position to having a finger hovering over the red button.

I don't agree that it was popular opinion not to go. I seem to remember that as with Brexit, much of the country and the media were in support of going to war against Saddam and his blatant ignoring of UN resolutions. Yes, plenty of people demonstrated and were against it, but it wasn't a majority, and it didn't impact on Blair winning a 3rd election after either, even if people like myself who had voted for him before, didn't again.

symyjym · Jul 6, 2016

Bold Seagull said:
Funnily enough, reading some of the memos Blair sent to Bush in full and you do read one man trying to talk sense to another, but perhaps realising it is probably futile. At the end of the day, it came down to whether we remained very good friends with the Americans or not. Our involvement while not in anyway essential to them militarily, was essential for global creditability. Under that weight of expectancy from the US, I find it hard to imagine a UK prime minister who wouldn't have still gone with them into the conflict.

I don't buy the keeping good friends with the US. By going to Afghanistan we showed our loyalty after 9/11. Not sure if the US would have fallen out with us when we were helping as much as we could anyway.

Ernest · Jul 6, 2016

Our own local MP and Albion fan just as keen to send other Mother's sons and daughters to war, not just Blair took the country to war and many just as keen if not more than him

beorhthelm · Jul 6, 2016

dejavuatbtn said:
It is worrying that nobody in Parliament or the Lords was in a position to stop Blair at a time when popular opinion was that there were no WMDs and no good reason to invade.

"popular opinion" isnt a very good judge of foreign intelligence, and at the time we didnt *know* there were no WMDs. there was no evidence, but the contention was it was being hidden. and most people really wouldnt have given two figs about going off and kicking an old nasty dictator that should have been finished before, send in the 8th for a few weeks, Iraqi army will collapse, all ne over in few weeks.

studio150 · Jul 6, 2016

Hamilton said:
I think Blair was 100% wrong in going to war in Iraq, and I really struggled with this at the time too. Saddam was a monster and I have no doubt that had he remained he would have killed many of his own countrymen and like Gadaffi, eventually he would have been deposed leading to the disintegration of Iraq regardless.

However, I think Bill Stewardson, whose son was killed in Iraq, put it well when he said:

"This whole thing's been blown out of all proportion into some sort of media circus. I'm not particularly bothered about Blair's head on a stick or careers being ruined, people being sent to The Hague - which is being banded about and is quite ridiculous. However, if it turns out that some individual has acted illegally, they should be taken to task. Tony Blair didn't wake up one Tuesday morning, yawn and think, 'I know, let's go and invade Iraq.' A long, long process was gone through, there were many, many advisers, other nations took part in that decision, the whole of Parliament voted for that action to be taken and I'm absolutely staggered that this is being hung round the neck of one person."

The comments from Bill are the most sensible thing that I've seen or heard all day.

Leekbrookgull · Jul 6, 2016

Bold Seagull said:
Blair didn't have the power to get this through on his own. MPs from all sides voted 412 to 149 to authorise the war. That was 146 Conservative for, 2 against, Labour 254 for, 84 against, and all the 52 Lib Dems voted against. I find it chilling to suggest that 412 MPs were duped by Tony Blair, especially with such resounding support from the opposition at the time. Despite the Stop the War marches, public opinion was that we needed to go and 'sort Saddam out' and if the yanks were up for it, so we should be. Ultimately this was a parliamentary decision to stand with the US. The power behind this, especially in the US was deeply entrenched far beyond Bush's vanity.

The only way we could hold Blair to account is if it can be proved he knew the intelligence was false, and if he knew that, then a lot of other people did to. Even at the time, every MP knew the intelligence was flaky at best, but still they voted it through.

Fair points but what those memo,s post 9/11 where T/B clearly that he would stand full square behind G/B Jnr who wanted regime change and payback for G/B Snr in that alone we know T/B has lied.

Bold Seagull · Jul 7, 2016

This is what The Sun did to you if you stood by your convictions on not backing going into the Iraq War...

heathgate · Jul 7, 2016

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Steve in Japan · Jul 7, 2016

Blair is on the Today programme now mounting a not very convincing defence

drew · Jul 7, 2016

beorhthelm said:
"popular opinion" isnt a very good judge of foreign intelligence, and at the time we didnt *know* there were no WMDs. there was no evidence, but the contention was it was being hidden. and most people really wouldnt have given two figs about going off and kicking an old nasty dictator that should have been finished before, send in the 8th for a few weeks, Iraqi army will collapse, all ne over in few weeks.

Have to agree with this. There was of course a very large anti war march in London but it would be impossible to suggest that those people marched because they believed there were no WMDs. There will always be anti war protests, whatever the evidence. How many of those that marched were 'traditional' pacifists who would march against any war?

Kinky Gerbil · Jul 7, 2016

Bold Seagull said:
This is what The Sun did to you if you stood by your convictions on not backing going into the Iraq War...

A sexathon with Britney?

drew · Jul 7, 2016

studio150 said:
The comments from Bill are the most sensible thing that I've seen or heard all day.

Have to agree. For someone who lost family in the confilct, his comments come across as exceptionally pragmatic.

drew · Jul 7, 2016

dangull said:
Was it right to remove Saddam? Whatever you think of his regime, Sunni and Shia seemed to be coexisting without the violence after the invasion and still today.

The middle east should become democratic countries when they choose to be, not forced on them by the USA/UK alliance

And what were the feelings of the Kurds during his regime, or for that matter, the marsh arabs? Also, didn't SH treat the Shia brutally?

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the invasion, I don't think you can try and paint a picture that life in Iraq was all hunky dory!!

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 7, 2016

At the time TB had two choces: to go along with Bush, or to not. Let's consider what would have happened had TB decided to be like the lib dems and say 'no'.

'Betrayal of our closest ally', would have creamed the headlines in the Mail, Times and Sun. 'TB is a bedfellow of flakes like Corbyn and Short'. He would have lost the subsequent general election.

However the US would have done what they planned to do. The outcome (destabilisation, ISIS) would have been the same. But perhaps (only perhaps) the UK would have been spared the home grown terrorism. Possibly.

Nevertheless, if TB had said no, and been booted out by the electorate, the Conservatives would have sought to make amends with the US, and we would be back in there, involved with all the followup and in the same position with respect to our terror risk.

For me, what I dislike about TB is his burgeoning religiosity, and tendency to put his beliefs above reasoning and logic. He thinks he has god on his side and did a rightous thing. It was certainly not obvious at the time that having no exit strategy or the foresight to anticipate ISIL were issues. TB did not see it and the Conservatives did not see it. And certainly Corbyn and Short did not forsee it (their objections were informed by their inherent distaste for 'war', which no doubt would have seen them as appeasers in the 1930s).

It is all horrible, though. Horrible and depressing.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Chilcot report

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️

Banned

strong and stable with me, or...

strong and stable with me, or...

Banned

Stupid IDIOT

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Drew

Im The Scatman

Drew

Drew

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Share this page