How did Tony Blair invade Iraq?

Soundood · 22 Feb 2015 at 23:18

OldCoals said:
I see good old Jack Straw is in trouble when the papers hit the stand tomorrow.

Indeed, Straw and Rifkind on tomorrow nights Despatches,

Above&Beyond · 22 Feb 2015 at 23:22

Orionaut said:
You do know that (Unless you are a haemophiliac) it is almost impossible to kill yourself by cutting your wrists don't you.

Not when you have had coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis it's not or he probably wouldn't be dead.

Above&Beyond · 22 Feb 2015 at 23:24

OldCoals said:
Pretty sure that some eminent medical professionals have called into question his suicide.

Easy to do when you don't have access to the evidence.

Danthus · 22 Feb 2015 at 23:25

Rifkind poses a serious threat to national security given his position.

scorza · 23 Feb 2015 at 07:31

Orionaut said:
You do know that (Unless you are a haemophiliac) it is almost impossible to kill yourself by cutting your wrists don't you.

Why would someone (presumably the security services) kill him off? I could understand the motivation to keep him from blabbing to the press/MPs but that ship had sailed when Dr Kelly died.

gettothechopper · 23 Feb 2015 at 08:34

the usual lobbying argument is pretty meh until someone changes the rules so I dont care about that (for now)

Rifkind however has compromised his position on the intelligence select committee,You cant be oversight for our security services and be chatting with people for money on the side

pooley · 23 Feb 2015 at 10:51

Tony Blair never invaded Iraq. We the people did and should have told him to **** off!

Xordium · 23 Feb 2015 at 11:00

Orionaut said:
You do know that (Unless you are a haemophiliac) it is almost impossible to kill yourself by cutting your wrists don't you.

Actually it's quite easy. Now I don't know the facts of the case and the location and direction of the cuts. But if he did it 'properly' then yes it is quite easy to kill yourself in that manner irrespective of any compounding medical issues.

shadow_boxer · 23 Feb 2015 at 11:04

Tony Blair didn't invade Iraq. George Bush and the accompanying US interests (arms industry and oil companies) needed support and the British politicians and intelligence "experts" (from all parties) to spineless to disagree.

The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan created the foundations imo for ISIS to develop. The loss and breakdown of Al-Qaeda leadership and power vacuum in Iraq led to insurgents coming together and forming them. Sad thing is the British and US didn't learn from their mistakes and just repeated them in Libya.

Dj_Jestar · 23 Feb 2015 at 11:30

Hugely late to the party, so my 2p may seem out of place:

As far as I remember George, Tony and chums didn't "fool" anyone. Everyone had a pretty good idea there were no WMDs. I think the problem was that even though we knew - what could (and can, when it happens again) we do about it? There were protests in the streets, there were campaigns, there were many petitions, even the UN ruled any action would be illegal, yet they still sent the forces in.

What's left? Try to fight them ourselves?

Schlong&Stable · 23 Feb 2015 at 12:19

shadow_boxer said:
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan created the foundations imo for ISIS to develop. The loss and breakdown of Al-Qaeda leadership and power vacuum in Iraq led to insurgents coming together and forming them. Sad thing is the British and US didn't learn from their mistakes and just repeated them in Libya.

The roots of ISIS predates the invasion of Iraq and have very little to do with Western involvement in the Middle East. The real catalyst for ISIS was the Syrian revolution and the breakdown of law and order that followed.

The growth of ISIS into Libya is of little consequence, Islamists have existed throughout north Africa is not a recent phenomena and only a small number are claiming allegiance to ISIS.

Devlish · 23 Feb 2015 at 12:27

Dj_Jestar said:
Hugely late to the party, so my 2p may seem out of place:

As far as I remember George, Tony and chums didn't "fool" anyone. Everyone had a pretty good idea there were no WMDs. I think the problem was that even though we knew - what could (and can, when it happens again) we do about it? There were protests in the streets, there were campaigns, there were many petitions, even the UN ruled any action would be illegal, yet they still sent the forces in.

What's left? Try to fight them ourselves?

Well considering Iraq had used WMDs a few years previously, it seemed like a fairly reasonable assumption to make, so whilst no doubt it was played up by the government it didn't seem illogical at the time - so yeah, they pretty much did fool anyone who had knowledge of their regular use in the 80s and 90s.

As for the protests... well a couple of hundred thousand is pretty impressive, but given that labour got voted in again at the next election, you can hardly argue that it was a popular issue. A loud minority more like, with the majority being concerned about other stuff clearly.

Also, the deep deep involvement of the usual left wing loonies like the socialist worker/stop the war bunch turned a lot of people off, not to mention the fact that the biggest mistake of the Iraq war was the management of it afterwards rather than the actual war itself - which went quite well actually. And who listens to the UN anyway, that bunch of jokers.

Thompson_NCL said:
The roots of ISIS predates the invasion of Iraq and have very little to do with Western involvement in the Middle East. The real catalyst for ISIS was the Syrian revolution and the breakdown of law and order that followed.

I kind of agree with you, but Ive got to lay ISIS firmly at Ed Millibands door. Had he not played party politics with the vote to attack Assad due to his use of chemical weapons (and of course the great daily mail knee jerk about Iraq all over again), the long suffering moderates who had been hoping for any kind of assistance might not have finally and completely turned to the most effective Islamic militant units like Sham and Al Nusra. This gave them the platform they needed to take the lead in the fight against Assad and of course to get the lions share of the booty and supplies which expanded their effectiveness significantly.

olivier renault · 23 Feb 2015 at 12:47

That's democracy in action for you. The war was unpopular, but you have to remember it was in the context of 9-11. The news and governments had the entire world ****ing their pants with muslamists on airplanes, so the arguments for war were pretty compelling to enough people and agencies.

I never really quite understood the real reasons behind Iraq : The Return. Sure, oil, military-industrial complex, blah blah blah... I thought these were the consequence than the cause, like opportunistic leeches.

Afghanistan was where the party should have been anyway, if they were really sincere about their stupid 'War On Terrorism', no matter how flawed the idea actually is. But Bush seemed to have a raging hard-on for Saddam for some reason. Soft target I suppose, hated by most of the Arab world, some oil to pay for the war, a perfect place to introduce to American Freedom, right? Afghanistan, far more stickier. Pakistan support, Close to Russia, difficult terrain, tribal, divided, with no infrastructure, protracted war with no certain future. Iraq? Easy, just like daddy in 1990. A a**-whooping, get rid of Saddam, some puppet takes over, and we all go home.

If this was ideological at the core, which I think it was, then these people had no qualms experimenting their broken ideas on the back of some arabs. If it works, great, we're freaking heroes, and if it doesn't, hey we made a few bucks and we can retire.

As for Blair, well he did what a good lapdog does. In any case, I hold no respect or care for either, and if Blair, Dubya, Rumsfeld/whoever get prosecuted for shameful, unlawful warmongering, then great. But really, nothing will happen, ever. The sad thing is, Blair would have done OK if it wasn't for that stupid, pointless war. Bush on the other hand, lived for it.

olivier renault · 23 Feb 2015 at 12:51

WMDs were a total smoke screen. Wars shouldn't be waged on 'assumptions'. Kind of at the core of the American foreign and domestic policies and their 'preemptive war' strategies. Suspicion is enough for anything these days.

Stretch · 23 Feb 2015 at 13:09

olivier renault said:
I never really quite understood the real reasons behind Iraq : The Return. Sure, oil, military-industrial complex, blah blah blah... I thought these were the consequence than the cause, like opportunistic leeches.

The war was for a number of reasons.

* Tony's ego.
* No one thought that the war would be as difficult as it was.
* People assumed that the people of Iraq were desperate to be liberated.
* People hoped that a democratic, prosperous Iraq could be used as a catalyst for change in the wider region.
*.....
* Oil.

The daftest part is they were essentially right.

They only made one critical mistake imo. They disbanded the Iraqi military and police force. With a functioning domestic security apparatus in place, none of the other problems would have arisen. US/UK forces could have been in and out within two years. Most of the the "insurgents" were ex-military who were ****** off about not having a job, and western troops overstaying their welcome.

Schlong&Stable · 23 Feb 2015 at 13:49

Devlish said:
I kind of agree with you, but Ive got to lay ISIS firmly at Ed Millibands door. Had he not played party politics with the vote to attack Assad due to his use of chemical weapons (and of course the great daily mail knee jerk about Iraq all over again), the long suffering moderates who had been hoping for any kind of assistance might not have finally and completely turned to the most effective Islamic militant units like Sham and Al Nusra. This gave them the platform they needed to take the lead in the fight against Assad and of course to get the lions share of the booty and supplies which expanded their effectiveness significantly.

True. There was a window of opportunity to deliver Syria into the hands of more moderate groups, but we dragged our heels. Now all we can do is support Assad at the expense of the moderates.

The war was for a number of reasons.

* Tony's ego.
* No one thought that the war would be as difficult as it was.
* People assumed that the people of Iraq were desperate to be liberated.
* People hoped that a democratic, prosperous Iraq could be used as a catalyst for change in the wider region.
*.....
* Oil.

1. Maybe, but I don't think so.
2. The war was a piece of cake, it was the nation building that failed.
3. They mostly were. The majority of the violence was sectarian in nature and had nothing to do with our presence.
4. Well there was a wider change in the reason, so maybe they were right?
5. ....?
6. *Yawn* Complete hogwash. The US was not even the biggest benefactor of Iraqi oil.

gettothechopper · 23 Feb 2015 at 14:00

Thompson_NCL said:
True. There was a window of opportunity to deliver Syria into the hands of more moderate groups, but we dragged our heels. Now all we can do is support Assad at the expense of the moderates.

yep - Assad and ISIS killed all the moderates while we worried about getting involved post Iraq

Now there isnt anyone left to support

Zethor · 23 Feb 2015 at 14:03

The US have a world hegemony to mantain and the 'bright' minds of the Bush Cabinet decided removing Sadam was beneficial for the long term interests of the US. They were probably wrong but that's not why IS are decapitating people and burning them alive right now. Blair was just loyal to his main ally and any other British govt. would have done the same.