My views only on the evidence he gave today was that he appeared sincere and made rational arguments throughout. I think many people watching will be surprised and remember why he was elected and well liked (for the majority of his premiership), he's in stark contrast to many of the politicians we have today.
His '2010 question' is interesting. Certainly you could see a worrying case where Iran and Iraq were both going for nuclear weapons and both independently funding terrorism, however I think you could also see less extreme positions to that. It over-simplies the problem to focus on the worst outcome.
Ultimately the question we have to ask ourselves is 'if I was in his position, what would I have done?'.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11949 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
Firstly, I haven't seen him, so I guess I should really wait until I have seen him before responding to this. Secondly, I do recognise that there is an element of 20/20 hindsight; if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have taken that decision, BUT ...
1) the fact that TB is such a good public former can obscure the fact that some bad decisions were made; advice was given to the effect that the invasion was illegal and the change in the advice to permit an invasion appears to have been entirely political, regardless of the AG's protestations to the contrary.
2) there were serious intelligence shortfalls; if you're alleging that SH had something to do with Al Qaeda, why weren't questions asked about that; that should be fairly basic, if you're throwing your lot in with people who were expounding that view? Why not simply ask "why don't we deal with Afghanistan first and get Al Qaeda out of the way - focus on ONE thing and getting that right.
3) there were questions which were not asked and which perhaps should have been asked such as (a) what would SH gain from an attack on the UK? This is a very fundamental question, because it seems to be built on an assumption that just because he's evil, he's somehow stupid too. Both the UK and US have long experience in dealing with dictators and the one common element, whether they're left wing or right wing, is that they want to stay in power; why would he do something which he would KNOW would result in a very quick end to his government?
I still think that this war was totally avoidable and had there been a more distant, objective and rational approach, Britain could at least have saved itself from being involved.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1512 times:
Quoting 777236ER (Thread starter): he's in stark contrast to many of the politicians we have today.
He is pretty up front, and doesn't beat around the bush.
I saw part of his testimony to the Iraq Inquiry - and it was a polished performance. Many would try to hide from an unpopular policy, he didn't - and defended it.
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4670 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
I have no problems with moral outrage as a reason to go to war, but to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda and WMD as justification by grown-up people boggles the mind. The first Gulf War was a great example of high moral ground, the second of ceding it.
The US, deeply wounded by 9/11 lashed out in furious rage, and the closest it got to an amorphous Al-Qaeda was by hitting Iraq. The time is still not right to ask how we got bamboozled into it by those with a particular world view.
The UK however, never really had a choice. It's closest ally, the US, asked for help and the UK stepped up unhesitatingly, like a true friend. Right or Wrong was not the issue, and nor does anyone in the US care anymore. The zeitgeist does not allow criticism of wartime decisions, to do so would be unpatriotic.
Professional soldiers risk their lives in battle, that is what they choose to do and that is why we honor them. Tony Blair did not 'murder' them. The 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children who died had no say in the matter, but nobody outside Iraq seems to care. I guess they were just on the wrong side of the gun. As were those incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden. They were the enemy and we killed them, otherwise they would have killed us. War is Hell.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1): Firstly, I haven't seen him, so I guess I should really wait until I have seen him before responding to this. Secondly, I do recognise that there is an element of 20/20 hindsight; if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have taken that decision, BUT ...
So far I have only seen parts and read parts. But a summary seems to be, toothless inquisitors facing a glib self justifying politician.
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1): 3) there were questions which were not asked and which perhaps should have been asked such as (a) what would SH gain from an attack on the UK? This is a very fundamental question, because it seems to be built on an assumption that just because he's evil, he's somehow stupid too. Both the UK and US have long experience in dealing with dictators and the one common element, whether they're left wing or right wing, is that they want to stay in power; why would he do something which he would KNOW would result in a very quick end to his government?
Indeed, why would SH want his rule cut short. We saw what happened when it was. The extent of the conspiracy still remains hidden.
Quoting Cpd (Reply 2): He is pretty up front, and doesn't beat around the bush.
More front than Mark Foys, but alas not a lot behind the bloody shop front! And of course he beats around the bush, just he is more skilled than most of us in doing it. Also he lies a great deal better than most of us do. Of course he knew there were no links to Al Q, and he knew but did not want to know that the nuclear program did not exist, but then the news on that had come from a a guy called El Baradei and you would not want to believe an A-rab would you. Sorry, but that WAS in his mind and he will never ever admit it. Just as he thinks he is a fair broker in Palestine - give us a break!! On the WMDs, Hans Blix trying to be pedantically accurate seems to have been mistaken for being uncertain. Another case of pushing the evidence to mean what you wanted it to mean. So between disdain for a reserved Swede and an Arab telling us about nukes, old Saddam was doomed. Much better to rely on Curveball "even if the bloody Krauts were a bit doubtful" (and I guarantee that phrase was used somewhere in London when Curveball's evidence was being assessed!!). Racist as in the best traditions of about 1930, and they are not going to admit that.
Quoting Comorin (Reply 3): Professional soldiers risk their lives in battle, that is what they choose to do and that is why we honor them. Tony Blair did not 'murder' them. The 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children who died had no say in the matter, but nobody outside Iraq seems to care. I guess they were just on the wrong side of the gun. As were those incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden. They were the enemy and we killed them, otherwise they would have killed us. War is Hell.
I wonder if you wrote that again if you might rephrase it. Starting at the end, WAR IS HELL, and we would do best to learn from Hiroshima and Dresden. You might be right that it is 100,000 m w c dead but much more likely is between 500,000 and 1,000,000 but whatever the number that IS our fault. Those persons would not have died in those circumstances had we not intervened. SH might have killed equal numbers but it seems unlikely and he would not have produced another 4 million refugees, crippled the power, water and sewerage systems for at least a decade and god knows what else. Honouring soldiers that should never have been committed to an unlawful war does not get Blair any brownie points. I am not so sure that the "Bliar" did not murder them. A major or a colonel committing troops along similar lines would have a much more nasty set of questions to answer. Lord Cardigan's reputation has still not recovered from the Charge of the Light Brigade and arguably Blair was better informed than was Cardigan.
And do not forget, it is not so much the war as the occupation that is the problem. Occupation was NEVER going to work and the UK FO knew that. Why did not Blair take note? How many Iraqi and UK soldiers died in the two or three weeks of the war and how many in the mess afterwards? OCCUPATION. That is the question. It is a consequence of war, but it is the critical bit that was never ever going to work.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
Quoting Comorin (Reply 3): The UK however, never really had a choice. It's closest ally, the US, asked for help and the UK stepped up unhesitatingly, like a true friend. Right or Wrong was not the issue, and nor does anyone in the US care anymore. The zeitgeist does not allow criticism of wartime decisions, to do so would be unpatriotic.
The way you put it, it reminded me of 1914, when Austria-Hungary started what is now known as World War I or The Great War, and the German Empire joined the war in support of the k.u.k.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 5): Quoting Comorin (Reply 3):
The UK however, never really had a choice. It's closest ally, the US, asked for help and the UK stepped up unhesitatingly, like a true friend. Right or Wrong was not the issue, and nor does anyone in the US care anymore. The zeitgeist does not allow criticism of wartime decisions, to do so would be unpatriotic.
The way you put it, it reminded me of 1914, when Austria-Hungary started what is now known as World War I or The Great War, and the German Empire joined the war in support of the k.u.k.
Not wrong there LTU!! Makes you wonder if like the Austro-Hungarian start to the war, if some in the US did not actually know what was happening as the preparation for the Iraq war wound up. A bit reversed in terms of positions, but you could argue that Colin Powell was similarly under-informed. And like Germany in 1914, the UK had no way in hell of knowing what was about!
Good thought though LTU, and while we are about it, why don't we blame the Serbs for the Iraq war? They get the blame for plenty of other things.
War is sacred.
We do not learn very quickly do we? Then again, having a beloved leader who does not like reading will not help.
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4670 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 4): I wonder if you wrote that again if you might rephrase it.
Baroque, I'm with you! My questioning tone didn't come across. I wrote with deepest outrage at these events and how we just sweep uncomfortable thoughts under the carpet. Whatever the justification, I watched with horror as Baghdad was bombed, Shock and Awe visited upon innocent children and women who had done nothing to us. I found Hiroshima and Nagasaki equally horrific, but not a peep from the Japanese - did they merely think of it as just punishment?
"Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war..." ... Once loose, they return not.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12705 posts, RR: 80 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
Quoting Comorin (Reply 3): The UK however, never really had a choice. It's closest ally, the US, asked for help and the UK stepped up unhesitatingly, like a true friend. Right or Wrong was not the issue, and nor does anyone in the US care anymore. The zeitgeist does not allow criticism of wartime decisions, to do so would be unpatriotic.
We might have been a better friend by pointing out the obvious, such as 'why now, when Saddam is enfeebled, boxed in, has zero links with AQ and they have no presence in country-which a war could change, when the result of a war will increase Iranian influnce, when you seem to have no idea about the endgame and don't want to put enough troops in to police the nation after the regime falls'.
Also, we are are far from being finished in Afghanistan.
A true friend will say when you are embarked on the wrong course.
Now which of the above has not turned out to be true?
And these questions were posed at the time, by serious people, not just knee-jerk anti war types. All they had were slogans.
Blair said at the time, that Chirac does not get it , well the then French President was far from like-able, but as a young man he had been in the thick of the insurgency in Algeria, which would have some stark parallels with Iraq, as he had feared.
A young Blair had even refused to be in the military Cadets at his school, Bush had played around with the ANG, Cheney-the real 'brains' behind the operation, had worked hard, like all neocons of his generation, to avoid Vietnam.
From a British political perspective, this inquiry is reminding us just how there was no proper cabinet government under Blair.
This is important, we do not have Presidents as executive rulers, had we, Parliament would be much more like the US versions, with all the safeguards needed.
Cabinet government is supposed to have that role, as a check and balance.
Even very strong willed PM's liked Thatcher had Cabinet government, when she started circumventing it, in the late 1980's, it all ended badly.
Cheney could not cared less if the UK was there or not, he treated British cabinet members, even ones visiting in the build up to war, with barely concealed contempt.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1367 times:
Quoting Comorin (Reply 7): My questioning tone didn't come across.
Oh yes, I got the tone, I was just trying to re-emphasise your points.
Quoting GDB (Reply 8): We might have been a better friend by pointing out the obvious, such as 'why now, when Saddam is enfeebled, boxed in, has zero links with AQ and they have no presence in country-which a war could change, when the result of a war will increase Iranian influence, when you seem to have no idea about the endgame and don't want to put enough troops in to police the nation after the regime falls'.
Also, we are are far from being finished in Afghanistan.
A true friend will say when you are embarked on the wrong course.
Now which of the above has not turned out to be true?
And these questions were posed at the time, by serious people, not just knee-jerk anti war types. All they had were slogans.
Nice summary of REASONS WHY NOT TO DO THIS. And indeed, they were all stated ahead of time and it is not just hindsight.
The one I would like to have seen him pinned on was why he insisted on phrasing the question as:
Can you guarantee there are no weapons of mass destruction?
When it was obvious that it would be difficult to answer this with "Yes".
Was it because the more obvious question:
Is there a significant chance that Saddam still has WMD? Already had the answer given by Blix - but in guarded terms - of "no"?
In other words, had he made up his mind to go to war and only asked questions that would reinforce this determination and not questions that might indicate if there were sufficient reasons to do so.
Oh phrased another way, spare us conviction politicians and give us analytical ones.
And the point about Iran needs repeating and repeating and repeating. Truth is the Chaneys of this world thought shock and awe on Baghdad would shock and awe Iran too, and they were wrong on that AS WELL!!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11949 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4670 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
