Jam Tarts 1874 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Interesting revelations from Tony Blair to be aired on TV tomorrow and from what has been aired already no doubt Blair is going to face massive criticism. However I find it odd that almost everybody claims now that they were always against the war in Iraq (although given Sadam's limited resources, I'm not sure "war" is the correct word). My recollections at the time were that everybody I knew and spoke with were all for going over and giving Sadam a kicking - "he gases his own people don't you know" etc etc. The front pages of every national newspaper were all for it too. So why have so many people decided that they will conveniently forget what their opinions were at the time? I was always dead against the invasion and was definately in a minority at the time. I wanted to check that my memory was not deceiving me, so I looked around for some old opinion polls and not surprisingly there is no shortage of support for going and booting Sadam, here is just one example of people polled even though by the time this poll was taken Hans Blix had already reported that it was very unlikely that Sadam had WMDs. http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/YOU020101148.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Reekin' Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Interesting revelations from Tony Blair to be aired on TV tomorrow and from what has been aired already no doubt Blair is going to face massive criticism. However I find it odd that almost everybody claims now that they were always against the war in Iraq (although given Sadam's limited resources, I'm not sure "war" is the correct word). My recollections at the time were that everybody I knew and spoke with were all for going over and giving Sadam a kicking - "he gases his own people don't you know" etc etc. The front pages of every national newspaper were all for it too. So why have so many people decided that they will conveniently forget what their opinions were at the time? I was always dead against the invasion and was definately in a minority at the time. I wanted to check that my memory was not deceiving me, so I looked around for some old opinion polls and not surprisingly there is no shortage of support for going and booting Sadam, here is just one example of people polled even though by the time this poll was taken Hans Blix had already reported that it was very unlikely that Sadam had WMDs. http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/YOU020101148.pdf The only real "defence" I've heard so far from BLiar is along the lines of: "Isn't it a good thing to have deposed Saddam Hussein? " and "Well, we could discuss the rights and wrongs of it for the next year, but the real issue is that we're there now and what do we do about it? It would be entirely wrong to pull our troops out now and leave a job half-done and the country in a dangerous state of chaos...". The answer to the first one has got to be, yes, but the enormous cost in the lives of service-personnel from the participating nations and -especially so - Iraqi civilians means that the price paid for this goal was far too high. Saddam was no longer a realistic threat to anyone but his internal opponents in Iraq and the ongoing pressure and sanctions on his regime should have been maintained or stepped-up. My answer to his second line of defence would be to pose a fanciful question to him: OK, Tony, I've horribly murdered your wife and children, and that's the situation we are in right now. Of course, we could argue for months about whether or not I should actually have done this, but that isn't going to bring them back to life, is it? Nor is sending me to prison for the rest of my days. The main thing to discuss now is the best way to deal with the situation and how to move forward from it... He has been unable to give any plausible defence to the charge that the UK participated in the invasion of Iraq based on the false information that Saddam's regime could deploy WMD within 45 minutes. It's up to the individual (and, I hope, the current enquiry!) to decide whether BLiar lied to parliament and to the people of Britain about this, or whether he, himself, had been mis-informed. I've got my own firm ideas about which one of these scenarios was the case... As to the question about support for the war at the time, parliament, the press, and the people were "mis-informed" about the reasons and justifications for the war and many chose to go along with the official line. The popular press is always up for a good war and many people still read this and are influenced by it. I'm sure a lot of MPs went along with the idea for such noble motives as wanting to continue their parliamentary career at any cost (Labour) and not wanting to be seen as being unpatriotic enough to vote against a war with Johnny-Arab (Conservatives). MPs of any other party who backed the decision to go to war, were no doubt votong in line with their own, personal, high-principles. Maybe some of them were just a bit thick or gullible... My recollection of that time is a bit different from yours: I can only remember one of my mates - who generally takes a fairly right-wing stance on things - being more-or-less in favour of the UK's participation, but without any strong support for it. Maybe it was a generational thing: most of the people I discussed it with were in their 40s, 50s, or older, so would maybe be less likely to be caught up in any "gung-ho jingo-ism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 If Tony Blair had said "Sadam Hussein is an evil man with dangerous ambitions and too much influence so we need to remove him from power to allow a democratic government in Iraq" I would have supported him 150%. This was absolutely the right thing to do. What I don't and won't accept is being lied to by a Government elected for the people by the people. WMDs have been proven to be a lie at the very highest levels. That is unforgiveable and illegal and criminal, IMHO. The government has a duty to be open and honest about what they are doing and why. Some people will agree, some will disagree - that's politics. What Blair did was invent a ****** and bull scaremongering to ensure the majority agreed with the invasion, securing the next election victory. Can't see any other explanation. Cowardly and deceitful to the extreme, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Going to war with the purpose of regime change is illegal under the UN charter. You CANNOT invade and destroy a nation just because you don't like the guy in charge. If every nation took that stance we would have utter anarchy all over the planet. So the question is; Why Iraq and not Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Libya, Turkmenistan, Fiji or Guinea (all of which are dangerous military dictatorships)?? Blair lied and he knew it. Saddam only had supreme power and chemical weapons because WE gave him the both the backing and the chemical warheads to use against the Iranians in our stead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Going to war with the purpose of regime change is illegal under the UN charter.You CANNOT invade and destroy a nation just because you don't like the guy in charge.[/b] If every nation took that stance we would have utter anarchy all over the planet. So the question is; Why Iraq and not Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Libya, Turkmenistan, Fiji or Guinea (all of which are dangerous military dictatorships)?? Blair lied and he knew it. Saddam only had supreme power and chemical weapons because WE gave him the both the backing and the chemical warheads to use against the Iranians in our stead. I didn't appreciate the bit in bold Cade. However, I stand by the fact the people of Iraq are better off and the world in general is a better place without Sadam Hussein so I'm glad we did what we did. The fact we did it on a lie when we all know oil concerns were the main motivation is an absolute disgrace. Blair should be held to account for that monumental lie. Rest assured, if Mugabbe, Castro, Il-sung, Gaddafi etc suddenly threatened the oil industry by their actions or intentions, I'm convinced the west would search for an excuse to go charging in all guns blazing. Luckily, the Iraq debacle means that not so many of the population will be easily fooled next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanio Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Going to war with the purpose of regime change is illegal under the UN charter. You CANNOT invade and destroy a nation just because you don't like the guy in charge. It is illegal unless authorised under Ch.VII of the Charter. Resolution 1441, which linked in 678 allowing the "use [of] all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area", was granted under Ch.VII. So the question is; Why Iraq and not Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Libya, Turkmenistan, Fiji or Guinea (all of which are dangerous military dictatorships)?? Security Council Paralysis. Also, if you're using the Humanitarian intervention argument, humanitarian intervention only creates a right to intervene, not an obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.