In my opinion, Bush and Blair are to blame, they lied in order to invade Iraq. I suppose if the US and the UK had been invaded and pounded with bombs, we too would be a tad unhappy, but it's no excuse for the terrorist nut jobs.
Blanket bombing the Middle East wouldn't be 100% effective because they're probably many thousands of these nut cases throughout the planet.
Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.
The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.
On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.
In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.
Last edited by Noir; 09-05-2015 at 06:01 AM.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.
Hello to a fellow Brit, Nonnie, and I hope you're enjoying your time here - and that the folks are treating you well !
- So. On the Chilcot Inquiry, tell me, Nonnie - aren't we still waiting for its findings to be published ? In fact, its failure to publish after such a delay has been a recent news item in the British press ! Chilcot's answer was that he was still waiting for the final submissions before he could publish, and we still don't have a date for that. You refer to 'secret' testimony. Yet, no findings from the Inquiry are in the public domain.
I believe Bush and Blair acted in good faith, dealing with a threat they genuinely believed existed. After all, a part of the problem with Saddam was that he had terrorist friends, and wasn't above reaching accommodations with them (consider his sheltering of Zarqawi, or his bankrolling of Hamas). Also consider that, as Saddam refused to give any data on his claim of not having WMD's (and he DID have some, as Santorum revealed, back in 2006) .. the Iraq invasion became ultimately necessary.
Nonnie, the case you're trying to make is more typical of one which our own Left would happily make (and have).
The US does NOT fund terrorism, or terrorist groups, it holds no responsibility at all for the current terrorist levels we see in the world. The nearest it ever came to being a 'terrorist sponsor' was in supporting the Mujahiddeen, this BEFORE Al Qaeda was ever created. Since the Mujahiddeen was a freedom-fighting group, one fighting a Soviet takeover of Afghanistan, it couldn't be categorised 'terrorist'.
There is one way which, in future, it may be possible to accuse America of funding terrorism. I refer, of course, to the shabby deal Obama has managed with Iran, and most particularly America's lifting of sanctions. Doing that will allow Iran to do a lot more to sponsor terrorism, and it's already well known for its activities in that regard !! Obama, in fiscally aiding Iran, therefore holds indirect responsibility for Iran's future aiding of terrorism.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
Hi Drummond, good to see/hear from you. The guys here are chalk and cheese to DF, so it's a pleasant forum to be on.
My knowledge is just what's gleamed from the Independent and Guardian.
Also, I can't stand Blair, he's a slime ball so I have my fingers crossed it turns out that the allegations of being a war monger in the press comes to fruition.
But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.
Bush and Blair were both fighting a War on Terror, and on those grounds alone, Saddam was a legitimate target. On the issue of WMD's, not just Britain and America were convinced he had some, but so was the wider world .. including the UN, by the way.
Saddam may have agreed to inspections (but only then after much mucking-around, and a toughly-worded Resolution, the basis for which determined their Inspection Team's remit to act) ... but those inspections were very limited in what they could achieve. Even Blix admitted that all his people could do was verify that WMD's had been destroyed at sites they were taken to. The QUANTITY destroyed couldn't be verified, nor could the starting-point of the numbers NEEDING to be confirmed as destroyed.
So, no. The Iraq invasion was the only logical and reasonable course of action.
You don't call Churchill a 'war criminal' for fighting Nazis. Nor should you call leaders fighting a War on Terror 'war criminals'. Both commitments, and the actions taken in their name, were equally meritorious.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
I'll agree, even with one reservation I'll not go into. Yes, it's a pleasant environment, there are some very good people here.
Well, exactly ! The Guardian is a Leftie rag (upmarket in Leftie terms, but unashamedly Leftie nonetheless). The Independent is as 'independent' as their consistently anti- War on Terror position, allows them to be, I suppose. They've been opposed to action taken in its name for a very long time.My knowledge is just what's gleamed from the Independent and Guardian.
The loudest of those allegations will come from the Left, who won't forgive Blair for siding with their 'great enemy', Bush. And Blair is no more a 'warmonger' than Churchill was, or Margaret Thatcher was, in defending the Falkland Islanders from Argentinian aggression. Terrorism is something that both defended against, and I suggest that they had that right.Also, I can't stand Blair, he's a slime ball so I have my fingers crossed it turns out that the allegations of being a war monger in the press comes to fruition.
One group, the Mujahiddeen, was later re-formed as Al Qaeda, with different aims, a different agenda. The Mujahiddeen existed to resist Soviet tyranny. Al Qaeda's purpose was far removed from that. One was a freedom-fighting group. The other, which America NEVER funded, was a terrorist group.But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.
Besides: if a country funds a country which it's allied to, then this ally later reneges on that, then sides with the enemy ... do you hold the finding-power responsible for funding AN ENEMY, when at no time during that funding, were they one ? Do you hold them responsible for a lack of clairvoyance capability ?
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.
I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.
Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.
Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?
No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
You'll probably find The Argentinians had invaded the Falklands, so we had to take action and Hitler started invading Europe. If we had to apply the same situation as Bush/Blair with Iraq to the two former examples, then we would have bombed Argentina and Germany before they kicked off !!
it's bit them in the butt !!One group, the Mujahiddeen, was later re-formed as Al Qaeda, with different aims, a different agenda. The Mujahiddeen existed to resist Soviet tyranny. Al Qaeda's purpose was far removed from that. One was a freedom-fighting group. The other, which America NEVER funded, was a terrorist group
Besides: if a country funds a country which it's allied to, then this ally later reneges on that, then sides with the enemy ... do you hold the finding-power responsible for funding AN ENEMY, when at no time during that funding, were they one ? Do you hold them responsible for a lack of clairvoyance capability ?
I believe in two things, keep ourselves to ourselves by keeping our noses out of the affairs of other nations and multiply defence spending 10 fold.
History provides evidence why this should be the case.
Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.