Hymer C 9. Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 After watching Tony Blair on Friday at the inquiry, I wonder if I have got it wrong or in the end does it come down to the fact that the decisions of one man can still take a country to war. Maybe I missed something but this seemed to be the impression coming through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Hymer C 9. - 2010-01-30 5:08 PM After watching Tony Blair on Friday at the inquiry, I wonder if I have got it wrong or in the end does it come down to the fact that the decisions of one man can still take a country to war. Maybe I missed something but this seemed to be the impression coming through. Having watched quite a bit of the enquiry I have now given up. The 'panel' never even tried to nail Tony Blair down - they seemed to be in awe of him. But I suppose that's what happens when an enquiry is run by such an 'establishment' group. He kept mentioning 9/11 but no one asked him what that had to do with Iraq. I still don't understand what the threat was to this country, that was bad enough to go to war. And some of the questions are so long and convoluted that I lost track of what they were asking. What a waste of an oppurtunity. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Hymer C 9. - 2010-01-30 5:08 PM After watching Tony Blair on Friday at the inquiry, I wonder if I have got it wrong or in the end does it come down to the fact that the decisions of one man can still take a country to war. Maybe I missed something but this seemed to be the impression coming through. I missed out the point about one man taking us to war. Of course one man didn't. There was a vote in parliament and the majority voted for it ( well Tories and Labour - only the Lib -Dems were against). It seems also that many other countries thought that Iraq had the weapons, they just didn't agree with us on what to do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymer C 9. Posted January 30, 2010 Author Share Posted January 30, 2010 Malc thats exactly what I hoped, it just seemed a lot of information had been made to fit the bill, it would be terrifying to think the decision rested on one mans determination to go to war. If the only comes out of this enquiry is that it did not happen and can never happen that would be reassuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 As I understand it the one man who really did want to go to war was George Bush and as it was his spy satellites and drones that provided most of the dodgy 'inteligence' and his subordinates who interpreted it and passed it on to our 'intelligence' service - who are paid by our government to give the answers the government of the day requires - why should anyone be surprised at the outcome? It was never going to be anything other than an invasion of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I would say it was one mans determination. Leading up to the war I could see no reason that was in open as to why we should attack Iraq, seeing Tony's determination on the subject I thought there must be something we wern't being told, it turns out many MP's thought the same, but it turns out all it was, was George W wanting to get a bit of family history sorted out for his father. The biggest problem seems to be it made us (once again) let Afganistan drop down the list of priorties, and that has led us to the mess we're in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Hi, It used to be that only the losing side could have war criminals. So what happens if Iraq somehow manages to win this war? 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Not surprised they handled Phoney Care "carefully". Not. I suspect because they were in awe of him, but because they wanted to get out of him exactly why we went to war on such flimsey evidence and, as the the two international legal bods stated earlier in the week, - in what they both thought was an illegal war. I can remember a German politician saying to Blair on a news report - "where is the evidence for these WMD's?" We had to "trust" Phoney Care that what he had seen was as he said. The truth now sems that it was not. Our trust was misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Since Blair quit as prime minister he has made himself into a multi millionaire, but at what price? He and his family will have to be under guard for the rest of their lives, in effect a jail without bars, someone will take a potshot at him sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Let's hope that it is sooner rather than later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Just think, Blair cannot enjoys the little pleasures of life, such as walking down to the shops to buy a bottle of beer, a packet of fags and a newspaper, he will be stuck in the house with that horror of a wife of his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 It appeared to me that Blair was basically saying that regime change is OK so long as it is a regime he doesn't like and that killing thousands of innocent people by terrorism is wrong but killing thousands of innocent people as a by-product of regime change is OK. Main problem seems to be that he is a legend in his own mind. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Blair and Bush will spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, I suppose that if one of them gets bumped off it will just be like the Mafia, sorry Tony/George, nothing personal but business is business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 GJH - 2010-01-31 4:59 PM It appeared to me that Blair was basically saying that regime change is OK so long as it is a regime he doesn't like and that killing thousands of innocent people by terrorism is wrong but killing thousands of innocent people as a by-product of regime change is OK. Main problem seems to be that he is a legend in his own mind. Graham Nicely put!! (lol) (lol) :-S :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 It's an old cliche but - One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 The important questions, and I think the only relevant questions, are why did we invade, and what was the rush? If they asked him, I missed it! But why didn't they ask him? No-one asks these questions. They all bang on about legality, and 45 minutes (what tosh that was), and WMD, and resolutions and everything but. Why? Are they just trying to hold a long enquiry to cause even more confusion? Is all this a smokescreen to hide the lack of the obvious questions?No enquiry is, or ever was, necessary. Just ask Blair, he is the one who knows - no-one else is necessary. I'm beginning to get suspicions about a conspiracy of silence, where they all know the simple truth, but for some (no doubt diplomatic) reason it cannot be publicly stated. Something that would make us all very, very, cross, indeed if we knew, and would cause a major diplomatic row if it were revealed. I has me theory, but it's rather too contentious to state on here, so maybe I'm now part of the conspiracy - or maybe I'm just becoming paranoid!!It is so bleedin' obvious everything stemmed from his conviction that Iraq had to be invaded, and the invasion couldn't wait. So, what gave him that conviction? He isn't that stupid. He must have appreciated the implications: he is a lawyer, and he must have sensed some of the risks. So why?I liked his answer about the lack of a plan, though! (I paraphrase) We had a plan, but they didn't do what we'd planned! Hmmmmmmmmmm! Maybe he is that stupid. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Whatever happened will probably be subject to the 100 year rule of silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 In simplistic terms I think he wanted the war to bolster his standing in the world. After all before him we had the Iron Lady taking on the Argentineans on the other side of the world and winning not just that conflict but the respect of most people - even those that did not and never would vote for her. So did Blair think that after the invasion of Iraq we would all see him as a great guy? Yes I think he did - because he comes across as that sort of person. That is why I think Graham’s summation is totally spot on! :-S "Main problem seems to be that he is a legend in his own mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymer C 9. Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 It seems to me that the enquiry is never going to tell us the truth because if it was found to be a illegal war the repercussions for the UK would be never ending and very very costly. I am still finding it frightening that one man can manipulate things to his own way, it is dangerous and now he is making noises about Iraq, this would seem to make us more at risk from terrorism not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Hymer C 9. - 2010-02-01 10:31 AM It seems to me that the enquiry is never going to tell us the truth because if it was found to be a illegal war the repercussions for the UK would be never ending and very very costly. I am still finding it frightening that one man can manipulate things to his own way, it is dangerous and now he is making noises about Iraq, this would seem to make us more at risk from terrorism not less. (I think you mean Iran) Maybe he mentioned Iran to divert attention away from the fact that he wasn't effectively answering any of the questions about Iraq. That's probably why he also kept mentioning 9/11. A bit more manipulation ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymer C 9. Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 Thanks Malc, I did. dohh :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggyd Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Illegal or not :-S has everyone forgotten about the thousands of Iraq,s that were gassed imprisoned and killed? I watched the whole thing on Friday and at one point lunch break I think they interviewed a Iraqi civilian, and she said the people of Iraq can not understand WHY T.B. is being pilloried for the Iraq war !! the country is a much better place and life although it is still unsettled the people are free to vote and aren't afraid to open their mouths as they were. Its easy to get at T.B. now they have found that there aren't any W.M.D. but I honestly think he believed they were there! and like Pontius pilot every one else that voted to go into Iraq is now washing there hands. T.B. was the prime minister of this country and had to make a decision! he made it like many other prime ministers before him it was unpopular and if every other P.M. had to face an inquiry like this when they made wrong decisions this country would be bankrupt!! and before anyone else says WE Are then so is the rest of the world. The trouble with the have alls in his Country they think that we should only have a Conservative Government and will muck rake as much as they can until they have one back again. And the Lefties like Clair Short wont ever forgive T.B. for being middle of the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Interesting points Maggy. As far as I can recall not many 'middle of the road' pms have taken it upon themselves to participate in an unprovoked invasion of any country that posed no significant threat to our own? Sad as the state of the Iraqi people was, and still is to a large degree, that in itself is not authority or reason to take the law into your own hands and cause mass destruction. Even worse was the removal of the existing flawed brutal government only to replace it with a void leading to yet more death, brutality and destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 No doubt about it in my mind - Saddam was a despot and needed to be removed. The gassing of civilians was a war crime and what he did to the marsh Arabs just as bad. But in all seriousness! - go to WAR to remove him??? Far easier surely grab him and treat him as the war criminal that he was. We already had the No fly zone and sanctions that stopped him importing goods and whilst this had a severe impact on civilians it was enabling other factions within Iraq to mount a challenge to Saddam. Sadly this was never allowed to run its course. Instead we had a politician more intent on headlines than morals and a Spin Doctor that made it up as he went along. I supported the invasion at the time because I could not believe that a UK Prime Minister would lie to us. But I remember having doubts at the time because of the legality discussions and thinking "Woe betide Blair if he is incorrect on this". As for some saying why have a go at Blair - well I am sure some Iraqis do think Blair was right to get rid of Saddam - I just wish we had done it from the moral high ground - not by sinking to the same level as Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Tracker - 2010-02-01 5:12 PM Even worse was the removal of the existing flawed brutal government only to replace it with a void leading to yet more death, brutality and destruction. Especially when one considers that the void was forseen years before. Frederick Forsyth published a novel in 1994 called The Fist of God, which was about the 1990/1 Gulf War. One of the characters asks why the coalition forces did not finish of Saddam Hussein then and the answer given is that a void would be created as Tracker describes. I have no idea of the extent to which that part of the book was based on fact but if Forsyth could see the danger then surely Blair and Bush could. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.