His Tonyness, why are they griling him again?

[R1Geezer]

They've done this to death now, what do they hope to prove? What possible action could come from this? If they sling him in Jail then great but I can't see that happenning so what's the point?

[jake-the-peg]

//All those who died in Tonies war//

Tragic when all they did was join the armed forces and kill 100,000 iraqui civillians

[jno]

Blair was always obsessed with his Legacy. This is one way of making sure it will look grubby. Suits me, I don't mind paying.

And Cameron's communications boss has just quit following a stream of revelations about hacking the public's phones (and fibbing about it). So I'm happy to see the truth about both parties being drawn out.

[anotheoldgit]

Taking into account the vast number of different issues that are debated, opinions do sometimes match this is due to the very nature of statistics, so don't get too worried Andy.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Tragic when all they did was join the armed forces and kill 100,000 iraqui civillians ///

Always able to quote numbers Jake, care to quote the number they themselves have killed since?

[Zeuhl]

<<care to quote the number they themselves have killed since? >>

What? You mean in the anarchy and lawlessness brought about by George and Tony's 'Regime Change' Adventure.

The islamic fundamentalists that Saddam kept out of the country.
The terrorists and militias that Saddam suppressed.
The billions this will cost us for the foreseeable future.

Yes, it's hard to see what Bliar could possibly have to answer for!!
.

[Quizmonster]

When are ordinary people going to grasp that the concept of "an illegal war" is something that even acknowledged experts in International Law - such as Cambridge professsors in that very subject - cannot agree even on what the phrase actually MEANS? There simply IS no final arbiter on any definition.
The words are, consequently, absurd and so is the notion that Tony Blair should be jailed for his decisions..

The phrase clearly cannot mean "invading without United Nations approval", as that is precisely what happened when the Coalition Forces went into Kosovo earlier. Nobody whined about illegality then and nor did they harp on about how much oil the West got as a result!

[Zeuhl]

Even if the term 'illegal' isn't appropriate in this context
joining in a war based on dishonesty and distortion with no proper objectives, to serve motivations that you know your electorate would never support and in the face of massive opposition from that electorate

which you know (or should know) will cause the deaths of thousands of civilians and your own troops
and destabilise a whole region for generations to come

is still a criminal act.
.

[Quizmonster]

The organisers of the anti-war rally in London - who had no experience whatsoever of assessing crowd-size - claimed 2 million plus people attended. The Met - with masses of appropriate experience - said about three quarters of a million were involved. In a country of over 60 million, that hardly represents "massive opposition". Had there been a pro-war rally, would you have said three quarters of a million supporters represented "massive support"?

Also, I'm not at all sure how something to which it is inappropriate to apply the term "illegal" can conceivably be said to be "criminal".

[rov1100]

There are two historians on the Chilcot panel. Never mind lessons learnt they are intending to write the history for future genrations to read. On the other side you have Blair and his cronies trying to write history with their memoirs that favours their actions but is contrary to the real truth.

A second resolution was required to wage war on Saddam which wasn't forthcoming. Blair had promised Bush he will follow him all the way so he had to rely on lies, spin and cajoling. The yanks were so pleased with Blair's support they have given him ample opportunities to become a multi-millionaire.

I just hope the historian's books will be the ones that future generations will refer to. The politicians memoirs are just junk.

[DTCwordfan]

The big mistake by both Blair and Bush was not to argue for the removal of Hussein on the basis of genocide. I attach one report of mass graves and this is one of several.......if I remember right, the Brits found a similar sized grave near Basra very soon after going in. There was that Beeb programme as well on the murder and removal of the Euphrates delta fishermen as they were seen to be housing dissidents and the muhadjin (spelling), never mind causing a major environmental disaster (minor to the genocide of course and not a basis for war).

http://articles.balti...amin-mass-graves-iraq

http://www.independen...-marshes-1534264.html

If they had argued for this, there was more of a case for making the parallels with what passed in Yougoslavia. And I think that we would have been more accepting.


But the pair and their advisory teams were too gung ho and went for the big play - more fool them in not having a back-up stratgey. However, I do believe that Hussein did have WoMD - to some extent - and that these were spirited away to probably Syria, or even Syria and Libya. Enough to justify war, well that is debatable - but the removal of thousands of people by Hussein was certainly justifiable for action.

[Quizmonster]

"Contrary to the real truth", Rov? I thought the inquiry was intended to establish what that IS, but you and others claim to know what it is ALREADY!

"A second resolution was required", you say. Well, WAS it? Surely that is the very point over which the various supposed international legal experts debating the war's "legality" are at loggerheads.

Given thay YOU seem to "know" so much, I think you should phone Sir John and save us all a fortune!

[rov1100]

Quizmaster as I said I hope the historians on the panel have enough information to publish the real story. Most of my comments are already in the public domain.

[giveup22]

Enough hot air to save on the heating bills

[giveup22]

enough hot air to save on the heating bills

[Quizmonster]

The existence of the Flat Earth Society is also "in the public domain".

[andy-hughes]

Cirkey QM - I have never known you to be so fesity on a thread!

Obviously this iis something about which you feel strongly.

My view is that nothing meaningful will rsult from the Chilcott Enquiry - apart from a vast cost to the tax payer.

History will show that Blair and Bush were rather more keen on going into war, than they were on developing a proper objective, together with a strategy to achieve it, and appropriate logistics to make an invasion viable.

What appears to have happened is that they waded in with no clear stategy - WMD suddenly morphed into a 'war on terror', what ever that means.

The respective governments are now left floundering with massive losses, and no real 'result' to speak of, and no way of extricating themselves with honour.

History shows us where we have been in order to show us where we are going.

In this case, where we have been is Viet Nam, where are is Afghanistan, and where we are going still remains to be seen.

Would that it was as easy to walk away for the governments and troops as it has been for Blair and Bush.

[Quizmonster]

Hi, Andy. We're going to have to stop being on opposite sides so often...that's twice in ten years!
If one thing was certain when the Iraq invasion started, it was that the coalition would win. Equally inevitable, therefore, was the certainty that the existence or otherwise of WMD would rapidly be established. Tony Blair would have had to be a demented 5-year old not to spot this elephant-trap looming on the road ahead. If he really had lied about their existence, what do you suppose he had in mind to tell us all when none were found?
Lying and being wrong are not the same thing and none of the four Inquiries that have already sat on the matter concluded that he was a liar. It just seems that anti-Blairites will go on demanding Inquiry after Inquiry until one comes up with the "right" (for them) answer. Will that be Chilcott? I doubt it.
People who think he should be tried as a war criminal ought simply to start collecting money to open a private prosecution against him. Even easier, perhaps they might try working out why no wealthy individual or group has already done that. Seems pretty clear to me and that brings us back to the fact that experts in International Law do not agree on what constitutes "an illegal war" or on whether an additional approval from the UN was necessary.
But there we go...we shall just have to agree to disagree. Cheers

[andy-hughes]

Hello QM - hope you are very well.

I'm not at all sure that we are on opposite sides here.

I do believe, as I pointed out in my previous post - that Bush and Blair were far too keen to advance without proper planning and a clar objective in mind - the nonsensical term 'war on terror' hardly cuts it - you might as well have a war on sunshine!

That said, I do not believe that Blair deliberately misled the country - I think he believed intelligence which has since been disproved, but we all have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. As you correctly point out, lying and being wrong are vastly different, he is seen as the first, he was the second, but I reiterate that he would not have been so badly caught out if he had listened to his Weapons Inspectors rather than to good 'ole George.

We are where we are, and i regret that there is not reasonable expectation of a conclusion that is in even the same planetary system as a'victory's, or a 'resu't, or to quote the reptilian Bush, something that shows that we 'got the job done'.

All wars are a tragedy - this one is no different.

[jackthehat]

Just a quickie...........

If you are a swivel-eyed despot who knows that your goose is cooked the moment you fall into the hands of the invaders/liberators.............why would you shy away from using the WMDs that you have stock-piled ?

If the time that your country is being invaded/liberated isn't the correct time, exactly *what* was the point in (supposedly) having them ?

[Quizmonster]

What you seem to be saying, Jack, is that - once the invasion had begun and no WMD had been deployed against us - THEN we knew none were available. Rather late, don't you think, given that the coalition were by then obviously committed? Should the coalition generals have said on D-Day +1, "Sorry, Saddam, we got it wrong. We'll be off, mate!"?

Hello again, Andy. Glad we're not on totally opposed sides after all!