ChatterBank3 mins ago
Does Tony Blair Still Think He Was Right To Invade Iraq?
In this interview he says he has given up trying to convince others about going to war in Iraq. Is he right and nearly everyone else wrong?
http://
Full interview on Newsnight BBC2 tonight (Tuesday) 10.30pm
http://
Full interview on Newsnight BBC2 tonight (Tuesday) 10.30pm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The main reason that Russia, France and China - the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council - did not support Bush and Blair was not because of their leaders' infinite wisdom and anti-war sentiments, it was becuse they were coining in vast sums from Iraq in the form of oil and weapons deals.
Everyone seems to forget that Saddam had given the UN WMD inspectors the run-around for years AND had used precisely such weapons against his own people!
The organisers of the anti-war march in London - who had no experience of assessing crowd size - claimed 2 million people were there. The Met - with long experience of just that - originally said there were 750,000 people.
These and other such exaggerations, errors and oversights were what the rabid right-wing British gutter press have since dinned into the heads of the gullible British public.
Of course, many people were genuinely against war in any form and for any purpose, so I respect their opinions, but how many of the people who have so far answered this thread with the usual anti-Blair bile have the slightest notion of just what was involved at the time?
Everyone seems to forget that Saddam had given the UN WMD inspectors the run-around for years AND had used precisely such weapons against his own people!
The organisers of the anti-war march in London - who had no experience of assessing crowd size - claimed 2 million people were there. The Met - with long experience of just that - originally said there were 750,000 people.
These and other such exaggerations, errors and oversights were what the rabid right-wing British gutter press have since dinned into the heads of the gullible British public.
Of course, many people were genuinely against war in any form and for any purpose, so I respect their opinions, but how many of the people who have so far answered this thread with the usual anti-Blair bile have the slightest notion of just what was involved at the time?
I've come to respect Blair's reasons for supporting Bush even though I do not agree with them. I believe that a full scale invasion was just plain wrong although actually very successful. That is a matter of principle on my part.
As for the UN Security Council Quizmonster is correct. And now with Syria it's a case of plus ca change although ironically not in the case of France :-)
As for the UN Security Council Quizmonster is correct. And now with Syria it's a case of plus ca change although ironically not in the case of France :-)
Blair made a fatal mistake in cojoling Bush to go for the UN 2nd resolution. It failed because Russia and France did not agree with the resolution. So dispite this Bush and Blair went to war anyway saying it wasn't needed. If they had found WMD their actions would have been justified but they didn't find anything and the war became illegal.
Blair thought getting the 2nd resolution would be plain sailing but he became completely unstuck and Bush has not forgiven Blair for forcing him down that route.
Blair thought getting the 2nd resolution would be plain sailing but he became completely unstuck and Bush has not forgiven Blair for forcing him down that route.
/the slightest notion of just what was involved at the time?/
Quiz
I believe many of us recall the pro attack arguments at the time and remember clearly our dismissal of those arguments.
Nobody with any knowledge at the time believed Saddam possessed wmd's much less that they had the capability of deploying them either in Iraq or against Britain.
Of course, iraqi exiles, Kurds and other anti saddam lobbyists were all very keen to say anything that would lead to foreign powers doing what they couldn't do.
Was the invasion a success?
The country is still a ruin
Ruled by militias and other thugs who terrorise the iraqis more than saddam ever did
And the only reason they aren't attacking us is that the americans have hired them for 'security duties' at a cost of billions of dollars
Yeah - a great success!
Quiz
I believe many of us recall the pro attack arguments at the time and remember clearly our dismissal of those arguments.
Nobody with any knowledge at the time believed Saddam possessed wmd's much less that they had the capability of deploying them either in Iraq or against Britain.
Of course, iraqi exiles, Kurds and other anti saddam lobbyists were all very keen to say anything that would lead to foreign powers doing what they couldn't do.
Was the invasion a success?
The country is still a ruin
Ruled by militias and other thugs who terrorise the iraqis more than saddam ever did
And the only reason they aren't attacking us is that the americans have hired them for 'security duties' at a cost of billions of dollars
Yeah - a great success!
As a career politician, Blair is probably incapable of admiting he was wrong.
Of course, he was wrong, from Day One, but was not to be disuaded from following the war-mongering facist Dubbya into bloodshed for a shifting premise.
If Blair admits he was wrong - there will be little comfort for the bereaved, and no turning back the clock, so he understands that nothing except his already shattered reputation could be further damaged by such an admission.
he may be capable of convincing himself beyond even his own doubts that he was right - some people can do that - and it is a prerequisite skill as a politician who makes life and death - in this case death - decision.
But if he has a heart and not a swinging brick like Maggie, then maybe in the wee small hours he lies awake and thinks about the enormity of what he has done ... but only he will ever know.
Bush lacks the simple intelligence and inherent sense of humanity an dcaring to ever think he was wrong, so he doubtless sleeps like a baby.
Of course, he was wrong, from Day One, but was not to be disuaded from following the war-mongering facist Dubbya into bloodshed for a shifting premise.
If Blair admits he was wrong - there will be little comfort for the bereaved, and no turning back the clock, so he understands that nothing except his already shattered reputation could be further damaged by such an admission.
he may be capable of convincing himself beyond even his own doubts that he was right - some people can do that - and it is a prerequisite skill as a politician who makes life and death - in this case death - decision.
But if he has a heart and not a swinging brick like Maggie, then maybe in the wee small hours he lies awake and thinks about the enormity of what he has done ... but only he will ever know.
Bush lacks the simple intelligence and inherent sense of humanity an dcaring to ever think he was wrong, so he doubtless sleeps like a baby.
It's simplistic to consider George W Bush unintelligent but rather typical of Britain's brainwashed. The man has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, two of the top dozen universities in the world.
Despite that, we find British people with a CSE in metalwork and an O Level in crochet claiming he's an idiot. (Not saying you are that person, Andy, but simply making the point!)
Despite that, we find British people with a CSE in metalwork and an O Level in crochet claiming he's an idiot. (Not saying you are that person, Andy, but simply making the point!)
QM - good afternoon - hope you are well.
Of course i take your point, insofar as Bush is academically intelligent, which he clearly is, but that does not equate with a sense of vision, humanity, and the ability to care - none of which he seems to possess.
his constant baning on about his 'war on terror' which was such a nonsensical phrase - you can't declare war on a concept, you might as well declare war on sunshine.
So i will conceed that he is intelligent, but still lacking in a sense of proportion, or that the urge to finish 'Daddy's job' in Iraq was not reason enough to commit to militarty conflict with no clear strategy, or plans for the aftermath of the invasion - history has showsn that neither were considered in the rush to march in and flex military muscles - again.
They say we need history to avoid repeating our mistakes - Viet nam suggests that is a lesson that successive US governments have yet to asssimilate.
Of course i take your point, insofar as Bush is academically intelligent, which he clearly is, but that does not equate with a sense of vision, humanity, and the ability to care - none of which he seems to possess.
his constant baning on about his 'war on terror' which was such a nonsensical phrase - you can't declare war on a concept, you might as well declare war on sunshine.
So i will conceed that he is intelligent, but still lacking in a sense of proportion, or that the urge to finish 'Daddy's job' in Iraq was not reason enough to commit to militarty conflict with no clear strategy, or plans for the aftermath of the invasion - history has showsn that neither were considered in the rush to march in and flex military muscles - again.
They say we need history to avoid repeating our mistakes - Viet nam suggests that is a lesson that successive US governments have yet to asssimilate.
One aspect of Blair's guilt that i think is often overlooked is his influence in the USA at the time
I know most Americans don't rate us or our leadership but I wonder how many Americans who suspected that George W was leading them into a catastrophe and would have objected, were reassured by the fact that' it must be OK because Britain and nice Mr Blair' were supporting him.
I know most Americans don't rate us or our leadership but I wonder how many Americans who suspected that George W was leading them into a catastrophe and would have objected, were reassured by the fact that' it must be OK because Britain and nice Mr Blair' were supporting him.
I spent some time on the east coast of america and was in new york at the start of the second gulf war. The majority of americans I spoke to were against going in. I saw a million new yorkers protesting against the war in time square, the following day about twenty-thirty pro-war demonstrators held their own protest.
Don't always confuse the actions of a government with the views of its people.
Don't always confuse the actions of a government with the views of its people.
Andy, I agree declaring war on sunshine is nonsensical. However, I think declaring war on rainfall - but only during the day - makes good sense! Given that scientists can actually 'create' rain, I don't see why they couldn't take steps to discover ways of making it happen only when we want it to.
(If any meteorologist reads this...it's a joke.)
(If any meteorologist reads this...it's a joke.)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.