CONT: The real military threats in that region are the United States for occupying two countries, having quite a number of military bases in multiple countries, keeping a fleet in the gulf and supporting the only country in that region that actually has Nuclear weapons and continues to use military force on its neighbours in aggression, Israel. Ask yourself whether you would not build arms and look for nuclear weapons if you were surrounded by such provocation by two foreign powers.
What Tony Blair fails to understand is that the security services work for themselves not him. It’s very possible he was lied to by the security services.
You know, I can't help thinking that "very unfortunate" just doesn't cut it. After all, we are talking about a government sacrificing the lives of some of its citizens.... for what exactly?
why did they not ask the right questions?!! for example, "HOW EXACTLY WAS SADAM A THREAT TO ENGLAND AND THE WORLD?" He was a threat to his own people obviously, but how was a 3rd world country, with no weapons technology a threat to the rest of the world?
March 2003 the UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated to give them access and they had found no evidence of disarmament undertaking breaches. They recommended a period of a few months more in which they could make more considered and detailed inspection with that country's cooperation. Recommendation declined. They forced their way in, they declined offers of cooperation on the matter. Many of them were killed, many many others were killed by them. 7 years and counting.
Am I the only person who somewhat sees two sides here? In 2002-03, I had very strong views against invading Iraq and I actively protested against it. In retrospect I don't regret doing that because of the basis of the invasion- fundamentally the illusive WMDs was proven to be misguided at best, an outright lie at worst. The human rights issue only came into play latter when it seemed the WMDs were not being found. But in retrospect, I think the anti-war movement at that time and now cont;
Whitewash. I would have asked him how can you justify attacking someone who you suspect might attack you? I'll accept you thought Iraq was a threat to its own people and potentially to the world, and that justifies significant international pressure, but it doesn't justify throwing the first punch. How can you attack a country that hasn't attacked you and then claim self-defense? That's madness. And its not a war btw. "Its only a war when two armies are fighting" - Bill Hicks.
@TheGoatweasel Thats ok. Thanks for the reply. I agree, reasons can be questionable and have basis in corruption. That was my principle reason for opposing Iraq.
@TheGoatweasel 'My justification for the invasion'- You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I clearly said I OPPOSED the invasion. The point I was making is that in retrospect 'the other side' had legitimate concerns. War and peace ARE NOT straightforward issues. Im posing the question what would we have done? Simply allowed Saddam to continue brutalising Iraq? Im simply trying to be open minded and see both sides to this. I still think it was right to oppose the invasion.
mcwaclb- You make a valid point. An issue I would raise with any absolute pacifist is Rwanda. No military intervention was taken against the Hutu militias and as a result up to 800,000 civilians were massacred in 100 days- the worst period of killing in modern times. Someone said (I can't remember who) that war is a bad thing but not the worst. In some situations it is the lesser of two evils.
This inquiry is honestly a bunch of BS. It looks more like a show then any true inquiry. No gritty questions were asked ! Might as well send anyone to be "questioned".
cont; if that was the case with Iraq, but it has to be acknowledged that the alternative would have been to allow the Saddamist regime to continue. This included electrocuting prisoners genitals, forcing prisoners to play football with concrete balls, gassing Kurds.... the grissly list goes on. For the past three decades Iraq has been through hell. If, it becomes a functioning democracy will people say the means justified the ends and will TB and GB be judged differently? I don't know.
cont; For their part, politicians should not make promises, they may not be able to keep- and certainly not display double standards. With the general election coming up, for once im very undecided because there are policies I like and dislike in all three big parties. Little parties won't make a difference and are too 'single issue' and not voting will only help extremists and certainly not fix the country.
People really shouldn't elect person who manages using fantasies because you have to really fantasize how he would give you proofs for his actions. He is trying his best lies so you believe he is just one of you making naive mistakes. Don't fantasize anymore people, take off his evil mask by checking his families income and expenses.
Shock them instead being shocked by them. People should put up with these opportunist. Lie after lies. People shouldn't let their fantasies managing our lives. People should investigate and shock them instead of talk with them. Shock them and use every part of the society to shock them!
glentubins- you describe the unnecessary death of civilians as 'political correctness'? I call trying to avoid civilian deaths practical military strategy. That's why Stanley McCrystal is trying hard to avoid it in Afghanistan. Civilian deaths do not help in the hearts and minds side of thing, for obvious reasons.
the insurgents that killed them. Whether one agrees with him or not, Tony Blair believes what he did was right so it would be disengenuous for him to apologise.
cont; largely under-acknowledged the scale of Saddams crimes. Launching the Iran-Iraq War, ethnic cleansing, appalling human rights abuses particularly at the hands of his sadist sons. That should not be forgotten. Saddam being removed was good in itself. But the fact that Iraq is now plagued by Islamist violence (albeit decreased from 2006 levels) shows extremists have filled the dictators shoes. But only a loony would not want the situation to improve and I think hardcore anti-war cont;
@iMaDeMoN2012 What were the consequences "either way"? U.N. was working slowly with Iraq, officially recognising it was still "compliant" with them, though they were disappointed at speed of compliance only. And they were 100% RIGHT to do that. *** Iraq hadn't 1 single Weapon of Mass Destruction. Saddam hadn't been attacking places for a few years + seemed to be taken by the notion of a reasonable future. ... cont.
< 2 ...Such an agreement could only be concerned anyway if necessary, to step outside what UN might permit or not specifically condemn. Which is the same as that the aim, agreed "end", was AT ALL COSTS, whatever was UN, Iraqi, EU or British positions / attitudes. It's illegal in itself. Then, it's treachery, to make a foreign agreement in advance of actions for a decided aim, which clearly puts national concerns, of British people & other politicians, 2nd (actually, rather, unconsidered).
@TheGoatweasel I agree with you on China. It has an appalling human rights record. The unfortunate truth is it is a powerful country, a security council member, nuclear power etc. People allways make the point why Iraq and not North Korea etc. 'If' we take humanitarian intervention as a plausible cause for the war, then only one tyraniccal regime could be dealt with at once. But I remain opposed to the invasion because of its repurcussions, the misleading reasons and the oil factor.
Usha Prashar's question "So you [& Bush] were agreed on the end but not the means." highlights 1 distinct (also indeed treacherous) element of the illegality of Blair's acts. "So you [& Bush] were agreed on the end but not the means." It makes clear their agreement of a year before war was for -regime change anyway, whatever happens-. [The U.N. weren't concerned with that possibility, (Hussein & Iraq weren't active in foreign or much domestic harm anymore).] ...
@glentubin yes the germans that the usa nearly signedup with at start ofworldwar 1 then came in late under pressure.and back then no one really had any experience of war on that scale ww1 and ww2. so many things have changed since.
cont; activists allmost WANT the situation to be bad so they can say 'We were right'. I opposed the war, but the fact that overall violence is decreasing has to be welcomed. Of course, Iraq is still a very violent country and massacres still occur but everything points to a general improvement. Why would someone who opposed the war not want to support rebuilding efforts in that country? Now I am by no means an apologist for George Bush, Tony Blair or the other coalition leaders cont;
@mj2blue I disagree. Blair is not expressing regret at misreading the situation he is justifying his reading of that situation. Furthermore he is still warmongering with his comments that 'the West' needs to take action against Iran.
yes Blair wants to invade Iran next .............Invasion is habitual to BlairInvade and Conquer and get even Richer ......Blair is quite possibly the Luckiest Person on this Planet
@cloudbusterman A nation's constitution doesn't speak or act. There's nothing in it in itself that could favour what Blair did at all, as opposed to any other possible courses. And indeed, as Kinkspace says, Blair and his collegaues' acts are sufficient as serious injury against The UK to be treason. The Prime Minister of any country is not allowed to allow himself to be "puppeted". He makes the decisions, bears all responsibility, he knows very well every buck stops with him
@BlairSupporter Although I still think the Iraq campaign was a big mistake for several reasons that I have listed above, I do regard Tony Blair as a political giant; a man who dominated his generation in politics. Whilst there are areas I strongly opposed Blair on, there are other other areas in which I think his tenure was progressive; even thinking about foreign policy, his tireless work on African poverty and ending the war in Sierra Leone were progressive. And whilst I opposed the war, I
@BackInTheEUSSR - this has been flagged as "spam". "Hang the mass murdering bastard!" It is not spam. It is the sort of comment that is dangerous and inciteful and should be banned.
@Oleilord - @ 3:56 - hardly "laugh". Is that what you call "laughing"? He was emphasising the fact that Saddam had started to "mess around again". It IS slightly laughable, in an exasperating way, that people didn't seem to realise that Saddam had started messing around again. And @4:30 - that was edited in here. He does not speak in a monotone for 6 hours. And @ 6:03 - yes it was divisive - in other words SOME agreed SOME disagreed. But he has been judged guilty without a trial. SHAMEFUL.
cont; they put politicians on a pedestal. Having said that, I have no sympathy for members who have spoken about cracking down on welfare claimants (whether or not they are guilty of fraud) and yet exploited the system themselves. I do think though that it is important to differentiate in party policy. The Liberal Democrats opposed the invasion at a time when it wasn't easy to do so. So I can't agree when some people say 'They are all the same'
< 4 And, though Blair dances around this truth constanly, NEVER FORGET:- The aim, the agreed aim, really COULD ONLY EVER HAVE BEEN war, with UN concerned not to needlessly kill or harm many. And considering Iraqi governors wouldn't simply take early retirement as Blair & Bush ask. Though, NOTE, remember, Blair never asked for that- his words to Iraq were very different, reassuring that UN compliance = safety. Iraq was "compliant". Blair lied to Iraq as well as UK & UN for a long time.
@TheGoatweasel Thinking of British politics, the Expenses Scandal really rocked Westminster- the fact many members are standing down is good for everyone. Fresh untainted parliamentarians will hopefully help rebuild trust. Again there are lots of angles to this. Councillors and council candidates have unfairly been tarred with the same brush. I think there will allways be a certain degree of sleaze in Westminster but perhaps that is true of any group of people. Iv'e been involved in cont;
@glentubin Well surely its good that there is concern. I agree, occupation in some cases seems pointless but in others its practical. In Afghanistan, coalition forces remain because the Afghans are still not ready to take over. But they are gradually improving. The current operation is Afghan-lead. An unstable Afghanistan left to the mercy of the Taliban (many of whom are not Afghan) would be bad for everyone as history shows us.
@markasius Which is why he is being protected by the powers that be, they cannot charge him without charging themselves with one & the same or aiding & abetting... and they ain't going to do that they would rather see their country fall to its knees first & imprison the entire population if they have to... well for all intensive purposes they already have.
@iMaDeMoN2012 Hmmm! Me being true + right because what I say is of "the right", of "the righteous", so couldn't be wrong. Where actually the other possibility, the one Blair took, was & is wrong because it is at very least grossly negligent (given Iraq's great height of volatility, & UK's unpreparedness it MUST be criminally neg.), ending in unneccessary mass deaths, torture, harm, human rights abuse, where he'd no business invading at all. Are you saying Political = bad. Even for politicians?
No ofcourse it's not ok to attack someone on those grounds alone, But the fact was an extremist leader was in power. He had already been breaching UN resolutions for years. The groundings of the war was the safety of the US/UK people cause you had better know we would have been the first targets with a Nuke. Instead of just making false assumptions and trying to link this to something compeltely random try to stick with the matter at hand.
Glentubin how old are you? Honestly, You've repeated the facts of ''Yellow cake'' for the 3rd time now. The point they didn't find any of it was not the point i was making. The point was that the tools were there to be made, AFXE even said himself US intelligence showed that Nucleur Weapons could have been made in years to come. But please, any of you tell me this. What has been wrong with US/UK occupying Iraq. I love how you ignore the amount of aid given to IRAQ people. Not Taliban.
I know the parents have lost their soldiers are heartbreaking but They need to understand their sons were not forced into the army they join voluntarily And it’s a job of the soldiers to fight in wars. And don’t Agree with the Iraq war
@@yusafkhan9347 At the end of the Second World War we made an agreement with our allies that if one is attacked by a terrorist or by another country we would intervene now Iraq’s problem in the war on terror was it Was using a manufacturing chemical weapons but the governments of the world being as fucked as they were then decided to make some random ass bullshit saying the weapons of mass destruction is world law not to use chemical weapons on people and on the soldiers so that is a reason adjustable reason for the invasion of Iraq
@@anthonykennedy5069 It was deceptive of governments to use the people of their own armed forces to fight a war which was in the interest of control commodities such as oil and gas which had also affected the USA when Saddam Hussain started trading oil in Euros instead of US dollars. They had no right to send other peoples son and daughters to die in a war of financial gains.
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 - and I'll be there next Friday too, when he gives evidence again at the Iraq Inquiry. I will post on it at the blog afterwards, for anyone who's REALLY interested in the truth and not just press-spun distortions and shameless LIES.
cont; challenge the hard left as to why they never seem to condemn the islamist suicide bombers, who are killing more civilians than coalition forces? This is ignorance at best, apologism at worst. History will probably judge TB harshly but Iraq has opened debate on the concept of humanitarian intervention. Rwanda 1994. Thousands being slaughtered daily and the world did nothing. I would appreciate hearing a pacifist stance on that. There are times when war is the only option. Im not sure cont;
Lets remember (any gloating tory's out there), John Major. George Bush, Iraq - 1991, Blair wasn't the first puppy to follow a Bush. You can see it now, the White House, "come on Tony, Let's go finish the job my Dad started" . For those who are a bit young to know what i mean, we been here before and unless something possitive happens from all off this, it will happen again.
@SullivanChannel He's is a better human being than most. If the world could which shoe's with him. Are we going to determine who is a good human being or not, based upon this one decision. A complex decision that has terrible consequence either way. I don't think, I know this is a false litmus test.
cont... politics in the past and the truth is most people do enter for the right reasons; because they see problems in society and want to do something about it, but often Westminster is a cut-throat world and people can unfortunately get corrupted. I think the mass media plays a role here. Because image is everything nowadays, mistakes are not mistakes but 'disasters' and successes are 'triumphs' so I think to an extent elements of the media are responsible for creating cynicism because cont;
@@simonzonenblick395 listen Simon, he was a bad man was saddam, one of the worst I'm Sure, so let's agree on that, no need to Talk to kurds etc to know that, but Blair is also a terribly evil man in my opinion, and is like to see him imprisoned on the charges of war crimes, infanticide maschcurading as politics, Blair is worse in my opinion because he comes from a world where we know better and we have greater opportunity to be better and comply to law better and be more honest. Now let's leave it there, good luck with your thoughts, cheers
@@thorpeylad9822 There's so much I could say in response, but you have shut down the discussion by decreeing what we can and cannot talk about, and by insisting we end after having had your say. You have clearly made your mind up and do not want to hear the other side.
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 your justification for the invasion(sadam being a bad man) is quite poor, if u apply that to world that theory would include most world leaders resulting in worldwar 3. china hasa list aslong as yourarm that makes sadam seem like a joke(not a funny one)
@bambotcha - when was the trial? I must have missed it. Oh, FGS. No-one is any kind of criminal until proven so under the law. Blair won't be charged, tried or found guilty because he is NOT a criminal.
@Boltneck77 - and let's rejoice in the gullible species' ability to spell. With an extra handclap, one-handed of course, for their political nous. Blair wast the best. IS the best.
@bigbother1 - Pardon? Hang who? Was there a trial? Did I miss it? FGS, if I was religious I'd say "God bless Tony Blair." Ok, I'll say it anyway. God bless Tony Blair, the hero of freedom and democracy.
