Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tony Blair, the Iraq War and the Chilcot Report. Thoughts? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    there was no evidence that WMD was used
    No evidence? Halabja was, what, a conspiracy theory?

    Dr David Kelly mysteriously died days before he was to present evidence to reinforce absence of WMD
    I'm not going to engage in conspiracy theories for which there is no proof or even plausible supporting evidence.

    Alaistair Campbell did indeed 'sex up' the dossier which mislead Parliament into voting to go to war in Iraq
    The first justification outlined in the House of Commons war resolution was that Saddam had developed the Al-Samoud 2 missile, with a range of 180km, in contravention of UNSCR 687. That illegal weapons development is not disputed. It is also not disputed that chemical weapons were found in Iraq

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...md_21jun06.pdf

    Now it's true that Campbell put together a dossier to present the case in the most persuasive way possible. But nobody has claimed that any of these assertions were simply made up by the government. Some may have come from less-than-reliable sources but there were no claims that were fabricated by the government. There's a reason why the French and Russians also believed Saddam possessed WMDs (I suppose because he did; see above link)

    "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." , Kofi Annan on UK's intervention in Iraq.
    The UN Secretary General is not world dictator, and Kofi Annan is not a lawyer. We have a legal process to decide whether a crime of aggression has occurred, not the sole world of a Ghanaian diplomat whose tenure at the UN was characterised by some of the most repellent corruption scandals ever seen

    This is stretching the scope of maxwellisaton to fit the agenda. I find this unacceptable.
    How is it stretching the scope of Maxwellisation? Be specific. Maxwellisation allows an individual who has been adversely named in a report to have an opportunity to respond to those points to the inquiry chair before it is made public. This is what happened in the Chilcott Inquiry; no more, no less.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by star80)
    Bush Lied Thousands Died
    Thousands? The estimated civilian death toll was 1 million. I'm not going into the legality of the Iraq war but what annoying me is that it took them this long to start releasing the report. Blair should've been treated as a criminal and shouldn't have been allowed to vito certain email exchanges between himself and Bush. If we're not going to have complete transparency, why do the report in the first place? We the general public elect these clowns in the first place so are entitled to see all the evidence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Themini)
    Thousands? The estimated civilian death toll was 1 million
    Not even close. The *surveys* that provided those estimates (based on a calculation of pre-2003 mortality rates, and based on a methodology that has been roundly criticised by statistical experts) are not considered to be credible anymore.

    The Iraq Family Health Survey conducted for the World Health Organisation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health estimated 150,000 had died from 2003 to 2008. The Iraq Body Count (which is probably an underestimate, but not by 6 times) says 160,000.

    The 1 million figure as a proposition asserts that twice as many people died in Iraq between 2003 and 2006 as died in the Syrian Civil War. That simply is not a credible assertion; the level of violence in the Syrian Civil War has dwarfed the violence in Iraq post-2003.

    200,000 to 250,000 as an estimate doesn't seem far off, but it's worth noting the vast majority of those deaths were Iraqis being killed by other Iraqis, not Iraqi civilians being killed by US or UK troops.

    Blair should've been treated as a criminal and shouldn't have been allowed to vito certain email exchanges between himself and Bush
    So even though Blair hasn't been charged with any crime, and even though there is no basis in law for him to be charged (given the ICC had no jurisdiction in 2003 over crimes against peace), he should be treated as convicted anyway? I take it you are generally opposed to civil liberties and human rights, then?

    If we're not going to have complete transparency, why do the report in the first place?
    Blair didn't veto the release of those emails, they were vetoed either by the US government on the basis that such communications with the US president are confidential and that it would be diplomatically unacceptable to release them, or by the UK government where they contain classified material. I can see no basis to object to that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Themini)
    Thousands? The estimated civilian death toll was 1 million. I'm not going into the legality of the Iraq war but what annoying me is that it took them this long to start releasing the report. Blair should've been treated as a criminal and shouldn't have been allowed to vito certain email exchanges between himself and Bush. If we're not going to have complete transparency, why do the report in the first place? We the general public elect these clowns in the first place so are entitled to see all the evidence.
    The vast majority of those were from the sectarian conflict. It's highly disingenuous to imply that us and America etc killed those people. You're suggesting that Iraqis are unable to exist without slaughtering each other in sectarian conflict unless they're brutally oppressed by a dictator like Saddam Hussein.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by KatieBlogger)
    Post 9/11 Blair and Bush believed that Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein was protecting members of Al Quaeda who had attacked the west.
    Nope, they didn't believe that. They knew that the people who'd been protecting Al Quaeda were the Saudis, but they were 'our allies'. (Just as Hussein had been.)

    But following the first Gulf War, Hussein was unfinished business as far as Bush Jr was concerned, and 9/11 was the excuse rather than the reason. Blair - to his eternal shame - just went along with it.

    The policy came first and the 'evidence' was made up to suit that, including Blair's team putting pressure on supposedly independent analysts to toe the line.

    The reason for the war was regime change, first and last.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Also, chemical weapons were found in Iraq.
    No-one disputes that Iraq had had a CW programme. The US continued its support of Hussain after he proved that by using them in the Iran-Iraq war and against his civilians.

    That document, which just says after one of the biggest searches in history we found 500 degraded munitions - i.e. shells etc that had contained CW agents, but were no longer viable - reinforces the case that Iraq had indeed ended its CW programme prior to the invasion, just as it said.

    For comparison, when the US began to dispose of its CW stockpile, just two ships in 1990 contained more than 100,000 shells from its stores in Germany alone.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by unprinted)
    That document, which just says after one of the biggest searches in history we found 500 degraded munitions - i.e. shells etc that had contained CW agents, but were no longer viable - reinforces the case that Iraq had indeed ended its CW programme prior to the invasion, just as it said.
    Oh, yes, it also says 'we've been totally unable to find any more, but we've really really convinced ourselves that they are there.'

    They still haven't been found, have they? What might be the reason for that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KatieBlogger)
    This is something I'm just learning about. Do you think that the people who are still so vitriolic towards Blair and angry at the war understand this? Because, I must say - before I started reading about this subject, I had no idea about this differentiation. I just assumed WMD was the reason and I think that's what a lot of the public think. I also think people got hung up on the dossier and the 45 minute claim but Blair himself stated that he distanced himself from that claim and it was only mentioned about twice and then dropped (Andrew Marr interview).
    Yep, the 45 minute claim was grabbed upon more by the headline writers than the government. It was a piece of intelligence that seized the public imagination. Then, as we know from the Hutton Inquiry, the journalist Andrew Gilligan lied about the whole thing and what Dr David Kelly had said to him.

    The prominence of the claim was the only real issue that could come out of this - and largely that was whipped up by the media and popular perception, because it was interesting.

    Are you referring to the Syrian Civil War? I have a sketchy knowledge of this so will read some more for a better understanding.
    Yep, that instability gave ISIL the safehaven they needed to strengthen.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The fact remains if it was just about removing dictators who killed their people, Zimbabwe would've been dealt with long ago. But if there's nothing of financial or tactical value in your country, the rest of the world lets you do what you want to people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am not basing any judgement of Tony Blair on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Blair was a great prime minister. If anything he did us a favour by going into Iraq, there was weapons of mass destruction which was reported in the New York Times.

    Who cares if Tony Blair's actions wiped a million of scum out, Put it this way the looney liberals and hard left judge Blair as a war criminal, what if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction and used them on us, everyone would of slated him for not going in. The United Nations reported there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but Sadam could of hide it in neigbouring countries a bit like how muslims in Abottabad pretended they did not know about bin laden in an attempt to keep him alive. Also the United Nations has worldpeace in its aim's objectives and mission statement.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...ds-found-iraq/

    I think Blair is a national hero and should not be put up for war crimes, no one can explain which war crimes he has committed, overthrowing a dictator and stopping Iraq using the WOMD on the west because we all know how muslims hate western Democracy and want to make England an Islamic state. If anything really he stopped some Iraqi's coming to England. I am really surprised that people care about the Iraq war lets have a look at some of the other things he did

    Implemented the National minimum wage to ensure people had better living standards
    Improved the NHS from the previous Tory Government
    Implemented Tax/Working Tax credits
    Reduced corporation taxes for companies
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NerradCFCB)
    I am not basing any judgement of Tony Blair on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Blair was a great prime minister. If anything he did us a favour by going into Iraq, there was weapons of mass destruction which was reported in the New York Times.

    Who cares if Tony Blair's actions wiped a million of scum out, Put it this way the looney liberals and hard left judge Blair as a war criminal, what if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction and used them on us, everyone would of slated him for not going in. The United Nations reported there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but Sadam could of hide it in neigbouring countries a bit like how muslims in Abottabad pretended they did not know about bin laden in an attempt to keep him alive. Also the United Nations has worldpeace in its aim's objectives and mission statement.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...ds-found-iraq/

    I think Blair is a national hero and should not be put up for war crimes, no one can explain which war crimes he has committed, overthrowing a dictator and stopping Iraq using the WOMD on the west because we all know how muslims hate western Democracy and want to make England an Islamic state. If anything really he stopped some Iraqi's coming to England. I am really surprised that people care about the Iraq war lets have a look at some of the other things he did

    Implemented the National minimum wage to ensure people had better living standards
    Improved the NHS from the previous Tory Government
    Implemented Tax/Working Tax credits
    Reduced corporation taxes for companies
    How old are you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    How old are you?
    He's a troll and a poor one at that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Tony Blair is innocent and I can't wait for the Corbyn scum to grovel when the chilcot inquiry comes out
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    He's a troll and a poor one at that.
    How many perma bans have you had? **** off you dirty anti-semite.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Can we all stick to the topic and be civil please.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KatieBlogger)
    Can we all stick to the topic and be civil please.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You posted in the political forum of a website full of kids, kids who think they're smarter than they are and have no experience of the real outside world adults live in.

    You're asking for a bit too much.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    You posted in the political forum of a website full of kids, kids who think they're smarter than they are and have no experience of the real outside world adults live in.

    You're asking for a bit too much.
    You're probably right. I need to find a forum for older people I guess...not that older people can't be immature though.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:


    Quite interesting to listen to his trial and some actual footage. I would love to jump on the bandwagon and say Saddam Hussain was evil.. without seeing any actual evidence?! I am sure some experts here can point me in the right direction to something I could watch or read?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Here is a list of "good" things Tony Blair did.. according to a post above: i added my points in red

    Implemented the National minimum wage to ensure people had better living standards
    Improved living standards for some workers maybe.. it priced us out of the markets for many manufacturing and retail sectors.. ie we can't compete with China. Has wages increase, so do prices, therefor it is pointless and does not really benefit people on NMW. NMW also encourages people from out of the UK to come and work here thus reducing employment opportunities for many increasing unemployment. To sum it up.. it was a bad idea.
    Improved the NHS from the previous Tory Government
    Can't comment on this, I know very little about the NHS and how much funding it received.. it is not in a good shape atm!Implemented Tax/Working Tax credits
    I can't deny it is a good thing for families. Not good for the budget though.. and a better system could easily be put into place. The credits should be just that.. credits for food, clothing and shelter. Not beer, drugs, cig's and holidays.. if you want luxury's.. WORK!Reduced corporation taxes for companies
    Nice of him
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Removing saddam was absolutely the right thing to do, at the time Iraq was happy with it (minus the terrorists) but now when you ask them, they actually say life was better under saddam does this mean the war failed? Arguably but I would argue going in wasn't the issue, pulling out too soon was the issue. The UK and USA spent years trying to achieve stability and when they were close enough they fled too fast. I would also like to point out that the extra years of war were unnecessary if the USA and UK didn't back the notorious sectarian leader Al-Maliki who shouldn't have even won the elections.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.