why did tony blair start a war with iraq?

Watch
debbie394
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
why did tony blair start a war with iraq?
2
reply
Kieran1996
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
oil and money

and being swindled by Bush
2
reply
M14B
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Kieran1996)
oil and money

and being swindled by Bush


(Original post by esmeralda123)
why did tony blair start a war with iraq?
oil and money.
and was not swindled by Bush.
Spoiler:
Show
In my opinion both are war criminals
1
reply
Kieran1996
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by M14B)
oil and money.
and was not swindled by Bush.
Spoiler:
Show
In my opinion both are war criminals
hm I dunno I have always seen Bush as the main instigator here

I think Blair just got conned by the whole "let's make it safe" issue

But I agree both are criminals, there was a lack of research and thought in to the whole thing
0
reply
M14B
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Kieran1996)
hm I dunno I have always seen Bush as the main instigator here

I think Blair just got conned by the whole "let's make it safe" issue

But I agree both are criminals, there was a lack of research and thought in to the whole thing
There was never an issue of safety in my opinion.
It was an oil war in order to put a puppet government there to "buy" the oil for peanuts.
Same thing in Libya
Both states are now unstable
1
reply
Kieran1996
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by M14B)
There was never an issue of safety in my opinion.
It was an oil war in order to put a puppet government there to "buy" the oil for peanuts.
Same thing in Libya
Both states are now unstable
Completely agree, safety was never really an issue

I think Corbyn's protests back then perfectly summed it up, everything he said would happen, has happened
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Kieran1996)
But I agree both are criminals, there was a lack of research and thought in to the whole thing
I am not quite sure what the strict definition of war criminal is in this case, but for a bit of context, don't forget that the Allies were well and truly on the back foot having just dealt with the worst terrorist attack on Western soil. I am not defending either of them - I have always thought the whole thing was a horrendous mess and a complete botched job, but you can't really look at the Iraq war without looking at the bigger picture.

There were hawks in the US baying for blood and Blair was keen to be part of the "special" friendship we have with the US.
2
reply
Kieran1996
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
I am not quite sure what the strict definition of war criminal is in this case, but for a bit of context, don't forget that the Allies were well and truly on the back foot having just dealt with the worst terrorist attack on Western soil. I am not defending either of them - I have always thought the whole thing was a horrendous mess and a complete botched job, but you can't really look at the Iraq war without looking at the bigger picture.

There were hawks in the US baying for blood and Blair was keen to be part of the "special" friendship we have with the US.
Very true, there were more people involved in this but these two were responsible, unfortunately whatever the reasons they did cause the unnessary deaths of ~180 people so I see that behaviour as criminal

In any other industry if 180 died under you leadership you'd have your career ruined / maybe prison
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
This argument about "oil" doesn't really stand up.

If it had been about oil Blair could have struck a deal with Saddam that involved lifting sanctions and less onerous weapons inspections.

If he was on a mission for oil he wouldn't have bothered with Kosovo and Sierra Leone.
1
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Kieran1996)
Very true, there were more people involved in this but these two were responsible, unfortunately whatever the reasons they did cause the unnessary deaths of ~180 people so I see that behaviour as criminal

In any other industry if 180 died under you leadership you'd have your career ruined / maybe prison
I sort of agree. But there is a difference between being a soldier and being an employee. When you sign up to become a soldier it is on the basis that you are prepared to die for the cause as it were. And 180 is rather an underestimation. My understanding was that the casualty list runs into hundreds of thousands and still counting.

But war criminal - I am not really sure I can see Blair and Bush on the same list as Hitler, Goebbels and Radovan Karadžić.
0
reply
Manchester_123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by esmeralda123)
why did tony blair start a war with iraq?
He has just been proved innocent, you people can't attack him now
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Kieran1996)
Very true, there were more people involved in this but these two were responsible, unfortunately whatever the reasons they did cause the unnessary deaths of ~180 people so I see that behaviour as criminal

In any other industry if 180 died under you leadership you'd have your career ruined / maybe prison
Pretty poor analogy. Those that died were in the armed forces - that's incomparable to any traditional work force.
0
reply
Kieran1996
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Drewski)
Pretty poor analogy. Those that died were in the armed forces - that's incomparable to any traditional work force.
so those who die in the army have a death worth more than those who die in traditional work?

pretty poor logic

you seem to disagree with everyone so I'm gonna take this on my chin
0
reply
Kieran1996
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
I sort of agree. But there is a difference between being a soldier and being an employee. When you sign up to become a soldier it is on the basis that you are prepared to die for the cause as it were. And 180 is rather an underestimation. My understanding was that the casualty list runs into hundreds of thousands and still counting.

But war criminal - I am not really sure I can see Blair and Bush on the same list as Hitler, Goebbels and Radovan Karadžić.
I only know about 180 as that's the last number I ever heard but that was on the news so not a reliable source... Still imo any death is a bad death, it's the 21st century

Yeah I agree, Hitler etc are a different category to these two numpties
1
reply
S1939
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
But seriously, the guys technically a war criminal and he still thinks he has the audacity to comment on the leadership of Corbyn. Just sums up politics today
0
reply
Zargabaath
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Because his dom, Bush, commanded him to
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Kieran1996)
so those who die in the army have a death worth more than those who die in traditional work?

pretty poor logic

you seem to disagree with everyone so I'm gonna take this on my chin
I'm just saying you can't compare prime ministers / presidents with factory owners.

Saying that "deaths happened, so they absolutely have something to answer for" isn't true.

Without wanting to sound too flippant about it, people in the armed forces die all the time, whether in combat or in training. In fact, since 1945 there's only been 1 year where no service personnel died (1968, if you're curious) - and we certainly haven't been in wars constantly since then.

There's no legal argument at all that they're responsible for the deaths of those service personnel, no matter what your opinion.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
You really need to look at things in context and understand the wider situation.
Saddam was a severely destabilising influence at the time. We had already had the first gulf war due to him and because he wasnt finished off properly, then he was going to continue to be an issue as a threat to the western allies who had oil and Israel.
0
reply
Trapz99
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
Because a lot of people believed that Saddam Huseein had weapons of mass destruction. Also, 9/11 showed that there was an increasing risk of terrorism coming from the Middle East so something had to be done about it.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by 999tigger)
Saddam was a severely destabilising influence at the time. We had already had the first gulf war due to him and because he wasnt finished off properly, then he was going to continue to be an issue as a threat to the western allies who had oil and Israel.
Was he though? The Iraq / Iran war finished well before the first Gulf war. After that, although he ruled by fear, the country was generally at peace. As a westerner, you could freely move around the country. My memory from the time was this quest for WMD. The weapons inspectors couldn't find any. Saddam couldn't show any. Then Bush and Blair's patience ran out. One of the weapons inspectors / advisers ended up killing himself over it all and then there was full blown war. Once the dust settled and a few years later, it was confirmed that there were no WMD.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (139)
42.77%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (38)
11.69%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (27)
8.31%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (68)
20.92%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (34)
10.46%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (19)
5.85%

Watched Threads

View All