Tony Blair's Iraq Inquiry

[Sylar]

Live on the BBC Website just now, running with a 1 min delay for security reasons.

The whole thing appears a little farcical - Blair just won't give a straight answer, nor is he being pressed for one!

Pretty interesting comments coming out from his interrogation though.

[Betty Boop]

The arrogance of this carrot is breathtaking. :bitchy: Relentless in his defence of Bush, and apparently we went to war because of 9/11. :grr:

[McIntosh]

A war criminal of the highest order - the real tradgedy is that the maintainence of the so called 'special relationship' was paid in the life blood of our own men and women and the innocents in Iraq.

Nothing will do but a trial in The Hague.

[Tinyclothes]

The little rat will get away with it unfortunately.

[JimBHibees]

Establishment inquiry designed to deliver nothing but a show that questions have been asked. The bits I have seen have seen guys like Straw and Goldsmith being allowed to avoid questions blatantly. When guys like Campbell and Blair are allowed to take the country to war it says it all.

Why was the inquiry not given access to some of the key documents particularly Goldsmith's somersault legal advice.

Complete farce but was it going to be anything else?

Excellent from Iain MacWhirter in last Sunday's Herald.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/essay-of-the-week-the-man-who-killed-labour-1.1000845

[Betty Boop]

A war criminal of the highest order - the real tradgedy is that the maintainence of the so called 'special relationship' was paid in the life blood of our own men and women and the innocents in Iraq.

Nothing will do but a trial in The Hague.

He mentioned he is still busy in his role as Middle East Peace Envoy! :rolleyes:

[McIntosh]

He mentioned he is still busy in his role as Middle East Peace Envoy! :rolleyes:

I know what you mean - its like Harold Shipman giving medicine! The only thing this 'man' deserves is the noose as all war criminals deserve.

[Twa Cairpets]

I know what you mean - its like Harold Shipman giving medicine! The only thing this 'man' deserves is the noose as all war criminals deserve.

Get a grip

Lots of your posts seem reasoned and sensible, but this is just guff

[McIntosh]

Get a grip

Lots of your posts seem reasoned and sensible, but this is just guff

TwoCarpets, I always respect your considered opinion and I do appreciate your long-standing support. I personally feel passionate about justice this charade that is being broadcast makes my blood boil, it is an apology for an apology.

There is a concept in law called the 'reasonableness test', it is perfectly 'resonable' to call for trial and sanction in this case it is a necessity. This 'man' was involved in deceiving the British people and taking the country to an illegal war which cost countless lives. It has in the fullness of time been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a crime both against the British people and the international community.

I consider the Iraq war to be a real tradgedy not just for Iraq but for all the combatents involved. We as people must learn its lesson but a price must be paid by its architects, nothing else will do.

[Twa Cairpets]

TwoCarpets, I always respect your considered opinion and I do appreciate your long-standing support. I personally feel passionate about justice this charade that is being broadcast makes my blood boil, it is an apology for an apology.

There is a concept in law called the 'reasonableness test', it is perfectly 'resonable' to call for trial and sanction in this case it is a necessity. This 'man' was involved in deceiving the British people and taking the country to an illegal war which cost countless lives. It has in the fullness of time been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a crime both against the British people and the international community.

I consider the Iraq war to be a real tradgedy not just for Iraq but for all the combatents involved. We as people must learn its lesson but a price must be paid by its architects, nothing else will do.

The issue I have with your "noose" post in particular is that you are calling for just the same type of action that you so rail against. Whether or not you agree with the nature of the enquiry, you've prejudged Blairs testimony, and are calling for him to die.

It has not been "proven beyond reasonable doubt", it is hugely different to the atrocities committed by Hitler or Milosevic, and to even begin to equate them is deeply flawed.

Of course the war is a tragedy - all wars are. The stance you are advocating is easy to say, but the potential consequences of it are to so limit the executive power of Government to take any decisive action at a future point as/when it is required impossible to make.

[Dashing Bob S]

He deserves to have his smarmy face kicked in and be forced to live in a stair in Wester Hailes full of Section N Wheatfield occupants for the rest of his life.

[Twa Cairpets]

He deserves to have his smarmy face kicked in and be forced to live in a stair in Wester Hailes full of Section N Wheatfield occupants for the rest of his life.

Nice to see a liberal approach being taken there Bob. Would that not count as "cruel and unusual torture"?

[RyeSloan]

Nice to see a liberal approach being taken there Bob. Would that not count as "cruel and unusual torture"?

Probably would and I'm sure the British Government would have no problems with it as long as he was secretly flown out of the country first :wink:

[McIntosh]

The issue I have with your "noose" post in particular is that you are calling for just the same type of action that you so rail against. Whether or not you agree with the nature of the enquiry, you've prejudged Blairs testimony, and are calling for him to die.

It has not been "proven beyond reasonable doubt", it is hugely different to the atrocities committed by Hitler or Milosevic, and to even begin to equate them is deeply flawed.

Of course the war is a tragedy - all wars are. The stance you are advocating is easy to say, but the potential consequences of it are to so limit the executive power of Government to take any decisive action at a future point as/when it is required impossible to make.

I worked for many years for Human Rights Watch, I have probably in retrospect given my career life blood for it. I do not regret it as better men than myself have given much, much more.

I firmly believe in fairness and due process, however if found guilty war criminals should be executed. I have not prejudged Blair I have come to a conclusion in respect to his integrity over many years. Regardless of this, I believe that he must be given a truly fair trial unlike the trial Saddam Hussein was given. As I said earlier this is my personal opinion, thankfully I will not be on Blair's jury if I was I would still acknowledge he is a human being with rights. Nevertheless, he is a war criminal.

I firmly believe in Parliamentary governance with all it checks and balances but Blair's Presidential style eroded these, it is this erosion that inpart allowed the tradgedy which is Iraq. I think it is not a bad thing that the Executive be firmly held to account, is this lack of accountability that led to this unmitigated disaster. It has diminished both the ability and the appetite for Britain to legitimately intervene.

In relation to the middle East there has been so many missed opportunities which in my own opinion will inevitably lead to further conflict. I am reminded of the words of Georges Clemenceau when talking at the end of the First World war he stated, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." My wife and I sadly never had children but I do not wish your children or anyones to do die for a lie.

[McIntosh]

Probably would and I'm sure the British Government would have no problems with it as long as he was secretly flown out of the country first :wink:

:top marksVery funny, I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

[Twa Cairpets]

I worked for many years for Human Rights Watch, I have probably in retrospect given my career life blood for it. I do not regret it as better men than myself have given much, much more.

I firmly believe in fairness and due process, however if found guilty war criminals should be executed. I have not prejudged Blair I have come to a conclusion in respect to his integrity over many years. Regardless of this, I believe that he must be given a truly fair trial unlike the trial Saddam Hussein was given. As I said earlier this is my personal opinion, thankfully I will not be on Blair's jury if I was I would still acknowledge he is a human being with rights. Nevertheless, he is a war criminal.

I firmly believe in Parliamentary governance with all it checks and balances but Blair's Presidential style eroded these, it is this erosion that inpart allowed the tradgedy which is Iraq. I think it is not a bad thing that the Executive be firmly held to account, is this lack of accountability that led to this unmitigated disaster. It has diminished both the ability and the appetite for Britain to legitimately intervene.

In relation to the middle East there has been so many missed opportunities which in my own opinion will inevitably lead to further conflict. I am reminded of the words of Georges Clemenceau when talking at the end of the First World war he stated, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." My wife and I sadly never had children but I do not wish your children or anyones to do die for a lie.

I cant compete with your knowledge or work in this area, and can only imagine the type of things you may have seen. HRW from what I know of it is an estimable Organisation.

I don't think we are ever going to agree on this. I'm not a Blair apologist by any means, but I do find it odd that someone with your track record is quite so keen on killing people.

I'm very fortunate in that I do have kids, and of course I wouldnt want them to "die for a lie". I'd equally not want them to die as a result of crippling uncertainty and inaction.

[JimBHibees]

I worked for many years for Human Rights Watch, I have probably in retrospect given my career life blood for it. I do not regret it as better men than myself have given much, much more.

I firmly believe in fairness and due process, however if found guilty war criminals should be executed. I have not prejudged Blair I have come to a conclusion in respect to his integrity over many years. Regardless of this, I believe that he must be given a truly fair trial unlike the trial Saddam Hussein was given. As I said earlier this is my personal opinion, thankfully I will not be on Blair's jury if I was I would still acknowledge he is a human being with rights. Nevertheless, he is a war criminal.

I firmly believe in Parliamentary governance with all it checks and balances but Blair's Presidential style eroded these, it is this erosion that inpart allowed the tradgedy which is Iraq. I think it is not a bad thing that the Executive be firmly held to account, is this lack of accountability that led to this unmitigated disaster. It has diminished both the ability and the appetite for Britain to legitimately intervene.

In relation to the middle East there has been so many missed opportunities which in my own opinion will inevitably lead to further conflict. I am reminded of the words of Georges Clemenceau when talking at the end of the First World war he stated, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." My wife and I sadly never had children but I do not wish your children or anyones to do die for a lie.

Completely agree.

[McIntosh]

I cant compete with your knowledge or work in this area, and can only imagine the type of things you may have seen. HRW from what I know of it is an estimable Organisation.

I don't think we are ever going to agree on this. I'm not a Blair apologist by any means, but I do find it odd that someone with your track record is quite so keen on killing people.

I'm very fortunate in that I do have kids, and of course I wouldnt want them to "die for a lie". I'd equally not want them to die as a result of crippling uncertainty and inaction.

Thank you for your very kind words. I respect completely your very laudable conviction, you clearly have the integrity that Blair sadly lacks. In the very limited way that I know you I have come to expect nothing less.

You have pointed out one of my contradictions that whilst I champion Human Rights I have become a propent of capital punishment, I am aware it is illogical. While we may not always agree, I value our dialogue and the wider debate because I invariably learn so much.

[hibsbollah]

I intended to listen to it while i was doing a long drive today. Unfortunately I could only manage a few minutes before I had to turn it off. Just his voice just fills me with disgust, leaving aside the self-righteous arrogance of his words.

Muttley to Dubya's Dastardly. At least Muttley had a sense of humour.

[Hibbyradge]

What is the point of this enquiry? To satisfy some folk's anti-Blair blood lust, imo.

No matter what Tony Blair says, the people who oppose him and oppose the war, won't change their opinion.

Blair answered all their questions, but because the answers didn't suit, his opponents call him a liar.

Blair did what he did for the reasons he has stated.

Everything else is just speculation. Prove otherwise.

I laughed at Five Live yesterday. They asked an anti-war protester, "Are you now satisfied with Mr Blair's answers?".

Guess what the reply was. :faf:

One caller said that Blair should be hung. How's that for an open mind? :bitchy:

Of course they're not satisfied. They have their own view of the war, which was formed in ignorance and from a very safe distance.

Unless Blair says "I shouldn't have made the decisions I made. I was wrong. I only did it cos the USA wanted me to. I love oil.", they won't be satisfied.

Not for a single moment will they consider that the truth of the matter is that Blair did actually make those decisions in good faith. They've already made their mind up. For them it's a witch hunt.

Thankfully those in charge of running the enquiry are a bit more open minded.

Without that, it would be an even bigger waste of time, effort and money.

[Betty Boop]

Did Bliar know the questions in advance?

[New Corrie]

I worked for many years for Human Rights Watch, I have probably in retrospect given my career life blood for it. I do not regret it as better men than myself have given much, much more.

I firmly believe in fairness and due process, however if found guilty war criminals should be executed. I have not prejudged Blair I have come to a conclusion in respect to his integrity over many years. Regardless of this, I believe that he must be given a truly fair trial unlike the trial Saddam Hussein was given. As I said earlier this is my personal opinion, thankfully I will not be on Blair's jury if I was I would still acknowledge he is a human being with rights. Nevertheless, he is a war criminal.

I firmly believe in Parliamentary governance with all it checks and balances but Blair's Presidential style eroded these, it is this erosion that inpart allowed the tradgedy which is Iraq. I think it is not a bad thing that the Executive be firmly held to account, is this lack of accountability that led to this unmitigated disaster. It has diminished both the ability and the appetite for Britain to legitimately intervene.

In relation to the middle East there has been so many missed opportunities which in my own opinion will inevitably lead to further conflict. I am reminded of the words of Georges Clemenceau when talking at the end of the First World war he stated, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." My wife and I sadly never had children but I do not wish your children or anyones to do die for a lie.


At least you're not up your own arse:rolleyes:

[LiverpoolHibs]

What is the point of this enquiry? To satisfy some folk's anti-Blair blood lust, imo.

No matter what Tony Blair says, the people who oppose him and oppose the war, won't change their opinion.

Blair answered all their questions, but because the answers didn't suit, his opponents call him a liar.

Blair did what he did for the reasons he has stated.

Everything else is just speculation. Prove otherwise.

I laughed at Five Live yesterday. They asked an anti-war protester, "Are you now satisfied with Mr Blair's answers?".

Guess what the reply was. :faf:

One caller said that Blair should be hung. How's that for an open mind? :bitchy:

Of course they're not satisfied. They have their own view of the war, which was formed in ignorance and from a very safe distance.

Unless Blair says "I shouldn't have made the decisions I made. I was wrong. I only did it cos the USA wanted me to. I love oil.", they won't be satisfied.

Not for a single moment will they consider that the truth of the matter is that Blair did actually make those decisions in good faith. They've already made their mind up. For them it's a witch hunt.

Thankfully those in charge of running the enquiry are a bit more open minded.

Without that, it would be an even bigger waste of time, effort and money.

Absolute nonsense, why are people so desperate to let him off the hook? Putting aside the question of whether it really matters if he did it for the reasons he stated or the reasons stated by others (the legality doesn't really interest me except as a means to an end) and of course the problem of ever finding that out given the concerted campaign of insulation against investigation/criticism, there is a mountain of evidence that proves he mendaciously lied and misled throughout the lead-up to the war.

He asserted to Parliament that the U.N. had 'proven' the existence of chemical weaponry in Iraq when Blix had stated uncontrovertibly that "one must not jump to unsubstantiated conclusions that [chemical and biological weapons] exist".

He claimed that British and American intelligence had two 'mobile weapons factories' were part of a larger, coherent network of chemical weapons facilities when they had not even been assessed by intelligence agencies.

Claimed that Iraq had the capability to "devastate the entire Gulf region" when intelligence reports stated that Iraq had, "not suceeded in seriously threatening its neighbours".

The JIC statement that Iraq, "may have hidden small quantities of agents and weapons", was changed in front of Parliament to Iraq, "having stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons".

Claimed, again in front of parliament, that the Iraqi weapons programme was 'growing' when the Butler review concluded unequivocably that the programme "had not been stepped up".

Claimed that Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 through non-compliance when Blix had stated they had been "active, even pro-active" in complying.

Stated that there was a serious risk that Iraqi weapons could find their way into the hands of Islamist terrorists when intelligence reports said there was no chance of this, "the collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk" of that happening and that "the Prime Minister was aware of this".

Withheld intelligence reports that Iraq would not use its existing weapons except in retaliation.

Actively conspired (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece) with the U.S. to deceive legislative departments, the international community and his electorate into supporting the attack.

There's plenty more of this if you want it. And all of it has led to the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqis and countless British and American troops, so apologies if his appearance didn't quite suffice.

His appearance in front of the Chilcot inquiry should have been an opportunity to question him with these points and give him the chance to refute them if they were, indeed, refutable. It wasn't, it was a charade.

The 'open minds' stuff brings to mind the unusually excellent Chesterton aphorism, "The point of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is that it closes around something solid".

[hibsbollah]

Brilliant stuff from Jonathan Freedland

"It took until the final moments of a long day for Tony Blair's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry to brush up against the pain and anguish unleashed by the Iraq war.

The former prime minister was asked by the chairman if he had any regrets for the decisions he had taken. As he began his answer, a heckler bellowed out words of protest. Blair, who had certainly looked nervous at the start but had become increasingly comfortable during the six hours of questioning, looked rattled. The wobble did not last long. Blair declared that he felt a keen sense of responsibility "but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. He was a monster."

I had expected something more. I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3847051.stm). There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the ar. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".

It was, in a way, a bravura display of chutzpah. Not only did he refuse to give an inch on every angle of the war – nothing wrong with the grounds for the invasion, the planning of it, its legality, the decision-making process or the conduct of its aftermath – he also went on the counter-offensive, challenging his critics. This he called the 2010 question: where would Saddam be now if no action had been taken? Wouldn't he represent an even greater threat today than he did then? (To which the answer is surely that the 2003 invasion exposed Saddam and his ragtag army as a toothless tiger, whose rusting arsenal would be even more useless seven years on than it was then.)

Not content with that, Blair pushed further, apparently touting a new war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iraq's neighbour, Iran. All day Blair used his platform to bring up Iran, even when it was only tangentially related to the topic in hand. The arguments that applied in 2002 – about WMD falling into terrorist hands – applied in spades to Iran in 2010, he said.

Blair clearly doesn't realise that the fastest way to taint any planned military action against Iran is to associate it with the catastrophe of Iraq. But he is convinced that he can see what others cannot, that he is a latter-day Winston Churchill, crying out a warning that others refuse to heed. He thinks history will vindicate him – crediting him for seeing the menace of Saddam and Iran when others refused to listen.

Exiled and reviled by those who will forever believe he is a war criminal, he is still a character from a Trollope novel – specifically the one entitled, He Knew He Was Right (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/21/eu.politics6)."

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/martinkettle)

[Hibbyradge]

Absolute nonsense, why are people so desperate to let him off the hook? Putting aside the question of whether it really matters if he did it for the reasons he stated or the reasons stated by others (the legality doesn't really interest me except as a means to an end) and of course the problem of ever finding that out given the concerted campaign of insulation against investigation/criticism, there is a mountain of evidence that proves he mendaciously lied and misled throughout the lead-up to the war.

He asserted to Parliament that the U.N. had 'proven' the existence of chemical weaponry in Iraq when Blix had stated uncontrovertibly that "one must not jump to unsubstantiated conclusions that [chemical and biological weapons] exist".

He claimed that British and American intelligence had two 'mobile weapons factories' were part of a larger, coherent network of chemical weapons facilities when they had not even been assessed by intelligence agencies.

Claimed that Iraq had the capability to "devastate the entire Gulf region" when intelligence reports stated that Iraq had, "not suceeded in seriously threatening its neighbours".

The JIC statement that Iraq, "may have hidden small quantities of agents and weapons", was changed in front of Parliament to Iraq, "having stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons".

Claimed, again in front of parliament, that the Iraqi weapons programme was 'growing' when the Butler review concluded unequivocably that the programme "had not been stepped up".

Claimed that Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 through non-compliance when Blix had stated they had been "active, even pro-active" in complying.

Stated that there was a serious risk that Iraqi weapons could find their way into the hands of Islamist terrorists when intelligence reports said there was no chance of this, "the collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk" of that happening and that "the Prime Minister was aware of this".

Withheld intelligence reports that Iraq would not use its existing weapons except in retaliation.

Actively conspired (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece) with the U.S. to deceive legislative departments, the international community and his electorate into supporting the attack.

There's plenty more of this if you want it. And all of it has led to the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqis and countless British and American troops, so apologies if his appearance didn't quite suffice.

His appearance in front of the Chilcot inquiry should have been an opportunity to question him with these points and give him the chance to refute them if they were, indeed, refutable. It wasn't, it was a charade.

The 'open minds' stuff brings to mind the unusually excellent Chesterton aphorism, "The point of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is that it closes around something solid".

So your mind is made up.

And you know next to nothing about it.

God bless Leon.

[Big Ed]

What happened in Iraq after Saddam was ousted should not have been a mystery to any statesman who had even the sketchiest of intellegence.
The US tried to engineer a coup shortly after the invasion of Kuwait - the result was a disaster because Saddam had an iron grip of Iraq at that time. The US found out that there was no one strong enough to topple Saddam and sustain power. Nothing had changed; so that Saddam's removal would undoubtedly create a power vacuum.
Blair claimed that no one could have forseen Iran trying to destabilise Iraq after Saddam's removal - **** me; how not?
Saddam was a Sunni with Sunni cronies running a country that is overwhelmingly Shia, coincidently the same religion as Iran. British Intelligence would have to be at an all time low not to have furnished Blair with this knowledge.
That this conflict would have resulted in a bloodbath was a certainty. If Blair is claiming that he didn't know that then someone from MI6 should be resigning any time soon.

[hibsdaft]

i don't beleive in the death penalty on the basis that the state should not kill innocent men, as is inevitable with the death penalty.

aside from that fact every other part of me wants him hung.

[hibsdaft]

So your mind is made up.

And you know next to nothing about it.

God bless Leon.

pathetic.

[ZippytheHibee]

Tony Blair showed guts and determination to go to war in Iraq and made a very difficult decision. He's not a murderer as some say - he is a good Christian man who played a part in ousting a dictator of a dangerous country threatening our safety.

The very least the public can do is show some appreciation - not have micky mouse inquiries.

[Hibbyradge]

pathetic.

What's pathetic?

You don't like my observation that LH's mind is already made up although he has no inside knowledge of what actually went on?

Apart from, that is, all the testimony coming out in the "enquiry".

People want to believe Blair was wrong so they won't listen to anything that doesn't coincide with that view.

That's pathetic.

As was your single word post.

[hibsbollah]

People want to believe Blair was wrong so they won't listen to anything that doesn't coincide with that view.



You havent provided any evidence for that statement apart from the slightly inane 'So your mind is made up. And you know next to nothing about it. God bless Leon.'

[CropleyWasGod]

Tony Blair showed guts and determination to go to war in Iraq and made a very difficult decision. He's not a murderer as some say - he is a good Christian man who played a part in ousting a dictator of a dangerous country threatening our safety.

The very least the public can do is show some appreciation - not have micky mouse inquiries.

Do you mean Saddam, or Bush?

I assume you mean Saddam. In what way were they threatening our safety, other than scaring the sh*it out of us in the media headlines at the time?

[McIntosh]

At least you're not up your own arse:rolleyes:

Possibly but unlike yourself whose up someone elses:wink:

[McIntosh]

Tony Blair showed guts and determination to go to war in Iraq and made a very difficult decision. He's not a murderer as some say - he is a good Christian man who played a part in ousting a dictator of a dangerous country threatening our safety.

The very least the public can do is show some appreciation - not have micky mouse inquiries.

I think this is a wind-up. If it isn't Blair must have went to sleep at the beatitudes!

[Betty Boop]

I think this is a wind-up If it isn't Blair must have went to sleep at the beatitudes!

:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Possibly but unlike yourself whose up someone elses:wink:

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Apostrophising, I mean.. :wink:

[ZippytheHibee]

I think this is a wind-up. If it isn't Blair must have went to sleep at the beatitudes!

Its not actualy, I can assure you. I feel very strongly towards this and believe that Blair made the right decision to oust Saddam.

I dont like the way Blair followed Bush at every opportunity but do feel that the war was justified.

[McIntosh]

They have their own view of the war, which was formed in ignorance and from a very safe distance.

So what great insight do you have James Bond, I never knew you were a covert agent in Iraq, its amazing you get the time to attend games!

In respect to Blair, we do not live in a world of counter-factuals, maybes or possibles that the problem for Blair or his apologists.

Quite simply there was no WMD in Iraq prior to or at the time of invasion. This rationale was flawed at the very least - a lie at the most. That Blair could not apologise for the deaths this has caused was shocking but lets not let facts get in the way.

I am sure he doesn't because I don't know how he could live with himself.

[CropleyWasGod]

Its not actualy, I can assure you. I feel very strongly towards this and believe that Blair made the right decision to oust Saddam.

I dont like the way Blair followed Bush at every opportunity but do feel that the war was justified.

Okay, your belief is respected. But, tell me, what ACTUAL (not spun, or perceived) threat did Saddam pose TO US?

[McIntosh]

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Apostrophising, I mean.. :wink:

You made me laugh out loud - very sharp. Thankfully, Corrie Green is not made from the same cloth either in terms of intellect or wit.

[ZippytheHibee]

Okay, your belief is respected. But, tell me, what ACTUAL (not spun, or perceived) threat did Saddam pose TO US?

He was an evil dictator that also held a vast majority of the worlds oil. He was a wealthy man who could and would have build WMD's and was in bed with Iran. He appluaded 9/11 and would undoubtable use his reseources to fund and support terrorism.

Thats good enough for me Im afraid.

[Betty Boop]

He was an evil dictator that also held a vast majority of the worlds oil. He was a wealthy man who could and would have build WMD's and was in bed with Iran. He appluaded 9/11 and would undoubtable use his reseources to fund and support terrorism.

Thats good enough for me Im afraid.

Now you are being silly!

[CropleyWasGod]

He was an evil dictator that also held a vast majority of the worlds oil. He was a wealthy man who could and would have build WMD's and was in bed with Iran. He appluaded 9/11 and would undoubtable use his reseources to fund and support terrorism.

Thats good enough for me Im afraid.

Too many coulds and woulds in there. You said earlier that he led "a dangerous country threatening our safety". In what way was he?

Potential threat is not actual threat, otherwise you could make a case for bombing any country that "might" be a threat in the future.

Oh, and regime change is not a valid reason for invasion. It's illegal.

And you're wrong about "the vast majority of the world's oil".

[Hibbyradge]

You havent provided any evidence for that statement apart from the slightly inane 'So your mind is made up. And you know next to nothing about it. God bless Leon.'

Granted, God Bless Leon was frivolous - I was (badly) alluding to people who allow political dogma to cloud their impartiality, but I stand by the rest of my remarks.

Do you seriously think the anti-war lobby have an open mind about the Iraq war and Blair's actions? Not a chance.

The people who are rounding on him now, are the same folk who rounded on him before the enquiry.

Blair has given his explanations, in public, but they are being ignored because they don't suit his opponents' agenda.

That's politics, i suppose, but it makes the whole process of an "enquiry" into a kangaroo court.

[Hibbyradge]

So what great insight do you have James Bond, I never knew you were a covert agent in Iraq, its amazing you get the time to attend games!
In respect to Blair, we do not live in a world of counter-factuals, maybes or possibles that the problem for Blair or his apologists.

Quite simply there was no WMD in Iraq prior to or at the time of invasion. This rationale was flawed at the very least - a lie at the most. That Blair could not apologise for the deaths this has caused was shocking but lets not let facts get in the way.

I am sure he doesn't because I don't know how he could live with himself.

WTF? Idiotic remark.

I have no insight. Neither do you, but you won't listen to Blair's explanations of the circumstances and his decisions because they don't fit with yours.

I wish we hadn't gone into Iraq, but I understand why Blair felt we should.

[McIntosh]

He was an evil dictator that also held a vast majority of the worlds oil. He was a wealthy man who could and would have build WMD's and was in bed with Iran. He appluaded 9/11 and would undoubtable use his reseources to fund and support terrorism.

Thats good enough for me Im afraid.

The problem with your statement is "could and would" is there is no evidence to support this, in fact the very opposite. In relation to your final remark the very opposite is the case. SH did not fund or support non-state terrorism, these organisations were considered a direct threat to his regime.

Zippy, the problem with your naive analysis is in its failure to recognise the complexities that the invasion produced. It has resulted in an Iranian regional power which is now more stronger in dealing with the US and UK and confident in the knowledge that British and American capacity to fight it and occupy it are limited.

The real irony is that the Iranian's may well now have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons - an attack on them by the US or their proxies will be meet with a response that will make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. The Americans, British and the Israeli will sadly reap what they have sown. It proves the old adage the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[McIntosh]

WTF? Idiotic remark.

I have no insight. Neither do you, but you won't listen to Blair's explanations of the circumstances and his decisions because they don't fit with yours.

I wish we hadn't gone into Iraq, but I understand why Blair felt we should.

Hold on a minute, I was based in the middle East for five years with HRW. Unfortunately or fortunately I didn't go there as an invader or with a gun. I've listened to all of Blair et al. evidence and there was no need to invade Iraq, sanctions were having a crippling effect on its military capacity. The irony is the regime prior to 1991 had been the US bulwark against Iran there was always the belief that once SH was replaced that this 'role' would resume.

Regardless of the legality and the immorality of the invasion on sheer strategic grounds it made no sense.

[Twa Cairpets]

Hold on a minute, I was based in the middle East for five years with HRW. Unfortunately or fortunately I didn't go there as an invader or with a gun. I've listened to all of Blair et al. evidence and there was no need to invade Iraq, sanctions were having a crippling effect on its military capacity. The irony is the regime prior to 1991 had been the US bulwark against Iran there was always the belief that once SH was replaced that this 'role' would resume.

In the interests of fairmess, you can't knock other peoples arguments on the basis of "coulds", "woulds" and "maybes" if you use the same argument yourself.


Regardless of the legality and the immorality of the invasion on sheer strategic grounds it made no sense.

On strategic grounds surely it made more sense than the other reasons stated.

- Guarantee of access to oil reserves
- Removal of militaristic and antagonistic (to the West) regime
- Removal of military threat to Israel, with all the consequences that the would entail.
- Insertion of on-the-ground presence in the area, with abiity to react very quickly to any knock-on threat from Iran, for example.

If you look on it in this in an admittedly very cold light, and accept that most wars are to some extent driven by access to resources - either human, land or mineral, then it make much more sense. However, for any of the protagonists to come out and say as much would be political suicide, even if it is valid.

[hibsdaft]

held a vast majority of the worlds oil.

wrong.


who could and would have build WMD's

but hadn't for a decade.


and was in bed with Iran.

you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.


He appluaded 9/11

i think this is more shi'ite but if you provide a source then fair do's. doesn't justify 100,000 + deaths though does it? never mind the money pissed away on the most expensive ego-trip in history. paid for by you and i.

[McIntosh]

On strategic grounds surely it made more sense than the other reasons stated.

- Guarantee of access to oil reserves
- Removal of militaristic and antagonistic (to the West) regime
- Removal of military threat to Israel, with all the consequences that the would entail.
- Insertion of on-the-ground presence in the area, with abiity to react very quickly to any knock-on threat from Iran, for example.

If you look on it in this in an admittedly very cold light, and accept that most wars are to some extent driven by access to resources - either human, land or mineral, then it make much more sense. However, for any of the protagonists to come out and say as much would be political suicide, even if it is valid.

There is a validity to your view - it is in my opinion an honest summation of the thinking behind the Invasion. As we all know it was never offered as a rationale but even within the 'real politic' argument SH regime was not the international threat that it was perceived to be.

I am not optimistic about the middle East, if Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, it will soon if it does not already have that capacity. This may not be a bad thing as the balance of fear does work in politics, however so many dangerous factors then come into play, particularly the illusion of premption.

It reminds me of that old saying "the more you stand in sh*t the worse it becomes".

[Betty Boop]

There is a validity to your view - it is in my opinion an honest summation of the thinking behind the Invasion. As we all know it was never offered as a rationale but even within the 'real politic' argument SH regime was not the international threat that it was perceived to be.

I am not optimistic about the middle East, if Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, it will soon if it does not already have that capacity. This may not be a bad thing as the balance of fear does work in politics, however so many dangerous factors then come into play, particularly the illusion of premption.

It reminds me of that old saying "the more you stand in sh*t the worse it becomes".

There is currently only one state in the region with nuclear weapons, nobody seems to kick up a fuss about them.

[LiverpoolHibs]

So your mind is made up.

And you know next to nothing about it.

God bless Leon.


You don't like my observation that LH's mind is already made up although he has no inside knowledge of what actually went on?

Apart from, that is, all the testimony coming out in the "enquiry".

People want to believe Blair was wrong so they won't listen to anything that doesn't coincide with that view.

I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you disputing what I see to be the motivations (a really pretty minor point in the grand scheme of it all) or my opinion of the act itself?

I provided an extensive, though by no means comprehensive, list of instances where he lied to, misled or witheld evidence from Parliament and the electorate. Are you disagreeing with any of that

And what do I know 'next to nothing about'? This is really quite strange.

[McIntosh]

There is currently only one state in the region with nuclear weapons, nobody seems to kick up a fuss about them.

:top marks

A very good point and Israel does get a wee bit touchy about it. I am currently on a proscribed list which prohibts me from entering the country. All very sad considering that it restricts me from visiting members of my own family.

[IndieHibby]

There is currently only one state in the region with nuclear weapons, nobody seems to kick up a fuss about them.

What threat is a dog on a leash?

[Betty Boop]

:top marks

A very good point and Israel does get a wee bit touchy about it. I am currently on a proscribed list which prohibts me from entering the country. All very sad considering that it restricts me from visiting members of my own family.

That is indeed very sad McIntosh. Is that because you worked for Human Rights Watch?

[Hibbyradge]

I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you disputing what I see to be the motivations (a really pretty minor point in the grand scheme of it all) or my opinion of the act itself?

I provided an extensive, though by no means comprehensive, list of instances where he lied to, misled or witheld evidence from Parliament and the electorate. Are you disagreeing with any of that

And what do I know 'next to nothing about'? This is really quite strange.

Firstly, I didn't really mean to attack you personally.

Blair has answered those questions, but his opponents still won't listen to anything he says.

No matter what he says, they want to believe the worst about him. That's their perogative, I was exactly the same when Thatcher sank the Belgrano, but it frustrates me now.

It just seems tribal to me. Bunker mentality.

I don't know why we're bothering with the "enquiry" because unless it concludes that Blair is a liar and a war criminal, no-one will change their POV, regardless of the evidence giathered.

"What colour of pants did you have on yesterday, Mr Blair?"

"Black".

"No you didn't."

"I did actually."

"No, your pants were white."

"Alistair Campbell will vouch for the fact I had black pants on."

"Liar".

That's what I mean, it's just pointless.

[Twa Cairpets]

There is a validity to your view - it is in my opinion an honest summation of the thinking behind the Invasion. As we all know it was never offered as a rationale but even within the 'real politic' argument SH regime was not the international threat that it was perceived to be.

I am not optimistic about the middle East, if Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, it will soon if it does not already have that capacity. This may not be a bad thing as the balance of fear does work in politics, however so many dangerous factors then come into play, particularly the illusion of premption.

It reminds me of that old saying "the more you stand in sh*t the worse it becomes".

You really cant believe this can you?

A fundamentalist religious state attaining the power to blow the infidel to pieces in the name of Allah?

If you think George W and Blair are scary war mongers who followed a dangerous agenda then to think Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are flowers of pacifism and preachers of global tolerance by comparison is barking.

[McIntosh]

That is indeed very sad McIntosh. Is that because you worked for Human Rights Watch? Yes, I was deported from the occupied territory twenty years ago. I was also banned from entering the US until the election of President Obama.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Firstly, I didn't really mean to attack you personally.

No worries.


Blair has answered those questions, but his opponents still won't listen to anything he says.

Has he? Got a link for him refuting any of them?


No matter what he says, they want to believe the worst about him. That's their perogative, I was exactly the same when Thatcher sank the Belgrano, but it frustrates me now.

It just seems tribal to me. Bunker mentality.

I don't know why we're bothering with the "enquiry" because unless it concludes that Blair is a liar and a war criminal, no-one will change their POV, regardless of the evidence giathered.

I still don't really understand. I 'believe the worst about him' because I've experienced his tenure and evaluated the evidence in front of me, including his involvement in facilitating a possibly illegal and definitely immoral war which has resulted in the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqis and numerous soldiers, the ongoing occupation of Iraq and everything that goes with that.

I'm struggling to think of one single piece of evidence that should make me re-evaluate my position, although I'm willing to do so if any turns up.

[McIntosh]

You really cant believe this can you?

A fundamentalist religious state attaining the power to blow the infidel to pieces in the name of Allah?

If you think George W and Blair are scary war mongers who followed a dangerous agenda then to think Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are flowers of pacifism and preachers of global tolerance by comparison is barking.

I really don't have a problem with an Iranian bomb, what evidence is there that Iran will attack anyone. Since 1979 who have they attacked and who has Britain, the US and Israel attacked? We both know the answer to that.

I personally think the regime in Tehran is extreme but it is not unstable. The problem we in the West have is in understanding it, Western intervention snuffed out the democratic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950s and replaced it with the dictatorship of the Shah. The US backed Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war providing Iraq with both their weapons and ironically WMD technology. Iran is a reactive regime concerned with its own internal dialogue and stability. If it develops a nuclear weapon, we will know about it will be its ultimate deterrent and status symbol but one which traps it in an endgame logic.

I am confident that change will come it has the most highly educated population within the region apart from Israel. When meaningful change comes it will come from within as it always usually does. However, we live in interesting times.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You really cant believe this can you?

A fundamentalist religious state attaining the power to blow the infidel to pieces in the name of Allah?

If you think George W and Blair are scary war mongers who followed a dangerous agenda then to think Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are flowers of pacifism and preachers of global tolerance by comparison is barking.

How many wars of aggression have Iran brought about since the Islamic Revolution?

I'd rather Iran didn't produce a nuclear weapon but it makes near complete sense for them to do so.

[Twa Cairpets]

I really don't have a problem with an Iranian bomb, what evidence is there that Iran will attack anyone. Since 1979 who have they attacked and who has Britain, the US and Israel attacked? We both know the answer to that.

I personally think the regime in Tehran is extreme but it is not unstable. The problem we in the West have is in understanding it, Western intervention snuffed out the democratic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950s and replaced it with the dictatorship of the Shah. The US backed Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war providing Iraq with both their weapons and ironically WMD technology. Iran is a reactive regime concerned with its own internal dialogue and stability. If it develops a nuclear weapon, we will know about it will be its ultimate deterrent and status symbol but one which traps it in an endgame logic.

I am confident that change will come it has the most highly educated population within the region apart from Israel. When meaningful change comes it will come from within as it always usually does. However, we live in interesting times.

I cannot believe you are so incerdibly blase about this. Again, I am happy to acknowledge your first hand experience of the region, but your comparison of "who have they attacked in comparison" is a pointless one. The state of the world now compared to the '50s and even more so since 9/11 is very different.

Iran is a fundamentalist state run by clerics, and this alone should be enough to scare you mightily. Im not talking about your average Iranian, who I am sure are lovely people, but a religiously fanatical leadership with nuclear weapons changes the rules.

[Twa Cairpets]

How many wars of aggression have Iran brought about since the Islamic Revolution?

See above


I'd rather Iran didn't produce a nuclear weapon but it makes near complete sense for them to do so.

You'd rather they didn't?!? But you'd be ok if they did? You wouldnt want to campaign against them and there overtly militaristic adoption of nuclear weapons and the threat it poses to the region and the world?

Of course it makes sense for them, because in their logic one would see it is a deterrent based on genuine terror. it just doesnt make sense for the rest of the world

[LiverpoolHibs]

See above

I fail to see how it's a pointless observation. It is perfectly pertinent.


You'd rather they didn't?!? But you'd be ok if they did? You wouldnt want to campaign against them and there overtly militaristic adoption of nuclear weapons and the threat it poses to the region and the world?

That's a strange way to take that statement.


Of course it makes sense for them, because in their logic one would see it is a deterrent based on genuine terror. it just doesnt make sense for the rest of the world

If I was Iranian I think I'd welcome anything that was likely to act as a deterrent against invasion. That's all I was saying.

Especially considering that they've, explicitly, been threatened with nuclear strikes previously (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece).

And now would probably be as good a time as any to point out that there's not much evidence to suggest Iran is actually after a nuclear weapon; not to mention rather a large amount of evidence to suggest it doesn't - including the continuation of a fatwa issued by Khomeini against nuclear weapons, their stockpiling and proliferation.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? The fact we're discussing it at all is the real point. It's the exact same as Iraq and weapons of mass destruction; it's the device that drives the action. Slavoj Zizek on the Iraqi MacGuffin (http://www.lacan.com/iraq1.htm), if you're interested.

We all know what the Hitchcockian 'MacGuffin' means: the empty pretext which just serves to set in motion the story, but has no value in itself; in order to illustrate it, Hitchcock often quoted the following story: "Two gentlemen meet on a train, and the one is struck by the extraordinary package being carried by the other. He asks his companion, 'What is in that unusual package you are carrying there?' The other man replies, 'That is a MacGuffin.' 'What is a MacGuffin?' asks the first. The second says, 'A MacGuffin is a device used for killing leopards in the Scottish highlands.' Naturally the first man says, 'But there are no leopards in the Scottish highlands.' 'Well,' says the second, 'then that's not a MacGuffin, is it?'"

[Big Ed]

See above



You'd rather they didn't?!? But you'd be ok if they did? You wouldnt want to campaign against them and there overtly militaristic adoption of nuclear weapons and the threat it poses to the region and the world?

Of course it makes sense for them, because in their logic one would see it is a deterrent based on genuine terror. it just doesnt make sense for the rest of the world

At the risk of hijacking the thread; who has and has not got nuclear weapons is now beyond who we'd like to have them (if you know what I mean).
It is widely speculated that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that is hardly a nation renowned for stable government.
Iran, for all her posturing in middle east politics, does have a fairly stable regime (although I agree with you in terms of policy being dictated by religious doctrine) and does not have a policy of agression to her neighbours, except Israel. Even then, I am inclined to think that their agression towards Israel is one of the things that get dragged up whenever Iran needs to be portrayed as a bogeyman. I doubt that it is much more than sabre rattling (though that is just a personal notion).

[Twa Cairpets]

I fail to see how it's a pointless observation. It is perfectly pertinent.

The reason its not pertinent is that it assumes that the level of ability or desire to be an agressor on a global scale is fixed. The US / UK / USSR have had the ability to carry on conflict in different parts of the world, rightly or wrongly. Thats what being a superpower means, again, rightly or wrongly. Iran has never had the ability to be aggresive before. If you want to assume that would still be the case, thats your call. Your "how many wars" analogy is irreleavnt because the balance of power would shift so dramatically.


That's a strange way to take that statement.

The reason for my point is that you argue very eloquently and passionately against anything that is pro-US/ pro-Israel, as far as the middle-east is concerned. When a regime that is even more mediaeval in its outlook as the USA under bush appear to have the potential to get nuclear capacity, you seem to treat it with an "oh well, thats only fair isnt it" shrug of the shoulder. I may be wrong, but thats how it comes over. [/quote]



If I was Iranian I think I'd welcome anything that was likely to act as a deterrent against invasion. That's all I was saying.

Especially considering that they've, explicitly, been threatened with nuclear strikes previously (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece).

And now would probably be as good a time as any to point out that there's not much evidence to suggest Iran is actually after a nuclear weapon; not to mention rather a large amount of evidence to suggest it doesn't - including the continuation of a fatwa issued by Khomeini against nuclear weapons, their stockpiling and proliferation.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? The fact we're discussing it at all is the real point. It's the exact same as Iraq and weapons of mass destruction; it's the device that drives the action. Slavoj Zizek on the Iraqi MacGuffin (http://www.lacan.com/iraq1.htm), if you're interested.

I dont know if they a desire to get nuclear weapons - I base it on what I read in the mainstream media and see on mainstream TV. McIntosh reckons they do/will, and his relaxed attitude to this is what I was responding to.

[IndieHibby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7121495/US-bolsters-defences-of-Irans-Gulf-neighbours.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7121495/US-bolsters-defences-of-Irans-Gulf-neighbours.html)

[LiverpoolHibs]

The reason its not pertinent is that it assumes that the level of ability or desire to be an agressor on a global scale is fixed. The US / UK / USSR have had the ability to carry on conflict in different parts of the world, rightly or wrongly. Thats what being a superpower means, again, rightly or wrongly. Iran has never had the ability to be aggresive before. If you want to assume that would still be the case, thats your call. Your "how many wars" analogy is irreleavnt because the balance of power would shift so dramatically.

So it's only 'capability' that determines whether a particular nation will partake in aggressive wars outwith its own borders?

What evidence is there that now suggests Iran has designs on its neighbours?


The reason for my point is that you argue very eloquently and passionately against anything that is pro-US/ pro-Israel, as far as the middle-east is concerned. When a regime that is even more mediaeval in its outlook as the USA under bush appear to have the potential to get nuclear capacity, you seem to treat it with an "oh well, thats only fair isnt it" shrug of the shoulder. I may be wrong, but thats how it comes over.

This isn't Top Trumps: Nation States

This nuclear weapons stuff should really be put to bed. A National Intelligence Estimate (that's a coalition of all 16 arms of the U.S. security services) report states "with high confidence" that if a nuclear weapons programme existed at all in Iran it was "halted in fall 2003", that it does not have one and is not intending to make one.

And you're absolutely desperate to image anything with an Islamist bent in the Middle East to be maniacal evil-doers who are hell bent on, ahem, 'blow the infidel to pieces in the name of Allah'. The Iranian regime is reactionary, uber-conservative and often downright vicious but they're not Year-Zero nutters running about the place with poorly made nuclear warheads.


I dont know if they a desire to get nuclear weapons - I base it on what I read in the mainstream media and see on mainstream TV. McIntosh reckons they do/will, and his relaxed attitude to this is what I was responding to.

I think he's wrong.

---------- Post added at 10:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------


[/URL][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7121495/US-bolsters-defences-of-Irans-Gulf-neighbours.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7121495/US-bolsters-defences-of-Irans-Gulf-neighbours.html)

Actually laughable...

[Twa Cairpets]

So it's only 'capability' that determines whether a particular nation will partake in aggressive wars outwith its own borders?

What evidence is there that now suggests Iran has designs on its neighbours?

Capability is a big part, yes. Are you saying it isn't? Its not only capability, its also desire, motivation, provocation, but these three are moot if the the capability isnt there.




This isn't Top Trumps: Nation States

This nuclear weapons stuff should really be put to bed. A National Intelligence Estimate (that's a coalition of all 16 arms of the U.S. security services) report states "with high confidence" that if a nuclear weapons programme existed at all in Iran it was "halted in fall 2003", that it does not have one and is not intending to make one.

Fair enough. Ive said I dont know, and I'm talking about the possibility that they do. I'd be interested in any link you have for you NIE statement.


And you're absolutely desperate to image anything with an Islamist bent in the Middle East to be maniacal evil-doers who are hell bent on, ahem, 'blow the infidel to pieces in the name of Allah'. The Iranian regime is reactionary, uber-conservative and often downright vicious but they're not Year-Zero nutters running about the place with poorly made nuclear warheads.

I think thats a tad patronising Liverpool.

I believe any state that has its policies dictated by religious dogma - and this would apply to whichever collection of mystical truth was followed - is inherently dangerous. Anyone acting under the belief that they are just following the Almightys direction with a big bomb is dangerous. I would have thought you, of all people, would have been wary of charismatic leaders with a strong religious belief and a well developed messianic complex.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------


At the risk of hijacking the thread; who has and has not got nuclear weapons is now beyond who we'd like to have them (if you know what I mean).
It is widely speculated that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that is hardly a nation renowned for stable government.
Iran, for all her posturing in middle east politics, does have a fairly stable regime (although I agree with you in terms of policy being dictated by religious doctrine) and does not have a policy of agression to her neighbours, except Israel. Even then, I am inclined to think that their agression towards Israel is one of the things that get dragged up whenever Iran needs to be portrayed as a bogeyman. I doubt that it is much more than sabre rattling (though that is just a personal notion).

Pakistan is not, as far as I am aware, directly governed by religion, and that to me is the key point.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Capability is a big part, yes. Are you saying it isn't? Its not only capability, its also desire, motivation, provocation, but these three are moot if the the capability isnt there.

Well of course, but having the capability to do something is moot if the desire and motivation isn't there. And I see no evidence that it is.


Fair enough. Ive said I dont know, and I'm talking about the possibility that they do. I'd be interested in any link you have for you NIE statement.

Here ya go... (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf)


I think thats a tad patronising Liverpool.

Fair enough, sorry. Not wholly innacurate though, I don't think.


I believe any state that has its policies dictated by religious dogma - and this would apply to whichever collection of mystical truth was followed - is inherently dangerous. Anyone acting under the belief that they are just following the Almightys direction with a big bomb is dangerous. I would have thought you, of all people, would have been wary of charismatic leaders with a strong religious belief and a well developed messianic complex.

No doubt, but the 'idealism' of the theocracy isn't immune to pragmatism and realpolitik, in fact it is at all times subordinate to it.

[hibsdaft]

the more we hear about Iran in the next year will mean, imo, that we're getting closer to airstrikes on their test and devpmnt sites. which imo are guaranteed if the powers that be become convinced that Iran is getting close to anything approximating a nuke. especially now Obama is on the ropes domestically.

personally i won't really give a ***** when that happens, hypocricy of the US/ Isreal etc or not.

[IndieHibby]

Actually laughable...

Why?

Or do you prefer the Guardian's slant?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf)

I was merely trying to offer some current indication that Iran's neighbours are a little worried about their missile-chucking ambitions.

[matty_f]

What is the point of this enquiry? To satisfy some folk's anti-Blair blood lust, imo.

No matter what Tony Blair says, the people who oppose him and oppose the war, won't change their opinion.

Blair answered all their questions, but because the answers didn't suit, his opponents call him a liar.

Blair did what he did for the reasons he has stated.

Everything else is just speculation. Prove otherwise.

I laughed at Five Live yesterday. They asked an anti-war protester, "Are you now satisfied with Mr Blair's answers?".

Guess what the reply was. :faf:

One caller said that Blair should be hung. How's that for an open mind? :bitchy:

Of course they're not satisfied. They have their own view of the war, which was formed in ignorance and from a very safe distance.

Unless Blair says "I shouldn't have made the decisions I made. I was wrong. I only did it cos the USA wanted me to. I love oil.", they won't be satisfied.

Not for a single moment will they consider that the truth of the matter is that Blair did actually make those decisions in good faith. They've already made their mind up. For them it's a witch hunt.

Thankfully those in charge of running the enquiry are a bit more open minded.

Without that, it would be an even bigger waste of time, effort and money.

:agree:

[McIntosh]

Good God, what are we being led to believe that Iran is going to attack all its neighbours :rolleyes:

It simply doesn't have the capacity for an offensive war if it is developing a nuclear military capacity which may be an ambition somewhere in Tehran. However there no substantive evidence to suggest it is the policy of the current leadership.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon which it hasn't we would all know about it as they would demonstate its use, exactly like North Korea. If there is a change is policy, there will be two powers in the region with the capacity and I don't think we would see US or Israeli attacks on Iran or its allies or visa versa. The death of three million Iranians, two million Israeli and one hundred thousand US troops would focus all their minds.

Well, if they start fighting which I hope they don't we won't be involved, unless were sending the guides. With an election coming up Brown I can't imagine it. That's Blair's real legacy.

[Big Ed]

Pakistan is not, as far as I am aware, directly governed by religion, and that to me is the key point.[/QUOTE]

No, but it is hardly the most stable of nations either. The most powerful institution in that country are the military and there is speculation that junior officers are undermining the efforts to chase down members of the Taliban hiding in Pakistan.

[Big Ed]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7121495/US-bolsters-defences-of-Irans-Gulf-neighbours.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7121495/US-bolsters-defences-of-Irans-Gulf-neighbours.html)

I see nothing in that article that makes me think that Iran is any more of a risk to it's neighbours than before.

[Twa Cairpets]

Good God, what are we being led to believe that Iran is going to attack all its neighbours :rolleyes:

It simply doesn't have the capacity for an offensive war if it is developing a nuclear military capacity which may be an ambition somewhere in Tehran. However there no substantive evidence to suggest it is the policy of the current leadership.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon which it hasn't we would all know about it as they would demonstate its use, exactly like North Korea. If there is a change is policy, there will be two powers in the region with the capacity and I don't think we would see US or Israeli attacks on Iran or its allies or visa versa. The death of three million Iranians, two million Israeli and one hundred thousand US troops would focus all their minds.

Well, if they start fighting which I hope they don't we won't be involved, unless were sending the guides. With an election coming up Brown I can't imagine it. That's Blair's real legacy.

Post 74

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------


There is a validity to your view - it is in my opinion an honest summation of the thinking behind the Invasion. As we all know it was never offered as a rationale but even within the 'real politic' argument SH regime was not the international threat that it was perceived to be.

I am not optimistic about the middle East, if Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, it will soon if it does not already have that capacity. This may not be a bad thing as the balance of fear does work in politics, however so many dangerous factors then come into play, particularly the illusion of premption.

It reminds me of that old saying "the more you stand in sh*t the worse it becomes".

Post 60

Make up your mind

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why?

Or do you prefer the Guardian's slant?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf)

Not really, no.


I was merely trying to offer some current indication that Iran's neighbours are a little worried about their missile-chucking ambitions.

You prefaced a link to an article about a U.S. troop build up around Iran, the deployment of warships to the Gulf and, conspicuously, no mention whatsoever of any evidence of increased Iranian aggression with the title 'Misunderstood Iran' - it was laughable.

[Betty Boop]

Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion

Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oil and trade deals in return for regime change

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

February 01, 2010 "The Independent" -- A secret plan to foster an internal coup against Saddam Hussein was drawn up by the Government two years before the invasion of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.

Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law.

"The Iraqi people have the right to live in a society based on the rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest; to enjoy respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity," the contract reads. "The record of the current regime in Iraq suggests that its priorities remain elsewhere.

"Those who wish to promote change in Iraq deserve our support," it concludes. "We look forward to the day when Iraq rejoins the international community." A new regime was to be offered "debt rescheduling" through the Paris Club, an informal group of the richest 19 economies, given help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and handed an EU aid and trade deal. Companies were to be invited to invest in its oil fields. A "comprehensive retraining programme" was to be offered to Iraqi professionals.

During his evidence to the inquiry last week, Mr Blair said it was only after 9/11 that serious attention was given to removing Saddam as the attack changed the "calculus of risk". However, another classified document released by the Iraq inquiry on Friday night showed that No 10 explicitly saw the Contract with the Iraqi People as an early tool to remove the former Iraqi dictator. A memo issued in March 2001 by Sir John Sawers, then Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, cited the document under the heading "regime change".

"Regime change. The US and UK would re-make the case against Saddam Hussein. We would issue a Contract with the Iraqi People, setting out our goal of a peaceful, law-abiding Iraq," the memo states. "The Contract would make clear that the Iraqi regime's record and behaviour made it impossible for Iraq to meet the criteria for rejoining the international community without fundamental change."

Officials planned to release the contract alongside tougher sanctions against Saddam's regime being negotiated in 2001. When no agreement was reached and the US began to seek more active measures to remove the Baghdad administration after 9/11, the contract was dropped.

The document was not released by the Iraq inquiry, despite being cited as significant by Foreign Office officials. Sir William Patey, the Government's head of Middle East policy at the time it was drafted, said it was "our way in the Foreign Office of trying to signal that we didn't think Saddam was a good thing and it would be great if he went". He said it was used in place of an "explicit policy of trying to get rid of him".

"It was a way of signalling to the Iraqi people that because we don't have a policy of regime change, it doesn't mean to say we're happy with Saddam Hussein, and there is life after Saddam with Iraq being reintegrated into the international community," he said.

Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."

* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

[McIntosh]

Post 60

Make up your mind


I have seen so many conflicting report from agencies whom I respect that it is very difficult to understand what is really happening. However, I personally don't think that the use of nuclear weapons is the regimes 'real' objective. Though, I don't think that their acquistion would be rejected.

The need for security by all parties is perfectly understandable as we are still living through the direct consequences in the middle east of the events of 1919, 1948, 1979, 1991 and 2003 it is unsurprising that the Arab and Persian World distrusts the West. I have had the good fortune to be in contact with Rory Stewart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart) He makes the point that that we in the West project our reactions upon theirs, failing to grasp both historical and social context.

In this there maybe a lesson for Tony Blair, the UK, the US, Israel and us all. When we project bitter experiences divorced from absolute reality we do not prevent disasters we produce them.

[khib70]

I have seen so many conflicting report from agencies whom I respect that it is very difficult to understand what is really happening. However, I personally don't think that the use of nuclear weapons is the regimes 'real' objective. Though, I don't think that their acquistion would be rejected.

The need for security by all parties is perfectly understandable as we are still living through the direct consequences in the middle east of the events of 1919, 1948, 1979, 1991 and 2003 it is unsurprising that the Arab and Persian World distrusts the West. I have had the good fortune to be in contact with Rory Stewart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart) He makes the point that that we in the West project our reactions upon theirs, failing to grasp both historical and social context.

In this there maybe a lesson for Tony Blair, the UK, the US, Israel and us all. When we project bitter experiences divorced from absolute reality we do not prevent disasters we produce them.
Stewart is a fascinating character, and following your link made me want to get hold of his books. There can't be many Conservative candidates with that breadth of real experience.

What you ( and he) say about projection may well be true. But don't both sides in a conflict - or perceived conflict - project? Outside the West they use the colonialism and imperialism which inflicted so much suffering on them as a lens through which to view the West today. Don't they?

As for nuclear weapons, I've always had little time for unilateralism. You can't demand the scrapping of the British nuclear deterrent while being even slightly tolerant of a deranged theocracy happily building one. And before anyone jumps in, I am seriously against Israel being a nuclear power. But the world will only be safe when no one has nukes. As long as some have and others don't, fear will be the spectre at every set of disarmament talks.

[McIntosh]

Stewart is a fascinating character, and following your link made me want to get hold of his books. There can't be many Conservative candidates with that breadth of real experience.

What you ( and he) say about projection may well be true. But don't both sides in a conflict - or perceived conflict - project? Outside the West they use the colonialism and imperialism which inflicted so much suffering on them as a lens through which to view the West today. Don't they?

As for nuclear weapons, I've always had little time for unilateralism. You can't demand the scrapping of the British nuclear deterrent while being even slightly tolerant of a deranged theocracy happily building one. And before anyone jumps in, I am seriously against Israel being a nuclear power. But the world will only be safe when no one has nukes. As long as some have and others don't, fear will be the spectre at every set of disarmament talks.

He is, quite brilliant. Yes, to both questions and I would agree with the final paragraph - only through dialogue and trust can peace be acheived.

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8340359.stm

[Betty Boop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8340359.stm

Thanks for posting that. I came across this interview with Hans Blix on the same page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8501121.stm?ls

[Part/Time Supporter]

Thanks for posting that. I came across this interview with Hans Blix on the same page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8501121.stm?ls

It wasn't a serious contribution as such, but I found it amusing in retrospect.

I mean, there you have a first hand source who says there are no WMD. (Which also blows a hole in the argument advanced by Blair and his cabal that Saddam's government were kidding on that they did have them.)

Surely you then need physical proof to disprove that assertion?

[Betty Boop]

It wasn't a serious contribution as such, but I found it amusing in retrospect.

I mean, there you have a first hand source who says there are no WMD. (Which also blows a hole in the argument advanced by Blair and his cabal that Saddam's government were kidding on that they did have them.)

Surely you then need physical proof to disprove that assertion?

A farce! The Iraqi Foreign Minister had it in one, "We have a lot of oil"!

[IndieHibby]

Zippy, the problem with your naive analysis is in its failure to recognise the complexities that the invasion produced. It has resulted in an Iranian regional power which is now more stronger in dealing with the US and UK and confident in the knowledge that British and American capacity to fight it and occupy it are limited.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/images/iran-us-bases.gif

[IndieHibby]

Not really, no.



You prefaced a link to an article about a U.S. troop build up around Iran, the deployment of warships to the Gulf and, conspicuously, no mention whatsoever of any evidence of increased Iranian aggression with the title 'Misunderstood Iran' - it was laughable.

Yep, the title of my post was maybe a little OTT.

From same article:

"Improved defence capability in Arab states could also reassure Israel that it was not a lone regional defender against Iran, and reduce the chances of it launching a pre-emptive strike against Iranian installations."

Which is a good thing, no? Or do we want the Isreali-dog so rabid that it breaks it's chain and goes berserk?

Remember when Iran tested it's long range missiles? If you were an Isreali, whose daughter had been killed by a Hezbollah/Hamas rocket, would you not be more than a little pre-occupied with Iranian actions such as this? Especially when there is more than a good chance that your neighbours secretly want you dead?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-foreign-affairs/35321-iran-test-fires-long-range-missiles.html (http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-foreign-affairs/35321-iran-test-fires-long-range-missiles.html)

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yep, the title of my post was maybe a little OTT.

From same article:

"Improved defence capability in Arab states could also reassure Israel that it was not a lone regional defender against Iran, and reduce the chances of it launching a pre-emptive strike against Iranian installations."

Which is a good thing, no? Or do we want the Isreali-dog so rabid that it breaks it's chain and goes berserk?

I'm sceptical of any suggestion that Israel would ever strike Iran without the support of the U.S.


Remember when Iran tested it's long range missiles? If you were an Isreali, whose daughter had been killed by a Hezbollah/Hamas rocket, would you not be more than a little pre-occupied with Iranian actions such as this? Especially when there is more than a good chance that your neighbours secretly want you dead?

You're being silly again...

[khib70]

I'm sceptical of any suggestion that Israel would ever strike Iran without the support of the U.S.

I'm with you on that one. And I hope they don't get it. A nuclear armed state on your borders that has sworn to wipe you off the face of the earth is a scary thing, but a pre-emptive strike would be an unqualified disaster for everyone in the region. Vile as the Iranian regime is, there's no evidence so far that they're impervious to diplomacy. And there's a very good chance that popular pressure from within Iran will depose the mullahs and bring back an element of rational thought


You're being silly again...
Yes, he is. If Iran is the neighbour in question, they openly want you dead. But you don't respond to mullah-pleasing rhetoric with nuclear weapons

Personally, I don't believe, even after reading the Guardian piece linked on another thread, that the US is preparing for war with Iran. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I don't believe him to be that stupid.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm with you on that one. And I hope they don't get it. A nuclear armed state on your borders that has sworn to wipe you off the face of the earth is a scary thing, but a pre-emptive strike would be an unqualified disaster for everyone in the region. Vile as the Iranian regime is, there's no evidence so far that they're impervious to diplomacy. And there's a very good chance that popular pressure from within Iran will depose the mullahs and bring back an element of rational thought

Yes, he is. If Iran is the neighbour in question, they openly want you dead. But you don't respond to mullah-pleasing rhetoric with nuclear weapons

Wow, I didn't think anyone still believed (never ming spread) the 'wipe off the map' bollocks. He never said it.

[Betty Boop]

Andrew Marr v Alastair Campbell. Crocodile tears from Campbell methinks.

YouTube - Alastair Campbell fakes crocodile tears (07Feb10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNP2LTPiENk)

[khib70]

Wow, I didn't think anyone still believed (never ming spread) the 'wipe off the map' bollocks. He never said it.
Hmm. Depends which translation you prefer. However I know you're not an apologist for him or his disgusting theocracy, so fair enough.

The main argument is, however, that military intervention, even on a limited scale would strengthen his regime, rather than weaken it. As stated in this rather good piece from todays Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018440.ece

The Iranian army, and even parts of the RG are clearly not 100% committed to the current regime. Any kind of military intervention by anyone, but especially Israel or the US, would swing them right behind it, and might well convince them of the "Chinese solution" - with horrible consequences for progressive forces and indeed the ordinary people of Iran.

Despite the regime's protestations to the contrary, the aforementioned progressive forces are doing fine without foreign intervention. Sticking an oar in now would be counterproductive.

[ballengeich]

Andrew Marr v Alastair Campbell. Crocodile tears from Campbell methinks.

YouTube - Alastair Campbell fakes crocodile tears (07Feb10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNP2LTPiENk)

A magical performance. I still can't work out where the onion's hidden.

[hibsbollah]

A magical performance. I still can't work out where the onion's hidden.

I think someone behind him thrust it up his erse. Nothing else can explain the pain on his face.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hmm. Depends which translation you prefer. However I know you're not an apologist for him or his disgusting theocracy, so fair enough.

The correct one, of course! The one which explicitly refers to the 'regime' (rezhim-e) in Jerusalem being 'vanished from the page of time' just as the Shah's regime was in Iran, and absolutely nothing about 'Israel being wiped off the map'.

I really don't like having to stick up for the Holocaust-denying ****bag...


The main argument is, however, that military intervention, even on a limited scale would strengthen his regime, rather than weaken it. As stated in this rather good piece from todays Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018440.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018440.ece)

Hmmm, bits and pieces in that are good (and I think the over-arching premise is correct), but there's some absolutely dreadful stuff as well. I really dislike the implication that an attack would be morally justifiable if it would weaken rather than strengthen the regime.

Taheri's an absolute maniac by the way. A few years ago he decided to completely fabricate a story that Iranian Jews (and, indeed, other religious minorities) would be forced by law to wear easily identifiable colours and symbols in public.

[khib70]

The correct one, of course! The one which explicitly refers to the 'regime' (rezhim-e) in Jerusalem being 'vanished from the page of time' just as the Shah's regime was in Iran, and absolutely nothing about 'Israel being wiped off the map'.

I really don't like having to stick up for the Holocaust-denying ****bag...



Hmmm, bits and pieces in that are good (and I think the over-arching premise is correct), but there's some absolutely dreadful stuff as well. I really dislike the implication that an attack would be morally justifiable if it would weaken rather than strengthen the regime.

Taheri's an absolute maniac by the way. A few years ago he decided to completely fabricate a story that Iranian Jews (and, indeed, other religious minorities) would be forced by law to wear easily identifiable colours and symbols in public.
Fair enough - the holocaust denial is enough for both of us, I think.

As for Taheri - I agree that he has had more than one moment of madness - the Sumptuary Law thing being the most reprehensible. But as you say, the basic premise is correct. I wouldn't want to take a view on whether an attack that weakened the regime would be morally justifiable - it's a totally hypothetical issue. I can't visualise a situation where a military attack would do anything other than strengthen the theocracy.

What the vast majority of Iranians appear to want is a stable, democratic and secure Iran, without brutally enforced mediaeval dogmas. And I think there won't be another Tiananmen because the military, like those of the DDR, Rumania and Czechoslovakia, won't do the deed. The presence of the RG and Basijii complicate the issue, but I suspect that the regular army is fairly resentful of their status and competing influence and may well stand between them and the people if it all goes down. Hopefully it won't come to that.