Reference:
ed a desire to become a politician should be automatically precluded from ever holding public office
Reference:
Most people think we should have intervened in places like Rwanda, as the genocide unfolded, but Saddam's genocide was allowed to go on, year after year.
Incidentally Blizzie think of places like Zimbabwe, Iran etc. Its the way of madness to think that we can act like a police force all around the world.
Reference: squiggle
Incidentally Blizzie think of places like Zimbabwe, Iran etc. Its the way of madness to think that we can act like a police force all around the world.
Ideally, we would not deal with dictatorships anywhere and would support democratic struggles in such countries. Eventually the people of each country would get a voice.But how long do we wait while genocides occur?
Greed supports these regimes.
Genocide carries on in Darfur, while China seals its oil deals with the government.
Mr Mugabe and his wife go shopping in Paris, while the people starve at home.
I know it is imossible to police the whole world, but democracies standing up for democratic struggles would be a start and the UN having non democratic countries, such as Chna, on the Permanent Security Council is a bit of a farce, IMO.
I have hopes for Iraq's future. At least they have some chance of a better future, instead of Saddam's sons taking over after his death.
I hear what you say Blizzie but, while it is essential that we continue with aid for countries that desperately need it, and I am thinking here especially of children going hungry, we are in such desperate straits now at home that we really have to sort out our economy and get our manufacturing industries up and running again to provide work for our work force. We cannot, and in my view should not even be contemplating, attempt to right such wrongs abroad.
Reference:Blizzie
I have hopes for Iraq's future. At least they have some chance of a better future, instead of Saddam's sons taking over after his death.
So true 
Reference:
I have hopes for Iraq's future. At least they have some chance of a better future, instead of Saddam's sons taking over after his death. So true
The price (in lives) has been too high. As is the cost in lives of those who have died and are still dying in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
The war in Iraq was illegal whichever way you try and dress it up.....The UN Charter says that no country should interefere in the internal affairs of another....unless invited to do so. ....regime change is not a valid reason for going to war.
With regard to Kosovo....different altogether, in that the Kosovans asked for help in the first place and that NATO did not invade, but sent a peacekeeping force to try and stop the 'ethnic cleansing' and atrocities being committed on both sides.
The first Gulf War was legal, because the Kuwaiti's wanted to repel Saddam from Kuwait....and he had invaded them...
With regard to Kosovo....different altogether, in that the Kosovans asked for help in the first place and that NATO did not invade, but sent a peacekeeping force to try and stop the 'ethnic cleansing' and atrocities being committed on both sides.
The first Gulf War was legal, because the Kuwaiti's wanted to repel Saddam from Kuwait....and he had invaded them...
Well said Kaytee. I don't understand why people are trying to defend the indefensible.
All he cares about is how he will be seen historically....all the current opinions on him will be wiped out all eventually and he's hoping that he will be seen as the man who won 3 General Elections, is admired in the US, was a Professor at Yale, and reinvented himself as a roving peace envoy. All true, but the context will be dimmed. I think he's a smarmy, self-important walking talking ego. And he and Cherie are loving how Brown is becoming unstuck...I have no doubt about that!
Reference:
All he cares about is how he will be seen historically....all the current opinions on him will be wiped out all eventually and he's hoping that he will be seen as the man who won 3 General Elections, is admired in the US, was a Professor at Yale, and reinvented himself as a roving peace envoy. All true, but the context will be dimmed. I think he's a smarmy, self-important walking talking ego. And he and Cherie are loving how Brown is becoming unstuck...I have no doubt about that!
I think you hit that on the nail. If there was an award for the most self-serving politician and spouse in recent history I think Tony and Cherie would be in a league all by themselves. Shame on them that they supposedly represent the party for the ordinary working people 
Reference:
All he cares about is how he will be seen historically....all the current opinions on him will be wiped out all eventually and he's hoping that he will be seen as the man who won 3 General Elections, is admired in the US, was a Professor at Yale, and reinvented himself as a roving peace envoy. All true, but the context will be dimmed. I think he's a smarmy, self-important walking talking ego. And he and Cherie are loving how Brown is becoming unstuck...I have no doubt about that!
I think you hit that on the nail. If there was an award for the most self-serving politician and spouse in recent history I think Tony and Cherie would be in a league all by themselves. Shame on them that they supposedly represent the party for the ordinary working people
I agree with both those comments..... It even ALMOST makes me feel sorry for GB..cos just when he thought things couldn't get much worse for him, in marches BLiar!I think you hit that on the nail. If there was an award for the most self-serving politician and spouse in recent history I think Tony and Cherie would be in a league all by themselves. Shame on them that they supposedly represent the party for the ordinary working people
Reference:
It even ALMOST makes me feel sorry for GB..cos just when he thought things couldn't get much worse for him, in marches BLiar!
If I ever felt like feeling sorry for GB the way he treated that lady this week would make me change my mind. The patronising way he listened to her, the 2 faced way he was with her, and up to then she was a fan.
Is Bliar well? If you take that orange tan away, I thought he looked
really ill on the news tonight. He's lost loads of weight 
Thanks squiggle. I really can't stand the man. This is someone who has apologised for everything he needn't have...(The Potato Famine, Slavery etc.) who hasn't got the decency to admit that he may have got it wrong over Iraq. I'm a disenchanted natural Labour supporter, and I'd have Brown any day over Blair.
Reference:
I did say ALMOSTDid you see the Paxman interview tonight Squiggle?
Hi Baz 
I've taped it. Will I have to have something ready to throw at the screen?Reference:
Is Bliar well? If you take that orange tan away, I thought he looked really ill on the news tonight. He's lost loads of weight
Funny you should say that, I caught a glimpse of him on the tellybox earlier and he looked like a malevolent imp. A bit like catching a glimpse of an old boyfriend you were potty about and thinking "what did I ever see in him?" Reference:squiggle
I caught a glimpse of him on the tellybox earlier and he looked like a malevolent imp. A bit like catching a glimpse of an old boyfriend you were potty about and thinking "what did I ever see in him?
OMG 
Reference:
old boyfriend you were potty about
I NEVER felt that way about him
No nor me, but you know, once we saw him, full of confidence striding the world's stage, believable, authoratative, now there is something of the barrow boy about him.
Reference:
You mean as opposed to the car salesman look....
He is soo soo believable if he was trying to sell me a low-mileage top of the range motor I would run a mile, there would be bound to be something horribly wrong with it
Reference:
I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made and claims weren't exaggerated, but to claim that Blair knew that there were no WMD programmes and lied about it, is just ridiculous.
A sane voice at last. I thought i WAS THE ONLY ONE giving Blair the benefit of doubt.Reference:
I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made and claims weren't exaggerated, but to claim that Blair knew that there were no WMD programmes and lied about it, is just ridiculous.
A sane voice at last. I thought i WAS THE ONLY ONE giving Blair the benefit of doubt.Reference:
Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public. The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. "If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked. He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]". Significantly, Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision." Blair was "absolutely prepared to say he was willing to contemplate regime change if [UN-backed measures] did not work", Sir David Manning, Blair's former foreign policy adviser,told the inquiry. If it proved impossible to pursue the UN route, then Blair would be "willing to use force", Manning emphasised. The Chilcot inquiry has seen a number of previously leaked Whitehall documents which suggest Blair was in favour of regime change although he was warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, in July 2002, eight months before the invasion, that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action".
Cologne just in case you missed this quote from The Guardian on page 1 of this thread I have quoted it above. There is absolutely no doubt from what has been disclosed to The Chilcott Enquiry and from Tony Blair himself that it was regime change, illegal regime change without the backing of the UN, which was taking place and not a genuine belief that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction.
In case there are any last lingering doubts, this is a quote from the Insider
Proof - US and UK knew Iraq had no WMD
The British government knew Saddam Hussein was telling the truth; Iraq had no WMD and
the allies knew it, therefore the official excuse for the war cannot be the true reason.
This has now been confirmed by Mr Robin Cook who, at the time, was Foreign Secretary,a senior Cabinet Minister, as well as Leader of the House of Commons. Mr Cook was exposed to the official intelligence reports before the war, and sat at the Cabinet table when military action was discussed.
The official intelligence showed that "Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction" and, furthermore, the government "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing"to mislead the public and create the impression that Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda.
The US and the UK were plotting the conquest of Iraq in January 1998, almost four years before the 11 September attacks conveniently provided the excuse they needed to attack a poor country overseas. The US government hoped to move on Iraq around the first anniversary
of 9/11 but the UK was not ready. Iraq is situated above the world's second largest oil reservoir, but the regime was weak and the people poor after a decade of sanctions, and ten years of regular air-strikes by American and British aircraft had rendered them defenceless.
The politicians lied to us about the reason for invading Iraq. Iraq was not the first conquest and it will not be the last. A new age is dawning and we are witnessing the birth of a New World Order.
The events now unfolding, like the parallel events in Germany less than a century ago, have divided all the people of the world into two camps. Are you among the deceived, or are you one of those who is capable of thinking and seeing for themselves?
SOURCES:
Sunday Times, "Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'", front-page, 5 October 2003.
[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a...,2087-842665,00.html ]
Robin Cook's diaries reveal shock admission on brink of war.
TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today. John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC),also "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook. His revelations, taken from
a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a real and present danger" to Britain. Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary, when it first discussed military action against Iraq.
The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against the war",according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.
Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to vote for war on a "false prospectus". He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in the UN failed
"and it would certainly have been in line with his previous practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British support".
Cook's long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are the first memoir of any member of Blair's cabinet. His disclosures are likely to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the war.
The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.
Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.
Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by Scarlett. "The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment," Cook writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets."
Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was still trying to get a freshUN resolution and Cook was still in government as leader of the Commons.
...
Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN's chief weapons inspector] might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
"The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.
...
"I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in Septemberthat Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March." Cook asks: "If No 10 accepted that
Saddam had no real weapons of mass destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a credible timescale for use
on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did they really think Saddam represented?"
Proof - US and UK knew Iraq had no WMD
The British government knew Saddam Hussein was telling the truth; Iraq had no WMD and
the allies knew it, therefore the official excuse for the war cannot be the true reason.
This has now been confirmed by Mr Robin Cook who, at the time, was Foreign Secretary,a senior Cabinet Minister, as well as Leader of the House of Commons. Mr Cook was exposed to the official intelligence reports before the war, and sat at the Cabinet table when military action was discussed.
The official intelligence showed that "Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction" and, furthermore, the government "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing"to mislead the public and create the impression that Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda.
The US and the UK were plotting the conquest of Iraq in January 1998, almost four years before the 11 September attacks conveniently provided the excuse they needed to attack a poor country overseas. The US government hoped to move on Iraq around the first anniversary
of 9/11 but the UK was not ready. Iraq is situated above the world's second largest oil reservoir, but the regime was weak and the people poor after a decade of sanctions, and ten years of regular air-strikes by American and British aircraft had rendered them defenceless.
The politicians lied to us about the reason for invading Iraq. Iraq was not the first conquest and it will not be the last. A new age is dawning and we are witnessing the birth of a New World Order.
The events now unfolding, like the parallel events in Germany less than a century ago, have divided all the people of the world into two camps. Are you among the deceived, or are you one of those who is capable of thinking and seeing for themselves?
SOURCES:
Sunday Times, "Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'", front-page, 5 October 2003.
[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a...,2087-842665,00.html ]
Robin Cook's diaries reveal shock admission on brink of war.
TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today. John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC),also "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook. His revelations, taken from
a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a real and present danger" to Britain. Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary, when it first discussed military action against Iraq.
The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against the war",according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.
Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to vote for war on a "false prospectus". He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in the UN failed
"and it would certainly have been in line with his previous practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British support".
Cook's long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are the first memoir of any member of Blair's cabinet. His disclosures are likely to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the war.
The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.
Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.
Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by Scarlett. "The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment," Cook writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets."
Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was still trying to get a freshUN resolution and Cook was still in government as leader of the Commons.
...
Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN's chief weapons inspector] might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
"The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.
...
"I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in Septemberthat Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March." Cook asks: "If No 10 accepted that
Saddam had no real weapons of mass destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a credible timescale for use
on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did they really think Saddam represented?"
I'm sorry squiggle, I just don't believe that Tony Blair was this fiend who was dying for a war whatever it took. If he had'nt gone into Iraq, he would probably be called the best PM Britain had for decades. My son went into Iraq twice and he saw the difference of life for the people there, so there has to be some benefit.
He's not a fiend....he's a Neo-Con!
Reference:
He's not a fiend....he's a Neo-Con!
True and it makes me feel that the the whole kaboosh is futile.
Reference:
A sane voice at last. I thought i WAS THE ONLY ONE giving Blair the benefit of doubt
No you're not Cologne and I don't believe for one minute it would have been any different with a Tory government.That just plain unbelievable to think the Tories would not have done the same !
Reference:
I'm sorry squiggle, I just don't believe that Tony Blair was this fiend who was dying for a war whatever it took. If he had'nt gone into Iraq, he would probably be called the best PM Britain had for decades. My son went into Iraq twice and he saw the difference of life for the people there, so there has to be some benefit.
Well cologne you have the proof before you in black and white and you still do not want to see it. Robin Cook was the Foreign Secretary at the time and resigned over the invasion, if you don't believe his eye witness account then of course you must believe what you want to believe. Incidentally if Tony Blair hadn't decided to co-operate with George W. Bush and invade Iraq he still would not have been regarded as the best PM for decades as time has proved that he was, and is, a compulsive liar who seeks not to better the people of this country but to feather his own nest.