by Simon 865 Replies latest social current
If you watch an interview with Chaney back in the mid 90's or maybe early 90's he talks about how it would be a mistake to invade Iraq. It is an amazing interview. Chaney predicted all the stuff that would happen if we invaded and gave that as a reason why Bush Sr. didn't invade.
Both wars have had a major impact on US debt and destabilizing the region IMO.
For all the pro-war people who posted on this topic over the years ... who was proven right?
The UK inquiry into the Iraq war has now published it's findings and there was no imminent threat and the reasons were contrived. They decided on the war first and then went looking for an excuse. They ultimately cleared the way for ISIS.
Shame on you Bush and Blaire.
Shame.
Shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk
Im sure Bush and Blaire are reading this site. FYI, the Kurds were attacked by Sadam in the 80,s by WMD, which killed a village of over 5000. This was big news in the 80,s and in the early 80,s the Isrealies bombed Iraqi Nuclear production site that was about to make a nuclear bomb. Iran was pleased cause they were in a war with Sadam that neither side could get the upper hand.
Should Tony Blair be charged with war crimes?
Maybe they should put Blair in charge of Britain's exit from the EU. The Blair Which Project.
For what it's worth I'd say Blair lacked the intelligence needed to make the correct decision.
I too was against the attack and the British troops being sent to their deaths by Tony Blair.
Chilcot exposed there was no evidence of chemical weapons and Blair acted on the false accusations from MI6
British politicians eh?
Kate xx
When the UK & US invaded Iraq in 2003 I was neutral, being a good little JW-bot. Since then, I have read quite a bit about it and believe that the war was illegal under international law.
AFAIK, Dubya didn't bother with legality - regime change was stated from the outset, I believe.
Bliar wanted to support Dubya, but felt as though he had to get the British public and politicians onside - hence the two dodgy dossiers.
Hans Blix found no WMD in Iraq, of course.
There are some intelligence experts who believe Saddam moved any WMD to Syria. For some strange reason, the establishment doesn't want to know - one expert has been harassed by the CIA, allegedly.
hmmmm
so--what would we say about Blair now if he had done nothing--and saddam had launched a chemical attack against Israel--who then responded with a nuclear strike against Baghdad ?
if i remember--saddam did launch his missiles against israel at the start of the first war--largely knocked down by american patriot missiles.
Malc,
The point is there were no chemical weapons. It was all false Intel. If Blair had investigated it properly he would have known it was false Intel.
You can't just bomb other countries because you think there is a risk of them bombing your country. You need some kind of substantiated evidence to support the risk is likely and real.
Kate xx
no chemical weapons ?
Straight from the BBC, chemical weapons were used by IRAQ on civilians. Saddam did have chemical weapons and he did use them,according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm
