Tony Blair: ‘We didn’t cause Iraq crisis’
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is not to blame for the violent insurgency now gripping the country, former UK prime minister Tony Blair has said.
He told the BBC there would still be a “major problem” in Iraq even without the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
He insisted the current crisis was an issue that “affects us all” and urged more western intervention in the area.
Critics have rejected the comments as “bizarre” with one accusing Mr Blair of “washing his hands of responsibility”.
Mr Blair said the idea that Iraq today would be stable if Saddam had been left in place was “simply not credible”.
“Even if you’d left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened – and you had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria – you would have still had a major problem in Iraq,” he said.
“Indeed, you can see what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened with Assad now. The problems don’t go away.”
He also called for some form of intervention in neighbouring Syria, warning that inaction would result in a threat to UK soil.
Mr Blair was prime minister when UK and US forces controversially invaded Iraq in 2003 – on the basis that it had weapons of mass destruction – with the last of Britain’s troops withdrawing in 2011.
Now, uprisings by the al-Qaeda breakaway group the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have led to a surge of violence and sectarian killings in recent days.
The Sunni insurgents have advanced north of Baghdad.
And as Iraqi government forces attempt to hold them back, a US aircraft carrier has been deployed to the Gulf in response to the escalating violence.
‘Unending violence’
Mr Blair said the idea that Iraq would be stable if the UK and US had not intervened “just isn’t true” and that the current crisis involved the wider region as a whole.In an essay on his website, he said the violence in Iraq was the “predictable and malign effect” of inaction in Syria.
But Michael Stephens, from the Royal United Services Institute, insisted the Iraq War had a part to play in the recent upsurge in violence.
“I think Mr Blair is washing his hands of responsibility,” he said. “But at the same time, I do agree with him that we can’t just ignore this.
“We do have some kind of role to play in terms of trying to make sure that both Iraq and Syria do not fragment and just move on into sort of unending violence.”
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s ambassador to the US from 1997 to 2003, said the handling of the campaign against Saddam Hussein was “perhaps the most significant reason” for the current sectarian violence.
“We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule,” he said in the Mail on Sunday.
Syria is three years into a civil war in which tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced.
In August last year, a chemical attack near the capital Damascus killed hundreds of people.
In the same month, UK MPs rejected the idea of air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
“You do not need to engage as we did in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you need to recognise that we have interests in this,” Mr Blair told the BBC.
‘Bizarre views’
Clare Short, a former Labour minister who resigned over the Iraq War, said Mr Blair was “absolutely, consistently wrong, wrong, wrong”.“He has become a complete American neo-con, who thinks military action, bombing, attacking will solve the problems and it’s actually making more and more tension, anger, division and bitterness in the Middle East,” she told Sky News.
Security analyst Professor Eric Grove said he found Mr Blair’s position to be “bizarre”.
“So saying this is a result of our non-intervention, if Mr Blair really thinks that going into Syria and basically fighting everyone was going to lead to a better situation, I think his views are somewhat bizarre actually. I can see very little logic in this.”
But former Middle East minister Alistair Burt said there was a “great danger” of trying to understand the situation by going back to “one root cause” and “blaming what was done in the past”.
The Iraqi ambassador in Washington, Lukman Faily, meanwhile, said that, without international help, the effects of the crisis would be felt in the UK.
“What will [be] the impact on the streets of London and Bradford and others?” he said in an interview for BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend.
He added: “These jihadists are coming from all over the world, so do you want these jihadists to go back to their country, in Bradford and elsewhere, to learn [sic] what they have practised in Iraq?”
The Iraq War has been the subject of several inquiries, including the Chilcot inquiry – which began in 2009 and whose report has not yet been published – into the UK’s participation in military action against Saddam Hussein and its aftermath.
If Saddam had been left in place would Iraq be a stable country?
If you mean by stable an isolated, disassociated country, abandoned by all other nations then yes – Iraq would have been stable. But that doesn’t mean that after all this time some sort of arrangement couldn’t have been made.
Even if we hadn’t invaded there would have been a (relatively) strong army for the area in place, a leader with the kind of intelligence superstructure in place to spy on most of his people and the will to eradicate not only the opposition, but the oppositions friends, family and even associates too. When you have that sort of power then it becomes very difficult for an opposition to form; you might trust your (very) closest friends but how do you find like-minded others with whom you might join when the secret police could be anyone, anywhere?
Saddam was an evil tyrant; evil tyrants have a knack for knowing the best ways of finding out secrets, and when one of your revolutionary cell is taken it would only be a short while until his specialists are knocking on your door wanting to invite you down to the station to answer a few questions… Breaking bones, pulling finger nails, torture in general got Saddam the results he needed to stay in power for the 24 years he did – it wasn’t a national revolution that deposed him.
Was it right to topple him, or would it have been better to leave him in place?
Blair says it was right – even though the reason the west invaded was spurious and our leaders knew it: Hans Blix had told them so, in his report made just before the invasion, in no uncertain terms, to the point that the CIA was ordered to find ammunition on him to undermine his position (and Bush and co were apparently very upset when – just like the WMD search – nothing could be found).
Saddam was brought to justice and replaced; subsequently the Iraqi’s have been lead by apparently toothless old men commanding an army trained and supplied by the west, seemingly full of spy’s and turncoats ready to kill their instructors and defect to the opposition – the remainder must have surprised nobody by running away almost fast enough for an Olympic 100m final position.
But Blair, not content with being no longer in power, still wants the west to go in to Syria on his say-so. The current events in Iraq are lead from Syria, he believes – we are responsible for them because we didn’t intervene, apparently. But surely going into Syria would have lead to us fighting everybody and, were we to win, we would have had to entrench ourselves, appoint a ruler, supply his army and throw money into his back pocket against the time he gets overthrown. The whole area would be against us, ironically uniting them all against the common enemy.
It might be interesting to think that Blair is saying what he is saying so that one day, in the near future, he can use these latest missives – trying to justify his old position – to prove his plea of insanity at his war crimes trial and save his skin…;o)
And also interesting to notice that one moment Iran is regarded as a bad guy, next it is an ally.
By: snafu - 19th June 2014 at 09:12
So where does that leave Iraq?
As something for Blair to whine that he is innocent about?
I don’t know – I don’t have the answers. I do see, though, that whilst I don’t have the solution what I have seen was not the best way to have gone about things.
I don’t buy what David Cameron said today: that Britain is in danger from ISIS or from British ISIS fighters returning from Iraq or Syria.
My guess is that he believes that, once their mission in the Middle East is over, the survivors and their mates will try exporting their brand of religious hatred to other areas, Britain being one of them. That thinking should help boost Ukip’s fan base in time for the next election.
To my mind the only danger is if Britain starts to take military action, or supports military action against ISIS.
Maybe, but then again we have already stuck our heads above the parapet so any danger is already a possibility…
Britain should leave well alone. Let Muslim carry on killing Muslim in the centuries-old feud; I’m sure that in some quarters that the West will get the blame but there should be no military intervention whatsoever.
Whoa!!!
Are you not a member of the human race? Does not the killing of one man by another diminish you by association?
Yes, despite that thought there will always be feral swine who need to be culled, but the indiscriminate slaughter that generally takes place NEVER confines itself to just the militant wings of the two parties concerned – innocents always end up being involved.
That is not to say that we should get involved, but if someone doesn’t then there will be (sorry, is!) mass murder… History has shown that this is what has happened before, and will be what will happen in the future.
If ‘the World’ thinks that something should be done about it then let another Muslim country intervene; Saudi Arabia surely can afford to do something, even if it is only to take in the millions of refugees that this latest conflict will produce.
Good grief.
Sure, the Saudis would be happy to get more involved if they weren’t (most probably, since they are the main backers of the Syrian opposition) one of the ‘silent’ ISIS backers…
And the problem with refugees from one of this type of war zone is that insurgents hide amongst the legitimates, whether to recruit from the affected or help cause unrest in the camps. And many Arabic countries have displayed a distinct reluctance to be seen to get involved in case that stirs the ire of groups like ISIS.
Lots of room on roads to waste em between towns, shades of Kuwait… Their supply line must be getting pretty stretched to, cut it off at the Syrian border and they are screwed, if the Iranians etc get in behind them there screwed, bad move was killing Iraqi prisoners, once it’s known that if you surrender they will kill you, no one will ever ever surrender again, they will fight to the death.
…Or run away just that little bit faster.
Sure, it does focus the mind.
By: TonyT - 19th June 2014 at 00:27
Lots of room on roads to waste em between towns, shades of Kuwait… Their supply line must be getting pretty stretched to, cut it off at the Syrian border and they are screwed, if the Iranians etc get in behind them there screwed, bad move was killing Iraqi prisoners, once it’s known that if you surrender they will kill you, no one will ever ever surrender again, they will fight to the death.
By: Creaking Door - 18th June 2014 at 19:59
So where does that leave Iraq?
I don’t buy what David Cameron said today: that Britain is in danger from ISIS or from British ISIS fighters returning from Iraq or Syria. To my mind the only danger is if Britain starts to take military action, or supports military action against ISIS.
Britain should leave well alone. Let Muslim carry on killing Muslim in the centuries-old feud; I’m sure that in some quarters that the West will get the blame but there should be no military intervention whatsoever.
If ‘the World’ thinks that something should be done about it then let another Muslim country intervene; Saudi Arabia surely can afford to do something, even if it is only to take in the millions of refugees that this latest conflict will produce.
By: snafu - 18th June 2014 at 19:35
Maybe, but if a damaged infrastructure is being managed surely the best thing to do would be ration the power and water so everybody got at least some every day? The alternative is to accuse the Coalition / Iraqi Government of deliberately cutting power and water to control the population.
Now there’s an idea…
As for ‘walkable streets and safe schools’ who makes them unsafe; the Coalition / Iraqi Government? Or is it the ‘ordinary’ Iraqi population continuing the centuries-old sectarian conflict?
Probably both, at the time.
There were – probably still are – video’s on Youtube/wherever of laughing US soldiers passing the time by shooting at civilians as they patrolled outside the green zone. Such a noble pastime.
The schools might be made unsafe by other, disapproving Iraqis, yes.
I don’t have all the answers, or any of the answers, but British involvement in Iraq seemed to draw criticism from every Iraqi, almost every British person and every Muslim on the planet; it also cost us dearly in lives and money and as yet I have no idea what advantage the British people gained from it…
Military training?
…time we let somebody else have a go.
Ha. Good luck with that. Few nations will be mug enough to get involved when the US and we have retreated – I mean strategically withdrawn.
By: Creaking Door - 18th June 2014 at 16:49
Maybe, but if a damaged infrastructure is being managed surely the best thing to do would be ration the power and water so everybody got at least some every day? The alternative is to accuse the Coalition / Iraqi Government of deliberately cutting power and water to control the population.
As for ‘walkable streets and safe schools’ who makes them unsafe; the Coalition / Iraqi Government? Or is it the ‘ordinary’ Iraqi population continuing the centuries-old sectarian conflict?
I don’t have all the answers, or any of the answers, but British involvement in Iraq seemed to draw criticism from every Iraqi, almost every British person and every Muslim on the planet; it also cost us dearly in lives and money and as yet I have no idea what advantage the British people gained from it…
…time we let somebody else have a go.
By: snafu - 18th June 2014 at 14:27
Are you saying that post 2003 that the Coalition forces were deliberately making attacks to destroy Iraqi infrastructure and disrupt supplies of power and water? I’d have thought that the billions of dollars of investment that the Coalition were making were intended to do just the opposite.
Don’t shoot the messenger. Read those blogs.
Also depends on where the money went…
The problem in Iraq, post 2003, seemed to be the upsurge in sectarian violence; and the best way to raise the level of dissatisfaction with the Coalition in general was probably to cut off people’s power and water. I’m sure Saddam Hussein could have sorted the problem by resorting to the methods that he had used in the past; brutal but effective. The Coalition did not have that option.
As far as I recall, from the blogs I posted links to, power and water were cut off regularly. Had the lines/pipes been targeted by insurgents I doubt the cuts would have been a regular thing, more irregular in fact.
Found this on the first page of the Riverbend blog:
We are learning that those amenities we took for granted before 2003, you know- the luxuries – electricity, clean water from faucets, walkable streets, safe schools – those are for deserving populations.
This post is dated 9/4/2013.
Oooo, another one:
For every two hours of electricity, we have four hours of no electricity in our area- and several other areas.
That is from 1/6/2004.
And plenty of unnecessary civilian deaths are always useful to focus the minds of the population and the world in general. When there was a UN embargo on Iraq Saddam Hussein claimed that tens of thousands died but food and medicine were not part of the UN embargo…
…which raises the question…..what did they die of?
Hmm, you truly believe that Saddam would have openly passed them on to the population?
Listen, I have some beans and, well, not to put too fine a point on it…they are magic.;o)
By: charliehunt - 18th June 2014 at 08:58
I am sure you are. I hope you hear good news soon, Paul!
By: paul178 - 17th June 2014 at 21:11
I have a very close and dear friend in Mosul He has a wife and three children and like most in this country has worked hard to make a living and finally buy a house. I will say no more other than to add the usual amenities did not work 24/7 at least in Mosul. I will say no more about him as I would not like to put his life in danger. I spoke to him a couple of days ago but since then nothing. I am worried but all I can do is wait
By: Creaking Door - 17th June 2014 at 09:52
…but, unlike in the post war period, the usual amenities worked 24/7, 365, etc.
Are you saying that post 2003 that the Coalition forces were deliberately making attacks to destroy Iraqi infrastructure and disrupt supplies of power and water? I’d have thought that the billions of dollars of investment that the Coalition were making were intended to do just the opposite.
The problem in Iraq, post 2003, seemed to be the upsurge in sectarian violence; and the best way to raise the level of dissatisfaction with the Coalition in general was probably to cut off people’s power and water. I’m sure Saddam Hussein could have sorted the problem by resorting to the methods that he had used in the past; brutal but effective. The Coalition did not have that option.
And plenty of unnecessary civilian deaths are always useful to focus the minds of the population and the world in general. When there was a UN embargo on Iraq Saddam Hussein claimed that tens of thousands died but food and medicine were not part of the UN embargo…
…which raises the question…..what did they die of?
By: snafu - 16th June 2014 at 23:50
Why must you nit-pick so much? I think you know what I meant; I have little enough time to post here without getting picked-up on the language I use, never mind my argument!
That was pretty much the argument I tried with one of my teachers at school. I knew what I meant…
Surely America didn’t rule after 2003 either; just occupied Iraq (as Britain did in 1941 and before)?
Who handed out the contracts? Who made the appointments? Who supplied/financed the military? Who forbade companies from other nations from bidding for work contracts? Who were Paul Bremer and John Negroponte and what exactly were their roles? Did the Iraqi government have any real authority until relatively recently?
You say Saddam Hussein’s control of Iraq was ‘not too bad’ for some Iraqis; I agree, but it was also very, very bad for lots of Iraqis, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians.
Think I said something similar. My implication was that compared to, say, the Nazis, the nastiness was confined mostly to Saddam’s many enemies; whereas Jews in other Arab countries were driven out (if they weren’t imprisoned/slaughtered) the Iraqi Jews were left alone.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT SADDAM WAS A NICE GUY.
He was a complete and utter busted to anyone who caught his eye but, unlike in the post war period, the usual amenities worked 24/7, 365, etc.
Take the use of chemical-weapons against Kurdish civilians; could the world really stand-by and say that that could be overlooked as the act of removing Saddam Hussein would probably end up worse?
No, but since Saddam was not challenged with any real authority about it it can’t really figure. Now, the invasion of a sovereign state like Kuwait on the other hand…
Chemical-weapons have again been used against civilians by a dictator in Syria; shall we overlook that (well, we have done really) because the alternative will probably be worse?
As you said, we have. But, generously, Blair has stood up and taken the lead by holding meetings to discuss the matter internationally, rallying world governments and public opinion, and laying down the law against the Syrian government by bringing in all the international forces at his disposal to do something about it.
Oops, sorry! He actually gave a few seminars, charging attendees mega bucks for the privilege of hearing him spout forth about how the Arabs persecute Israel, and went on a holiday or two. Or three.
My mistake.
Who played a part in the race to sell chemicals to Iraq? We all know the part played by certain British arms manufacturers in things like the supergun, for example.
(Clue: Germany supplied 52% of all Iraq’s chemical weaponry equipment, but the UK overlooked the possibility that a UK supplied chlorine plant would be used to produce mustard gas, even backing it with financial guarantees by the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department! Other stuff came from France, America, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, China, Spain, and even Luxembourg. How embarrassing is it for all these countries to be reminded again that they played a major role in the death of so many Kurds at Helabja, for example, not forgetting that 5% of all Iranian casualties in the Iran Iraq war were to chemical weapons? Did you know that only one foreigner, Dutchman Frans van Anraat, has been prosecuted for his part in supplying the chemicals required, getting 17 years for complicity in multiple war crimes? This might go some way in explaining why Tony Blair is still roaming the world freely…)
Why are we so bothered about ISIS now if the body-count is low by Saddam Hussein’s standards and they are only conducting the same sort of sectarian blood-letting that was common in Iraq pre-2003?
Maybe because we are feeling guilty because, despite our feelings about being lied to as justification, we are all a part of the unwanted invasion of Iraq since it was our armies? Some of the men gunned down were possibly tainted by association with westerners, maybe? Maybe because we have, as a nation, invested much time, energy and money in Iraq and feel a little let down that it has gone belly up so quickly – a little like South Vietnam losing interest after the US pulled out?
By: charliehunt - 16th June 2014 at 14:43
I wholly endorse your last three paragraphs.
By: Creaking Door - 16th June 2014 at 14:33
Britain never ruled Iraq. The Kingdom of Iraq was occupied by Britain until 1947…
America ruled Iraq after 2003, and Britain had a small role thereafter.
Why must you nit-pick so much? I think you know what I meant; I have little enough time to post here without getting picked-up on the language I use, never mind my argument!
Surely America didn’t rule after 2003 either; just occupied Iraq (as Britain did in 1941 and before)?
I’ll try again: some of the time that Britain ruled / occupied / controlled / influenced Iraq (delete as applicable) pre-1958 must compare pretty favourably with much of the time since the Iraqis had control of their own destiny.
I have no desire for Britain to have any control over Iraq now or in the future.
You say Saddam Hussein’s control of Iraq was ‘not too bad’ for some Iraqis; I agree, but it was also very, very bad for lots of Iraqis, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians. Take the use of chemical-weapons against Kurdish civilians; could the world really stand-by and say that that could be overlooked as the act of removing Saddam Hussein would probably end up worse?
Chemical-weapons have again been used against civilians by a dictator in Syria; shall we overlook that (well, we have done really) because the alternative will probably be worse?
Why are we so bothered about ISIS now if the body-count is low by Saddam Hussein’s standards and they are only conducting the same sort of sectarian blood-letting that was common in Iraq pre-2003?
By: snafu - 16th June 2014 at 12:51
I’ll be really interested to hear Gordon Brown’s views on what we should be doing with the economy too.
He has been remarkably quiet on the subject…
And to think he is a Middle East Peace Envoy spouting we should get involved,
Well, the wests appointed envoy…
Which probably means no one needs to take any notice of him. I know I’m not.
I’m probably going to be unpopular for this, but I actually agree with some of what Tony Blair has said recently.
Hissssss!!!
I think he’s quite right in saying that this would have happened with or without our intervention in 2003. Saddam was oppressing the population, and even if it hadn’t happened so soon, I believe that eventually there would have been a violent and bloody revolution.
No, Blair is not right in anything he says. Ever. Even when you think he sounds convincing.
Fact.
And it was never ‘our’ invasion: Shrub and Bliar took it away from any legal process when they ignored their own legal requirement concerning the search for WMD’s.
Anyway. Saddam was not oppressing the population as a whole – pedantic I know, but true. Apart from the Sunnis there were practising Jews who left it several years before emigrating to Israel since it was only after the invasion that they started being oppressed. And there has been many reports with interviewees claiming that things were better with Saddam in control; maybe they remembered little things like electricity or water being available 24 hours a day, or basic food supplies being available without having to bribe someone. Then there has been the various battles between the liberators and the religious factions who tried to take advantage of the situation, which did the population no good at all (unless they worked in the undertaking business).
I also agree that we need to meet this challenge head on. Showing tolerance to these intolerant Islamic groups will not result in peace, only growing sway for them. The fact that Al Qadea has an embassy in the Middle East is an affront to international relations.
Libya was friendly with the IRA, as were some politicians in America – not to the embassy stage, admittedly.
And we were tolerant of the Taliban, right up until we weren’t and invaded Afghanistan…
He is a vile man, who has caused harm to millions of people. His war was illegal, and he should stand trial for war crimes. He managed to unite warring Islamic factions under a common hatred of the Western world, and has created a legacy of violence and Islamic subjugation. But it should be our justice that he faces, nor backwards justice systems from countries that still believe that stoning people is okay in a civilized society.
And he is our war criminal, but don’t forget that he was not the only one pushing for invasion on the basis of false and misinformation.
Don’t have time to read all the previous at the moment but here is a thought…
But there isn’t much of it; it wouldn’t take long.
Be longer now, admittedly, so you should have read it then…;o)
…Britain / ‘the West’ gets a fair bit of blame for imperialism and all the ‘straight lines’ on the maps that we left all around the world but take Iraq for example; what was the experience of the average Iraqi in the decades before the self-rule under Saddam Hussain? How does that compare to the experience of the average Iraqi (and let us not forget the average Kuwaiti or Kurd) under Saddam Husain, the average Iraqi / Iranian during the Iran-Iraq war, or the average Iraqi in the last few weeks under ISIS?
In the main it was, apparently, not too bad – especially if you were on his favourable side of the fence; as I said above some parts of the population weren’t picked out any more than the rest (although some parts would have been on a more constant basis – the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, for example). Obviously when the Iran/Iraq war was in full flow there would have been shortages and conscription (well, more than usual), and if your face or creed didn’t fit in with Saddams view of the world then you might be removed from his sight.
And after the invasion…well, we can guess. Attempts at overthrow, battles, massacres, attacks, counter attacks, kidnappings, etc. Some will have suffered greatly, others will have gotten away with relatively little stress.
Why not do some reading yourself. For pre invasion try Where is Raed? ( http://dear_raed.blogspot.co.uk/) – it goes back to 2002 (used to go back further – one of the earliest posts mentions that it won 2nd prize for blog design – but I believe it had to migrate from elsewhere) and its associate Salam Pax ( http://salampax.wordpress.com/) which covers more of the post invasion period. Neither are recent, though.
Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.co.uk/) was a Young Iraqi woman who blogged about the invasion and occupation until she and her family apparently emigrated to Syria(!) in 2007, after which her blog stops, although in 2013 she blogged that she was now in a third Arab country.
I have no desire for Britain to rule or control Iraq but some, and I stress some, of the time that Britain ruled Iraq has got to compare pretty favourably with most of the time that Iraqis had control over their own destiny.
Britain never ruled Iraq. The Kingdom of Iraq was occupied by Britain until 1947 – to maintain the supply of oil (sound familiar?), and Iraq and Britain maintained contact throughout the remainder of the Heshemite rule, until the coup in 1958.
America ruled Iraq after 2003, and Britain had a small role thereafter.
By: charliehunt - 16th June 2014 at 09:38
The British installed a Sunni lead monarchy after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Sunni and Shia, have been at each others throats for more than half a millenium and NOTHING any non-Muslim state tries to do will be effective, other than brute force. Al Queda is a shadow of its former self and ISIS is now the dominant terrorist force on .Shia and Sunni will never sit down with each other. So the Muslim world will continue to be riven – and all in the names of the families of Mohammed who grew to loathe each other. What an example of 21st century civilisation.
“Don’t you mean ‘his intervention in 2003’? I can’t recall voting in favour of it.
Moggy”
No you didn’t, Moggy, none of us did. And the electorate didn’t vote in 1914 or in 1939 or indeed before any conflict, ever. Our Government is elected to make such decisions on our behalf, as you of course well know, so WE go to war as a nation, and always have, regardless of those opposed to it.
By: Creaking Door - 16th June 2014 at 09:01
Don’t have time to read all the previous at the moment but here is a thought…
…Britain / ‘the West’ gets a fair bit of blame for imperialism and all the ‘straight lines’ on the maps that we left all around the world but take Iraq for example; what was the experience of the average Iraqi in the decades before the self-rule under Saddam Hussain? How does that compare to the experience of the average Iraqi (and let us not forget the average Kuwaiti or Kurd) under Saddam Husain, the average Iraqi / Iranian during the Iran-Iraq war, or the average Iraqi in the last few weeks under ISIS?
I have no desire for Britain to rule or control Iraq but some, and I stress some, of the time that Britain ruled Iraq has got to compare pretty favourably with most of the time that Iraqis had control over their own destiny.
By: Moggy C - 16th June 2014 at 00:49
I actually agree with some of what Tony Blair has said recently.
I think he’s quite right in saying that this would have happened with or without our intervention in 2003.
Don’t you mean ‘his intervention in 2003’? I can’t recall voting in favour of it.
Moggy
By: Dr Strangelove - 15th June 2014 at 23:29
If Saddam had been left in place would Iraq be a stable country?
Good question, he was without doubt a rather unpleasant sort, however I did read somewhere that more people in Iraq have been killed/maimed etc since Teflon Tony & George Dubya ‘liberated’ the place.
By: j_jza80 - 15th June 2014 at 23:23
I’m probably going to be unpopular for this, but I actually agree with some of what Tony Blair has said recently.
I think he’s quite right in saying that this would have happened with or without our intervention in 2003. Saddam was oppressing the population, and even if it hadn’t happened so soon, I believe that eventually there would have been a violent and bloody revolution.
I also agree that we need to meet this challenge head on. Showing tolerance to these intolerant Islamic groups will not result in peace, only growing sway for them. The fact that Al Qadea has an embassy in the Middle East is an affront to international relations.
However.
He is a vile man, who has caused harm to millions of people. His war was illegal, and he should stand trial for war crimes. He managed to unite warring Islamic factions under a common hatred of the Western world, and has created a legacy of violence and Islamic subjugation. But it should be our justice that he faces, nor backwards justice systems from countries that still believe that stoning people is okay in a civilized society.
By: TonyT - 15th June 2014 at 22:50
And to think he is a Middle East Peace Envoy spouting we should get involved,
I totally agree we should parachute troops into Syria and Iraq to sort out the Sand Wallah’s right after Blair, his wife and kids have parachuted in…. In fact they could take Brown and his family too as the spearhead…… ONLY THEN should we commit anyone….
Bloke has needed an Arab bullet for years.
By: Moggy C - 15th June 2014 at 21:25
I’ll be really interested to hear Gordon Brown’s views on what we should be doing with the economy too.
These idiots have no shame, no realisation of what their incompetence and arrogance has led to.
Moggy
Sign In
June 15, 2014 at 8:38 pm