Iraq War : Blair's backpeddaling on WMD's?

page: 1
56

log in

join
+24 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Ahead of an apperance at the Iraq War enquiry next year Blair has been talking.

Removal of Saddam Hussein 'right', says Tony Blair


The former prime minister said it was the "notion" of Saddam as a threat to the region which tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Without the weapons claims it would have been necessary to "use and deploy different arguments", he told the BBC.


Those of us who believed we were sold a lie on WMD seem to be gathering evidence at a huge pace right now, and it appears that the papering over of the cracks is starting to tear.

Inquiry told Iraq could not 'use' chemical weapons


Asked to explain the absence of WMD and why the UK government had got this wrong, Sir William noted a "great deal" of the intelligence about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production provided before the war had been withdrawn afterwards as false.


Given this information, and the somewhat dubious legality of the invasion of Iraq, at least one senior British Politician has expressed doubts on whether or not British Forces should have gone to war.

From my first link following on from Blairs interview Sir Menzies Campbell, former liberal democrat leader had this to say;



"He would not have obtained the endorsement of the House of Commons on 18 March 2003 if he had been as frank with the House of Commons then as he appears to be willing to be frank with the BBC now."


I think thats an astonishing statement from a senior political figure. its obvious the man believes he has been mislead from that statement, and the repercussions of that have some very serious and dangerous consequences should British troops be called into action overseas again - and what of those who neither wanted the war in the first place, or lost loved ones in the subsequent actions?

While I doubt that full truth will ever come out, following the world changing events of the past decade, it seems that we - the electorate of any country - need to rethink the roles and responsibilites of our governmental systems - especially if we are able to steamroller countries on the pretext of lies.

Further reading, should anyone be interested;

Review of the first week
Review of the second week
Review of the third week

The enquiry continues.....




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
So it would seem that UK Forces were sent to war in Iraq on what Blair knew to be a false premise, yet he stood up in front of Parliament and talked slowly and carefully about the threat the the UK and Western Democracies from Saddam Hussein, as ever he appeared plausible, he appeared sincere, yet he lied and lied and lied.

A million people marched against the war, the groundswell of opinion in the public was against the war, the senior British Commanders were while not openly against involvement were perhaps not convinced of the case for war, and for deploying inadequately resourced forces to the Iraq region. But Blair stood there and told us it was necessary, that if we didn't invade then weapons of mass destruction could rain down on the people's of the Middle East, against Israel, against Europe and in time across the the rest of the World.

The spin doctors played to the game of Blair, they convinced the media, they convinced the military commanders, and Blair took the UK to war against not only Saddam but against the people of Iraq, in the process they alienated a significant proportion of the worlds Muslim community on all sides, all on the basis of lies, smoke and mirrors, dissembling, and possibly the sanctioning of the murder of Dr David Kelly.

What has this war achieved? The removal of Saddam, that is true, but the Iraq regime was stable, the internal problems of Iraq were a matter for the Iraqi pople to resolve, not that of UK and US Forces at the behest of the oil companies. No WMDs were ever found, thet never even existed except in the lies of Tony Blair.

The consequences of this war are that many young men and women of UK and US forces have died for lies, that many Iraqi people have died, been maimed, murdered, and radicalised as a result a result of Tony Blair's lies. Iraq is no longer a country it's now a collection of disparate communities led by radicals all intent on serving their own interests than the wider interests of the nation at large. The cultural heritage of Iraq has been raped, pillaged, and destroyed. Some of the most important artifacts from the dawn of civilisation have been stolen, lost, or destroyed. The consequences of the war will last for decades.

Who are the winners? The "freed" people of Iraq? No. Uk and US Forces? No, scores of dead, injured, maimed and their families will testify to that. The Oil Companies? Not even they have benefited as the recent failure to sell the rights to drill for massive reserves showed just last week as the country is too dangerous.

The winners? The Arms Companies? Yes, chance to develop new ways to kill innocent people. Blackwater, yes, the war is now run mostly by external contractors. Blair, yes he has walked away unscathed from an illegal war, the blood of the dead on his hands, massive contracts for public speaking and books, directorships, public roles on bringing peace to the Middle East, and more. This state of affairs is disgusting.

As at the end of WWII Blair and his ilk should be brought up on charges, the charges brought about then still apply "Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes".

However, as we all know nothing will happen. Blair will get away with it, nobody will ever be charged with crimes, the people of Iraq have lost their country and any chance of a peaceful and safe life. Young men and women of the Forces will continue to die for Blair's war. Many people have been radicalised as a result of this war, and for that action alone he deserves to be prosecuted because of the misery of terrorism and strife that continues as a result of these actions.

I doubt he even loses a moments sleep or peace over what he has brought about.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Tony blair is such a whinney baby he actually said it was the u.s.' fault that sadaam wasn't handled, and or taken out ten years before during dessert storm.

This whole iraqi invasion was so that tony blair could prove to bush and the u.s., that the british soldier was more efficient on the battlefield.

It shall be expected to be hearing more wimpering and crying about how the u.s. just won't listen. Britain will never get it's day in court, and that's their goal.

Let's not forget about 10 years of sanctions which blocked even medical supplies in iraqi hospitals.

I'm tired of hearing him lie and cry everday as soon as it's time to be held accountable.

Tony Blair actually said something along the lines of sadaam hussain should bare handed reconstruct iraq himself, (the buildings, the infrastructure, the mosques, the embassys', the hotels)
I am dreadfully reminded about these events. Check link.

news.bbc.co.uk...

It's suspect, in intelligence terms, nothing more, nothing less.

Side note: Everyone, everyday loves to blame the C.I>A. for inncidents, bombings, overthrown governments, ect., but Britain seems to be in some sort of loose cannon competition with it. I hope bush and blair can fight it out in a prison jail cell someday, and maybe they'll be able to hold each other accountable. They don't care about the people of iraq, they're too little!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I guess we are slowly finding out what we all knew all along. It will not change anything though. future governments will do the same again tomorrow if they get a sniff of some oil $$$.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
While I doubt that full truth will ever come out, following the world changing events of the past decade, it seems that we - the electorate of any country - need to rethink the roles and responsibilites of our governmental systems - especially if we are able to steamroller countries on the pretext of lies.

That might be the case- we might not find the whole truth, but irrespective of that, the fact that the war happened and it's painstakingly clear that the reason for military action against Iraq was, at best, regime change — as Bush himself admitted back in 2002 and now Tony Blair — I believe there's a very sound basis to prosecute the people, especially the political leaders, who pushed for this war.

Even if they didn't pretend this was about WMDs and outright admitted that it was about regime change, it would still be a crime because military action with that objective is illegal. And that's exactly what the UK's Attorney General told Tony Blair in 2003.

So in my view, whether we'll ever know the whole truth is beside the point in light of what already is known.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


Don't forget about this....

Sorry about the link it doesn't work.
Bush: God told me to invade iraq.
Google it

Do you think Tony Blair will ever make such a statement?

That would be quite a funny trial if that were their defense, heh?


[edit on 13-12-2009 by 517.101]





new topics
top topics
 
56

log in

join