Parliament, along with the rest of the country, have two braincells to rub together. If they swallowed the case for war with Iraq, ignoring the fairly obvious signposting of intentions of Saif Sareea II and voted to go along with TB then they are every bit as culpable.That's because parliament along with the rest of the country were lied to.
Blair seemed unable to imagine anything other than a favourable outcome in Iraq so in awe of US unipolar power was he. He's still in denial about the wars failure. He was far from alone in his hubristic assumptions in Parliament. The odd thing is this attitude has survived contact with reality for so many policy makers.
Odd thing is you can get reelected as PM after such strategic miscalculations. Long gone Tone alone is vilified, often by political partisans when the current bunch of disgraces all deserve a public thrashing. A careless country gets the politicians it deserves.
From memory, that was a public statement by Saddam Hussein (RNIP), which was taken up by the financially illiterate Fourth Estate at the time.And then there's the rumours and speculation that Iraq was looking at switching to trading oil in Euros instead of USD, with OPEC looking to follow suit if it went well - and with the likely affect that would have on the US economy; well...
This was wishful thinking out of the 20s. The Septics, lacking any suitable Saddam era Sunni General to anoint as a strongman did the decent thing and went for democracy. What followed was flawed and inevitably dominated by the majority Shia some of whom were close to Iran. It has not worked out well but there were few realistic alternatives. That was the problem with going to Baghdad, it was never going to end well.From memory, that was a public statement by Saddam Hussein (RNIP), which was taken up by the financially illiterate Fourth Estate at the time.
Other recent revelations show that in the plans post invasion, the British put forward the proposition that the best outcome in creating the new state would be a strong monarchy (see Oman, Trucial States, Jordan et al for previous successful models of the same post-British interference/intervention) modified with constitutional elements to create checks and balances. This was rejected by the USA, as any model other than that of the "Land of the free/And the home of the brave" was not going to be endorsed by them.
A very simple ideological decision driven by the Americans has, I think, played a part in what has followed.
Now it's fact.Our Tony also wanted to be a 'War Leader' like a Churchill, with the Septics - Brits 'Special Relationship' handed down from World War Two. So off they all jolly well went, to get rid of Saddam - "Regime Change. The rest is history...... (alleged of course).