Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tony Blair Agreed To Back Iraq War A Year Beforehand

That's because parliament along with the rest of the country were lied to.
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.

The UK didn't go to war because of one man, it went to war because insufficient powerful people didn't want not to hard enough.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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.

Blair is unable to understand how any action he takes has any other than the outcome he conceives of beforehand. He has no concept of unintended consequences.

Watch him when he's questioned; he will assert over and over that he did 'X' in order to make 'Y' happen. If 'Y' doesn't/didn't happen, he cannot, will not, take responsibility for the consequences.
 
Tony Blair Faith Foundation

"Inside the Jihadi Mind: Understanding Ideology
06 Oct 2015

Tony Blair called for a new approach to understanding and defeating the ideology driving violent religious extremism today in a speech at the 9/11 Memorial Museum. The speech set out the findings of a new report by the Centre on Religion & Geopolitics, Inside the Jihadi Mind: Understanding Ideology and Propaganda."

This from Blair's propaganda machine
 
Well, if anyone can understand a fanatic who believes the lives of ordinary people are expendable in his preferred cause, it's our Tone.
 
It's almost like people didn't believe the Coalition when they said that Hans Blix and the inspection team had better have access to weapons storage sites now, if not sooner.

For a year, Blix was chasing his tail until finally, Hussein reaped what he sowed.

I'm not saying the WMD report wasn't BS, and that the US wanted Hussein gone and gone forever however.
 
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.

Alib, I do enjoy reading your posts.

But I do worry with your persistent informed common sense, it won't be long before you are found in a wooded area having done a "Kelly" or on a hilltop having done a "Robin Cook".

Until then do carry on please!
 
Perhaps, in the past, in Gulf War One to eject Saddam's forces from Kuwait; which was a military operation supported by many, George Bush Senior was Potus, and therefore became a 'War Leader', but perhaps not in the same sense of a Franklin D Roosevelt or a Harry Trueman, or a Winston S Chruchill.

George Bush Junior, when he became Potus, perhaps wanted to be a 'War Leader' just like his Pop. Perhaps he saw that Gulf War One was unfinished 'family business', because Saddam and his cohorts were still around at that ttime. So 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).

So - hot, sweaty, fly blown shitholes like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, etc are still fly blown shitholes after Western attempts to 'export democracy' into the Middle East. A noble sentiment perhaps, but done with little or no knowledge or experiience of Middle Eastern, Islamic tribal societies - The West still seems to be maiking the same mistakes in these shiteholes. The difference today is that the 'Middle East' and its teeming thousands are coming to the West (EU and Blighty etc) to demand council houses, benefits and 'free sex, drugs, drink & rock-n-roll' at the EU's tax payers expense.

"Pandora's Box" has been well and truly opened, the "Genie" cannot be put back in the bottle. The West is full of well meaning useful idiots, liberal lefty luvvies and apologists for such a Daish, Hamas, Boko Haram, the Talibandies and Alkie Aida - and as Private Fraser would say - "We are all doomed!" (or words to that effect).
 

NSP

LE
^ As far as I can see, Shrub wanted a bit of payback 'cos Saddam tried to off his pappy.

To put it in simplistic, flippant terms.
 

NSP

LE
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...
 
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...
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.
 

alib

LE
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.
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.
 
Blair.jpg Blair2.jpg
Blair.jpg
Blair2.jpg
 
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).
Now it's fact.
Well put.
 

Latest Threads

Top