Chilcot Report

WARNING: This section may contain jokes or topics of an offensive nature.
Recommended for over 18's only. Send Admin a PM to request exclusion.

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

Post Reply
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I cannot believe some of the hysteric nonsense in the Chilcot reaction. Some of the claims from campaigners about Blair are laughable.

I am 100% behind Tony Blair on this one.

My only regret is that due to the public clamour to get the troops out we didn't stay in for a decade longer and subsequent governments have been put off confronting Assad, ISIS and other despots and terrorists the same way we did Saddam.
Top
Red Duke
Posts: 2001
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:15
Location: North West
I disagree. I would consider Tony Blair of being "economical with the truth". He had already made a commitment to Dubya and he used the "Intelligence" to confirm his actions were right. Political spin at its worst by getting the "facts" to fit the version that you want to have.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
On top of that, he sent our armed forces into a conflict for which they were not prepared, not equipped and with no vision as to what constituted 'victory'. He briefed the army to make sure the Iraqi army knew they would be part of the post Saddam stability plan.
They did this, then the politicians i.e. Mr Blair did exactly the ooposite
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Parliament voted.

MOD is responsible for the Army not the PM.

May have been economical with the truth but he did not generate the intelligence.

The real questions should be:

If people didn't believe the evidence, why did Parliament democratically support it?

Why on earth was our Army not prepared for conflict - that is their one job after all.

Why did MI6, the Doughnut Boys, and the rest not produce better intelligence or warn against bad intelligence?

A contentious act yes, but a war criminal? Give over!
Top
Red Duke
Posts: 2001
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:15
Location: North West
It comes down to how you define a war criminal. Some might say that Bomber Harris in WW2 and the bombing of Dresden was an action of a war criminal others would say differently.

I believe there has been a change in International law in 2010 that if it had been in place in 2003, could be used to charge TB as a war criminal but it can't be used as it is not retrospective.
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Red Duke wrote:It comes down to how you define a war criminal. Some might say that Bomber Harris in WW2 and the bombing of Dresden was an action of a war criminal others would say differently.

I believe there has been a change in International law in 2010 that if it had been in place in 2003, could be used to charge TB as a war criminal but it can't be used as it is not retrospective.
TB but not the MPs who voted in favour?
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
RCS - never said he was a war criminal. He was constantly questioned about the legitimacy of his dodgy dossiers etc. As the man in charge it was his place to review and be 100% certain, but he never once showed anything but total belief.

Readiness of the Army - the expense of constantly equipping a home based army with every vehicle, weapon, clothing etc etc to cover warfare in every possible location and scenario, would be astronomical. It is beholden on the army to war before they are equipped and ready. If is beholden on the PM to be asking the MOD all the right questions and getting the right answers.

TB was in charge - he sold parliament a pup, some saw through it, some did not.

Hands of history my @rse. The man has previous of doing underhand deals and hiding the truth to further his own ends. Let us not forget the get out of jail free cards handed to IRA terrorists. And you expect anyone to take this man's word for anything ?? think not
Top
Red Duke
Posts: 2001
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:15
Location: North West
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Red Duke wrote:It comes down to how you define a war criminal. Some might say that Bomber Harris in WW2 and the bombing of Dresden was an action of a war criminal others would say differently.

I believe there has been a change in International law in 2010 that if it had been in place in 2003, could be used to charge TB as a war criminal but it can't be used as it is not retrospective.
TB but not the MPs who voted in favour?
TB is like a dodgy car salesman. MPs were his customers who fell for his patter. They forgot to check the validity of the claims that he made. Maybe they should be consulting Trading Standards and he should be charged with misrepresentation of goods.
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
confused.com wrote:RCS - never said he was a war criminal. He was constantly questioned about the legitimacy of his dodgy dossiers etc. As the man in charge it was his place to review and be 100% certain, but he never once showed anything but total belief.

Readiness of the Army - the expense of constantly equipping a home based army with every vehicle, weapon, clothing etc etc to cover warfare in every possible location and scenario, would be astronomical. It is beholden on the army to war before they are equipped and ready. If is beholden on the PM to be asking the MOD all the right questions and getting the right answers.

TB was in charge - he sold parliament a pup, some saw through it, some did not.

Hands of history my @rse. The man has previous of doing underhand deals and hiding the truth to further his own ends. Let us not forget the get out of jail free cards handed to IRA terrorists. And you expect anyone to take this man's word for anything ?? think not
"As the man in charge it was his place to review and be 100% certain, but he never once showed anything but total belief." - if he showed total belief, how do you know he had nor reviewed and been 100% certain? If the Agencies and experts are adamant, what do you expect a PM to do? Ignore advice from appointed experts?

"Let us not forget the get out of jail free cards handed to IRA terrorists." - Do I detect some partisan bias here? The Good Friday Agreement is perhaps Blair's greatest achievement and legacy and one of the biggest successes of any post-1945 Prime Minister.
Top
asl
Posts: 6741
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
Ouch...so it's okay for IRA murderers to get away with their crimes - but RUC/British Army/MI6 can be pursued through the courts forever and a day? The British government is obliged to set up review after investigation after review for public scrutiny - yet it's okay for Sinn Fein to withhold the names of those responsible for the bombings?
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
RCS, partisan bias? Providing evidence that TB is quite happy to make dodgy deals behind the electorates back. Only reason being, he knew the electorate would not accept it. As I said, he has form. Never had you down as an ends justifies the means kind of person!
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
ASL, we have to set our standards higher than terrorists. But point taken and well made. Neither in Iraq or NI has TB emerged with anything other than disdain and deceit. Wonder whose master stroke it was to send him over to fight for the remain vote
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
confused.com wrote:RCS, partisan bias? Providing evidence that TB is quite happy to make dodgy deals behind the electorates back. Only reason being, he knew the electorate would not accept it. As I said, he has form. Never had you down as an ends justifies the means kind of person!
I'm a pragmatist not an idealist, and if on occasion the only pragmatic approach to achieve an end is a grey area then I do think it is justified.

Just, those occasions are quite rare.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
Yep screw the electorate, concentrate on the up and coming public speaking tours
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
confused.com wrote:Yep screw the electorate, concentrate on the up and coming public speaking tours
The same electorate who voted for him three times as they liked his vision for a more positive and progressive country?

Elected representatives voted on an issue to support the PM even though society was split on the issue. Won't be the last time that happens and was not the first.

He and Labour paid a political price, but that is how politics in the UK works. People elect MPs, and the biggest party governs for five years. If enough people don't like their actions then they won't be the biggest party after the next election.

Neither of us will change our minds so let's call it quits.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
No I insist we continue :)
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29824
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tion-right" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
No debate that he was a monster and one that needed removed

Debate is over, how, when we got rid of him and what was the plan once that job was done. See my earlier comments re role of Iraqi army (don't you just love a good debate)
Top
Post Reply