Blair has no regrets for Iraqi war

[myata]

And yeah, of all the ... (for the lack of better word) who started all kinds of bloody murderous wars in the modern age of this world, has any single one ever come out with anything resembling regret or remorse?

Great company there, (less than) honourable Messrs Blair and Bush!

And a good lesson to us wordless as ever peasants of this democratic world, next time we go to elect more democratic leaders like that.

[Born Free]

The GBUs didn't know the difference.

Perhaps not but we did.

[Born Free]

I agree, Blair & Bush has shown us that it's still OK to make war if only one believes (no rational evidence needed or necessary) that it's the right thing to do. Guess nothing much changes (compare to earlier crusades, colonisations, annexations, retaliations, pacifications etc where uncounted wars were made necessary solely by beliefs of their perpetrators).

Good point.

[bloodyminded]

No one knew for certain that Hitler was a threat, either, until he started acting. I think the point is that Blair didn't want to wait like we waited with Hitler; he wanted to take him out before it got to that point.

But the Hitler analogy doesn't work. As we all knew at the time (and as Blair knew as well as, or better than, we all did) Saddam was leading an impoverished nation, and his WMD's were no threat according to the experts: the weapons inspectors.

Oh sure, we were told to believe that Blair, Powell, and Ann Coulter knew more about Iraq's weapons program than the very inspectors we had on the ground there (and whom Bush pulled out early...that's how eager he was to know "the truth."); but it's hard to swallow.

Further, Iraq was the most surveilled nation on Earth. Surveilled by the very Western powers who later went to war with Iraq.

No, Blair is, in my opinion, a degenerate liar on this subject. It appears (though is not certain, true) that he became a degenerate liar on President Bush's behalf.

Edited February 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

But the Hitler analogy doesn't work. As we all knew at the time (and as Blair knew as well as, or better than, we all did) Saddam was leading an impoverished nation, and his WMD's were no threat according to the experts: the weapons inspectors.

I'm not defending Blair. I'm saying most times it's impossible to "know" a nation is a threat until they act, as Hitler did, and we then go after them. And that's difficult to dispute. In other words, most times all a leader can do is "believe" a nation is a threat until they actually become a threat, as Hitler did. Blair believed Saddam was a threat, and didn't want to wait until he had acted, as was the case with Hitler.

Furthermore, 'we didn't all know' anything at the time. People honestly did have differing beliefs regarding whether or not Saddam's WMD were a threat. I'm not going to get inside Blair's head and say I "know" what he believed, but I know not everyone "knew" that he didn't have them/they weren't a threat.

Oh sure, we were told to believe that Blair, Powell, and Ann Coulter knew more about Iraq's weapons program than the very inspectors we had on the ground there (and whom Bush pulled out early...that's how eager he was to know "the truth."); but it's hard to swallow.

Again, I didn't support the war. My intent isn't to justify it.

Further, Iraq was the most surveilled nation on Earth. Surveilled by the very Western powers who later went to war with Iraq.

No, Blair is, in my opinion, a degenerate liar on this subject. It appears (though is not certain, true) that he became a degenerate liar on President Bush's behalf.

Anything Blair was, he was on his own behalf. Why you try to pin it on Bush is difficult to understand.

But again, this thread isn't about whether or not going to war was the right thing; it's about Blair not having regrets for his actions; and I understand, if he truly believes that Saddam was a threat, that he wouldn't have regrets for taking him out.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not defending Blair. I'm saying most times it's impossible to "know" a nation is a threat until they act, as Hitler did, and we then go after them. And that's difficult to dispute. In other words, most times all a leader can do is "believe" a nation is a threat until they actually become a threat, as Hitler did. Blair believed Saddam was a threat, and didn't want to wait until he had acted, as was the case with Hitler.

Furthermore, 'we didn't all know' anything at the time. People honestly did have differing beliefs regarding whether or not Saddam's WMD were a threat.

Certainly they did; largely because of the spin offered by the US and UK administrations and their media defenders. That's WHERE these beliefs came from.

Look, there ARE a couple of objective facts here:

1. The weapons inspectors were overwhelmingly insistent that there was no serious threat;

2. Iraq was THE most surveilled nation on Earth.

3. Powell's "case" before the UN has not only been discredited; but its discreditation aligns exactly with what critics were saying at that very time. (I mention this because some people disingenuously throw out terms like "hindsight is 20/20"...as if the falsehoods were not exposed at the time. Which they were.

Anything Blair was, he was on his own behalf. Why you try to pin it on Bush is difficult to understand.

I'm not pinning it on Bush. Blair's servility was 100% his own fault.

Edited February 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

And yeah, of all the ... (for the lack of better word) who started all kinds of bloody murderous wars in the modern age of this world, has any single one ever come out with anything resembling regret or remorse?

Maybe Robert McNamara. Although technically he did not start the war...

[Sir Bandelot]

Blair believed Saddam was a threat, and didn't want to wait until he had acted, as was the case with Hitler.

And yet, I don't recall that Saddam was actively making any threats at the time. Not beyond the typical sabre rattling that all of them seem to make. I don't think they truly believed he was an imminent threat, that wasn't the real reason. That's just the empty lie they told us. But who really knows

this thread isn't about whether or not going to war was the right thing; it's about Blair not having regrets for his actions; and I understand, if he truly believes that Saddam was a threat, that he wouldn't have regrets for taking him out.

In my view they have no regrets, not because they believe their own public stated BS on this but as they often like to say nowadays, "the world is a better place without Saddam..."

Yes it is.

The world would be a better place without the likes of all of them, including people like Tony Bliar

[Guest American Woman]

But who really knows

That's my only point. None of us, those who believe he was a threat and those who believe he wasn't, "know" if we are right. We only believe we are right.

In my view they have no regrets, not because they believe their own public stated BS on this but as they often like to say nowadays, "the world is a better place without Saddam..."

Yes it is.

The world would be a better place without the likes of all of them, including people like Tony Bliar.

Yet as you say the world is a better place without Saddam, it wouldn't be a world without Saddam without people like Tony Blair.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yet as you say the world is a better place without Saddam, it wouldn't be a world without Saddam without people like Tony Blair.

One can also make the case, the world wouldn't be WITH people like Saddam, if we didn't have people like Tony Bliar. ie all the political intrigue and manipulations, propping up of dictators when advantagous, all that sort of jazz. But I don't want to go far into that, the pissing match would just go on for pages.

See my view is, there's the ruthless manipulators who inevitably rise to positions of "leadership", if I could call it that. Then there's the people who just want to live ordinary lives...

[myata]

Furthermore, 'we didn't all know' anything at the time. People honestly did have differing beliefs regarding whether or not Saddam's WMD were a threat. I'm not going to get inside Blair's head and say I "know" what he believed, but I know not everyone "knew" that he didn't have them/they weren't a threat.

Oh gimme a big fat break, won't ya please? We had inspection teams criss-crossing Iraq in whichever way they desired, plus satellites plus all kinds of air see and land surveilance. How far could one stretch that "didn't all know" thing before it becomes an obvious bs? Is it really "didn't know" or "refuse to see the obvious truth because it doesn't agree with what I already decided all along"?

This is, folks, the democratic peaceful foreign practice at its best and utmost, look and don't blink. The important part there is, I believe so I do, everything else is democratic crap to feed the simpleminded so-easily-convinced-by-generous-dose-of-bs-brainwashing peasant crowd.

And then of course you can turn on "the better place" tune. Really. If you can believe that it's right to "go" why shouldn't you do the same with "better place"?

But again, this thread isn't about whether or not going to war was the right thing; it's about Blair not having regrets for his actions; and I understand, if he truly believes that Saddam was a threat, that he wouldn't have regrets for taking him out.

Too bad same question couldn't be asked of Saddam himself, for obvious reasons. Could he not also have had some serious "concerns" or "beliefs" that made him do what he had to, himself being a sensitive and reflective human being, please hold me before I spill any more of these tears..

[eyeball]

No one knew for certain that Hitler was a threat, either, until he started acting. I think the point is that Blair didn't want to wait like we waited with Hitler; he wanted to take him out before it got to that point. So of course all one can do is "believe" something under those circumstances, unless they are willing to wait until it's too late -- when they'd "know" for certain that Saddam is a threat to the world because of some terrible action on his part. I'm not saying I agree with Blair, but this thread is about him and why he doesn't have any regrets, and in that respect, I understand what he's saying.

I'm not so sure he does have regrets. If he truly believes Saddam was a threat and could have caused great harm, why would he regret taking him out?

The great harm that was caused by taking him out.

Thank Christ for Hitler though. His ghost will be inflating fear and inspiring preemptive strikes for centuries. The military-industrial complex should build a monument to him.

Of course Blair is going to keep a brave face handy but late at night...I bet he weeps like a baby.

[myata]

Of course, the sad, pathetic, bs-itting and such excuses a la "but I believed / didn't know / thought that I knew / my friend was talking about something that made me think that I knew that I believed " are routinely applied by peaceful democracies in cases of questionable peaceful interventions outside of their proper border.

Internally they apply more stringent responsibility standards (imagine: "I believed that my evil neighbour was conspiring to strike me in about 45 minutes, no I wasn't 100% absolutely sure that he wasn't thinking of such a thing, so I had no choice but to break into his house and beat him up first"). Sounds entirely believable, rigth? Just like that Bush and Blair pathetic adage...

[Guest American Woman]

The great harm that was caused by taking him out.

It's not as if Saddam wasn't causing great harm. So were the sanctions, for that matter. No matter how one feels about the war, those are facts. Again, I didn't support the war. But I do hope that without Saddam, things get better, since we can't change what's been done.

Thank Christ for Hitler though. His ghost will be inflating fear and inspiring preemptive strikes for centuries. The military-industrial complex should build a monument to him.

Again, I didn't support the war, but it's a fact that we don't know for certain if a country/leader is a threat or not until they act. That was my point. Hindsight is 20/20, and not much else is.

Of course Blair is going to keep a brave face handy but late at night...I bet he weeps like a baby.

I don't find it so far-fetched that he has no regrets. Furthermore, some people would weep like a baby over what Saddam was doing, as we did nothing about it. It's all relative, and unfortunately few things are black and white. You believe what you do, and you believe that's the right thing for the most people. Blair believes what he does, and he believes that was the right thing for the most people. Again, I didn't support the war. It's not about whether the war was the right move or not. This is about Blair not having regrets. Again, believing Saddam was a threat, I can understand why he doesn't.

Edited February 8, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

The great harm that was caused by taking him out.

Oh, "collateral damage" (that greasiest of terms, a wilful infection of political discussion from military-speak) is not important. Nor is the unemployment, disease, and the refugee crisis which is monumental--even by contemporary global standards--and which remains thoroughly unresolved seven years later. It's "the cost of liberty," some folks inform me with a straight face.

Thank Christ for Hitler though. His ghost will be inflating fear and inspiring preemptive strikes for centuries. The military-industrial complex should build a monument to him.

You're right. The issue goes far beyond the immediate, as (ignored) critics have long been pointing out. Matters of precedence are very important indeed. See: torture.

I will add that "preemptive" is too generous a term. Sure, they call it that, but what leaders claim in support of militaristic policies carries no objective information. "Preventive" is closer to the truth...though perhaps still too euphemistic, since what we are talking about is wars of aggression based on our trust of leadership's "secret intelligence" and motives.

[Oleg Bach]

It would have been great to be the fly on the wall when Blair and our old Queen got together for their monthly chats on the current state of affairs regarding what is left of the old anglo Christian empire. It must have made her Majesty livid when the royal and disgarded broodmare Diana Spencer was mounted by that Arab MUSLIM stud...what an insult - I can see the Queen now in her greatest Mr. Burns of the Simpsons impersonation " Tony we are the Church of England and the heralds of Jesus Christ..teach those pagans a lesson and give Mr. Bush your support - no one mounts one of our prize mares and gets away with it!"

[Nash]

Former PM Blair says he has no regrets for the Iraqi war or Hussein being take out. Well, what else is he suppose to say when he and Bush did all the deciding!! Blair says that Hussein was evil and the people are better off without him. I don't think most of the people of Iraq would agree to that right now. Their lives are a living hell, were they are without food, water, hydro and jobs and the country physically a mess. I agree that Hussein was wrong to gas the his own people but it was even a greater wrong for the US to make dealings with him to give him the means to kill them. I do think the US foreign polices has made the Middle-East worse than better. Too many people have died for what?? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100129/world/international_us_britain_iraq_blair

Blair being questioned by the committee turned out to be campaign to invade Iran next! What a master performer.

[KeyStone]

The only way that Blair can even begin to justify his actions, are with some very generous and liberal comparisons.

He is not comparing Iraq today to pre-sanctions Iraq.

He is comparing Iraq to Iraq under sanctions, in which case it is better.

Not because Saddam is gone, not because they privatized most national assets. not because of democracy and not because there is a de facto US leadership. Iraq is better today, because the sanctions were lifted and that's it.

[bloodyminded]

The only way that Blair can even begin to justify his actions, are with some very generous and liberal comparisons.

He is not comparing Iraq today to pre-sanctions Iraq.

He is comparing Iraq to Iraq under sanctions, in which case it is better.

Not because Saddam is gone, not because they privatized most national assets. not because of democracy and not because there is a de facto US leadership. Iraq is better today, because the sanctions were lifted and that's it.

And that IS a generous and liberal comparison, indeed.

It's as if there were something called "sanctions" which were an act of God or a natural disaster. Without agency of any kind. Thus, the coalition nobly ended these sanctions--which they were key in imposing in the first place. And as if only a war could possibly end this natural disaster called "sanctions."

And as if the two primary coalition invaders--the U.S. and the UK--hadn't been playing fast and loose with the very rules demanded for the sanctions, disallowing perfectly allowable items under fallacious "dual-use" hypotheses, thereby increasing the suffering of the Iraqi people.

[eyeball]

And as if only a war could possibly end this natural disaster called "sanctions."

Yep, Iraq had to be destroyed to save it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good for PM Blair.....it was the right decision then and remains so.

wow.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, Iraq had to be destroyed to save it.

Yep...just like Europe and Japan.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good for PM Blair.....it was the right decision then and remains so.

Ok, in the name of a friendly debate i'd honestly like to know the reasons why you think it was/is the right decision?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, in the name of a friendly debate i'd honestly like to know the reasons why you think it was/is the right decision?

I think this has already been covered in previous threads....and to make a long post short, PM Blair's decision was consistent with US/UK policy since the Gulf War (no-fly zones, sanctions, Operation Desert Fox, etc.). I don't think you need me to articulate further on the continuum of such policies for "regime change" in Iraq.

[sharkman]

BC, now that Iraq has turned a corner and is gradually on her way, did you notice that Biden took credit for it in Obama's name? What a joke! Those two are caught on tape decrying the surge and the war many times but now that there's success to be had they are johny on the spot.

But it does tell you one thing. There is now undeniable success there or Biden would not make a fool of himself by trying to claim it.