My opposition to the Iraq invasions are most certainly moral. A million dead and a country ruined - for what? Life expectancy even excluding violence down vastly, equality gone, hungry people, massive child mortality, far more extemists recruited, global security made worse. Its an absolute disaster and has destroyed any moral authority we had in teh world an dsplit the international community.
It is a crime of the worst sort..
Is an absolute disgrace
I expected it to be so for you TJ. Others are just using it to bash the current Governments over the head with, would they do the same if either of the two other parties were in power?
Its an absolute disaster and has destroyed any moral authority we had in teh world an dsplit the international community.
It depends on how you define disaster. As I said before, we are returning to history.
I don't understand what you mean by that. I define disaster by the deaths and the misery caused. Progress to me is judged on increasing hppiness and thus an almighty **** like this that has caused death disease and misery for millions is a disaster.
Error? Or was it "misleading the enquiry"?
No idea. But apparently :
He said defence spending had risen from £21bn in 1997 to around £40bn this year and "grows every year in cash terms".
But he said: "Because of operational fluctuations in the way the money is spent, expenditure has risen in cash terms every year, in real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms."
So defence spending is now almost double to what it was when the Tories were last in government then ? He ought to be ashamed. Not that it didn't go up in real terms for three years out of the last thirteen, but that a Labour warmongering government should be wasting so much money on something which brings so little benefit to the British people, and so much death and misery to others.
Generally we leave that sort of stuff to the Tories 
yeah the torries have a strong tradition of shafting the forces yet seem to be the soldiers party of choice? thatcher was about to tear the navy apart until argentina invaded the malvinas
on a similar note
it really depresses me that the arms trade is such an important part of our economy
one of the only profitable bits of maufacturing we have left is for building things that make people die in horrible ways
we should be frickin ashamed
actual statements at the inquiry
I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go to war. I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons, because the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by international law and the international obligations that he had accepted. 14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international law.
so I think he is still bought into the "cause"
In the end, you have got to reach an agreement and in 2002, 2004, 2007 -- which are the main spending reviews -- these were agreed settlements between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. And these were settlements based on, in the first place, a 1.2 per cent real terms rise in expenditure, and the second a 1.4 per cent real terms per year rise in expenditure, and in the third, 1.5 per cent. So there was a rising profile of expenditure for the Ministry of Defence, and on top of that all the Iraqi expenditure and Afghanistan expenditure was being met.So the Iraqi expenditure was being met, but at the same time the defence budget was rising in real terms every year.
subsequent "one or two" is now three years of declining spend
nice way to manage a well pubicised TV appearance
More Labour lies (c) TJ.
What would have had enormous pressure on Blair during the run-up to war, would have been if Her Majesty's Opposition had voted against war - their failure to do so, gave him the green light. The combined pressure of parliamentary opposition and widespread public opposition (biggest demonstrations in British history) would have made things very difficult for Blair.
So its all the Tory's fault eh Ernie.
Lets start with who was actually governing the country- the cabinet. If Brown or Straw had stood up to Blair and threatened to resign, or actually resigned that would have made Blair's life far more difficult. Lets keep the majority of the blame there before moving on to the opposition who I agree should have know the dodgy dossier was a croc.
So its all the Tory's fault eh Ernie.
Well I don't know how I managed to say that ! ! .........can you C&P and underline the bit where I make that claim ?
Obviously it is not all the Tories fault. And I thought that I had made it absolutely crystal clear where I thought responsibility most lay.
Or are you saying that, quote :
"The blood of all who died in Iraq is most firmly on the hands of Bush and Blair."
and :
"The buck stopped with Blair"
......is a bit ambiguous ? And you are not too sure whether or not I am blaming the former Labour Prime Minister ?
Responsibility for the Iraq war lies, first and foremost, with Tony Blair. Then all the MPs who so enthusiastically supported him - including all the Tory MPs who voted for war.
There was no justification whatsoever for the Tory Party to give Tony Blair full, uncritical, and unconditional, support for his drive to war - and his arrogant contempt for the UN, Hans Blick, and non-military solutions. Nor letting him have such an easy ride.
Had the Tory Party done what it should have done, then Blair would have had a much greater struggle in committing Britain to war. Indeed he had an extremely powerful trump card when he was able to gallivant round the world on his warmongering duties, arguing quite correctly, "even the opposition in the UK fully supports me".
Only a fool or a Tory, would argue that the Tories bear no responsibility for the Iraq war.
And yes, of course Brown and Straw should have resigned - and so should have any other half decent politician in the government. But it is nonsense to claim that their resignations alone would have stopped Blair. The resignations of Cook and Short prove that to be a false claim. And in the case of Cook who was a formidable politician and real heavyweight, his resignation didn't even slow the pace in the drive to war, let alone stall it.
Only a fool or a Tory, would argue that the Tories bear no responsibility for the Iraq war.
of course you ignore the obvious information asymetry, briefings tampered with by Alistair Campbell vs direct meetings with senior spooks. In the balance of things they were duped and skillfully manipulated.
The evidence that we had - I met the intelligence services on a number of occasions during the course of 2002 and early 2003, and - in addition to my discussions in the Cabinet and in addition to my discussions with Tony Blair himself - I was given information by the intelligence services which led me to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with by the actions of the international community.
I'm sure Dave or George were sat next to him at the briefing, NOT. and before you pin it all on the spooks
Intelligence is a guide but it cannot be the only means by which you make decisions.
but even with hindsight
I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go to war. I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons, because the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by international law and the international obligations that he had accepted. 14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international law.
more amusement here:
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/45558/100305-brown-final.pdf
big and daft - If I and millions of others could see it was baloney then the tories could as well. they were wakly leda nd didn't want to be seen as weak on terrorism - so were easy to lead into voting for the war - hardly a dissenting voice on the tory side and IIRC without the tory votes there were enough labour rebels to prevent a vote being passed in parliament.
So yes - while Blair holds the main responsibility, the checks and balances of our parliament failed and the tories were responsible for that by being gullible fools.
In the balance of things they were duped and skillfully manipulated.
So big_n_daft, you think it is perfectly reasonable, and to be expected, that the Tories should believe whatever a Labour government tells them ? ! 
It was clear from the start that neither Bush nor Blair believed for a moment, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And the clue to what weapons of mass destruction actually do, is in the name - they are designed to kill tens of thousand of people. The possible death of tens of thousand of military personal would have spelt political suicide for either men.
I shall always remember the reaction of Bush and the White House when Iraq agreed to allow UN inspectors into the country. You would have thought that after endless demands by Bush and Blair that Iraq allow UN inspectors in or face war, the White House would have been in a jubilant and celebratory mood when they finally agreed - not so. In fact it was a mood of utter gloom and despondency. It clearly was the last thing they wanted.
And it was this obscene haste to go to war before the UN inspectors had completed their work which was the real give-away. Blair never claimed that Iraq had just acquired weapons of mass destruction, he always claimed that they had possessed them for years. So clearly there was no great rush. And yet Blair was not prepared to listen to Hans Blix when he said he had just weeks left to complete his inspections - not months.
Going to war before the UN had completed it's inspections was obviously absolutely imperative to Blair - does that sound like a man convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ?
Then of course there was the claim :
"Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes."
So if Blair actually believed that there were chemical and biological weapons which could be launched within an hour, he presumably thought that it would be necessary for the war to be over in say, half an hour ? Or was he expecting there to be thousands upon thousands dead ? I think he might have explored all other avenues before committing Britain to war, if he had actually believed all that bollox.
Blair never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - that's why he was so keen to go to war. And why it had to be done before the UN had completed it's work.
And there was no reason at all for the Tories to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction either. If they did, why were they prepared to risk the deaths of thousands of British personnel before all other alternatives had been exhausted ?
Interestingly, the Tories chose to completely ignore the advice of Robin Cook (despite the fact that as a foreign secretary and cabinet member he had access to precisely the same information as Blair) when he claimed that Iraq posed no threat.
.
.......the tories were responsible for that by being gullible fools.
I don't think that you can describe the Tories "gullible fools" TJ - they're not. The Tories supported the war because they will always support the interests of the rich and powerful (in this case the US petroleum industry) over the interests of ordinary British working people - it's what Tories do.
And of course it is inconceivable that the Tories would not throw their weight behind an extreme right-wing neo-liberal US president. Specially as they like to pretend that this mythical "Special" relationship actually exists.
Britain doesn't need New Labour or Old Tories. What it needs right now is a government committed to the twin social-democratic values of peace and social justice.
Interestingly, theTorieslabour cabinet including GB chose to completely ignore the advice of Robin Cook (despite the fact that as a foreign secretary and cabinet member he had access to precisely the same information as Blair) when he claimed that Iraq posed no threat.
the difference between us on this point is that I don't believe the Americans cared about WH/IDS/MH/DC and their crew as they had just lost two elections and were reduced to a small pool of "talent" and a rump of MP's who were small minded idiots more worried about their duck houses/ second home flipping. Essentially they were the Lib Dem's in better suits and treated accordingly. It's very easy to trap a tory party into supporting military action in oppostion because as soon as they get wind it's going to happen anyway they feel obligated to "support it" in order to support the military from which they draw some support and MP's. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of their core values and Blair and Campbell knew it.
As stated above the information asymetry was significant and the manipulation of information passed to the public and the Tories in private significant. I think it's easy for people who were aways opposed to the war to blame everyone who didn't in the same way as Bush and Blair. What is interesting is it seems to be only one UK politician in office who still thinks it was a good idea
I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go to war. I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons, because the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by international law and the international obligations that he had accepted. 14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international law.
just to cause more debate
ToriesMandelsson supported the war becausetheyhe will always support the interests of the rich and powerful (in this case the US petroleum industry) over the interests of ordinary British working people - it's whatToriesMandelsson do-es.
Interestingly,the Torieslabour cabinet including GB chose to completely ignore the advice of Robin Cook (despite the fact that as a foreign secretary and cabinet member he had access to precisely the same information as Blair) when he claimed that Iraq posed no threat.
ToriesMandelsson supported the war because they he will always support the interests of the rich and powerful (in this case the US petroleum industry) over the interests of ordinary British working people - it's whatToriesMandelsson do-es.
.
Well done big_n_daft ...... you appear to have discovered that there is little difference between New Labour and the Tories.
When were you struck by this staggering revelation ?
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
