Iraq War inquiry

[rov1200]

http://news.bbc.co.uk..._politics/8375439.stm

Yet again it seems we need another inquiry into the reasons for invading Iraq. It is obvious to many Tony Blair is on trial and the findings will either clear him or as many suggest implicate him.

What question would you like to put to Blair?

There are many unexplained questions

When the 2nd resolution failed at the UN why did you still go to war?
When Hans Blix, found no WMD why was he not allowed more time?
When Geo Bush said the invasion was for regime change why did Blair not agree to it but only WMD?
If Saddam had failed to obey past UN resoltions why has Israel been allowed to do the same?
Was Blairs only motive to keep the close relationship with the US?
etc

[Gromit]

Question to Blair:

"Do you feel like a good Christian now, with so much blood on your hands?"

[anotheoldgit]

Could anyone in their wildest dreams envisage Tony Blair and others being put on trial for war crimes?

Just as I can't see any of the expenses cheating MPs being put on trial for their misdemeanour's.

[zzxxee]

it said on g.m.t.v this morning they are not even answering under oath!!!!!!!

[Sandy-Wroe]

I'd like to ask Blair this. If senior intelligence officers were so wrong about WMD why were some later promoted rather than being sacked?

[vulcan]

Exactly zzxxee,if they don't even have to tell the truth, than it's a waste of time and money. The old saying is still true,"in war the first casualty is truth". A travesty of justice.

[zzxxee]

the only senatance that i can think of is
WHATS THE POINT???

[Quizmonster]

I'd rather ask the anti-Blairites a question, if I may. Here it is, "If THIS enquiry finds no evidence that Blair lied, as opposed to just getting things wrong - as the previous FOUR enquiries did - will you STILL go on demanding further enquiries until such time as one comes up with the 'correct' answer, as you see it?

[Ankou]

chilcot's opening statement said nobody was "on trial" and the inquiry would not determine guilt or innocence. "but i make a commitment here that, once we get to our final report, we will not shy away from making criticisms where they are warranted," he said.

so its just another report to say “some things were wrong and could have been done better, we should learn from this”.

tickety boo, job done. kerrching.

[R1Geezer]

I just can't see the point in raking over this again and again, what's the aim?

I'll sum it up in a paragraph:
Blair and co followed Bush into Iraq with good intentions and the belief that there were WMD's, none where found, nasty man gone, loony locals want to kill each other, allies wondering how they are going to get out and leave them to it.

Ok all happ?, now can stop the whole process and avoinf pi55ing away public money on an unncecessary non event. Tada, Geezer to the rescue once more!

[Gromit]

R1Geezer

That said, (and I partly agree with you), do you think we have learned our lesson, or will we get led into the next conflict where we do not belong?

[R1Geezer]

I don't think we have learnt at all Gromit. But what are the "parameters" when we should intervene? I think in this case with Hindsight it was the wrong thing to do but at the time it seemed the right thing, on the basis that every cloud has a silver lining, we have at least got shot of the Hussain regime. If I've learnt anything from this it's that those country's do not want democracy and peace and other western nicities, they seem to like living under the boot of Islamic fundementalists and will even fight among themselves over minor differences in belief. So I think in the future I'd leave them to it.

[rojash]

"Blair and co followed Bush into Iraq with good intentions and the belief that there were WMD"
Almost certainly not true. Blair had already committed to following Bush into Iraq. WMD was just the excuse they had been searching for. Blair was also warned by senior intelligence sources that there was no reliable evidence (or even reasonable suspicion) for WMD.

[Gromit]

//they seem to like living under the boot of Islamic fundementalists//

Pre 1958 Iraq had a Monachy and Elections. Various CIA inspired coups later led to Saddam's dictatorship, which was alright until he went off message. An invasion and long war later, we have successfully invented the middle easts newest Islamic state.

Maybe we should stop interfereing?

[rov1200]

It's quite interesting watching the witnesses in this inquiry. With the evidence so far it is following a pattern thought by many of the anti war protagonists. That is the US led by the neo-cons had Iraq in their sights immediately after the 9/11 attack in New York.

Blair did try to get a 2nd resolution at the UN but failed when France and Russia would not sanction it. Bush therefore went solo and tried to recruit any country willing with the phrase, "if you against the war then you are against us'.

Blair was sucked into this rhetoric and rather do what Harold Wilson did when he refused to send British Troops into Vietnam he agreed with Bush to the military invasion. Blair could have refused to send them and just give the US his support but not only told lies but produced the dodgy dossier that got parliament to sign up to.

Not one Foreign office official believed in regime change and all favoured smart sanctions or weapons inspections.

I hope one of the witnesses called will be Hans Blix as he will be able to clarify a number of innacuracies.