Iraq War made us terrorist target

[Gromit]

After the Terrorist attacks in America, the UK was persuaded to join the invasion of Iraq.

The former head of MI5 has told the Iraq Inquiry that that led to a huge increase in the terrorist threat to the UK. She sent a memo to the Government at the time which revealed:

// The note made clear that MI5 did not regard Iraq as a significant terrorist threat to British interests before the war, and had discounted any link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks on the US. //

When you count up the loss of lives of British troops, Iraqi civilians and the huge financial costs, do you believe those responsible (assuming the final Inquiry report names names) for the decision to go to war should face a trial?

[Gromit]

http://www.telegraph....-Chilcot-Inquiry.html

[Count-A-Strong]

No. And it will never come to that.

What price freedom?

[sandyRoe]

There's a mile of difference between 'should' and 'will' Blair should grace the dock at the International war crimes tribunal. It's highly unlikely he'll ever have his collar felt, though.

[rov1200]

The fact that she was on the JIC how come she realised the dangers of going to war in Iraq when John Scarlett who was also on the JIC who used Alistair Campbell to write the dodgy dossier for Blair to use in the Commons. As there are only about 4 members on the JIC you would think they would have got their heads together.

But it only shows what hold Blair had over Scarlett. Makes you think their is a hierarchy of the Knights Templar taking place?

[jno]

yes they should, no they won't. But I suspect Blair's name will go down in the history books with 'Iraq failure' next to it, which should please him.

[youngmafbog]

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing.

I dont like Blair at all but I cant say I would like to make such calls. I believe he did what he thought was best given the information he had at the time (And I dont believe we have been told eerything, some things just have to be kept secret for security purposes despite lefies bleating on)

So no he should not go on trial (not that it would ever come to it anyway)

[olddutch]

http://www.newstatesm...er-tunnel-vision-iraq

)))))The latest revelation from Peter Mandelson's memoir that has caught my eye concerns a comment made by the then PM, Tony Blair, when Mandelson dared to raise concerns, in the summer of 2002, about the prospect of invading Iraq and the reaction in the Muslim world. Blair's response?

For God's sake, have you been spending all your time with George Galloway?

Amazing. Is any more insight needed into what Mandelson refers to as Blair's "tunnel vision" on Iraq? Is any more proof needed that our former prime minister had no intention of debating the rights or wrongs of invading Iraq, not even with close colleagues and friends like Mandelson, but had instead made up his mind long before the March 2003 invasion and refused to seek alternatives?
"As military preparations intensified, those who had reservations of the sort I had raised were lumped together in his mind with anyone who felt he wasn't 100 per cent on board," writes Mandelson. "The distinction between the two became blurred in Tony's mind."
It is this absolutist and simplistic mindset that led the hawkish Blair to sign up to Bush's war and not give a damn about the consequences for Iraq, Iraqis or the region. "What do you do with Iraq?" asked Mandelson. "Who is going to run the place?" Blair replied:

That's the Americans' responsibility. It's down to the Americans.

Sickening. John Chilcot et al -- are you paying attention?(((((((

Yes Gromit off with Blairs head !!!

[Old_Geezer]

I don't consider it hindsight. At the time most folk I knew were aware the sky was blue, grass tended to be green, bears did things in the woods, the pope really was catholic, and the Iraq war would be an illegal war against a state that held little or no threat to us, and such involvement would increase our chance of being a terrorist target, which the rapid increase in checks and rules, and rapidly brought in laws, proved beyond doubt. Mind you IMO much of that control the citizen type law was probably brought in using the then admitted higher security risk as an excuse anyway.

Wouldn't have been so bad if there was an admission that it was to depose a tyrant and force regime change for the sake of the citizens; but I guess that wouldn't have won much support either. Especially since Saddam was actually supported in the past. And few would think that such altruistic reasons would be the only stimulus to get involved. Not that those in favour were willing to prove they had the UN blessing by putting it to the vote. They knew what the outcome would be so preferred to claim they already had justification.