Iraq enquiry

[Thedelldays]

will soon start...will we find out the truth or will it be covered up..

 

will we see the real real legacy of Tony Blair....no doubt some will still blame maggie...

[benjii]

will soon start...will we find out the truth or will it be covered up..

 

will we see the real real legacy of Tony Blair....no doubt some will still blame maggie...

 

Only Ben Elton.

[RedFear]

will soon start...will we find out the truth or will it be covered up..

 

will we see the real real legacy of Tony Blair....no doubt some will still blame maggie...

 

the only thing to blame maggie for in all this is being blairs biggest inspiration!!

[saint lard]

It won't get to the bottom of anything.

Everyone will be exonerated from any major blame.The odd bit of finger pointing and a few slapped wrists to appease the masses.Complete waste of time and tax payers money.

Spin and more spin = cover up.

 

I would still like to know who killed Dr David Kelly.....Mi5 or Mi6.

Edited 24 November, 2009 by saint lard

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

will soon start...will we find out the truth or will it be covered up..

 

will we see the real real legacy of Tony Blair....no doubt some will still blame maggie...

 

I'd rather have Blair than that snotty nosed Moose of a woman anyday.

 

I think it's plain to see now that the Iraq war had more to it than simply hunting for 'WMD's, and unfortunatly that WILL be Blair's legacy; not the millions pumped into the NHS and schools, not the minimum wage, but some fantasy dreamt up by 'Dubya'.

[jeff leopard]

I'd rather have Blair than that snotty nosed Moose of a woman anyday.

 

I despised Thatcher but one thing she could do is bring Reagan into line when he was itching for a pointless but highly profitable war. Blair is going to be a political archetype, the man that had it all, but then sp*nked his legacy away by bending over forward for Bush.

 

From what I can gather, no one will be deemed guilty or innocent in this enquiry, but it may well bring to light information which will make convicting those with blood/oil on their hands much easier. Blair/Campbell seem to be the worst offenders in regards to Britain taking an active role in the war, but Brown's government are still trying to cover the trails that lead to them i.e. the infamous meeting where they discussed the legality of the war, something Blair/Brown always strongly denied.

 

I think its highly unlikely Blair will be convicted for war crimes in regard to the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were killed as a result of the family feud/illegal invasion, but the military have started making noises about charging him with sending troops into battle ill-prepared and risking the lives of soldiers unnecessarily.

 

One thing I want to hear is confirmation that Campbell and Blair sexed-up the dossier and added the ridiculous claim that Sadam could launch missiles at Cyprus in 45 mins (backed up by The Sun 'Brits 45 minutes from doom').

 

I hope that Andrew Gilligan is camped outside of the court when Blair and Campbell give evidence and screams 'IN YOUR FACES YOU LYING C**TS!!!' or something along those lines.

[JackFrost]

All this inquiry is gonna do is waste millions of pounds of taxpayers money to tell us that Blair et al went to war "in good faith"

[badgerx16]

It'll probably come to nothing, after all the Butler report said " that the intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons - described by Mr Blair as "detailed, extensive and authoritative" - had in fact been "sporadic and patchy", yet nothing seems to have happened about that.

[Viking Warrior]

Iam not sure this will provide a real answers as to what went on. Some people are no longer around , there will be others who will jump on the band wagon of right or wrong.

 

Even if they find against blair and his cohorts, there will be those who will still claim its a whitewash

 

Take the upteenth bloody sunday investigation and the report has not been published yet, and has cost absolutely millions

 

The report will no doubt find sadham hussein innocent of all the claims made against him he probably will turn out to be a tree hugging pacifist by the panel

[jeff leopard]

Take the upteenth bloody sunday investigation and the report has not been published yet, and has cost absolutely millions

 

thats a good point, Bloody Sunday took place over the course of several hours and the enquiry has taken 11 years and £200 million and has been put back till 2010 at the earliest. The Iraq War, even the initial invasion phase, covers a time frame of months and thousands of deaths...

 

But by all accounts the Bloody Sunday enquiry tried to be all things to all people. Everyone involved was questioned and cross-examined until all the lawyers involved had made millions of pounds

 

The Iraq War enquiry will be a very different beast entirely, no cross-examination, no one under oath, no judges. call me a naive guardian-reading black lesbian feminist but I think its much too early to write the enquiry of just yet.

 

 

The report will no doubt find sadham hussein innocent of all the claims made against him he probably will turn out to be a tree hugging pacifist by the panel

 

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

[dune]

I'd rather have Blair than that snotty nosed Moose of a woman anyday.

 

Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were the greatest prime ministers of the 20th century. Because of the Socialists Britain was on it's knees when Maggie took up the challenge and put the unions in their place. She layed the foundations for two decades of prosperity, yet once again the country is on it's knees thanks to the Socialists and their tax and spend philosphy. The sooner we get rid of Brown and his motly crew the sooner the whole process of fixing Britain can begin again. Socialism does not work and thankfully yet another generation has realised this and we won't be seeing the Labour Party in power again for a very long time. Unfortunately the voters will eventually forget how bad Socialism is and they will get back in again in the future and the whole cycle of Socialist misery will begin again.

[mickn]

Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were the greatest prime ministers of the 20th century. Because of the Socialists Britain was on it's knees when Maggie took up the challenge and put the unions in their place. She layed the foundations for two decades of prosperity, yet once again the country is on it's knees thanks to the Socialists and their tax and spend philosphy. The sooner we get rid of Brown and his motly crew the sooner the whole process of fixing Britain can begin again. Socialism does not work and thankfully yet another generation has realised this and we won't be seeing the Labour Party in power again for a very long time. Unfortunately the voters will eventually forget how bad Socialism is and they will get back in again in the future and the whole cycle of Socialist misery will begin again.

 

Ha ha what a joke, that woman is a witch and was responsible for overseeing the rise of greed, materialism and everything that was so sickening about the yuppy culture of the 80's, plus lets not forget the 15% interest rates etc, although I suppose that was Labour's fault. She is without doubt one of the most despicable characters ever in British history.

[Verbal]

Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were the greatest prime ministers of the 20th century. Because of the Socialists Britain was on it's knees when Maggie took up the challenge and put the unions in their place. She layed the foundations for two decades of prosperity, yet once again the country is on it's knees thanks to the Socialists and their tax and spend philosphy. The sooner we get rid of Brown and his motly crew the sooner the whole process of fixing Britain can begin again. Socialism does not work and thankfully yet another generation has realised this and we won't be seeing the Labour Party in power again for a very long time. Unfortunately the voters will eventually forget how bad Socialism is and they will get back in again in the future and the whole cycle of Socialist misery will begin again.

 

And worst of all, had it not been for those damned socialists, you'd have learned to spell and express yourself legibly in what I can only assume is your second language.

[Eastcowzer]

Stand-by B & Q, there's going to be a big demand for whitewash very shortly.

[View From The Top]

We went to war on a lie and ALL politicans who voted in favour have blood on their hands.

[badgerx16]

Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were the greatest prime ministers of the 20th century.

 

Winston Churchill first entered Paliament in 1900 as a Conservative, then in 1904 'crossed the floor' to become a Liberal. He remained a Liberal MP until the First World War, when he became part of a coalition government, only rejoining the Conservatives in 1925, having gained a seat as an independant in the 1924 election. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he returned Britain to the Gold Standard, something he later regarded as the biggest mistake of his life, and which almost certainly was the main precursor to the General Strike.

In the 1930s, when the governments were again coalitions, ( all the way up to the fall of Chamberlain's cabinet in 1940 ), Churchill fell out completely with the Tory leadership over his total opposition to any form of independance for the colonies, particularly India. He also supported King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis, in direct opposition to the vast majority of Parliament.

 

He did, however, come into his own a a wartime leader when he was invited to succeed Chamberlain, and lead yet another coalition government up to the end of the war in Europe, at which point his Tories were soundly whipped in the 1945 election. He did manage to actually become a Conservative PM in the early 1950's, but this term was nothing to write home about - domestic politics was still mired in austerity, and abroad the Empire was slowly dissolving, and Britain was nowhere near the world power WSC thought it still was.

 

On the other hand, Maggie was damned lucky that General Galtieri invaded the Falklands, she won her second term on the back of that, despite a disasterous economic downturn. ( We won in the Falklands purely because of the quality of our fighting men; their equipment had been severely cut back with savage spending cuts under Maggie's stewardship. Sending men off to fight without the right gear, surely only the 'lefties' do that ? )

 

I would argue the 'greatest' Prime Minister of the 20th century was David Lloyd George.

Edited 24 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[Johnny Bognor]

We went to war on a lie and ALL politicans who voted in favour have blood on their hands.

 

What about those that were lied to?

 

I was for the war based on the evidence provided and peddled by campbell & co at the time. Next time, I'll reserve judgement on such matters. Had I known then, what I know now, there is no way I would have been in favour.

 

Had Blair said "actually we've got no evidence but Bush fancies a dust up with the arabs, who is up for it?", would the vote have gone through????

 

If you consider that the socialists had enough support from their own benches (and they were the ones in power), means that even if the opposition ALL voted against, the motion still would have been carried. You can't blame the opposition in this case to suit your bitter and twisted political agenda.

 

The Tories launched two wars both of which were victorious, but more importantly had moral foundations - i.e. Sovereign territory had been invaded by a foreign agressor. In the case of Iraq 2, no such 'just' cause existed.

 

Whatever you socialists say about Thatcher, whatever she did does not even come close to Blair who is resposible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

[Johnny Bognor]

On the other hand, Maggie was damned lucky that General Galtieri invaded the Falklands, she won her second term on the back of that, despite a disasterous economic downturn.

 

LOL at the socialists blaming Maggie for the economic downturn. The UK was on its knees having gone to the IMF with a begging bowl to prevent the entire collapse of the UK economy thanks to socialist neglect. The ridiculous demands of the unions (causing cost push inflation) coupled with the oil price rises pushed inflation beyond 20%.

 

Something had to be done and the medicine was monetary policy - high interest rates were needed to tackle inflation to prevent the UK from going bust completely. The sharp shock of monetary policy did cause a recession (which also happened in other major economies BTW, so you can't blame her entirely) and mass unemployment did follow. Whilst I feel for those people, do you blame a doctor for administering the medicine or do you blame the causes of the disease in the first place?

 

Unemployment is creeping up now (2.5m+ and still rising), but I don't hear you lot calling Clown the biggest ****** in history.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

What about those that were lied to?

 

I was for the war based on the evidence provided and peddled by campbell & co at the time. Next time, I'll reserve judgement on such matters. Had I known then, what I know now, there is no way I would have been in favour.

 

Had Blair said "actually we've got no evidence but Bush fancies a dust up with the arabs, who is up for it?", would the vote have gone through????

 

If you consider that the socialists had enough support from their own benches (and they were the ones in power), means that even if the opposition ALL voted against, the motion still would have been carried. You can't blame the opposition in this case to suit your bitter and twisted political agenda.

 

The Tories launched two wars both of which were victorious, but more importantly had moral foundations - i.e. Sovereign territory had been invaded by a foreign agressor. In the case of Iraq 2, no such 'just' cause existed.

 

Whatever you socialists say about Thatcher, whatever she did does not even come close to Blair who is resposible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

 

 

lol, do you actually believe that Blair is a socialist? hahaha

[Johnny Bognor]

lol, do you actually believe that Blair is a socialist? hahaha

 

So you don't dispute that it was him and his party's doing? You could argue that anyone who voted for them and then re-elected them has blood on their hands.

[badgerx16]

so you can't blame her entirely..... .

I did at the time, being unemployed for 18 months, and I still do today.

do you blame a doctor for administering the medicine

If it's the wrong medicine, yes I do; and her policies were taken to an extreme bordering on the jihad, which was unnecessary and almost fatal for the economy.

[Marsdinho]

It won't get to the bottom of anything.

Everyone will be exonerated from any major blame.The odd bit of finger pointing and a few slapped wrists to appease the masses.Complete waste of time and tax payers money.

Spin and more spin = cover up.

 

I would still like to know who killed Dr David Kelly.....Mi5 or Mi6.

 

Mi5 = Sh1t going down on british soil

 

Mi6 = Sh1t going down abroad.

 

Hope that clears everything up....

[View From The Top]

If you consider that the socialists had enough support from their own benches (and they were the ones in power), means that even if the opposition ALL voted against, the motion still would have been carried. You can't blame the opposition in this case to suit your bitter and twisted political agenda..

 

I sometimes wonder if you are actually an adult.

 

I haven't voted Labour since Iraq and I won't vote for them again this time around primarily because of Iraq & Afghanistan.

 

I would also like to see Blair brought to book as a war criminal.

 

As I've seen a friend and neighbour wither away after his son was KIA in Iraq at 19 I'd like to think I have a fair reason for feeling that way.

 

Clearly a bitter and twisted socialist agenda there.

[Johnny Bognor]

As I've seen a friend and neighbour wither away after his son was KIA in Iraq at 19 I'd like to think I have a fair reason for feeling that way.

 

 

Sorry to hear about your friend, as his son made the largest sacrifice anyone can make and those who are left behind to pick up the peices are often forgotten.

 

Clearly a bitter and twisted socialist agenda there.

 

The socialist agenda comes from trying to blame all MPs who voted as having blood on their hands. At the end of the day, we were ALL lied to and sometimes you have to make a decision based on the 'facts' placed in front of you. Therefore you can't blame all politicians as it is up to them to represent us based on the information at their disposal.

 

For me, the 'blame' lies at the door of those who made the policy (the Blair cabinet which includes Brown, as he found the money to pay for it) and those who spun the lie (Campbell and his army of spin doctors). Those are the ones who are responsible.

 

To use this issue to blame the tories (based on political bias) is ridiculous and those of a socialist persuasion on here try blame them for everything, yet let their own party off the hook. Hypocracy of the highest order if you ask me.

[Viking Warrior]

Ok Jeff leopard I will call

 

you a naive guardian-reading black lesbian feminist

 

but you could always change your spots:cool:

 

By the way My commentt about sadam hussien was a tongue in cheek comment

 

I have seen unreleased footage of what he and his henchmen did to innocent civilians.

 

While I am not sure what this iraq enquiry will lead to, what I can say is there will be no enquiry in iraq of how the sunnis and shias kill each other on a regular basis.

 

You ask any servicemen who has been there how they can tell whether it is a sunni or shia body they happen to come across.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

So you don't dispute that it was him and his party's doing? You could argue that anyone who voted for them and then re-elected them has blood on their hands.

 

FFS, read the question. I asked you if you genuinely think that Blair is a socialist, nothing to do with my views on him and the Labour Party.

[Johnny Bognor]

FFS, read the question. I asked you if you genuinely think that Blair is a socialist, nothing to do with my views on him and the Labour Party.

 

 

TB transformed Old Labour from a socialist party into a Social Democrat party in order to get them elected - essentially due to the fact that socialism was dead and the falling of the Berlin Wall encapsulated this.

 

Having said this, New Labour are still the representative party of your average socialist as it is the closest they will ever get to to governing the country.

 

So Tony blair is not a socialist per se, but that did not stop the socialists celebrating in May 1997, toasting his name and driving around with "things can only get better" from their car stereos. TB was a socialist hero in 1997. Therefore, my jibes of New Labour being socialists is entirely relevant.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

TB transformed Old Labour from a socialist party into a Social Democrat party in order to get them elected - essentially due to the fact that socialism was dead and the falling of the Berlin Wall encapsulated this.

 

Having said this, New Labour are still the representative party of your average socialist as it is the closest they will ever get to to governing the country.

 

So Tony blair is not a socialist per se, but that did not stop the socialists celebrating in May 1997, toasting his name and driving around with "things can only get better" from their car stereos. TB was a socialist hero in 1997. Therefore, my jibes of New Labour being socialists is entirely relevant.

 

Not really.

[Johnny Bognor]

I did at the time, being unemployed for 18 months, and I still do today.

 

If it's the wrong medicine, yes I do; and her policies were taken to an extreme bordering on the jihad, which was unnecessary and almost fatal for the economy.

 

So by saying that it was the wrong medicine, you are at least implying that you recognise that the patient was ill.

 

The only way to fight inflation is to control the money supply. You do this by reducing public spending, raising interest rates and putting up tax.

 

The current govt are fighting the recession by pumping billions into the economy to prop it up (which although is good in the short term, it is storing up massive problems for the future.). Anyway, this wasn't an option in 1980 for two simple reasons. Firstly, no one in their right mind would lend money to a virtually bankrupt country. Secondly, pumping money into the economy would have fueled inflation further.

 

She may have gone too far with her doses, but the medicine was nevertheless the right medicine.

 

The UK was not the only economy to go into recession, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession and the parallels with the UK are uncanny. France and Germany were also in recession, so the UK would have entered recession anyway and therefore losing your job could have been a formality.

 

Pray tell me, what would you have done different with the benefit of hindsight?

Edited 24 November, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[badgerx16]

So by saying that it was the wrong medicine, you are at least implying that you recognise that the patient was ill.

 

The only way to fight inflation is to control the money supply. You do this by reducing public spending, raising interest rates and putting up tax.

 

The current govt are fighting the recession by pumping billions into the economy to prop it up (which although is good in the short term, it is storing up massive problems for the future.). Anyway, this wasn't an option in 1980 for two simple reasons. Firstly, no one in their right mind would lend money to a virtually bankrupt country. Secondly, pumping money into the economy would have fueled inflation further.

 

She may have gone too far with her doses, but the medicine was nevertheless the right medicine.

 

The UK was not the only economy to go into recession, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession and the parallels with the UK are uncanny. France and Germany were also in recession, so the UK would have entered recession anyway and therefore losing your job could have been a formality.

 

Pray tell me, what would you have done different with the benefit of hindsight?

Yes, I agree that in 1978/79 it seemed that the left needed to be brought under control, but Mrs T went ( IMO ) too far in her hysterical crusade to re-order the country to her own design, ripping the heart out of industrial communities in South Wales, Clydeside, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North East. As a consequence, all our heavy industrial capacity has withered away. She also ruled the cabinet with a rod of iron, only paying attention to the sycophantic wing of her party; so what I would have done is moderate my actions by actually paying attention to some of the more experienced people around me and being less dogmatic. With hindsight she was an incredibly divisive figure, which can be evidenced by the vitriol with which many still refer to her, after 20 years out of politics.

 

I am sorry, nobody will ever change my opinion of that witch.

[Johnny Bognor]

Yes, I agree that in 1978/79 it seemed that the left needed to be brought under control.

 

OK, we've got some common ground.

 

, but Mrs T went ( IMO ) too far in her hysterical crusade to re-order the country to her own design, ripping the heart out of industrial communities in South Wales, Clydeside, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North East. As a consequence, all our heavy industrial capacity has withered away.

 

But heavy industry was already in decline, again reflected in all other major economies in the West. I posted some analysis on another thread that shows that manufacturing's share of GDP fell faster before 1979, than it did between 1979 and 1990. After 1990, this accelerated again and continued to do so under New Labour. Therefore the facts show that industrial decline was less during her tenure than before or after. Based on the facts, I have to disagree with you here.

 

She also ruled the cabinet with a rod of iron, only paying attention to the sycophantic wing of her party; so what I would have done is moderate my actions by actually paying attention to some of the more experienced people around me

 

Some say that this was her strength and enabled her to tell the yanks to F-off when required (unlike Blair who turned round, dropped his trousers, bent over and took one up the special relationship). Having said this, it was this approach which was her downfall and she was removed by her own. I personally would have preferred for her to go much earlier to be replaced by someone like Heseltine who was a proven business success and was considered to be more 'balanced'.

 

and being less dogmatic.

 

This I do agree with, but remember that this was long before the media manipulators and spin doctors of today. Perhaps if her presentation had been better, the clear hatred for her would not have been so vitriolic.

 

I am sorry, nobody will ever change my opinion of that witch.

 

I don't think anyone really truly 'loves' her. She was not a likeable person. I personally viewed that she was a necessary evil for the prevailing conditions at the time. It is funny that people go on about the personalities in politics and what a load of ******** it is, but it seems that it was as important then as it is now.

Edited 24 November, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[badgerx16]

Heard on the radio that the public are being invited to send in questions for the inquiry board to ask. Any good suggestions ?

 

Could probably start with "Mr Blair, as a committed Christian; with so much blood on your hands, how do you sleep at night ?".

[jeff leopard]

After day one of the enquiry, its been confirmed that govt officials knew back in 2001 that an invasion based on the notion of regime change would be rejected by the UN as illegal. This eats away at one of Blair's main claims, that at no point did the the govt discuss whether would be illegal (because it was so obvious that it was so absolutely legal and above board).

 

The enquiry won't go as far as everybody wants it to, but it may well confirm categorically what we've known all along but the govt has consistently denied. We might just be feed crumbs and scraps, but it will be give us a much clearer idea of what happened.

 

Just out of interest (and this has absolutely nothing to do with your political beliefs - so don't start bickering again), is there anyone here who doesn't want to see Blair stand trial for war crimes in the Hague?

[badgerx16]

Just out of interest (and this has absolutely nothing to do with your political beliefs - so don't start bickering again), is there anyone here who doesn't want to see Blair stand trial for war crimes in the Hague?

Only if Dubya stands next to him, and that will never happen.

[mickn]

After day one of the enquiry, its been confirmed that govt officials knew back in 2001 that an invasion based on the notion of regime change would be rejected by the UN as illegal. This eats away at one of Blair's main claims, that at no point did the the govt discuss whether would be illegal (because it was so obvious that it was so absolutely legal and above board).

 

The enquiry won't go as far as everybody wants it to, but it may well confirm categorically what we've known all along but the govt has consistently denied. We might just be feed crumbs and scraps, but it will be give us a much clearer idea of what happened.

 

Just out of interest (and this has absolutely nothing to do with your political beliefs - so don't start bickering again), is there anyone here who doesn't want to see Blair stand trial for war crimes in the Hague?

 

My political leanings are definitely to the left but if Blair has lied (probably) and his decisions etc have caused the death of thousands then he should be tried without question.

[bungle]

What about those that were lied to?

 

I was for the war based on the evidence provided and peddled by campbell & co at the time. Next time, I'll reserve judgement on such matters. Had I known then, what I know now, there is no way I would have been in favour.

 

Had Blair said "actually we've got no evidence but Bush fancies a dust up with the arabs, who is up for it?", would the vote have gone through????

 

If you consider that the socialists had enough support from their own benches (and they were the ones in power), means that even if the opposition ALL voted against, the motion still would have been carried. You can't blame the opposition in this case to suit your bitter and twisted political agenda.

 

The Tories launched two wars both of which were victorious, but more importantly had moral foundations - i.e. Sovereign territory had been invaded by a foreign agressor. In the case of Iraq 2, no such 'just' cause existed.

 

Whatever you socialists say about Thatcher, whatever she did does not even come close to Blair who is resposible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

 

It's funny, because there was an entire mainstream political party and a very large number of ordinary people who were sensible enough to oppose the war from the beginning.

 

Just because you couldn't be bothered to check facts for yourself, or understand what was going on, don't go claiming the excuse that you were "lied to". It doesn't hold water when so many were able to make the right choice at the time, whereas you showed your true colours.

[dune]

It's funny, because there was an entire mainstream political party and a very large number of ordinary people who were sensible enough to oppose the war from the beginning.

 

I would hardly describe the luke warm Liberals as mainstream. They can say what they like and promise the stars because they will never be put in the position of having to honour their pledges.

[badgerx16]

As Tony Bliar was acting as Dubya's poodle, does anybody believe that a Tory PM in the same circumstances would have acted any differently ? The main drivers for the war were the CIA / MI6 'intelligence' that was supposed to prove Iraq's failure to comply with Resolution 1441, and as a consequence of the 'special relationship', ( a particularly one-way relationship it has to be said ), we were dragged in on the Yank's coat-tails. This was a war of Dubya's making, ( finishing off the job that Daddy failed to do 10 years earlier ), and a Tory PM would have been leant on to do exactly the same as Bliar.

[bungle]

I would hardly describe the luke warm Liberals as mainstream. They can say what they like and promise the stars because they will never be put in the position of having to honour their pledges.

 

I would say a party which gets over 1/5 of the national vote in the last general election can be considered mainstream. Especially when that party runs more UK cities than any other party, and was the 2nd largest party in share of the vote in the 2009 local elections.

[jeff leopard]

It's funny, because there was an entire mainstream political party and a very large number of ordinary people who were sensible enough to oppose the war from the beginning.

 

For sure, somewhere between 1 and 2 million people marched through the streets of London in Feb 2003 (a month before the invasion) in a bid to prevent the war, whatever the exact figure was it was the biggest political demonstration in this country's history. Around that time there were huge marches going on across the globe.

 

The anti-war movement wasn't just a bunch of drippy lib-dems reading the guardian.

[aintforever]

All the people running the enquiry have been hand picked by the government so it will just be a complete whitewash.

 

Blair deserves to be tried for war crimes for the way he spun us into an illegal war, the years of sanctions meant Iraq had next to no military capability at all, they were a million miles away from having WMDs and were no threat to us at all. I would be happy to see Blair suffer the same fate as Saddam for what he did.

[Wade Garrett]

Waste of time and money.

 

Both Thatcher and Blair made the mistake of thinking they could get away with anything. They were both arrogant, and the cause was that they were PMs for too long.

 

If Thatcher was that great she wouldn't have been shafted by her own parliamentary colleagues, same goes for Blair.

 

Maybe the American way of a President only having 2 terms is something that might be good for this country.

[Saintandy666]

Tbh, I fear to think what Bush might have done if Blair hadn't been there to moderate some of his views and ideas.

[Johnny Bognor]

Just because you couldn't be bothered to check facts for yourself, or understand what was going on, don't go claiming the excuse that you were "lied to". It doesn't hold water when so many were able to make the right choice at the time, whereas you showed your true colours.

 

How many of those people would have opposed the war anyway? A fair proportion I would say.

 

What facts did all these people check out?

 

Hans Blick (SP) asked for more time, and at the time I thought that Hans should have been given more time, but the sexed up dossier and labour & media spin added an urgency to it all. The most I could have been accused of was being naive enough to buy the lie along with the other 58 million people in the country who didn't march. As I said earlier, had Blair said "let's go to war without 'moral' justification just to keep the yanks happy", then my opinion would have been very different. So the lie definately had an affect on me along with many many others.

 

At the end of the day it is easy to say what you did with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Maybe the American way of a President only having 2 terms is something that might be good for this country.

 

Wade, I totally agree with you on this. It stops people getting too big for their boots.

 

I would go further to add that there should be fixed term parliaments. At the moment the governent of the day chooses the time to go to the people that mosts suits them. This puts the opposition at a disadvantage and allows for unpopular governments to carry on regardless of the will of the people.

 

Take Brown for instance, he said in the summer that he would not call an election until 2010 because he wanted to clean up politics with regards to the expenses scandals. Then in the Queens speech, there was no legislation to cover this "promise". Had an election been called in the summer, he would have been mullered as he will do next summer, so why not get it out of the way? He loves playing at the PM and wants to cling on as long as possible. How is this good for the nation?

 

So, in short, fixed term parliaments (or at least maximum term parliaments of 4 years) and maximum two term for a premier would make for a better system.

Edited 26 November, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[jeff leopard]

This enquiry has (rightly or wrongly) been taking a lot of cynical flak. Personally I think that, going by the first few days, lots of really interesting stuff is going to come out into the open as civil servants and lower ranking officials will attempt to clear their own names by pointing the finger at the major players.

 

But the enquiry has missed a real trick though. Imagine a live Blair webcam for the whole of the enquiry, linked up to his pulse rate, so that every time a tit-bit of information comes out, you can see him squirm and feel each of the thousands of tiny deaths he'll suffer. 'Day 23 in Tony's personal hell, once again his fevered, broken sleep was plagued by the faces of dead Iraqi children…'

 

I'll buy that for a dollar.

[the stain]

I would hardly describe the luke warm Liberals as mainstream. They can say what they like and promise the stars because they will never be put in the position of having to honour their pledges.

 

I'm not sure you can blame the Lib Dems for the fact that people don't vote with their conscience...

[JackFrost]

I actually attended a talk not so long ago by a bloke called Andrew White who is otherwise known as "The Vicar of Baghdad". He runs the only anglican church in Iraq.

 

Now as well as running the church, I believe he also works for the home office and regularly carries out negotiations and discussions with both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders.

 

He said that in the lead up to the war he was on the phone to a home office official and was warning him that measures needed to be in place to avoid ethnic tensions. He says that this home office official then categorically told him "Religion isn't a big issue in Iraq"

 

Says it all.

[Sheaf Saint]

Did anybody see the preposterous Lord Falconer on QT lastnight, venomously trying to defend the actions of Blair and co in the run up to the invasion? Cringeworthy TV at it's best. He even had the nerve to repeatedly state that at no point did Blair tell any untruths regarding the intel which the war was based on. Apparently he gave parliament all of the facts that were available to him and he never misled anybody.

 

Hmmmm, this coming from a close friend of the Blair who was handed the position of Lord Chief Justice by him, and who then went on to spend 300 grand of taxpayers' money decorating his Westminster appartment. Forgive me if I have reservations about his impartiality in the matter.

[JackFrost]

Did anybody see the preposterous Lord Falconer on QT lastnight, venomously trying to defend the actions of Blair and co in the run up to the invasion? Cringeworthy TV at it's best. He even had the nerve to repeatedly state that at no point did Blair tell any untruths regarding the intel which the war was based on. Apparently he gave parliament all of the facts that were available to him and he never misled anybody.

 

Hmmmm, this coming from a close friend of the Blair who was handed the position of Lord Chief Justice by him, and who then went on to spend 300 grand of taxpayers' money decorating his Westminster appartment. Forgive me if I have reservations about his impartiality in the matter.

 

As Falconer was basically Blair's yes man, preposterous is exactly the right word.

 

He even topped the usual garbage from Melanie Phillips last night

[jeff leopard]

Did anybody see the preposterous Lord Falconer on QT lastnight, venomously trying to defend the actions of Blair and co in the run up to the invasion? Cringeworthy TV at it's best. He even had the nerve to repeatedly state that at no point did Blair tell any untruths regarding the intel which the war was based on. Apparently he gave parliament all of the facts that were available to him and he never misled anybody.

 

I trust the audience made their feelings clear on this, was it booing or hysterical laughter?

 

hopefully this enquiry will put an end to this redicolous denial from the Blair camp. He stood up in palimant and said that the intelligance was categorical and provided a sound basis for invasion (the threat of imminant attack).

 

Looking back, the reaction from Blair/Campbell to Andrew Gilligan's infamous 'sexed-up' claim (basically 'this is the most shocking allegation ever made') was clearly the result of guilt, or as Shaky would put it 'they doth protest too much'. The media failed to support Gilligan who was thrown to the wolves, I hope they've learnt something from this whole sorry mess.