If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Tony Blair lied to us......
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
after watching panorama on bbc1 last nite (comprehensive, fairly objective, with damning interviews and evidence), i have to say im not surprised, but appalled at the extent to which intelligence was twisted beyond all recognition to make a case to go to war.......
theres no way iraq was a threat, immediate or otherwise, which is what we the english public were told by the prime minister, thats why we couldnt hang around for a UN mandate, because Saddam was coming to get us (within 45 mins, lol).......now for all you muppets who say oh but we rid iraq of a terrible regime and freed the iraqi people, i say yes maybe.......BUT that doesnt change the fact we were LIED to about the cause for war.......
it really doesnt surprise me that the rest of the UN wouldnt give the go-ahead, because the actual intelligence was soooooo weak.....the JIC basically twisted everything given to them, and Tony twisted it some more (claiming all this was beyond reasonable doubt, several times).......complete bollocks, and i feel sorely let down because traditionally British intelligence is renowned, this is just a disgrace..........
lukesh posted in an earlier topic that the iraq war shouldnt affect the agenda for election back here, which is utterly wrong......who's going to vote for the man who repeatedly lied to us and manipulated the public? just how can we trust him? i used to think tony was a decent man, but really he's anything but, hes a spineless git, you cant just blame intelligence for incompetence on this scale.
We went to war people, just because its thousands of miles away and none of us got hurt doesnt excuse it.
theres no way iraq was a threat, immediate or otherwise, which is what we the english public were told by the prime minister, thats why we couldnt hang around for a UN mandate, because Saddam was coming to get us (within 45 mins, lol).......now for all you muppets who say oh but we rid iraq of a terrible regime and freed the iraqi people, i say yes maybe.......BUT that doesnt change the fact we were LIED to about the cause for war.......
it really doesnt surprise me that the rest of the UN wouldnt give the go-ahead, because the actual intelligence was soooooo weak.....the JIC basically twisted everything given to them, and Tony twisted it some more (claiming all this was beyond reasonable doubt, several times).......complete bollocks, and i feel sorely let down because traditionally British intelligence is renowned, this is just a disgrace..........
lukesh posted in an earlier topic that the iraq war shouldnt affect the agenda for election back here, which is utterly wrong......who's going to vote for the man who repeatedly lied to us and manipulated the public? just how can we trust him? i used to think tony was a decent man, but really he's anything but, hes a spineless git, you cant just blame intelligence for incompetence on this scale.
We went to war people, just because its thousands of miles away and none of us got hurt doesnt excuse it.
0
Comments
Is British Army’s task to support adventures of foreign emperor?
Should British boys kill innocent people in a distant country they never heard about?
Should they be killed for Tony’s pleasure to have friendly relations with his lord?
Should British hard working men and women pay for his servitude?
By "they", do you mean one individual?
Hey, I owed you one
In fact I owe you several, but we'll ignore that for a moment shall we?
Yes, Blair lied to the commons about the nature of the threat. I'm not convinced that he did it deliberately but then I have yet to read the report. The snippets in the media do not bode well for him. Surely this is a resignation issue, ultimately?
not being an election issue doesnt mean you should stop debating it
oh and btw i think the media goes on about it too much, mainly cause its them vs government on this issue
even though its a unfair decision i thought it was a good idea to invade iraq as they didnt even put enough a big enough fight to call it a war, and that apparant dossier everyone believed,i didnt really believe it, i just wanted saddam removed
though really i would of prefered sanctions to be lifted and then see if the iraqi people wuld overthrow him, however unlikely cause they were shit scared
Of course it's an issue. Whether or not it's an issue to you is another question entirely.
And I give a shit if anyone dies in a car bomb, whether they are Iraqis, Britons, whatever...it's a life taken unecessarily. We may have many more problems, but we also have this one. Just because it's not on your doorstep...
Anyway, on topic: I don't know why anyone's surprised anymore, Tony Blair wouldn't know truth and integrity if they slapped him in the face.
firstly, what does iraqis dying in car bombs have to do with anything? if my govt. was responsible for it then it would be worth debate, and thats the important difference here pal.
the govt. get away with all this in the first place because of people like you, that are always happy to accept everything your government does without question (which is what your post implies). This is the end of true democracy and the beginning of an elective dictatorship, (if you can get your head round that one) then is that what you want?
the fact is we invaded iraq because of our ulterior motives, its got nothing to do with humanitarian issues (dont get me started on the sanctions), if that doesnt bother you, you need your eyes opened.
the world you are happy to live in today, is one where we stamp on the rest of the world so we can live in a glutton of comfort, we plunder other countries' resources while the people living there cant afford to live, if you're fine with that then you are one sadistic and/or ignorant person.
People had better start waking up and realising that what we have been perpetrating on countless millions under the bogus banners of "liberty", "democracy", and "freedom" our own nations will come to experience when our time as top dogs has passed into history (along with every empire since the dawn of mankind).
When that day comes, it will be interesting to see if those who regularly label the patriots of those lands we seek to dominate and control "terrorists" for daring to fight back will apply that same logic in the face of foreign soldiers smashing in their doors in the middle of the night, shooting protestors and installing puppet regimes against our will to serve THEIR interests.
What goes around comes around.
i probably didn't make myself clear when i made my first post as i was just writing off the top of my head, i actually disagree with the war, i think it should never have happened, what i'm trying to say is that this country has wasted millions on reports, dossiers etc on something that means fuck all, yes it is a pity that innocent people have to die, but i dont see anyone outrage at the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are being massacred in other countries around the world, AIDS is killinhg millions, etc etc, i just don't see why Iraq has to be this big focal point for the world, thats what i meant, happy now??
Sure. I'm not asking for anything extreme, like arraignment for war crimes or anything. My only beef with Blair is that regardless of Saddam messing the inspectors about, or [hollow laugh], 'human rights', the only way MPs could be persuaded to back the war that Bush wanted so badly was a plausible demonstration of an imminent threat. The people who were responsible for removing the caveats and warnings from the JIC document made that result possible. Fraudulently. Either Blair was getting the raw data and knew of the doubts, or he wasn't in the loop at all. Either way, he should go. And take that splitter John Reid with him...
It's funny, but I actually agree with you. Certainly John Reid should go, but I have different reaqsons for wanting him out.
But ultimately Tony Blair persuaded the House to vote for war on the premise of "immediate danger", yet there were people in the SIS who knew this was incorrect.
Now, either they didn't tell him, in which case people in the service need to lose jobs.
Or they did tell him, but he didn't tell the House, in which case he should go.
WHatever happened though, the House was not informed of the real picture and so wasn't given the opportunity to reconsider in light of new information. Simply wrong and there is little worse in this world than going to war under a false premise.
And this comes from someone who supported war because it would oust a dictator...!
I also wish the said liars would have the decency of admitting they were wrong and at least apologise for attempting to mislead the world, instead of continuing to insult our intelligence.
Do you think so? I think a great many people in this country have a very big problem with our government breaching international law, lying to us and having the blood of tens of thousands of innocent lives in their hands.
The pathetic Spanish poodle has been kicked out. The extremely disturbed and dangerous chimp in the White House has a good chance of being kicked out as well. So I would not be so sure about the apparent lack of significance the Iraq war might have on the British elections.
for the very reasons you stated ...the alternative is scary.
this labour government are being hailed from many quarters as the most sucsessful government in a hundred years ...thats something!
the cash they are pouring into services and infrastruture will eventualy be seen to be of great benefit in modernising this country.
every leader we ever had has been hated for one thing or another.
they are far from perfect and have and will make many mistakes ...i do wish tony would go ...looks like he's staying.
a protest vote at this time could well be seen as a single issue vote which most people would normaly condemn and rightly so.
vote labour ...but keep the pressure up to have tony replaced by brown or cook.
and if protesting removes the labour government ...it's the country ...you and me ...who will suffer ...not tony.
Innocent Iraqis died because of the war. Yes, but they wanted the war, they wanted Saddam out of power. In the long run this war will save lives and give them a better future.
But when you say 'cook', you don't mean Robin Cook do you
Only from the Blair Brigade.
Any student who votes New Labour deserves everything they will get- I will not forgive Blair for costing me upwards of £15,000, a total even Major couldn't dream to have ripped off me.
If you vote Labour it is proof that the "New Labour experiment" is working; that is something even more sinister. For all the faults of the previous Conservative administrations, corruption leading right to the door of the most senior members in the party was not one of them.
If you want to know how sinister New Labour is, and how dangerous it is for democracy, read Liz Davies' book Through the Looking Glass. If Bliar is prepared to do that to the oldest institutions of the Labour Party he is prepared to do it to the entire country. Sadly I have to agree with Howard - New Labour is dangerous for Britain. I would welcome Howard in so long as Blair, Brown and the "New Labour experiment" goes forever. At least the Tories are honest.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Daddy Bush that allowed him to do it in the first place?
When he was gassing Iranians it was acceptable, we even gave him satelluite photos to allow him to use anthrax on them even more accurately. But now he's not flavour of the month suddenly it isn't acceptable.
The United States and the "Coalition of the Pathetic" have no place in Iraq, and had no place initiating a regime change. Because they were nowhere to be seen in East Timor (something Robin Cook should be commended for, in the end), nowhere to be seen in Serbia (Paddy Ashdown had been clamouring for intervention since 1993 because of Arkan...Clinton couldn't be presuaded until the blowjob incident), and installed dictatorships in Nicaragua, Chile (ironically on Sept. 11 too
First off, the more likely number over the course of his 25 year rule is 100,000-200,000.
Secondly, factoring out those who were killed during the Iran-Iraq War (which WE pushed him into fighting and armed him to accomplish it with) since by our own repeatedly declared standards those were "collateral damage" and not "genocide", the figure of actual "murdered" persons drops significantly.
Also note that these inflated claimks have been so oft repeated by mainstream media, they have taken on a life of their own and formed an entire paraqdigm of thought through which all discussion is continuously (and erroneously) filtered. It is sensationalism to feed the lie and thus provide some final grasp of justification to those who refuse to conced that this war and its propaganda was engineered long before Bush came into office and merely lay dormant waiting for the right set of circumstances (911) to launch.
It is also a salient feature in cutting through the spin to the reality behind our war of expeditionary aggression that the source for most pre war "intelligence", despite the refusal of mainstream news (including sadly the BBC) to acknowledge was none other than Ahmed Chalabi and his INC/INA cohorts, whose political aspirations over Iraq have been no secret to those who have followed matters since the beginning.
It doesnt take a genius to comprehend that claims against from Saddam from such a source must be viewed in the context of the ambitions of those making the assertions. Ambitions, mind you, which have come to fruition on the back on US military might as has long been Chalabi's and Allawi's intent.
Lastly one cannot properly contextualise this invasion divorced from the PNAC agenda, whos authors (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Perle) have a long political history within the US defence establishment stretching through numerous US administrations all the way back to Nixon.
Saddam did NOT gas his own people
From the USAWC itself, No proof of genocide by Saddam
Chalabi the source for the intel that has come to be proven bogus
Timeline in the development of the PNAC agenda and its focus on Iraq (with further links)
The full PNAC agenda in black and white for those who care to hunker down and slog through it to better understand the roadmap Washington now follows (The study upon which the entire bogus WoT is based).
from http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Teasers/ChemIraq.html
The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times. Halabja was a bustling city in Northern Iraq with a population that was predominantly Kurdish and had sympathized with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. The population at the time of the attack was about 80,000 people. Troops from the Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) entered Halabja on 15th March 1988 amidst heavy resistance from Iraqi security
and military forces.
Halabja fell to the PUK troops (accompanied by Iranian revolutionary guards) four hours later. The Iraqis responded with heavy artillery fire and an early wave of six aircraft bombarded an area near Halabja with ordinary high explosives. The civilians had been prevented from leaving the town by the PUK, hoping that the Iraqis would not attack a town with civilians in it ? thus providing a human shield.
The CW attack began early in the evening of March 16th, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night. According to Kurdish commanders on the scene, there were 14 aircraft sorties during the night, with seven to eight planes in each group, and they concentrated their attack on the city and all the roads leading out of Halabja. The chemical attacks continued until the 19th. Iraqi planes would attack for about 45 minutes and then, after they had gone, another group would appear 15 minutes later.
This was not the first chemical attack by Saddam Hussein. Previous attacks had been launched by Iraqi aircraft against 20 small villages in 1987. However, the scale and intensity of the chemical campaign against Halabja was entirely different?this was the first time that chemical weapons had been used on a major civilian population of this size. The victims of the attack included women, children and the elderly.
My question is how do does the source explain the fact that before the chemical attack there was a conflict with Saddam forces just before and the PUK had taken control of the town.
It seems a bizarre coincidence that just at the moment Saddam would gain from a chemical attack there just happened to be an accidental chemical attack by the Iranians (as mentioned in the source)
New York Times Article
That is a hideous atrocity and totally inexcusable but as Clan has said it is highly amusing to see how the US and British governments and the warmongers and neo-cons of this world have gone from not giving a flying fuck how many people were dying in Saddam's hands to (pretty much overnight) denouncing him as practically the biggest monster in the history of mankind, in order to justify their imperialistic geo-political crusades in Iraq. This was even reflected in the very sharp film South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut where Saddam was portrayed as more evil and frightening than the Devil himself.
As for the victims of the Iran-Iraq war, the attributing of the numbers to Saddam is simply an attempt to climb his position up in the 'all-time most evil dictators' league. This however is something that is seldom done elsewhere, and frankly I'm surprised people want to play this game. By the same rules the British and American governments can be safely accused of "murdering" every last person killed in all the wars they've started. So in the last 14 years alone the US and UK governments have murdered up to half million people in two Gulf Wars (since they started them). If you include earlier conflicts, bombing and campaigns, the US government in particular can safely be accused of having murdered well over a million people in the last 40 years or so. A record Saddam himself would struggle to meet.
The claims on halabja have long since also been revealed to have come purely from vocal testimony from Kurds themselves, who as you may realise have always been vehement political opponents of the Baathist regime and would work with anyone, Iran included (which they in fact WERE doing during the Iran Iraq War) to achieve their own autonomous state. Such a goal is clearly a legitimate impetus for spreading (with the help of a non-investigatory mass media) any claim they saw fit against Saddam.
Much the same impetus that lay behind the now well know fabrications of the INC and INA sources for pre-war intel.
The simple fact of the matter is that the old addage "tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth" is precisely what has long been at work in creating the very paradigm of thought which makes all factual refutation seem like the lie. Far more comforting to simply adopt the "Saddam was a heinous evil monster" motif, regardless of whether one continues to support the invasion itself or not, in order to dampen the ultimate conclusion that our own governments have indeed committed blatant war crime and continue to do so the longer this WoT and its PNAC roadmap continue to be pursued.
The WoT and the Axis of Evil coverstories are simply long planned ephemere to mask the real aim of global hegemony and control over few remaining known sources of natural gas and oil. Mankind is consuming both at a pace that exponentially outstrips production and successful exploration and the nation which ultimately controls what little remains will hold the world hostage to its political and economic will. Mark my words.
I've no doubt we will never know who is responsible for the deaths and I doubt there is any truth to any figure that claims to know how many people have been killed by Saddam, it was just that the link on the chemical attack seemed to at least require something to argue from the other side.