Latest Bliar Revelations

[walter kennedy]

Thanks to the release of Hillary Clinton's stuff it is now abundantly clear that Bliar took this country to war for the benefit of another state without proper process and arguably deceived his people - how do you think this will affect the morale of our forces in the middle east?

[deltahotel]

Probably won't affect morale too much as it's probably not too much of a surprise by now!

[Surplus]

Sorry if I'm being dumb Walter,

Is the 'We' the ADF or the UK forces?

I know that 'our' morale is pretty good, but Lions led by donkeys is not the preserve of only the UK.

[Skeleton]

Walter we have locked horns on one or two occasions but on this one i agree.

Tony Blair led the UK into GW2 based on a fraudulent document full of lies and deception. That document was one of main reasons I left the RAF.

Blair is a war criminal and he should be tried as such.

Flame all you want but you can't just make up things to go and re-attack another sovereign nation and Blair it has become clear knew that document in the main was a lie.

[Heathrow Harry]

totally in Bush's pocket even before 9/11

ever read Robt Harris's "The Ghost"? The question is asked of a fictional ex UK PM who is hiding in the USA avoiding the Int'l Criminal COurt:-

"name one thing he did that was against the interests of the United States?"

[pulse1]

"name one thing he did that was against the interests of the United States?"

I think everything Bliar did in the ME was against the interests of the USA. The problem is that not many Americans can see that, although more of them might be coming to understand it now that the area is in a far worse state than it was before.

[Brian W May]

If he's nice, perhaps Julian Assange will give him a few hints . . .

[Heathrow Harry]

I agree................... :{:{:{

[ShyTorque]

I was led to understand (during my military training) that it was a war crime to attack any state in order to force a regime change. I extremely glad I had already taken my option to leave the services by the time this all kicked off. I have said for years that Blair should be taken to court over this.

In his own mind, he seems to believe that being appointed "Middle East special peace envoy" or whatever ridiculous title he subsequently held was enough salvation for him.

[nacluv]

And don't forget GQ magazine's magnificent display of irony* with him being named as their "Philanthropist of the Year 2014"...



(* or at least, that's what I hope it was)

[Avitor]

Meanwhile Chilcott stands firm.

[The Old Fat One]

Some of you clearly can't read, this was the walts question

how do you think this will affect the morale of our forces in the middle east?

answer - they won't give a rats.

longer answer - they will be way more concerned with about a gazillion other things.

dump **** ing question and some even dumber *****ing answers.

[Thelma Viaduct]

From what i remember, most people in the armed forces seemed to relish going to war against Iraq. They didn't want to hear the truth.

Sending your own folk to fight wars and die for a lie is beyond comprehension. Blair, Hoon, Straw, Mandelson, the spin doctor prick et al should have been put away many years ago.

The only one with any dignity and conscience sadly died, Robin Cook was it??

[Pontius Navigator]

From what i remember, most people in the armed forces seemed to relish going to war against Iraq. They didn't want to hear the truth.


Remember that enforcing the no-fly zone had been sucking enthusiasm for 12 years prior to GW2. Going to war promised to end that and return to a hoped for peace dividend.

Small hope as it turned out with as long in an even worse SH in Afg.

The world wars - 1914-45 lasted over 30 years. The Cold War 1947-91 lasted 34. The present wars 1990-2015 have lasted . . . well they show no signs of ending any time soon.

In proper historical context GW1 was actually just the Battle for Kuwait. GW2 the Battle for Iraq followed by the rather less well defined Battle of Afg.

[air pig]

PN:

Indeed, GW 1 only had a mandate for the liberation of Kuwait from the UNSC. A clear and defined goal, unlike what happened in both GW 2 and Afghanistan. But we were dealing with a totally different generation of politicians, mainly one who had a degree of honour unlike the present and recent past generation.

[Skeleton]

From what i remember, most people in the armed forces seemed to relish going to war against Iraq. They didn't want to hear the truth.


GW1 yes, we had a clear directive, Iraq had invaded another Nation and the directive was to remove them. I can't remember anybody I served with at the time complaining.

GW2 No, Lots of people I continued to server with complained, before, during and after, and I include Senior Ranks on the Station I was serving on at the time.

I can't recall many "relishing" the fact they were going to war on either occasion.

[minigundiplomat]

From what i remember, most people in the armed forces seemed to relish going to war against Iraq. They didn't want to hear the truth.

Sending your own folk to fight wars and die for a lie is beyond comprehension. Blair, Hoon, Straw, Mandelson, the spin doctor prick et al should have been put away many years ago.

The only one with any dignity and conscience sadly died, Robin Cook was it??

Claire Short also resigned from the cabinet; and not all members of the military were in a hurry to invade Iraq. However, they did what was asked of them by an elected government- that's what being in the military entails.

[Arkroyal]

So glad I was out before this one.

GW 1 was totally justified.

GW 2 was not.

I'd have rather taken a spell in Colchester prison than assist in it.

[Pontius Navigator]

Just to repeat, in AFG, we went in with HMG expecting us to be welcomed with open arms and not fire a shot - b*ll*cks - but at least we were invited in by their Government.

Like the Russians had been invited in previously?

[Davef68]

I still wonder whether, if the hawks in Washington hadn't allowed themselves to get distracted with Iraq, we could have accomplished more, and more quickly, in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the history of that place tells us it wouldn't have mattered, but we'll never know.

[langleybaston]

QUOTE
The world wars - 1914-44 lasted 30 years.

I must have imagined the doodlebugs in 1945 then.

[Hangarshuffle]

There should be a lot more than only Blair on trial. A whole military and intelligence service found wanting. This country still cant handle it -too big for them. Too big to be even really acknowledged.
It was obvious to those that could see that in the late Summer of 2002 we were on the way to war. Physical military evidence was in abundance.
Many senior officers fell over themselves to be involved with it - the operation.
But subsequent no WMD find and an utterly ham fisted underfunded disastrous "peace" meant it was exposed as the bastard orphan of an operation that it was.
A lot of people are guilty in regards the war and not just politicians. I lost faith in our senior officers for ever afterwards and have been dubious about the UK military ever since.


Arkroyal are you sure? You would have had to crack on with it like so many did - I had some doubts but thought it was too big to be the lie it ultimately was.
Vividly remember a fellow Senior Rate picking up on the actual legality of the whole war and subsequently being put down by the Captain... we all fell in line like a row of sheep.


Hope Chilcott is honest, brave and not establishment but this is Britain 2015....

[SAMXXV]

We all know that whatever Blair did really doesn't matter now. The devil has made his millions along with the she-devil "campaigning" for Human Rights, but lining the pockets of her family.

I have not noticed the "Pond Life" Blair family ever once championing or ever referring to the servicemen they sent to their deaths.

I am utterly amazed that Blair has lasted so long without being assassinated by the enemies he created. I am sure that sooner or later Mossad ( or more probably the CIA, to protect US perceived interests over Russia) will serve him his due rights. Let's see if the Chilcott enquiry (Now there is another bag of self serving political worms) will exonerate anybody.

Lets be honest, there are only 2 things protecting Blair. The agreement reached between the USA & the UK Government in 2002 and his behind the scenes agreements with Middle East nations.

I am amazed that he has not yet been targeted. I wonder why, & would that be because of the Middle Eastern countries who bankroll his family?

[skridlov]

Reading through the thread I'm gratified that there appears to now be a consensus about this vile individual's treasonable culpability in taking UK into an illegal war on behalf of a foreign power (and for his personal vanity) by soliciting deliberate falsification of intelligence data. Of course this falsification was aided and abetted by numerous of his cabal in the "intelligence" services. I entirely agree that Blair should now be sitting in a cell at the ICC awaiting trial - or, preferably, already serving a long sentence. Personally I think that treason of this ultimate severity should still be treated as a capital offence and the man's neck stretched...

However, over the years I've used PPRUNE as a source of informed comment about a range of aviation and related matters this consensus now astonishes me. I wonder what the same commentators were saying in the run-up to the conflict? My gut feeling is that many of them would have been shouting down those, like myself, who saw through the deception from the beginning.

[SAMXXV]

Shhhhsss. If you speak up on this forum against His Majesty Blair you WILL be investigated & tracked/monitored by MI6 & Special Branch. They can't do Jack S°°° but they WILL cause other problems in your life. I know & left the UK because of the cr+p that our little Bullingdon clubman claims to know nothing about. :=

[AtomKraft]

Everyone can see it was a crock of **** now, but some of us could see it at the time.

[smujsmith]

AtomKraft,

Totally agree sir. As a veteran of GW1 I have to say that had I still been in service in the run up to this lie driven conflict I would have refused to take part. You don't need to believe me, my family will confirm my angst at the deployment of our "troops" based on a pack of lies. I lost some very good mates on XV179, they died because Bliar, and let's not forget that CaMoron supported him, lied to the British people, Parliament and the world in general. I despise the basta*d, he needs to be tried by someone other than those who stupidly fell for his waffle. Somehow I suppose it won't happen, we can only hope that a jihadist gets a knife around the blackguards neck.

Smudge

[exuw]

Fellas, fellas. Hold on.

Just remember that TB is a pretty straight kinda guy. We know he is because he told us so....

To call him a conviction politician is either a misunderstanding of where he is/was at (particularly after oft-repeated and spurious references to religious faith) or an expression of hope as to his future status after an appearance at the ICC at the Hague.

[glad rag]

It would appear that the current incumbents dance to the same puppet-masters tune.

[Stanwell]

We, here in OZ, were similarly thrust into GW2 on the basis of manufactured 'evidence' of WMDs etc.
Our PM at the time, "Honest John" Howard would brook no dissent on the veracity of claims made by 'Dubya' and his advisers.
Prime Minister Howard was, over matters not directly related to GW2, described by one of his own parliamentary colleagues as "a lying little rodent".

At the time, I also found it intriguing that the US Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, previously a vocal doubter of the 'evidence', fell into line.
Did someone have a quiet little word in his 'shell-pink ear', I wondered?

The whole thing made me sick then and makes me even sicker today when I see the likes of Bush, Blair and Howard rolling in clover
and attempting to justify the mistake 'we' made.

[Neptunus Rex]

Cannot wait for the legal battle in the Maldives between Cherie Blair and Amal Clooney. At least then one of the Blairs will get their comeuppance.

:E

[AtomKraft]

Just for the record, I'm ex Army, but I still can't believe how people fell for the utter bollocks that was presented as a cassus belli for the invasion of Iraq.

One good friend, an ex FAA pilot, was good enough to admit to me years later that I was correct in my 'this is Bull****' view at the time- but he's a clever chap, and I'm just baffled at how a lot of other clever chaps like him were so easily won over by lying tw@ts like Blair.

To be clear, to be a threat, and worthy of attack, Iraq should have had not just the means, but also the intention, of attacking us.

The intention? Highly doubtful. He had bigger problems, much nearer.

The means? Of the WMD, NBC triad, he might possibly have had a chemical or biological capability, despite all his efforts to prove a negative to Hans Blicks et al, but even if he had a chemical capability, as was postulated at the time, how could that constitute a threat to the UK without a means of delivery?
We KNEW he had no strategic Air Force or navy, so was he going to mail the chemicals to us?

Far too many of the citizens of the UK are gullible idiots.

Our military leaders, sadly, are amongst them.

And as for the Tories, they were the only ones who could have stopped our Tone, but utterly predictably, they fell right in behind him. Pathetic.

I now live and work abroad, and while GW2 was not the motivator for that, I'm very happy to have weakened my links with the Country that used to be 'Great' Britain.

The lack of balls during that whole escapade was shocking.

[Al-bert]

100% with you Atom - :ok:

ps my views on Blair's role may be currently found at #1 in the Soundclick Acoustic Folk charts - not my best work but seems to strike a chord!

[glad rag]

Hey that’s an awesome find Al-bert [the chart and song] :ok:

[Al-bert]

Why thank you kindly! :ok:

[Dougie M]

Of course it was AFTER we had our Anthrax and Bubonic Plague jabs in GW1 that the first scud landed outside Riyadh. Our expert in rocketry from the Ground Rats told us that it had to have so much fuel load to reach Riyadh that there was no space for a viable warhead. "Not even an Anthrak?" we asked. "Nope, Nada, Nichts" he responded.
So it was no surprise that WMD was a busted flush.
GW1 had an objective as has already been posted. Liberate Kuwait.
GW2 was an exercise in self aggrandisement for both Blair and Bush Jr.




http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/14b38c01-8ac1-4c00-aa1e-9b67727e51db_zpscwxtljym.jpg

[Stanwell]

Dougie,
And, I would say, 'certain vested interests'.

And to all youse out there who don't get it... It's all about "Freedom".
Don't rock the boat, now, y'hear?

I say this as a survivor of a previous military adventure.


Sorry, gotta go now - men in black suits 'n all.

[Rosevidney1]

AtomKraft wrote: Far too many of the citizens of the UK are gullible idiots.

Two centuries earlier the great Doctor Samuel Johnson said "Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labour; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."

Not a lot has changed...............

[AnglianAV8R]

I must just say how refreshing this thread is. It is good to see that so many sensible people recognise the wrong doing of GW2. Sadly, it has been repeated in Libya and now Syria. The only foreign military aircraft operating legitimately over Syria, according to international law/UN are the Russians. Yet our media spouts the party line, even repeating the concern that Russian strikes are directed against groups formed/equipped by the CIA ! So just think about it, how did that mess start ? There seems to be a common denominator in all these conflicts, with the same poodle trotting along behind every damn time. As for Bliar, I despise the man but doubt the system that he serves will deal with him. That system is rotten and corrupt to the core.

I frequent this hallowed place as I grew up with the military and have done my little bit in uniform too, which leads to my purpose in posting a question......
I have experienced the pressure that is put on individuals in questionable situations and on one occasion have refused to comply with an order, as it was not lawful. The person threatened me with discipline, but backed down when I stood my ground. Now I know that our military act on the instructions of Auntie Lilibets Ministers, but should the High Command not draw the line at illegal actions ? I believe that international law and the rules of conflict are taught at Staff College level, so does that not confer culpability on them ? Answers on a postcard...

As for you chaps watching this from the shadows, examine your conscience.

[bill2b]

I'm sorry: Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused the rise of ISIS in astonishing apology in US TV show | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287982/I-m-sorry-Blair-takes-blame-Iraq-War-admits-conflict-caused-rise-ISIS-astonishing-apology-TV-show.html)


The Evil one must be a Pprune reader and has spotted this thread.
I did GW1 but was out before Gulf Invasion 2 and agree with all the others who have lost all confidence in our leaders.

[Avitor]

Blair does his groundwork thoroughly, he has sniffed something in the wind, he is organising his defence strategy. :=

[Easy Street]

Now I know that our military act on the instructions of Auntie Lilibets Ministers, but should the High Command not draw the line at illegal actions ? I believe that international law and the rules of conflict are taught at Staff College level, so does that not confer culpability on them ? Answers on a postcard...

That has been addressed in a recent book (although I can't remember whether it's 'High Command' by Maj Gen (Ret'd) Chris Elliott or 'Taking Command' by Lord Richards... don't have copies to hand). Apparently the CDS during the build-up to war, Admiral Boyce, insisted that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, put the legal basis for action in writing and made it quite clear that the military would not be going to war without it. He was not the most popular CDS with the politicians and this demand for written top-cover made him even less so.

Military officers' legal training is mainly focussed on the rules of conflict. Unfortunately 'international law' cannot be easily taught in law schools, let alone military staff colleges, because it can be quite a vague thing. An awareness of the major principles is about as good as military officers get. Expertise is the preserve of government lawyers and politicians - who ultimately can make new international law by getting away with things often enough - and civilians like Mrs Clooney who get paid a lot by NGOs to challenge them. The long-running saga of 'responsibility to protect' at the UN and the UNCLOS-related shenanigans in the China Seas are prime examples of the difficulty in reaching a firm view on anything in international law. Given this and the existence of Lord Goldsmith's written statement of the war's legality, it would be very difficult indeed for a war crimes trial to say that any military officer should have 'known better' or second-guessed the legal status. Adm Boyce knew enough to know that it was a very marginal case, and dug his heels in accordingly for the highest-level advice available. The buck really does stop with the Government, not the military in this instance.

[Flugplatz]

I see Blair is continuing with his strategy, hanging everything on 'regime change' when in fact, if I remember correctly, that was pnly the American view (at least they were perfectly open about it as an objective). I remember very strongly that all talk of regime change was pretty much verboten in government, MoD and service circles; everything was pinned on removing WMD. Dire consequences for anyone who mentioned regime change as an objective.

This is a classic Blair/Campbell/Gould/Straw revisionary tactic; ultimately showing the utter dishonesty of their own 'regime'. How many serving at the time can remember edicts about never mentioning regime change in publc or on any documents?

Flug

[Lima Juliet]

I accept that TELIC and HERRICK lost their way with respect to the latter phases of the ops and the strategic direction/outcome. I also still think hindsight is a wonderful thing here with respect to why they happened in the first place. Let's consider what the world would be like without Op TELIC and Op HERRICK?

Op TELIC
Let's put TELIC into perspective first. We had been flying combat missions that had slowly been getting 'hotter' and 'hotter' since 1991 under the guise of Ops JURAL, BOLTON and the quick and dirty DESERT FOX. Some of these had started we'll before Mr Blair's time in power. The missions over Iraq slowly got more and kinetic as Saddam defied the UN sanctions plus got more and more bold in his actions - he gave 2x silver pistols to one of his MiG 25 drivers for coming within an ace of downing a RIVET JOINT and he put a £10k bounty on any Allied aircrew being killed (not an insignificant sum when average wages were £37 a year in Iraq at the time). It is not so well known to that most of the facilities for WMDs were completely taken down in Op DESERT FOX in late 1998. Unfortunately, as the UN weapons inspectors had been kicked out, then the loss of the WMD facilities were not properly confirmed until we had taken them during Op TELIC. At the turn of the millenium, and 9 years of failed inspections and negotiations, Saddam was still developing a remotely piloted L-29 to load up with something nasty. He was also still pursuing the purchase of longer range missiles and he was also not planning to start negotiating any time soon. Then we have the dreadful events of Sep 2001 (9/11) and varying links to Al Qaeda (AQ) that effectively sealed the fate for Op TELIC. But where would be if Op TELIC hadn't happened? Probably stronger Iraqi support for AQ as they committed more terrorist attrocities against the Allied nations, probably some form of WMD capability in AQ/Iraqi hands and destabilisation of some key Muslim/Arab states. The Arab Spring may well have ousted the Baathist Saddam and his people and led to the country being in a mess anyway - the rumblings of the Arab Spring had been gathering for years as those in poverty gazed at the ruling people's privilege. I really can't see it being 'sweetness and light' and the Middle East being any better if we hadn't committed to Op TELIC. If you want an answer to that, then look no further than the International decision not to act on Syria - the inaction may have led to more death and misery than trying to do something about it.

HERRICK
The USofA was hurting, as was most of the West, from 9/11. The Govt had to do something and try and track down the AQ people responsible. Britain lost 67 of its people out of ~3,000, so for us it was not such a big deal; but for our chosen lead in the financial sector it was pretty bad. It also affected the aviation sector that we had a big stake in plus also the insurance claims for this attack were the biggest in history. So something had to be done about Afghanistan (and the western half of Pakistan that borders it) and as others have said on here, our involvement was invited later. However, Ahmed Shah Massoud had asked the European Parliament for help in Afghanistan 6 months earlier from 9/11 stating that " the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced 'a very wrong perception of Islam' and that without the support of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for another year. Massoud warned that his intelligence had gathered information about an imminent, large-scale attack on U.S. soil". Unfortunately, this plea for help by Massoud was ignored and the rest, as they say is history. But if 9/11 hadn't happened would Afghanistan enjoyed such unified support Internationally? However, if Op HERRICK and the Afghan ops hadn't happened then I am convinced that the world would have been a worse place than it currently is. Op HERRICK (and TELIC) are not the sole reason for the rise of ISIS. Just like I said before, inaction in Syria hasn't worked out too well either!

So, I draw the conclusion that we can adopt a Corbynesque style of pacifism and either cosy-up to your enemy or give them a stiff ignoring and hope they will go away (I used to hide behind the sofa from the Daleks and that wouldn't have done much good either!). Or we can try an effect the best outcome for the majority that wants to live their current way of life. Islamic extremism has been coming for a long time, I have witnessed the anger of young Muslim males when I was at school in North London with them in the 1970/80s. Their anger was mostly directed at the Sikhs and Hindus at that time, but there was still an undercurrent of anger that only in recent years I have realised what I was witnessing at the time. I was invited to an Islamic wedding in a North London Mosque and experienced angry and rude treatment from some of those present due to my colour and likely beliefs. The rise of anger from the Muslim community has been gathering for a long time (you could say since the Crusades!). So the current rise of the uber-extremist ISIS has also been gathering pace, as has the extreme right wing elements in the west in juxtaposition to it.

Where is this all going. I don't know. Either both sides will go extreme and one side or the other will be vanquished or hopefully the moderates will remain in the majority and vanquish the extremists. Or maybe its about time to ban people from believing in imaginary friends and adopt the views of Richard Dawkins!

LJ :cool:

[Finningley Boy]

Blair seems to defend his position over the 2nd Gulf War by claiming, resolutely, that he won't apologise for getting rid of Saddam Hussain. The problem with this is, it wasn't the grounds for invasion in the first place for the simple reason that overthrowing a sovereign state leader, alone, is not justifiable. In other words, all the baloney about WMD was the 'get round it' case to be made to justify military action.

So he is now defending an illegal case for going to war while apologising for getting wrong/lying about the barely legal case, which as we now know with quite some certainty, was bogus.

FB:)

[Lima Juliet]

The real cause of suffering is explained within this video - I make no apology for posting this on a Sunday morning...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5pARGk5S4Q

...if we didn't have this, then the rest of us could all get along (mostly).

[Pontius Navigator]

LJ, not arguing against your summary, but a couple of questions. I thought perceived wisdom after the event was that Saddam was not in collaboration with AQ?

Would you not be a little bit miffed if, say Russia, operated a no-fly zone over UK for 12 years, even with UN sanctions?

[Dougie M]

Of course I shall say I'm sorry in 12 years time but right now my best friend needs a scapegoat for 9/11. You know I'm a straight kinda guy so I won't drop you chaps in it.


http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/47c87020-c750-4668-99c2-70c352ce5133_zpsrx6dpfdj.jpg

[Finningley Boy]

I thought perceived wisdom after the event was that Saddam was not in collaboration with AQ?


Indeed Saddam was never linked to the Twin Towers or Al Queda. But George Bush Jnr was madder than hell at that guy for not being toppled as a natural consequence of being roundly ass kicked in 1991. It made the then President (father of George) look ridiculous, and a man in that position can't be made to look ridiculous.

As this is all so clear, it is my firm conviction that the Bush jnr/Blair era was the lowest point of post war Anglo-American leadership in History so far.

Beating Suez, Vietnam (at least they had a credible grounds for military intervention) and Libya.

FB:)

[exuw]

Not quite sure why you allude to "Anglo-American leadership" in the context of Suez and Vietnam.

In 1956 Eisenhower shafted Eden. Between 1964 and 1968 Wilson refused to crawl up Johnson's backside and help out Saigon-side.

[Finningley Boy]

Not quite sue why you allude to "Anglo-American leadership" in the context of Suez and Vietnam.

In 1956 Eisenhower shafted Eden. Between 1964 and 1968 Wilson refused to crawl up Johnson's backside and help out Saigon-side

Of course you're quite correct sir, just lashing out.:E

FB:)

[Brian W May]

Bliar won't apologise about Sadam's removal, citing all sorts of abuse etc etc . . . real OR imagined.

Shame he couldn't feel the same way over Robert Mugabe and a country that had FAR more to do with the UK than Iraq.

It has NOTHING to do with oil of course . . . . not much . . . excrement.

[Lima Juliet]

I very carefully worded my link of Saddam to AQ, the only real link would be in the form of "My enemy's enemy is my brother". This from a report on links between Saddam and AQ with my bold added:

The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA reported that "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation," but that the "mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) The current consensus view of experts is that although members of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service may have met with al-Qaeda terrorists over the last decade or so, that there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked operationally.

Remember, my piece was looking at what might have happened if TELIC hadn't happened and I'm sure that eventually they would have tied up together in some form against the infadels...

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Brian, I think you would find it hard to cast Saddam as a saint - he was a VERY bad man that kept his country together by being VERY bad to the majority. I think we can give Bliar and Dubya that fact...

...it's the deception that people are mostly p!ssed about IMHO.

LJ

[AnglianAV8R]

Still, I'm sure the Chilton Enquiry results will get to the nitty gritty :ugh: Although I very much doubt that the evidence that would be given by Dr Kelly will have been presented by anyone. :*

[exuw]

Chilton Enquiry?

How long has that been going?

[Pontius Navigator]

LJ, thank you. The CIA report is interesting is it not.

not have "credible intelligence . . . of . . . collaboration . . .

. . . reported that "al-Qaida, . . . leery of close cooperation,"

"mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) . . . no evidence

In other words, words with no substantive evidence, a bit like WMD even.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Someone should dig out the invoices for the civvy shipping companies involved in moving equipment to the gulf and take a hard look at the dates.

Follow the money.

[smujsmith]

Bill2b, et al, please include me in the ranks of those who did GW1 and was glad to have left before GW2. I lost some good mates in that tragedy of two men's choosing. None should be surprised at Bush, believing he was finishing off daddy's left over business, but Bliar was simply intent on having a "Falklands moment", his lies expose that all the way, there was no need, he could have tried the "loyal ally" route. I lost any belief in our political leadership, let's face it, the current pig shagger supported Bliar back then. Perhaps the most egregious part of it was the grovelling General staff, who couldn't wait to sacrifice some soldiers on the altar of bare faced lies. They all have blood on their hands, they all should stand together in The Hague and face trial for their crimes against humanity.

Smudge

[exuw]

It's clear that many here on this thread have declared a fatwa on our former PM. :ooh:

Keel the infidel!! Keel heem!! Keel heem!! :\ [Thnk Bernard Bresslaw as Chief of the Burpas]

[artee]

as told by Bird and Fortune... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nohGiQmOxlc)

Meanwhile:

Washington: Donald Trump thinks the Middle East would be safer if former dictators Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were still in power in Iraq and Libya respectively. He also thinks Syria might even be safer with Bashar al-Assad in power.

[minigundiplomat]

HERRICK
The USofA was hurting, as was most of the West, from 9/11. The Govt had to do something and try and track down the AQ people responsible. Britain lost 67 of its people out of ~3,000, so for us it was not such a big deal; but for our chosen lead in the financial sector it was pretty bad. It also affected the aviation sector that we had a big stake in plus also the insurance claims for this attack were the biggest in history. So something had to be done about Afghanistan (and the western half of Pakistan that borders it) and as others have said on here, our involvement was invited later. However, Ahmed Shah Massoud had asked the European Parliament for help in Afghanistan 6 months earlier from 9/11 stating that " the Taliban and al-Qaeda had introduced 'a very wrong perception of Islam' and that without the support of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for another year. Massoud warned that his intelligence had gathered information about an imminent, large-scale attack on U.S. soil". Unfortunately, this plea for help by Massoud was ignored and the rest, as they say is history. But if 9/11 hadn't happened would Afghanistan enjoyed such unified support Internationally? However, if Op HERRICK and the Afghan ops hadn't happened then I am convinced that the world would have been a worse place than it currently is. Op HERRICK (and TELIC) are not the sole reason for the rise of ISIS. Just like I said before, inaction in Syria hasn't worked out too well either!

LJ - I've heard a million and one reasons for the UK presence in Afghanistan ranging from denying terrorists space to train, all the way through to women's rights and drugs. After 9/11 the USA invoked article 5 of the NATO treaty and off we went as members of NATO. I don't understand why that was so difficult to explain to the British public....

Iraq - different story.

[Brian 48nav]

I hate Bliar and his awful wife as much as anyone but, " current pig shagger " - if that is a reference to Cameron then I think you need to go to Specsavers. Politics aside, his wife is without doubt the best looking wife of a PM this country has ever had! I wouldn't kick her out of bed - of course as an ex-nav only the best will do!!

[Dougie M]

Brian,
I agree with you about the horrendous Blairs and even more so about the delightful Samantha.
I would prefer to think of a different consequence of pig gate.


http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/43cec18d-f857-4ba0-9e40-12a5ad2c2719_zps7tbhr6st.png

[Thelma Viaduct]

It's clear that many here on this thread have declared a fatwa on our former PM. :ooh:

Keel the infidel!! Keel heem!! Keel heem!! :\ [Thnk Bernard Bresslaw as Chief of the Burpas]

Fatwa??? No.

Just be nice to see him stand trial for sending UK forces out there for a lie. I lost an uncle, he died many years later from his injuries sustained in Iraq. Real people were affected, his teenage son will grow up without a Dad as will many other kids.

I'm not sure if you've ever signed up to fight for your country, when i did, it wasn't to fight bogus wars for the US&A. What blair has done is the lowest of the low, it's beyond rape and murder, he needs to stand trial with all the evidence available.

All that and the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that have died as a result also, let's not forget them either.

[Wokkafans]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSMZ8tGWwAAT94C.jpg

[Dougie M]

Of course when the interminable, toothless, Chilcott whitewash (sorry, Inquiry) is published in its fully redacted state, Teflon Tone will not only be exonerated but exalted as a regime changer. This will lead to him being ennobled so that he can sit along with his ex defence ministers, every one unfit for purpose ,(Lord Reid), in the House of Lords and continue to wreck this country. Think I'll retire to the Dordogne then.


http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/0c5dab09-9c46-4332-9fc6-6c7bb1103209_zpsola450sj.jpg

[langleybaston]

That Tory poster featuring a madman's eyes was rather perceptive. Mad or wicked.

The whole sorry Middle East domino sequence can be traced back to GW II, and there is no happy ending in sight for anyone.

[AtomKraft]

The whole ****ty plot, or at least Europes involvement in it, could be said to have started with Wilhem IIs unholy alliance with the Muslims in around 1885.

It's not that widely known, but the Germans alliance with the Muslims, with the aim of starting a holy war that would bring Great Britain to its knees, had repercussions that are very much with us to this very day.

Queen Victoria should have put her grandson over her knee and then talked some sense into him. The world would be a very much more peaceful place if she had.

[Wander00]

lb and AK - try reading "Lawrence in Arabia" and about the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. IMHO that is where much of the current trouble originates

[minigundiplomat]

I think you'll find Pope Urban II kicked things off with the first crusade in 1095. The current problems merely stem from a re-opening of an old wound.......

[Easy Street]

Actually, MGD, I think you'll find the Umayyad caliphs kicked things off when they expanded their empire through then-Christian North Africa soon after Mohammad's death, crossed into the Iberian peninsula in 711 and fought their way up to Poitiers before being halted by Charles Martel. The Crusades were a response to that rapid expansion, by 1095 a second front of which posed a direct threat to the Christian heartland of antiquity (Byzantium, i.e. modern-day Turkey).

The Truth about the Crusades | Raymond Ibrahim (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/study-corner/the-truth-about-the-crusades/)

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Unfortunately the modern western fashions for self-flagellation, virtue-signalling and "white man's guilt" cause too many of us to swallow revisionism of the sort that seeks to lay all blame for the woes of the Muslim world at our feet.

[GlobalNav]

"Washington: Donald Trump thinks the Middle East would be safer if former dictators Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were still in power in Iraq and Libya respectively. He also thinks Syria might even be safer with Bashar al-Assad in power."

And, of course, the world would be safer if Mr Trump was in power. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

[Rick777]

I haven't noticed many Americans on this thread so I'll jump in. There isn't much that I agree with Trump on, but I do agree that the world would probably be better off with Saddam still around. He was no threat to us and helped keep Iran occupied. He killed a lot of his own people but probably a lot fewer than we did.
There are a lot of Americans who think Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes. They won't be because we have a tradition of forgiving our presidents their sins. The current republican race for the candidate spot is interesting because Jeb Bush keeps saying his brother kept us safe, and Trump is calling him on it. I think Trump would be a horrible president, but he is probably the best of a bad lot. Hillary will most likely trounce who ever runs against her anyway.

[exuw]

No doubt many, many others have expressed the same or similar sentiments to our cousins Stateside, but I'll add to the chorus anyway.

If either Trump or Rodham-Clinton is really the best that the great democracy of the United States can offer, the the rest of the world is going to be in a very, very bad place.