Blair (sort of) apologises for Iraq War - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-sorry-iraq-war-mistakes-admits-conflict-role-in-rise-of-isis[/url] [QUOTE]Tony Blair has moved to prepare the ground for the publication of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war by offering a qualified apology for the use of misleading intelligence and the failure to prepare for the aftermath of the invasion. In an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN, the former British prime minister declined to apologise for the war itself and defended armed intervention in 2003, pointing to the current civil war in Syria to highlight the dangers of inaction. Blair, who will be aware of what Sir John Chilcot is planning to say about him in the long-awaited report into the Iraq war, moved to pre-empt its criticisms in an interview with CNN. He told Zakaria: [b]“I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong. “I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.”[/b] But Blair made clear that he still felt he made the right decision in backing the US invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. He said: [b]“I find it hard to apologise for removing Saddam.”[/b][/quote] [quote]Blair also made light of the claims that he should stand trial on war crimes charges and defended his policy of what he used to describe as liberal interventionism. He contrasted what he described as “my ‘crime’” – the removal of Saddam – and the civil war in Syria.[/quote] [quote]“We have stood back and we, in the west, bear responsibility for this – Europe most of all. We’ve done nothing. That’s a judgment of history I’m prepared to have.” Blair indicated that he saw merit in the argument that the Iraq war was to blame for the rise of Islamic State (Isis). [b]“I think there are elements of truth in that,” he said when asked whether the Iraq invasion had been the “principal cause” of the rise of Isis.[/b] He added: “Of course you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.”[/QUOTE]

Ah well, everything is forgiven then.

12 years late.

Better than nothing I suppose. I guess the ironic thing is that, even though Saddam was kind of a dickhead, at least Iraq was kept in some state of order while he was in charge.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;48980564]Better than nothing I suppose. I guess the ironic thing is that, even though Saddam was kind of a dickhead, at least Iraq was kept in some state of order while he was in charge.[/QUOTE] 'state of order' Committed genocide Used chemical weapons Tortured and murdered thousands Invaded two neighbouring countries What a lovely state of order! People have short memories about Saddam Hussein.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;48980564]Better than nothing I suppose. I guess the ironic thing is that, even though Saddam was kind of a dickhead, at least Iraq was kept in some state of order while he was in charge.[/QUOTE] "Kind of a dickhead." He was a genocidal monster.

[QUOTE=OvB;48980655]"Kind of a dickhead." He was a genocidal monster.[/QUOTE] A warmonger who incompetently used his forces to cause a lot of death in 1979, murdered the kurds en masse and used chemical weapons in war. All the ticks have been checked.

[QUOTE=spoder55;48980668]A warmonger who incompetently used his forces to cause a lot of death in 1979, murdered the kurds en masse and used chemical weapons in war. All the ticks have been checked.[/QUOTE] Chemical weapons in war and on civilian populations eradicating entire villages.

[QUOTE=OvB;48980655]"Kind of a dickhead." He was a genocidal monster.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, the argument should be that we should look at 1) Whether we were deliberately misled 2) If we weren't, then into the intelligence and 3) The post-invasion planning. Instead, people choose to tie themselves up into knots over how 'stabilising' Saddam was on the region. Right, only invaded several countries, committed genocide and used chemical weapons. There was nothing amoral or wrong about deposing Saddam Hussein. The problems were how we handled the situation after the invasion and the potential misleading of the public, not the war in itself.

Blair's a right cunt and his apology is as empty as it gets

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48980689]In my opinion, the argument should be that we should look at 1) Whether we were deliberately misled 2) If we weren't, then into the intelligence and 3) The post-invasion planning. Instead, people choose to tie themselves up into knots over how 'stabilising' Saddam was on the region. Right, only invaded several countries, committed genocide and used chemical weapons. There was nothing amoral or wrong about deposing Saddam Hussein. The problems were how we handled the situation after the invasion and the potential misleading of the public, not the war in itself.[/QUOTE] Sometimes people tend to forget the sheer brilliance and how well executed the actual operation was. The poor-post operation planning as you said, was a mess.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;48980719]Blair's a right cunt and his apology is as empty as it gets[/QUOTE] Why is he a 'right cunt'? Its all very well having hindsight.

[QUOTE=OvB;48980655]"Kind of a dickhead." He was a genocidal monster.[/QUOTE] This. This should have been the reason we invaded. Instead we got told he was developing nukes and chemical weapons - which was a lie, and then later did we find out we actually invaded it was - and I quote Cheney - "To secure the oil reserves for future generations". I shit you not, he literally said that on a documentary. I haven't been able to find it, it was on the "American Heroes Channel". Then they completely fucked up the occupation. We discovered Saddam in December of 2003. We left in 2011. BUT as a sort of Catch-22, because we took out Saddam, we now have ISIS. Go fucking figure. A war based on lies and profit? To remove a genocidal dictator only to spawn another one? An even worse one? Yeah, I think the Iraq War was a fucking mistake, a lie, a farce, and a disaster.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;48981936]This. This should have been the reason we invaded. Instead we got told he was developing nukes and chemical weapons - which was a lie, and then later did we find out we actually invaded it was - and I quote Cheney - "To secure the oil reserves for future generations". I shit you not, he literally said that on a documentary. I haven't been able to find it, it was on the "American Heroes Channel". Then they completely fucked up the occupation. We discovered Saddam in December of 2003. We left in 2011. BUT as a sort of Catch-22, because we took out Saddam, we now have ISIS. Go fucking figure. A war based on lies and profit? To remove a genocidal dictator only to spawn another one? An even worse one? Yeah, I think the Iraq War was a fucking mistake, a lie, a farce, and a disaster.[/QUOTE] No, no, no. Sit down for a second and let's get [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978%E2%80%93present)]this[/url] right... We have ISIS because in 1978 Russia and the US began meddling with affairs between most of the Arab nations. Especially and in particular, Afghanistan. Russia, attempting to establish Communism, ended up instigating the creation of a group called the 'Mujahideen' (which really doesn't signify any particular group, but a common goal among Muslim Arabs to fight a 'Jihad'. Which, before the events of 2001, purely stood for a Muslim's duty to preserve the religion, be it through violence or otherwise. After 2001 the terms became more associated with "Terrorism". Well the US, not taking kindly to the Commies trying to push their doctrines within the region, began providing local resistance forces with financial and arms support through the Pakistani's (who arguably mis-used and abused said aid to their own benefit as well as the Mujahideen's.) When Soviet Russia bailed out in the late 1980's they left behind a rough Soviet-based government which lasted for a few more years and continued to battle itself internally until in 1992 the [i]Peshawar Accord[/i] was signed and effectively created the "Islamic State of Afghanistan". Which at the time, was not what we would think of it today. But instead an attempt at a ratified and unified Afghani government, lead by a Ahmad Massoud. At this point every dog in the pen jumped on the wounded Nation. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even India began sponsoring different militia groups which began fighting each other over control of Kabul, the capital. It was within this period of the conflict, about 1995, that the Taliban emerged and began to try and stake their claim to the region. Al Qaeda as well, formed by the veterans of the 1989 conflict with Russia. The Taliban, backed by the Pakistani army and paid by Saudi Arabia, ended up taking Kabul in '96. Where afterwards they began attempting to unify the country and ended up committing mass murder and genocide for several years. Specifically targeting the Shia. This coupled with the September 11th attacks on New York prompted NATO, driven by the US and Britain to enact OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, which as we know of it today is the "Global War on Terrorism" that has been oh-so successful. Ironically, Ahmad Shah Massoud, who had fought to secure Afghanistan and lost Kabul during the 1980's began attempting to Warn the US of potential large-scale attacks on domestic Soil. He pleaded to the Pakistanis and even Bin Laden to help bring matters under control before it was too late. Apparently the Taliban even tried to lure him over by offering him a high position of power if he gave up the fight. He refused and ultimately paid the price when he was questionably assassinated, two days before September 11th, 2001 and shortly after he had attempted to warn the US of the impending attacks. He had attempted to unify the various fighting groups of Afghanistan and ended up paying the ultimate price. After his legacy things have only gotten worse between the Nation's groups. From here on out we enter into Iraq in 2003. Most of us are all too familiar with the events past here and your post (Xystus234) sums it up pretty well. But by removing Saddam Hussein the US effectively opened the door for all these radical groups to spill into the country. We destabilized the government and failed to adequately prepare what we left behind for what was coming. And the VERY SAME thing is happening in Syria. The US is keenly focused on removing Bashar Al-Assad from power, just like they did with Saddam Hussein. No plan for what goes on afterwards. In fact, the US has been supporting "Rebels" in Syria with financial support for a couple years now. The goal being to destabilize Bashar's regime. Unfortunately, these said "Rebels" are nothing more than mercenaries who work for the highest bidder. When it is the US who is paying, they are after Assad. But when the US turns their back they all pledge to ISIS and fight everyone. This is why there is so much Russian Hedgemony with their recent airstrikes and is why Iraq asked Russia to help them instead of the US. The United States is essentially beating the hornets nest hoping to take advantage of the resulting chaos. The intention is not to destroy ISIS, not until they topple Assad. Which is just as ludicrous and un-humanitarian as the crimes of Assad himself. ISIS is a culmination of various groups that have split and combined countless times over various conflicts that have taken place these past 40 years. Mostly if not entirely at the whims of foreign interests. The US AND Britain knew about all of this. They lead us all into phony wars in order to protect corporate and other private interests of the nations. There was never a humanitarian thought in the process. Purely meant to take advantage of then Second-World now turned Third-World countries with resources our corporations demand. And now Blair wants to apologize...

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48980627]'state of order' Committed genocide Used chemical weapons Tortured and murdered thousands Invaded two neighbouring countries What a lovely state of order! People have short memories about Saddam Hussein.[/QUOTE] Like it or not, it still had order, now we have ISIS. Both are Evil as fuck but I'd rather have Saddam any day of the week. As fucking awful as it sounds, we should have stayed the hell away just like we do with North Korea.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48983055]Like it or not, it still had order, now we have ISIS. Both are Evil as fuck but I'd rather have Saddam any day of the week. As fucking awful as it sounds, we should have stayed the hell away just like we do with North Korea.[/QUOTE] It didn't have order, unless you call the above 'order'. ISIS at this point have killed far less people than Saddam Hussein or even Assad. They pose a more direct threat to our interests, but that is the only way in which I find ISIS worse than Saddam Hussein. [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] Just because ISIS spread propaganda of what they do but Saddam Hussein didn't doesn't mean ISIS are far worse. Saddam Hussein was doing all ISIS is doing, and worse, but with the power of a state rather than a rebel group behind him.

And yet I'd still rather have Saddam.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48983177]And yet I'd still rather have Saddam.[/QUOTE] I am not sure if this is satire or serious.

Iraq is now worse off than under Saddam. There was no improvement in getting rid of Saddam. There was really no point to stuff up Iraq, it was a complete injustice to initiate such an invasion. Under Saddam, Christian groups enjoyed protection provided that they behaved themselves. Now they're getting beheaded.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48980627]'state of order' Committed genocide Used chemical weapons Tortured and murdered thousands Invaded two neighbouring countries What a lovely state of order! People have short memories about Saddam Hussein.[/QUOTE] Gotta love how America and Britain supported Saddam until he went against their interests.

Tell it to the Hague you slimy prick My old physics teacher, who is an Iraqi, said that Baghdad still looks the same as it did back then, still riddled with bullet holes, the seats are the same. The country was destroyed and then left without a fuck given. He couldn't even fly back to Baghdad to visit his dying mother because it was too unsafe since our armies left. Watching a middle-aged man break down into tears mid-lecture, in the UK, really hits it home.

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;48985144]Tell it to the Hague you slimy prick My old physics teacher, who is an Iraqi, said that Baghdad still looks the same as it did back then, still riddled with bullet holes, the seats are the same. The country was destroyed and then left without a fuck given. He couldn't even fly back to Baghdad to visit his dying mother because it was too unsafe since our armies left. Watching a middle-aged man break down into tears mid-lecture, in the UK, really hits it home.[/QUOTE] Well, maybe blame the population of the UK for not wanting the armies to stay? The decision to pull out was based on the unpopularity of the war, and not because they want 'to leave without a fuck given'.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48985530]Well, maybe blame the population of the UK for not wanting the armies to stay? The decision to pull out was based on the unpopularity of the war, and not because they want 'to leave without a fuck given'.[/QUOTE] In a democracy citizens should shoulder the blame of their elected representatives (unless they voted against them of course).

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48985530]Well, maybe blame the population of the UK for not wanting the armies to stay? The decision to pull out was based on the unpopularity of the war, and not because they want 'to leave without a fuck given'.[/QUOTE] I don't disapprove of leaving, I disapprove of going in the first place and putting everybody in the position where we have to leave in those circumstances