No discussions about the Iraqi Inquiry and Tony Blair giving evidence
By jend80
@jend80 (2071)
United Kingdom
February 2, 2010 11:56pm CST
& trying to make his actions seem justified?
This might not be happening in America or involve Obama but it's still important politically - not just for Britain but how nearly everybody's been effected by/ re worldwide involvement in 'the war against terror', the Iraq War, terrorism, and the death and injuries etc caused by it all.
Blair and other members of his cabinet (plus the other parties - I'm looking at you the Conservatives, who wanted to invade Iraq long before any mention of the infamous '45 minutes' 'weapons of mass destruction') that supported it have blood on their hands and to see him carry on wrigling and lying makes me sick.
Now Claire Short is trying to make herself out to be the one true principled one who opposed it all and saying everything she can to attack Tony and the others, when she failed to go through with her threat to stand down in protest until it was far too late.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
3 Feb 10
Although it does involve an action he took with my own country and I have loosely folowing it as an outsider, I still see the inquiry as an internal matter for Britan and really none of my business. If your people wish to take him to task and get answers on his reasoning for going along with the invasion of Iraq, that is certainly your right and perogative. I have no right to tell you guys either way what you should do, it's your country.
To look for those who initiated this would mean going all the way back to the Clinton admistration though. It was this administration who made the removal of Sadam Husein official government policy through the Iraqi Liberation Act in the 90s. One could also look to the U.N. who wrote resolution after resolution that Iraq continualy defied as well as coninualy firing on U.S. and Brittish air forces who were enforcing some of the no fly resolutions in northern and southern Iraq. The U.N. was pretty fond of writing the resolutions but lacked the spine the coninue enforcing them. The shooting down of one of our (or your) military personal alone is an act of war as far as I'm concerned.
Should we have taken the action we did in Iraq when we did? Maybe, maybe not, it certainly wasn't the most prudent time as both our nations were already involved in a war in Afghanistan, but...well...there we are.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
4 Feb 10
"Should we have taken the action we did in Iraq when we did? Maybe, maybe not, it certainly wasn't the most prudent time as both our nations were already involved in a war in Afghanistan"
A prudent point, thinks I
all the best urban
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Feb 10
I'm glad they're at least having an inquiry somewhere! It makes me sick to hear them STILL referring to the war in Iraq as part of the "War on Terrorism"! That's the main reason I don't generally like that term. None of the terrorists were from Iraq and, as evil as he was, Saddam Hussein had no connection to the 9/11 attacks or to
al Qaeda and al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until after WE invaded!
Annie
