Can those who still believe Blair had noble intentions for Iraq answer the following questions?

Question

1. Why didn't he push Bush re a plan for the peace? I'm sure if he had refused to support the war without a firm plan, Bush would have caved.

2. Why did he have to rush into war and not allow Hans Blix to finish inspection?

3. Why did he misrepresent intelligence information? Remember Robin Cook, cabinet member and FOREIGN SECRETARY UNTIL 2001, resigned and said Iraq had no WMDs. This misrepresentation has been confirmed by MOD officials and others.
(http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece)

The only explanation is that his true motivation was to be close to Bush and a star in the US

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

Answer 1

Thats just stupid

#1 - There is no "peace" with terrorists.

#2 - "Rush" into war? Hmm, somehow 12 years seems like an awfully long time, not a "rush"

#3 - Intelligence on WMDs was bad...so BIG DEAL! WMDs isn't the point. The point was removing Saddam.

Answer 2

1, He pushed Bush to try to get UN approval AND he pushed him to sign up to the Road Map for Peace in Palestine. The first failed at the UN and the second was subsequently ignored by Bush, with the consequences we see in Palestine today. The plan for peace was the major failing, but who would have imagined things would turn out like they have - there was, i think, a genuine belief that the South and North of Iraq would be almost fully behind the invasion - as they had been in 1991.

2. Because the US were determined to invade, and there is little point is saying "we a right with you, but would you mind awfully if we didn't join in until next year". The invasion had to be before the summer set in.

3. Anyone can be wise after the event. If they had known that Iraq no longer had WMD then the UN inspectors would not have been looking for them, would they? Certainly, as is always the case in such events, the story was "spun" to sell a particular policy - but there is a difference between presenting something in the best possible light, and lying. If they had known they were lying before the war, do you not think they would have had the foresight to "arrange" to have some WMD found after it?

Answer 3

"The only explanation is that his true motivation was to be close to Bush and a star in the US"

--or to revive the Empire as a partner with America.

To answer your main question, they can still debate (1), that we'll never know whether Blair pushed Bush for peace. But there is no way around the fact that: Blair knew the intelligence on WMD was hyped; and, Blair knew Blix had found nothing in the 400 inspections done between Nov 02 and Mar 03.

Answer 4

1 - According to the papers today, Bliar knew that Bush was going to invade anyway. He tried to exert influence, but failed. If he had refused to support the war, Bush would have invaded anyway. After all, Bush hardly listens to Bliar on Global warming and debt relief does he?

2 - Saddam was not going along with the inspections. People forget that he kicked out the first set of inspectors. When it came to letting them in again, he only did it in the build up to the war, and even then, he did not allow them the full, immediate and unconditional access that the UN told him he needed to give to the inspectors. The failure is with the UN for letting him get away with this.

3 - with the evidence for WMD, we sold Saddam the equipment he needed to make the weapons that were used in Halabjah. (In fact, we in the UK actually increased arms sales to him after he used chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurds.) So yes, he did misrepresent the facts, but he was hardly going to admit that Saddam was thought to have WMD's because we kept the reciepts of what we sold him in the 1980's?

If you look at Kosovo and Sierra Leone, intervention saved lives, whereas not intervening in Bosnia and Rwanda resulted in the death and rape of many. I honestly think Bliar thought that he was going to save lives when he supported the war in Iraq. Remember, Iraq was not a nice place then, child mortality was high and rising, health care, non-existent. True, things are worse, but Bliar wanted to make things better, not worse.

The war should not have happened. But the only way to have prevented this was not after 2001, but in the 1980's when we in the west, the USA, UK, France, Russia (then the USSR) and so on were helping him. If we had acted in a fair and just way then, then Iraq would never have had to go through all this.

We should never have helped Saddam get chemical weapons in the first place, and we certainly should never have continued to help him after he used them.

(Please, please, please read the last link.)

Answer 5

Blair has on no account had a noble purpose is his existence. the two he and Bush ought to be impeached for their underhand dealings, for their sending troops into an unlawful warfare without sufficient kit and help and for no longer even questioning approximately what got here after Saddam have been toppled. His 'sexing up' of the dodgy report, his lies to Parliament and the country, the dying of Dr David Kelly ought to have been to blame and the reality that it has no longer is an outrage. lots of our youthful adult adult males have been killed or heavily injured in this ex CND guy's mad challenge. yet another consequence is that Britain has no longer purely lost its status and admire in the international yet we've a house grown terrorist concern. the main frightening component of all is there is communicate of Blair starting to be President of Europe. Will he deliver Europe to warfare?

Answer 6

To Dead Marxist

You appear to be an American.

Tony Blair made peace with Martin McGuinnes and Gerry Adams, who many believe to be behind the IRA. The British believe the IRA to be terrorists, because they consistently killed and tortured Britons and blew up parts of Britain. Call us old fashioned but we are a little sensitive about such things in Britain. It was the USA that funded the IRA for years as freedom fighters through the charity Noraid.

Additionally whilst I believe the USA (CIA) don't have a problem with regime change, I believe it is against the law in the UK for us to interfere in the sovereignty of a foreign country, i.e. regime change. So if getting rid of Sadam was the reason, Tony Blair has committed a crime.

Finally I believe it was the USA (CIA) that funded and put Sadam Hussein in charge in Iraq. If this is true the USA (CIA) created the monster, and have now made the situation even worse.

Answer 7

Always remember, The way to hell is paved with good intentions. There fore when Blair said that he will be satisfied with God's Judgement he knows better than that he should have said he will have to rely on God's Mercy. however that does not make good copy in the papers

Answer 8

No matter what people say. You`ve already made up your mind.
And most of your questions are truly pointless.

Answer 9

i think your be hard pushed to find many people who belived blair had good intensions.and if you do i think they will struggle to answer

Answer 10

you have answered your own question