Conclusive proof Blair lied?

[wasabi]

Steve, im not sure I can be bothered to reply, you clearly have so much faith in Blair you will belive anything he tells you and when it has been proven that he lied you will readily belive his nonsense about the greater good.

On that basis are we going to go to war with China for its human rights abuses and nuclear program?

Where has it been proven he lied? Oh - the press tell you so - MUST be true then...

And the holier-than-thou Lib Dems quite happily backed an invasion of Kosovo without any UN mandate - on human rights grounds.

I'm not surprised politicians lie. Clearly people don't bother listening to complex arguments (like the reason for the Iraq war - which wasn't just WOMD despite what the press tell you now - though everyone conveniently forgets that). Its not like the pro-genociders actually give a monkeys about what Saddam was doing anyway- it's more fun to make moralising smug comments about MPs.

[G4Z]

Well, dunno about you but I was very interested in the whole war thing in 2003, I remember clearly that Tony said we were going to back Bush in a war because saddam was breaking UN resolutions about WMD. How the hell can you say that was not the only issue? other issues only surfaced when Tony realised he had no basis for his WMD argument and gradualy he introduced the idea after we went to war that we went for reasons other than WMD. Were you unconcious back then, do you even remember all this or have you managed to doublethink yourself into beleiving this crap.

Also, I note that you didnt answer my question about weather we should go to war with China based on their human rights track record and their actual WMD capabillity (unlike Iraq they actually do have them).

[nichomach]

China's acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nuclear power and has filed instruments of that accession with the US, Russian and UK governments, though it is not yet a signatory to the Treaty. Any possession of nuclear weapons on their part is as "legal" as ours. Iraq signed in 1968 as a non-nuclear power. Any attempt on their part to acquire or develop nuclear weapons (as they had been attempting to do) is a breach of their treaty obligations. And Iraq WAS breaching UN resolutions by impeding weapons inspectors. As for Blair retrospectively introducing other issues, sorry, that's crap. On the 25/2/2003 before the HofC, Blair said:

I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully....

...Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament.

One further point. The purpose in our acting is disarmament. But the nature of Saddam's regime is relevant in two ways. First, WMD in the hands of a regime of this brutality is especially dangerous because Saddam has shown he will use them. Secondly, I know the innocent as well as the guilty die in a war. But do not let us forget the 4 million Iraqi exiles, the thousands of children who die needlessly every year due to Saddam's impoverishment of his country - a country which in 1978 was wealthier than Portugal or Malaysia but now is in ruins, 60 per cent of its people on food aid. Let us not forget the tens of thousands imprisoned, tortured or executed by his barbarity every year. The innocent die every day in Iraq victims of Saddam, and their plight too should be heard.

Full text here

It actually makes pretty interesting reading. The government was led to believe that the Ba'athist régime had WMD by the intelligence that they'd received, and by the actions of that régime with regard to weapons inspections. There may have been none, but every action taken by the Ba'athist régime would lead any reasonable person to believe that they DID have them and were determined to keep them, and the nature of that régime was such that weapons in its hands would be far more dangerous than such weapons even in the hands of a régime like that of China.

[G4Z]

Nich, firstly good post, but I think the point about the govt was lead to believe Saddam had WMD is a whole other argument, It looks to me that the government cherry picked intelligence to support its commitment to the US that we would go to war.

The point about Saddam obstructing weapons inspectors is fair enough, he did this right up until the final week or so before the invasion where he started co-operating and handed over those Al Samood 2 missiles. For all Blairs rubbish about a peaceful end if he complied they ignored it and went ahead anyway, they wanted to go in.

[Phil_2k5]

Well Sadams in jail,Bin Laden's alive but his al-Qaeda network has been paralysed So no problem from me

[nichomach]

G4Z, they didn't "cherry-pick" the formal advice of the Joint Intelligence Committee, nor did they "cherry-pick" the fact that EVERY SINGLE OTHER European power, the French, the Germans, the Spanish, indeed most of the rest of the world powers thought that Saddam had WMD. The handing over of a few Al Samuds certainly was not compliance; the régime still hadn't accounted for the WMD which they had already admitted to having, and they still were not fulfilling their obligations under Resolution 1441. Remember, that didn't require the inspectors to go hunting around with a bucket and spade in the hope that they'd turn something up; Iraq's obligation was to actively account for the WMD that they'd already admitted having and their capacity to produce or acquire more, and the inspectors' job was merely to certify that compliance. Incidentally, the Al Samud was a weapons system that they shouldn't have developed in the first place, and they did so in addition to their other capabilities, and in defiance of UN resolutions. That doesn't look like a compliant government either, especially since it took the threat of imminent war to even force them to give up one component of a delivery system. Sorry, but in this case Blair's "rubbish" is actually pretty accurate.

[Steve A]

GAZ

I dont believe everything he says far from it im not nieve enough to think that everything he says is 100% true, all politicians have the same nature to bend words and put there own spin on things, at the end of the day im more interested in what he does in this country rather than someone elses, i do agree with you to a certain extend GAZ that there are other countries are in similar situations that need to be addressed, however i think that the problems in most of them can be sorted diplomaticly, there was no way that Saddam was going to agree with anything that the UK, US or the UN would suggested.

[KBeee]

After seeing C4's undercover report from Labours re-election campaign, I wouldn't believe Tony Blair if he told me the sky was blue.
From blatant astroturf campaigns, to "spontaneous peoples" protests at Charles Kennedy's and Michael Howards walkabouts (all Labour Party workers sent by Head Office to "protest spontaneously"), to Blairs "Meet the People" photoshoots where the People were kept WELL out of sight and barred from entry, to pre-printed answers to questions for every Labour candidate (just change the xxxx in the template to your local area....).
Every word spoken by candidates predetermined for them by Head Office on every subject. And checked that they said it right.
Every TV channel recorded 24 hours a day, and every Newspaper checked by apparatchiks for faults or not toeing the New Labour line of spin.
It was truly frightening. Control freakery gone out of control.
Sounds pretty much what Labour wants for all the Country