29
Jan
10

On air: Is Tony Blair changing your mind?

He’s explaining why he took UK forces into Iraq. Is he convincing you that he acted honourably and with justification? Is his evidence, altering your view one way or another? Follow it all here.


112 Responses to “On air: Is Tony Blair changing your mind?”


  1. 1 charlie in the states
    January 29, 2010 at 13:43

    Too bad he’s like the rest of em, clawing their way out of the dark deep pit of dispair we call the Irag war.

  2. January 29, 2010 at 13:51

    Hello gang,
    The only thing that I as an Iraqi citizen wanted to hear from TB today was an apology to the Iraqi people, I wanted to hear him say ”I am sorry” because we do really nedd closure… With my love… Yours forever, Lubna in Baghdad…

    • 3 loudobservant
      January 30, 2010 at 01:54

      You certainly need more than an apology,because it does not make the millions of brutally murdered ALIVE,does it?
      He should be held responsible ,together withhis war-monger gang,answerable and responsible for miseries,afflictions,and total devastation of land and people of Iraq.
      He, and “them” MUST be brought to public trial and hanged in the public for his and their crimes against humanity at large.

    • 4 Maxine
      February 1, 2010 at 09:26

      Hello Lubna

      Before anyone says “sorry” for invading a country with a Dictator who was committing genocide on his people – could you please explain to us mere mortals why the Shia’s and the Sunni’s hate each and kill each other so much? With love from the Southern side of the planet.

  3. 6 Jaime Saldarriaga
    January 29, 2010 at 14:04

    Only Blair knows whether he made decisions based on truth and only truth.

  4. January 29, 2010 at 14:07

    I watched the whole of the Iraq inquiry, with Tony Blair well positioned like a wild pig on a spit in the middle. His evasive tactics and his round the houses rhetoric was testament as he was turning a eloquent shade of pink, to the ignorance he portrayed when discounting the FBS opinion on the matter. It is quite tasteless to suggest when told by everybody but your dog handler that this may be a rash decision that neither had the backing of the U.N or the Intelligence Council, but was a personal belief. Induced by leading the public up the garden path by putting an intelligence report in the public domain to elicit shock and cohesion. Sending unprepared troops into Iraq with substandard equipment because his dog handler – BUSH- said so in Crawford, Texas? Not to mention only KM away from the Bush oil empire.

    He’s banged to rights, lock him up.

    • 8 loudobservant
      January 30, 2010 at 01:58

      Well done crispo of Uganda for so eloquent presentation and exposure of Blair and his gangs and what they are in sheep’s skin.Keep it up.

  5. 9 Crispo, Uganda
    January 29, 2010 at 14:10

    Tony Blair is an astute lawyer and no doubt he’ll use the moment to sway as much people to his side. Am not on Bbc news now, but having heard him speak before, I imagine he’ll try to be as conclusive as possible.

  6. 10 Linda from Italy
    January 29, 2010 at 14:22

    “For Brutus is an honourable man, and so are they all, all honourable men” William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act III, Scene II.
    What a loaded word!
    I listened to the first 2 hours this morning on WS, have to admit not with full attention, and it would appear that he saw, and still sees himself as acting “honourably”, but his reasons just don’t wash, particularly his insistence on some sort of tenuous link between Iraq and 9-11. He is now at least admitting that Saddam wasn’t actually responsible for that attack, but that he may join up with Al Q’aida at some time in the future.
    his position that this was an attack on “us” (without qualifying who “us” includes) goes some way to explain his convoluted logic. 9-11 was an unbelievable shock to the US that felt itself invincible post WW2, especially after the demise of the Soviet Union, but the tragedies we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan are the direct result of a massive overreaction to that attack, driven by a sense of paranoia that always has always lurked in the depths of the US psyche, despite an outward appearance of overweening arrogance and self-belief.
    So, Blair undoubtedly believes he acted honourably, but will he ever manage to come to the conclusion that he made a massive mistake?

    • 11 Mieke
      January 29, 2010 at 21:26

      Beautifully put.

    • 12 Halima
      January 30, 2010 at 09:20

      well said, Linda of Italy

      It seems there is a lot of oversimplification going on in Blair’s defense.
      Saddam was a bad guy
      Al Qaeda is bad guys
      Iran has some bad guys
      Bad guys are dangerous.
      Let’s kill them.

      no idea of complexities of various relationships or lack of them. No acknowledgement that Saddam was put in a position of power in the first place by Rumsfeld et al, and that story is not one it is made out to be by the whole WMD spin on it, no acknowledgement of some of the genuine feelings of disenfranschisement or injustice leading to the ability of evil bad guys to influence young people to join their causes. No idea of what exactly is broken and how to fix it. All attempts to justify the mess we are in now are based on “magic bullet” bad guy/good guy ideas more suitable to the psychology of 10 year olds.

    • 13 majid
      January 30, 2010 at 19:58

      majid from iran

      tony blair’s inquiery did not chane my mind about the

      this war.i still think this war was unnessery
      and unjustified .everybody new that saddam had no

      links to alquade. as a matter of fact alquade appeared
      in iraq after the invation.just listen to some of the

      blair’s answers.we invated iraq as he said:because we

      were afraid that terorists might get access to WMD throgh iraq.but with this logic you can invade any

      country.can’t you?

  7. 14 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 14:59

    It amazes me how people will bury their heads in the sand denying what political leaders judge to be a correct course but after a catastrophe will rise up against the political leadership.
    9/11 changed the entire calculus of the world and Tony Blair and George W. Bush made a JUDGEMENT CALL based upon the best intellegence data and military input to go to war. Is that not what we pay them for?
    “Blair Lied and Thousands Died” is the limit of the intellect of the left. Maybe we should all throw pixie dust into the air or think happy thoughts and the world will be OK. The problem is that the world is not OK and in an age where nuclear material may be for sale on the open market, chemical and biolgical weapons are available and a mass murderer (bin-Laden) is celebrated someone has to stand up for Western Civilization against a 7th century barbaric belief system.
    I wish that we never had to go to war but sometimes war is thrust upon us and it is a test of the belief in our culture that we defend it from the onslaught of ignorant masses waiving a book of violence looking for sexual satisfaction in the afterlife with modern weapons in their hands.

    • January 29, 2010 at 15:17

      Thanks for the good laugh man, I did really need it ! ;)… I am so sure that all of our dead loved ones (WHO WERE ALIVE BEFORE 2003) are reading what you’ve written from above and laughing too…

  8. 16 Frank in the USA
    January 29, 2010 at 15:14

    I never really cared whether there were WMD’s or not. The Iraq war was necessary to take out Saddam, who was violating all the UN resolutions, violated the no-fly zone with impunity, evicted the UN weapons inspectors, threatened Israel, and thumbed his nose at the West. He had multiple opportunities right up to the final invasion to come clean. We never should have given him a second chance after Gulf War I. We should have gone right in and killed him when we had the chance in 1991.

  9. 18 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 15:15

    @ Lubna
    I cannot imagine why any politician would apologize to Iraq for freeing them from a despicable tyrant who destroyed lives and had set up his psychopathic sons to be next in line to rule.
    Lubna, I detailed my understanding and reasons elsehwhere but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that freedom from tyranny and the ability for a people to chart their own course comes at a price.
    I wish that you had the understanding to see the opportunity given to Iraqi’s but perhaps an educated progeny will.

    • January 29, 2010 at 15:26

      My point is very simple Dan ”You’re not in my shoes, you have absolutely no idea about what I have gone through since 2003 and till now, and that’s why you do not get to lecture me or force your theories down my throat”… Why is that so difficult to understand I wonder ???

      • 20 loudobservant
        January 31, 2010 at 23:09

        Well done Lubna Naji.Ana Ashkorokoom.
        Keep slapping on the faces of sympathisers ,on the grounds of colour,ethnicity,etc,of the musketeers who none than first class criminals and fugitives from international criminal law.
        Ya amma aleihe’.
        MEK

    • January 29, 2010 at 17:44

      The US started the “despicable tyrant” on his way to power. In 1959 the CIA hired a young Saddam to assassinate the ruler of Iraq, Abdel Karim Kassem. The attempt failed and the CIA helped Saddam escape to Egypt.

      A few years later the Baath Party overthrew Kassem and Saddam went back to Iraq. The CIA gave the Baathists a hit list of leftists to kill.

      So don’t give me this nonsense about having to remove a tyrant. The US installs more tyrants than it removes.

      • 22 loudobservant
        February 1, 2010 at 06:43

        Well done Perl Fegereng, for giving an abridged a/’s covert activities and hitting the nail on the bulls’ eyes.I love the phrase ” The USA installs more tyrants than it removes”.

    • 23 TomK in Mpls
      February 1, 2010 at 19:49

      Once again, how can you possibly justify that you have even a trace of the right or wisdom to tell others how to live their lives?

  10. 24 Alfred in New York
    January 29, 2010 at 15:27

    Mr. Blair stated that he went to war in Iraq as a result of the September 11th attack in NYC. What evidence did he have at the time of his decision that Sadam or Iraq had any connection to stated attack???

  11. 25 jens
    January 29, 2010 at 15:40

    Lubna,

    so it was OK for Sadam to kill a million plus Iraqi’s. i guess that is OK then, never mind what would have happened to the average Iraqi once one of his thug sons would have taken over, but then short term memory is beautiful thing if you do not have a long term memory. sadam gased his own people, just to kindly remind you of your former benovalent leader.

    • January 29, 2010 at 16:05

      No Jens, it was NOT OK for Saddam (who had received an enormous military, financial, and strategic support from the sucessive US governments since 1968 and till 1990) to murder one milion plus Iraqis… It was NOT OK for Saddam to murder over 5000 innocent Iraqi Kurds in 1987 by chemical weapons while the whole ”civilised world!!!” silently watched and turned a blind eye to that horrific massacre because apparantly Saddam was fighting Islamic Iran on behalf of the ”civilised world!!!”… It was not OK for Saddam to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi Muslim Shias in March 1991 when 14 out of 18 Iraqi provinces uprose against Saddam right after the 1st Gulf war and the US army was watching all of that very closely and still they decided to do absolutely nothing about it only because the over-throwing of the Saddami regime by the rebels didn’t go quite well with the higher American interests in the region of the Middle East… It is actually very interesting how the US government suddenly remembered after Sep. the eleventh that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and a brutal criminal that must be dealt with promptly… Oh please, this argument is not even worth discussing…

      • 27 Robin
        January 29, 2010 at 16:44

        Lubina,

        You are indeed right Saddam should have been removed a long time ago for moral reasons, unfortunately the geo political world is slow to change. I hope that the action taken by the west, in europe and for a second time in Iraq have moved the world a step closer to be able to take affirmative moral actions to prevent any such harsh and abusive conditions for the people via the actions of their own “leaders”. Time alone will tell.

        My best wishes to you

  12. 28 username
    January 29, 2010 at 15:43

    Yes, all the ones who died at the hands of Saddam are laughing at Lubna Naji

    • January 29, 2010 at 16:12

      I am so sure that they are laughing, but at the ones who thing that my country was actually invaded by the US and the UK for the sake of welfare of ordinary Iraqis, and I can hear them saying ”Where were those people when Saddam murdered us many years ago ? Ah, they were so busy supporting Saddam in his war against Islamic Iran”…

    • 30 Tara Ballance, Montreal Canada
      January 29, 2010 at 16:21

      How is your personal attack on Lubna helping to advance the debate?

      As long as you hide behind the anonymity of “username” I perceive you as little more than a coward and a bully whose opinion counts for nothing in this forum.

  13. 31 T
    January 29, 2010 at 15:50

    Now that this illegal and immoral war/occupation continues, it’s every politician for themselves.

    And what about “intl. law” that so many of them talk about in soundbites? We all know that it’s there for a purpose. Yet when we the public question why it’s not being upheld, the response is always to play the “terrorist fear card”. If we don’t invade and have others torture for us, Bin Laden will blow up your house.

    Oh really? The best intelligence services haven’t been able to find him for 9 years now. Why should believe anything you say?

  14. 32 bob from new jersey
    January 29, 2010 at 15:54

    I have always had a guilty feeling about the United Kingdom’s participation in the Iraq war, because Blair acted in part out of a sincere sense of friendship and solidarity with Americans at a time when we were wounded and fearful. We deeply appreciated the support of the United Kingdom after 9/11, but Tony Blair did know where to draw the line, and helped take all of us over the cliff in Iraq.

  15. January 29, 2010 at 15:55

    Treason to the people living not only living in the UK but to all the people living in the UN.

  16. 34 Gary Paudler
    January 29, 2010 at 16:02

    Tony Blair very eloquently defends and justifies his actions based on his certainty as to what Saddam would do in the future. Forget, Blair says, the facts on the day that he and Bush decided to invade Iraq, the righteousness of his actions are evidenced by a future that did not unfold thanks to his bold decision. It would seem that with Blair’s power to see into the future many crises could be avoided. Bush and Blair each, in their way, based their leadership on belief in the supernatural, they had no use for the law or institutions of government and civil society. I see many years of legal defense in Tony Blair’s future.

  17. 35 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 16:04

    @Lubna
    I love the arrogance but you have no idea about my background or the struggle of my family for freedom or others struggle for freedom.
    The view from your high horse blinds you to what is actually going on in the lives of ordinary people who understand that they have one life and want to live it in the light or or at least give that opportunity to their children.
    Saddam was evil incarnate with Oday & Qusay as his companion demons. I wonder why you blind yourself to the atrocities of his regime and the psycopathic behavior of his heir’s apparant?
    As I said an educated progeny will soon come to the realization of the opportunity given to Iraqi’s.

    • January 29, 2010 at 16:26

      Are you seriously comparing your life down there in the US to ours down here in my Baghdad Dan ??? Wow, I do feel so lucky indeed ! ;)… I do feel so sorry for all of our American friends though ! :)…

  18. 37 Sylvester Christian LONDON - Reside in USA
    January 29, 2010 at 16:21

    I strongly disagree with Dan from the USA position that Bush and Blair were both justified in their military actions to invade Iraq and capture Sadaam Hussein for the reasons he proposes. First, any military invasion, or incursion of an independent country is prohibited under the UN Security Council. However, under the 5-6 Permanent Security Members a 100% vote of such actions is warranted. It is quite alarming that Dan does not recognizes, or respect this specific mandate. Countries cannot arbitrarily invade another because they want to remove a dictator. The US for years have done business with dictators all over the world. Such unilateral thinking is self-serving and very dangerous. The USA during the Regan Administration provided him with a massive arsenal of chemical weapons which were used to exterminate the Kurds. The US aim was to control that region and its rich oil deposits, and if it meant laying in bed with a wicked dictator nothing would stop this crazy and toxic romance. It helped fueled a war between Iraq and Iran for many years.Today Iraq has become the breeding ground for terrorism air-marked against the west; over 5 million nationals displaced for life. One US bomb, banned by the UN was responsible for killing over 30,000 innocent people upon impact. The environmental impact may even kill thousands who survived the bomb attack. The anger and hate against the West now gives rise to a very dangerous movement. Tony Blair’s actions to take such unilateral measures with Bush to Invade that sovereign nation will ignite heated discussions for years to come. He should express a strong apology to the Iraq people and spend his remaining years to fight global peace at all cost.

  19. 38 Gary Paudler
    January 29, 2010 at 16:22

    Dear Lubna,
    As you ignorantly and arrogantly live your oblivious life there in Iraq, please rest assured that Dan knows how bad it would have been if international laws had not been violated. Over 4,000 coalition soldiers died, over 30,000 wounded and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, but things would have been really bad (Dan and Blair are certain) had Saddam remained in power.

    • January 29, 2010 at 17:01

      Hello there Gary… Please forgive my shameful arrogance and ignorance… What can I say ? I am a disgrace… It’s just that over 15 of my loved ones (relatives, close friends, neighbours, colleagues and teachers) had been murdered since 2003, and that’s why I cannot see what you, Dan, and Jens are seeing… It looks like you guys do have more experience when it comes to our day to-day lives down here in my Baghdad since 2003 and till now than I do, and that’s why I do sincerely apologise for my absurd statements… I mean what was I thinking ? An Iraqi citizen talking about live in Baghdad after 2003 ???? How absurd is that !!! It’s Americans who should be talking about day to-day life in Baghdad since 2003, after all they are the experts aren’t they ???

  20. 40 Jagjit Singh Mukandpuri
    January 29, 2010 at 16:29

    All know the truth. Saddam has gone long enough, why the whole Iraqi nation is put on the sleeb? Live & let live.

  21. 41 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 16:35

    I feel compelled to add that the US & USSR faced off for many decades and while nuclear armed we both made a conscious deciosn to never destroy each oter thus the world as a whole.
    The USSR collapsed and America offered aid.and while we argue and play chess on the world stage we know we will never fight one another. The Russians fought for and won their freedom, not the freedom Americans wanted or have but their own freedom.
    In Iran, the same type of people are fighting for freedom and the regimes answer is to execute them. They wanted better for their children and to be released from the oppression of their religion.
    Iraq was under the mad ravings of Saddam Hussein, Qday, Usay, Chemical Ali and many other maniacs and the USA basically stayed out until 9/11 when civilized nations understood that a sea change had occurred.
    Personally, I would have cleaned out Afghanistan and Pakistan first but I did not have access tro the intellegence of world leaders.
    America came into Iraq and gave Iraqi’s a CHANCE for a freedom of their own and because some died there are those that hate America. I cannot begin to tell you what that says about those people but it betrays the Iraqi people as a whole who now have a chance and a different life path and if that disturbs one, they then need to get involved in Government and make things the way they want.

    • 42 Jaime Saldarriaga
      January 29, 2010 at 17:23

      The chance for a freedom of their own to Iraqis should have been given by UN not by USA. I think.

    • January 29, 2010 at 17:54

      Hey Dan,
      How would you have “personally… cleaned out Afghanistan and Pakistan?” Would you have grabbed a rocket launcher? Or maybe you could be a drone jockey and sit at a console and kill peop;le on the other side of the planet.

      As I said before, the US started Saddam on his road to power.

  22. 44 jens
    January 29, 2010 at 16:37

    Lubna,
    what is interesting is that you critizise the USA for not intevening earlier and once they intervene you critizes them for having done so. you should also not forget the sweet deals he got from the russians and the french. if you remeber it was not the mandate of the UN to overthrow Sadam Hussain in the first gulf war. the mandat was to kick him out of kuwait.

    i have always been of the opinion that we should have let him be in power and just buy the oil from him. I mean do i personally care if he kills his own people. i mean iraq is so far away from my doorstep, why should i care?

    • January 29, 2010 at 17:13

      So sorry Jens, but in March 2003 14 out of 18 Iraqi provinces were already completely in the hands of the rebels, and all what the US army had to do back then was to prevent them and also innocent Iraqi Muslim Shias from getting brutally murdered by the Saddami regime, and that’s completely different from invading a country and over-throwing its ruling regime and then occupying it… But the invasion of my Iraq in 2003 was NOT for the sake of saving ordinary Iraqis from their evil dictator and its brutal regime, because if that’s the case then where were our heroic saviours when Saddam and his regime were brutally murdering hunderds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in March 2003 for no crime they’ve committed except they were Muslim Shias….

    • January 29, 2010 at 17:16

      I meant in March 1991, so sorry…

  23. 47 Tom in the U.S.A.
    January 29, 2010 at 17:03

    No, Tony Blair has not changed my mind. The Iraq war was a deadly mistake (and probably illegal). There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq posed no threat to any country. It was totally contained, a nation with no plans to attack anyone. The fact is, Bush and Blair were WRONG. They attacked and invaded a country that posed no threat. No matter how much they wish otherwise, those are the facts. At this point, Blair is trying to convince us that just because he THOUGHT Iraq was a threat, that’s good enough? Not in my book. He thought wrong. Be an adult and admit you were wrong.

  24. January 29, 2010 at 17:04

    English law states that,”Knowing or believing something”,makes that something as though it had happened.Blair did not kmow of WMDs exsistance but,he certainly believed they exsisted,or could exsist in a short period,which is why he went to war.Although we are told no WMDs were found.I would suggest that 5,000 Kurds may disagree,if they were still alive.Perhaps 5,000 would not be enough for some people.But I thought it was mass destruction esp,in one deliberate attempt.It seems some people would still prefer Saddam to be in power.I think Blair was genuine,he had little to gain,but a lot to lose.

  25. 49 Linda from Italy
    January 29, 2010 at 17:11

    In defence of Lubna, not that she really needs it as such an intelligent, articulate young woman.
    The main point she raises is that the West backed Saddam as their golden boy when he was perceived as keeping the (then) arch enemy Iran in check during the Iran/Iraq war.
    Western governments loaded him with support of various kinds and only took against him when he invaded Kuwait and threatened to have too much power over oil supplies.
    The awful irony is, from the West’s point of view that they actually defeated their own objective as with Iraq in tatters, Iran is now the dominant force in the Islamic Middle East and far more of a threat than it ever was.
    Morality and “honour” aside, why can’t the apologists for the Bush/Blair idiocy just admit that they shot themselves in the foot?

  26. 51 Andrew in Australia
    January 29, 2010 at 17:28

    @Jens

    Before you get too down on Lubna.. yes get rid of Saddam but first realise that it was the rest of the world who are now setting themselves up as moral guardians who feted him for his help, supported him because a mutual hatred of Iran (and turned a blind eye to his war crimes in that war) and generally treated him like a chum until he turned on them. So yes, good idea to remove him from harming anyone but it was the governments who now paint themselves as justified who are just as guilty and complicit in the murder of Iraqis by prolonging and enhancing Saddam’s regime and reign. So we are all to blame.

  27. 52 patti in cape coral
    January 29, 2010 at 17:31

    I’m woefully ignorant about this and have been reading and listening. There are so many layers to the motivations for the Iraq invasion, that every time I think I have a handle on it, a new angle appears.

    I wish we could discuss this without attacking each other. Lubna, I haven’t always agreed with all your views, but your pain all but screams out from your comments, and I am so sorry for that. Sometimes your comments can be painful for me to read as an American, but I make it a point never to skip them because I always learn something.

  28. 53 Billy Wachakana from Kenya
    January 29, 2010 at 17:34

    Mr Tony blair acted honourably by senting british troops to Iraq. Many britons and other europeans may have thought he was crazy by doing this. people who feel he was ujustified have obviously never experienced a terrorist attack. I personally support blair in what he did coz my father died in 1998 bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi. I hate terrorists and all action to deal with them must be approved immediately.

    • 54 Linda from Italy
      January 29, 2010 at 18:11

      Billy, I lived in central London from 1973-1998, and believe me I do know about terrorism.
      My husband narrowly missed an IRA bomb at Victoria Station in 1991, we used to live about 10 minutes’ walk away, I heard it go off and assumed the worst, and when I called into his office he hadn’t arrived by the time he should have. Ironically, he was not dead or injured because smoking had saved his life, as he had stopped off to buy some cigarettes on the way, and was late into work because of the travel chaos that ensued.
      I now live in Italy where many people have memories of the Red Brigades campaign and the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station by a neo-fascist group.
      Terrorism is a terrible thing but the way Bush/Blair went about combating its latest manifestation, was just plain wrong-headed, particularly the deceit that went along with it to convince a rightly sceptical public (at least in the UK) and this is something that must be admitted.

    • 55 Little Ole American
      January 30, 2010 at 17:57

      I remember the bombing of the Embassy Billy. So sorry for the loss of your father.
      Some of my fellow Americans commenting against Blair’s decision to go into Iraq have very short memories. Prior to 9/11, Saddam was in the news almost daily with reports of his shooting at our planes on a daily basis, threatening us, making fools out of the UN inspectors (the cameras would pan to Saddam and he would be seen with that sly grin on his face). Before NYC suffered the worst tragedy since Pearl Harbor, our soldiers had been killed by terrorists while sleeping in their barracks, the Embassy had been bombed, with almost 300 people killed, the USS Cole had been bombed and brave sailors killed and there were more. Now, what my fellow Americans do not want to admit is that when 9/11 occurred, we had had ENOUGH! WE “demanded” ACTION of our then leaders, the Bush Administration. It was WE that were shaking our fists at Saddam. We KNEW he had something to do with it. He was a supporter of terrorism. Did anyone hear Saddam publicly express sorrow for the attacks? Did England hear Saddam express sorrow for the attacks in Britain on 7/7?
      7/7 happened when the “alert level” was lowered. It was lowered because the Left in Britain insisted the attacks were provoked by the “war mongers” in Britain.
      When we let our guard down, we leave ourselves open to attack.
      The Iraqis have a CHANCE now to build up their country, to build up their infrastructure, to build institutions of higher learning and nations around the world, even the UN, are working together…….looking forward to the future…….looking forward to progress in Iraq. They are not looking backward.
      I pray they are successful.

    • January 31, 2010 at 15:33

      I hate terrorist as well.

      However, Iraq had nothing at all to do with terrorism.

      In stead of finishing the job in Afghanistan (e.g. taking Ben Laden, educating, rebuilding etc ….) Bush, Blair and co diverted forces away for a different agenda: the oil of Iraq and taking away an “old friend dictator” they didn’t like any more (because of oil)…..

  29. 57 Livia Varju
    January 29, 2010 at 17:55

    Blair hasn’t convinced me in the least. He is sticking to his guns and there has been much repetition. This war is wrong and illegal, and I and people I know, we all foresaw that it was unwinnable just like the Vietnam war. We also foresaw that it would create ever more extremists. I wonder why the Butler Report from the time after David Kelly “committed suicide” is never mentioned. That inquiry was about the existence or not of WEapons of Mass Destruction and thus is related to the present inquiry. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are conundrums that will need a new approach along the lines of winning hearts and minds, whether with reasoning or money. Livia Varju – Geneva

  30. 58 jens
    January 29, 2010 at 17:57

    Lubna,

    i was certainly not a perrson who was in support of the iraq invasion and yes i am certain that if we would have continued in 1991 to finish his despotic tyranny the forces would have been seen as libirators since they supported a popular upraising. in addition the entire situation between the west and fundament islam was still in its earlier stages, which obviously would have prevented a lot of the bloodshed instigated by fundamental islam. as i have said often 20/20 vision in hindsight is always easy to achieve.

    i never thought that sadam was supported by the west because he was the golden boy. to me it was a clear political descision of him being a lesser evil than iran. there is no doubt that america manipulates its dictators, but then that is also understandable since every large country will try to influence the world to it’s benefit. just look at russia and china…is it OK to do so? my guess it is not, but then on the other hand countries should not look for help in crisis (i am not talking tsunamis or earthquakes) but civil strive and wars with neighbours from these big countries. the reality is that in almost any given war one of the big nations has their hands in it.

    i am truely sorry to hear about all the pain and deaths in your life.

  31. 59 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 18:17

    @Lubna
    I would love to have a one on one as I watch you mix half facts with facts.
    The TRUTH is that many people sacrificed to free themselves and their children.
    You want a perfectly clean change of Government where no one dies, gets hurt or is injured.
    That can only happen in a Democracy and Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a brutal maniacal dictatorship that boggles my mind why you elevate it.
    But any time you’d like to go one on one, I’d be more than happy to oblige you.

  32. 60 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 18:39

    @Sylvester Christian LONDON – Reside in USA
    I understand your point but feel that the UN has made itself irrelevant and an impotent body.
    It is not a world Government thus none of its so called laws apply however in any event every nation has the absolute right to defend itself.
    As for the oil fields, I cannot understand your argument as the Chinese have signed the major oil contracts in Iraq and America’s oil is coming less and less from the Middle East.

  33. 61 pendkar
    January 29, 2010 at 18:40

    If we are to conclude that TB made wrong is it because
    a. he forced a war on the Iraqis?
    b. he forced a war on the British people?
    c. he dint leave Saddam alone?
    d. dint follow correct precedure in deciding to go to war?

    • 62 pendkar
      January 29, 2010 at 18:42

      To the moderator(s) – please post this submission not the previous one

      If we are to conclude that TB was wrong is it because
      a. he forced a war on the Iraqis?
      b. he forced a war on the British people?
      c. he dint leave Saddam alone?
      d. dint follow correct precedure in deciding to go to war?

  34. 63 Sam
    January 29, 2010 at 19:00

    This inquiry is a sideshow. Right or wrong, the war is a fait acompli. Any lessons learned, I hope, have already been learned. I don’t think there is much of a point to this exercise–except for embarassing Mr Blair and his associates. (Which, of course, is good fun and probably deserved, but which could do more harm than good.) We have never in the past, nor will we in the future, without redefining the fundamental basis of national sovereignty, need other nation’s permissions to wage war as a tool of foreign policy. A UN resolution is merely an excuse for war; it is not permission. I make no judgments about the necessity of the Iraq war, nor do I doubt the cost in lives and treasure. However, I do think that insofar as this inquiry focuses on the “legality” of the war, it is improper. The authority for war comes from the people of Britain, via their elected leaders, not from the UN or the US. If the people do not want to cede that power to their leaders, they need to change their constitutional relationship with their government. Until that time, war remains a powerful tool in Britain’s kit bag, and nothing this inquiry concludes will change that.

  35. 64 Andrew in Australia
    January 29, 2010 at 19:03

    Ultimately, he is not going to say he did the wrong thing he will justify what he did and continue to do so. To do otherwise would be to admit an error and to open himself up to sanction himself.

    He is a politician, a consumate one at that and he will never implicate himself for legal reasons and his politician’s ego will never allow that.

    Besides which he can justify any possible error for the case to war by blaming faulty intelligence reports. After all… “you can only make decisions on what (dubious) information you have in front of you”.

  36. 65 d in Indiana
    January 29, 2010 at 19:04

    G. Bush doesn’t have the capacity or intellect to follow Blair’s lead and explain himself. Dick Chaney is smoking a cigar rolling in piles of money as he feasts upon a bald eagle carcass as we speak.

  37. January 29, 2010 at 19:06

    I’m even more upset with T. Blair after hearing him:

    1. There was a lot of “intelligence”
    Well, yes, if you only listen to the intelligence going your way, and only to people (Iraqis who are opposed to Saddam, and want him out and/or take his place), and dismiss all the intelligence and people who don’t agree with your aim, well ……

    2. According to the weapon inspectors, there was no treat. So, stop using that argument

    3. Saddam was a dictator. Yes, but he was, as a dictator liked by the whole Western World, until he had his own demands concerning oil.

    4. “he made war with Iran”. Yes, with the blessing of the West, and of a lot of Arab countries.

    5. He made war to Kuwait. Well, actually he did had a legal point to attack, and he was let to believe he could.

    6. He had plans and wanted to start again once the WMD inspectors were gone.
    So???? Just because you think (???) he has plans or would like to, you should attack?????

    7. “I made the decision, and I believed (and still do) that it was the right thing to do….”
    So, just because, even against all other opinions, YOU believe in something (and have the power) you should do it????
    Because YOU believe, you have the right to send all those people (soldiers and civilians) to death????
    What’s the difference with Bin Laden a terrorist??? They believe to. So that makes them righ to do what they do???? I hope not. (and at least a suicide bomber has the guts to do it himself, not sending other soldiers.

    8. Well it happened, it’s past, lets learn from it and stop attacking Blair and others. NO, because that way, other politicians will do the same: if you’re lucky, or are part of a major power, you will not get punished any way…. You’ll even end up making a lot of money with speeches etc ….

  38. 67 Guy from California
    January 29, 2010 at 19:09

    I appreciate Mr. Blair’s willingness to testify in such a public manner. I can’t imagine our former President submitting to such! Many Americans who supported the war at the time relied more on Mr. Blairs representations that on those of our own leaders. Blair seemed far credible than Bush. Perhaps it was simply his superior eloquence. I suppose many of us now regret our own support. I’m not (yet) among those who feel intentionally misled, but I am disappointed. I hope it will be harder for future American governments to go to war….but political expediencies may just always prevail. Mr. Bush’s legacy may be heightened cynicism about government on our side of the Atlantic. I wonder what Mr. Blair’s will be.

  39. 68 abdel hamid ahmed
    January 29, 2010 at 19:13

    all that TB said is lies, the main cause of the war was that there is a weapeon of mass destruction , but all this was fake , USA went there for OIL , they are responsible for killing and destroying the life of the iraqian peolpe TB is a murder

  40. 69 John LaGrua/New York
    January 29, 2010 at 19:15

    The self appointed sheriffs ,the mindless Lone Ranger Bush and his faithful companion Tonto, Blair,will die trying to justify one of the greatest disasters in modern history..Bush a born again evangelical (can any one imagine what his first incanartion was like),and Blair a recent convert to Catholism do not seem to have any moral misgings on the horror and misery they brought to hundreds of thousands of Iraq’s by their deceit and arrogance.It is an indictment of the UK and the US that they have escaped criminal prosecution .and leaves a festering wound that can only result in more retaliatory terroist attacks .Auto de feu might produce better results than another inquiry but the more Blair evades the truth, the greater his guilt becomes evident .Bush could plead mental incompetence and emotional dysfunction but Blair has no such defense .Excessive ambition to be a big league player ,shear hubris may explain his action then and now.

  41. 70 patti in cape coral
    January 29, 2010 at 19:17

    Are these inquiries of politicians a normal part of the process of the British government, or was this an anomaly because of the unpopularity of the Iraqi invasion? I agree with Guy from California in that I can’t see Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney submitting to such an inquiry. That brings up another question, is this inquiry voluntary, or could Mr. Blair be compelled to answer these questions?

  42. 71 Bob
    January 29, 2010 at 19:34

    It is quite obvious that Tony Blair wanted to remove Saddam from power regardless of evidence, law, or polls, He had already made up his mind, arriving at that biased decision based on Saddam’s history, and ignored up to date evidence. Saddam was evil, that is not the point.There were many other alternatives to the invasion. A few months before the invasion, Saddam did everything he could do to comply with the U.N., practically allowing U.N. inspectors to look anywhere anytime, but Bush’s and Blair’s actions removed the inspectors from Iraq.

  43. 72 Frank
    January 29, 2010 at 19:38

    ‘The outside world should not ‘dictate’ what’s right or wrong’ was mentioned in the discussion.

    Well, what if the millions of citizens are also not able to have that decided for themselves?

    International right statements should have a paragraph included about whether attacking a leader is the same as attacking the people of that nation.
    If that leader is an enemy of the people of the nation, removing his tyrannic regime is helping the people.

    We should rethink some parts of international law when it in fact turns out to prevail the rights of one dictator family above the freedom of a whole nation.

    Forced regime change in North Korea would be an easy defendable case,

  44. 73 nora
    January 29, 2010 at 19:40

    No, Tony Blair has not changed my mind. He was surprised that Iran would not be alarmed by a reassertion of English and US power next door. The west armed both sides in the Iran Iraq war, playing them off against each other. He first deceived himself, and all else flows.

    The personal attacks on Lubna should not have made it past the censors. That is the only reason to have censors, is to keep jingoistic hate off the air and keep dialogue rolling. Lubna has lived through a tyrant, a couple of wars, sanctions, a saturation bombing, occupation and terrorist strife. How can you think your opinion is worth tactics of humiliation towards a sister like Lubna?

  45. 74 T
    January 29, 2010 at 19:45

    I listened with tears in my eyes and a heavy heart to the father speaking of his son lost in the war and how he felt about the proceedings today. No parent should ever have to face the terrible knowledge that their child has died for a cause which was unjustified and based on lies. I remember the days leading up to the war here in the states; I was not for it, but as it got closer I told myself I had to trust the leader of our country, that it was a grave decision not to be taken lightly. I did not vote for Bush nor even liked him, but gave him that trust as an American citizen. As it turned out we were duped, our trust taken advantage of, our sons and daughters sent to die for a lie and cowardly men’s egos. This is sadness beyond all grief and gets lost in the blame and denial of looking back. I often wonder how these so called leaders sleep at night. Maybe they believed their own lies and so, sleep soundly. I hope not.

  46. 75 Fletcher
    January 29, 2010 at 19:47

    Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bush the first were in power behind the scenes at least as far back as the Nixon administration. Bush the second was an opinionless puppet. Saddam Hussein was also a puppet, installed by power brokers in the U.S., and the minute he stopped following orders and showed a will of his own, his strings were cut. We see this again and again on the world stage as one vile dictator after another is propped up by the U.S. as long as they follow orders. Then they start to believe they can have a will of their own, and the U.S. goes to war in the name of “democracy.” Examples: Panama, Iran, Phillipines, etc.

  47. 76 dan
    January 29, 2010 at 20:00

    Ros,
    Although I am highly opinionated and biased I Loved the show today!!!!

  48. 77 J
    January 29, 2010 at 20:00

    No he has not changed my mind and the fact that he still refuses to even acknowledge that the invasion was a mistake, even through the use of hindsight, shows that he is a stubborn coward. A person who refuses to admit it when they have made a mistake is not fit to be a leader. I can’t believe this man represented the Labor party. He would be more at home working with Sarah Palin in the United States as she seems most on par with his views and his quality.

  49. 78 Robin northern california
    January 29, 2010 at 20:02

    Yes, sadly I see the military contractors dream of constant war becoming realized.
    To “loose the dogs of war” is an awesome power. To justify it as “decision-making under uncertainty” like a manager is even more frightening. I had thought Tony Blair was conned by Bush/Cheney and he may have been. But his justification suggests that only pacifists can see the folly inherent in using preemptive force.

  50. 79 Celeste
    January 29, 2010 at 20:18

    Did Tony Blair change my mind? In a word….NO. The sealing of David Kelly’s file for 70 years is a very loud confession in my mind.
    It is so easy to see through people like Bush Jr. We have an abundance of spoiled brats like him running around our country.

  51. 80 John
    January 29, 2010 at 20:31

    Hello,
    yes & no & maybe
    No, bcos the intelligence agency got it dead wrong
    Yes, bcos looking for these nukes its a never ending 10yrs of cat & mouse game
    Maybe, bcos you can’t kick the can along the road, waiting for something bad to happened before you begin to solve it, you weight the risk & your judgement
    Conclusion= its a dirty job, someone had to gamble on it.
    Tony was proven wrong, however don’t made an example out of him
    After this incident, most future leaders will play it safe, too afraid to act even if the picture becomes clearer

  52. 81 Joseph
    January 29, 2010 at 22:29

    Joseph – Malta

    Three Cheers to Tony Blair who defended his actions on the question of the Iraq War admirably. He did, on conjunction with the Americans, what the U.N should have undertaken. But the U.N is a highly bureaucratic organization and its long winded logistics renders it practically useless to carry out the role for which it was intended. We seem to have very short memories; only sixty five years ago we saw the end of the WWII and the end of a Hitler and his sadistic and oppressive regime. So by the same yardstick should we have put Sir Winston Churchill on the stand for saving us from catastrophe. Saddam was another maniac who would have been a threat to the world if left unchecked. What I can’t understand is why should we question the decisions taken by the leaders we elected and put in power. What are we trying to achieve by setting up inquiries such as that we have witnessed today? Are we telling our leaders not to take any initiative least they could prove to be unpopular among some and put to question. Frankly I think this inquiry achieved nothing. If it was intended to discredit Tony Blair, it failed miserably. I think it was quite distasteful. In hindsight a problem is quite different to that which one faces at the time of crisis as, at the time, the future cannot be foreseen, so what right have we to question the decisions taken during crisis. War undoubtedly create suffering but unfortunately on occasions it is the only solution when dealing with sadistic mad men. I don’t intend to sound callus but it is a fact of life that some jobs do carry more risk than others and the Armed Forces is one of these jobs with high risks in certain situations. But one can’t judge the correctness of a decision or otherwise by ones personal situation. This is the crude truth.

  53. 82 GTR5
    January 29, 2010 at 22:36

    T. Blair is just as guilty as George Bush. We should not have invaded Iraq but we can’t change history but lawyers like Blair will try to rewrite it.

  54. 83 Alex
    January 29, 2010 at 22:46

    How can Blair assert that the world is a safer place since the invasion of Iraq? It is absolutely not. The war has been a PR disaster that has cost thousands of lives, mostly of Iraquis.

    It is clear from Blair’s responses and assertions today that there was seriously inadequate planning for the aftermath of the invasion, which is incredible – how could he take the UK to war first,on such dubious premises and secondly, with such a limited plan for the follow-up period??

    He can never apologise because that would insinuate that he did something wrong, which he is clearly incapable of accepting.

  55. 84 T
    January 30, 2010 at 01:21

    No.

    He broke intl. law.
    He agreed with Bush II to invade almost a year before they did it.
    He knew that the evidence wasn’t solid enough to justify an invasion.
    He sent troops in ill-equipped to do the job.
    Because of his illegal and immoral action, innocent people got killed.

    If I break the law and thousands of people are killed because of that, I’ll get the death penalty. Yet, because Blair is richer and more powerful than I am, laws don’t apply to him? That’s beyond rich.

  56. 85 tanboontee
    January 30, 2010 at 03:44

    In trying to save face, Tony’s big mouth has tarnished further his once good image.

    He should not have said what he said. Nevertheless, he deserves applause for his courage to speak his mind.

  57. 86 nora
    January 30, 2010 at 03:49

    Glad Celeste brought up David Kelly. How open can government be when scrutiny is left to future generations?

  58. 87 Tom
    January 30, 2010 at 04:07

    Hi,

    Once again the people of Britain defend a tyrant, Saddam Hussein was a evil mass murder who had to be stopped… But since Britain’s wealth and prosperity comes from century’s of being the oppressive tyrant would not expect them to understand the need to get rid of one.. As an American who threw out the tyrant understand the need completely to rid the world of one…

    BBC you can not understand how you can call yourself journalists? Your program was totally biased against Blair on the war..

    Tom

  59. 88 S C Mehta
    January 30, 2010 at 06:34

    The right-minded or the peace-loving civilized world always defended the invasion of Iraq to end Saddam’s cruel exploitation and genocides. Hence, the question about any change of mind does not arise.

  60. 89 Pesi Padshah
    January 30, 2010 at 06:54

    I fully agree with Tony Blair : given the fact that Sadam was a megalomaniac monster who had misused his power before (remember Kuwait) ; given that he had secretly developed deadly chemical weapons of mass destruction which he had used on his own people ; given that, in the seven years preceding the second invasion of Iraq, Sadam’s guards had time and again thwarted UNSCOM’s efforts to search sensitive sites for those weapons, what grounds were there for believing this renegade dictator could be talked out of undertaking the quest for more advanced WMDs, to again destabilize the region and even hold the world to ransom?

  61. 90 rick
    January 30, 2010 at 07:08

    Is Tony Blair changing your mind?
    NO! Quite the opposite. He has the audacity to say he would do it all over again.
    Military action to effect regime change is illegal under international law. He knew that wouldn’t wash so they sexed up the WMD lies.
    5000+ US and British soldiers dead. 30000 wounded, many with serious disabilities. God only knows how many Iraqis dead and wounded, somewhere in the hundreds of thousands. Highly unstable governance today, some 6 years later and who knows what will happen after the final US pull out. Sectarian violence ongoing daily that was unheard of before 2003. Life there must be hell.
    This man has a strange way to measure of success. If you can’t learn anything by your mistakes you are a bloody idiot and that, I think is how history will judge him.

  62. 91 gary
    January 30, 2010 at 08:13

    i remember when Ghaddafi was the new Hitler ,then Khomeini was evil personified, we sniggered at the Soviets being suckered into their Vietnam, in ten fifteen years will China be the next threat.? What we are seeing is that our politicians are not gods but really stupid idiots. Blair needs to be ridiculed not attributed with cunning, stop paying him vast sums to lecture, what can he possibly lecture about ? He’s proved that with the best intelligence in the world he can ignore it and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, that’s gross incompetence, to believe in that kind of a decision with those consequences is delusional. Are we safer, is the world a better place ? NO.

  63. 92 Halima
    January 30, 2010 at 09:03

    Blair is a Bush clone. He voices almost word for word the Bush-Cheney – Rumsfelf logic for war, and the excuses. He is now trying, like Cheney he is now trying to push for an invasion of Iran. – Lives mean nothing to these meglomaniacs.
    He claims Iran is now the source of all evil in the Middle East and totally ignores the role of Israel and the disquiet and deep sense of injustice that feeds into the whole picture.
    I consider Blair to be a traitor.

  64. 93 MG. Ribah
    January 30, 2010 at 11:06

    whatever TONY B. can say to depend him self is selfished. i in particular im not happy wiht his action in Iraq. his action with mr. BUSH is what caused the economic crisis in the whole world. look at the present situation of Iraq today, it is pleasent?,is TONY AND BUSH happy with the present situation in Iraq?. all we expect from both of them is to apolozy to the world.though; we was not happy with Saddam’s governance, but war wasn’t the best in any circomstance.

  65. 94 Abdul Lathif
    January 30, 2010 at 13:04

    He is not very convincing, trying to get out of a tight situation. it must have been easier for him to send British troops to war than to have faced the enquiry.

    I wonder how a war-monger like him was made a Middle East quartet peace envoy?

    Why has he not taken a similar stand against Israel which has many WMDs and is killing hundreds of innocent.

  66. 95 T
    January 30, 2010 at 21:48

    I’m listening online to parts of Commission testimony from various people. And as predicted, it’s everybody’s scrambling to cover themselves.

    The Iraq War “could be argued as being legal.” Intl. law says that it’s not. Therefore, who’s lying? All the countless experts who do all the talk shows and write all the books about this (and make lots of money in the process)? Or, the govt.’s legal staff?

    As for soliders who served and are now crippled for life, what legal standing do they have? When they sign up the MOD can say, you knew that it was a risk when you signed up. Therefore, we’re not liable for any of your injuries. Translation: get an expensive attorney and see you in court.

  67. 96 Cajetan Iwunze (UK)
    January 30, 2010 at 22:49

    My answer to that question is yes because he acted according to his conscience, on what he believed to be right. He was the Prime Minister and had to take decision, which was the responsibility we gave him when we elected him into power. He owed it as a due to this country to discharge that responsibility honestly and accurately. In my opinion I think he did what he should have done, that is took decision. The decision he took might not be right for some people: I think history will prove him right.

  68. 97 andrew
    January 31, 2010 at 04:57

    blair demonstrated clearly that he is like all other politicians – a total liar. the sad thing is to watch the pm of a great nation like the uk suck up so pitifully to the us president. to watch blair suck up to bush was hideous. blair has no shame, he is a liar and a cheat. history will judge him for what he clearly was and still is – a sycophant

  69. 98 Archibald in Oregon
    January 31, 2010 at 06:31

    Tony Blair and George W. babbled their way into Iraq and now Tony is trying to Babble his way out. Dan and Jens have been given free license to babble their aggressive gibberish all over this blog, representing a tiny frothing segment of deeply disturbed westerners who actually believe that it makes sense. “ONE ON ONE indeed!!!!!”, You ridiculous, warmongering, rabble should take your massive toys home and learn to love someone for a change, starting with yourselves.

  70. 99 Hayder Atrakchi
    January 31, 2010 at 10:08

    I met him in Istanbul 2004 NATO SUMMIT and I interviewed him for 30 minutes and I asked him the Iraqis living in the middle of hell, No security No electricity no public services , what is the next step after we get rid of Saddam and his regime ? he answered we need to rebuild Iraq. I will answer him now who is building the Iraq now NO ONE now the Iraqis living in the middle of war lords

  71. January 31, 2010 at 10:26

    Dear Lubna,
    Clearly you’ve received a lot of support already bur still let me add my admiration as well. Just wonder how childish some people are who dare to confront your life experience with their “opinions”. Poor guys, I feel sorry for them.
    Anyway I want to add something: “regime change”. I wonder how you Lubna and others participant feel about this notion.
    In my view “regime change” is clearly a criminal act. It goes against every international norm and must be banned in all cases. Still we see a lot of references to “regime change” as to something supposed to be legal (Blair is no exception).
    Let me state it clear: anybody suggesting or acting for “regime change” is suggesting/acting illegally. Whatever circumstances are.
    Stalin has been the biggest murderer of modern time, about 40..60 millions USSR died in his era. And still it would be wrong to invade USSR for “regime change”. As we know his regime felt naturally. No blood, no war, no intervention – but the powerful monster gone. Now just imagine “regime change” in the USSR. Complete nonsense.
    No war has delivered any solution to any problem. Initiating war (‘war on terror” including) is a criminal act. Full stop.

    With sympathy,

    Dimitri

  72. 101 Richard
    January 31, 2010 at 15:37

    I guess I am bit late with opinion here, but anyway.

    One thing that really annoys me is the way the Western leaders and then media and people start to repeat assumptions.

    I heard Blair say Saddam has killed millions of Iraqis. Is this actually proven in any way or just a made-up repeated line. As far as I know very few bodies were ever found in so-called mass graves.

    He mentions “gassing” his own people. Just like America did in the Waco seige, by gassing women and children, plus setting the place on fire. It’s very easy to sit there and say he a bad person. There is no good and bad in world poltics there is mainly bad. America is responsible for many many deaths through its actions that it believes are justified. I am sure Saddam felt it was his right to oppress the kurds. I don’t think either are right.

    War and invasion almost never change the mentallity of the populus. It changes through time and evolution. If you want a stable middle-east you will have to show fairness and not interference. Only then will people themselves adopt a democrasy.

    By the way America is also in violation of many UN sations in relation to Cuba, shouldn’t we therefore attack the US. The US also has blocked the banning of land mines, so when people say America is doing anything for humanitarian grounds it is clearly nonsense, its only in self-interest, which is ok, but don’t come out with the moral crap.

  73. January 31, 2010 at 17:50

    He is one of them, I mean like anyother terrorist, people like, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Husain, Umar Hassan Al-Bashir, George W. Bush, Usama Bin Laden and Sharon. They caused the death of many innoccent souls to say the fact. They should answer what they did, I mean those of them who are alive. But who is going to penalise them? That is the question here. But they are all one people with thesame spirit.

  74. 103 TonyG
    January 31, 2010 at 18:40

    This exercise (the inquiry) was demanded by all sorts of people who have one aim in mind – to rewrite history as they would have wished it to be.

    As Blair reminded us, in 2002 the UN had ordered Saddam to comply and Saddam kept prevaricating. Blix kept coming back saying” I need more time”, “the scientists involved are not free to speak”. Saddam was laughing at the world. Saddam needed to be taken out or he would have kept laughing at us.

    The Iraq Survey Group has provided evidence that Saddam was planning to restart his WMD programmes as soon as the inspectors were satisfied. Bush did the world a favour and Blair’s support was for the right reason. Because Bush was right.

    The minoroity who “really “opposed the war have an honourable campaign but need to let it drop. Those just joining a political bandwaggon and applying hindsight are being dishonourable in blaming Blair for taking a decision.

  75. 104 JanB
    January 31, 2010 at 19:14

    I kinda understand his reasoning that Saddam was a murdering madman. In fact from what I’ve read and seen about his childhood, his “career”, his policies and his interviews, I’m convinced he was pretty much as close to being the personification of evil as a human being can possibly be. I cannot think of one positive spark in his character at all (at least Hitler cared for the environment). Saddam’s fall and death cannot possible be called a bad thing. It’s too easy to think about the victims of the Iraqi civil war (2003-2009) without remembering that even more innocent people would have died in the same timeframe had Saddam or one of his sons been in power. It’s also too easy to remember that no matter how many mistakes they made, the Americans and British were not the ones blowing civilians up by the hundreds, the Iraqi’s did that themselves (with a little help from Al-Qaida and Iran). Despite the mythical descriptions people tend to provide of pre-2003 Iraq, it was a hell on Earth (with thousands of people “disappearing” each year), especially if you were a Kurd or Shiite (the vast majority) and before you judge the war, I’d advise you ask some Iraqi’s you know whether they’d rather change history and have Saddam back or not.

    Massive criminal neglect is the only “war crime” Bush Jr. and Blair are guilty of: they allowed the conflict to be dragged out into an 8 year occupation that cost many thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.

  76. 105 Ronald Almeida
    February 1, 2010 at 03:55

    Tony Blair is just wasting his and others time, having nothing better to do.

  77. 106 Katie
    February 1, 2010 at 05:08

    First let me start by saying that I am a college student from the United States and I have not been following the inquiry. With that being said today I listened to Friday’s News Hour which was primarily coverage of the inquiry. To say I am disgusted and appalled would be an understatement. I don’t think that the people of Britain truly understand the implications of 9/11, or for that matter how horribly devastating it was to be a citizen of a country under attack and see fellow citizens jumping to their deaths. To watch as the Twin Towers fell killing thousands. I don’t think they can possibly imagine the devastation, the unity of a wounded country, the eerie feeling of walking through New York City with a forever changed skyline, or the grief felt when watching as a father and brother painstakingly search mountains of rubble for the remains of a loved one who moments before was only steps behind them when the towers collapsed. A firefighter, a hero who did not have to be in that building that day. I say this because until you have seen that, witnessed that, gone through what the United States was forced to endure that day and the days that followed, maybe you can never understand the necessity of the wars that followed. The war that was waged on terrorism was indeed devastating, however it was just as much healing, and offensive in hopes of protecting all our great nations. From where I stand all I can see is a man so devoted to his country that he wished never to put them through that. A man clearly loyal, and a friend to those in need. Is that not the point of being on this Earth, to help our fellow man when they are down. To those who judge Prime Minister Blair you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves, for he alone had the countries interests at heart. I too have lost loved ones in this war, but imagine those who may have been lost if Sadaam was not stopped, if Allies had not rushed to the aid of a fallen United States. For he would not have stopped with America, and when he did attack Britain, which he would have, there would have been no one left to rush to Her aid. Ask yourselves this, do we wish for a repeat of the Holocaust genocide? I applaud Tony Blair’s efforts in using his position of power to see to it that that horrible persecution never happens again, and hope that others do as well.

  78. 107 piscator
    February 1, 2010 at 12:08

    Katie,

    ‘war that was waged on terrorism was indeed devastating, however it was just as much healing,’

    Don’t you think the rest of the World saw the same TV coverage and felt the same emotions?

    I appreciate that some US citizens often overreact to problems Europeans take in their stride, but your statement I have quoted really is rather frightening and extreme.

    Because a terrible atrocity happened in the USA you seem to expect that people in the UK should run off and get shot. Also that tens of thousands of people whose only connection with 9/11 is their skin colour and religion should be killed. The only reason being for the ‘healing’ of the hurts of millions of Americans. Americans who were not directly afected by the tragedy, and whose hurt is only in their minds, and whipped up by their politicians. That is not ‘waging a war’, that is blind retribution. That is what the Enquiry is all about – whether politicians should be allowed to justify the slaughter of anybody they like, just to get their own back on people they cannot catch, or are already dead.

  79. 108 Ibrahim in UK
    February 1, 2010 at 12:31

    Not really. He is preaching to the those who are desparately want to believe that the war had humanitarian and moral motives.
    The war on terror has proven to be a sham, the war on Iraq was planned before 9/11 and it was about the oil.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
    (surprise surprise, a new law was rushed through to privatise Iraqi oilfields)

    This is the same US that supported Saddam while he was killing his own people and gassing the Kurds (and the US even tried to blame Iran for it), the same US that supported Saddam as he was chemically bombing Iranian civilians, the same US that thought that killing half a million Iraqi children was a “price worth paying” (how many twin towers would you need to house half a million children), the same US that pays billions of taxpayer dollars to dictators in Egypt and Jordan; but in the case of the Iraq war, we are asked to forget all history, forget all present, ignore all the above and believe that the US was acting because they hate dictators and they want to save the Iraqi people. That is a miracle that not even Blair can convince us of.

  80. 109 Luci Smith
    February 1, 2010 at 14:36

    I liked Claire Short’s comment that Tony Blair’s testimony was ludicrous.
    It will take more than an afternoon of stellar acting to change my aversion to War. Pardon my cynicism.

  81. 110 Jaime Saldarriaga
    February 1, 2010 at 15:31

    In my opinion those who believe the solution to change is war are wrong. Jesus and other leaders said that a long time ago.

  82. 111 loudobservant
    February 1, 2010 at 20:34

    In reply to John,I ask him: what legal and legitimate proof or evidence do you have to qualify to say all future leaders will play it safe.; and,was it safe to go to war and create millions upon millions of innocent widows,orphans and refuges,internal and external than to kick the bucket of those intelligent reports provider?Come on, talk some sense,and,you will, if you NOW go to Iraq and Afghanistan and see it for yourself with your naked eyes,I assure you they will fall out of your eyeball sockets and will bleed endlessly.

  83. 112 loudobservant
    February 2, 2010 at 09:25

    I am just rebuffing to a few filthy trashes right now.Firstly: Congrats to Majid from Iran and Tara Ballance,of Montreal,Canada:well done for calling a spade a spade.
    Mr.T. TXS for exposing the worthlessness of intelligence services who are nothing but puppets of terrorists and war-mongers like Bush,Blair and others.
    Sylvester Christian London reside in USA: yours is an excellent & factual expose’ and argument.Well done.Bush is hiding his face from the world in shame and disgrace.
    Now,Gary Paudler: You are only counting your bros. and sis’s who were killed or wounded in unjust cause.Do you know how many millions of innocent Iraqis were killed and maimed? How many left the country as refugees and how many are homeless and living in UN tents,inside and outside Iraq? Come on !! Talk some sense and wake up to reality


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: