Revisiting why Blair was right, in the light of the NK crisis.

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Let’s recall some of Blair’s speeches:


Blair Speaking in Chicago in 1999 - The Blair Doctrine | PBS NewsHour

“… One of the reasons why it is now so important to win the conflict is to ensure that others do not make the same mistake in the future. That in itself will be a major step to ensuring that the next decade and the next century will not be as difficult as the past. If NATO fails in Kosovo, the next dictator to be threatened with military force may well not believe our resolve to carry the threat through…


Blair Speaking in September 2002 - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/sep/24/foreignpolicy.houseofcommons

There will be others who say, rightly, that, for example, on present going, it could be several years before he acquires a usable nuclear weapon. Though, if he were able to purchase fissile materiel illegally, it would only be a year or two.

But let me put it at its simplest: on this 11 year history; with this man, Saddam; with this accumulated, detailed intelligence available; with what we know and what we can reasonably speculate: would the world be wise to leave the present situation undisturbed; to say, despite 14 separate UN demands on this issue, all of which Saddam is in breach of, we should do nothing; to conclude that we should trust not to the good faith of the UN weapons inspectors but to the good faith of the current Iraqi regime?

Our case is simply this: not that we take military action, come what may; but that the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament (as the UN has stipulated) is overwhelming. I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and he has rejected.

People say: but why Saddam? I don't in the least dispute there are other causes of concern on WMD. I said as much in this House on 14 September last year. But two things about Saddam stand out. He has used these weapons, thousands dying in chemical weapons attacks in Iraq itself. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war, started by him, in which one million people died. And his is a regime with no moderate elements to appeal to. Read the chapter on Saddam and human rights. Read not just about the one million dead in the war with Iran, not just about the 100,000 Kurds brutally murdered in northern Iraq; not just the 200,000 Shia Muslims driven from the marshlands in southern Iraq; not just the attempt to subjugate and brutalise the Kuwaitis in 1990 which led to the Gulf War. Read about the routine butchering of political opponents; the prison "cleansing" regimes in which thousands die; the torture chambers and hideous penalties supervised by him and his family and detailed by Amnesty International. Read it all and again I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.


Blair speaking at Parliament debate, March 18 2003 - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq1

"… And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.

Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You've waited 12 years.Why not wait a little longer?…

… To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.

I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.

But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon…”

And,

"… Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.

I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.


I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing…

… Faced with it, the world should unite.
 The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.

To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.

I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction..”​
 


roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
As a footnote, it might be as well to briefly say that where I personally think Blair went wrong, was in his idealistic and ill-fated attempt to gain a “democratic” consensus for what needed doing, from 1999 up to when they went into Iraq.

There is no constitutional requirement for the UK government to seek any explicit form of Parliamentary approval before committing British forces to military action. The Royal Prerogative permits the government, in the Sovereign's name, to give the order to begin military action.

Before or after the start of previous wars, there had normally been debate in Parliament; however with Iraq, for the first time a vote was held, apparently allowing Parliament to block the declaration of war, even though it was, "purely symbolic" and "not binding on the government."

Not only did Blair give Saddam years advance warning of their intentions, allowing him to destroy the evidence of WMD, but eventually subversive forces prevailed in ensuring that democratic consent in the West did not come about at all, so that they were unable to engage fully with the source of the Shia factions and proxies that arose in Iraq to exploit the vacuums and instabilities created - such as Muqtada al-Sadr, the shi'a death squads, the Mahdi Army, the Badr militia, the mass murdering monster Abu Deraa ('the Shia Zarqawi'), and more.
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,081
Blair is a warmongering scumbag who should be standing in the dock at the Hague charged with war crimes.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,280
the west used up a lot of capital with their crappy concept of nation building (ie enriching western corporations) against countries that werent a legitimate threat to the west. NK is the first occasion where removing the regime would be the right thing to do.
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,812
Blair is a warmongering scumbag who should be standing in the dock at the Hague charged with war crimes.
best ignored , roc is almost as discredited a force as the trump administration or the Israeli right/nazis he is paid to troll for
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,081
Blair will forever be remembered for the disaster which was the Iraq war, and for lying to the british public about Saddam having WMD, to try to justify an invasion.
 
Last edited:

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
"Not only did Blair give Saddam years advance warning of their intentions, allowing him to destroy the evidence of WMD..."

Is there a link proving that Hussein built up WMD, did not use them and then destroyed evidence of its existence?
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
North Korea sees nuclear missiles as vital to protect itself exactly because of what happened to Iraq, Syria and Libya.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Is there a link proving that Hussein built up WMD, did not use them and then destroyed evidence of its existence?
1. Iraq repeatedly obstructed UN weapons inspectors - from when in 1992 they admitted they had previously undeclared WMD but had destroyed them, they again and again gave the Unscom weapons inspection team the runaround, repeatedly making false statements, admitting they were false, halting all cooperation at all, then resuming their games, and so on. This went on right up to 2003.

2. When Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan in late 1995, he disclosed both a biological weapons programme and said Iraq had weaponised their nuclear activities (something Saddam had always strenuously denied) and he gave clear details about their crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.

3. In November 1995 components for missiles designed for use in WMD were intercepted on their way to Iraq​


Or, here are Blair's own words, all of which claims the record attests clearly to:


"... In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.

Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.

The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.

The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.

In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.

Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.

Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.

In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.

In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.

In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.

Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.

In August, cooperation was suspended.

In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.

The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.

In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.

So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.

What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.

Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.

When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.

We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.

1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.

I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.

On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...

"Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.

"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.

What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.

But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.

We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.

But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?

We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.

The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.

So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position..."
 

nakatomi

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,709
The lesson for Korea is " if you don't have WMDs you will be invaded"

Iraq gave them up
Libya gave them up

Korea will not be attacked.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
The lesson for Korea is " if you don't have WMDs you will be invaded"

Iraq gave them up
Libya gave them up

Korea will not be attacked.
Korea might be attacked. The reason is the US is worried about the day when Korea can bomb LA. When that become possible, NK will have real negotiation power and the US will have to listen. Its logical for them to attack now to prevent that happening. The downside is a few months without computer monitors (South Korea makes 40% of the world output). Oh, and millions of dead non-Americans.
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
46,739
The old political axiom was that a political leader should have personal experience of warfare.

This axiom was predicated on the basis that having experienced personally the effect of warfare a country's political leader might be more reluctant to engage his fellow citizens and countrymen, unless he/she really did have to declare war.

The Iraq war was predicated upon a lie.
 

Tawdy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
4,467
Auld ROC there seems to think his " OPINION " that he has been given, to cut and paste on here, has some weight.
Ye get more fúckin foolish by the day ROC !
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Korea might be attacked. The reason is the US is worried about the day when Korea can bomb LA. When that become possible, NK will have real negotiation power and the US will have to listen. Its logical for them to attack now to prevent that happening. The downside is a few months without computer monitors (South Korea makes 40% of the world output). Oh, and millions of dead non-Americans.
The problem is that the North Koreans already appear to have crossed that threshold - and even if they didn't the United States would require buy-in from both South Korea and Japan (who are most certainly within North Korean range) for operations to be truly effective and to ensure that the entire American security structure in North-east Asia doesn't collapse in the aftermath of an attack (and inevitable counterattack) without South Korean and Japanese buy-in.
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,812
Auld ROC there seems to think his " OPINION " that he has been given, to cut and paste on here, has some weight.
Ye get more fúckin foolish by the day ROC !
yes he does , mind you if he continues along these lines he may well be in the running for POS , he has all the credentials of the current incumbent .
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,812
Korea might be attacked. The reason is the US is worried about the day when Korea can bomb LA. When that become possible, NK will have real negotiation power and the US will have to listen. Its logical for them to attack now to prevent that happening. The downside is a few months without computer monitors (South Korea makes 40% of the world output). Oh, and millions of dead non-Americans.
hopefully the people of s Korea and the rest of Asia wise up to what their "friend" the US has in mind for them , it is also a warning for Europe , time to disband NATO and send the Americans home , they are the real enemy .
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Auld ROC there seems to think his " OPINION " that he has been given, to cut and paste on here, has some weight.
Ye get more fúckin foolish by the day ROC !
Ye must be aghast. Imagine - someone having the gall to go and look up what Blair actually said, what's on the record, to understand his position from what he actually said, rather than just take on faith the demonising self-righteous sacred shibboleths favoured by the illiterati around here. And then cutting and pasting extracts of what he actually said, to make a point! Who do I think I am. :roll:
 
Last edited:

ruman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
3,250
The US and UK cant win. When they topple these vile dictators they are vilified and when they don't they are abused for allowing genocide to take place.

Michael D's eulogy to Castro sums up the mentality of the people we are dealing with.

There's almost no countries where minorities are better treated then in the US/UK yet these loons constantly protest against them while turning a blind eye to the likes of Castro, China , Putin etc.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Revisiting why Blair was right, in the light of the NK crisis.

nah - Blair was wrong.

N Korea is right, in following the example set by Israel.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top