Pretty much exactly how I see it.

The man is despicable. Did well in Kosovo and was on a mission to be a hero again no matter what.

I seem to remember me and 999,999 others marching through London trying to 'Stop the War' before it had even began and with good reasons yet our thoughts really didn't concern him. Nothing did.

Edited by Kermit8 (06 Jul 2016 11.16pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Indeed they did

Attachment: CmrVPakWIAEbOmw.jpg (13.25Kb)

Iain Duncan Smith & David Cameron available for comment today? Duncan Smith as Leader of Opposition at the time was crucial by way of HIS party's vote to endorse military action based upon same intelligence information received by Blair & Kennedy.

I don't think you can really put a price on establishing the truth in print, in black and white. Whether anything happens, we as a nation know for a fact now what transpired, and must endeavour to remember that for the future.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Given the situation at the time, of UN sanctions and inspections, I think it would be erroneous to say that inaction was in place. Effectively the threat of Iraq to the rest of the world was contained, and its capacity to influence or change that retarded to the point of insignificance.

True, but then we can only judge based on what we know and knew, and the rise of IS can be tied directly to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and was formed out of the imprisonment of Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Given the dominance of the Sunni under Saddam, its unlikely that the organisation would have had much support in Iraq, and the alliance between Syria and Iraq, would likely have led to it being stamped out in the Syrian civil war.

I think there is sufficient information in the fact they'd decided on a military resolution long in advance of the war (as far back as 2001 it seems). The UK, and US, declared themselves above their own rules and laws, and despite being part of the UN security council, went against its decision and were not only wrong, but had selective ignored evidence that did not fit their case for war.

Agendas which they were part of. Its not a case that Blair did not see or know of evidence to the contrary but that it was discarded and dismissed, to define a case for war - and was not only wrong but clearly not the only story being presented - and at least one dissenter was 'hounded' to suicide for speaking out.

Basically, the man was part of that agenda, and should pay the price for those decisions, that cost so many lives.

For the US and UK, Iraq was a golden opportunity to pump revenue funds into private companies on a scale unseen before.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I can't really argue with any of that other than to say that we do have the benefit of hindsight.
True, much of what has happened could have and was predicted and it seems clear that Bush in particular was determined for what ever reason to remove Saddam no matter what the consequences or with a lack of foresight to truly understand them.
Blair, I suspect, felt obliged to support Bush for broader purposes. He might well have been deluded or driven by a sense of destiny but one can only speculate.