Tony Blair apologises for Iraq War mistakes

[SheungWan]

And the sooner Tony Bliar and his cronies go on trial for war crimes the better.

Now due to their unwarranted actions the world and its peoples are experiencing the current mayhem and violence in the region concerned as well as an invasion of ''refugee's '' into Europe as other nations conduct their proxy wars on other nations ground.

Reminiscent of the Spanish Civil war rehearsal that lead to a full blown subsequent world war.

Bliar, Bush and their obnoxious cronies have much to answer for.

No comparison with the Spanish Civil War whatsoever.

[boomerangutang]

Interesting that most posters on this topic have the situation figured out in tidy black and white categories. Bush and Blair were 100% wrong, so let's string 'em up. I'm not a Bush supporter, but situations in the M.East are rarely so clear cut. With few exception, the problems there are either very bad or horrible at any given time.

There were many grave problems in Iraq before the US and allies invaded under Bush II. Here's one of thousands: Saddam's son (Q'say, the tall one) had a secret agreement with a woman school principle in Baghdad: One to 3 times a week he would contact her. She would quietly get one of the very young girls (10, 11 or 12 yrs) to leave class and go meet a man in a shiny black limousine. I'll let readers imagine what happened for the next hour. Iraq also had a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait during the years leading up to the two US invasions. One can say Iraqi peoples' problems (and their neighbors' problems) are not US's problems. Ok, but there's the other side of the argument: if the Iraqi people were so abused, should an outside force come in to overthrow the oppressors? It's food for thought. Suffice to say, a majority of Iraqis were genuinely glad the US came in to kick Saddam out of power. They were glad at the time, but then the ensuing years required they put a decent gov't together - which they couldn't do.

Is not one of the big underlyng problems in the middle east, Africa etc the 'artificial' boundaries that were drawn up by various colonial governments during the 18/19 century?.

Look at any map and you will see straight line borders measuring hundreds of miles. These take no account of historical 'tribal' divisions.

The countries you're referring to would have problems and border disputes no matter who drew the border lines. They always have had disputes and will .....until pigs fly on dragon fly wings.

[FangFerang]

Apologizes. APOLOGIZES for helping kill more civilians with conventional weapons since Dresden? The online media has proof that he and Bush colluded to sell the Iraq war to the public. And he says ""I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," he told CNN."

He didn't even admit he was wrong. HE BLAMED IT ON THE INTELLIGENCE.

HYPOCRITE.

He and Bush should both be hanged as war criminals, along with Cheney and everyone who started this propaganda campaign that killed women, children and dogs (and cute little kitties).. And they created ISIL/ISIS...whatever the devil they call themselves this week.

I sincerely apologize that America dragged Great Britain into this mess. Like your leaders, our leaders are liars. These black hearts are war pigs. they and all their frinds need to be destroyed...at the ballot box.

[FangFerang]

I always liked Blair and appreciate his frankness in the recent interview.

Most posts on this thread will throw burning spears at him. So it goes.

Perhaps one mistake he made, besides believing CIA memos prior to the Iraq II, was assuming the Iraqis could form a government and police/army after the war. Maybe he's learned that you (a person in power) can't overestimate the screwed up ways controlling men in the M.East think. To even get to power positions, they must be mafia-like thugs - and it gets worse from there.

We, in the west, often assume that: once we lay the ground-work for a democratic / decent society, and plow in billions of dollars, that things will resolve to a relatively decent level. We should know by now, that just can't happen in the Middle East. Except for maybe Jordan and Israel, the type of men who rise to the top in the Middle East power structures, make mafia dons look like singing nuns.

Your nose is so brown you will never get it clean. Blair was proven to plan the whole thing way ahead of time, knowing fully well what would happen.

Shame on you and your obfuscations.

[FangFerang]

I always liked Blair and appreciate his frankness in the recent interview.

Most posts on this thread will throw burning spears at him. So it goes.

Perhaps one mistake he made, besides believing CIA memos prior to the Iraq II, was assuming the Iraqis could form a government and police/army after the war. Maybe he's learned that you (a person in power) can't overestimate the screwed up ways controlling men in the M.East think. To even get to power positions, they must be mafia-like thugs - and it gets worse from there.

We, in the west, often assume that: once we lay the ground-work for a democratic / decent society, and plow in billions of dollars, that things will resolve to a relatively decent level. We should know by now, that just can't happen in the Middle East. Except for maybe Jordan and Israel, the type of men who rise to the top in the Middle East power structures, make mafia dons look like singing nuns.

you are joking (aren't you???) ... a democratic system - like America, the UK, Canada and Australia (to name some of the coalition of the willing) - that arrange and take part in the illegal war in the first place?

Canada did NOT join the coalition, get your facts straight!!!

Yes they sent people...get YOUR facts straight. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-says-ndp-would-pull-canadian-troops-from-iraq-mission/article23575856/

[FangFerang]

Interesting that most posters on this topic have the situation figured out in tidy black and white categories. Bush and Blair were 100% wrong, so let's string 'em up. I'm not a Bush supporter, but situations in the M.East are rarely so clear cut. With few exception, the problems there are either very bad or horrible at any given time.

There were many grave problems in Iraq before the US and allies invaded under Bush II. Here's one of thousands: Saddam's son (Q'say, the tall one) had a secret agreement with a woman school principle in Baghdad: One to 3 times a week he would contact her. She would quietly get one of the very young girls (10, 11 or 12 yrs) to leave class and go meet a man in a shiny black limousine. I'll let readers imagine what happened for the next hour. Iraq also had a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait during the years leading up to the two US invasions. One can say Iraqi peoples' problems (and their neighbors' problems) are not US's problems. Ok, but there's the other side of the argument: if the Iraqi people were so abused, should an outside force come in to overthrow the oppressors? It's food for thought. Suffice to say, a majority of Iraqis were genuinely glad the US came in to kick Saddam out of power. They were glad at the time, but then the ensuing years required they put a decent gov't together - which they couldn't do.

Is not one of the big underlyng problems in the middle east, Africa etc the 'artificial' boundaries that were drawn up by various colonial governments during the 18/19 century?.

Look at any map and you will see straight line borders measuring hundreds of miles. These take no account of historical 'tribal' divisions.

The countries you're referring to would have problems and border disputes no matter who drew the border lines. They always have had disputes and will .....until pigs fly on dragon fly wings.

You are trying to blunt the sharp edge of truth with distractions. You, sir, are a spin doctor, nothing more. And it wasn't Bush II, it was George W, the Butcher. And it was slaughter, the slaughter of more civilians with conventional weapons than Dresden. And it was hideous. And it was a crime against humanity. And it was based on a lie. And it was a Republican failure supreme. And it was criminal. And we are never going to forget ANY OF THAT.

Go back listening to Rush Windbag and watching Faux News to salve your conscience. I am sure they will give you all the right arguments to misuse.

I AM NOT BUYING IT AT ALL.

[chilli42]

It's curious. America was hoodwinked into that war so badly that not even the press or congress questioned whether it was the right thing to do. What I can't figure out is how the UK got played for fools. Nobody anywhere believes the CIA, not even the man in the street so that can not explain things ... Tony Blair was no fool. The UK intelligence service must have had their own independent view. I can understand how the American public was fooled. I don't understand the UK, they had their own independent advisors, they are not beholding to the US companies or Israel's agenda. Nobody will ever know I guess.

[bangon04]

During the interview, Blair did pose the obvious question -

Iraq - full invasion and restructuring and look at the mess it is in now

Libya - aerial intervention and no invasion - and look at the mess it is in now

Syria - no intervention just empty rhetoric - and look at the mess it is in now

so which was the right way?

(best not to mention Afghanistan at all)

[Scott]

A post with an aberrant spelling of a politician's name has been removed.

[NongKhaiKid]

A post with an aberrant spelling of a politician's name has been removed.

An apology from Tony Blair absolutely reeks of insincerity.

IF anything could be even more insincere it would be an apology from Alastair Campbell

[boomerangutang]

Interesting that most posters on this topic have the situation figured out in tidy black and white categories. Bush and Blair were 100% wrong, so let's string 'em up. I'm not a Bush supporter, but situations in the M.East are rarely so clear cut. With few exception, the problems there are either very bad or horrible at any given time.

There were many grave problems in Iraq before the US and allies invaded under Bush II. Here's one of thousands: Saddam's son (Q'say, the tall one) had a secret agreement with a woman school principle in Baghdad: One to 3 times a week he would contact her. She would quietly get one of the very young girls (10, 11 or 12 yrs) to leave class and go meet a man in a shiny black limousine. I'll let readers imagine what happened for the next hour. Iraq also had a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait during the years leading up to the two US invasions. One can say Iraqi peoples' problems (and their neighbors' problems) are not US's problems. Ok, but there's the other side of the argument: if the Iraqi people were so abused, should an outside force come in to overthrow the oppressors? It's food for thought. Suffice to say, a majority of Iraqis were genuinely glad the US came in to kick Saddam out of power. They were glad at the time, but then the ensuing years required they put a decent gov't together - which they couldn't do.

Is not one of the big underlyng problems in the middle east, Africa etc the 'artificial' boundaries that were drawn up by various colonial governments during the 18/19 century?.

Look at any map and you will see straight line borders measuring hundreds of miles. These take no account of historical 'tribal' divisions.

The countries you're referring to would have problems and border disputes no matter who drew the border lines. They always have had disputes and will .....until pigs fly on dragon fly wings.

You are trying to blunt the sharp edge of truth with distractions. You, sir, are a spin doctor, nothing more. And it wasn't Bush II, it was George W, the Butcher. And it was slaughter, the slaughter of more civilians with conventional weapons than Dresden. And it was hideous. And it was a crime against humanity. And it was based on a lie. And it was a Republican failure supreme. And it was criminal. And we are never going to forget ANY OF THAT.

Go back listening to Rush Windbag and watching Faux News to salve your conscience. I am sure they will give you all the right arguments to misuse.

I AM NOT BUYING IT AT ALL.

Take a deep breath and do some deep knee bends. I'm not trying to sell you anything. Here, try this: if you were an Iraqi with two pretty daughters, aged 9 and 11. And one after the other, they came home with their vaginas torn up and bleeding. You ask them, in horror, "what happened!" They just cry non-stop and say, "I can't tell you." That's just a microcosm of what went on in Iraq before the invasion. There were also whole villages chemical bombed and young boys sent off to war as cannon fodder. I'm not saying any of that justifies the US going in there with guns drawn, but it does thicken the plot. Iraq would be screwed-up regardless. When I say Bush II, I'm referring to W. II is a roman numeral for 2.

It's curious. America was hoodwinked into that war so badly that not even the press or congress questioned whether it was the right thing to do. What I can't figure out is how the UK got played for fools. Nobody anywhere believes the CIA, not even the man in the street so that can not explain things ... Tony Blair was no fool. The UK intelligence service must have had their own independent view. I can understand how the American public was fooled. I don't understand the UK, they had their own independent advisors, they are not beholding to the US companies or Israel's agenda. Nobody will ever know I guess.

I think both the CIA and Britain's equivalent (M6?) were out to lunch. I doubt any had agents on the ground, infiltrating. They relied too much on satellites and the guy who hated Saddam for their 'intelligence.'

Note, several decades earlier, Britain had taken their military into Iraq (then known as Mesopotamia). Look it up.

[MisterTee]

Why is he apologizing?

Blair was Bush's poodle.

It wasn't Blair that wanted the war - it was the Bush Gang and the Zi-cons.

Poodles should never have to apologize.

[NongKhaiKid]

Interesting that most posters on this topic have the situation figured out in tidy black and white categories. Bush and Blair were 100% wrong, so let's string 'em up. I'm not a Bush supporter, but situations in the M.East are rarely so clear cut. With few exception, the problems there are either very bad or horrible at any given time.

There were many grave problems in Iraq before the US and allies invaded under Bush II. Here's one of thousands: Saddam's son (Q'say, the tall one) had a secret agreement with a woman school principle in Baghdad: One to 3 times a week he would contact her. She would quietly get one of the very young girls (10, 11 or 12 yrs) to leave class and go meet a man in a shiny black limousine. I'll let readers imagine what happened for the next hour. Iraq also had a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait during the years leading up to the two US invasions. One can say Iraqi peoples' problems (and their neighbors' problems) are not US's problems. Ok, but there's the other side of the argument: if the Iraqi people were so abused, should an outside force come in to overthrow the oppressors? It's food for thought. Suffice to say, a majority of Iraqis were genuinely glad the US came in to kick Saddam out of power. They were glad at the time, but then the ensuing years required they put a decent gov't together - which they couldn't do.

Is not one of the big underlyng problems in the middle east, Africa etc the 'artificial' boundaries that were drawn up by various colonial governments during the 18/19 century?.

Look at any map and you will see straight line borders measuring hundreds of miles. These take no account of historical 'tribal' divisions.

The countries you're referring to would have problems and border disputes no matter who drew the border lines. They always have had disputes and will .....until pigs fly on dragon fly wings.

You are trying to blunt the sharp edge of truth with distractions. You, sir, are a spin doctor, nothing more. And it wasn't Bush II, it was George W, the Butcher. And it was slaughter, the slaughter of more civilians with conventional weapons than Dresden. And it was hideous. And it was a crime against humanity. And it was based on a lie. And it was a Republican failure supreme. And it was criminal. And we are never going to forget ANY OF THAT.

Go back listening to Rush Windbag and watching Faux News to salve your conscience. I am sure they will give you all the right arguments to misuse.

I AM NOT BUYING IT AT ALL.

Take a deep breath and do some deep knee bends. I'm not trying to sell you anything. Here, try this: if you were an Iraqi with two pretty daughters, aged 9 and 11. And one after the other, they came home with their vaginas torn up and bleeding. You ask them, in horror, "what happened!" They just cry non-stop and say, "I can't tell you." That's just a microcosm of what went on in Iraq before the invasion. There were also whole villages chemical bombed and young boys sent off to war as cannon fodder. I'm not saying any of that justifies the US going in there with guns drawn, but it does thicken the plot. Iraq would be screwed-up regardless. When I say Bush II, I'm referring to W. II is a roman numeral for 2.

It's curious. America was hoodwinked into that war so badly that not even the press or congress questioned whether it was the right thing to do. What I can't figure out is how the UK got played for fools. Nobody anywhere believes the CIA, not even the man in the street so that can not explain things ... Tony Blair was no fool. The UK intelligence service must have had their own independent view. I can understand how the American public was fooled. I don't understand the UK, they had their own independent advisors, they are not beholding to the US companies or Israel's agenda. Nobody will ever know I guess.

I think both the CIA and Britain's equivalent (M6?) were out to lunch. I doubt any had agents on the ground, infiltrating. They relied too much on satellites and the guy who hated Saddam for their 'intelligence.'

Note, several decades earlier, Britain had taken their military into Iraq (then known as Mesopotamia). Look it up.

Intrigue all round it seems. Wasn't it reported that Cheyney visited the CIA 17-19 times before war was declared and the claim was he went to ensure the intelligence produced was what was wanted to justify action.

Goings on in London too suggesting MI6's analysis reports were massaged to suit. Didn't a government analyst committ suicide for less than clear reasons ?

[puukao]

i bought a company, fired all 10,000 employees, hired chinese workers, made a billion dollars....and this was over a decade ago.

yea, today i woke up and said, "i feel bad."

ok, off to my yacht..

[happy Joe]

In France at that time the leaders said loud and clear that the mitif "WMD" was pure invention of opportunistic Adminisration Bush. This opinion was confirmed by D. de Villepin in a resounding speech at the UN

I am sure also that Blair knew but as a good ally chose war for obscure strategic and economic reasons.

And I think its current excuses are also motivated by the same obscure goals. Maybe stop the rise of Jeb...