General Chat

Hello Moonchild, of course I could be wrong about the reason Schwartzkopf did not go into Baghdad.
As one of mature years who remembers that war, the funniest thing in hindsight is the success (not) of the much vaunted Patriot missile. I think in the final analysis the number of Iraqi missiles downed by Patriot missiles was a round 0. And I don't think I'm wrong about that, despite the claims of the US military at the time.

Thanks Sydneybloke for clearing it up.....I couldn't think why, when Stormin Norman was on the road to Baghdad, he was halted.......so, Bush Snr. paid heed to the U.N. at that time.......it shows how times change because they all rode roughshod over U.N. opinions this time.....

After all that, it looks to me that the reason he went to war was the same as Bush the Less's li'l dep'ty sheriff down under. To impress Uncle Sam.
As for Bush the First and Stormin' Norman wanting to finish of Saddam in 199- whenever it was, that would have meant going beyond their UN mandate.
In 2003 all the neocons running Bush the Less wanted to neuter the UN once and for all.

Well done Muffy.

Mind you, a lot wasn't said simply because the panel had all the speeches, minutes, interviews and so on anyway, they know what was said...

It might not all have made perfect sense to us,but they did say at the beginning they were not going to go through in detail all of the speeches etc they would be referring to.

Yes, it was much the same as you said TW......and these have been my views all the way along...... from the beginning my first thoughts were.....what has Iraq to do with finding Osama.......they did try for a link, but that was quickly put aside.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSieUhqIR6k

Yes it was.......though I can't find the question that he was asked..............yet.xx

***blimey just reading Robin Cooks resignation speech. Explosive stuff.xx

Something like that, but I'm sure it was used in PM's question time....

Now unless I misunderstood it ......wasn't his defence about the 45 min issue that it was misconstrued by the press and he didn't pick them up on it when in hindsight he maybe possibly should've? xx

much the same as I said at the beginning of this thread Sally.

It was said during the day that the cabinet were not interested in the legalities of it all. The panel said perhaps they should have been. hmmm

He was asked about the link between Saddam and AlQueda...he never answered that clearly, and they never pushed it, which I think they should have.

I was against the Iraq war and said so at the time, the only thing that changed my view was the 45 minute readiness argument stressed by Blair and co.....

Why was I against it........because I could not see how they brought Saddam Hussain into the 'going for Al Quaeda' argument.....it was well known that Al Quaeda were working out of Afghanistan and Pakistan borders, with factions in Saudi, Yemen and Somalia.......so to me, the only reason for going for Saddam, was an excuse.....

Margaret Thatcher and Stormin Norman wanted to go the whole hog and finish him off during the first Iraqui war, by George Bush senior thought it was a step too far......a decision I think he came to regret later.......and his son wanted to finish the job off.....plus Iraq had oilfields......

The argument that Saddam had WMDs falls flat when you think that dictatorships like Iran and N. Korea also have the nuclear deterrant......far ahead of anything Saddam had.....

I won't go on.....its only my point of view.....

OMG Paxman would have torn him apart.

I noticed, when the panel did probe slightly, he started to get flustered. But they didn't do it enough...and they should have. We may have had some different answers to those we've heard over and over for the last seven years.

He should be awarded.................an Oscar!

Also think Jeremy Paxman would have been an asset on the panel.........and perhaps the parents of the loved ones killed!

Ohh and Gordon Brown will be questionned in late Feb.

A lot of it was about preparation for war and the aftermath tbh.

The panel, it was pointed out on the news, are not professional questionners, and although they did raise the right questions, they did fail to probe some of the points Blair made.

They will look at all the answers provided once this hearing is over. They have already said they will be having another hearing later in the year, in which the people being interviewed here, may be recalled. I have a feeling that will be the time that Blair will be probed...because I'm sure he will be one of the people they will call back.

I dont' think any conclusions can be drawn from what was said today, other than that Blair was told by the Attorney General at the time that accoding to the UN resolution 1441, invasin would not be illegal, although he says different this week.

He's answered a lot of the questions very cleverly there is no doubt about that..but then again he always did !!!...but I just felt the panel failed to pull him up on some of his side stepping.....tbh my mind sort of wandered once the afternoon session started.......and obviously since the children came home I've missed big chunks of it so will have to read up later on what I've missed.

xx

To me Tony Blair is a very good talker ,He keep going on about WMD Yet there where none so why did we go in ?

I disagree with that. Tony Blair has been the utmost professional. He's a lawyer and a politician and has played that part all day brilliantly. That's not to say that I agree with what he has said. But his conduct has been impeccable, even when he was clearly flustered.

So, He now says he invaded Iraq because since 9/11, the perception of threat had changed, and regardless of the fact that in 1998 no WMD;s were found in Iraq, he believed that the threat, the capability and the probability of Saddam Hussein reviving his nuclear programme was a real and present danger. (or in English...there were no WMD's, he lied, and he's lying now.)


The UN resolution was too ambiguous, and didn't make it clear on what grounds force could or should be used. The Attorney General was asked if action would be legal, he didn't know. (in english....I'm passing the buck)

To me it looks like Tony Blair has just played for time all day

He didn't really give any direct answers really.

Just waffled on using the same old phrases time and time again.xx

My take on it so far is....inconclusive.

This afternoon they will be questioning him on the legality of the invasion.