Quote (dro94 @ 20 Mar 2023 00:15)
https://imgur.com/fjWRt2B.gifIt's well established that Richard Dearlove and John Scarlett in the MI6 gave Blair bad intelligence about WMD in Iraq, I watched a documentary about it recently that was very evidence-based so it's not conjecture at all.
Seems like your gripes are not with deposing Saddam, but with the poorly thought out plans for occupation by the Americans. That didn't have much to do with us, even though you could argue Blair is partially responsible for it too.
If we said no, America would DEFINITELY have still invaded Iraq. Bush and Cheney were ready to go 6 months before, and Blair persuaded them to wait for the UN to send more UNSCOM. Iraq then kicked UNSCOM out and the rest is history.
can you link me that documentary? does it make a credible case that they intentionally and successfully mislead blair? or could the evidence (which we obviously all know was bs today) have been bad, but he was in the know or at the very least suspected it, and just "accepted" it regardless to have plausible deniability, in case the decision he was going to make anyway turned out to be a mistake? because that's my impression - and it's what many people speculated at the time.
again, there were many parties that rejected the flimsy "evidence" and insisted on a diplomatic solution - despite all the pressure from america.
to be clear, i'm not saying the evidence being bad is conjecture, i'm saying i find it doubtful that the head of intelligence, regardless of political affiliation, could just easily dupe a PM into such a meaningful and terrible decision with some fake evidence - as if blair, who definitely isn't a moron, didn't have any loyal high-ranking sources within the intelligence community who advised him according to their best knowledge, rather than their own personal agenda.
even if i gave blair all the benefit of the doubt, which you so generously grant him for obvious reasons, i'd still say that an ICC that wanted to be a meaningful and impartial institution should have tried him (as well as heads of british intelligence)...
regarding saddam: he obviously was a terrible human being, a cruel despot, a mass murderer, who most definitely "deserved" to die - but let's not forget who backed and armed him in the first place, and for which reasons (ofc the US and the UK, in order to attack iran and regain control over their oil), and how just deposing him, without a sound strategy for iraq's future, that would predictably plunge the whole region (which hussein undeniably "stabilised", albeit by cruel and inhumane means) into utter chaos.
maybe just invading the country based on lies and rage, trying to hunt that fucker down while leaving behind a trail of death and devastation, wasn't the way to go about it...
This post was edited by fender on Mar 19 2023 06:08pm