Blair impeachment over Iraq urged

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Prime Minister Tony Blair should be impeached over the war in Iraq, a former top British soldier has said.

Former UN commander in Bosnia General Sir Michael Rose said Mr Blair had to take responsibility for his actions.

"To go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The consequences for Iraq and the war on terror had been "quite disastrous", General Sir Michael said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4594216.stm

[LazyLob]

I agree with him but Our Mate in Number 10 says he didn't know better. The trouble I feel is that government is politicising the civil service to such a degree that the system of checks and balances breaks down.

[Mailman]

There have been four separate inquiries into different aspects of the Iraq war, including the Butler report into intelligence failings and the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Yawn...yeah...lets just keep on having enquiry after enquiry until the anti-war goons finally get what they want!

This guy is nothing more than a political pawn for the goons at the beeb and the anti-war goons who want nothing more than for the western governments to fail terribly!

Mailman

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Yawn...yeah...lets just keep on having enquiry after enquiry until the anti-war goons finally get what they want!

This guy is nothing more than a political pawn for the goons at the beeb and the anti-war goons who want nothing more than for the western governments to fail terribly!

Mailman

LOL I bet you wouldn't dare say that to the face of the former CO of 22 SAS Regt Mailman eh ;-)

Has it not crossed your tiny mind that if someone with Gen Rose's degree of experience in asymmetric warfare is putting forward these views in prime time on BBC Radio's flagship news and current affairs programme then he's doing so because there's a lot of other ppl out there who are 'in the know' who feel exactly the same way.

In addition, as I'm sure you knew, but didn't want to admit, the reason there have been four enquiries into the Iraq debacle in the UK is because every time the issue has come up Bliar has successfully managed to make the parameters of the enquiry microscopically narrow so that he can escape the full forensic examination of his deceit and incompetence.

[oldsoak]

Firstly General Rose doesnt walk on water, and yes, as a bloke whose taxes paid his salary, I think I would be free to tell him that I disagree with him, as is any other bloke to whom he airs an opinion. If you are going to impeach Blair on the basis that he did not have sufficient information but went to war , what do you do with those that have information about places like Rwanda, Bosnia etc and did nothing, or is just a Blair thing ? The other thing is that I dont think people are aware how much we are tied into the US and how difficult it would have been for the UK to say no. Does anyone think we dont cosy up to the US for a reason ?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Firstly General Rose doesnt walk on water, and yes, as a bloke whose taxes paid his salary, I think I would be free to tell him that I disagree with him, as is any other bloke to whom he airs an opinion.


Sure I agree. I was joking because as expected Mailman came up with the usual reflex insults that the 'warboys' on here spout :)

If you are going to impeach Blair on the basis that he did not have sufficient information but went to war , what do you do with those that have information about places like Rwanda, Bosnia etc and did nothing, or is just a Blair thing ? The other thing is that I dont think people are aware how much we are tied into the US and how difficult it would have been for the UK to say no. Does anyone think we dont cosy up to the US for a reason ?

So it didn't have anything to do with Blair's hubris and posturing on the world stage then?

[LazyLob]

Firstly General Rose doesnt walk on water, and yes, as a bloke whose taxes paid his salary, I think I would be free to tell him that I disagree with him, as is any other bloke to whom he airs an opinion. If you are going to impeach Blair on the basis that he did not have sufficient information but went to war , what do you do with those that have information about places like Rwanda, Bosnia etc and did nothing, or is just a Blair thing ? The other thing is that I dont think people are aware how much we are tied into the US and how difficult it would have been for the UK to say no. Does anyone think we dont cosy up to the US for a reason ?

I also agree. But I would venture so far as to say that a lot of people believe that Blair did have sufficient information but the problem is that this information was not the type he wanted. No one is arguing about the wrongs of Rwanda and Bosnia, even Iraq....had he been given the wrong information. But I think few people believe he was given the wrong information.

No one can test this as his government is actively, as a_very_ex_STAB is quite rightly saying, narrowing the focus of all enquiries to the degree of making them pointless.

When some people voiced this look what happened.

[oldsoak]

Unfortunately the UK is pretty well tied to the US tiger as regards quite a few things ( look who we had to get involved over Northern Ireland - part of the UK and we still had to get a government that lives 3000 miles away involved ). The realpolitik is that while it could be argued that we should have said "no", we'd be on to a looser as regards nice relations with the US. The UK's relationship with the US benefits the UK - because they have resources we access that enable us - a country smaller than France or Germany - to behave like its bigger than either. The whole UK postures on the international stage, and it did so before Blair was even a long haired lout in uni. If the UK were to get real, we'd have no Trident, no Trident subs, no need to power project anywhere outside these islands and have armed forces cut right back to the size of Swedens. Blair is just a politician, and any other UK pm would have had to make the same decision - choose between support for Uncle Sam or getting no support from Uncle Sam.

[LazyLob]

Good answer and to the point. But extrapolating from that to what degree is the UK public going to accept this perceived duplicity from its own government in the future?

There will be a point when we will have to accept reality and stop punching above our weight. That or become the 51st state.

Don't get me wrong. I am very pro the U.S. even though they bugger up like the rest of us. But our foreign policy objectives cannot be hidden behind a politicised civil service and should be clearly laid out so the nation knows the pros and cons. It is a naïve request but otherwise we will have other civil liberties eroded if it isn't voiced.

[oldsoak]

There are very few people who are prepared to back reality throughout the political spectrum in the UK. The very language politicians use speaks of "Britains leadership" "Britains unique position" etc. We all expect the UK to have influence when it comes to dealing with world-wide issues. How does this influence arise if not by power of some kind, be it economic, military or political ? We are hardly so nice that the rest of the world cant bear to be without us. We try and get to be as close to the top in everything, because thats us. Reality would mean accepting we are a small country, and no pm ever wants to be known as a leader of a small country. As for duplicity, - it is of course wrong , but how has it really affected the public ? Are they likely to vote out Blair over Iraq or over tax increases ? I must agree your points over a clearly laid out foreign policy and a politicised civil service but the civil service is pretty byzantine in places, so putting a spin doctor in place is sometimes the only way to ensure a civil service grown old and cunning keeps serving - bizarre though it sounds.

[ElHombre]

look who we had to get involved over Northern Ireland - part of the UK and we still had to get a government that lives 3000 miles away involved.

that's what you get for driving a good portion of ireland's population over here. ;-)

[panzerjager]

that's what you get for driving a good portion of ireland's population over here. ;-)

Wow, I agreed and laughed to an ElHombre post. A sure sign of the coming apocalypse.

[Mailman]

LOL I bet you wouldn't dare say that to the face of the former CO of 22 SAS Regt Mailman eh ;-)

Yes I would...Id expect him to be man enough to appreciate that not everyone agrees with him.

If he disagrees with that and thinks everyone SHOULD agree with him then I think Ill be in a lot of trouble :D

The fact is...he is a political pawn for the anti-war goons who will use this for political mileage (not that they particularly care about soldiers or civilians anyways but as long as there is something political to gain then they are all for it).

The other fact is there have already been a sh1tload of public enquiries yet the anti-war goons want more. It all smacks of "if we have enough enquiries we will eventually get what we want".

Mailman

[Atlantic Friend]

Unfortunately the UK is pretty well tied to the US tiger as regards quite a few things ( look who we had to get involved over Northern Ireland - part of the UK and we still had to get a government that lives 3000 miles away involved )... The realpolitik is that while it could be argued that we should have said "no", we'd be on to a looser as regards nice relations with the US. The UK's relationship with the US benefits the UK - because they have resources we access that enable us - a country smaller than France or Germany - to behave like its bigger than either.

Isn't that like saying Great Britain can behave like it's bigger than either France or Germany PROVIDING the United States say it's OK, and this at the price of having to approve the US stance on most matters, including some that could be regarded as purely British matters ?

[oldsoak]

Lets put this another way - any country is free to do as it pleases and face the consequences. We are not talking about human relationships here, we are talking about governments and what they percieve to be the best course of action that gives their country the best leverage. Now, if you are prepared to put your country in the best possible position as regards powerful friends and allies who can help you achieve strategic aims , what are you not prepared to do ?