Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos'

[DVTimes]

Tony Blair was warned by Jack Straw there could be post-war problems in Iraq, according to newspaper reports.
The warning from the Foreign Secretary came more than a year before coalition forces invaded the country, the Daily Telegraph said.

In one letter, he told Mr Blair no-one had a clear idea of what would follow the invasion, the paper reported.

Downing Street said it never commented on leaked documents, but insisted Iraq was now a better place.

The documents reportedly seen by the newspaper were marked secret and personal and were drawn up in 2002.

They warned the prime minister of the huge difficulty faced by coalition forces after Saddam Hussein's removal from power.



According to the Telegraph, Mr Straw wrote: "There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything.

"No-one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience."

Some experts not working for the government predicted before the war that Iraq would descend into chaos, with battles lines drawn along ethnic and religious lines and a guerrilla warfare campaign being waged against the coalition.

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If these documents are accurate they provide a devastating insight into the political run-up to war in Iraq.

"They demonstrate that the government agreed with the Bush administration on regime change in Iraq, more than a year before military action was taken.

"The justifications offered on many occasions to Parliament and the public that the issue was one of WMD are shown to be a mechanism designed to get round the legal obstacles in international law against the removal of Saddam Hussein."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3668016.stm

[Johny Traffic]

I cant see that this is even news, surley we all new the risks of post war and no one new for sure what would happen.

Still the right thing to do even with the aftermath as it is.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
I cant see that this is even news, surley we all new the risks of post war and no one new for sure what would happen.

Nice casual attitude towards unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations and toppling of governments. Power vacuum? Global instability? ::shrug:: Like, whatevah. 8-)

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
Still the right thing to do even with the aftermath as it is.

Right, another oil-rich country is now under the control of islamic clerics. Great!

[Johny Traffic]

Nice casual attitude towards unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations and toppling of governments. Power vacuum? Global instability? ::shrug:: Like, whatevah. 8-)

what? Did you read the story or my post? I'll spell out what I meant for you, it may help you.

Of course no one new what the aftermath would be, no one ever does in wars, as I clearly said, Im suprised this is news, as after a war no one ever knows what the aftermath will be. I didnt say it was right or wrong, just that Im supprised that this is news at all

Right, another oil-rich country is now under the control of islamic clerics. Great!

who would you prefere? Maybe you have a better idea that no ones thought off? Or will you just be repeating someone elses lame view? Ive yet to here of a better alternative than whats there. everyone knows it isnt perfect but still I'm sure your idea will be better

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
what? Did you read the story or my post? I'll spell out what I meant for you, it may help you.

Of course no one new what the aftermath would be, no one ever does in wars, as I clearly said, Im suprised this is news, as after a war no one ever knows what the aftermath will be

You're supposed to have a plan. Hoping an occupied population will welcome you with flowers is not a plan; it's a delusion.

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

who would you prefere? Maybe you have a better idea that no ones thought off? Or will you just be repeating someone elses lame view? Ive yet to here of a better alternative than whats there. everyone knows it isnt perfect but still I'm sure your idea will be better

Saddam was doing just fine at containing the fundamentalists in his own country, by slaughtering every group that opposed him, and he wasn't restrained by having to pretend to be the good guy. He knew what had to be done to keep these nuts under control. Saddam was a permanent solution. The American occupation is temporary and everyone knows it. Sooner or later, we'll leave, and Iraq will belong to Islam. They'll either vote in their clerics (or whomever the clerics nominate) or they'll revolt against the puppet government we've installed. Either way, "democracy" or not, the result is the same.

[Johny Traffic]

Saddam was doing just fine at containing the fundamentalists in his own country, by slaughtering every group that opposed him, and he wasn't restrained by having to pretend to be the good guy. He knew what had to be done to keep these nuts under control. Saddam was a permanent solution. The American occupation is temporary and everyone knows it. Sooner or later, we'll leave, and Iraq will belong to Islam. They'll either vote in their clerics (or whomever the clerics nominate) or they'll revolt against the puppet government we've installed. Either way, "democracy" or not, the result is the same

Your picking up soundbites from telly and repeating it as an informed opinion.

Sadam wasnt a long term solution, infact it was widely thought that he didnt have long to go. Infact that was one of the arguments used at the time for opposing war, that he might not have been there that long anyway.

Sadam as you say did do a good job at containing the fundementalists, like he did slaughtering everyone else. So I guess that was fine?

Infact you have presumed that you know my opinion on what should be done. You dont. Like I said Im supprised that its news that we didnt know what to expect after the war, no one knows what will happen in a war, so how would they know what will happen after?

Everyone wants a right ot wrong a black or white, everyone thinks they know whats better more than the polititions do. But what they forget is that there are many variables in any conflict, the decisions taken are not black or white, right or wrong. just varying degrease of grey, There isnt a correct or incorrect way of handeling this just lots of different not perfect ways. But the one variable we can all be sure of is that, we dont know whats going to happen when you invade a country, so like I say Im supprised this is news at all

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

Sadam wasnt a long term solution, infact it was widely thought that he didnt have long to go. Infact that was one of the arguments used at the time for opposing war, that he might not have been there that long anyway.

So we could have let things go where they may, naturally, without turning the whole world against us. Saddam stays, and keeps the radicals out of power, or he dies and - worst case scenerio - clerics take control (as is happening now). I doubt that though, as long as the military regime was intact one of his underlings would have replaced him. He wanted to pass down power to his sons, but (IMHO) no way some general wouldn't have used that as an opportunity. I would rather us be dealing with a new face, in charge of a stable still-secular government, than what we will have to deal with now.

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

Sadam as you say did do a good job at containing the fundementalists, like he did slaughtering everyone else. So I guess that was fine?

I'm sure innocents suffered under his regime as well as the more deserving. He was a brutal fucker. But that is what is necessary there at this point in their society. They are not ready to embrace real freedom; if they were, they would have demanded it themselves, as our forefathers did. However most of them still want to live in the dark ages. Saddam was doing his best to change that culture, by forcing reforms such as mandatory literacy programs (learn to read or go to jail) and advancing the role and rights of women. But none of that matters because I am talking about what is ultimately best for America. Sadly, you cannot take each individual person into account when discussing strategy.

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

Infact you have presumed that you know my opinion on what should be done. You dont. Like I said Im supprised that its news that we didnt know what to expect after the war, no one knows what will happen in a war, so how would they know what will happen after?

You should have a plan ready for every conceivable scenerio, and the resources ready to back up whatever action is necessary. Just saying "no one knows what will happen" is unacceptable.

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

Everyone wants a right ot wrong a black or white, everyone thinks they know whats better more than the polititions do. But what they forget is that there are many variables in any conflict, the decisions taken are not black or white, right or wrong. just varying degrease of grey, There isnt a correct or incorrect way of handeling this just lots of different not perfect ways. But the one variable we can all be sure of is that, we dont know whats going to happen when you invade a country, so like I say Im supprised this is news at all

Of course every decision is a gamble; that is not an excuse to just let whatever happens happen, and then start scratching your head, and wishing it had gone differently. And to say that noone could predict guerilla warfare in the streets is a copout. That was the most likely scenerio, yet this administration ignored it in favor of just praying everything will be ok...

Many people tried to warn about the realities of this invasion, but they weren't listened to.

[Johny Traffic]

You should have a plan ready for every conceivable scenerio, and the resources ready to back up whatever action is necessary. Just saying "no one knows what will happen" is unacceptable

In theory thats nice, but it just isnt the way life is.


I actually agree to alot of what you say, like I have said, you dont know my opinion on the war, but I wont agree that anyone goes into a war on such scale and complexity as this one and can imagine what is going to be at the other end. Life just isnt like that. If you look back on what all the things that could have happened, thinking we would know what is going to happen is madness. We often forget what goes on and only remember the larger picture. This conflict could have turned out in so many different ways. Infact I think that the way it has turned out is probably how the US admin thought it would. But they are not going to say that because it would be to unpopular.

You also have to remember that here in the U.K we have a different opinion on the war, for me the choice wasnt only whether the war was right or wrong. The choice for me (and us as a country at whole) was wheather we should go along with the USA even if they may have been wrong. This is where it differs for us, because I belive like many others here in the U.K that we had and still have a moral obligation to the U.S and that we should stand by their side at this time.

So infact we had two reasons for going to war. The first was the sadam/weapons issue what isnt black or white and we could argue all day about it. The second for me was black or white. We was right and still are right to stand by the U.S who in the past have stood by us.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
This conflict could have turned out in so many different ways. Infact I think that the way it has turned out is probably how the US admin thought it would. But they are not going to say that because it would be to unpopular.

Bush now calls his failure to plan for anything following the fall of Iraqs government a "miscalculation". As usual, he had the photo-op of Saddams statue being town down nicely arranged, but that is where the credits roll in his mind.

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

You also have to remember that here in the U.K we have a different opinion on the war, for me the choice wasnt only whether the war was right or wrong. The choice for me (and us as a country at whole) was wheather we should go along with the USA even if they may have been wrong. This is where it differs for us, because I belive like many others here in the U.K that we had and still have a moral obligation to the U.S and that we should stand by their side at this time.

Maybe your honerable feelings of obligation should be toward the better interests of America (and 'the west' in general), and not simply to pander to whatever crazy asshole happens to be sitting in the big chair over here.

Unlike too many Americans, I do not believe the U.K. is the USAs lapdog.

You guys probably had the best chance of talking him out of it. I wonder if he would have gone if he really were totally alone? I wonder if we americans would really have allowed him if not for your support? If that's the way you want to phrase it, then IMO you guys let us down. (still not your fault)

[Johny Traffic]

Maybe your honerable feelings of obligation should be toward the better interests of America (and 'the west' in general), and not simply to pander to whatever crazy asshole happens to be sitting in the big chair over here.

Unfortunatly that crazy asshole is your president and was making those decisions, so it want pandering as such (though blair does his fair share of pandering) is was a matter of supporting your elected head or not. We chose to support and I think that was the right decision whatever the outcome of the war.

You guys probably had the best chance of talking him out of it. I wonder if he would have gone if he really were totally alone? I wonder if we americans would really have allowed him if not for your support? If that's the way you want to phrase it, then IMO you guys let us down. (still not your fault)

I think your right, maybe we did have a chance to talk him out of it, but I dont think so. Becuase of 911 and most of the US population not really understanding the issues and fealing hurt about 911, he could gain popularity for going to war, by missleading his own people, it was his only real chance to do it if he was ever going to do it.

Also If you remember the time, it was virtually the whole of Europe against America, totally for their own reasons, the split was getting bigger between the US and Europe and that isnt healthy. I think the fact that we didnt side with Europe as a whole meant that we could heal the rift much quicker. A very divided Europe and U.S at these times wouldnt be a good thing. I think we had no real choice than to back America whether they were right or wrong.

But that said the sooner you guys get rid of that fucked up idiot the better, there is no love for Bush over here, infact theres not much like for Blair either

[Hey You . . . I Know You!]

Normally supporting the US government would be a good thing. Obviously US and UK are very, very similar.

Our "hideous" president is leading our country (and the world) into place nobody wants to be. War sucks my uncle's cock and nobody wants to participate in a war unless it is absolutely necessary. Bush is the exception. Bush saw an opportunity to benefit his friends and supporters (financially) by starting a war with Iraq.

Everybody warned our president that it would take more troops and more time than he predicted. He (and his sorrry fuck friends) were constantly on television saying that they didn' t think those reports were accurate. WELL FUCK BUSH AND HIS BAND OF COWARD MONEY GRUBBING FUCKS! THEY WANTED A WAR WITH IRAQ AND THEY KNEW THAT THE US WOULDN'T GO FOR IT IF THEY KNEW IT WOULD BE A FUCKFEST. SO THOSE ASS FUCKERS LIED TO US AND NOW WE ARE STUCK IN A FUCKFEST.

Who could have imagined that the Iraq war would have come to this? HOW ABOUT ALL THOSE GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKERS THAT SAID THAT THE WAR WILL COME TO THIS???? I HEARD IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND ALL THE PRESIDENT'S PEOPLE SAID, "No, no . . . it will be easy and if we don't do it, we could all die."

PRESIDENT BUSH AND THOSE HAIRY ASS FUCKERS ALL DESERVE TO DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH.

[Johny Traffic]

Bush saw an opportunity to benefit his friends and supporters (financially) by starting a war with Iraq.

Is that a popular opinion in the U.S? I havnt heard that over here, do people believe he did it for his own benefit?

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
Is that a popular opinion in the U.S? I havnt heard that over here, do people believe he did it for his own benefit?

The "Bush Doctrine" as it is referred to here is actually the 'Cheney Doctrine', and he has been shopping these plans around washington for a decade. Bush gets the final blame, because he is officially the president, but he's too braindamaged to question anything; his job is just to put a likable face on a hard-to-swallow agenda. It's hard for a lot of americans to distrust Bush, because he genuinely believes all the nonsense he's saying, it makes it more plausible.