General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[ainsworth74]

I don't disagree - though I didn't understand that that the renewal was just for subs. But still is it worth it?

I think the answer to that question depends on someone's answer to a question along the lines of 'should Britain have nuclear weapons?'. If someone answers yes (and I do) then the only realistic option is the submarines hence it's worth it. If the a persons answer is no then then it isn't worth it.

The French still seem to manage to be "the USA's oldest ally" - true of course - without spending the money we do and with generally older equipment manage to have a substantial say [in spite of a currently seriously flawed, if intelligent, President].

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2013 reported our defence spending as $57.9bn and French spending as $61.2bn. The International Institute for Strategic Studies reported for 2013 that our spending was $57bn and French spending $52.4bn. To me that suggests they are spending on defence approximately the same as we are

Also I wouldn't say their equipment is 'generally older' than ours. The French Navy's attack submarines are the same vintage as our Trafalgar class and they have replacements in build. Their missile subs are a bit younger than ours. Their carrier dates from the early 00s (we, of course, don't have one in service at the moment so I guess they win by default ). Their amphibious assault fleet is the same age as ours (perhaps a little younger overall). Their escort fleet is broadly the same age as ours with a mix of brand spanking new and some older stuff from the 90s (and in their case some stuff from the 80s) with replacements being built.

Their air force's main fighter is only a few years older than our Typhoons and is in the process of replacing their older fighter/bombers. Their tanker and transport fleets are broadly similar in vintage to our own and like us they have replacements being built (our C-17s are a notable example of something that is young and also in a class they don't have).

Their army's main tank is the same vintage as Challenger 2 (a few years older). Their main infantry fighting vehicle is considerably younger than ours (late 00s vs mid 80s). Their main APC is about the same age as ours (and like us they have a replacement program running). Their self-propelled artillery is older than ours (70s vs 90s) but our towed is older than theirs (70s vs 90s again) and we both use the same rocket artillery. Their anti-air weapons are the same vintage as ours and their main infantry weapon is only a few years older than ours.

We both spend broadly the same and we both broadly operate equipment of similar vintage.

Also don't start talking about 'oldest ally' the Daily Mail and our politicians will have a heart attack if you suggest that the 'special relationship' isn't all that special compared to plenty of other close US allies

If you live in Denmark, Slovenia, Luxembourg or Hungary, is your life at risk compared to living in the UK because you have a puny military and don't have nuclear weapons? If, to stay safe, you have to have a UK level of military, then only a small proportion of the world's population are safe.

All have smaller populations and smaller economies than the UK (or France) and all are protected by larger nations as part of NATO so can get by with smaller militaries appropriate to their size. But none are contributing at the rate of 2% of GDP as they are supposed to as members and beneficiaries of that membership. So to my mind, as they are falling (sometime considerably) short they should be contributing more to their own defence rather than just relying on larger NATO partners.

 

[Butts]

We have some celebrity friend of Anne Robinson as our labour candidate, not a local.
The lib dem and Tory candidates are both local to the area, there was 66 votes between them at the last election, the closest in the country. The ukip chap is local although not seen or heard of him yet.
One of the three local candidates will get my vote.

Are you talking about Majority or specifically Tory/Lib Dem ?

Three Seats had lower majorities with the lowest being 4 in NI.

On the Mainland Warwickshire North and Glenda Jackson in Hampstead had lower majorities than your seat.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you live in Denmark, Slovenia, Luxembourg or Hungary, is your life at risk compared to living in the UK because you have a puny military and don't have nuclear weapons? If, to stay safe, you have to have a UK level of military, then only a small proportion of the world's population are safe.

That works only if you care only about the safety of people in your own country, and not about helping those who are in danger elsewhere. Could we for example have prevented Serbia from committing genocide in Kosovo a few years ago if the UK and the USA didn't have a strong military at the time? I know military intervention is not popular at the moment because of how Iraq turned out, but might I suggest there are times when you need a strong military in order to save lives elsewhere. People tend to remember Iraq but forget all the disasters that happened in part because we *failed* to intervene (of to intervene quickly enough) - for example, Rwanda, Bosnia in the 1990s. It seems to me that if everyone took the attitude of European countries that have (relatively) tiny military forces, that problem could easily get worse.

Having said that, I do somewhat agree that buying a new massive nuclear deterrent seems somewhat useless - I'd much rather see the money spent in keeping our conventional forces stronger. And perhaps giving them more of a disaster-relief focus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There aren't 20,000 Warsaw Pact tanks sat on the inter-German border any more which means that NATO can quite happily reduce and do so quite considerably

I'm not sure that people in Ukraine, or in those NATO countries that border Russia (eg. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) would see it quite that way.

but I do feel that, especially in the last five or so years, the shrinkage has less to do with meeting threats and more about being an easy area to cut.

I fear you are correct there.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure that people in Ukraine, or in those NATO countries that border Russia (eg. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) would see it quite that way.

Though Ukraine is not a NATO member so doesn't benefit from the protection of NATO and the guarantee (or near guarantee) of security it offers. The only protection they have is The Budapest agreement but that basically only seems to commit the UK and US to consulting Russia and going to the UN in the event of Ukraine's territorial integrity being breached. It doesn't seem to commit us to actively intervening on their behalf.

The other three are NATO nations and have the protections offered by that treaty (at least on paper, I'm still not 100% convinced NATO would fight war against Russia over the Baltic States). But they are making moves to improve their own defence as well as having the rest of NATO at their back. Estonia is notable as being one of the few NATO members to be actually meeting their expenditure commitment of 2% of GDP. That being said I'm sure all three would be much happier if their NATO partners upped their spending and rebuilt their armed forces.

There's no need to go back to 1989 levels of forces in Europe but as I said before we've shrunk an awful lot more than I believe we should have.

I fear you are correct there.

There just aren't enough votes in defence

 

[radamfi]

What use would even a beefed up Estonia military be against the might of Russia? Even if they spent 10% on the military they would still be tiny compared to Russia. They are basically helpless without outside help.

But the bigger question is whether it is right to bring people into this world if the only way to survive is to kill your neighbour.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nothing which is why being part of an alliance is important for countries like Estonia where there is an external threat which they cannot hope to defeat alone. That doesn't mean they don't have to make a contribution to their own defence however and NATO states that it's members should pay 2% of their GDP towards their own defence. If Estonia wishes to spend more (and if I were Estonian I would want to) then they are of course welcome to do so but they're holding up their end of the NATO bargin.

As for the children thing I don't think we need to go into that silliness again.

 

[radamfi]

Nothing which is why being part of an alliance is important for countries like Estonia where there is an external threat which they cannot hope to defeat alone. That doesn't mean they don't have to make a contribution to their own defence however and NATO states that it's members should pay 2% of their GDP towards their own defence. If Estonia wishes to spend more (and if I were Estonian I would want to) then they are of course welcome to do so but they're holding up their end of the NATO bargin.

As for the children thing I don't think we need to go into that silliness again.

You call it silly because you can't think of a decent argument against it. Many people don't agree with killing people on principle. I don't like the fact that my taxes have been used to kill people, and many voters feel the same.

 

[ainsworth74]

You call it silly because you can't think of a decent argument against it.

I don't won't the species to die out and I don't agree with your extreme pessimism that all life is suffering. I do not think any other argument is necessary.

Many people don't agree with killing people on principle. I don't like the fact that my taxes have been used to kill people, and many voters feel the same.

I don't agree with killing but equally I do believe we and our allies should be able to defend ourselves and others if necessary. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, on the whole, a waste of time, lives and money (though I don't think deposing Saddam was a bad thing). But defending the rights of the Falklanders to determine their own fate? Or the Kuwaiti's rights to determine there's? I think it was a great embarrassment that we allowed the massacres in the Balkans to go on for so long without resistance and that we didn't do anything about Rawanda.

I will never understand those who think we should just lay down and allow anyone to do whatever they like by force of arms. Would you have rather in 1939 we just threw down are weapons and submitted to Hitler and the Nazis? Or in the Cold War we just rolled over and allowed the USSR to do what they wanted? How about Napoleon? Imperial Germany in World War I?

Not all wars have to be or will be like Iraq and Afghanistan and as long as the large parts of the world accept that violence is a solution to their grievances real or imagined we need to be able to defend ourselves and our friends.

 

[DownSouth]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, on the whole, a waste of time, lives and money (though I don't think deposing Saddam was a bad thing).

Have you seen what has happened in Iraq since then? Saddam was a walk in the park compared to ISIL/DAESH. The worst bit of it all was that it was predicted to turn out that way, making the 2003 invasion of Iraq almost certainly the worst foreign policy decision since World War II.

The least that the nations responsible can do to make up for that mistake would be to have Bush, Blair, Howard, Powell, Rice, Straw and Downer meet a date with a rope at The Hague.

 

[Johnuk123]

Have you seen what has happened in Iraq since then? Saddam was a walk in the park compared to ISIL/DAESH. The worst bit of it all was that it was predicted to turn out that way, making the 2003 invasion of Iraq almost certainly the worst foreign policy decision since World War II.

The least that the nations responsible can do to make up for that mistake would be to have Bush, Blair, Howard, Powell, Rice, Straw and Downer meet a date with a rope at The Hague.

Don't forget Alastair Campbell one of the most odious and dangerous people to have avoided a prison cell.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Have you seen what has happened in Iraq since then? Saddam was a walk in the park compared to ISIL/DAESH.

What ISIL are doing is absolutely appalling. But blaming ISIL exclusively on the Iraqi invasion is very simplistic and frankly silly. Lots of events contributed to the rise of ISIL, including the civil war in Syria (and possibly our failure to help the more secular forces opposed to Assad), and the failure of the post-invasion Government in Iraq to deal adequately with Sunni grievances. If we hadn't got rid of Saddam, then probably ISIL wouldn't have happened. But then, equally, if we hadn't kept dithering and refusing to get involved in Syria, probably ISIL wouldn't have happened. And if we hadn't got rid of Saddam, it's quite possible that something else just as bad might have happened. There's no way to tell.

The worst bit of it all was that it was predicted to turn out that way, making the 2003 invasion of Iraq almost certainly the worst foreign policy decision since World War II.

Really? Predicted by whom? Based on what research? A serious Government study or just some pundit sticking his finger in the air and saying 'I reckon....'?

Whatever you might think of the Iraqi invasion, there's no way anyone could have foreseen before it happened with any certainty exactly how things would later turn out.

The least that the nations responsible can do to make up for that mistake would be to have Bush, Blair, Howard, Powell, Rice, Straw and Downer meet a date with a rope at The Hague.

Wow, so making a major policy decision that turns out to have bad consequences should be punishable by hanging? That would be quite a disincentive to any Government ever again doing - well, anything at all, really.

 

[St Rollox]

Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling knowing there's nuclear subs based 30 miles from my home.
Either that or it's the radiation.

 

[Yew]

In my view, Labour left the economy in a rather better state than it was in in 1997.

The problem with this debate is that, thanks to some rather clever propaganda, largely by the Conservatives, the economy has been equated in the public eye with 'Government deficit'. As if the sole aim of a good economy is to have the Government spend no more than it takes in taxes. And then to add to that, that narrative conveniently forgets that there was a *world* recession starting in 2008, which the Labour Party in the UK was, strangely enough, not solely responsible for, and which you would expect to lead to a deterioration in most countries' finances. Instead, the narrative makes out that Government deficit is both solely responsible for the UK's economic woes and solely the fault of Labour. And frankly, both of those propositions are rubbish.

In my view, what's much more important than the deficit is how much a country is producing - whether it is it's actually making enough goods and services to provide for the population, and whether it's investing enough to make sure that can continue into the future. I would say Labour in 1997 inherited a country that was in an appalling state in that regard, and did manage to turn that round to some extent (although not enough).

The deficit can be important, but set against that, a country's economy doesn't work the same way as a single household. For the economy as a whole, money circulates around in a somewhat circular fashion. Money the Government spends isn't necessarily lost - a lot of it comes back to the Government in the form of taxes. For that reason, the kind of austerity policies the Tories so love can be counterproductive. The Government spends less and the result is less economic activity, and less taxation revenue. And, most significantly, less of the production and investment that is the thing we really need for the future. For that reason, I was completely unsurprised when it turned out that George Osborne has completely failed to meet his deficit reduction targets. He shrank the economy. What else do you expect?

The Conservatives are, on the whole, ideologically opposed to 'big Government' and for that reason it's convenient for them to find economic reasons to justify more and bigger cuts. But the human cost of many of those cuts is in my view appalling and the supposed economic justification is, when you look at it in more detail, very iffy.

Indeed, and its important to remember that this government has created more national debt than every Labour government in history combined...

 

[radamfi]

I don't won't the species to die out and I don't agree with your extreme pessimism that all life is suffering. I do not think any other argument is necessary.

Of course, not ALL life is suffering, but a huge amount is. You can't know how good life will be for your descendants. You really can't go wrong with not having kids. My life is carefree and without the struggles that my friends with kids have. I couldn't have semi-retired at 40 if I had kids. Also, not having kids is the best thing you can do for the environment.

I don't agree with killing but equally I do believe we and our allies should be able to defend ourselves and others if necessary. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, on the whole, a waste of time, lives and money (though I don't think deposing Saddam was a bad thing). But defending the rights of the Falklanders to determine their own fate? Or the Kuwaiti's rights to determine there's? I think it was a great embarrassment that we allowed the massacres in the Balkans to go on for so long without resistance and that we didn't do anything about Rawanda.

I will never understand those who think we should just lay down and allow anyone to do whatever they like by force of arms. Would you have rather in 1939 we just threw down are weapons and submitted to Hitler and the Nazis? Or in the Cold War we just rolled over and allowed the USSR to do what they wanted? How about Napoleon? Imperial Germany in World War I?

Not all wars have to be or will be like Iraq and Afghanistan and as long as the large parts of the world accept that violence is a solution to their grievances real or imagined we need to be able to defend ourselves and our friends.

And now you prove that the world is full of evil! Why would I want to bring someone into a world like that? Living in a world without fear or war is surely not a lot to ask for? I don't think it is cool to have a kid and then kill him/her a few years later. The mere fact that such evil as shown above has happened is enough proof that the human experiment has failed.

 

[muddythefish]

Don't forget Alastair Campbell one of the most odious and dangerous people to have avoided a prison cell.

Really ? If he'd done something wrong don't you think he'd be behind bars ?

 

[Johnuk123]

Really ? If he'd done something wrong don't you think he'd be behind bars ?

Everybody who has ever done something wrong is in jail then ?
How bizarre.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/alastair-campbell-iraq-dossier-inquiry

Alastair Campbell had Iraq dossier changed to fit US claims.
Tony Blair's discredited Iraqi arms dossier was "sexed up" on the instructions of Alastair Campbell, his communications chief, to fit with claims from the US administration that were known to be false.

Don't you think the thousands of deaths from the Iraq war which could have been avoided had blatant lies not been told by Campbell, Blair and other leading members of the labour party are something that should just be brushed under the carpet.

I actually believed those early claims about WMD but it was all simply lies to fall in with the American plan to attack Iraq.
Don't even get me started on Doctor David Kelly's death which is another terrible result of the lies in Campbells dossier. Campbell wrote his name on a piece of paper and handed it to journalists, soon after he was dead make that of what you will.
The whole period is tainted in lies, deception and massive covering up just look at the Chilcot inquiry farce.

 

[table38]

There was a report on the delay to the Chilcot Inqiry updated yesterday in the House of Commons Library here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06215.pdf

On 20 January, Sir John Chilcot wrote to the Prime Minister saying that there was ‘no realistic prospect’ of delivering the report before the general election, and that the Maxwellisation[1] process was continuing. The letter implied that not all the responses to Maxwellisation letters had been received and that responses would still need to be evaluated. This would take ‘some further months’.

But of course no detail of whose lawyers are sitting on the responses in a cynical attempt to delay publication before the General Election in May who still has to respond, or even how long they have had to respond.

[1] Before the report is published, opportunity was given to those criticised in the report to read and respond to those comments. This is known as the ‘Maxwellisation process’. It has for some time been standard practice to alert those criticised in inquiry reports either by simple notification, or by showing them the text and giving a chance to respond.

Robert Maxwell took a civil legal action against the Department of Trade and Industry after it had said in a 1969 inquiry report that he was unfit to lead a public company. The judge criticised the inquiry, saying it had damaged his reputation without giving him enough opportunity to respond. Since then, one of the procedures for warning individuals that are criticised has been known as Maxwellisation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don't forget Alastair Campbell one of the most odious and dangerous people to have avoided a prison cell.

Please do tell us all what criminal offences you think he's committed.

 

[Johnuk123]

There was a report on the delay to the Chilcot Inqiry updated yesterday in the House of Commons Library here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06215.pdf



But of course no detail of whose lawyers are sitting on the responses in a cynical attempt to delay publication before the General Election in May who still has to respond, or even how long they have had to respond.

[1] Before the report is published, opportunity was given to those criticised in the report to read and respond to those comments. This is known as the ‘Maxwellisation process’. It has for some time been standard practice to alert those criticised in inquiry reports either by simple notification, or by showing them the text and giving a chance to respond.

Robert Maxwell took a civil legal action against the Department of Trade and Industry after it had said in a 1969 inquiry report that he was unfit to lead a public company. The judge criticised the inquiry, saying it had damaged his reputation without giving him enough opportunity to respond. Since then, one of the procedures for warning individuals that are criticised has been known as Maxwellisation.

The whole situation is utterly reprehensible and those letters recently sent out have obviously been sent out at the last minute so Chilcot can use them as an excuse.

Chilcot is a former Whitehall mandarin and seems to be not up to the task, a decent judge wouldn't have allowed all the famous Blair/Bush notes to be hidden from the public.

Brown didn't pick Chilcot for nothing, although at least he did instigate an inquiry even if it's a whitewash, Blair wouldn't consider it.

If the inquiry was allowed to publish the full facts several people would surely be facing the courts, unfortunately like so many before it will probably protect its own.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please do tell us all what criminal offences you think he's committed.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/tam-dalyell-blair-should-face-war-crimes-trial-1-3056658

TAM Dalyell said yesterday that the former prime minister Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes over his decision to authorise the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I agree with him, Campbell and others should be on trial too for war crimes ie: taking us to war on knowingly false information.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tim-holmes/britain-loves-war-criminal

As Alastair Campbell basks in the celebrity limelight of British public life, the blood of the Iraq war drips from his hands. For this is a man whose war crimes, expertly expurged from the collective imagination, demand prosecution alongside those of Tony Blair.

As guilty as Blair in my opinion.

 

[table38]

Please do tell us all what criminal offences you think he's committed.

Put very simply, forcible democratic regime change is unlawful under International Law.

What Blair and Campbell are alleged to have done, (Blair having already agreed with Bush to invade Iraq regardless) was to try to justify invasion by creating a fiction about the UK being at risk from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" "within 45-minutes".

Rather than giving the UN Weapons Inspectors more time and risk them finding that there weren't any WMDs, (Hans Bix believed Iraq unilaterally destroyed its weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War), the UN team weren't allowed to continue their investigations; and of course, after the invasion, it was proved beyond all doubt that there were no WMDs or even any "WMD Programs" which was the spin Blair later tried to put on it.

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General had originally agreed with France and Russia that a new UN Resolution was required to make military action legal, and had written a letter 8 months prior to the invasion stating "in the clearest terms" that deposing Saddam Hussein would be illegal under international law. Goldsmith subsequently "changed his mind".

Campbell's fingerprints are all over the infamous "dodgy dossier". Major General Michael Laurie (Director General in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence) said to Chilcot: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."

At the time, Dr David Kelly had said "the government dossier making the case against Iraq had been transformed at the behest of Downing Street and Alastair Campbell to make it sexier". Kelly had dismissed the 45-minute claim as "risible".

Apparently there are emails between Campbell and John Scarlett (head of the Joint Intelligence Committee) suggesting 15 changes to the text of the dossier; whether these get published as part of Chilcot remain to be seen.

But whether Blair and Campbell are actually guilty of anything would depend on a trial.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Put very simply, forcible democratic regime change is unlawful under International Law.

I don't remember Saddam Hussein's reign being particularly democratic.

Besides which, the decision to go to war wasn't unilaterally made by Blair or his spin doctor, it was voted for by the MPs in the House. If we're going to argue Blair is a "war criminal" then anyone who voted yes to war should also be going straight to The Hague without passing Go and without collecting £200.

And where do we end it? Cameron as recently as 2013 was arguing that we should go to war with Syria- fighting on the side of ISIS, no less- in order to depose Assad and impose a new regime. He lost the vote (thankfully for him, with hindsight) but should he also be going straight to The Hague? If not, why not?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Don't forget Alastair Campbell one of the most odious and dangerous people to have avoided a prison cell.

That's a very serious accusation - in fact one that arguably amounts to personal abuse (imagine if someone had made the same allegation against a forum member here...)

your accusation implies that Alastair is at least as odious as these other people who have all (so far) avoided prison...

• The many thousands of ISIS fighters who amongst other things have made women into sex slaves, deliberately killed innocent civilians, driven other civilians from their homes etc.
• Many terrorists who - again - have deliberately bombed, killed and maimed civilians.
• Members of security forces in countries such as Burma, North Korea, Egypt and Zimbabwe who have deliberately tortured other people just for being members of a different ethnic group or for speaking out about something. (And not just ordered the torture of others from a distance, actually taken part in torture and watched their victims suffer as they torture them).

Consider that even in the UK, there are doubtless thousands of people who have knowingly and deliberately subjected their partners to the most horrific abuse - who watch as their own partners suffer at their own hands - but are not in jail because their partners have not reported them. Just as there are are doubtless thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of career criminals, who spend their lives knowingly destroying other peoples lives, but who are not (yet) in jail because they have not been caught.

You are apparently saying that Alastair Campbell is as odious as all these people? And on what basis? Oh, apparently that there is evidence he may have once ordered misinformation to go into a report.

Alastair Campbell had Iraq dossier changed to fit US claims.
Tony Blair's discredited Iraqi arms dossier was "sexed up" on the instructions of Alastair Campbell, his communications chief, to fit with claims from the US administration that were known to be false.

(Note that the article does not substantiate its claim in the quoted text that the US report was known to be false)

John, if you seriously think that putting misinformation in a report makes someone as 'odious' as all the other people I've mentioned, then I'd suggest you really need to reassess your moral values.

Don't get me wrong, I realize it was a very major report. And if it's true that he knowingly ordered false information to go in it, then that is very reprehensible. Not at all the behaviour you'd want of a politician or anyone else. But hardly on the same level as - say - buying a captive woman as a sexual slave!

Further, you say

Don't you think the thousands of deaths from the Iraq war which could have been avoided had blatant lies not been told by Campbell, Blair and other leading members of the labour party are something that should just be brushed under the carpet.

Well yes, it's terrible that those deaths happened. And, yes, if we hadn't gone to war then maybe most of those deaths would have been avoided. But since there was no way at the time to predict that most of those deaths would happen after Saddam was removed, that in itself is not a reflection on Alastair's or anyone's character in regard to the decisions made at the time. And of course there's no way to tell how many people are alive today who would not be alive if we hadn't invaded Iraq - it's very plausible that Saddam's regime would by now have killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands more people if the war hadn't happened.

 

[table38]

I don't remember Saddam Hussein's reign being particularly democratic.

But the international law defends their right to self determination. Plus there are regimes that are far worse than the former Iraq; should we invade those too?

Besides which, the decision to go to war wasn't unilaterally made by Blair or his spin doctor, it was voted for by the MPs in the House. If we're going to argue Blair is a "war criminal" then anyone who voted yes to war should also be going straight to The Hague without passing Go and without collecting £200.

Quite possibly. Unless they could show that they voted for military action because they were misled by Campbells dodgy dossier...

And where do we end it? Cameron as recently as 2013 was arguing that we should go to war with Syria- fighting on the side of ISIS, no less- in order to depose Assad and impose a new regime. He lost the vote (thankfully for him, with hindsight) but should he also be going straight to The Hague? If not, why not?

Err, maybe because we didn't go to war? Even if Cameron had won the vote, there is no guarantee that we would have taken action.

The worst thing is that this is Blair and Campbells legacy; occasionally there may be times when military action is justified. But after Blair and Campbells lies and spin over Iraq, there is no appetite for it.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... But since there was no way at the time to predict that most of those deaths would happen after Saddam was removed, that in itself is not a reflection on Alastair's or anyone's character in regard to the decisions made at the time.....

Actually, at the time many did predict precisely that (History is a fair tutor in such respects) and asked loudly what plan was in place for after Saddam was removed. No answer was given, and it emerged that there was, in fact, no plan other than to install democracy. To my mind this was a less forgiveable set of decisions even than going to war, and does reflect terribly on Blair and his advisers, including Campbell.

 

[Greenback]

The worst thing is that this is Blair and Campbells legacy; occasionally there may be times when military action is justified. But after Blair and Campbells lies and spin over Iraq, there is no appetite for it.

There's no appetite any more for getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries, which I think is a good thing.

Any future intervention will have to pass a more rigourous and stringent test of whether British interests are at risk or whether there are major humanitarian reasons for going in, than Iraq did.

Again, I think that's a good thing.

 

[table38]

There's no appetite any more for getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries, which I think is a good thing.

Any future intervention will have to pass a more rigourous and stringent test of whether British interests are at risk or whether there are major humanitarian reasons for going in, than Iraq did.

Again, I think that's a good thing.

But what if intervention was justified, but we didn't do anything because everyone assumed we were being lied to again?

 

[Johnuk123]

I
Besides which, the decision to go to war wasn't unilaterally made by Blair or his spin doctor, it was voted for by the MPs in the House. If we're going to argue Blair is a "war criminal" then anyone who voted yes to war should also be going straight to The Hague without passing Go and without collecting £200.

You just don't get it do you ? the mp's who voted for war did so on the contents of a dossier which was lies.

Do you not think it was strange that when the Attorney General told Blair if he went to war it would be illegal that within days the dossier about WMD's appeared. Surely you don't think it was a coincidence.

 

[Greenback]

But what if intervention was justified, but we didn't do anything because everyone assumed we were being lied to again?

It's the government that will ultimately decide what is justified and what isn't. Are those countries that chose not intervene in Iraq or Syria now regretting their decision?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Actually, at the time many did predict precisely that (History is a fair tutor in such respects) and asked loudly what plan was in place for after Saddam was removed. No answer was given, and it emerged that there was, in fact, no plan other than to install democracy. To my mind this was a less forgiveable set of decisions even than going to war, and does reflect terribly on Blair and his advisers, including Campbell.

OK, maybe I should have phrased my comments slightly differently. A better version would be that, in all probability, none of those behind the decision to go to war, seriously expected the result to be the chaos that subsequently emerged.

The fact that there was no plan for after the war was of course an appalling mistake - I agree with you in that regard. I'd argue that it was that, and not any issues around exaggerated dossiers etc. that was the real problem and the real lesson to be learned. But that is surely a bad reflection on the *judgement* of the people involved, not on their *characters*: Their intentions were probably good, but the result was bad because they didn't think through the post-war planning properly.

In terms of history being a tutor: What examples are you thinking of? Offhand I can't think of any recent pre-Iraq cases in which we successfully invaded a country, occupied it, and the result was chaos. The most obvious occupation example that might plausibly have been in the minds of those responsible for the invasion planning would be Germany/Italy/Japan at the end of WWII and those certainly give no reason to believe that long term chaos would ensue.

 

[table38]

It's the government that will ultimately decide what is justified and what isn't. Are those countries that chose not intervene in Iraq or Syria now regretting their decision?

But trying to justify that action through deceit, downright lies and spin? Surely the invasion of Iraq should have stood on it's own merits.

I know a lot of people think that the end justifies the means (not aimed at you!), but people are a little more politically savvy these days, plus they have access to facts and information via the internet which weren't previously available (or would have only been revealed 40 years later!)