Iraq Inquiry - Alastair Campbell defends Iraq dossier

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/campbellBlair2404_415x275.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8453116.stm



Tony Blair's ex-spokesman Alastair Campbell has said he "defends every single word" of the 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He told the UK's Iraq war inquiry that parts could have been "clearer" but it did not "misrepresent" Iraq's threat. The UK should be "proud" of its role "in changing Iraq from what it was to what it is now becoming", he argued. But he said Mr Blair told President Bush privately in 2002 the UK would back military action if necessary. Critics of the war have called for private correspondence between the two leaders about their views on Iraq to be published.

Mr Campbell is the most prominent figure to appear so far before the inquiry, which is looking at UK policy before and after the 2003 war.
The BBC's Security Correspondent Frank Gardner said he had given a defiant performance, showing no contrition over the controversial decision to go to war or the arguments used to justify the action. Mr Campbell said the prime minister recognised the deep opposition to military action amongst much of the British public but believed there would be a "bigger day of reckoning" to come with Saddam if he was not confronted at the time.

As No 10 director of communications between 1997 and 2003, he played a key role in the drawing-up of the government's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, containing the controversial claim that they could be deployed within 45 minutes.They still can't apoligise or show even the slightest bit of remorse for not only outright lying to the British public and the world, but also for sending our young men and women into a war for no reason what so ever (well theres oil but I wouldn't class that as a justified reason) and destroyed one of the most stable and liberal countries in the Middle East.

He shouldn't be in an inquiry room, he should be in a court.

Thoughts and do you believe Iraq was right or wrong?

[Tash.]

Stable and liberal? What the.. erm fair enough you can argue that the Iraq war was wrong but I wouldn't call a country with a leader known for genocide stable would you? No matter how wrong the Iraq war was, or at least the reasons behind it, Iraq was lead by a leader who killed hundreds of shi'ite muslims in 1982 and began wars himself in the 80's that were unjust. So I definitely wouldn't call it stable.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Stable and liberal? What the.. erm fair enough you can argue that the Iraq war was wrong but I wouldn't call a country with a leader known for genocide stable would you? No matter how wrong the Iraq war was, or at least the reasons behind it, Iraq was lead by a leader who killed hundreds of shi'ite muslims in 1982 and began wars himself in the 80's that were unjust. So I definitely wouldn't call it stable.

No matter what you say, Iraq was stable and liberal. No, not stable and liberal by western standards at all, but by Middle Eastern standards it certainly was. Iraq now is less free than it was under Saddam. The ruling shi'ite muslims who are incharge now are far more militant than what sunni muslims are in Iraq, and now laws which lessen the freedoms of women are being brought in. Under Saddam Hussein women were allowed higher places in work/jobs, women were also allowed to go to school. This is now being undone. On the genocide issue, yeah he wasn't a nice man at all, although some action against insurgency was justified by his regime as they had attempted to wage civil war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein also repealed anti-homosexuality laws against homosexuals in Iraq. (all from what I have read open mindedly in the past)

So no, he wasn't nice at all, but the truth is that western democracy does not work everywhere.

[Bun]

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/campbellBlair2404_415x275.jpg



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8453116.stm


They still can't apoligise or show even the slightest bit of remorse for not only outright lying to the British public and the world, but also for sending our young men and women into a war for no reason what so ever (well theres oil but I wouldn't class that as a justified reason) and destroyed one of the most stable and liberal countries in the Middle East.

He shouldn't be in an inquiry room, he should be in a court.

Thoughts and do you believe Iraq was right or wrong?
WHAT THE **** ARE YOU CHATTING?! Pfft, as much as I didn't like you, I used to think you were semi-intelligent. Now you're just freakin corrupt.

Edited by invincible (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't be rude

[Jordy]

To be fair stable and liberal doesn't mean that genocide wasn't going on.

Iraq was stable because there was no opposition to the government (The reason for that is quite obvious) and because the government was so powerful, it had the final say on everything and nothing really threatened or opposed. As a result of this there was no political violence or protests, hence why it was stable. If you look at Iran, everyone hates the government there and there's frequent protests involving the police against citizens, that isn't stable.

In terms of liberal, he just means the line of politics which the government mainly followed. Most countries in the Middle East, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, UAE etc to name a few are devout Muslim and strict Muslim rules are the law and implemented everywhere.

I'm definitely not saying he was right or that he wasn't a brutal dictator, it's just what Dan is saying about the country being stable and liberal is correct.

[-:Undertaker:-]

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU CHATTING?! Pfft, as much as I didn't like you, I used to think you were semi-intelligent. Now you're just freakin corrupt.

You won't debate it though will you - me and Jordy will backup what we have said and will debate it, you refuse point-blank to get into any real discussion and prefer to post things aimed at me rather than my argument.


To be fair stable and liberal doesn't mean that genocide wasn't going on.

Iraq was stable because there was no opposition to the government (The reason for that is quite obvious) and because the government was so powerful, it had the final say on everything and nothing really threatened or opposed. As a result of this there was no political violence or protests, hence why it was stable. If you look at Iran, everyone hates the government there and there's frequent protests involving the police against citizens, that isn't stable.

In terms of liberal, he just means the line of politics which the government mainly followed. Most countries in the Middle East, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, UAE etc to name a few are devout Muslim and strict Muslim rules are the law and implemented everywhere.

I'm definitely not saying he was right or that he wasn't a brutal dictator, it's just what Dan is saying about the country being stable and liberal is correct.

Thanks Jordy a very good post, but I doubt he will say anything in response to what you have written.

[Bun]

To be fair stable and liberal doesn't mean that genocide wasn't going on.

Iraq was stable because there was no opposition to the government (The reason for that is quite obvious) and because the government was so powerful, it had the final say on everything and nothing really threatened or opposed. As a result of this there was no political violence or protests, hence why it was stable. If you look at Iran, everyone hates the government there and there's frequent protests involving the police against citizens, that isn't stable.

In terms of liberal, he just means the line of politics which the government mainly followed. Most countries in the Middle East, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, UAE etc to name a few are devout Muslim and strict Muslim rules are the law and implemented everywhere.

I'm definitely not saying he was right or that he wasn't a brutal dictator, it's just what Dan is saying about the country being stable and liberal is correct.
Im afraid that's where I must disagree. The fact there wasn't a chance competition to the government makes it unstable. The fact that he new he could do what he wanted made it unstable. For a stable country and government, you need a healthy democracy, with scrutiny. A government which incoporates genocide of its own residents is not stable.

To be fair I'd argue that the Saddam government was mainly conservative, but I really am in no mood to go down that route.


You won't debate it though will you - me and Jordy will backup what we have said and will debate it, you refuse point-blank to get into any real discussion and prefer to post things aimed at me rather than my argument.



Thanks Jordy a very good post, but I doubt he will say anything in response to what you have written.
I don't like getting into long-winded debates on here. Don't get me wrong, I thrive off them in real life, but all the typing does my head in when I really don't even get much selfsatisfaction from it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Im afraid that's where I must disagree. The fact there wasn't a chance competition to the government makes it unstable. The fact that he new he could do what he wanted made it unstable. For a stable country and government, you need a healthy democracy, with scrutiny. A government which incoporates genocide of its own residents is not stable.

To be fair I'd argue that the Saddam government was mainly conservative, but I really am in no mood to go down that route.

No, for a stable government you need a stable system. Nazi Germany was stable, yes it was evil and undemocratic but it was stable. The Soviet Union was stable and was the same as Nazi Germany.

On the Ba'ath government, of course in western terms it was highly conservative but infact you may be suprised to know that it was Arab Socialism that was the parties idealogy, and compared to other arab nations it was very liberal as I showed by the rights of women and homosexuals within Iraq under the reign of Saddam Hussein.