Former MI5 boss confirms what we all knew

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14702644

Pre-war Iraq 'not threat to UK', former MI5 boss says


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54991000/jpg/_54991557_003279360-1.jpg
Baroness Manningham-Buller was director-general of MI5 from October 2002 to April 2007



Iraq posed no threat to the UK when then prime minister Tony Blair took Britain to war in 2003, former MI5 boss Baroness Manningham-Buller has said.

In a Radio Times interview, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the service advised war was likely to increase the domestic threat and was a "distraction" from the pursuit of al-Qaeda. But she said it was "for others to decide" whether the war was a mistake. She also said she "assumed" there would be another terrorist attack on Britain. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director-general of MI5 from October 2002 until her retirement in April 2007, will deliver the 2011 BBC Reith Lectures later this week. She told the Radio Times: "Iraq did not present a threat to the UK.

"The service advised that it was likely to increase the domestic threat and that it was a distraction from the pursuit of al-Qaeda. I understood the need to focus on Afghanistan. Iraq was a distraction." But she added: "Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is all about doubt."



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/16/article-1295370-0A7884E2000005DC-173_468x301.jpg
Old socialist friends: Blair remains a deeply unpopular figure around the world thanks to his foreign policy



I hope I live to see the day a real opposition forms so that Antony Blair, the-then cabinet and the 'opposition' are investigated and (most likely) charged with acts of fraud against the people of this country and against foreign sovereign states. Iraq had no airforce, no navy and an ineffective army which could barely retain control in Iraq itself let alone come marching up the beaches of Dover. Iraq had no WMD as we all knew, had never made any threats to attack or harm the United Kingdom and even if Iraq were to acquire or develop WMD, as a sovereign state they have every right to do so.

I feel its right to re-jog memories of this liberal interventionalist war by the warmongers as they remain in office in the latest avdenture in Libya. The war drum continues to beat over Iran (another country which cannot attack the United Kingdom nor has ever made any attempt to do so in her entire history, not even her close neighbours) which no doubt we'll be kicked into a conflict there concering Iran acquiring nuclear weapons of which Israel has over 200 but denies they exist. But shh, thats ok. Ask yourself this, why are we so afraid of Iran to the point where we refuse to talk with them which *may* develop one nuclear bomb while we faced the Soviet Union (a genuine threat) a few decades ago which had thousands pointing at us and yet we still talked.

To think this awful man is 'Middle East Peace Envoy', it's almost as ridiculous as someone suggesting Gordon-increase-public-spending-by-50%-Brown should be head of the IMF! oh wait..

Thoughts? are you duped still by foreign adventures by our government? should Blair and Co face charges?


Edited by Recursion (Forum Moderator): Edited the title to MI5 instead of M15 for you ;)

[DPS]

just so you know the title says
"Former M15 boss confirms what we all knew"


Theres a 1 :P

[Wig44.]

just so you know the title says
"Former M15 boss confirms what we all knew"


Theres a 1 :P

No no, we are talking about the M15 boss Dave; great man, always makes sure to re-lay the road when it's eroded.

War makes money but bankrupts the state - no one gives a damn about that bit though - hence why we go to war.

[DPS]

No no, we are talking about the M15 boss Dave; great man, always makes sure to re-lay the road when it's eroded.

War makes money but bankrupts the state - no one gives a damn about that bit though - hence why we go to war.

Still the BBC thing below says MI5

Iraq posed no threat to the UK when then prime minister Tony Blair took Britain to war in 2003, former MI5 boss Baroness Manningham-Buller has said.

In a Radio Times interview, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the service advised war was likely to increase the domestic threat and was a "distraction" from the pursuit of al-Qaeda. But she said it was "for others to decide" whether the war was a mistake. She also said she "assumed" there would be another terrorist attack on Britain. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director-general of MI5 from October 2002 until her retirement in April 2007, will deliver the 2011 BBC Reith Lectures later this week. She told the Radio Times: "Iraq did not present a threat to the UK.

"The service advised that it was likely to increase the domestic threat and that it was a distraction from the pursuit of al-Qaeda. I understood the need to focus on Afghanistan. Iraq was a distraction." But she added: "Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is all about doubt."

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is MI5 - a mistake, not suprising considering I posted at 6 am. :P

[GommeInc]

This is unsurprising. Anyone with a good long-term memory only needs to think back to when Tony Blair was Prime Minister and try to remember if there were any terrorism or national security issues, and many will say "I don't remember any problems at the time" and there's your answer. Iraq was a calm country. Saddam was a vicious ruler, but then so were many British rulers who had to deal with internal conflicts between 1066 to the conflicts with Ireland, the difference is the Middle East take a more direct approach and try to set an example of any wrong doers. However, this was ages before the war and his behaviour had changed and things had calmed, and the war was not about Saddam Hussein but about Weapons of Mass Destruction which never existed. They didn't even need to exist, Iraq would of used them on us or America and they probably wouldn't use them on neighbours who also at the time weren't threats.

As far as I care, I'd rather have Blair, Bush and any others involved locked up and the Labour party left in a cupboard for a few decades until the storm has blown over. It was awful and unwanted behaviour - no one wanted the war and Blair has the lives of many innocent Iraq, British, American, Dutch and any other troops and civilian blood on his hand.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is unsurprising. Anyone with a good long-term memory only needs to think back to when Tony Blair was Prime Minister and try to remember if there were any terrorism or national security issues, and many will say "I don't remember any problems at the time" and there's your answer. Iraq was a calm country. Saddam was a vicious ruler, but then so were many British rulers who had to deal with internal conflicts between 1066 to the conflicts with Ireland, the difference is the Middle East take a more direct approach and try to set an example of any wrong doers. However, this was ages before the war and his behaviour had changed and things had calmed, and the war was not about Saddam Hussein but about Weapons of Mass Destruction which never existed. They didn't even need to exist, Iraq would of used them on us or America and they probably wouldn't use them on neighbours who also at the time weren't threats.

As far as I care, I'd rather have Blair, Bush and any others involved locked up and the Labour party left in a cupboard for a few decades until the storm has blown over. It was awful and unwanted behaviour - no one wanted the war and Blair has the lives of many innocent Iraq, British, American, Dutch and any other troops and civilian blood on his hand.

Indeed, what those who support liberal interventionalism don't realise (or choose not to realise) is that often our meddling about in the foreign or internal affairs of other nations often leads to an even worse regime than the previous regime. The examples of this are seen throughout history in 'blowback' - the CIA overthrew the elected Iranian government in the 1950s/60s and installed the Shah which then led to the Islamic Republic being established in 1979 as a direct result of western meddling. Afghanistan is another example, we supported the Taliban against the Soviets which then led to a stronger and you could even say worse regime being installed.

There are just so many examples out there and it almost always happens, yet we still do it. Interestingly enough, the people who want us to go around policing the world (pretending we still have an Empire despite hating our former Empire) never are the ones to go themselves. I guess that explains why Ron Paul in the United States gets the most donations from active-duty military officers.