The Chilcot report

[leicsmac]

We're living with the consequences, that's the repercussion. That's how it always is good or bad. 

 

It must be hard enough coping with all that pressure without the threat of prosecution hanging over you if things don't go as planned.

 

So there is no single entity, group or individual to blame in this instance, then? 

 

I can see where you're coming from - war is a confusing and shitty business - but it seems like a cop out regarding responsibility to me.

 

How, if no crime was committed? Exactly how would you identify and punish this culpability?

 

One of the depressing things about the media response to Chilcott is how much of it focuses on Blair himself rather than the historical, political and legal context in which the war took place, and ended up being so disastrous. It's as if people aren't capable of taking in complexity and can only think in terms of individuals. Far easier to direct your moral outrage at Blair than to try to get your head around the highly complex factors that led to so many people dying needlessly. The vast majority of the media coverage has been infantile in its oversimplicity.

 

To a degree I do agree with your second paragraph here, there are other elements of culpability.

 

FWIW I'm not asking that Blair, Bush and the other associated folks be tried for war crimes or whatever - given the law system such an event would be a mockery - I'm asking more that history judge them as people who made a horrible mistake in this instance - either through misjudgement or flatout egotistical malice - with all that entails, and that be remembered so it doesn't happen again.

 

I forgot just how good that Robin Cook speech was, one of the very best parliament will ever see.

 

Tremendous piece of oration yes.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

No disagreement on the point of law. By those statutes he committed no crime.

My above question regarding the culpability for thousands of innocent deaths still stands.

As above. Where is the accountability for when things go wrong (as they so badly did)?

He says in his speech he takes full responsibility. What more accountability can there be? It was his job to make the decision. If you go down the road of putting a leader on trial for what turned out to be the wrong decision, it really is a can of worms.

A passage from Dr David Kelly said something like, if you wanted to hide WMD's in that regiom it would be very easy. Go out to the desert, pick a random spot, dig a hole, cover them with a tarpaulin and cover them with sand. Nobody would ever find them. This sort of thinking along with the (what we now know to be) inaccurate intelligence, Sadam's historic refusal to comply with weapons inspectors, his supposed ties to terrorist groups and his background in using WMD to kill his own people, led Blair rightly or wrongly to his decision.

I agree that it should have been a last resort but back then in the wake of 9/11, times were nervous. We were all waiting for something to happen and they took the decision to do something first.

We know now that it was wrong but using hindsight as a basis to prosecute a political leader for an action he took is a road we do not want to go down.

And for those who would say that it isnt hindsight, people said it at the time, they said what they said with no certainty, only a calculated assertion that the action was wrong.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

I forgot just how good that Robin Cook speech was, one of the very best parliament will ever see.

Makes the Hilary Benn speech on Syria look like a Macho Man Randy Savage promo (bit harsh I know!).

[Thracian]

Abso-flippin'-lutley. I'm no fan of Blair nor Labour but he had to make a decision and made it, whether you agree with it or not he was doing his job.

 

 

From the newspaper summary I read, Chilcot suggests Blair had no right to promote such a decision based on the rules.

[Webbo]

From the newspaper summary I read, Chilcot suggests Blair had no right to promote such a decision based on the rules.

So he bent the truth a bit, they all do that and I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be criticised for it but it isn't a war crime.

[Thracian]

How, if no crime was committed? Exactly how would you identify and punish this culpability?

 

One of the depressing things about the media response to Chilcott is how much of it focuses on Blair himself rather than the historical, political and legal context in which the war took place, and ended up being so disastrous. It's as if people aren't capable of taking in complexity and can only think in terms of individuals. Far easier to direct your moral outrage at Blair than to try to get your head around the highly complex factors that led to so many people dying needlessly. The vast majority of the media coverage has been infantile in its oversimplicity.

 

 

 

I hope you never lose a son or daughter due to some politician's misadventure. 

 

I wonder if Blair, Bush or any of the other politicians who promoted or condoned the war in Iraq actually followed your own guidance and recognised the complexity of what they were doing and the far-reaching consequences of their folly.  

 

Because I've seen little signs of it nor, indeed, any semblence  of a specific (workable) plan towards a specific (achieveable) conclusion in either the festering theatre of despair in Iraq or the blood soaked torso of what's left in Syria, never mind the periphery infections in so many other countries.   .

 

All I can see is an ongoing mess with years more despair, hatred and revenge to follow.      

[ClaphamFox]

I hope you never lose a son or daughter due to some politician's misadventure. 

 

I wonder if Blair, Bush or any of the other politicians who promoted or condoned the war in Iraq actually followed your own guidance and recognised the complexity of what they were doing and the far-reaching consequences of their folly.  

 

Because I've seen little signs of it nor, indeed, any semblence  of a specific (workable) plan towards a specific (achieveable) conclusion in either the festering theatre of despair in Iraq or the blood soaked torso of what's left in Syria, never mind the periphery infections in so many other countries.   .

 

All I can see is an ongoing mess with years more despair, hatred and revenge to follow.      

But I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying the media coverage seems very focused on individuals and largely ignores the other factors at work. It seems to me that this feverish desire to pin it all on one or two individuals is a convenient way of avoiding wider responsibility and taking a good hard look at what went wrong so that we can make sure it never happens again. Going on and on about Blair seems to satisfy a lot of people on a personal level, but I don't think it necessarily helps them to understand what happened any better.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

From the newspaper summary I read, Chilcot suggests Blair had no right to promote such a decision based on the rules.

But he didnt lie about anything.

Many supported the war having read and analysed the information for themselves so many more than Blair are accountable if thats the route people want to go down.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Anyone see this morning's Sun front page?

 

Picture of Blair with the headline, "Weapon of Mass Deception."

 

Which he may have been, but pot, kettle, black.

[Thracian]

But I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying the media coverage seems very focused on individuals and largely ignores the other factors at work. It seems to me that this feverish desire to pin it all on one or two individuals is a convenient way of avoiding wider responsibility and taking a good hard look at what went wrong so that we can make sure it never happens again. Going on and on about Blair seems to satisfy a lot of people on a personal level, but I don't think it necessarily helps them to understand what happened any better.  

 

Where the UK is concerned the buck stops with Blair. Others may well have things to answer for but until we get the truth from the top it's impossible to deal with those matters. And the same applies to Bush in the US. 

[Thracian]

But he didnt lie about anything.

Many supported the war having read and analysed the information for themselves so many more than Blair are accountable if thats the route people want to go down.

 

 

You don't necessarily need to lie to create an impression and pressure an audience into siding with you but you are supposed to satisfy certain safeguarding criteria before promoting and/or sanctioning warfare.  That criteria wasn't satisfied according to my understanding of Chilcot (from reports).

[Spiritwalker]

Anyone see this morning's Sun front page?

 

Picture of Blair with the headline, "Weapon of Mass Deception."

 

Which he may have been, but pot, kettle, black.

Breathtaking hypocracy from the right wing press.

Do they think that the general public have no memory?

[The Horse's Mouth]

Breathtaking hypocracy from the right wing press.

Do they think that the general public have no memory?

the sun just do it for the attention

[Dr The Singh]

Breathtaking hypocracy from the right wing press.

Do they think that the general public have no memory?

Yes, Darth

[Rincewind]

On the radio in the taxi on the way home last night there was a phone in. One caller said he was in the forces at the time and said months before they were training for chemical warfare and said you do not do that if being sent elsewhere other than Iraq.

[The Guvnor]

I'd suggest that the soldiers must take some "blame" for their own deaths. You are aware of the reason and the consequences when you sign up. If you don't want to die or kill someone choose a different career path.

 

If there are ex military on here expect some grief for that comment.

 

Don't forget FIF there has been a lot of debate on this with soldiers questioning the inadequacies or lack of life saving personal protective equipment, SA80 assault rifles not appropriate for desert warfare etc etc. You may not have any choice to fight for queen and country after all it's you're job but the idiots putting you into that environment have a duty of care to protect you the best they can and it is patently obvious that did not happen.   

[The Guvnor]

The most astounding thing is that he is being paid to be a Middle East Envoy

 

'Peace' envoy makes it sound even more ironic.

[Thracian]

'Peace' envoy makes it sound even more ironic.

 

 

I remember hearing about his appointment and thought it was a wind-up. How he's missed out on Sainthood I've no idea.      

[Thracian]

It's hard to imagine anything verbal being more condemning than this:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

[Dr The Singh]

It's hard to imagine anything verbal being more condemning than this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

Abit late now, why didn't he say something then, cooooooooooont.

[Countryfox]

Is the net closing in on the son of satan .....   da da dahhhhh !!!