UK Guardian: America wanted war

[T_i_B]

Very good article about how Blair's real reason to go to war was simply to poodle to $hrubya. I've left out the important bits of the quote but I strongly advise you to click on the link and look for yourself at the six points that Blair felt justified his war crimes in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,998776,00.html

According to the slightly unreal argument that continues to bagatelle through parliament and the media, and which did so again at the foreign affairs committee yesterday, the key to war was proof. This international battle with Saddam is argued like a criminal trial. Prove that Saddam had - or might have had - weapons of mass destruction, and there would be a cause of war. Fail to prove it, tamper with the evidence, and the case for war falls. That is why the roles of the weapons inspectors and the intelligence services became so vital in this tussle for public opinion.But in the real world, this was all rather beside the point. Or, rather, it was all secondary.

Over the months, many commentators have alleged that the war with Iraq occurred for one pre-eminent reason - because the United States wanted it. Clare Short recently said as much, too. But this claim has been laughed off by insiders. Now, though, Stothard has provided a compelling piece of evidence that the critics' charge was spot on.

The crucial passage occurs on page 87 of Stothard's diary-style narrative of the war. It comes as the author reflects on the political thought processes that had gone into the crafting of Tony Blair's widely admired speech at the start of the vital eve-of-war Commons debate on March 18.

"Has Tony Blair become some sort of reckless crusader over Iraq? He thinks not. In September 2002 his analysis of relations between Washington, London and Baghdad was clear and cold. It rested on six essential points to which he and his aides would regularly return:

[OneBlueSky]

1. "because the United States wanted it"

well, duh . . . that's what we've been saying all along . . . the only reason for the invasion was because the neocons wanted it . . . and they happen to be running the government right now . . .

[NJCher]

2. Nothing to us but

Imagine what it must be like to be British and have listened to Blair's impassioned arguments. Then to find out it boils down to nothing more than staying on the right side of the U.S. It would seem pretty pathetic, espcially when your neighbors France and Germany refused to cooperate with the charade.

It all boils down to money. Blair obviously was quite aware of the vituperiveness of which the * adminstration is capable. France and Germany have paid in dollars for not supporting this tragic endeavor but morally and ethically they stand head and shoulders above Britain/Blair.

People are beginning to call this thing for what it is. Last night on WBAI I heard acommentator from India explain why they decided not to send troops to Iraq, despite intense pressure from bushco. It was, the commentator said, because it wouldn't have gone over for the government to advocate Indian troops fall on the sword for a capitalistic resources grab. I about fell over when the guy put it that bluntly but it also made me feel good that people can now say what they perceive the situation to be.


Cher

[T_i_B]

3. "It all boils down to money."

I'd put it differently, it all comes down to OIL. It's the desire to snatch the Iraqi oil reserves that fuelled this conflict and that is the reason that is unsaid in Blair's six flimsy points for going to war. I didn't post them in the original post but I feel it would be a good idea to have a bash at rebutting them here.

Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.

This was the point that was sold to the public. it is also the argument that is unravelling now as it is clear that he did not have the means to fulfil any ambitions that infringed on other nations. In other words he did not have the means to attack with WMD, as Blair claimed.

There is also still no link between Saddam & Al-Quaida. This first point was essentially a lie, a pretext which most people on here have seen through.

The US and Britain were among his enemies.

No shit Sherlock! Seriously though, there are plenty of other nations who are enemies of the UK & the US and they don't get attacked. Why not?

The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.

In case you have not noticed, Blair is not president of the US but PM of GREAT BRITAIN. Blair's task is not serve the people of Britain, not America. The fact that Blair is more worried about US opinion that UK opinion tells you something about the deep contempt in which he & his supporters hold this country.

Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.

That does not make is any less morally reprehensible, not does it mean that we have any more interest in joining in with it than anybody else. It is now quite clear that US allies get hardly any say at all in what Bush does so why bother? All Blair has done is to isolate ourselves from our European allies who do listen.

The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.

Two points. Firstly, Blair failed in his attempt to get UN backing, secondly, those of us who opposed the war did so regardless of what the UN said. We opposed the war because it was wrong.

It would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so

Nonsense. Bush will destroy long term world peace regardless of whether or not he has Blair poodling along at his side. The only way to preserve the peace is to stand up to Bush and fight against those who want endless war. Joining them will only make things worse.