Skip to main content

Blair's Iraq Figleaf non-existant

With the Weapons of Mass Destruction having been found to be non-existant some time ago Tony Blair has used the argument that it was good to introduce democracy and get rid of Saddam Hussain.

The fact is, however, that it was not necessary to invade Iraq to achieve this. What people have now forgotten is that in the Kurdish north there was a no-fly zone which enabled the Kurds to operate independently of the Ba'th government. There was also a no-fly zone in the south. That, however, had rules of engagement that meant that heavy weaponry could be used on any rebellion, but no action would be taken.

Had the rules of Engagement been changed in the southern no-fly zone then it would have been possible for the south to rebel against the Ba'th. In fact it was the non intervention policy that caused the south to be recontrolled after the first gulf war.

People on the ground in the Middle East could not understand why the USA would not assist the Iraqis to take control of Iraq.

The reason the UK and USA did not want to do this (which was the SCIRI proposal) was concern that the end result would be a federal Iraq.

As usual Blair creates a false dichotomy when there were a lot of possible choices many of which would have fitted comfortably within international law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…