Sunday, September 02, 2012

Tony Blair is right: Iraq was a Just War

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is revered by many as a living saint, some way above Jimmy Carter, but way beneath the Dalai Lama. He has apparently pulled out of a conference in Johannesburg in protest at the presence of Tony Blair who took the 'morally indefensible' decision to lead British forces into war against Iraq in 2003. The Archbishop's Office issued a statement, declaring:
“Ultimately, the Archbishop is of the view that Mr Blair's decision to support the United States' military invasion of Iraq, on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was morally indefensible.

“The Discovery Invest Leadership Summit has leadership as its theme. Morality and leadership are indivisible. In this context, it would be inappropriate and untenable for the Archbishop to share a platform with Mr Blair."
A spokesman told the New Statesman that Archbishop Tutu was 'a very prayerful man' who will have 'spent hours on his knees considering this decision'.

Maybe so. But that doesn't make him right. Not least because Tony Blair is also reportedly a very prayerful man who spends hours on his knees considering his decisions. Mr Blair's Office has issued a response to the Tutu boycott:
“I have a great respect for Archbishop Tutu's fight against apartheid - where we were on the same side of the argument - but to repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown.

"And to say that the fact that Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of his citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre. We have just had the memorials both of the Halabja massacre where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam's use of chemical weapons; and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million including many killed by chemical weapons. In addition his slaughter of his political opponents, the treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong. But the basis of action was as stated at the time.

"In short this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say. But surely in a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree. I would also point out that, despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size with child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra."
What Archbishop Tutu appears to overlook is that Tony Blair did not make the decision to lead the country into war with Iraq: Parliament did. For the first time in our history, the Royal Prerogative to go to war was subject to the will of the people's representatives. You may argue about the manipulative effects of the alleged untruths, exaggerations, distortions and 'dodgy dossiers', but such is the daily political diet by which policy is formulated and Parliament is made fat.

The world has moved on in the mechanics of warfare since Augustine (of Hippo) and Aquinas developed the ethical reasoning by which pacifism in the face of a grave wrong might be considered a sin. But the essential morality remains the same. If Archbishop Tutu believes that Saddam might have been reasoned with and that some form of non-violent action might have resolved the problem, he is apparently ignorant of the nature of the beast.

His Grace is neither pacifist nor consequentialist: if physical violence is necessary to eradicate a grave evil, it is the duty of a righteous government to act. The sadness is that a sainted cleric like Archbishop Desmond Tutu is deemed to be right because he is a 'very prayerful man' who has 'spent hours on his knees considering this decision'. Yet few will consider that Tony Blair is also a 'very believing man', with an overwhelming preference to talk theology while the clerics only want to talk policy. One may not agree with everything he did, does, said or says. But please don't rush to judgment on the basis of a dog collar. Especially when the wearer believes its holy aura might somehow affirm or dignify the Blairite evil.

Was not the Son of God willing to consort with tax collectors and prostitutes?


Blogger Heinzhound said...

You say that Parliament took the decision to go to war with Irag but I seem to recall that the vote was taken on the basis of false information from Bliar re WMD amongst other things.

2 September 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Wasn't the justication at the time about attacking the regime in Iraq as a means of self-defence? It morphed into a moral argument about protecting civilians because the self-defence argument was looking a bit weak here. Or perhaps I misremember now. A unilateral attack, or a 'coalition of the willing' attack, is legal in international terms if it preempts an imminent attack as a means of self-defence. The other requires UN agreement to overrule the sovereignty. That's how I understand it, anyway. Could be wrong and I too lazy to Google around now.

2 September 2012 at 11:00  
Blogger Bharat Dhillon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 September 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger SadButMadLad said...

The religious devoutness of a person has no bearing on the morality of the same person. Religion has been used as a basis of many "just" wars in the past. Witness the religious fervor of fundamentalist Muslims using their religion as a basis on which to wage war. Christianity has been used on the same basis.

If it was just to depose Saddam because of what he did why was the same actions not taken in Dafur. Could it be that Darfus is in Africa where any attempt at doing some good would be seen as colonialism by the Africans which would make the problem worse, but doing the same thing in a Muslim country to impose a democracy by force is OK because democracy is "good".

2 September 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger bluedog said...

Paraphrasing His Grace, 'Yet few will consider that David Cameron is also a 'very believing man', with an overwhelming preference to talk theology while the clerics only want to talk policy.'

Heir to Blair? Can't be right, can it?

2 September 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Iraq was just an oil war.

2 September 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...


"Wasn't the justication at the time about attacking the regime in Iraq as a means of self-defence?"

If you actually read what Blair said in parliamentary debate on going to war against Iraq you will clearly see that this was never the sole justification. As for WMDs - the facts were that at one time Saddam did have them, he did use them, and the UN Inspectors were not given sufficient details to allow them to account fro what had happened to them. Given that Saddam had twice launched wars agianst his neighbours and his record of obstruction to UN Inspectors and the pretty obvious pressure on western politicians to be seen taking all steps to rpotect their citizens in the wake of 9/11 (this is not the same as saying that Saddam was in league with Bin Laden) - I can well understand why Blair/Bush were not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam on the issue of WMDs.

I also have no doubt that one goal of the war was to be there to manage the inevitable collapse of Saddam - and to make sure that when it happened that Iraq did not fall into the hands of Bin Laden and/or the Iranians. My criticism of Blair/Bush is not so much the war - but the fact that they did so little at first to plan the transition thereafter - and that the plan to hand over to the Iraquis took so long to come to fruition.

The other think that Iraq pointed out is that the current UN is not fit for purpose - in that it does little of effect to aid the removal of regimes that are in clear breach of the UN Charter or any normal standards of human rights - this is something we continue to see in Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe - and there are plenty of previous examples e.g. Rwanda and Darfur. Perhaps those who condemn bilateral military action to remove fascists such as Saddam (I belong to the left of Orwell, Hitchens and others that believes that fighting to remove fascists is a good thing) might more constructively direct their energies to thinking about how we can get the UN and other multilateral agencies to do their job properly - rather than allowing any crimes to be justified in the name of anti-Americanism.

2 September 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Martin Sewell said...

MAnfarang, you are right only in this regard. Russia and France were heavily invested in Iraq's oil industry and so refused to give UN sanction to act. It was their oil interests in play not our or US.

Easiest/ cheapest way for US to have secured Iraqui oil was to buy it.

2 September 2012 at 12:45  
Blogger Martin Sewell said...

The problem was cultural. George Bush could not understand/believe that anyone was stupid enough to try and bluff a straight talking Texan that you had chemical weapons ( when you had actually destroyed them after previously demonstrating their existence by using them) just after he had told you plainly what the consequences would be.

Incidentally, many have forgotten that Hans Blick's position immediately before the war was not " there is no evidence of WMD" but rather " Give me more time, I'm almost there". Not that the facts will ever get in the way of anti-western rhetoric.

2 September 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tutu a living saint ? Absolute rot. Don’t know where you got that idea from – anyway, best put it back from where you found it and cover it with soil...

Morality and ethics will feature on this thread, but as the Inspector has said before, when it comes down to it, those two are whatever the man with the biggest sword says they are. That is the human way.

We should all appreciate this as plans are silently made behind closed doors of how the West is going to confront another muslim mad house - An Iran with a nuclear weapon. There will again be no opportunity for Social Liberals to apply stalling tactics, that will be made sure of. Instead, we will have men prepared to do what must be done, whatever it takes.

Wreck the peace, and the West will kill your country, what !

2 September 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Excellent post. A couple of things.

might more constructively direct their energies to thinking about how we can get the UN and other multilateral agencies to do their job properly

The right to declare war is vested in the sovereignty of nations. The US Constitution for example provided all the necessary legal authority for the US Gov't to invade Iraq. This is one of the principle reasons the war generated so much opposition in Europe. The war was seen as a naked assertion of national sovereignty against the supposed authority of the United Nations. But the UN is in fact a creature of the nations. It does only what the nations (in fact the major powers) will allow it to do. The UN has no sovereignty. It enforces no law. It possesses no military. It possesses no police force. It has no authority to tax. It therefore has no independent ability to do anything at all.

The UN can't do the job you suggest. It can only beg sovereign nations to act on its behalf, and sovereign nations always act out of self-interest. Nations do not shed blood and spend treasure on selfless acts of "international policing." Europe is the primary advocate of such a policy and yet Europe could hardly bestir itself to put planes over Libya. It certainly would never have sent soldiers to Libya - and not just because the UN "didn't allow it." The bloodless nature of the campaign was critical to its continued support. This is always the Achillies heel of "noble wars." The population providing the army is not willing to sustain the casualties necessary to achieve the goal.

As for WMDs

The Iraq War was largely a war of nuclear risk mitigation. It is too late to mitigate that risk once the enemy has acquired the ability to employ nuclear weapons. So it is neither here nor there whether he had them at the time of the invasion. He would have acquired them given time, and he might actually have used them in war. A nuclear-armed Iraq would have been a geo-strategic disaster for the US and that is why the US went to war to prevent it.

That is also why the US doesn't have forces in places like Darfur. We have no geo-strategic interest that is the necessary predicate for fighting. We aren't the world's policeman, and we have neither the capacity nor the will to right all the wrongs in the world. The hard reality is that there isn't a world policeman, and there never is going to be a world policeman. And you should fear such an entity if it did exist, because it could only com into existence by conquest.


2 September 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Archbishop Cranmer

The world has moved on in the mechanics of warfare since Augustine (of Hippo) and Aquinas developed the ethical reasoning by which pacifism in the face of a grave wrong might be considered a sin.

There were three "grave wrongs" of unprecedented magnitude in the 20th Century: Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China. Only one of them (Hitler's Germany) was met with war, and that because Germany made itself a lethal threat by attacking. Nations did not go to war against Hitler to stop "grave wrongs." They went to war against Hitler to prevent those "grave wrongs" from being imposed on themselves. And to fight Hitler, those nations made alliance with Stalin - who wrongs dwarfed those of Hitler in many ways. Where then was the campaign against that good ally, Stalin? Where was the campaign against Mao during the cultural revolution? It would seem some "grave wrongs" have more purchase than others.

But how can this be if the world has moved on since Augustine? For certainly the moral imperative cannot be "There is a moral responsibility to right grave wrongs but only if the potential cost is sufficiently low."


2 September 2012 at 14:50  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...


I am quite happy for the power to declare wars to be taken away from individual nation states so that it can be exercised collectively if there is an effective multilateral body to do so. In fact - if you study history I think that we have been in the position that it is blocs of individual states that wage major wars for quite a long time. I see no reason as to why there isn't the opportunity for considerable improvement in the existing model.

On WMDs I don't think that you can argue that they were not a factor in Iraq as factors such as the geopolitical balance and wanting to get rid of a nasty piece of work. I have heard Blair make the point how 9/11 changed everything - no leader of the UK/US could take the risk of being caught in the situation where WMDs ended up in the wrong hands and being used - what drove the thinking was the existence of such a possibility - not the view that it was a certainty.

2 September 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I am quite happy for the power to declare wars to be taken away from individual nation states so that it can be exercised collectively if there is an effective multilateral body to do so.

How do you take away the power of individual nations to declare war? It cannot be accomplished by international agreement because there exists no international authority to enforce the agreement. The basic unit of sovereignty in he world is the nation state. Those nation-states would decide on their own how to respond to such an event. They cannot be compelled to fight. This was the reason for the colossal failure of the League of Nations. Each nation wanted others nation to carry the responsibility of the fight even as they slashed their individual capability to wage war.

The fundamental problem is that nations can always act without permission, and powerful nations can act with impunity. They will not allow themselves to be restricted by international agreement when those agreements cannot be imposed on them by force. Indeed those powerful nations are exactly the nations to whom the international body would appeal should enforcement be required. Thus by necessity the powerful fox is given charge to guard the hen house. You can be sure he will do so - to the benefit of his own self-interest.

In practice, the international body would do what all international bodies do. It would either enforce the interests of the major powers that control it, or it would devolve into a paralyzed ineffective body capable of nothing but inaction. The international body would require a monopoly on the use of force in order to do what you suggest. Then it could act and compel. But do you really want one body in this world to hold a monopoly on the use of force?


2 September 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Tony Blair is a snake in sheep’s clothing. I never trusted him back then or now. Neither did I feel confident about the decision to attack Iraq war. Once you meddle in another sovereign country, you effectively give others the right to interfere in ones own country.
Sadman Insane was a tyrant, but so are others like Mugabe, but it was not financially viable to get involved there.
That someone claims to be spiritual means nothing. You judge them by their works and test them by the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

2 September 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger goodfornowt said...

Don't you think these chemical weapons now supposed to be in Syria were moved there from Iraq by Saddam to deceive the UN inspectors?

2 September 2012 at 16:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

I don't see Archbishop Tutu rushing from his bishop's palace in South Africa to give help or verbal support to other persecuted Africans in need of his immediate attention like the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the Christians in Nigeria and the Southern Sudan during their present martyrdom by Islamic Jihad.

Years ago he could have showed his Christian love for all Africans by putting in put a word or two in defense of the white farmers in Zimbawe who lost their land to the racism and thievery of Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe went from the bread basket of southern Africa to ruined and empty farms almost overnight.

Here is another headline from today's news about this phoney Archbishop:

Tutu: Bush, Blair should face trial at the Hague

September 2, 2012

LONDON — Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu called Sunday for Tony Blair and George Bush to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for their role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

Tutu, the retired Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that the ex-leaders of Britain and the United States should be made to "answer for their actions."

The Iraq war "has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history," wrote Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984.

"Those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague," he added.

I wonder if this fat cat cleric will give President Bush any credit for the enormous money his country gave to fight AIDS in Africa when Bush was President of the USA? Here is a quote from Bob geldof about Bush's help for Black Africa:

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Irish Rocker bobGeldof praises Bush's African policy

I have always wondered why it was never told properly to the American people, who were paying for it. It was, for example, Bush who initiated the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with cross-party support led by Senators John Kerry and Bill Frist. In 2003, only 50,000 Africans were on HIV antiretroviral drugs — and they had to pay for their own medicine. Today, 1.3 million are receiving medicines free of charge. The U.S. also contributes one-third of the money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — which treats another 1.5 million. It contributes 50% of all food aid (though some critics find the mechanism of contribution controversial). On a seven-day trip through Africa, Bush announced a fantastic new $350 million fund for other neglected tropical diseases that can be easily eradicated; a program to distribute 5.2 million mosquito nets to Tanzanian kids; and contracts worth around $1.2 billion in Tanzania and Ghana from the Millennium Challenge Account, another initiative of the Bush Administration.

So why doesn't America know about this? "I tried to tell them. But the press weren't much interested," says Bush. It's half true. There are always a couple of lines in the State of the Union, but not enough so that anyone noticed, and the press really isn't interested. For them, like America itself, Africa is a continent of which little is known save the odd horror.

Take that and stuff it in your miter "Archbishop"!

2 September 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger John Magee said...


I thought the same. In 2006 The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force, AF General Sada, said Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

Surprise! Today in 2010 we hear about "chemical weapons" that Syria might use on it's own people or "invaders"

2 September 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger Richard said...

On this your Grace, Archbishop Tutu is right. The premise for war was "the certainty" that Saddam had WMD and that the West was vulnerable to attack - thus the legal justification for war. When this premise was proven to be a lie, other justifications were cobbled together as good enough reasons for the murder and or displacement of over a million people. Whether Blair is “a very believing man” or not is irrelevant. He lied and consequently hundreds of thousands of people died. Of course he and Bush should stand trial as Archbishop Tutu says, but there is not a cat in hell's chance that they ever will.

2 September 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let’s see. An evil man was dispensed with, and the West was given the opportunity to wield it’s awesome power.

Now see here, you shrinking pinkies. There is only one way to deal with Johnny Islam, and that is to grab him by the throat. He will not only lick your boots for that, he will also hold you in high esteem. Don’t forget that now...

2 September 2012 at 20:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is an element of truth in your supposition Inspector,(if put somewhat un-PC.)
There was to be no 'reasoning' with Saddam Hussain who only understood violence and intimidation as a means of' controlling'his people.

It seems the same could be said of Syria.

The grave danger of the' Arab spring'is that the 'Muslim Brotherhood' is coming in on the back of those seeking Democracy and this could lead to a far worse situation than under the previous Government?.

2 September 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indubitably Len. Man unfettered without the decency of Christianity is indeed a wicked animal. Trust none of the others, and instil your superiority in their hearts. If you are going to survive in the jungle, kept on sharpening as many pointed sticks as you can.

By the way, any dreaming of democracy in those Islamic areas will fail just as surely as it did in Africa, where the black man given the vote was subject in places to all the degrees of intimidation as the jackals roamed around looking for his vote. Leave democracy for the civilised peoples of the world. The truly civilised – not those who would empty a Kalashnikov into the air every time a Western film crew are around...

2 September 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


[T]here is not a cat in hell's chance that they ever will.

Heh. No doubt. There is the little problem of jurisdiction. The US doesn't recognize the ICC and for exactly this reason. It has no intention of exposing it politicians or military members to judgment by a court that might criminalize policy differences between the US and European political classes. A bunch of self-important nabobs in Belgium don't get a say in American policy. The US is a sovereign nation and no temporal authority sits above it. "International Law" is an oxymoron. If you think otherwise, then show me the entity that might enforce it? There is no law without enforcement.

There is also the practical difficulty of alienating the US by seeking to punish its citizens. One can't very well seek to criminalize a specific instance of the use of force by the United States, and then at some later date come hat in hand to implore the United States to use that force in some noble cause. If you want access to the later, you are going to have to accept flexibility on the former.

As I said above, the hostility to the War in Iraq is not about the specifics of Iraq. There was far more justification for Iraq than Bosnia, and yet it is Iraq that earns condemnation. Why? It has to do with the unstated belief the military power should be used only as an instrument of international law; that it should be under law in the same way police forces are under law. The Iraq war was fundamentally based upon the assertion that the US could go to war on its own authority. That is why people condemn it. That act undermines the presumption that war is under the control of some international body.

The US maintains its military establishment for its own purposes and to enforce its own interests. That military is not the servant of an international agent. It is the servant of the US gov't. Its members swear an Oath to the Constitution. We fight at the behest of that government. I and those like me have no interest in fighting for the UN or its visions. That isn't going to change. Ever. If you don't like that ... well ... tough. You don't get to tell us when and how to employ that force.


2 September 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger TigerO said...

Isn't it strange how selective memory works.

The trigger for bringing Sadam to World attention was his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. This was an offensive strike against a neighbour for the sole purpose of oil and territory and a regional display of strength.

This triggered the first Gulf War. During this war Iraq launched Scud missiles at both Saudia Arabia and Israel.

The imposition of sanctions and no fly zone for military aircraft was imposed in 1990 by the UN.

The USA and NATO made it very clear that development of further military capability could trigger further military action.

Sadam continued arming and this included the development and testing of short and medium range missiles, capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

As mentioned above 2 nations, Israel and Saudia Arabia were both attacked and both are very close allies of the USA. Saudia Arabia is of particular significance in oil supplies to the USA.

Given the relationship between the USA and both these countries it is a foregone conclusion that any threat like those previously manifested, would make the USA very "trigger happy" in the future. Not to mention that Israel would not be hesitant in wading in herself. Just look at what is happening with Iran now.

It is interesting that Tutu has jumped on his high horse now. Why did he not condemn the supply of South African Weapons and weapon systems (after the ANC came to power) to Iraq when those same weapons were being used on Sadam's own people and those in Iraq.

When has the Archbishop ever condemned, Winnie, the wife of Nelson Mandela for the slaughter by necklacing of anyone that opposed the ANC during the 1980's? When did he call for Mugabe to be tried for war crimes when his North Korean trained 5th Brigade slaughtered 20 000 Ndebele tribesmen in the 1980's?

2 September 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger Huldah said...

John McGee, Goodfornowt:

Canon Andrew White, Vicar of Baghdad has also independently - and repeatedly - insisted that he has talked to Iraqis involved in the moving of Saddam's WMDs; White reported that some of his sources claimed that several people had been made very ill through contact with said WMDs.

2 September 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger happyuk said...

Possessing a "just cause" for waging war always had a fatal design flaw: there is (and never has been) no War on Terror.

Blair would uphold his actions as a "Just War" when in fact his objective was to secure corporate ownership over the region’s oil wealth, while imposing under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank the privatization of State enterprises and the transfer of the countries’ economic assets into the hands of foreign capital.

How did he do it? By winning hearts and minds, not those of grateful Iraqis, but by demonizing the 'enemy' time and time and time again. The term "Islamo-fascism," degrades the values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternatives.

Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves.

The ultimate objective, combining military action, intelligence operations and propaganda, is to break down sovereign countries into open economic regions, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors, such as Afghanistan.

The triggering of sectarian divisions is contemplated in the redrawing of the map of the Middle East, where countries are slated to be broken up and into territories. The map of the New Middle East, although not official, has been used by the US National War Academy. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 2006) and shows how nation states are broken up, international borders redefined along sectarian-ethnic lines, broadly in accordance with the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants

2 September 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent comment, Mr Magee @ 16.59.

This communicant has always shared the Inspector's view of Tutu. He is nothing short of a racist bigot with a remarkable capacity for fooling White liberals by use of Christianity to conceal his true feelings. The fate of White farmers in South Africa has even drawn the attention of Genocide Watch. It is estimated that between 3158 and 3811 White farmers have been murdered in south africa since the Blacks tooj over, that's more than one in fifty. Of course, the number of attacks or attempted murders that have been foiled is much, much higher.

No word from Tutu, the BBC or the Guardian on this race war.

2 September 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

Your Grace,
Manfarang, Martin Sewell, John Magee.

The attack on Iraq did not make sense for any of the officially given reasons.

Iraq's beastly secular regime was not involved with 9/11

HMG must have been aware that its evidence for WMD was of the least reliable, spun into a fraudulent dossier for credulous MPs and mainstream media types.

The West had long tolerated Saddam's cruelties to his own people and had baulked at finishing him off when they had the chance.

Saddam was thoroughly boxed in with a "no fly zone" which could destroy any aggressive movements by his forces at will.

The only credible self-interest casus belli seems to be not "oil" itself but about the currency in which oil is traded. Iraq had made large contracts with EU powers to sell oil in EUROS.
If that caught on as a fashion, it could have drastically devalued the dollar as an international currency - something which the EU was very keen to do.

With regard to Blair's supposedly religious motivations, I found the most damning critique in the traditionalist RC monthly "Christian Order" ( June-July 2008 edition.

The article is entitled
"Comic" O'Blair: The Cartoon Convert from Hell" Well worth a read. After a passing sideswipe at the Reverend Ian Paisley, it gets better as it goes on.

2 September 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger Manfarang said...

rtin Sewell
Easiest/ cheapest way for US to have secured Iraqui oil was to buy it.
The trade in oil is carried out in US dollars. The Iraqis wanted to use Euros. Surprise surprise,an invasion shortly followed.

Tory Boy
Iraq was a Ba'athist regime.
Ba'athists have an outlook which is socialist i.e. close to your beliefs.

3 September 2012 at 02:03  
Blogger John Magee said...


The world has a short and SELECTIVE memory and sense of outrage. It always has and always will.

Edward Spalton

Invading Iraq made perfect sense if you look at a map of the Middle East. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a terrorist state and the enemy of the West, Israel, and of it's neighbors. If Iran get's a nuclear bomb and missiles, it may in fact already have both, we are all in deep trouble soon.

The object of President Bush and PM Blair was to SURROUND Iran. When you look at a map of the region you can understand their objective:

Do you have your atlas ready and turned to a map of the Middle East?

Pakistan to the immediate east of Iran is our "ally", Afghanistan is directly east of Iran was and supposedly still is mostly controlled by NATO troops, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to the north of Iran were cooperating with NATO and allowing planes to land and refuel and station NATO troops in their territory. Turkey is NW of and borders Iran. Turkey is a member of NATO. Georgia is NW of Iran separated by about 100 miles but gave NATO planes a place to land and refuel.... All that was left was Iraq to the west. It was controlled by a monstrous dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. He had to go and when he did a free Iraq completed the circle and NATO and the coalition of allies who had invaded Afghanistan in 2001 had Iran completely surrounded. Iran wasn't going to most likely start a war completely surrounded and if we had to atack their nuclear bomb building sites we had Iran completely surrounded.

Now that Obama has lost Iraq that stranglehold is broken.

Iran will do as it pleases now the chain that completely surrounded it is broken and falling apart.

Thank you President Obama.

You are a total incompetent.

3 September 2012 at 03:01  
Blogger John Magee said...


I never hear that story but I am sure it's true. I would like to hear more. Thank you.

3 September 2012 at 03:37  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector and Bluedog

Tutu is a Pope John Paul II wannabee. But he can never be compared to Pope John Paul II. Apartheid in South Africa as oppressive as it may have been, can in no way ever be compared to life in Nazi occupied Poland during WW II which JP II and the Polish people endured with 3 million Polish Catholics, out of a population then, of about 30 million killed by the Nazi's. The future Pope JP II had to study for the priesthood in his native Krakow in secret, with the threat of death by a firing squad pain if caught by the Gestapo. The Nazi's had closed all schools, universities, and seminaries during their occupation of majority RC Poland from 1939 to late 1944 so that the "subhuman" Poles couild not get a basic education from childhood to university. The Nazi's were preparing the Catholic Poles for their role as future slaves for the Aryan Nazi empire in a Germanized Poland and in the east in Russia. Then there is the 40 years of terrible persecution JP II and his people endured under Communism after 1945.

Compared to most of Pope John Paul II's life Archbishop Tutu had a cushy job while travels the world defending scum like Castro and Chavez and every left wing cause he can thinks will make him look good. He reeks of being just another liberal poseur cleric wearing his miter to me.

3 September 2012 at 04:10  
Blogger John Magee said...

sorry for my typos

3 September 2012 at 06:48  
Blogger happyuk said...

David Wilcock has written a comprehensive and well-thought out overview of what he aptly describes as "financial tyranny." His analysis of the "super-entity" that owns most corporations, the fact that derivatives are still being floated after already dooming the economy, and the size of Illuminati holdings and theft stagger the imagination.

Simultaneously, aggressive and blatant moves are being made to start World War 3 in the Middle East — with increasing threats from Israel and the United States to attack Iran.

Both the plan to attack Iran and to start a nuclear Third World War have been around for decades as Carol Rosen’s disclosures suggest. The agenda of taking the world’s population down from 7 billion to 500 million has been covered in many articles.

But it is unlikely. When Bush and Cheney pushed for war with Iran, numerous American generals and admirals were poised to resign.

"There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible."

"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them."

3 September 2012 at 07:28  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

John Magee

You are quite right about the USA losing control of Iraq. The sum total effect of Western intervention has been to replace an alliance of the Sunni minority with the Ba'athists with a majority Shia regime, on much more friendly terms with their Shia neighbours in Iran. In doing so, they have also left behind an intense hatred of the USA and UK. Nobody likes their country to be invaded with "Shock and Awe" and the beastliness of the home-grown Ba'athists is a more distant fading memory.

3 September 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Cranmer has tweeted a link to a new article on this issue by none other than my favourite ex-canon Giles "Hug an Arsonist" Fraser.

"Mandela sat down with De Klerk, Blair sat down with the IRA, and one day the US will have to properly sit down with Taliban. Indeed, Jesus was often attacked for sitting down with those that morally respectable people had decided were beyond the pale. Those who cry out that this offends against decency are often more concerned with protecting their own innocence than they are with finding a way forward. Yes, reconciliation is about truth-telling (and Tutu could have done that to Blair's face) but it is also about being in the same room."

There you are folks. Our refusal to talk with the Taliban is obviously at fault, because we're more interested in protecting our innocence. Silly me. Bin Laden was really just like a leper, or a prostitute or a tax-collector - left out by an uncaring and hypocritical society when all he was trying to do was make his way in the world by conspiring in the murder of thousands of people, presiding over the brutal subjugation of Afghani people (whose lot has not improved much since), and defending atrocities carried out around the world against civilians. The victims of these men don't get a chance to "protect their innocence" because it's been robbed from them along with their lives.

Thank God His Throne is built on righteousness and justice (Psalm 89:14), and not Fraser's equivocating nonsense.

3 September 2012 at 14:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the smell of the self righteous in a morning, along with the smell of napalm and depleted uranium with talk of WMDs

Of course Parlaiment did the peoples bidding and have no ulterior motives in relation to their private business concerns

Blair made his fortune and the people are in debt for fortunes

If there was any justice Blair would be taking part in the paralympics minus a few limbs

3 September 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

bone, on the subject of the invalid Olympics, one hears that the Australian team are somewhat disappointed with their runners. Then again, if their antecedents were slightly faster on their feet, they wouldn’t be Australians at all, what !

3 September 2012 at 22:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jake the Peg will pull it off ;-)

3 September 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Do forgive the Inspector bone, but will all the hype going on, if you are unlucky enough to lose a limb or two, you are well on the way to becoming a f_____g superman...

3 September 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger John Magee said...

Edward Spalton

911 accomplished exactly what Osama Bin Laden intended. The Jihadist attack on the USA in 2001 drew the USA and it's NATO Allies into a hopeless and never ending war in the Middle East Bin Laden knew would drain us of our wealth and weaken our resolve. It has.

It hurts me to suggest this. I'm waiting for a spectacular attack after the USA has a new President. NOT because it will be Romney. It will happen because the Muslims wouldn't have attacked the USA when Obama was President because his amazing stupidity and naivety was useful for their needs. They waited to see how far he would go to weaken the USA militarily and economically. He has done a spectacular job on both accounts.

Jihadists usually wait 10 to 15 years before major attacks. The next one might be a suitcase nuclear bomb on Washington, NYC, or several major cities in the USA on the same day. This concept is not a fantasy.

Another real possibility by the Jihadists is an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack. You may know what this means. If not, is one missile armed with a nuclear bomb, launched by Jihadists from a freighter perhaps 500 miles or less off the east coast of the USA and exploded 100 miles in the atmosphere over the middle west which would send the USA ,within 5 minuted back to the 18th century. With all power grids instantly destroyed and all computers down and the entire nation in the dark for months or years. That would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. They could destroy the USA and not harm one single building.

Evil minds in Iran dream about these possibilities and pray to the pagan moon god Allah for "guidance".

While planning their spectacular attack possibilies the modern Islamic Jihadists are patient. Their ultimate prize, taking over Western Christian Civilization, and imposing Islam on Europe and the West is their ultimate goal. Their culture is a enduring one and knows that the only way you can bring down a mighty giant is by constantly slicing him with small cuts and slowly bleeding him to death.

It helps kill the giant when he doesn't do anything about his small cuts and they become infected and hasten his demise. These "infections" are their "friends" in the West who make excuses for them.

Someday if you have the tiume read the history of and reasons the Muslim brotherhood was founded in the 1920's in Egypt. Their goal then (and now) was to revive Islam and help esstablish a modern caliphate (Islamic Empire)and support a modern Jihad to accomplish Islam's ultimate goal since the time of Mohammed: domination and conversion of Christian Europe.

Didn't the Muslim brotherhood just take over Egypt or are about to?

So much for Obama's and the European hope for the "Arab Spring".

4 September 2012 at 04:56  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

John Magee ,
I have delved a little in the Balkan situation. My first serious attempt thirteen years ago completely missed the Islamist involvement. I wa concentrating on the bundesnachrichtendienst etc. I think I have arrived at a more balanced view in an article, Kosovo The Balkans Today th West Tomorrow. It was published in Quarterly Review and is available on
amongst the articles which scroll up on the right hand side of the page.

4 September 2012 at 07:32  
Blogger happyuk said...

While we can each choose to be angered by what Bush and Blair et al did, we should be aware that they got us to the point we are at today – where we can see them for what they are, hold them accountable and make sure it never happens again. Bravo Desmond Tutu!

UN weapons inspectors should have been given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Had they been given the chance, and had those weapons existed, dismantling the threat would have had the support of virtually the entire world.

More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. Nearly 4,500 American soldiers have been killed and more than 32,000 wounded. On these grounds alone, in a more enlightened and consistent world, those responsible for this loss of life should be facing the same music as their African and Asian peers who are now being made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

4 September 2012 at 07:44  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well done, Mr Spalton @ 07.32, an important realisation.

While there are undoubtedly a number of Germans who dream of a new civilising mission to the east by modern Teutonic knights, their demographics are against them.

It surprises this communicant but all three of the former Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan now have a birth-rate well below replacement at 1.3 children per woman. It seems that since WW2 their women have been collectively on strike and that national extinction looms. How long before we see a Turkic speaking Germany?

If anything can be done to re-vitalise Japan it remains to be revealed. They won't even admit Philippina servants to care for their legions of elderly.

In summary, not much point in spending too much time on the former Axis powers when the Islamic enemy within is a greater threat.

4 September 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger John Magee said...


You are correct. Europe is dying because of it's negative demographics. In a way it could be said that Europe has "condomed " itself into oblivion. Young people would rather have nice vacations or party endlessly than start or even have a family. I've even read excuses by young Europeans that they chose to not have children for "green reasons"! They simply aren't having enough babies to replace the indigeneous populations. They aren't having enough babies who will grow up and pay the taxes to support their welfare states which is the real reason many European nations have opened their doors to the 3rd world. (mostly Muslims).

I read an article about Sweden recognizing this fact as early as the late 1950's and by the late 1960's that country was already making plans to open it's doors to the 3rd world in order to have enough people in the future to work to pay the taxes for their lavish welfare paradise. They did this starting in the 1980's in the name of multi-culturalaism. They ddn't count on these people coming to Sweden to live OFF of that same welfare state and now Sweden faces the 2nd highest rape rate in the world and daily violence from "youths" in cities like Malmo,Stockholm, and other smaller cities in that country. Norway and Denmark face silimar problems with their "new" Scandinavians.

4 September 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger John Magee said...


I strongly disagree.

The Muslims Jihadists who attacked the USA on September 11, 2010 got us at the point we are in today. The Islamic repuiblic of Iran and it's threat to get and use nukes also is why we are also in the Missle East. Please scroll above a read what I said about NATO and what member nations must do if another member is attacked.

International Islamic terrorism attacked the USA (and the rest of the West)on September 11, 2001. The organizer of that attack was an Egyptian student studying engineering in Hamburg, Germany, named Mohammed Atta, who was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's interesting to note that in 1998 Atta talked a Lutheran Pastor in Hamburg into allowing his church hall to be used to plan the attack on 911. Atta convinced this naive Lutheran cleric that he needed the church hall to "study the Koran" with Muslim friends.

Am I wrong to say the Muslim Brotherhood is already in charge of Egypt or about to take over? Also in Syria, Lybia, and Tunesia? What happened to the so called "Arab Spring"

The "Arab Spring" was a pipe dream caused in part by President Obama, who I believe has, at the very least, a personal sympathy for Islam. Read his speech in Cairo to the Islamic world he gave shortly after he became President of the USA.

I wish Archbishop Tutu would be consistent in his moral outrage and call his pal Fidel Castro a thug and a murderer to his face next time he meets him in Havana or some 5 star hotel in New York City when Castro gives his annual UN speech. Castro set up his own version of the Soviet Gulag in Cuba in the 1960's, some of his camps are still open for political dissidents. Cuba also has special quarantine camps set up for AIDS victims who caught that terrible disease when Castro sent troops to fight in Angloa (in Africa) in the late 1970's and early 80' and brought AIDS back to Cuba. How about those concentration camps Che Guevara set up in Cuba for Gays the early 1960's? Thosuands of Gay Cubans died in them. I bet the idiots who whear Che T shirts aren't aware of this aspect of their "hero's" murderous life. Castro ordered border guards to "shoot to kill" from their boats and planes since the early 1960's for all boats or rafts that were full of refugees trying to escape his Communist cess pool and go to the "evil" USA 90 miles aross the Straits of Florida north to find freedom in there.

Tutu never is critical of Castro or his ilk.

Bush and Blair did the right thing in the face of an attack on all of us by radical Islam.

I wish left wing clerics like Tutu would keep their holy noses out of politics, but if they chose to do so , try to at least be universal in their condemnation of the wrongs in the world.

4 September 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger happyuk said...

"The Muslims Jihadists who attacked the USA on September 11, 2010 got us at the point we are in today."

There was a time when I would have strongly agreed with that point, but I think the truth is slowly but surely coming out that 9-11 was indeed a false-flag operation, one that received massive state funding by individuals determined to turn America into a socialist dictatorship, nullifying the Constitution via the Patriot Acts.

At least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Mohand Al-Shehri, Abdul Aziz Al-Omari and Salem Al-Hazmi are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.

Many are simply not be able to face these diabolical truths.

4 September 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger John Magee said...


The Patriot Act was passed in October 2001 by a majority in both political parties in both Houses of the USA Congress and signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. On May 26, 2011 President Obama signed a four-year extension. Last I heard the USA Constitution was intact and the only people who need to fear for their rights are Muslim terrorists and their supporters.

The USA was attacked on September 11, 2001 when more people were killed on that day than killed by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. That attack resulted in the USA declaring war on the Empire of Japan the next day, December 8, 1941. Hilter, Japan's ally declared war on the USA on December 10,1941. 911 was an attack and a declaration of war against the USA and the West by international Islamic Jihad.

Wartime requires extreme actions by governments to survive. Presdent Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. During WW I Presisent Wilson did suppress the USA Constitution when he had anti war organizers arrested and sent to jail with no trial and newspapers and magazines that opposed the USA's needless entry into that war closed by the government. Most Americans were against the USA entering WW I. They included native born WASP's from old families, the Irish, and of course German Americans and many other groups including churches and synagogues.

During WW II FDR had what is now called "The Great Sedition Trial of 1944" for members of the "America First" organizations who before 1941 wanted the USA to remain neutral.
His wartime trials in the USA unjustly sent people from the extreme right all the way to the extreme left sent to jail for merely exercising their right to free speech before WW II.

The Patriot Act is no way similar to what Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR did in time of war to keep their country secure and "root out" traitors".

By what miracle of the pagan moon god of Medina did these six hijackers survive their planes being rammed into the WTC Towers in NYC, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and that field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001? Where is your proof they are alive today? Photos? Interviews? Public apperances?

Conspiracy theories usually, but not always are fantasies. This one about 6 "survivors" of the 911 attacks is really amazing because none of those 6 have been seen alve anywhere on the face of the earth since September 11, 2001.

If I had been president after 911 I would have had Taliban hideouts in Afghanistan bombed using tactical nuclear weapons which are not on the enormous scale of strategic nuclear weapons but would have accomplished the mission of exterminating the Taliban and their supporters.

War is hell. Especially when you start one against a super power and it's allies.

4 September 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

No Your Grace, Iraq was not a just war.

I remember a senior Saudi government official on radio 4 begging Blair and Bush not to do it saying with great emotion 'if you depose Sadam Hussein you will open the gates of hell'. Paradoxically, this man undestood how much Sunni and shia Muslims lust for each others' blood, but Blair who had hoodwinked himself into believing the 'religion of peace' lie did not understand that a bullying killer like Saddam was actually the sort of governor these bloodthirsty animals needed to keep them apart. Democracy my FHA.

They could have got better inteligence if they had read Frederick Forsyth's novel 'The Fist of God' set in Iraq during teh first Gulf war. Forsyth, who is noted for his connections with teh militaruy and doing decent research, noted in the novel that Sadam actually allowed religious liberty and tolerated Christians.

They would have done even better to have asked the opinion of the heroic saint Andrew White, teh 'vicar of Baghdad' who often performs the burial service a few days after baptism and whose church once had to have body parts removed.

I knew an Iraqi doctor who asked with passion 'Why did Tony Blair do it? George Bush is an idiot but Blair is educated man should have known better. Under Saddam it wasn't democracy but we had water, electricity, education and you could walk down the street without being killed'

John Humphreys n teh Today programme seemed shocked when he reported that Iraqi women, when asked what would help them most, said please can you remove the bodie's of each night's murder victims from the streets earlier so out children don't have to walk past them on the way to school'. It takes a lot to shock Humphrys.

Blair was largely responsible for this. He should not go before a court, he and Bush should be chained to a wall in Baghdad and left overnight for the attention of the widows and orphans their wicked policies created.

Tens of thousands of Christians in the Middle East have been killed and hundred of thousands displaced because of this wicked and stupid invasion.

5 September 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger John Magee said...

Rambling Appleseed

The Iraq war has nothing to do with Christians fleeing the Middle east today. Christians are leaving their ancient homelands in the Middle East has everything to do with the rise of a modern Islamic Jihad. Middle Eastern Christians have endured Islamic persecution, off and on, for almost 1,400 years since Islam Jihad Armies spread out from the Saudi Peninsula after Mohammed's death and conquered the Christian countries of the Middle East suich as Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and others.

Yes, the Chaldean Christians (over three million of them and in union with Rome) are once again facing persecution by the Muslim majorities in Iraq. It is ironic that they had a certain "protection" under Saddam Hussein but at what cost? Their nearly forty year long brief religious freedom came at the cost of living under a dictator who who killed at least 5,000 Iraqi citizens each month by torture and the firing squad. How about Saddam's gassing of over 200,000 Kurds (Muslims and minority Christians)? They are being persecuted because President Obama abandoned their country to chaos.

The Iraq war was had nothing to do with Lebanon going from a 54% majority Maronite Catholic country in 1975 when the civil war there started to barely 30% Maronite Catholic country today. The civil war in Lebanonon, that is still going on although not as intense as it was twenty years ago, was and is between Palestinians, Shi'a Muslims,Sunni Muslims, Palestinians and others. The Christians in Lebanon fled their country because of Muslim persecution.

Today the Coptic Christians in Egypt (over nine million of them) are once again facing open and brutal persecution as the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt and openly advocate attacks on Coptic churches and individuals. How is that related to the Iraq war?

Christians in the Middle East and the area are once again being persecuted are in Iran, Pakistan, the Southern Sudan, Syria, Turkey. How are those persecution related to the Iraq war?

I don't see any of the persecutions of the ancient Christians communities in the Middle East having anything to do with the Iraq war but everything to do with their 1,400 year long persecution as Christian minorities living under the cult of Islam as "dhhimmi's" (third class citizens along with Jews in majority Arab Islamic cultures).

5 September 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Very sadly the US has foolishly - or perhaps they hadn't, given all the fraud that occurred- rejected the properly conservative candidate for the Republican presidency.

Not too impressed by Tutu; the real holy guy who has a brain many times more powerful & precise than any of the candidates was Ron Paul, who castigates US policy for creating "blowback", bankrupting the US, pandering to Israel, "pre-emptive wars of aggression" & killing many thousands while injuring others.

No one here has even considered the potentially devastating effects of depleted uranium. This was fought over the threat of oil being traded in currencies other than USD as one person correctly said. Oil is the real currency of the world atm, (& precious metals) so whatever currency it is denominated in has massive power. Which is why Kissinger set up a system whereby it was traded in USD & then some of USD debt was bought with those USDs. Saddam Hussein thought he could get away with defying the warnings by having many body doubles.

Had Ron Paul become President there might have been some hope for democracy, the US economy, & a stable world, but with shortsighted and ill-educated warmongers touting not conservatism but aggressive neo-conservatism I doubt it.

8 September 2012 at 13:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older