Heysham_Shrimp wrote:ERR yes but for the first time in history a British Prime Minister lied to the House of Commons.
Blair made the case for a war on the basis of Sadam having weapons of mass destruction that could strike the UK in 45 minutes. David Cameron and William Haigh have said that the Labour Government would not have had Conservative support for the war if they had been given the truth by Blair.
At that time Blair had his head so far up George Dubbya Bush's arse that it would have needed surgically removing !
Firstly that assumes Blair lied to the House of Commons. He's always maintained he didn't and the independent Butler Report agreed with him. The penalties for lying are immense but no smoking gun has been found. The most agressive stance is that of Andrew Gilligan and his 'sexed up' line, i.e. Exaggeration of claims and not outright lying.
Secondly you're trying to paint a pretty picture of the Tories. The reality is that more Labour MPs opposed the war than Tory ones. And both Labour and Tories would have opposed the war if it was proved there were no WMDs.
Finally hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq didn't because of the invasion but instead of the management of it's aftermath. The Americans, who were responsible for post-invasion strategy had no real plans other than to remove Saddam and his government. This left a void which largely a civil war of Iraqi Muslim on Iraqi Muslim filled.
No one knows the situation Iraq would be in if Saddam had remained in power. In the years before millions had died either in conflict with Iran or the suppression of the Kurds and the Shi'ites in the South of Iraq. The likelihood is that would have continued and if then civil war could have filled the void. It was because of this politicians like US neo-cons, Blair AND many in the Tory backed regime change - some Tories openly, as they've suggested with Zimbabwe and Iran. To blame Blair is a fallacy based on hindsight. And this from someone opposed to the war.