Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask why Tony Blair invaded Iraq?

27 replies

NameChangeTimeNow · 20/03/2018 17:30

AIBU to ask why Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq? I’m still unsure why.

He has said that he invaded Iraq because he was sure that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and also because he wanted to depose Saddam Hussein.

I don’t think that these reasons were his real reasons for deciding to invade Iraq though. I’m still unsure about what his actual reason was for invading Iraq - and maybe we’ll never know. I suppose part of the reason why he invaded Iraq was perhaps through pressure from the American government, though.

What does everyone else think?

OP posts:
Original poster
NameChangeTimeNow · 20/03/2018 18:12

Bump.

OP posts:
SideOrderofSprouts · 20/03/2018 18:13

Oil.

Original poster
NameChangeTimeNow · 20/03/2018 18:22

I agree with you, SideOrder, and thought that too. I just wonder how he would’ve benefited from the oil though?

Did he want to benefit by getting cheap oil through deposing Saddam Hussein and then bringing in British and US soldiers to govern Iraq? In this situation, I guess that the oil would’ve been relatively cheap because there was so much of it.

I’m not sure if my theory’s right though.

OP posts:
toolonglurking · 20/03/2018 18:43

I've noticed this question is asked on AIBU every now and then, is it a homework assignment or something? I don't understand why you wouldn't Google it to try to find some relevant news articles and editorials?

Rainbunny · 20/03/2018 20:01

He KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction, I remember a sensitive document was leaked about a private meeting Blair had with President Bush where they discussed the fact that even though they didn't expect to find weapons of mass destruction they agreed to proceed with the invasion anyway.

I honestly think Blair has a messianic God complex and truly believed he was going to "save" the Iraqi people and help fix the middle east generally. Absolute hubris and even today he still can't admit fully the damage he helped cause and why he really did it.

RedHelenB · 20/03/2018 20:04

The upside is the same would have happened if the Tories had been in power as they would have wanted to ally themselves with America too.

LoislovesStewie · 20/03/2018 20:04

Because he was a twat who wanted to cosy up to Bush. Jezza was right.

Teutonic · 20/03/2018 20:05

Oil. No other reason.

UterusUterusGhali · 20/03/2018 20:07

The war in Iraq was over oil. The defense (sic) secretary of the US had a company called Halliburton which made nearly $40bn from the war.

Tony Blair wanted to please the US and be some kind of liberator.

There are always nuances to these things but that's about it I think.

user1497863568 · 21/03/2018 01:37

Arms contracts and opportunity for endless war. Read 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'.

araiwa · 21/03/2018 04:27

Because Saddam was a dick

SilverySurfer · 21/03/2018 06:44

Blair was Bush's poodle - www.ft.com/content/1b706386-fe22-11db-bdc7-000b5df10621 and is a war criminal as a result of his actions.

MephistophelesApprentice · 21/03/2018 06:59

I think Blair genuinely thought that by supporting Bush over Iraq, he'd be able to influence him positively over climate change.

Plus he'd seen the success of humanitarian intervention in Bosnia and Sierra Leone, so he thought you could achieve the same on a larger scale.

But he was a fucking lawyer, paid to win elections for the Labour party and didn't actually know anything about military campaigns. It's also why he leapt on the dodgy dossier, which the intelligence services gave him for the sole reason of proving how poor the evidence actually was. He just saw it as a way of winning the case, or at least promoting doubt against it.

Helpmeplan · 21/03/2018 07:04

Oil, and he was probably pressured into it by Bush. Greed does funny things to people.

Blair committed a war crime, and should have been tried but got away with it. Due to his greed he killed my friend and many others. I honestly think we wouldn't have half the trouble we do now if it wasn't for that war.

GrannyGrissle · 21/03/2018 07:47

Because he is a vile psycopathic uncaring warmongering murderous cunt. HTH.

TheNaze73 · 21/03/2018 07:48

Well said Granny

meditrina · 21/03/2018 07:59

Britain did well out of the Pax Americana.

The question was whether UK went in with US, as much as any part of the actual 'evidence'.

From the outset if the Bush admisinstration when Rice started talking about preemptive defence, the writing was on the wall. US was the sole superpower and essentially unstoppable when it wanted to invade somewhere. So another angle (from the POV of international community in general) was how to make it look as if US was respecting norms and treaties, bit smashing right through them.

It was a time of spin, not substance. Those who tried to point it out at the time were ostracised - one key lesson from this is making the most noise/driving out other opinions does not make you right.

BarbarianMum · 21/03/2018 08:03

To make Bush happy and to make himself feel important. It's rare for a UK prime minister to turn down the opportunity to go to war.

birdsdestiny · 21/03/2018 08:04

It's interesting isn't it the guilt associated with intervention and yet this doesn't apply to non intervention. Thousands are dying in Syria as we stand back, a policy the saintly jezza supports. I am not sure why their deaths are not as important as those who died in Iraq

itstimeforanamechange · 21/03/2018 08:05

Because he was up George Bush's bottom, who in turn wanted to finish off what his Daddy didn't finish off in the first Gulf War.

AgentProvocateur · 21/03/2018 08:07

Megalomania and a associated religious conviction that “he was doing the right thing” for mankind. And because he is a vile, psychopathic warmongering murderous cunt, as @Grannygrissle said.

Never trust a leader who discusses their religious beliefs.

BarbarianMum · 21/03/2018 08:35

Syria is a tragedy birds but I don't feel guilty about the UK not intervening militarily because bitter experience suggests that it wouldn't help. Sometimes you just can't bomb things better.

Beetlejizz · 21/03/2018 08:43

Well I presume he did want to depose Saddam, the question is just why?

The main reason, I think, is because the US were doing it. For whatever reason he considered that it would be in our best strategic interests to go along with them. And though I understand that to some degree, he must also have had access to the strategic intelligence the Americans had which almost invariably said it was a fucking terrible idea.

I don't think there's any realistic possibility he wanted Iraq to be ruled by UK and US soldiers though. Actually if anything the problem was that they thought they'd be able to get out much more quickly than they did.

Blair always justifies it by saying it's what he believed was right yada yada. I'm sure he did, but my problem there is the poor judgement he showed more than his integrity. It's not much good to me if you act with unimpeachable honesty but you still get it wrong.

Firesuit · 21/03/2018 08:49

I think it's probably worth remember the invasion was going to happen anyway. The question he was considering was whether or not Iraq should be invaded, it was whether or not the UK should support America.

Why Iraq was invaded, and why Britain participated, are two separate questions.

Firesuit · 21/03/2018 08:50

The question he was considering was not whether or not Iraq should be invaded