Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'UK would not have invaded Iraq if we knew what we know now'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:44 AM
Original message
'UK would not have invaded Iraq if we knew what we know now'
Source: ANI

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said that the UK would not have invaded Iraq in 2003, if it had been clear that the then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

When asked if he would still have supported the invasion of Iraq if he had known then what was known now, Miliband said: Obviously there would have been no such decision.

If we had known then what we know now, if we''d have known that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no UN resolutions and no vote in the House of Commons, The Scotsman quoted Miliband, as saying.

His position appears to clash with comments made by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and then-Chancellor Gordon Brown, who have insisted that removing Saddam would still have been the right decision.

Read more: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/uk-would-not-have-invaded-iraq-if-we-knew-what-we-know-now/608812/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Who could have predicted that Bush/Cheney would lie to the world about WMDs?"
You didn't do your homework. Lots of voices said the US position against Iraq was BS. You didn't want to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's so funny that DUers knew there were no WMDs but the UK government could not figure it out.
I don't believe this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. No one could have predicted the financial crash, either...
Since by predicting it, or by saying there are no WMDs, you disqualify yourself from being heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting how so many of us knew better than the goverments of the UK and USA...
You could even say millions of us knew better...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. What a crock of shit...
They were all in such a hurry to go to war, that they would have believed anything.

Sorry David, not buying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. we did "know then what we know now...."
It isn't so much a matter of knowing more now-- the UNSCOM team reported as early as the mid-1990s that Iraq was effectively disarmed. It's more a matter of the public relations effort in support of the war having failed, and left it exposed as utterly useless, a waste of life and treasure with zero redeeming worth-- unless you're a military contractor, in which case the money rolls in like never before. The wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are political wars fought to divert public funds into private hands, and sold to the public with fear mongering lies.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. You phrased it perfectly mike_c:
"political wars fought to divert public funds into private hands"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mugweed Donating Member (939 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
6. Maybe if they had read more Knight Ridder articles...
I know I got most of my debunking news from them. Could that be why they no longer exist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesquanderer Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Knight-Ridder is still around, it's now McClatchy (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. They knew and committed murder to protect the secret
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 11:54 AM by Tempest
Dr. David Kelly was murdered by Blair's government because he knew they were lying their way into war.

And hopefully the truth will come out about his murder under a new government:

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/tories-reopen-probe-iraq-whistleblowers-death/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. A million dead Iraqis await your apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. What irony that...
...the very reasons used to justify removing Saddam, could be rationalized for having removed Bush/Cheney! If there were a huge statue of Bush, I'd be tempted to go throw a rope around it and pull it down with a truck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. Bollocks
He's just another one of that lying bunch of fuckers aka New Labour who will be consigned to history in a few weeks time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. They knew. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. How could the government of a nation so steeped in knowledge and memory of
WWI, a war in which gas, a WMD, was used, a country that had to be well aware of the waves of soldiers killed when Iraq used poison gas against Iran in their war in a more recent time have remained unaware that there were no WMDs in Iraq as it watched the march of our troops across the Iraqi desert. I recall how some of our equipment had difficulty making it through the sand.

It takes waves of soldiers to confront WMDS -- waves of them. That is because poisons, for example, kill quickly and indiscriminately over a fairly good distance. Gas masks are protection, but only for so much time.

Had the Bush administration believed that our military might actually have to defend itself against WMDs, the administration would have sent in far larger numbers of troops. Surely the British military historians and strategists knew that. I knew it. I believed the propaganda about WMDs until I noticed that we were only sending in a relatively small number of troops. I was horrified. And I remember reading that there was some question about sending in so few troops. The people who decided to fight with the troops we sent in were either ignorant about military history (even more ignorant than I), or knew that there were no WMDs before they sent our troops in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
15. Setting up their war crimes defense story.
Not buying it at all asshat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Laying the ground for the lies that will be told in tomorrow's debate
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 03:59 AM by Turborama
The Liberal Democrats were the only party that voted against the illegal invasion of Iraq. No doubt Clegg will be hammering Brown and Cameron with that fact during tomorrow's foreign policy debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeSchmuckabee Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. Perhaps if they knew they had deployed a quarter million in the '20's
they might not have gone back.

Remember or doomed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. Tony Blair disagrees.
He would have invaded Iraq anyway and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. And this is the trouble
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 02:42 AM by T_i_B
Blair wanted the Iraq war for the sake of the "special relationship" with George W Bush and the likes of David Miliband happily went along with it.

And now the same people who happily treated any questioning of Blair's Iraq policy with contempt are wanting our vote. Well I for one will treat their electioneering with the same contempt with which they treat the British public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
20. Fuck him and his lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RFKHumphreyObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. Miliband knew then what he claims not to know now
He knew it was a set up then and that Saddam had no WMDs and he and the other Labour MPs who voted for the same resolution nevertheless went and voted for the war anyway. Nothing like sending British soldiers into harm's way for the principles of diplomatic and political expediency

I will never forgive nor forget the British Labour Party's behavior on that issue. It has lost all credibility with me forever because of what it did during the Iraq War and I hope it suffers the consequences of its despicable actions for generations to come
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
23. Translation
"I'm too stupid to be an MP. Smack me over the head with a shovel and I'll use it to go shovel shit the rest of my career."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
24. Had he known he would get caught, he never would have done it /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC