Blair says it was right to remove Sadam Hussein

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In an interview with the BBC Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, has stated publicly that he believe that it was right to remove Sadam Hussein and that he would have ordered the country to go to war against Iraq in any case.

In his words whether or not – and it was a case of not – there being any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) he would still have gone to war.

Speaking on BBC One's Fern Britton Meets programme, he was asked whether he would still have gone on with plans to join the US-led invasion had he known at the time that there were no WMDs.

Former Prime Minister Blair said: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."

And he added that he cannot really think we would be better with him and his two sons still in charge.

He further said: "I believe it was worth it. I believe Saddam Hussein's regime was an affront to the international community, to the international consciousness because of the atrocities, the crimes, he has committed."

The fact and truth is, as so well pointed out by former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell when he said Mr Blair would not have obtained the support of the cabinet or Parliament for war if he had made these views clear at the time.

That is also reason while the good doctor had to be suicided in the woods supposedly by taking around hundred Paracetamol tables and cutting his wrists. He knew too much and had too be gotten rid off.

If anyone believes that the British establishment will not walk over dead bodies in the same way as those of other countries do then the people better start getting a new brain.

While former Prime Minister Blair says that it was right to remove Sadam Hussein because he was a tyrant but I must ask “What about Robert Mugabe. Is he not also a tyrant?”

The truth is that the was and is all about oil in Iraq (and Iran, the next target?) but there is none in Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe and therefore there is no interest thereto change the regime.

Regime change also is illegal under UN laws and this regardless whether Blair says that he considered it right. However, if it was right to remove Sadam Hussein then it is equally right to remove or aid in the removal of Robert Mugabe.

Then again, when it comes to Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) who of the corrupt “leaders” could one permit to run and ruin the country?

So, as British (and American) action in Iraq was illegal it is (1) time to bring the troops home and (2) time for some people to face some war crimes tribunals.

The current inquiry into the Iraq war is another farce and we may as well forget it. Former Joint Intelligence Committee chief Sir John Scarlett lied to the inquiry and any further questioning of him will be in secret. Great! So much for openness and transparency.

The entire war, as was obvious to any but the blind leading the blind, was from the very beginning all about regime change.

Fair enough, Sadam Hussein and his ilk were not beneficial to Iraq and the rest of the world but then neither are Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and a number of other people in other countries. Mayamar is one place that comes to mind, as well as a number of others.

Oh dear! What a shambles!

© 2009