Butler's Report

[click]

Lord Butler found that before the outbreak of war in March 2003, Iraq "did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment or developed plans for using them" so Blair had no choice but to concede this "I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy." From all this, the obvious argument is, given that his and Bush's as well as Howard's I must add, central justification for going to war was to rid Iraq of illicit weapons, did they do the right thing in sending our respective countries to war? I know Blair went on to say (as did Bush previosuly) words to the effect "I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all......Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam," personally I'm not convinced; time will tell. Given that the justification for going to war has been proven wrong now both in Britain and the US, I just wonder how do the families of the many soldiers and civilians killed feel about all this!

[mykfin]

The why`s and wherefores of wether it was right or wrong to go to war against Iraq will go on for a long time yet, and each side will argue their point till they are blue in the face. You try telling a family who has lost a son or daughter, it was all worth it, i dont think you will find many agreeing with that point, i also dont think there were many sons of senators or MPs serving in the forces,if any? "History will be the judge"

[voltaire]

Yeah, the Butler report was damning in all respects, bar one - the old toady couldn't actually bring himself to blame anyone. So all this false information was passed, but it was apparently nobody's fault LOL

V