Comments on: Was there a “precipitate rush to war” with Iraq? http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2010/01/12/was-there-a-precipitate-rush-to-war-with-iraq/ Insights from the UK and beyond Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:30:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Enagro http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2010/01/12/was-there-a-precipitate-rush-to-war-with-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-14198 Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:18:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/?p=5335#comment-14198 It does not matter whether there was a “prcipitate rush”. In fact the Americans might have gone to war earlier if Blair had not insisted on trying to go through the UN, or if we had not been involved at all.

What matters is whether the war was legal and whether we should have gone along with the USA, when they had obviously decided on regime change whatever the circumstance. As regime change is not a legal casus belli we should clearly not have been involved.

Blair made an honest statement on one occasion (!) when he said to a BBC interviewer that he was concerned to stop nuclear proliferation and that “we had to start somewhere”. This was at a time when Pakistan was the main source of technical knowledge and equipment for the development of nuclear weapons and was selling them to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Saddam Hussein actually refused to buy from Pakistan when a deal was offered.

Iraq was a relatively soft target compared with Pakistan or Iran or North Korea, and there were plenty of other reasons for attacking Iraq, including the control of the oil and “they tried to kill my Daddy”!

The USA needed an enemy after the end of the Cold War and Iraq was a convenient choice for the warmongers in the Republican Party. Runsfeld, Rove and Cheney had their plans already laid long before 9/11 gave them an excuse for war.

]]>