East Bierley mum Pauline Hickey's anger as Blair says sorry for death (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

I am no fan of Tony Blair, far from it. He had however to take and stand by a decision which he genuinely thought was the correct one. With hindsight maybe it was incorrect but he won't be the first or last leader to make a bad call. We all have sympathy for this lady and other parents who lost children in this conflict. However, when you join the forces it is not all about war games on Salisbury Plain, there is a fair chance you will be sent to a battle zone whether Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan etc - that's the nature of the job I am afraid. Despite my dislike of the man, Blair is not bad, evil or misguided. He had a very difficult job to do and did it to the best of his ability. When we all stand by and carp about Blair, Brown, Cameron etc - would we want to do that job? Especially when as head of the BBC you can get 4 times the salary and only have to decide what time Songs of Praise should go out.

So True partridge, at the end of the day they knew what they were signing themselves up for when they joined regardless of the bad decision made by the PM

hmm .it is obvious you have an axe to grind mrs hickey......Firstly i offer you my condolences for the loss of your son. I, as an ex-soldier, feel that the iraq war was not justified ...however, we vote the politicians in office, too represent us.I am a working class man and a true labour supporter.I personally feel that the publishing of tony blairs book is a "good thing",and ,has it is stated, as a best seller ,so do many other people.Millions of pounds donated to the british legion, by the sale of the book, is a positive gesture from tony blair.we, in our country, believe in free speech, I feel if you did not loose your son your feelings may have been different towards tony blair,after all your son signed up to serve his country, his choice and his alone. You should be proud of him for making that decision.I do not no your son but I , as an englishman and a former resident of bradford,respect your son,and all the other servicemen and women who laid down their lives in active service ........wherever that may be.

How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

likethis wrote:
How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

A very good point.
.
Blair should be tried for war crimes, the vile individual that he is.

Every soldier knows they are signing up to protect the country and its democratic values; but that does not give any leader the green light to take them into wars that are immorral or illegal ... to those who think we should have shown our dissaproval in the ballot box; I hope we all remember the massive marches and the general discontent with this war even before it began..

why bring up the topic of children dying in war ? War is war, and yes,sadly, different ages of people die. Tony blair was voted into office,to represent us as our prime minister......our mouth piece....so, if, as you say, BRENT_MEISTER,tony blair should stand trial for "war crimes" should we stand alongside him in the dock, as his co-accused.

cookie_brighton wrote:
why bring up the topic of children dying in war ? War is war, and yes,sadly, different ages of people die. Tony blair was voted into office,to represent us as our prime minister......our mouth piece....so, if, as you say, BRENT_MEISTER,tony blair should stand trial for "war crimes" should we stand alongside him in the dock, as his co-accused.

Our Prime Minister...Our Mouth Piece.....I didnt vote for him/party...should I stand alongside him!

Cookie,Some people voted in Blair to be our mouthpiece,some of us did not.In my opinion Tony Blair was the worst Prime Minister we have had in my lifetime.He has been proved to have told lies concerning the war and was just a puppet for other people.As for the donation of the profits from his book that is just to ease his conscience,he probably had that in loose change hanging around his house.As he is now a practising catholic his time for judgement is yet to come.

cookie_brighton wrote:
why bring up the topic of children dying in war ? War is war, and yes,sadly, different ages of people die. Tony blair was voted into office,to represent us as our prime minister......our mouth piece....so, if, as you say, BRENT_MEISTER,tony blair should stand trial for "war crimes" should we stand alongside him in the dock, as his co-accused.

You can certainly count me out. I didn't vote for this sick (in body and mind) individual known as 'Blair'.
.
And those who advocate illegal wars (whether heads of State or their citizens), should stand trial of some sort.
.
After all, supporting (State-sanctioned) terrorism is the same as taking part in it.

likethis wrote:
How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

I may not agree with the war but youhave to bear in mind that the servicemen who died were someones children as well and they were just as innocent as they were having to follow orders just like you would do in your Job (thats if you work)

Corporal wrote:

likethis wrote: How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

I may not agree with the war but youhave to bear in mind that the servicemen who died were someones children as well and they were just as innocent as they were having to follow orders just like you would do in your Job (thats if you work)

Following orders....fine.....w
hy do you moan/complain about it afterwards! and yes I do work and follow my duties.....but thats the end of that!

Danny Jacobs wrote:

Corporal wrote:

likethis wrote: How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

I may not agree with the war but youhave to bear in mind that the servicemen who died were someones children as well and they were just as innocent as they were having to follow orders just like you would do in your Job (thats if you work)

Following orders....fine.....w

hy do you moan/complain about it afterwards! and yes I do work and follow my duties.....but thats the end of that!

I moaned aboud that comment as it was off topic, the topic here seems to be whether the war was justified and whether Mr Blair was right or wrong in his decision, not about how many innocent children died

Corporal wrote:

Danny Jacobs wrote:

Corporal wrote:

likethis wrote: How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

I may not agree with the war but youhave to bear in mind that the servicemen who died were someones children as well and they were just as innocent as they were having to follow orders just like you would do in your Job (thats if you work)

Following orders....fine.....w hy do you moan/complain about it afterwards! and yes I do work and follow my duties.....but thats the end of that!

I moaned aboud that comment as it was off topic, the topic here seems to be whether the war was justified and whether Mr Blair was right or wrong in his decision, not about how many innocent children died

Was this war justified, was Blair wrong or even right?

WMD 45 minutes Claim?

We appreciate all the enquiries, reports, opinions etc.....Fact Remains the same!

So why bother to gift wrap the answer to this!

I would like to thank those of you who have responded.

My arguement is that Tony Blair was fully aware there were no weapons of mass destruction when he agreed with Bush to invade Iraq. The cabinet were not privy to the truth and the whole country thought we were at risk from Saddam's WMD's. The invasion was based on a lie.

However, my son had been in the armed forces for over 12 years and was a soldier. It was his duty to go, I accept that.

What I do object to is the total lack of equipment the army were provided with at the time. The Government prohibated any order of equipment prior to the invasion , the decision had been made to invade almost a year before. Does this sound like a government that cared for the welfare of it's armed forces or were they being deceitful?

My son had been on various deployments in areas of conflict prior to Iraq. The difference is that Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq with George Bush, and deceived the nation. He is still in denial of this, but his refusal to meet with any family of the fallen speaks volumes.

I believe in the truth always comes out in the end. At some point in the future Blair may find himself in the Hague facing charges against humanity, as he is jointly responsible with Bush, for over half a million people losing their lives for no good reason. The carnage of Iraq was engineered to feed two egocentric individuals.

Blair's legacy will be Iraq- one he truly derserves.

I believe Blair will never face these charges. We are under the US administration, the US are the World Police, Jury and The Judge and will not see that Blair is convicted as this will prove their own crimes. I am really sorry to say that UK has lost its identity as a nation, we are merely puppets pulled by the US. You will remember “You are either with Us or Against Us”. And this applied to the UN too!

So I guess we only have Karma to fall back on, what goes around Blair, most definitely comes around!

Pauline Hickey wrote:
I would like to thank those of you who have responded. My arguement is that Tony Blair was fully aware there were no weapons of mass destruction when he agreed with Bush to invade Iraq. The cabinet were not privy to the truth and the whole country thought we were at risk from Saddam's WMD's. The invasion was based on a lie. However, my son had been in the armed forces for over 12 years and was a soldier. It was his duty to go, I accept that. What I do object to is the total lack of equipment the army were provided with at the time. The Government prohibated any order of equipment prior to the invasion , the decision had been made to invade almost a year before. Does this sound like a government that cared for the welfare of it's armed forces or were they being deceitful? My son had been on various deployments in areas of conflict prior to Iraq. The difference is that Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq with George Bush, and deceived the nation. He is still in denial of this, but his refusal to meet with any family of the fallen speaks volumes. I believe in the truth always comes out in the end. At some point in the future Blair may find himself in the Hague facing charges against humanity, as he is jointly responsible with Bush, for over half a million people losing their lives for no good reason. The carnage of Iraq was engineered to feed two egocentric individuals. Blair's legacy will be Iraq- one he truly derserves.

I have rarely seen a more reasoned and logical argument from somone who rightly could easily have an over emotive view of the argument because of the tragic circumstances in which she finds herself. Mrs Hickey I can only imagine what you have been through in losing a son and I am humbled by having the chance to communicate directly with you. The ultimate sacrifice given by your son and the anguish and hurt that you have felt is incalcuable. To feel as you and many feel about the justification or otherwise for this war is understandable but I fear we will never know the truth. I also wonder when we in the UK feel that we have to still take on the role of the world's police force, involving ourselves here, there, and everywhere. It is clear from the Blair interview last night and as usual the ineffectual Marr lobbed easy half-volley questions to his guest, that were he still in power, we would be ramping up to invade Iran next...and people thought Mrs Thatcher was power crazy. I am pleased that this forum has been used for something so useful and Mrs Hickey I hope you can find some comfort by knowing that we all valued your son, even if you feel that his government didn't.

Danny Jacobs wrote:
I believe Blair will never face these charges. We are under the US administration, the US are the World Police, Jury and The Judge and will not see that Blair is convicted as this will prove their own crimes. I am really sorry to say that UK has lost its identity as a nation, we are merely puppets pulled by the US. You will remember “You are either with Us or Against Us”. And this applied to the UN too!

So I guess we only have Karma to fall back on, what goes around Blair, most definitely comes around!

And the US is being 'pulled' by the Israeli lobby (the same lobby that 'campaigned' for the war in Iraq).
.
It was launched to protect Israel (not the US or Britain).
.
Bush and Blair were just puppets of the Zionist killing machine.

Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, 'accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found'. Apparently Blair believed Saddam Hussein in power would have been a “bigger risk” to security than removing him. But I seem to recall the invasion of Iraq was to destroy W'sMD NOT to overthrow the leader of Iraq -no matter how repulsive a person he may have been. If it was to overthrow Saddam he should have said so. Of course he and the Hegemon would not have had a cat in hells chance of getting the support they required for the invasion if it had have been about removing Saddam. So Blair and Co lied to us. And because of that hundreds of military personnel who believed they were fighting to protect the security and democracy of British and American people have died or been maimed. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's -many thousands of them children- have died. Blair -by his Saddam 'bigger risk statement- seems to be supporting the view of many that he deliberately misled the people of this country. Remember the claim: 'Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them'. The insertion of the 45min claim into the 'sexed up dossier' was done against the wishes of the intelligence agencies. Blair will never get my forgiveness for what he he did.

To take a country to two wars using false evidence is in my mind a criminal offence and Blair should be tried as a murderer and server a life sentence for every life lost in the two conflicts.He has betrayed the British people made the world a more dangerous place he knew the facts he was pushing onto the British people were lies but his own vanity and and his **** to make money overcame any honesty.I hope he rots in hell his God will never forgive him neither will the majority of the worlds people.

Corporal wrote:

Danny Jacobs wrote:

Corporal wrote:

likethis wrote: How many young innocent children died in this illegal war? Was the death of all those children worth it? We all know the answer.

I may not agree with the war but youhave to bear in mind that the servicemen who died were someones children as well and they were just as innocent as they were having to follow orders just like you would do in your Job (thats if you work)

Following orders....fine.....w hy do you moan/complain about it afterwards! and yes I do work and follow my duties.....but thats the end of that!

I moaned aboud that comment as it was off topic, the topic here seems to be whether the war was justified and whether Mr Blair was right or wrong in his decision, not about how many innocent children died

Every time Tony Blair is remembered, over half a million children that died in the aftermath, SHOULD BE REMEMBERED TOO. In fact, everytime this war is mentioned, shivers should run down your backs because it is disgusting and and diabolical. M. Albright was asked the same question, was all those deaths worth it? She replied "Yes, it was worth it". As for being off topic, I simply disagree. Nothing ever occurs in isolation and choosing to be narrow minded by avoiding the broader impacts is just a lizards eye view of the whole attrocity. Yes, the servicemen who died were children of parents too, I sympathize with them for being used and lied to in this way. If over half a million children died here, in Britain because of wild claims without evidence, the future of this country would be in complete ruins. How can this article choose to completely ignore the children? Tony Blair, as the greiving fathers of sons have said, "there is blood on your hands".

The Iraq war has not been properly scrutinised. There are 2 pieces of information which are in the public domain that very strongly suggest this was an act of militant Christian Terrorism. The first came about when Tony Blair was interviewed by Michael Parkinson on his show about why he went to war and he said he believed he was acting for the fellow Christians and that he found it his religious duty to do so. Michael Parkinson describes this moment in his very well written autobiography as something he definately did not expect. The second suggestion came from George W Bush who claimed that there was a war between good and evil and America was on the side of the angels. He then went on to say he received a vision from God telling him to act to finish off evil. An eminent Professor of psychiatry - Phil Thomas has done a detailed study of this delusional belief held by GWB which is worth trying to find (not sure where though as it was a couple of years ago since I read it).

GWB even once slipped and called his campaign a "crusade". Christian Fundamental Terrorism which has evolved over the centuries is very clever in cloaking itself in liberating rhetoric like - "getting rid of saddam" "destroying WMDs" "Fighting international terrorism" "Creating democracies" etc. what they seek to really achieve requires you to read between the lines

Haji wrote:
The Iraq war has not been properly scrutinised. There are 2 pieces of information which are in the public domain that very strongly suggest this was an act of militant Christian Terrorism. The first came about when Tony Blair was interviewed by Michael Parkinson on his show about why he went to war and he said he believed he was acting for the fellow Christians and that he found it his religious duty to do so. Michael Parkinson describes this moment in his very well written autobiography as something he definately did not expect. The second suggestion came from George W Bush who claimed that there was a war between good and evil and America was on the side of the angels. He then went on to say he received a vision from God telling him to act to finish off evil. An eminent Professor of psychiatry - Phil Thomas has done a detailed study of this delusional belief held by GWB which is worth trying to find (not sure where though as it was a couple of years ago since I read it).

GWB even once slipped and called his campaign a "crusade". Christian Fundamental Terrorism which has evolved over the centuries is very clever in cloaking itself in liberating rhetoric like - "getting rid of saddam" "destroying WMDs" "Fighting international terrorism" "Creating democracies" etc. what they seek to really achieve requires you to read between the lines

I'm not convinced it was for religious reasons Haji, or whether it was just a way of getting the Christian right 'on side' in America. It's been suggested that Saddam wanted to trade oil in euros rather than dollars, which would have led to a devaluation of American currency. Interestingly, the same issue is said to be under discussion by Iran. Make of that what you will...

mrs walker wrote:

Haji wrote:
The Iraq war has not been properly scrutinised. There are 2 pieces of information which are in the public domain that very strongly suggest this was an act of militant Christian Terrorism. The first came about when Tony Blair was interviewed by Michael Parkinson on his show about why he went to war and he said he believed he was acting for the fellow Christians and that he found it his religious duty to do so. Michael Parkinson describes this moment in his very well written autobiography as something he definately did not expect. The second suggestion came from George W Bush who claimed that there was a war between good and evil and America was on the side of the angels. He then went on to say he received a vision from God telling him to act to finish off evil. An eminent Professor of psychiatry - Phil Thomas has done a detailed study of this delusional belief held by GWB which is worth trying to find (not sure where though as it was a couple of years ago since I read it).

GWB even once slipped and called his campaign a "crusade". Christian Fundamental Terrorism which has evolved over the centuries is very clever in cloaking itself in liberating rhetoric like - "getting rid of saddam" "destroying WMDs" "Fighting international terrorism" "Creating democracies" etc. what they seek to really achieve requires you to read between the lines

I'm not convinced it was for religious reasons Haji, or whether it was just a way of getting the Christian right 'on side' in America. It's been suggested that Saddam wanted to trade oil in euros rather than dollars, which would have led to a devaluation of American currency. Interestingly, the same issue is said to be under discussion by Iran. Make of that what you will...

I think you may be closer to the truth mrs walker. There was a lot of opposition to the war from Church and religious leaders. John Paul II stated before the 2003 war' that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified'. 'John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq' (Houston Catholic Worker). I don't believe in God, but apparently Bush did/does. And Blair was a Catholic in all but name. Explain please?

lonniejockstrap wrote:

mrs walker wrote:

Haji wrote:
The Iraq war has not been properly scrutinised. There are 2 pieces of information which are in the public domain that very strongly suggest this was an act of militant Christian Terrorism. The first came about when Tony Blair was interviewed by Michael Parkinson on his show about why he went to war and he said he believed he was acting for the fellow Christians and that he found it his religious duty to do so. Michael Parkinson describes this moment in his very well written autobiography as something he definately did not expect. The second suggestion came from George W Bush who claimed that there was a war between good and evil and America was on the side of the angels. He then went on to say he received a vision from God telling him to act to finish off evil. An eminent Professor of psychiatry - Phil Thomas has done a detailed study of this delusional belief held by GWB which is worth trying to find (not sure where though as it was a couple of years ago since I read it).

GWB even once slipped and called his campaign a "crusade". Christian Fundamental Terrorism which has evolved over the centuries is very clever in cloaking itself in liberating rhetoric like - "getting rid of saddam" "destroying WMDs" "Fighting international terrorism" "Creating democracies" etc. what they seek to really achieve requires you to read between the lines

I'm not convinced it was for religious reasons Haji, or whether it was just a way of getting the Christian right 'on side' in America. It's been suggested that Saddam wanted to trade oil in euros rather than dollars, which would have led to a devaluation of American currency. Interestingly, the same issue is said to be under discussion by Iran. Make of that what you will...

I think you may be closer to the truth mrs walker. There was a lot of opposition to the war from Church and religious leaders. John Paul II stated before the 2003 war' that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified'. 'John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq' (Houston Catholic Worker). I don't believe in God, but apparently Bush did/does. And Blair was a Catholic in all but name. Explain please?

Also remember that in 2000 the US was having talks with the Taliban over the rights to build a gas pipe work right across Afghanistan. This would have made transporting the gas a lot cheaper that it was. Then all of a sudden teh Tabliban refused and less than a year later 2 planes hit two buildings and the US invade.

All we know for certain is that the current political powers, be they christian, muslim, hindu, atheist, etc; are all corrupt and do not act in the interest of the people they are supposed to represent nor do they really wish to peaceful relationship between any groups.

Just look at England, in less than 20 years we now have young yobs on the streets terrorising neighbourhoods, whilst the police force refuse to do anything about it due to the fact that our legal system lets them off the hook since they are "underage"?! There is no age limit for being a criminal.

Also note that if these yobs are causing trouble in your area, no adult can do anything, if we so much as poke them we a finger we can be charged for assault! Now what kind of democratic country allows for such insanity?

Time will judge all men and women, Mrs Hickey. Many have sacrificed their lives in the name of our country without question. War is war and war is hell but, sometimes, a necessary evil. It is all too easy to be judgemental in hindisght. In 1939, Hitler never threatened the UK only its allies. So was that war illegal? I feel for your loss but plaese try to find to live the remainder of your life with forgiveness and purpose rather than a crusade against one man. Believe it or not, we are a Parliamentary democracy and no individual should therefore rake the blame if blame there must be.

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, 'accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found'. Apparently Blair believed Saddam Hussein in power would have been a “bigger risk” to security than removing him. But I seem to recall the invasion of Iraq was to destroy W'sMD NOT to overthrow the leader of Iraq -no matter how repulsive a person he may have been. If it was to overthrow Saddam he should have said so. Of course he and the Hegemon would not have had a cat in hells chance of getting the support they required for the invasion if it had have been about removing Saddam. So Blair and Co lied to us. And because of that hundreds of military personnel who believed they were fighting to protect the security and democracy of British and American people have died or been maimed. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's -many thousands of them children- have died. Blair -by his Saddam 'bigger risk statement- seems to be supporting the view of many that he deliberately misled the people of this country. Remember the claim: 'Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them'. The insertion of the 45min claim into the 'sexed up dossier' was done against the wishes of the intelligence agencies. Blair will never get my forgiveness for what he he did.

100% spot on Lonnie. The only thing I would add is that if my memory is correct we had to be lied to so that over 50% of the population supported the invasion according to the opinions polls of the time. For what is, by and large, a non demonstrative nation the million plus people who marched speaks volumes for the anti war feeling in the country at the time.
Blair will always be in denial about this and would probably not acknowledge his change of reasoning for the Iraq invasion. From day one I agreed with Hans Blix and I have not seen anything to change my mind since.
Parents of soldiers realise when their children sign up they may be hurt or killed but I suspect that the reason this is even more bitter is because of the case for going to war being based on a pack of lies.

Tricky Dicky wrote:
Time will judge all men and women, Mrs Hickey. Many have sacrificed their lives in the name of our country without question. War is war and war is hell but, sometimes, a necessary evil. It is all too easy to be judgemental in hindisght. In 1939, Hitler never threatened the UK only its allies. So was that war illegal? I feel for your loss but plaese try to find to live the remainder of your life with forgiveness and purpose rather than a crusade against one man. Believe it or not, we are a Parliamentary democracy and no individual should therefore rake the blame if blame there must be.

I am sorry Tricky but i do not agree with your argument. Yes, war is sometimes a nessessary evil. but the whole point people are making is that this particular one was not nessessary.

Victor Clayton wrote:

Tricky Dicky wrote: Time will judge all men and women, Mrs Hickey. Many have sacrificed their lives in the name of our country without question. War is war and war is hell but, sometimes, a necessary evil. It is all too easy to be judgemental in hindisght. In 1939, Hitler never threatened the UK only its allies. So was that war illegal? I feel for your loss but plaese try to find to live the remainder of your life with forgiveness and purpose rather than a crusade against one man. Believe it or not, we are a Parliamentary democracy and no individual should therefore rake the blame if blame there must be.

I am sorry Tricky but i do not agree with your argument. Yes, war is sometimes a nessessary evil. but the whole point people are making is that this particular one was not nessessary.

It was, because Blair thought - look what The Falklands conflict did for Mrs Thatcher -I'll have a slice of that!!
Problem was that like it or not The Falklands were and are ours!!

Tricky Dicky wrote:
Time will judge all men and women, Mrs Hickey. Many have sacrificed their lives in the name of our country without question. War is war and war is hell but, sometimes, a necessary evil. It is all too easy to be judgemental in hindisght. In 1939, Hitler never threatened the UK only its allies. So was that war illegal? I feel for your loss but plaese try to find to live the remainder of your life with forgiveness and purpose rather than a crusade against one man. Believe it or not, we are a Parliamentary democracy and no individual should therefore rake the blame if blame there must be.

Hitler invaded a country, Poland, that Britain had a signed pact with. That triggered WW2.
We do live in a parliamentary democracy. What if one person, or persons, set out to mislead the commons to get what they wanted. Where does the blame lie then?

Nothing changes.

I fought in the Falklands which in hindsight was merely heaven sent opportunity for Thatcher who was facing defeat at the polls.

I don't regret a minute of it and if I was still a serving soldier I would go where ever I was told to.

Thats the job, and its hard enough to do without the backstabbing from people you would die to protect.