Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom who parternered with his dear friend, George Bush, made a decision six long years ago to invade Iraq in order to save the world from the threat of WMD in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Well, that is what he said six years ago, we simply HAD to invade to prevent Saddam from unleashing his WMD on the Middle East and the world. Fast forward to the present when it is clear there never were any WMD and Blair insists he would have supported the invasion with or without the presence of WMD. “I would still have thought it right to remove him(Saddam Hussein). I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy diffeednt arguments aboout the nature of the threat. I can’t really think we’d be b etter with him and his two sons in harge. That’s kwhy I sympathise with the people who were against it(war) for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end, I had to take the decision.”
Blair still insists Saddam was a threat to the “region.” Which threat? He could not defeat Iran in an eight year war, he could not prevent Israel from blowing up his nuclear facilities, his army crumbled at the initial invasion of Iraq and there is absolutely no evidence he could have defeated any country in the Middle East. He was not liked by Egypt, by Turkey, by Saudi Arabia, and lacked any important allies. So, what exactly was the “threat??”
The invasion was an emotional issue that had nothing to do with military or moral threats. If Tony Blair wanted to rid the world of a terribe dictator, he could have authorized an invasion of the Congo and save the lives of five million people.