09 January 2006


Ask yourself the following question. Considering the US administration's determination to go to war no matter what.

Did Blair's decision increase the number of deaths in Iraq?

No. In fact it might even have reduced deaths by our moderating influence on the US.

Whatever you think about the justification for the war or not (I'm in the camp who was against the war), we must remember that Blair's decision was irrelevant to whether the war went ahead or not.


  1. Who can possibly say either way?

    Important it may be in some ways, discussion of death tolls is a distraction from the principles involved, and from mundane issues like building a new nation.

  2. Much as its good news that Saddam has been removed and some form of democracy might be established in Iraq, I can't really see what the principle was.

    There are dozens of regimes like Saddams out there, are we going to now spend 3.6 billion pounds and lose hundreds of troops lives on each one?

    Of course we aren't, because there is no strategic importance to these places, no US ally to support and most importantly of all, no oil to compensate us.