Why we invaded Iraq | Alastair Campbell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2014
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
Alastair Campbell is a British journalist, broadcaster, political aide and author, best known for his work as Director of Communications and Strategy for prime minister Tony Blair between 1997 and 2003. Campbell describes himself as a "communicator, writer and strategist" on his website, while others have described him as Labour's "unelected, but ... hardly underscrutinised" spin doctor.
At the Oxford Union he explains the government's decision
to invade Iraq after 9/11
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
![Roddy Ricch - 911 [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5N3lAfydeWs/mqdefault.jpg)
he didnt adress the quesion because he cant
I think he said they invaded because they thought the same people of 911 could get their hands on WMD and they had to show they were not afraid to do something about it.
***** He answered the question "Why did we invade Iraq" because the question that was asked of him implied that he thought we did invade Iraq for the wrong reasons. He disagreed with that question and explained the reasoning behind why we invaded Iraq in the first place. SO of course he didn't answer the question, that would be a ridiculous expectation considering his viewpoint on the subject.
If that were true, you would have known that the point you were making was stupid and wouldn't have chosen to make that reply in the first place.
water is wet
@@Regtic where's your moral argument on this subject?- 200,000 people lost their lives for what? for what?, to get one freak psycho out of power?
Millions of Iraqi's would not have died in the Arab spring. Weak argument.
@playerjoe Saddam gassed the Kurds in his own country, of course he would have killed his own people in an Arab uprising. Obama did not intervene in Syria, and Assad went on to kill more people than died in Iraq. It is worth comparing Iraq and Syria because one country we intervened and the other country we did not, but the outcome was brutal in both cases but at least the Iraqi people can choose their leader who doesn't keep all the riches for himself.
This is a joke.
Most idiotic explanation I ever heard from a politician.
No man with balls dare to say anything against the stream ??????
why is it so hard to say the truth, or even something in line with the truth
I like Alastair Campbell as a pundit and a commentator, but this is such a weak response. They were wrong and they were complicit in the deaths of many people.
No they weren’t wrong
@@zoedaisy1499yes they were there was no WMD’s
He looks SOOOOO sincere if you watch this with the sound turned off.
After parsing his meandering the closest thing that came to a response to the question was "A very consistent intelligence picture was being painted". It doesn't go any deeper than that. What intelligence? What picture? We don't know, that's all we got out of this fool.
2.59 Talking about 9/11, which is unrelated to Iraq
I reckon Campbell knows he fucked up when it came to the invasion of Iraq, but his ego is too big for him to admit it, so he tries to muster up justifications for the war and excuses that rlly don’t make much sense but they help him live with the guilt and since he’s been repeating the same excuses and fabricated narrative for years now, he essentially starts to believe it himself and it’s now replaced the reality of what actually happened.
He didn't fuck it up. He did as his masters ordered and profited handsomely from it.
his life would be in danger if he didn't keep the narrative going.
It's totally the diatribe of someone racked with the guilt, desperate to avoid reproach - his constant self-justification - combined with zero tolerance for contestation - is a classic coping strategy.
@@anncothromoir1018 zero tolerance for contestation? He literally just took part in 2hours worth of a podcast based solely on Rory Stewart, one of the smartest minds in politics, grilling him and questioning/disagreeing every decision he made regarding Iraq. He consistently invited contestation and debate.
@@frankmorgan5845 Only as a means, as he perceives it, to appear as though he is the one with the upper hand. All of his questions are aimed at tripping up and making a fool of the respondent - not at striving to understand and empathise with an alternative point of view. The man is patently obsessed with competition, domination and control.
How to avoid answering a question - A Lesson from a Master
How to avoid war crimes accusations - Just avoid them
Genocide perpretated by your Government - Yes, but, it was worth it
this has aged well
Who was right at the time, Blair and Campbell or George Galloway?
Such a weak answer.
He didn't mention all the oli or how wealthily Tony Blair is , that part just slips doesn't it.
irishmanwithagun keep telling yourself that
@@satellite964 fu ck you you know its true but ur so loving your country that you dont want to admit it of course they cant teach in schools that théir countries are criminals
yes, iraq was a mistake, no it wasn't all about oil, Iraq sells most of its oil to china lol
@@Gleifel It was at least partly and probably mostly about oil. Better to have a pro-west government in charge of the massive oil reserves. Dick cheney was the CEO of halliburton. Plenty of stories of the first private individuals arriving in Iraq being oil company employees.
But everyone knows that iraq had no wmd
Not quite true, though the intelligence estimates were way off. But rather misses the point--which was whether you took that risk that your own intelligence was wrong after Iraq had failed to comply with their disarmament obligations in 2003--which is what Campbell was (not very convincingly) arguing here.
500 % up ;)
Sorry I can only do 2 mins of this creature. Does he answer the question at any stage?
I would ask why does the UK have to be an interventionist country?
Right. Campbell even says that "What's going on is this ideological battle over the future of Islam" - if that's how he justifies the invasion, then what right did he imagine that Britain had - an officially Christian country - to militarily intervene? Fact is, Bush and Blair were embarking on an aggressive holy war and they were full cognizant of that. Check out their spiritual beliefs.
W A R C R I M I N A L
That was a David Brent answer.
Was he not employed by Blair who was Prime minister at this time. So Blair was his political leader at this time. Can Campbell really be objective on this issue.
When he’s spouting his bs about mental Health when will he consider the mental health implications of his support and propagation of the lies which led to the death of a million people.
What if Tony wasn't there, what if you were an Iraqi...dog
You shouldn't be standing in front of the public, you should be hiding with your guilt, shame on you...
Interesting response, kind of weak though. There's scope to be far more robust on the weaponry discussion, but he drives at the right things with his "what ifs". Certainly the way was paved for al-Qaida before the invasion and I think the question of how the salafisation of the security services and "ba'ath" (though no longer, really) hierarchy would have continued under Saddam leaves the situation up for debate. I think the idea that something like AQI wasn't coming anyway (just delayed until Saddam's inevitable death or deposition) is difficult to argue, likewise Iranian influence.
Alastair Campbell = Master of Gaslighting
4.14 Ideological battle over Islam has nothing to do with Iraq war
It's like listening to Harold Shipman trying to justify why he 'had' to use diamorphine to "euthanize" his victims.
Excellent obfuscation and evasion, Mr. Campbell! Brilliant even..
3.52 Got rid of Sadam so he was not around for The Arab Spring?!?
Clearly not true, but then again not what Campbell said either.
If You asked this liar what his name is, He would be unable to tell You.
I despise Him, Blair and that whole New Labour cabal. We are now facing the repercussions of what him and Blair did!
Open borders, unfiltered migration etc etc.
Don't forget Saddam had already invaded Kuwait.
Alastair Campbell - Israel’s man on the inside.
An apologist for Tony Blair he is not a statesman surprised he is involved in this comment.
I like Alastair Campbell, I believe he's a smart, honest and decent man. When it comes to the Iraq war however he has a blind spot. Over a million dead... You can't smooth that over, it can't be justified. It's sad to watch him trying to dance on the head of a pin, he should just be honest and state what everyone knows... The Iraq war was a complete and total disaster, end of.
But that's not to say the decision at the time wasn't justified. Do you really think there was any genuine belief at the time that getting rid of a BRUTAL dictator that was responsible for thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of deaths himself, would open a 'Pandora's Box' of sectarian violence amongst different factions that were contained by an evil, despicable tyrant?
I have never, and will never, understand how people can put the entirety of those people killed 'as a result' of the war at the hands of Blair and Bush. The people that killed people after the war are responsible for those deaths. It's a convenient, unfair and illegitimate hand wave to abrogate their responsibility and to put it all on Blair and Bush.
The war wasn't a "complete and total disaster, end of"; a manic dictator was removed from power and people can now live freely in Iraq and aren't continuously in fear of their lives. I'm not for second saying massive, unjustifiable mistakes weren't made, that the aftermath was a disaster and people were in fear for their lives for a long time, or that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people isn't unbearably tragic to say the absolute minimum, anyone with a heart couldn't disagree with that. But I can't agree that it was purely wrong, no good came of it at all, it was not at all justifiable, or that we as the invaders bear sole responsibility for everything that happened after.
Campbell, of course served with distinction in the Armed forces; otherwise he would not have had the nerve to advocate sending others.
It seems to me he never read history, what a shame... Not very convincing for me!
Well he got the bit about Putin right
lmaooooooooooooooo
Absolutely. It's easy to criticise from the sidelines but nobody wants to be the next Neville Chamberlain. There was no concrete evidence for WMD, but there wasn't concrete evidence for lack of WMDs either. Doesn't absolve those in power of responsibilities and accountability from a legal perspective, but it's entirely plausible (debatable on "probable") that they did it in good faith.
Given that he wasn't asked about Putin here 😂
He explicitly mentions him. The importance of standing by your own red lines.
Alastair Machiavelli. 💀
It's as if you guys couldn't get the janitor to give a talk. Seriously who are you going to invite next? Kissinger?
His eyes tell he is a bloddy liar from the heart
Good riddance from some M()zlemZ so it was all worth it. Hahaha !
If I were responsible, as Campbell is, for the deaths of a million Iraqis I couldn’t live with myself. I seriously believe I would have to end it all to find peace.
Liar
In making this appearance he obviously believes he can convince his audience, which means that he is delusional in regards to his own narrative while underestimating the intelligence of others.
Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein stopped selling his oil in the dollar then decided to sell the in the euro. This had a devastating effect in for the U.S economy and the back pockets for elite zionist bankers that run the white house.
9/11 was created by the U.S and mainly planned by the Israeli Mossad. The airliner used was not a commercial airliner it had response sensors all over the plane and was guided by into the building by the same technology we see in drones. Jet Fuel cannot bring down a steel corrugated tower in 45 minutes. 9/11 was also created do destabilise 7 muslim countries. Libya, Syria, Iraq, lebanon, egypt, Somalia and Yemen.
The Israeli mossad own 95% of America's media dating back to 1935 when the zionist jews bought the Washington post, associated press and Reuters. Now 9/11 was their excuse. Its now ISIS.
100% agree with Alastair here. At the time, we didn’t know, and although it was a very tough decision, the bottom line was - you CANNOT risk the nutters who did 9/11 getting their hands on WMDs.
We did know they didn’t have WMD though
Of course they knew. It's worth reading up on the history. Prior to the war, the CIA and National Intelligence Council specifically stated that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and this claim was supported by army generals, the Energy Department, and so on. But Bush and Blair went ahead with BS story anyway. This is all spelled out in the Chilcot Report.
Grow up. A million kids died because of people like 'Alastair'.
who in iraq did 9/11?
@@cysage5876 I mean a countries regime invading Kuwait, Dujail Massacre and countless mustard gas attacks / executions on Iraqi people doesnt exactly give too much of 'this guy is not a threat' vibe does it
Wow that was a real genuine answer, is this guy a retired politician ? Because I can' t really imagine an active politician would give an informative answer like that.
And to reply to what he is saying, what makes you think that going into those foreign countries and killing everyone who resist would do anything BUT make them stronger ? Unless you are ready to eradicate the local population or at least to install a puppet totalitarian military regime then you are better off making credible threats and really hoping no one calls your bluff !
I think a more realistic solution is to figure out why they are so willing to attack us and address that directly. They have goals and grievances and that means diplomacy can work but military power is doing a shit job against insurgents.
I can understand the reluctance to negotiate with them, because it means their terrorist threats have weight at the negotiation table now and we don't want to suffer this expensive diplomatic loss but too bad, it isn't going away.
If we are not willing to kill every last one of them then we better be ready to bring something they want to the table and make a deal that their population will like.
Very intelligent liar
excellent reply.
Oh look, I see the giant rats have also found their way into Oxford Union.
OXFAM?
the amount of conspiracy shit below is appalling...
'cos you know the truth, right? The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sure you do.
So disappointing 🤦🏾♂️
The invasion of Iraq was to satisfy Tony B Liar's ego. Helped by professional liar, Campbell. And I still have my desert boots.
Liar