" Far from strengthening the UN, the US and UK are guilty of weakening it."

“Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw claimed that the UK was taking part in the invasion in order to uphold the authority of the United Nations Security Council, which had ordered Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein to demolish his country’s store of weapons of mass destruction.
But Sir John concluded that far from strengthening the UN, the US and UK are guilty of weakening it.”
Chilcot report: Iraq war ‘was based on flawed intelligence and assessments’ http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/BBtZJJw?ocid=st

There are too many things we should learn from this report. Why was Mr Blair so foolish?

Blair will be sued now.

Maybe some of his ill-gotten 60 million Pounds are now going to take wings and fly away? :slight_smile:

the united nations is a rotten institution of imperialism and ineptitude for decades where rich countries don’t have to follow the laws they create but poorer ones have to or face consequences .i find it funny when no wmds were found in iraq then suddenly the reason for going there changed it became to liberate itaq from a dictator like if he just became one after 40 years of atrocities why not then?i hope the soldiers families sue the pants off blair

“In the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher’s popularity increased. The success of the Falklands campaign was widely regarded as the factor in the turnaround in fortunes for the Conservative government, who had been trailing behind the SDP-Liberal Alliance in the opinion polls for months before the conflict began, but after the success in the Falklands the Conservatives returned to the top of the opinion polls by a wide margin and went on to win the following year’s general election by a landslide.”–Wikipedia

I don’t think that Mr. Blaire needed his own Falkland War. Was the special relationship between the UK and the US a trap, which eventually contributed to tarnish his political life? Mr. Blair should not have helped with Bush’s war.

Why the occupation in Iraq was unsuccessful? You cannot liken it to that in Japan after the World War II, although George W. Bush, after defeating Iraq if I am not mistaken, referred to the occupation directed by General Douglas MacArthur as a successful example. What did they really want to do after destroying Saddam Hussein’s government and executing the dictator? Did they underestimate the conflicts among different religious sects as well as between Muslims and Christians?

“Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Blair insisted that although mistakes had been made, the decision to join the US-led invasion had been the right one.
And he hit back at claims he had secretly committed the UK to help US President George W Bush topple Saddam Hussein and then overstated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction to sell the war to the public and MPs.”

“The chief promoters of the war in the Bush administration did not want to resolve peacefully issues of WMD or any other issues. One of their fears in the months leading up to the invasion was that the Iraqi regime would say yes to all international demands and the case for war would be deflated.

“The United Kingdom got involved because Blair was Bush’s poodle, who was so concerned about keeping U.S.-U.K. relations harmonious that he wrote to George W. Bush, ‘I will be with you, whatever.’ … Dragging Britain into the Iraq mess was such an abuse of power. It was a betrayal of one of America’s most important and staunchest allies. It gives many, including not just in Britain but elsewhere, reason to be less inclined to follow the U.S. lead in the future.”

“The Iraq War and the American and British Ways of Retrospection” by Paul Pillar

“Blair’s role in the Iraq War has come to be perceived as one of the biggest aspects of his legacy, and that has helped to reduce support for Blairite New Labourism[1]. This helped to make the feckless left-winger Jeremy Corbyn leader of the Labour Party[2]. And that in turn was an ingredient in the outcome of last month’s Brexit vote[3].”(From the same source cited above. The numbers are mine.)

I think that the first sentence is right. The Iraq War had a disastrous effect on the Labour Party.
About the second sentence. I am not sure if Jeremy Corbyn is a “feckless left-winger”. I feel that the left-or-right dichotomy in politics tends to be ambiguous. In addition, it goes without saying that being a left-winger does not necessarily mean that he or she is “feckless”. I don’t know if Jeremy Corbyn is more feckless than Tony Blair, whose policies some people considered Blair’s version of Thucherism
I have no information to decide on the plausibility of the statement included in the third sentence about the influence on the Bexit vote.

"Iraq has come to dominate the Blair legacy to such an extent that many of his notable achievements - the Good Friday agreement, devolution to Scotland and Wales, the minimum wage and a number of social reforms are doomed to shelter under its shadow.
Historians in the future will be able to restore some balance to the record (and to assess whether some classic Blair reforms, like the Private Finance Initiative and student loans and NHS reorganisation, have stood the test of time), but not yet.
His tragedy is that the progressive figure he wanted to be - the first prime minister born after World War Two, who gave the Labour Party a new appeal to the generation dubbed “the millennials” - will be obscured by his most momentous decision. "
How Tony Blair came to be so unpopular How Tony Blair came to be so unpopular - BBC News