@@BobDingus-bh3pd Sorrry, I mistook this as a suppossed scholarly subject, not one designed for consumers with preconceived political positions who communicate through emoticons.
@@candyman5912 VERY evenhanded; if the objectors to the war were as civilized as this man, then I think society would be a ton better off; back in 2002, 2003 the ones angrier by far were the objectors; now, I just call war objectors peacemongers and call myself a warmonger because I don't care-those anti-war treat their cause as religion, and utterly despise those that disagree. I used to be more civil, but civility in these times get ya trampled.
@@danielgregg2530 Look for "Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings" (A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak). ... I like professor Bogdanor very much, he is a decent scholar, but in this lecture he totally omitted that the intelligence on WMD was fabricated by Bush's administration - means they told lies and they did know it (at least Cheney, who was quite active in the war). And of course, this fact sheds quite different light on all the case.
I don't agree with his conclusion. I worked for several months in Iraq just before the invasion of Kuwait and it had become clear to me that the West up until then were very happy to trade and support the regime of Sadam in its war with Iran knowing very well how he was behaving. When the likes of the US and the UK changed its position and decided that they wanted regime change and by default a democratic government would naturally emerge through some act of liberation, it was clear in my mind that Bush and Blair where pursing a policy that was wholly unachievable. That was/is not hind sight. It is clear in my mind that persistant acts of diplomacy through the UN had prevented him deploying weapons of mass destruction of, which in the event proved to be the case. Now we have the increasing radicalisation of Islam and a far less stable Middle East. From which Blair profits.
If only peacemongers felt the same remorse over Biden's push to end the war in Afghanistan, making Afghanistan a haven for terror again, not that peacemongers care-they're too self-righteous to do so. Look at Bden's press conference lies leading up to the fall of Kabul, and then let's see you get huffy over lying, nasty warmongers. Peacemongers LOVE lies. (When convenient.)
@@johnmiller9302 Largely through the charities he set up under the umbrella of the Blair Foundation, as a paid Middle East Envoy for the UN, EU, USA and Russia. Advisor to the Chase Manhatten Bank and the Zurich Financial Services. Advice to third world governments on a pro bono basis. Public speaking, $250,000 for a 90 minute speach. Estimated wealth $120m.
I think my biggest problems are two things. Firstly the obvious part that the thought was taken on how to destroy Iraq but not on how to rebuild it, yes there were outside hostile actors at play but the intervention was naive in the extreme to me in terms of what would happen after Sadam was removed. The biggest issue I have is that Bush and Blair and Howard and the rest didn’t explain themselves like this to the world. It wasn’t “he had them once, we can’t confirm if he does now but given his track record and his treatment of Iraqis and Arab neighbours, we need to deal with him before it gets to that point”. The statements were ‘he has them, he has always had them, he can’t be trusted therefore we need to go get him “and “he is in league with the 9 11 plots”. It might be a subtle difference but it’s the difference between honesty and misleading the world. That was the rod they made for their own back. He was awful, of course he was but that doesn’t give a blank cheque for bad reasoning, bullshit and jumping the gun. Just on an aside, on this issue of WMDs’ the united states would tick most of the same boxes as Nazi Germany and Iraq. They are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons and they certainly have used and develop biological and chemical weapons, same as the other European powers. Fair is fair. Use of weapons of mass destruction is bad only if you are a dictator apparently. p.s Nazi Germany was already using chemical weapons on people before ww2, it’s well known that they were killing and sterilising disabled people from the mid 30’s onward trying to refine their tactics. Good lecture though, certainly learned some things and changed some of my opinions and assumptions.
Overall, I see your point. But to compare the US’s use of atomic weapons in a worldwide protracted war against a relentless enemy known for human rights abuses just as bad as the Nazis (torture, castration of POW’s, mutilation of corpses; brutal experiments on Pacific Islanders and Chinese civilians; initiation of military force at Pearl Harbor that resulted in civilian casualties as well as military personnel, etc…) is not the same as an unhinged dictator who invades neighboring countries and genocides groups of people within his own national boundaries is not the same. The US’s use of the atom bombs absolutely brought Japan to its knees, despite what self-aggrandizing charlatans like Oliver Stone might imply. Am I saying the US is wonderful? Of course not. Every powerful nation has its stains-even nations that have never reached any sort of zenith have committed more brutal atrocities. But some people simply hate the US so much that they have a tendency to engage in mental gymnastics to find false equivalency between, say, the US and North Korea, for instance. No nation is absolutely free, but there are massive degrees of difference between the amount of individual liberty, allowance for dissent, minority rights, standard of living, quality of life, infrastructure, and so on than there is under unhinged despots. Would Saddam Hussein or imperial Japan have done more in diplomatic efforts to avoid war than the US? Or would they have used nuclear weapons with even less or perhaps no provocation had they discovered the technology first?
We have never used ILLEGAL nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in war. You leaving out an essential thing called international law dude. And we don’t use chemical weapons like Sadam did. He genocided people with them.
Saddam Hussein poisoned Kurds with chemical weapons, but who sold him those weapons? Were there any other factors, such as the idea that some Middle Eastern oil may be traded in a currency other than the UD Dollar, that may have influenced us deciding that he was now evil?
I am not sure if the West supplied Iraq chemical weapons and in any case he should not have used them so this does not skirt blame from him and again who cares?
A very 'civilized' and well-delivered lecture by a distinguished-looking old man on the justification of the destruction of a country that was not a real threat in any meaningful way to the West. If you listen carefully and think deeply about the content of this lecture, you quickly realize that his reasoning belongs in a mediocre high-school debate and not a serious academic setting. Disappointed in Gresham College.
Love your analogy but in fairness I think it's simplistic and works only in hindsight. Saddam had indeed used chemical weapons in the past and was anything but repentant or cooperative toward inspectors. Not saying I support the war but trying to understand it's complicated origins.
He really should have waited for the Chilcot Inquiry (although I know this was a part of a series so realistically it wasn't feasible). So many of the points he made here were contradicted. Saying that Blair didn't offer Bush a blank cheque is ludicrous when you hear that Blair said he was with Bush no matter what. Even worse is his being adamant that intelligence pointed to the existence of WMDs even though all sorts of shenanigans went in with intelligence services. Bogdanor makes almost no attempt to objective here.
I was surprised to hear it stated that America officially adopted a policy of regime change in 1998, which isn't correct. America maintained a general policy of containment all the way until 9/11; the maneuver in congress was just a mechanism in American domestic politics to allocate money towards the Iraq issue and should not be read as an official foreign policy change. A sign of the way the neocons were leaning perhaps, but nothing official.
I realize that this is not a popular opinion,(at least on my side of the political aisle), but I think that removing Saddam Hussein from power might be the only good thing the Bush administration ever did. It was very long overdue. Unfortunately they completely fucked up the aftermath, so now we're left with this mess (though it may well have been equally bad had the regime collapsed on its own, as it well may have).
I served with the 101st Airborne as a Blackhawk pilot during the liberation of Iraq in 2003. I was in Iraq for portions of 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. I just launched my UA-cam channel and beginning this past Monday began featuring a segment call "War Stories".
We all knew, at the time, that the dossier and 45 minutes claim were dodgy. There we school children, outside parliament, telling MP's that is was dodgy. We all knew.
Ah, so THIS is how he got his OBE. However I can recommend all of his other lectures on this channel. Normally, he actually is impartial, rather than just self-asserting that he is. Disappointing and damaging though this lecture is him in my eyes there are nevertheless some interesting facts you-me-us may not have known before.
It is a silly standard to say "he disagrees with me, therefore he must be impartial". He made his conclusions clear at the start and substantiated those throughout. He made no attempt to hide his reasons or reasoning for reaching those conclusions, and it is worrying that his academic integrity is called into question for him merely committing the sin of coming to conclusions you disagree with.
@@HPretor it's not that his conclusion is different but the fact that he fails to mention the suspect nature of the intelligence, especially in light of fairly well substantiated arguments that it was presented a certain way due to political pressure and influence. However, his greatest sin was the cavalier attitude with which he dismissed the UNSC. The fact that he attaches surprisingly little value to their failure to obtain from the UNSC a resolution authorising the war is truly appalling. The Security Council is the bedrock of a rules based international order and to violate the Charter in such a blatant manner was truly despicable as it destroyed whatever legitimacy the institution had. Decades from now this failure to comply with the UN Charter will be cited as the beginning of the demise of the UN - much like America's decision not to join the League of Nations effectively ended that organisation's chances of succeeding. Exceptionalism begets exceptionalism.
Very weak arguments here. Quite disappointing. Even if Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which he did not, the UK/US had no right to invade Iraq. Bogdanor also overlooks the fact that the US was a staunch supporter of Saddam for over ten years.
@@1984isnotamanualHe decommissioned them ironically after Britain and America bombed Iraq in 1998 I think. Also not sure how the West backing Iraq against Iran makes any difference to the argument in 2003. Nevermind the War in 1991.
@@johnnotrealname8168 actually we don’t know that. Idk where you got that info. It matters because we funded and supported him when he was doing horrors in Iran and in Iraq. That was blood for oil. We had a responsibility to the Iraqi people. We should have removed him in 91 before the 12 years of sanctioned destroy what was left of Iraqi society, infustructure, etc was destroyed. That was the big mistake and we paid for it when we removed him later.
@@1984isnotamanual We do know that. Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair himself accepts that. No, that was not blood for oil. Iraq was supported against Iran so that Iran would not over-run Iraq. I am not disputing whether it was wrong or not but I am disputing whether it was wrong for him to use them which it was wrong. I agree with the rest of your comment though. It would have been tough to justify it to the United Nations so I think they should have supported the revolts and moved in, destroyed all aerial weaponry as well.
That the war would have happened without the UK sounds like an excuse. An analysis of why France and Germany DIDNT support would have been a useful counterpoint.
@@Noitartst If are you a true war-lover, a not just having a little fun with people, then should you not be willing to accept a degree of came back? Also, do you not understand that he might be a clever sounding, but fake, 'expert'?
that issue was built in to the UN from it's inception after ww2. the security council can individually dismiss and veto anything even if every other nation on earth agrees with it. that's the flaw. it was exposed long before 2002 and exploited by all major members.
This is a terribly bias and inaccurate lecture. The professor has little understanding of the American Government at that time. Also, there was information available at that time that there were NO weapons of mass destruction. He says nothing about the damage of sanctions BEFORE the war, and concludes that peoples judgement is retrospective, this is a blatant lie. I have listened to many Bognar lectures before and enjoyed them. But, after this, I don't think I will feel as secure in any knowledge acquired through him in the future and will probably look elsewhere. Very disappointing.
I wish people would qualify their statements when they put this idea of "no WMDs" out there. Yes, there was intelligence prior to the war, but it was going both ways, and it was not as clear cut as you are making it seem. That is why Frank Harvey managed to produce an interesting counterfactual analysis that suggests that a Gore administration would have been equally likely to push for war against Iraq, in his book "Explaining the Iraq War", given the information available and his statements (and those of his likely administration picks) prior to the war. There were also questions revolving around the reliability of the U.N. inspections regime. They were not getting full cooperation from the regime as was required. It was known that Saddam Hussein maintained an active concealment program. Kofi Anan wanted Rolf Ekéus (a diplomat with a proven record of inspections in Iraq after the first Gulf War) to lead the inspections, but this was vetoed by France, China and Russia (all allies of the Hussein regime), who wanted Hans Blix instead. Hans Blix incorrectly certified Iraq free of WMDs twice in the 80s and 90s. Ekéus relayed the story of how, during his time, he was offered (repeatedly), throughout his inspections after the first Gulf War, a bribe of 1.5 million dollars to change his report by then Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Azziz. It further seems that Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe inspectors. Both in Iraq after the first Gulf war and the discovery of Libya's nuclear program, the inspectors were surprised at the progress that had already been made. Prior to the conflict, France asked for a month's time before discussing the option of war. However, after that month, Iraq would have been placed (for one month) as the chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament ("the world's only permanent multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body", and the "world's sole forum for [nuclear] disarmament") because of a "purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order". For the same reason, joining Iraq as co-chair for the session would have been Iran. Likewise, the U.N. Human Rights Commission elected Libyan ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji for that same year, despite concern about the country's poor record on civil liberties and its alleged role in sponsoring terrorism. After the war, the Iraq Survey Group found that, although no stockpiles of WMDs were found, Saddam maintained a program consisting of trained personnel, undeclared facilities (including a prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing for biological agents) and equipment, allowing him to develop new biological or chemical weapon stockpiles within 3-5 weeks, removing the need to maintain a stockpile (the hardest part of this would have been acquiring the trained personnel). It was also found that the Iraqis had tried to buy long range missiles off the shelf from North Korea, in clear defiance of the agreement they had with the U.N.. Chemical weapons (in degraded state) were actually found in 2005/06 (including several hundred missiles), which were then purchased by the CIA under Operation Avarice to keep them off the black market. In 2014, it was reported by the NYT that U.S. troops had been exposed and injured during the disposal and destruction of 4990 abandoned chemical weapons. So it's just flat out wrong to say that there were no WMDs in Iraq - though most of these seem to have been pretty degraded. Some of Iraq's chemical weapons may now be in Syria. As for nuclear weapons, it's true that Iraq never had nuclear weapons, but it was known that Saddam Hussein was in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which were finally moved to a secure location in 2008. U.S. officials, including President Bush, also had cited British intelligence documents indicating Iraq may have tried to buy another 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said the documents were fakes. According to Professor Norman Dombey, Saddam had enough ore to make 100 nuclear missiles. An Iraqi bomb design based on 16 kilograms of purified U-235 was also found by U.N. inspectors. Yellowcake uranium is largely inert, and you need to enrich it to make weapons out of it. After the war a gas centrifuge that could be used for uranium enrichment was found buried under a rose bush in the garden of an Iraqi scientist, Mahdi Obeidi, who later wrote a book about his ordeals called "The Bomb In My Garden". Obeidi indicated that there were at least 3 more such instruments buried in other locations, to be used once the sanctions had been lifted. Obeidi also points out that it is very difficult to interpret the signs that a country is working on WMDs. For example, American analysts believed that the Iraqis were working on a nuclear centrifuge because they were acquiring high tolerance aluminum. However, according to Obeidi, these were used for rockets. An American wouldn't use expensive high tolerance steel for rockets, but an Iraqi engineer, who's life depended on the rocket working well, would. Saddam Hussein maintained the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for years, but the scientists were doing completely unrelated research. Obeidi states that this was Saddam's trying to maintain his delusion that he still had a nuclear program. Obeidi further makes the point that the credible fear existed that Iraq's nuclear scientists might defect or sell their knowledge to the highest bidder, the black market making it ever easier to acquire the relevant technology and raw materials. And then there is the fact that the regime itself declared that it had further stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (mostly chemical), but could not show the inspectors any evidence that it had destroyed them. These weapons may or may not have existed. It is not clear whether Saddam himself would have known that he no longer had WMDs, because in all likelihood no one would've dared deliver him bad news. Alternatively, he may have known he didn't have any, but would not admit to it because his reign was based on fear. The Iraq Survey Group stated Saddam deceived his own army and the best intelligence agencies in the world into believing he still had WMDs because he believed none of his enemies would dare attack him if he had WMDs. It further suggested he believed the U.S. and the coalition that threatened to go to war against him if the U.N. resolutions were not met were bluffing. So I think this "we found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq" meme is at best simplistic, and probably flat out misleading.
He is bending over backwards to be as objective and unbiased as possible. It's clear that you are strongly against the war and you are entitled to your opinion. But your criticisms of the supposedly 'biased' nature of this lecture are extremely thin.
And I feel the same way and have replied in kind. Thanks for corroboration, Glossypots. I much admire professor Bogdanor, despite his strong partisan bias, otherwise. Here, however, I fear he perpetuates the "big lie" Hitler so much espoused, rather than the cause of rational, wide field, understanding of the sort that enlightens all--both fans and opponents..
@@jellekastelein7316 ekeus by the way supported the allegations of the united states, hardly a neutral person suitable that position. the amounts of chemical weapons found through that cash for weapons program were fake, old and of dubious origin. some were from syria. there were no meaningful amounts of WMD much less usable. this far fetched explanation you are giving just shows how dishonest these allegations were because remember that the claim was that iraqs WMD posed an immediate risk to the united states so that they had start a war and had no time to clear things up.
Mainly an example of establishment revisionism. if you want to see what was being said at the time to Blair and Bush without hindsight see the chilcot interviews. As it was clear at the time the benchmark for going to war was very low almost non existent if not considered irrelevant. Iraq posed no threat to uk. The professor surprise at democractic failure is a surprise which shows ignorance of the general accptance of shariah [to different degrees of enforcement] as the model of society in the middle east. The wars out there is over which type of shariah you have not which type of democracy. Shows the liberal elites still dont get it.
He's really off here ignoring the fact that the west was allied with Saddam Hussein until the moment he invaded Kuwait (which America tacitly endorsed by not objecting beforehand). Plus apparently Bogdanor had never heard of PNAC. The neocons wanted to Invade Iraq going back to the mid nineties. Weak lecture.
Very Very poor, unbalanced lecture. Uprising from someone who has delivered so many excellent lectures in the past. Guess Vernon is in his post OEB stage.
The problem was anterior to Sadam, and the responsibility for the entire dilemma is far more perplexing than ca be resolved by a simple minded, not to say closed mind. It may be avoiding the issue to admit that there are such cases when the choice is not between right and wrong but between two perspectives of a problem both of which are predicated on assumptions which are erroneous and both of which have ultimately no ethical resolution. Professor Bogdanor was giving a lecture not a verdict, and that is the task of an historian. You should not expect every historian to share your opinions, perspectives and notions. Your opinion is tantamount to a denial of intellectual integrity. The fault of every extremist, terrorist, ideologue and dictator cleaves to your opinion ,and Sadam was one of those. How does one stop such people? The world's problems are full of people of your persuasion ad they are destructive when they have power. Congratulate yourself that you do not have power and I shall congratulate the world that another such as you is free to comment rather than having power to compound mischief.
How did sadam came to power; who armed him against iran ; who said nothing during the 80s cause he was the west's boy ; what about un inspectors saying that they found nothing; what about the 800.000 civilians dead out of sanctions on medicine and other necessities; and off course look at the fucking mess now : failed state , terrorism , civil war .. a complete and outer mess. Sadams crime in western eyes was that he became .." a resource nationalist". The only crime that matters is that and the threat of the dollar being undermined. Same with khadaffi. All other is bullshit . Making it about democracy and rights in laughable.This lecture is pure Western propaganda. I kept my cool and saw the whole thing. It was really tough. I really enjoyed his other lectures. But in this one and on suez he is clearly not objective.
Boy this is uncharacteristically one-sided.
It's just that the lies are more obvious on this subject
Yea why didn’t he tell the terrorist’s side of the story? ☝️🤓
@@BobDingus-bh3pdThis is all the left does today.
@@BobDingus-bh3pd Sorrry, I mistook this as a suppossed scholarly subject, not one designed for consumers with preconceived political positions who communicate through emoticons.
This is far and away potentially the best analysis of this situation I've ever heard.
I totally agree with you. The professor's assessments, in all his lectures are, balanced and informative.
@@candyman5912 VERY evenhanded; if the objectors to the war were as civilized as this man, then I think society would be a ton better off; back in 2002, 2003 the ones angrier by far were the objectors; now, I just call war objectors peacemongers and call myself a warmonger because I don't care-those anti-war treat their cause as religion, and utterly despise those that disagree. I used to be more civil, but civility in these times get ya trampled.
You must not know much about it.
@@davidchunkyonion Never said I did. The normal news media coverage in the US was pathetic in the extreme. What links do you recommend?
@@danielgregg2530 Look for "Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings" (A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak). ... I like professor Bogdanor very much, he is a decent scholar, but in this lecture he totally omitted that the intelligence on WMD was fabricated by Bush's administration - means they told lies and they did know it (at least Cheney, who was quite active in the war). And of course, this fact sheds quite different light on all the case.
I would love for this professor to extend his lectures to cover every British/English monarch, including the pre-Norman ones.
You a fan of propaganda and lies?
This guy seems rather biased and he supports the iraq war.
I don't agree with his conclusion. I worked for several months in Iraq just before the invasion of Kuwait and it had become clear to me that the West up until then were very happy to trade and support the regime of Sadam in its war with Iran knowing very well how he was behaving. When the likes of the US and the UK changed its position and decided that they wanted regime change and by default a democratic government would naturally emerge through some act of liberation, it was clear in my mind that Bush and Blair where pursing a policy that was wholly unachievable. That was/is not hind sight. It is clear in my mind that persistant acts of diplomacy through the UN had prevented him deploying weapons of mass destruction of, which in the event proved to be the case. Now we have the increasing radicalisation of Islam and a far less stable Middle East. From which Blair profits.
If only peacemongers felt the same remorse over Biden's push to end the war in Afghanistan, making Afghanistan a haven for terror again, not that peacemongers care-they're too self-righteous to do so. Look at Bden's press conference lies leading up to the fall of Kabul, and then let's see you get huffy over lying, nasty warmongers. Peacemongers LOVE lies. (When convenient.)
How does Blair profit? I have not heard this before m
@@johnmiller9302 Largely through the charities he set up under the umbrella of the Blair Foundation, as a paid Middle East Envoy for the UN, EU, USA and Russia. Advisor to the Chase Manhatten Bank and the Zurich Financial Services. Advice to third world governments on a pro bono basis. Public speaking, $250,000 for a 90 minute speach. Estimated wealth $120m.
@@MrDavidht thank you!!
This is just a post hoc rationalisation. I agree with the prof.
I think my biggest problems are two things. Firstly the obvious part that the thought was taken on how to destroy Iraq but not on how to rebuild it, yes there were outside hostile actors at play but the intervention was naive in the extreme to me in terms of what would happen after Sadam was removed. The biggest issue I have is that Bush and Blair and Howard and the rest didn’t explain themselves like this to the world. It wasn’t “he had them once, we can’t confirm if he does now but given his track record and his treatment of Iraqis and Arab neighbours, we need to deal with him before it gets to that point”. The statements were ‘he has them, he has always had them, he can’t be trusted therefore we need to go get him “and “he is in league with the 9 11 plots”. It might be a subtle difference but it’s the difference between honesty and misleading the world. That was the rod they made for their own back. He was awful, of course he was but that doesn’t give a blank cheque for bad reasoning, bullshit and jumping the gun. Just on an aside, on this issue of WMDs’ the united states would tick most of the same boxes as Nazi Germany and Iraq. They are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons and they certainly have used and develop biological and chemical weapons, same as the other European powers. Fair is fair. Use of weapons of mass destruction is bad only if you are a dictator apparently.
p.s Nazi Germany was already using chemical weapons on people before ww2, it’s well known that they were killing and sterilising disabled people from the mid 30’s onward trying to refine their tactics.
Good lecture though, certainly learned some things and changed some of my opinions and assumptions.
Overall, I see your point. But to compare the US’s use of atomic weapons in a worldwide protracted war against a relentless enemy known for human rights abuses just as bad as the Nazis (torture, castration of POW’s, mutilation of corpses; brutal experiments on Pacific Islanders and Chinese civilians; initiation of military force at Pearl Harbor that resulted in civilian casualties as well as military personnel, etc…) is not the same as an unhinged dictator who invades neighboring countries and genocides groups of people within his own national boundaries is not the same. The US’s use of the atom bombs absolutely brought Japan to its knees, despite what self-aggrandizing charlatans like Oliver Stone might imply.
Am I saying the US is wonderful? Of course not. Every powerful nation has its stains-even nations that have never reached any sort of zenith have committed more brutal atrocities. But some people simply hate the US so much that they have a tendency to engage in mental gymnastics to find false equivalency between, say, the US and North Korea, for instance. No nation is absolutely free, but there are massive degrees of difference between the amount of individual liberty, allowance for dissent, minority rights, standard of living, quality of life, infrastructure, and so on than there is under unhinged despots. Would Saddam Hussein or imperial Japan have done more in diplomatic efforts to avoid war than the US? Or would they have used nuclear weapons with even less or perhaps no provocation had they discovered the technology first?
The plan was to destroy Iraq and create a failed state, the plan was a success
@@leahcimolrac1477 the use of nukes was a huge crime against humanity. It was committed as an experiment and justified with propaganda.
We have never used ILLEGAL nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in war. You leaving out an essential thing called international law dude. And we don’t use chemical weapons like Sadam did. He genocided people with them.
Great lecture. Not an easy dilemma.
All these years later and the sight of Blair, the sound of his voice fills me with overwhelming disgust.
poor you. pffft.
Me too, Blair set in motion all the horrors that now befall Britain
cry harder
Saddam Hussein poisoned Kurds with chemical weapons, but who sold him those weapons? Were there any other factors, such as the idea that some Middle Eastern oil may be traded in a currency other than the UD Dollar, that may have influenced us deciding that he was now evil?
cry marxist, cry
I am not sure if the West supplied Iraq chemical weapons and in any case he should not have used them so this does not skirt blame from him and again who cares?
A very 'civilized' and well-delivered lecture by a distinguished-looking old man on the justification of the destruction of a country that was not a real threat in any meaningful way to the West. If you listen carefully and think deeply about the content of this lecture, you quickly realize that his reasoning belongs in a mediocre high-school debate and not a serious academic setting. Disappointed in Gresham College.
This is not a serious academic setting xD
The problem with resolution 1441 is that it instructed a bachelor to provide evidence he was no longer beating his wife.
Love your analogy but in fairness I think it's simplistic and works only in hindsight. Saddam had indeed used chemical weapons in the past and was anything but repentant or cooperative toward inspectors. Not saying I support the war but trying to understand it's complicated origins.
He really should have waited for the Chilcot Inquiry (although I know this was a part of a series so realistically it wasn't feasible). So many of the points he made here were contradicted. Saying that Blair didn't offer Bush a blank cheque is ludicrous when you hear that Blair said he was with Bush no matter what. Even worse is his being adamant that intelligence pointed to the existence of WMDs even though all sorts of shenanigans went in with intelligence services. Bogdanor makes almost no attempt to objective here.
the US and european companies supplied iraq with chemical weapons all through the 80's
A very refreshing lecture on a very provocative argument!
I was surprised to hear it stated that America officially adopted a policy of regime change in 1998, which isn't correct. America maintained a general policy of containment all the way until 9/11; the maneuver in congress was just a mechanism in American domestic politics to allocate money towards the Iraq issue and should not be read as an official foreign policy change. A sign of the way the neocons were leaning perhaps, but nothing official.
The whole thing was as a Bush/Blair balls-up and the Middle East and the world are still suffering for it.
4:41 yes .. and remind me again how he came to power?
I realize that this is not a popular opinion,(at least on my side of the political aisle), but I think that removing Saddam Hussein from power might be the only good thing the Bush administration ever did. It was very long overdue. Unfortunately they completely fucked up the aftermath, so now we're left with this mess (though it may well have been equally bad had the regime collapsed on its own, as it well may have).
Yeah, only a million or so deaths and a the creation of a failed state, totally worth it
I served with the 101st Airborne as a Blackhawk pilot during the liberation of Iraq in 2003. I was in Iraq for portions of 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. I just launched my UA-cam channel and beginning this past Monday began featuring a segment call "War Stories".
Iraq wasn't liberated, it was genocided
We all knew, at the time, that the dossier and 45 minutes claim were dodgy. There we school children, outside parliament, telling MP's that is was dodgy. We all knew.
Legend!
He has the most remarkable command of facts, whatever his topic.
Ah, so THIS is how he got his OBE.
However I can recommend all of his other lectures on this channel. Normally, he actually is impartial, rather than just self-asserting that he is. Disappointing and damaging though this lecture is him in my eyes there are nevertheless some interesting facts you-me-us may not have known before.
It is a silly standard to say "he disagrees with me, therefore he must be impartial". He made his conclusions clear at the start and substantiated those throughout. He made no attempt to hide his reasons or reasoning for reaching those conclusions, and it is worrying that his academic integrity is called into question for him merely committing the sin of coming to conclusions you disagree with.
@@HPretor it's not that his conclusion is different but the fact that he fails to mention the suspect nature of the intelligence, especially in light of fairly well substantiated arguments that it was presented a certain way due to political pressure and influence. However, his greatest sin was the cavalier attitude with which he dismissed the UNSC. The fact that he attaches surprisingly little value to their failure to obtain from the UNSC a resolution authorising the war is truly appalling. The Security Council is the bedrock of a rules based international order and to violate the Charter in such a blatant manner was truly despicable as it destroyed whatever legitimacy the institution had. Decades from now this failure to comply with the UN Charter will be cited as the beginning of the demise of the UN - much like America's decision not to join the League of Nations effectively ended that organisation's chances of succeeding. Exceptionalism begets exceptionalism.
Very weak arguments here. Quite disappointing. Even if Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which he did not, the UK/US had no right to invade Iraq. Bogdanor also overlooks the fact that the US was a staunch supporter of Saddam for over ten years.
He did have those weapons and used them, google the Anfar campaign and learn something please
@@1984isnotamanualHe decommissioned them ironically after Britain and America bombed Iraq in 1998 I think. Also not sure how the West backing Iraq against Iran makes any difference to the argument in 2003. Nevermind the War in 1991.
@@johnnotrealname8168 actually we don’t know that. Idk where you got that info. It matters because we funded and supported him when he was doing horrors in Iran and in Iraq. That was blood for oil. We had a responsibility to the Iraqi people. We should have removed him in 91 before the 12 years of sanctioned destroy what was left of Iraqi society, infustructure, etc was destroyed. That was the big mistake and we paid for it when we removed him later.
@@1984isnotamanual We do know that. Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair himself accepts that. No, that was not blood for oil. Iraq was supported against Iran so that Iran would not over-run Iraq. I am not disputing whether it was wrong or not but I am disputing whether it was wrong for him to use them which it was wrong. I agree with the rest of your comment though. It would have been tough to justify it to the United Nations so I think they should have supported the revolts and moved in, destroyed all aerial weaponry as well.
@@1984isnotamanualThe United States and Great Britain did not fund or support Saddam. That was the Soviet Union. Get your facts right.
That the war would have happened without the UK sounds like an excuse. An analysis of why France and Germany DIDNT support would have been a useful counterpoint.
The tie seems to be the giveaway .
What I appreciate about this, is that it is truly an attempt to be even-handed, and fair. No hate.
As a warmonger, I have never found anyone inside academia try to give both sides a fair shake before, but this guy has. Kudos to him.
Even-handed, more like slight-of-hand? Just because someone might look and sound the part, does not always mean that they are
@@antispindr8613 What do you mean friend? as a demonized warmonger, I wanna know.
@@Noitartst If are you a true war-lover, a not just having a little fun with people, then should you not be willing to accept a degree of came back? Also, do you not understand that he might be a clever sounding, but fake, 'expert'?
He confuses the names iran and iraq a few times... is he American???
Perhaps his US controllers slipped up?
Does his voice sound American to you
7:47 I think he meant Iraq not "Iran", Freudian slip no doubt
Who granted America and Britain to be police man of the world
Anglocentric clap trap.
Vernon so often gets the big analysis wrong… articulate but so often prejudiced
😅wow. Incredibly I'll informed and " in bad faith". Who invited this guy to speak?
The miserable failure of the UN to deal decisively with Saddam was a major factor leading to the conflict.
that issue was built in to the UN from it's inception after ww2. the security council can individually dismiss and veto anything even if every other nation on earth agrees with it. that's the flaw. it was exposed long before 2002 and exploited by all major members.
The first thing I want to talk to is America. American and Israeli policy, and then Europe, we know everything, but the day we cry
bravo professor Bogdanor
A bit of a Richard whitely tie 😁
This is a terribly bias and inaccurate lecture. The professor has little understanding of the American Government at that time. Also, there was information available at that time that there were NO weapons of mass destruction. He says nothing about the damage of sanctions BEFORE the war, and concludes that peoples judgement is retrospective, this is a blatant lie. I have listened to many Bognar lectures before and enjoyed them.
But, after this, I don't think I will feel as secure in any knowledge acquired through him in the future and will probably look elsewhere. Very disappointing.
I wish people would qualify their statements when they put this idea of "no WMDs" out there. Yes, there was intelligence prior to the war, but it was going both ways, and it was not as clear cut as you are making it seem. That is why Frank Harvey managed to produce an interesting counterfactual analysis that suggests that a Gore administration would have been equally likely to push for war against Iraq, in his book "Explaining the Iraq War", given the information available and his statements (and those of his likely administration picks) prior to the war.
There were also questions revolving around the reliability of the U.N. inspections regime. They were not getting full cooperation from the regime as was required. It was known that Saddam Hussein maintained an active concealment program. Kofi Anan wanted Rolf Ekéus (a diplomat with a proven record of inspections in Iraq after the first Gulf War) to lead the inspections, but this was vetoed by France, China and Russia (all allies of the Hussein regime), who wanted Hans Blix instead. Hans Blix incorrectly certified Iraq free of WMDs twice in the 80s and 90s.
Ekéus relayed the story of how, during his time, he was offered (repeatedly), throughout his inspections after the first Gulf War, a bribe of 1.5 million dollars to change his report by then Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Azziz. It further seems that Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe inspectors. Both in Iraq after the first Gulf war and the discovery of Libya's nuclear program, the inspectors were surprised at the progress that had already been made.
Prior to the conflict, France asked for a month's time before discussing the option of war. However, after that month, Iraq would have been placed (for one month) as the chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament ("the world's only permanent multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body", and the "world's sole forum for [nuclear] disarmament") because of a "purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order". For the same reason, joining Iraq as co-chair for the session would have been Iran. Likewise, the U.N. Human Rights Commission elected Libyan ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji for that same year, despite concern about the country's poor record on civil liberties and its alleged role in sponsoring terrorism.
After the war, the Iraq Survey Group found that, although no stockpiles of WMDs were found, Saddam maintained a program consisting of trained personnel, undeclared facilities (including a prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing for biological agents) and equipment, allowing him to develop new biological or chemical weapon stockpiles within 3-5 weeks, removing the need to maintain a stockpile (the hardest part of this would have been acquiring the trained personnel).
It was also found that the Iraqis had tried to buy long range missiles off the shelf from North Korea, in clear defiance of the agreement they had with the U.N..
Chemical weapons (in degraded state) were actually found in 2005/06 (including several hundred missiles), which were then purchased by the CIA under Operation Avarice to keep them off the black market. In 2014, it was reported by the NYT that U.S. troops had been exposed and injured during the disposal and destruction of 4990 abandoned chemical weapons. So it's just flat out wrong to say that there were no WMDs in Iraq - though most of these seem to have been pretty degraded. Some of Iraq's chemical weapons may now be in Syria.
As for nuclear weapons, it's true that Iraq never had nuclear weapons, but it was known that Saddam Hussein was in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which were finally moved to a secure location in 2008. U.S. officials, including President Bush, also had cited British intelligence documents indicating Iraq may have tried to buy another 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said the documents were fakes. According to Professor Norman Dombey, Saddam had enough ore to make 100 nuclear missiles. An Iraqi bomb design based on 16 kilograms of purified U-235 was also found by U.N. inspectors.
Yellowcake uranium is largely inert, and you need to enrich it to make weapons out of it. After the war a gas centrifuge that could be used for uranium enrichment was found buried under a rose bush in the garden of an Iraqi scientist, Mahdi Obeidi, who later wrote a book about his ordeals called "The Bomb In My Garden". Obeidi indicated that there were at least 3 more such instruments buried in other locations, to be used once the sanctions had been lifted. Obeidi also points out that it is very difficult to interpret the signs that a country is working on WMDs. For example, American analysts believed that the Iraqis were working on a nuclear centrifuge because they were acquiring high tolerance aluminum. However, according to Obeidi, these were used for rockets. An American wouldn't use expensive high tolerance steel for rockets, but an Iraqi engineer, who's life depended on the rocket working well, would.
Saddam Hussein maintained the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for years, but the scientists were doing completely unrelated research. Obeidi states that this was Saddam's trying to maintain his delusion that he still had a nuclear program. Obeidi further makes the point that the credible fear existed that Iraq's nuclear scientists might defect or sell their knowledge to the highest bidder, the black market making it ever easier to acquire the relevant technology and raw materials.
And then there is the fact that the regime itself declared that it had further stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (mostly chemical), but could not show the inspectors any evidence that it had destroyed them. These weapons may or may not have existed. It is not clear whether Saddam himself would have known that he no longer had WMDs, because in all likelihood no one would've dared deliver him bad news. Alternatively, he may have known he didn't have any, but would not admit to it because his reign was based on fear. The Iraq Survey Group stated Saddam deceived his own army and the best intelligence agencies in the world into believing he still had WMDs because he believed none of his enemies would dare attack him if he had WMDs. It further suggested he believed the U.S. and the coalition that threatened to go to war against him if the U.N. resolutions were not met were bluffing.
So I think this "we found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq" meme is at best simplistic, and probably flat out misleading.
He is bending over backwards to be as objective and unbiased as possible. It's clear that you are strongly against the war and you are entitled to your opinion. But your criticisms of the supposedly 'biased' nature of this lecture are extremely thin.
And I feel the same way and have replied in kind. Thanks for corroboration, Glossypots. I much admire professor Bogdanor, despite his strong partisan bias, otherwise. Here, however, I fear he perpetuates the "big lie" Hitler so much espoused, rather than the cause of rational, wide field, understanding of the sort that enlightens all--both fans and opponents..
@@jellekastelein7316
ekeus by the way supported the allegations of the united states, hardly a neutral person suitable that position.
the amounts of chemical weapons found through that cash for weapons program were fake, old and of dubious origin. some were from syria.
there were no meaningful amounts of WMD much less usable. this far fetched explanation you are giving just shows how dishonest these allegations were because remember that the claim was that iraqs WMD posed an immediate risk to the united states so that they had start a war and had no time to clear things up.
We'll said. This lecture is highly discrediting.
Mainly an example of establishment revisionism. if you want to see what was being said at the time to Blair and Bush without hindsight see the chilcot interviews. As it was clear at the time the benchmark for going to war was very low almost non existent if not considered irrelevant. Iraq posed no threat to uk.
The professor surprise at democractic failure is a surprise which shows ignorance of the general accptance of shariah [to different degrees of enforcement] as the model of society in the middle east. The wars out there is over which type of shariah you have not which type of democracy. Shows the liberal elites still dont get it.
Not as objective as Mr Bogdanor can be on some issues .
He's really off here ignoring the fact that the west was allied with Saddam Hussein until the moment he invaded Kuwait (which America tacitly endorsed by not objecting beforehand). Plus apparently Bogdanor had never heard of PNAC. The neocons wanted to Invade Iraq going back to the mid nineties. Weak lecture.
Very Very poor, unbalanced lecture. Uprising from someone who has delivered so many excellent lectures in the past. Guess Vernon is in his post OEB stage.
He really failed here. Poor research and analysis. Makes me question prior lectures by Bogdanor.
Brilliant !!
but no mention of Sadam's Big Gun pointed at Israel and the nuclear shells that were hidden in Jordan
Such a rich fantasy life you have.
Are we meant to care about Israel?
After this I will not listen to Professor Bogdanov on any subject. Unbelievably one sided and superficial. Actually it´s just propaganda.
Read: "Prof didn't agree with me and my views so I'm out!!!" Childish
@@StuartTheunissen he did not only disagree. he found the professor to be onesided and superficial.
The problem was anterior to Sadam, and the responsibility for the entire dilemma is far more perplexing than ca be resolved by a simple minded, not to say closed mind. It may be avoiding the issue to admit that there are such cases when the choice is not between right and wrong but between two perspectives of a problem both of which are predicated on assumptions which are erroneous and both of which have ultimately no ethical resolution. Professor Bogdanor was giving a lecture not a verdict, and that is the task of an historian. You should not expect every historian to share your opinions, perspectives and notions. Your opinion is tantamount to a denial of intellectual integrity. The fault of every extremist, terrorist, ideologue and dictator cleaves to your opinion ,and Sadam was one of those. How does one stop such people? The world's problems are full of people of your persuasion ad they are destructive when they have power. Congratulate yourself that you do not have power and I shall congratulate the world that another such as you is free to comment rather than having power to compound mischief.
Tony Blair vindicated
The winners right the history, never been more true. Tools
How did sadam came to power; who armed him against iran ; who said nothing during the 80s cause he was the west's boy ; what about un inspectors saying that they found nothing; what about the 800.000 civilians dead out of sanctions on medicine and other necessities; and off course look at the fucking mess now : failed state , terrorism , civil war .. a complete and outer mess. Sadams crime in western eyes was that he became .." a resource nationalist". The only crime that matters is that and the threat of the dollar being undermined. Same with khadaffi. All other is bullshit . Making it about democracy and rights in laughable.This lecture is pure Western propaganda. I kept my cool and saw the whole thing. It was really tough. I really enjoyed his other lectures. But in this one and on suez he is clearly not objective.
Very very very FAIR end summary of the nightmare personal position for Blair and Bush tussling with making the decision
"Al Qaeda was responsible for 911".
Uh-huh.
Who was
@@Patrick3183 Not some guy in a cave hooked up to a dialysis machine
Who was responsible for al queda ; @@Patrick3183
Full of lies
امريكا او America 👞👞👞👞
Punk