Iraq inquiry

[teosgirl]

I've been watching the developments on sky regarding the Iraq enquiry. Brown and Blair were/are attempting to give evidence at the same time *probably because Brown is useless at learning lines, unlike Blair*

However, this week promises to be quite devastating for the ex prime minister and his cronies, as two former legal advisors are said to be planning to testify that the Iraq war was illegal. Blair is supposedly going to give evidence later on in the week so I expect some explosive headlines to follow.

Here's the story running by sky this morning concerning the two former legal advisors:
Iraq Chilcot Inquiry: Lawyers Michael Wood And Elizabeth Wilmshurst Cast Doubt Over War Legality | Politics | Sky News

Do anyone think Blair will ever be convicted of war crimes? Do you think he should be tried?

 

[juco]

I would suggest the outcome of this enquiry has aleady been decided, what we are watching is a `drama` to satisfy public sentiment and to convince the public that there has been proper investigations regarding the Iraq war.
I would be very surprised if anyone is charged. The more explosive the headlines the more the public will think a proper investigation has been done, stage managed in my opinion.

 

[CJD]

Yes I do think Blair should be tried for war crimes, he
sat on the Parkinson show and said God told him it was
the right thing to do....I don't think so!!

 

[teosgirl]

Thanks for adding that Carol.

Juco,
I would have agreed with you, but I'm currently in two minds since Blair lost the opportunity of becoming president of europe.


Charlotte

 

[juco]

Juco,
I would have agreed with you, but I'm currently in two minds since Blair lost the opportunity of becoming president of europe.

Just my opinion but again I think the presidency was engineered, Blair was too high profile at this early stage so they used lesser mortals to make the post seem less significent and allow the process of having a presidency become acceptable to the masses. The coming years will see higher profile presidents continuing the `elitist` agenda.

 

[Neil_Denizli]

Thanks for adding that Carol.

Juco,
I would have agreed with you, but I'm currently in two minds since Blair lost the opportunity of becoming president of europe.


Charlotte

He wasn't bothered about the presidency. The job he's really after is Pope.

 

[Saoirse]

I thought he was after Gods job

 

[CJD]

I think , he thinks he IS!!! :hail:

 

[giglets]

Don't expect the Chilcot Enquiry to apportion blame - that is not it's remit.

It's purpose is to learn lessons from mistakes made, so that they are not repeated in future conflicts.

I, personally, believe that the actual Military Campaign was a quick and resounding success, achieving the objectives set by the Coalition.

The abject failure, was that Iraq was allowed to descend into near anarchy only weeks after the removal of Saddam, and one of those most blameworthy, in this regard, was Claire Short, the then International Development Secretary. Her Department was directly responsible for post war planning in Iraq and she patently failed to deliver on this absolutely crucial aspect, along with her US counterparts.

If they had planned this properly, and most of the ensuing chaos had been avoided, I believe that the whole debate around this topic would now be completely different.





Dave

 

[Saoirse]

I, personally, believe that the actual Military Campaign was a quick and resounding success, achieving the objectives set by the Coalition.







Dave

Remind me, roughly how many WMDs did they find?

 

[giglets]

Sorry for delay in replying, Philip, but am at work and only posting in the quiet times.

I was referring to the immediate Military objectives in relation to overcoming the Iraqi armed forces and capturing all stategic targets.

The issue of WMDs has pretty much been resolved, in that none were found and I am not arguing that factual point.
The separate matter of what the Intelligence Community both here and in the US did/did not say in relation to WMDs and whether this was reliable, has still to be fully resolved.
However, my understanding is that Iraq had not complied fully with UN Resolution 1441 [2002], as verified by Hans Blix in 2003.
This was held to be non-compliance by the US and UK and cited as one of the main reasons for launching the attack.
I also seem to remember that there was a report in 2002 by the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, which basically stated that Iraq could assemble an Atomic weapon within a few months, if it could obtain the right type of fissile material from outside sources.

Very complex issues are involved, which are not automatically negated, just because no WMDs were unearthed.

Sharp "one-liners" do not do justice to this area of discussion.



Dave

 

[Saoirse]

the reason he didnt comply was he couldnt-there were no WMD in the first place!

Also at the time we were told that it was not about regime change, indeed Blair at one stage stated that if Sadaam handed over the (non existent) weapons there would be no need for invasion

Given what followed was the needless mass slaughter for WMDs which were never there I dont think one jot of this illegal debacle was a success

 

[Martyn]

I'm not really knowledgeable on this but Operation Desert Storm could have overthown Saddam in the early 90s but chose not to from my memory. All this WMD wouldn't have come into play. A slight side track off the thread.

 

[Saoirse]

Well that's a point Martin
Of course what complicated matters further was despite this 'brutal dictator' being in power and committing atrocities for years,for most of that time the west dully supported him!
Indeed whilst a US representative a certain gentleman assisted him with a major weapons contract. His name Mr Rumsfeld
It's difficult to decide who the bad guys are at times with these sort of policies!

 

[giglets]

No.

The non-compliance was mainly delay, after delay and numerous prevarications by the Iraqis, in allowing the Inspectors to check all notified sites and materials.This culminated in the report that Blix made to the UN in 2003, which was held as non-compliance with the resolution.
Blix even stated that Iraq had not fully accepted the need for disarmament.

The total number of deaths, both during the Invasion, and it's aftermath is highly regretable, even although most, I think, have been caused by insurgient activities, rather that Coalition Forces.
It must also be remembered, that estimates of the number of deaths directly attributable to Saddam during his reign, range from between 800,000 - 2 million people.

I prefer to rely on the opinions of the Iraqis themselves, as to whether the whole thing produced a better or worse country and a better or worse future for them and their kids.
The latest surveys seem to show that this might now be the case.




Dave

 

[Saoirse]

around 3 million children alone died because of the embargo against medical supplies in the shambolic aid programme

The latest from the Sunni population is the total opposite opinion which you have put forward

Indeed the March elections are now going to be nothing more than a sham as the Sunni population boycotts the dummy polls. They are incensed that the candidates they wish to put forward are barred from standing by the puppet regime

Putting unwarranted restrictions on candidates is the road to nowhere and I speak from experience in this part of the world

While literally 100s die each month in this decimated country the wests roadshow has moved on to another debacle

Notably the main contractors for the reconstuction work are a firm owned by non other than Dick Cheyney. The whole episode wreaks from the high heavens

 

[giglets]

Philip,


The sanctions against Iraq were imposed by the UN, not "The West", in 1990 and could have been lifted if Saddam had complied with the stated conditions, which he never did.

Sunnis form only 35% of the Iraqi population.
Shiites 60%, Kurds 5%.
So, approx 65%, or over two thirds, agree with what I said.
Why do you favour the minority view over the majority?

The Sunnis were also the main beneficiaries from Saddam's time in power, being his "own people", so, of course they are now going to be a bit upset that they no longer control the country.

I also noted that overall confidence is quite high in your so-called "puppet regime".

Unfortunate, when the facts get in the way of your totally skewed opinion, ain't it.

Question for you - If WMDs HAD been found, would you have supported the war?


Dave

 

[Yalides]

The Socialists never knew how to conduct a proper war. Needed Maggie T to do that.

 

[Saoirse]

Giglets

confidence is not high in the Sunni population

You have of course fell into the trap of looking at this in black and white or majority/minority

I will give you a wee tip which unfortunately we learned painfully here over many years

In a divided society a majority can only rule with the CONSENT of a minority

I will not pretend to be the author of that wise phrase but believe me to deviate from it courts disaster


oops only noticed your point re WMD....

bit of a facile arguement bit like if your granny had nuts she would be your grandad

I would say not-if your arguement was to be those dictators with WMD should be attacked I would point you right back to why did the West support him all along then!

Your arguement is fundamentally flawed from the start simply because this dictator was a western ally, not a bad guy!

 

[Yalides]

Governments are like women, change their mind and sides every few minutes.