Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

daniel stallion

Iraq War Enquiry

Recommended Posts

Pretty much everyone I have ever discussed the Iraq war with believed that it:

- Was using 9/11 as an excuse to invade rather than a reaction to a genuine threat

- Was nothing to do with Osama et al

- Was based upon bad intelligence at best and deliberate lies at worst

- Created far more problems with terrorism than it would ever solve

Looks like pretty much everyone was right, despite whatever Blair, Brown and Cumpbel say:

the former head of MI5...

Baroness Manningham-Buller said she had advised officials a year before the war that the threat posed by Iraq to the UK was "very limited", and she believed that assessment had "turned out to be the right judgement".

Describing the intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat as "fragmentary", she said. "If you are going to go to war, you need to have a pretty high threshold to decide on that."

Giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the action "radicalised" a generation of young people, including UK citizens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much everyone I have ever discussed the Iraq war with believed that it:

- Was using 9/11 as an excuse to invade rather than a reaction to a genuine threat

- Was nothing to do with Osama et al

- Was based upon bad intelligence at best and deliberate lies at worst

- Created far more problems with terrorism than it would ever solve

Looks like pretty much everyone was right, despite whatever Blair, Brown and Cumpbel say:

Will any of these face any type of justice for the war?

it's pretty irrefutable that there is a case to answer for, not in an enquiry but a proper trial. I'd then like to see all 3 of these ******* up against a wall whimpering like children for their mammies, pissing their trousers before being despatched, ceausescu style.

or is that a bit harsh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will any of these face any type of justice for the war?

it's pretty irrefutable that there is a case to answer for, not in an enquiry but a proper trial. I'd then like to see all 3 of these ******* up against a wall whimpering like children for their mammies, pissing their trousers before being despatched, ceausescu style.

or is that a bit harsh?

I don't know if it is harsh, but it is certainly something I would like to see - maybe not go through with the actual killing, instead after they have begged for their lives, prison.

The thing is, there has been years of Politicians denying this, justifying the war, interview after interview, parliamentary statement after statement, the public seemed to have it figured out from day 1, it just now it has ben confirmed - yet this will all result in ... absolutely fvck all....

These utter cvnts sent soldiers to die, to kill civilians to waste millions of £ ... and all because of some, genuinely unknown, political game.... but fvck all will be done about it except, possibly, the sales of some shit political memoirs will be slightly improved....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, just naive

In that case, I'd like Blair to become a multi-millionaire and peace envoy to the middle east, Campbell to become a much vaunted celebrity in the BBC and Brown to retire to the highlands living out his days in peace and comfort on his well earned public sector pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, I'd like Blair to become a multi-millionaire and peace envoy to the middle east, Campbell to become a much vaunted celebrity in the BBC and Brown to retire to the highlands living out his days in peace and comfort on his well earned public sector pension.

Yes, the tongue-in cheek teasing on Mock The Week and thorny-issue-avoiding interview and speech circuit can be so, so cruel, they will pay a handsome price........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it is harsh, but it is certainly something I would like to see - maybe not go through with the actual killing, instead after they have begged for their lives, prison.

The thing is, there has been years of Politicians denying this, justifying the war, interview after interview, parliamentary statement after statement, the public seemed to have it figured out from day 1, it just now it has ben confirmed - yet this will all result in ... absolutely fvck all....

These utter cvnts sent soldiers to die, to kill civilians to waste millions of £ ... and all because of some, genuinely unknown, political game.... but fvck all will be done about it except, possibly, the sales of some shit political memoirs will be slightly improved....

This is what I don't get. I'd estimate >90% of the country didn't want the war and know that the reasons for going are all ********, yet it still happened and 'they' are still defending it and nothing will be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, I'd like Blair to become a multi-millionaire and peace envoy to the middle east, Campbell to become a much vaunted celebrity in the BBC and Brown to retire to the highlands living out his days in peace and comfort on his well earned public sector pension.

Now your getting the hang of it. Same as it ever was....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much everyone I have ever discussed the Iraq war with believed that it:

- Was using 9/11 as an excuse to invade rather than a reaction to a genuine threat

- Was nothing to do with Osama et al

- Was based upon bad intelligence at best and deliberate lies at worst

- Created far more problems with terrorism than it would ever solve

Looks like pretty much everyone was right, despite whatever Blair, Brown and Cumpbel say:

Absolutely. But on the bright side, it made my decision to quit the UK in 2005 so much easier. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that Sadaam dug his own grave and that of thousands of his people by not allowing UN inspectors to finish their work.

Yes, the resolution was an excuse, but why allow someone to use an excuse? Why obstruct them?

Allow them unfettered access and then shame them on the world stage.

I reckon Sadaam did have something to hide. It may not have been WMD but I'll bet it was dodgy as f*k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not have been WMD but I'll bet it was dodgy as f*k.

Quite so. The Americans have their top men working on it, right now :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that Sadaam dug his own grave and that of thousands of his people by not allowing UN inspectors to finish their work.

Yes, the resolution was an excuse, but why allow someone to use an excuse? Why obstruct them?

Allow them unfettered access and then shame them on the world stage.

I reckon Sadaam did have something to hide. It may not have been WMD but I'll bet it was dodgy as f*k.

It isn't about doing the right or wrong thing by Saddam Hussein. Who gives a shit about him?

It is about the UK Government wilfully killing people and sending people to their death and telling lies to the public to justify it.

It is about telling the public these deaths are the price to pay to eliminate terrorism, when in fact just about the only impact it has had is to create potential terrorists.

Clearly the Government did not feel it was justifiable using fact. So made shit up or just ignored facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that Sadaam dug his own grave and that of thousands of his people by not allowing UN inspectors to finish their work.

Yes, the resolution was an excuse, but why allow someone to use an excuse? Why obstruct them?

Allow them unfettered access and then shame them on the world stage.

I reckon Sadaam did have something to hide. It may not have been WMD but I'll bet it was dodgy as f*k.

Why obstruct them? I once had a dog who used to roll over onto it's back and show me it's soft underside when I approached it because it knew who the boss was. You sound like the kind of guy who likes to roll over too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't about doing the right or wrong thing by Saddam Hussein. Who gives a shit about him?

It is about the UK Government wilfully killing people and sending people to their death and telling lies to the public to justify it.

It is about telling the public these deaths are the price to pay to eliminate terrorism, when in fact just about the only impact it has had is to create potential terrorists.

Clearly the Government did not feel it was justifiable using fact. So made shit up or just ignored facts.

But look at the rewards you get for ordering people to their deaths. It's worth it, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if your post is genuine or ironic or sarcastic or something else. Can you elaborate?

Sarcasm I suppose. I'm agreeing with you. The people who sent our troops off to die and to kill innocents seem to get well rewarded. What does that say about Blighty? I wonder how many men we sent to die in WWI and II when we needn't have? I wonder how many we'll send to WWIII?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that Sadaam dug his own grave and that of thousands of his people by not allowing UN inspectors to finish their work.

Yes, the resolution was an excuse, but why allow someone to use an excuse? Why obstruct them?

Allow them unfettered access and then shame them on the world stage.

I reckon Sadaam did have something to hide. It may not have been WMD but I'll bet it was dodgy as f*k.

I despair sometimes.

Saddam did NOT stop the the inspectors from finishing their work. Hans Blix presented a report which said that there was no threat from Iraq, which was carefully ignored by Bush and Blair. France took it on board, which is why the US have "freedom fries". The UN pulled their own guys out, a few days before the hot action started and they risked being caught in the crossfire.

Hans Blix being interviewed....

"Listen to this," he says. "This is Blair speaking, 'I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt'." Mr Blix is mocking Mr Blair's uncritical view of intelligence, which prevented the Prime Minister backing down even when the UN inspectors returned from Iraq unable to report that they had the "smoking gun" which would demonstrate "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had rebuilt his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Today he is angry at the lack of attention paid by the British and American governments to the inspectors' findings in the rush to topple Saddam. "Why the hell didn't they pay more attention to us?" he asks.

Independent article, 2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarcasm I suppose. I'm agreeing with you. The people who sent our troops off to die and to kill innocents seem to get well rewarded. What does that say about Blighty? I wonder how many men we sent to die in WWI and II when we needn't have? I wonder how many we'll send to WWIII?

blighty,I'm afraid,is under control of the "dark forces" that the queen was intimating to paul burrel..

those aforementioned forces hatched a plan to embroil us into a war,to despatch enemies of this particular cabal,using our own countrymen as meat for the sausage-machine......the real power behind the throne will not be evident until about 3 of the factions that pose it problems are eliminated in a war of mutual attrition/extermination.

that being islam(obviously),but also ourselves(along with uncle sam),and russia....who are militarily capable of defeating this thing.

....so what better solution that to forment a war that blows all of us to bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much everyone I have ever discussed the Iraq war with believed that it:

- Was using 9/11 as an excuse to invade rather than a reaction to a genuine threat

- Was nothing to do with Osama et al

- Was based upon bad intelligence at best and deliberate lies at worst

- Created far more problems with terrorism than it would ever solve

Looks like pretty much everyone was right, despite whatever Blair, Brown and Cumpbel say:

the former head of MI5...

Baroness Manningham-Buller said she had advised officials a year before the war that the threat posed by Iraq to the UK was "very limited", and she believed that assessment had "turned out to be the right judgement".

Describing the intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat as "fragmentary", she said. "If you are going to go to war, you need to have a pretty high threshold to decide on that."

Giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the action "radicalised" a generation of young people, including UK citizens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

Agreed, you'd have to be an imbecile of the highest order to think there was any justification for the war at all.

Oh look, here comes:

Doesn't change the fact that Sadaam dug his own grave and that of thousands of his people by not allowing UN inspectors to finish their work.

Yes, the resolution was an excuse, but why allow someone to use an excuse? Why obstruct them?

Allow them unfettered access and then shame them on the world stage.

What, like all those insepctors under Hans Blix who were there and reported that they were getting pretty much everything they wanted.

The only reason they regime was accused of obstruction was because there wasn't anything to declare in the first place, as anyone who bothered to Google "Iraq WMD" back in 2002/03 could have told you.

I reckon Sadaam did have something to hide. It may not have been WMD but I'll bet it was dodgy as f*k.

Well he's certainly hidden it well hasn't he. After 7 years of Bliar, Bush & Co. scratching around for anything that would excuse the war they still haven't found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, you'd have to be an imbecile of the highest order to think there was any justification for the war at all.

Oh look, here comes:

What, like all those insepctors under Hans Blix who were there and reported that they were getting pretty much everything they wanted.

The only reason they regime was accused of obstruction was because there wasn't anything to declare in the first place, as anyone who bothered to Google "Iraq WMD" back in 2002/03 could have told you.

Well he's certainly hidden it well hasn't he. After 7 years of Bliar, Bush & Co. scratching around for anything that would excuse the war they still haven't found it.

well put.

There are handful of war mongers belonging to certain group here, who will always jump to defend war criminals like Blair, Bush, Sharon etc sort of their duty, one or two more crawled out the other day when I started a new thread about Israel, does make me smile, when I see more & more are learning about apartheid & criminal state of Israel & harder they try to defend it, more hatred against that sh*tty littly country increases.

can't wait for them to attack Iran (they been going on about it for two years, but don't have the balls as usual want US to do their dirty work) as I know that they will pay the price if Iran is attacked, they bloody deserve a kick up the back side.

Why Hasn't Israel Bombed Iran (Yet)?

Bret Stephens – Wall Street Journal July 20, 2010

Why hasn't Israel bombed Iran yet? It's a question I often get from people who suppose I have a telepathic hotline to Benjamin Netanyahu's brain. I don't, but for a long time I was confident that an attack would happen in the first six months of this year. Since it didn't, it's worth thinking through why.

First, though, let me explain my previous thinking. In the spring of 2008, there was intense speculation that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, fresh from ordering an attack on a covert Syrian reactor, was giving serious thought to an Israeli strike on Iran. President Bush—whom Israelis believed would give them the diplomatic cover and logistical support they would need for such a strike, especially if things went amiss—had only a few months left to go. The release of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claiming (erroneously, as we now know) that Iran had halted its nuclear weaponization effort meant it was highly unlikely that the U.S. would attack.

Finally, Israeli planners understood that the longer they delayed a strike, the harder it would be to achieve meaningful effects. Iran would have more time to harden its facilities, improve its defenses, and disperse its nuclear materials.

So why didn't Israel act then? A variety of reasons, the most plausible of which was that Mr. Olmert believed an Israeli strike on Iran was a huge gamble, and that it would be rash to attack before every diplomatic, political or covert means to stop Iran's nuclear bid had been explored. Then came Barack Obama with his time-limited offer to negotiate with Tehran, followed by Iran's post-election unrest, which briefly aroused hopes that the regime might be toppled from within.

By the end of last year, it was clear that both hopes were misplaced. It was clear that the limited sanctions being contemplated by the Obama administration were not of a kind to deter Iran from its nuclear bids. It was clear that those bids were moving steadily closer to fruition. And it was clear that the administration was ill-inclined to take military action of its own.

All of which persuaded me that, having duly given Mr. Obama's diplomacy the benefit of the doubt, Israel—under the more hawkish leadership of Mr. Netanyahu—would strike, sooner rather than later. Plainly I was wrong.

What gives? Here are four theories in ascending order of significance and plausibility.

The first is that Israeli military planners have concluded that any attack would be unlikely to succeed (or succeed at a reasonable price). Maybe. But this analysis fails to appreciate the depth of Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran, and the lengths they are prepared to go to stop it. A successful strike on Iran may be at the outer periphery of Israel's capabilities, but senior Israeli military and political leaders insist it is not completely beyond it.

A second theory is that Israel is biding its time as it improves its military capabilities on both its offensive and defensive ends. Yesterday Israel completed tests of its "Iron Dome" missile defense shield, designed to guard against the kind of short-range rockets that Hamas and Hezbollah might use in retaliation against an Israeli strike on Iran. The system will begin coming on line in November. Israel is also mulling the purchase of a semi-stealthy variant of the F-15 as an alternative to the much more expensive F-35, delivery of which has been delayed till 2015. What Israel decides could be a telling indicator of what it intends.

The third theory concerns the internal dynamics of Israeli politics. Mr. Netanyahu may favor a strike, but he will not order one without the consent of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, President Shimon Peres, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and perhaps also Mossad chief Meir Dagan. This inner cabinet is said to be uniformly against a strike, with the wavering exception of Mr. Barak. But Mr. Ashkenazi and Mr. Dagan are due to step down within a few months, and who Mr. Netanyahu chooses to replace them will have a material bearing on the government's attitude toward a strike.

Finally, Israeli leaders are mindful of history. Put aside the routine comparisons between a prospective military strike on Iran with Israel's quick and effective destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. As I'm reminded by Michael Doran, a Middle East scholar at NYU, Israel's leaders are probably no less alert to the lessons of the Suez War in 1956. Back then, a successful military operation by Britain, France and Israel to humiliate Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser (in many ways the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of his day) fell afoul of the determined political opposition of the Eisenhower administration, which mistakenly thought that it could curry favor with the Arabs by visibly distancing itself from Israel and its traditional European allies. Sound familiar?

There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let's hope so. Israel may ultimately be willing to attack Iran once it reckons that it has run out of other options, as it did prior to the Six Day War. But its tactical margin for error will be slim, particularly since an effective strike will require days not hours. And the political risks it runs will be monumental. As Mr. Doran notes, in 1956 it could at least count on the diplomatic support of two members of the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.S. is its last significant friend.

This is an unenviable position, and Israel's friends abroad would do well to spare it easy lectures. Iran is not Israel's problem alone. It should not be Israel's problem alone to solve, to its own frightful peril.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575376742991948412.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

From March 2002 to October 2004 Mr. Stephens was editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28. At the Post, he was responsible for the paper's news and editorial divisions. He also wrote a weekly column.

In 2004, Mr. Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, where he is also a media fellow.

Raised in Mexico City and educated at The University of Chicago and the London School of Economics, Mr. Stephens is married and has three children..

Comment – July 20, 2010

There is a fifth and final reason that Israel hasn’t yet struck at Iran. Despite his impressive record as a journalist, Bret Stephens seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge that Israel has yet to persuade its “ally”to do the job for them.

America’s reluctance to strike Iran can largely be attributed to elements in its military command. But that could change, particularly under someone like Patraeus, who seems to have presidential ambitions.

So while at a stretch it might just be possible, a unilateral strike on Iran would prove very costly for Israel. Indeed it could prove disasterous and rather than face the consequences alone Israel wants the rest of the world to help pay the price.

If only subliminally however, the above does at least prepare readers for the prospect of conflict with Iran.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=13082

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will any of these face any type of justice for the war?

it's pretty irrefutable that there is a case to answer for, not in an enquiry but a proper trial. I'd then like to see all 3 of these ******* up against a wall whimpering like children for their mammies, pissing their trousers before being despatched, ceausescu style.

or is that a bit harsh?

Judgement day comes for all men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that Sadaam dug his own grave and that of thousands of his people by not allowing UN inspectors to finish their work.

Incorrect. It was the Americans who refused to give Hans Blix and his team time to finish the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you convicted Blair and Campbell et al it wouldn't make any difference. They would still believe they were right.

They have to convince themselves so completely that it is not just a line they practice for inquiries. It becomes absolutely real in their minds. It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary that is placed before them, they have crossed a mental line from which there is no return.

It's the only way they can go on living without being wracked with remorse and ending their lives with a litre of gin and a box of painkillers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you convicted Blair and Campbell et al it wouldn't make any difference. They would still believe they were right.

They have to convince themselves so completely that it is not just a line they practice for inquiries. It becomes absolutely real in their minds. It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary that is placed before them, they have crossed a mental line from which there is no return.

It's the only way they can go on living without being wracked with remorse and ending their lives with a litre of gin and a box of painkillers.

Bliars £1m salary at a bank would make him a true beleiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Where's the mobile phone filmed YouTube clip of Tony being hung in a chicken shed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.