egafd.com

I read something very interesting in the paper today, that has just come out in the enquiry into the Iraq War.

Remember Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell and Geoff Hoon all saying that Saddam had WMD's that could 'be launched in 45 minutes at the West'? It was said today that this information was obtained as follows: a British official was told by a taxi driver in Iraq that he (the cabbie) overheard two Iraqi military men saying it in the back of his cab. He overheard this, then tells the British official, who is later riding in his taxi, as he drove him across town. It then becomes political: word is passed through the ranks and Tony B Liar and the other two (Campbell and Hoon) hear about it. They use it as one of the reasons for invading Iraq!

Can you believe this? It has got to be the most flimsy arguement EVER for a country invading another one. Over 100,000 Iraqi's killed, the middle-east de-stabilised, billions in British taxpayers money spent, many of our soldiers killed, Britain becoming more of a terrorist target, and ALL BECAUSE a cabbie in Iraq apparently overheard something being said in his taxi! I would like to see Blair, Campbell, and Hoon all tried and jailed at the end of this enquiry for what they have done. What are other people's views?

The invasion has achieved nothing, thousands killed for what? I listened to a Iraq journo on the news, she was saying Iraq is much more dangerous now than it's ever been, and she cant see how it will ever get better, as far as Afganistan goes, I listen to Broon trying to justify it, saying it's making our streets safer, what utter bullshit, it's just keeping the pot boiling until some UK born extremist's decide to wreek revenge big style, it may not be next year or in 5 years, but it will happen I'm sure. It was a massive mistake to Invade, would have been better and cheaper to just weed out the terrorist cells over here, and keep the borders safe..

USA say jump and we say yes boss how high. Harold Wilson was linked with the KGB. Blair and Campbell must be director level in the CIA.

What you should remember is that when Tony Blair was making up reasons to invade Iraq with his buddy George he often used the political tool "lying" to support his objectives.

The only two politicans I can think of who have been jailed for lying in recent years are Jonathan Aiken and Jeffrey Archer.

Aitken was jailed for lying in a court case against the Guardian newspaper, who he sued over allegations he was taking money from Arab businessmen and giving them arms contracts at the same time (he was the Defence minister under John Major). The court case collapsed on a relatively minor detail - he claimed that his stay in a hotel in Paris had been paid for by his wife, the Guardian discovered his wife had never been in Paris that week, and they pressed for criminal charges to be brought against Aitken for lying. The Judge agreed. He was tried, and jailed for 18 months, for that. The courts take it very seriously if you lie in court - over something relatively small like that you get 18 months in the nick. This ruined his life: his wife left him, he went bankrupt, lost his ?2m house, and came near to committing suicide. His political career was ruined and so was his family name.

I am a bit less clear about what Archer was jailed for but it was something along the lines of sueing The Daily Star newspaper cos they claimed he had bedded a call-girl, winning ?500,000 in damages, then it came to the fore that he HAD bedded her, lied in court, and that his original case had had no basis. There was a bit more to it I think but that is the jist of it. He immiediately quit from the race to become London Mayor, was tried in court and jailed. Compare those two things to what Blair, Campbell and Hoon have done, and the effects of the lies they have told, and yet NOTHING is going to happen to them! One could argue that they never lied in court - this is true - but their lying had bigger effects, much bigger! Yet nothing will happen to them. Amazing isnt it?!

"Amazing isnt it?!


No, just sickening..

It's sad that Tony Blair had to exaggerate and what not to get the go ahead for war in Iraq. From what I can see the justification for regime change, according to the UN is (any one of):

1. Genocide.
2. WMDs.
3. The invasion of another recognised/sovereign state.

Saddam had already broken all three of these stipulations and the only crime here is that we (the west) let him stay in power for so long.

As far as I can tell Milosevic only broke one of the above rules and paid the price. Why should Saddam get away with flouting UN regulations and Milosovic not?

The conservatives and labour in the UK, as well as republicans and demorcrats in the US all have similar policies regarding Iraq so blaming one party over another here is just political point scoring.

There are lots of things that worry me about Iraq when it comes to tactics and policy but I've never questioned the legality of it. Ever. Saddam flouted resolution after resolution, killed his own people and not only invaded and occupied but annexed a neighbouring state, unprovoked. Oil or no oil, ridding the region of Saddam and the Ba'ath party is a good thing and just as 'just' a war as Yugoslavia.

I'm wary of people who concentrate on WMDs. It shows a little selfishness in that they only care when it affects us more directly (and others can go fuck themselves) and apathy for the people who really were in the most danger from such a regime.

I'm of the opinion that if our armies, technology and money are not currently defending our nation from immediate threats then the second most honourable thing they could do is liberate oppressed peoples from despotic and genocidal regimes elsewhere. We do not have forced conscription in this country so no one individual is picked up and forced to risk their own life. Freedom always comes at a high cost I'm afraid.

Again, criticism over the war is more about political point scoring than anything else (usually).

You said
"From what I can see the justification for regime change, according to the UN is (any one of):

1. Genocide.
2. WMDs.
3. The invasion of another recognised/sovereign state."

With regard to the UN, your view is incorrect. It's my understanding that wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations which covers collective self defense can be considered wars of aggression.

Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General took the view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 661134.stm

Most legal views that I have seen that have been made by independent i.e. not leaned on by the American/British governments, legal advisers have been in agreement with Kofi Annan.

You also said, "I'm of the opinion that if our armies, technology and money are not currently defending our nation from immediate threats then the second most honourable thing they could do is liberate oppressed peoples from despotic and genocidal regimes elsewhere.

Yes, I do find there are none so war-like as those that have zero chance of going to war themselves, like politicians. If one thing that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have shown is that the UK and US "playing God" is a somewhat flawed concept and certainly in the case of Iraq, illegal.

I would hope to see Bush and Blair behind bullet proof glass in the Hague, but alas I suspect that this is highly unlikely.

Sam, do you remember Spitting Image, the satirical show that was big in the 1980's and 1990's? Here is George Bush Snr, President at the time, at around about the time of the Gulf War when America and us threw Iraq out of Kuwait (the USA stationed 500,000 troops in Saudi Arabia during the build up also):

You said

"The conservatives and labour in the UK, as well as republicans and demorcrats in the US all have similar policies regarding Iraq so blaming one party over another here is just political point scoring"

I forgot to mention in my previous post that this view is also faulty.

I understand what you are on about but politicians, as well as the rest of us can only make decisions based on the information placed before them. What has become clear in the Chilcott inquiry was that a tacit decision was made to invade Iraq at a meeting between Bush and Blair in the States and that the information was then cobbled together and massaged to support the argument for invasion.

This was most obvious in the production of the "dodgy dossier" and the harping on about WMD that Blair made in his speech to the House of Commons in getting their support for invasion. Blair was dancing to the Bush timetable for war so Blix could not be given the time required to complete his investigation of Iraq WMD.

If the information had not been doctored, would the House of Commons have actually voted for a potential invasion? Who knows, but Blair and his inner circle rightly deserve condemnation for the con trick they played on parliament and the British public. This is not political point scoring, it is placing the blame where it should lie.

You also said
"As far as I can tell Milosevic only broke one of the above rules and paid the price. Why should Saddam get away with flouting UN regulations and Milosovic not?

I can recommend the brilliant resignation speech of Robin Cook, a principled and extremely intelligent politician who resigned from his position as Leader of the House of Commons over the invasion of Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2859431.stm

If I could draw your attention to a few paragraphs
"The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council". I will translate - it is illegal.

And speaking about Milosevic and Kosovo
"I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement"

The agreement in the Security Council never came.