Jump to content

Will it be another whitewash?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tory MPs are demanding the promised "Inquiry" into the causes and prosecution of the Iraq War, but like all previous inquiries on the matter, won't it just be yet another whitewash? :roll: From the fairy story about Saddam's WMDs, to the mysterious death of Dr Kelly, to the hypocritical condemnation of Saddam for using chemical weapons (supplied by us) on the Kurds (as the RAF did in the 20s); it's been an absolute and utter waste of lives and resources. :shock: So perhaps, skip another Inquiry, and just put Bush and Biar on trial for crimes against humanity. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to get at the truth about the Iraq debacle...Blair knowingly told lies to Parliament. He obtained a majority to take action...Whether MP's knew he was lying is a matter for their own consciences. Brown said yesterday that Iraq is now a better place for the action which was taken. Of course it is but that wasn't the reason which was given for the action. The UN resolution was to seek out and destroy WMD's not to instal democracy in Iraq by bombing and killing an unknown number of Iraqi civilians. A UN resolution wouldn't have been possible to obtain on this basis. US and UK leaders by their actions have become war criminals but I shouldn't hold your breath waiting for justice to prevail. Now it seems the same criminal actions are to be repeated in Afghanistan. It's a gross misuse of the military and it's about time the Generals took a stand against this warmongering..again, don't hold your breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the two of you, I do not know what information the govt was privvy to when it decided to take part in the invasion of Iraq. I suspect that like most people who call for enquiries about this, that or the other, you are not interested in finding the truth, simply that the enquiry's findings support your views; if the enquiry does not meet this then you will call it "another whitewash".

As regards to the "illegal" bit which has been banded about since prior to the invasion, what law do you belive has been broken? And before you say international law, I am of the impression that as a soveriegn state, the UK is not subject to any laws but those it makes itself, so please (& with complete sincerity) what law do you believe has been broken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

International Law rests on a history of moral agreements and conventions that this and most other Nations have signed up to; and the mutually agreed processes and operation of the United Nations Organisation. Normally, in order to retain "the moral high ground", civilised States process their grievances through the UN and normally require a UN Security Council Mandate`PRIOR to military intervention - as attested by Kofi Annan, no such "mandate" existed. Bush was determined from the beginning on "regime change" via US unilateral action, and Bliar meekly tagged along with the gang leader. Not only was the action illegal and immoral, but in terms of global stability it was miopic - an albeit ruthless dictator who happened to be a secular bulwark against Iranian Islamic radicalism was removed, thus leaving a divided Iraq to be politically carved up by it's immediate neighbours as soon as our boys leave, thus making Iran the ultimate victor. And of course, the huge oil assets of Iraq and the subsequent operation of US Companies like Haliburton were never a motivating factor I suppose?! :roll::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the two of you, I do not know what information the govt was privvy to when it decided to take part in the invasion of Iraq. I suspect that like most people who call for enquiries about this, that or the other, you are not interested in finding the truth, simply that the enquiry's findings support your views; if the enquiry does not meet this then you will call it "another whitewash".

As regards to the "illegal" bit which has been banded about since prior to the invasion, what law do you belive has been broken? And before you say international law, I am of the impression that as a soveriegn state, the UK is not subject to any laws but those it makes itself, so please (& with complete sincerity) what law do you believe has been broken?

 

Unwarranted armed invasions are ok, are they? :shock::?:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter T - IMO "Unwarranted armed invasions" are not OK; OK? I presume by the way you phrased your question you believe that the invasion of Iraq was "unwarranted"? That's an opinion of which many people feel the same ..... but it's still an opinion, just like Obs saying the invasion was "immoral". My view is that if what the govt said at the time was the geniune info that they had in their possession, then the invasion was warranted. If on the other hand they told lies & mislead parliament & the people of this country then it wasn't.

 

What I am asking is, as the use of the words illegal & criminal are used time & time again by opponants of the invasion, what laws have been broken?

 

Oh, & Safeway56, both you & Obs used the word "criminal" which in my book means they have broken some law - ie illegal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the only person on this subject who has said the law has been broken...the rest of us are maintaining that treaties have been broken...isn't that criminal ? If it isn't criminal how would you describe it ? If treaties and agreements and yes, the UN can be ignored what else could it be but criminal ? The only result of such conduct is anarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the only person on this subject who has said the law has been broken.

 

No, I have not said the law has been broken; I am asking those who believe a crime has been committed to tell me which law you believe has been broken.

 

Given your above comment, it may be there is a possibility that you feel that no law has been broken. In which case the invasion was not illegal & thus no criminal act has occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, or the Argentine invasion of the Falklands were all legitimate episodes then Bonz?! :roll::wink: Siezure of foreign soil without the prior consent of the UN, is by definition "illegal" as all such conventions and agreements ratified by our Parliament constitute law. :shock: Any recruit at Sandhurst could have seen through the fairy tale of a WMD aimed at Cyprus with a warning time of 45minutes; the early warning facilities available to both the UK and US could spot and respond to such a launch in any case (as I posted on here at the time), but the reality was on the ground, that Hans Blix and Dr Kelly, despite extensive investigations could find no trace of WMDs. :shock: Alas, that not what Bush wanted to hear, cos he'd already made his mind up for regime change, and Dr Kelly was silenced in the most extreme way possible. :shock: We now know of course, that Iraq's WMDs were terminated many years ealier, but Saddam had kept up a pretence to deter (ironically) any threat of invasion. :roll: Whilst it appears to be in vogue to call an assortment of petty dictators to the Hague on charges of war crimes; it would appear you can only be classed as a war criminal if your side doesn't win the war, such is the hypocracy of humanity. :roll::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...