Jump to content

Iraq Inquiry?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I suspect the real truth will never come out Obs.... and if by any remote chance it ever did it wont change what has already happened.

 

News today reported on 'alleged' secret chats between Blair and Bush with no-one else present and how Blair's stance changed almost immediately :? They are hardly likely to spill the beans on what they really discussed and why though are they :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall posting at the time, and the ensuing debate that arose - I find nothing yet to gainsay my belief at the time, that it was an illegal enterprise (regime change) based on a totally false premise that Iraq`had WMDs (and even if he did, why not); and the completely false idea that Saddam (a secular dictator) would harbour Islamic fanatics like Al Queda. Basically, cowboy Bush sent out the posse and hung the wrong guy after 9/11, with the bonus that members of the posse could get their hands on the oil. Bliar, like a poodle, sacrificed British integrity and lives at the alter of his own ego - and imo, should be facing trial at the Hague. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be in the British tradition H; we spend ?????s on a public inquiry, usually with lashings of white-wash and if your lucky, someone might say sorry - in China they'd be shot, in old Russia expected to shoot themselves and old Japan hari kiri, even in the US they impeached a President! :shock::twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interestingly, some British Doctors are calling for a coroner's inquiry into the alleged suicide of Dr Kelly; which was whitewashed over by the Hutton Inquiry. The unfortunate Dr Kelly, a WMD inspector, had serious and inconvenient reservations about Bliar's reasons for war with Iraq - so the question remains whether he was a victim of State policy? :?:shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am puzzled. It was perfectly obvious old Saddam had no WMDs. If he had, he'd have used them. He was that sort of bloke. If I didn't believe he had any, then all those clever people in charge didn't either.

 

However, that man was completely evil. The things he did do were appalling. Testing poison gas on thousands of people, babies included. Arresting people and killing people and terrorising everyone without any basis other than his personal whim on the day.

 

So I have absolutely no objection at all to declaring war on him and marching in there to set things to rights for the population. I don't care if he had nothing more internationally deadly than a catapult and three spud guns. He needed stopping.

 

Now we're having an enquiry. Spending millions, wasting months and what's the end result going to be:

 

a) fair enough lads, good job, he was a bad man

or

B) oh dear, you should NOT have done that, now go and say sorry to Mr Saddam and PUT IT ALL BACK the way it was!

 

No matter what, one half of the population will think it's lies and a cover up. So why are we bothering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the basis of your stratigic sense - we should be marching into Zimbawe, Burma, Somalia and a dozen other Countries, on the basis they are ruled by "bad men". Fortunately (or unfortunately to simple minds), geo-politics is much more complex and grey than that. In the case of Saddam, he just happened to be a secular dictator at the time Radical Islam kicked off in Iran (next door); thus he provided the ideal counter balance, which was recognised by the US, who fed him with arms (incl chemical weapons) in his war against Iran. Sort of using a Devil to fight a Devil if you like. It's all about maintaining balances of power, in order to provide stable global political enviroment, so we can go about buisiness as usual. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the basis of your stratigic sense - we should be marching into Zimbawe, Burma, Somalia and a dozen other Countries, on the basis they are ruled by "bad men". Fortunately (or unfortunately to simple minds), geo-politics is much more complex and grey than that. In the case of Saddam, he just happened to be a secular dictator at the time Radical Islam kicked off in Iran (next door); thus he provided the ideal counter balance, which was recognised by the US, who fed him with arms (incl chemical weapons) in his war against Iran. Sort of using a Devil to fight a Devil if you like. It's all about maintaining balances of power, in order to provide stable global political enviroment, so we can go about buisiness as usual. :wink:

 

No, if I ruled the world, we'd be marching into countries where nutters were practicing their genocide skills with a stated intention of eradicating people en masse in other countries in the near future. We'd be visiting nutters who are prone to localised bouts of nastiness at home and asking them to improve things in exchange for tickets to Garden Parties at the Palace.

 

If you ruled the world, we'd have a different strategy every day, varying between wanting to bomb and shoot anything that moved, to thinking we should never move beyond our boundaries, and usually preferring a cup of cocoa and the X-Factor final over taking any direct action.... :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly your driven by your lower organs LP; gut reaction is no substitute for international diplomacy, based on OUR national interest - your interventionist policy would cost us a bomb, and many an arm and a leg (literally). btw there's a world of difference between sinking pirates off Somalia and bombing the s**t out of them, than actually sending troops in (ask Bill Clinton!) - put your brain in gear please. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly your driven by your lower organs LP; gut reaction is no substitute for international diplomacy, based on OUR national interest - your interventionist policy would cost us a bomb, and many an arm and a leg (literally). btw there's a world of difference between sinking pirates off Somalia and bombing the s**t out of them, than actually sending troops in (ask Bill Clinton!) - put your brain in gear please. :wink:

 

Who mentioned pirates? I didn't. My policy is very simple and ENTIRELY in our interests. You stay away from war wherever you can and try to achieve improvement by discussion and inclusion. Carrots work better than sticks. Only where there is overwhelming need on humanitarian grounds to intervene by force do you even think about it.

 

As usual, you're making up your own stories and moving away from the topic - the enquiry. Which isn't going to achieve anything useful, is it? Can you honestly say you think it will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think IF you bothered to read and ingest my posts, you'd discover that was my conclusion, but there are quite a few parents and wives of dead soldiers, who would like to have their personal thoughts on the matter upheld by it - problem is, no one; and certainly not the man with blood on his hands, will be held to account for their actions. :twisted: As for your interventist thoughts, that's precisely how Bliar got us into these adventures - but others had to pay for it with their blood. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lost a close friend in the Falklands War, and I think it made it worse that people questioned the validity of the action taken. It leaves you with a worse sense of waste and loss. The only man with blood on his hands here is Saddam Hussein though. All the other leaders acted in defence against his stated intentions. We have no idea what would have happened if they hadn't acted, so we can't ever know what they prevented. Without that knowledge, how can we judge whether it was justified?

 

We need to accept that whatever was done was in this case genuinely done with the best of intentions, had the right results and we move on. The only enquiry I think IS appropriate is the one into whether our lads are getting the right kit. That is a much bigger deal to me than whether Tony fibbed to get his invasion plans past the UN. I'd rather see the enquiry money spent on Kevlar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tory Tony got us involved in four wars in his decade of ego mania - this is a guy who's never worn the Queen's uniform - maybe he wasn't allowed toy soldies as kid or something?! :roll: As for Saddam having "blood on his hands"; what about Robert Mugabe - opps forgot - no oil involved. :shock: Think you need to get real LP; peace and senity hasn't returned to Iraq (a load just got blown up in Bagdad); but the oil is now flowing and Haliburton and Co have secured plently of contracts- such is the cynism and expediency of global politics. :shock:

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...