blair

[Boozeburglar]

Ironic to find such an understanding quote from someone like Aitken, writing in the Guardian! I wonder what Archer has to say about it all?

[Stavro]

The other thing that amazes me is the focusing on the western casualty numbers (UK deaths in Iraq are 179 to date) whereas Hundreds of Thousands of Iraquis have died, but somehow their deaths are less valid or important, because they're foreign....

Thank God that someone has voiced this. Britain and America do not allow detailed reporting of deaths and maimings in Iraq, but sources on the ground put these at well over 1.25 million deaths alone.

Where is the proof that even ONE of these human beings had ANYTHING WHATEVER to do with the Twin Towers?

Which little Iraqi child, blown to pieces, or hideously deformed in this premeditated slaughter, had ANYTHING WHATEVER to do with the controlled demolition of WTC7?

Why is Iraq now covered in depleted uranium, while the oil companies (and their directors, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Senior, Bush Junior, etc.), pump blood and oil into their swag bags?

And why will this "inquiry" (joke) not touch the legality issue, when showing that the cowardly slaughter of innocents in an oil-rich state that didn't bother about the oil but only wanted fresh drinking water, a conclusion of 'illegal' would enable Blair and some of those sitting on this "inquiry" (joke) to be arrested and brought to trial for their obvious crimes?

There were no WMDs. Blair was and is a liar.

[NickInTheNorth]

Blair did the right thing. Should have been done propery in gulf war 1 not needed another one to finish the job.

Legality of the war - depends on where you are looking at it from.

UK Law - 100% legal. The power to make war is part pf the Royal Prerogative. Those powers are all now in the hands of the Prime Minister. PM decides to make war it's 100% legal in UK everytime.

As to whether it was legal in international law - well that is a matter of diplomacy so the answer will also be probably not, but then again there is still debate over Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Suez ...

[ducati]

No, you are wrong.

America has a large nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. Britain has nuclear submarines which would take out any country which used nuclear weapons against us.

No country would use nuclear weapons against us first because they know it would mean the destruction of their own country, the only reason to have nuclear weapons is to prevent others using them on you, a deterrent.

Are you learning nothing from the Chilcot Inquiry? Everyone was so scared of Saddam Hussein back in 2003, they made everyone scared so they could invade Iraq. Now it turns out there was nothing to be scared of, Saddam couldn't hurt us or anyone else, there were no WMD, there was no weapons program, there was no yellowcake from Niger, there were no links to Al Qaeda.

Iran would like nothing more than to live in peace with the West, the only obstacle to that is our greed. Look at their history, what did they ever do to us? What did we do to them? What are we still doing to them?





When will they ever learn.

And where pray tell will they aim this formidable arsenal when some patriot sneaks a nuke into.. a town near you?

[andrew.bowles30]

this enquiry is just costing us money we do not have and nothing is going to change which priminister is in power they are all scraching there own backs taking bid pay reards we know it was wrong to go war but it is going on and any money we are spending on this stupid farse could be spent on our fallen heros that ned our help

[northener]

fred, i too would like to think that the vote might have gone differently, however, i do wonder about such events as operation swift sword II happening just before 9/11. Something stinks. Ducati, how did america have grounds for war on iraq after 9\11? Iraq had nothing to do with 9\11, did they? Did afghanistan? Boozeburgler, yes, i agree, complicit, if you voted and have blind faith in the government to pursue your ambitions and aspirations on your behalf because we live in a 'democracy' and continue to do so. I read the commentary of blairs charade today, grinding his well developed organ of gregariousness, smiling when he should be frowning and frowning when he should be smiling. Inquiry will be a whitewash. We will be none the wiser when it's through. Tho, if anything does come out of it that the public see as horrifyingly unjust what will we do about it?

Just because you may disagree with the outcome of an enquiry, it doesn't necessarily make it a 'whitewash'.

On a broader front, it's a pity we have ended up in this mire. Up to Gulf War 2, Blair was a very well-respected international politician (regardless of what the home crowd thought). It was Blair who near as dammit single-handedly forced NATO into intervening in the Balkans and coerced a huge amount of support from the US et al to achieve his aims in bringing some form of stability to the region.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the outcome of this enquiry. The real judgement will not be made by trial-by-media or some enquiry taking place under public scrutiny. The real judgement will be made in about 20 years time when the real long-term results of the invasion and its aftermath are more aparrent.


As you were.......

[Stavro]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the outcome of this enquiry. The real judgement will not be made by trial-by-media or some enquiry taking place under public scrutiny. The real judgement will be made in about 20 years time when the real long-term results of the invasion and its aftermath are more aparrent.

The real judgement, in my opinion, will occur at the time of Blair's death.

[Tristan]

Just because you may disagree with the outcome of an enquiry, it doesn't necessarily make it a 'whitewash'.

If it wasn't meant to be a whitewash they would have lawyers involved in the questioning.

[Phill]

The real judgement will be made in about 20 years time when the real long-term results of the invasion and its aftermath are more aparrent.

I think longer than that, maybe double. I believe we screwed up in GW1. I understand it was a card on the table but never played, it should have been.

[sam09]

one of the things we did acheive in Iraq was to replace saddam hussian with more of the same ilk. There is now more than forty different warlords dispensing their own kind of terror amongst the people of iraq. For the people of Iraq we replaced one kind of terror for another. Call that bringing democracy. Blair and Bush knew that there was no W.M.D. in iraq and that the attack on the Twin Towers was orchestrated in Saudi Arabia, Saddam had nothing to do with it. They had their excuse for regime change and nothing was going to stop it. The people of Iraq have been paying for it in blood ever since. Yes Saddam had to go, but it was up to the Iraqi People to get rid of him not us. Dont forget also we where one of his biggest arms suppliers, when it suited the west to have him in power. A lot of these weapons were used against our troops during our invasion of Iraq. Also still suffering from this invasion are our troops who served there and witnessed sights beleive me that you never want to imagine in your wildest dreams.

[Stavro]

"A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.

"The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.

"The call is being led by MSP Bill Wilson, but an SNP spokeswoman confirmed last night that it "reflects the views many still hold" about the decision to take military action.

"In his letter to the Lord Advocate, Wilson declares: 'It would seem you have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK prime minister. I urge you to do so.' "

(Source - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ace.6029526.jp )

[fred]

"A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.

"The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.

"The call is being led by MSP Bill Wilson, but an SNP spokeswoman confirmed last night that it "reflects the views many still hold" about the decision to take military action.

"In his letter to the Lord Advocate, Wilson declares: 'It would seem you have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK prime minister. I urge you to do so.' "

(Source - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ace.6029526.jp )

Interestingly Lord Goldsmith said in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry that he had travelled to Washington to consult with American lawyers on the legality of going to war with Iraq. He did not travel to Edinburgh to consult with the Lord Advocate.

Scotland has a separate legal system to England based on Roman not Saxon law. Goldsmith is Attorney General of England and Wales not Scotland. International Law is Scottish law yet Goldsmith consults with America not Scotland before sending Scottish regiments into battle.

[northener]

"A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.

"The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.

"The call is being led by MSP Bill Wilson, but an SNP spokeswoman confirmed last night that it "reflects the views many still hold" about the decision to take military action.

"In his letter to the Lord Advocate, Wilson declares: 'It would seem you have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK prime minister. I urge you to do so.' "

(Source - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ace.6029526.jp )

They haven't got a snowballs.

[northener]

Interestingly Lord Goldsmith said in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry that he had travelled to Washington to consult with American lawyers on the legality of going to war with Iraq. He did not travel to Edinburgh to consult with the Lord Advocate.

Scotland has a separate legal system to England based on Roman not Saxon law. Goldsmith is Attorney General of England and Wales not Scotland. International Law is Scottish law yet Goldsmith consults with America not Scotland before sending Scottish regiments into battle.

Because Goldsmith doesn't need to 'consult Scotland'.
The fact that it ruffles a few nationalist feathers to think that they are not 'consulted' before sending certain British Arny regiments into action is neither here nor there. There is no seperate 'Scottish' Army...apart from Atholls'......

[fred]

Because Goldsmith doesn't need to 'consult Scotland'.
The fact that it ruffles a few nationalist feathers to think that they are not 'consulted' before sending certain British Arny regiments into action is neither here nor there. There is no seperate 'Scottish' Army...apart from Atholls'......

But it does mean that the Scottish government has no reason not to go after those responsible. Unlike the opposition, who weren't doing their job and opposing.

[northener]

But it does mean that the Scottish government has no reason not to go after those responsible. Unlike the opposition, who weren't doing their job and opposing.

Fair comment, Fred. But I think they're on a hiding to nothing, mind.

[roadbowler]

northerner, c'mon, how much more apparent could it possibly be? 20 years nabody will give a rats because by then we'll be embroiled in another slaughter elsewhere "bringing peace and democracy" to another country.

[rich]

Re. Tony Blair and his current ordeal:
I'm with Gleeber on this one. The smug pieties of the "unco guid" left get right up my nose.
There is nothing so neat as a conspiracy theory.
I am compiling a list of pub bores. Somewhere near the top is the guy who explains that it is "all about oil." So if you are sitting on oil in some benighted part of the urals or wherever and you want to sell the stuff you can't do it. Because it is not politically correct.
So I have a couple of questions - is it OK to sell your oil in the first place? And if it is, then to whom should you sell your oil?
And as an addendum there is now a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the world is not running out of oil after all. Some experts say we are OK for the next hundred years. That should give us enought time to do something about tidying up the environment without the paranoid anxiety to which so many ORGERS succumb.
So relax. Go and have a beer. But dont get talking to the guy next to you who is doing the Guardian crossword. Believe me, stay away! Big bore alert!!!!

[rich]

I should give you my source for the amount of oil we might have avaialble

http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...d-awash-in-oil

[northener]

northerner, c'mon, how much more apparent could it possibly be? 20 years nabody will give a rats because by then we'll be embroiled in another slaughter elsewhere "bringing peace and democracy" to another country.

Not very apparrent at all, actually.

We do not yet know how Iraq will evolve in the next ten years. It could become a very stable and wealthy state, it could be run by another dictator with more Islamic fundamentalist views, or a democratic Government, it could become antagonistic towards Iran after finding stability within it's own borders - or fragment into seperatist states in the North.....

We do not know how Iran will view it's neighbour in 15 years time, or whether the Iranian government will choose to try and influence proceedings within a possibly resurgent and wealthy neighbour. We have no idea whether the US and Europe will excersise the same amount of political and military influence inside Iraqs' borders.

Only a complete idiot would attempt to write a definitive history of the Gulf Wars and their aftermath without the benefit of hindsight. We can comment on, and have opinions of, what has taken place so far...but the story is only halfway through.

That's why I say that time and history will judge whether Iraq was worthwhile or not. There is no clear, precise future for Iraq and it's people at the moment, but political bluster, point-scoring and attempts to find 'someone to blame' are all meaningless waffle.

I'll reserve judgement on whether it was worth it or not until we see what comes out of the oven.....