- This topic has 48 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Well lets face it if you had begun an illegal war, fabricated the evidence to "justify" said war and lied about most aspects of the run up of the war – would you then want the truth to come out?
The whole matter should be handed over to the International War Crimes Tribunal for a full investigation and then Bush, Blair et al should then stand trial for war crimes.
Of course it will never happen.
So to save time and money this is what happened.
Bush wanted to finish off the job his Daddy did not finish.
Weapons of mass destruction were an irrelevance – they knew they did not exist. The reason for the war was a) oil, b) oil and c) jobs for the boys repairing the damage they knew the war would cause.
Blair joined in because he was a) so far up Bushes backside he may as well have been his siamese twin, b) Bush played the God card and as Blair believes in all that rubbish he fell for it
As a result 4,631 members of the coalition forces have died, the most conservative estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq is 50,000 although most independent observers put the figures at around 100,000.
No surprise at all, and the most damning point is the fact Brown was at pains to emphasise the enquiry will ‘take a year’. Handy that, as the Labour government will be no more and a sizeable number of their MPs will be looking for a proper job by then.
Immunity from accountability seems to be one of the unwritten perks the retired politician is granted
FRom a letter in today’s Telegraph…
SIR – That the two historians appointed to the proposed Iraq-war inquiry are the academic equivalent of Lord Hutton – safe pairs of hands respectful of the Establishment – only adds to the suspicion in some minds that the Whitehall machine is already attempting to influence the inquiry.
Sir Lawrence Freedman is a passionate believer in “liberal interventionism” – the right and duty of democracies to invade a state of whose internal regime they morally disapprove. He even wrote Tony Blair’s 1999 speech in Chicago, advocating just such a policy.
Sir Martin Gilbert, for his part, is a passionate supporter of Israel. Given that it was a charge against Saddam Hussein that he supported terrorist attacks on that country, how easy will it be for him to maintain academic impartiality about the decision to topple him?…
and of course, in the middle east there is no desire to be freed from tyranny
as we have seen this week…
As it happens Insomniac, both historians are top class and are not by any stretch of the imagination extremists
Gilbert supports the Jewish state? Well that will offend the anti semitic extreme left/right probably, but so what? Hussein was a massive threat to Saudi arabia too. Should that exclude arabs from the forum too?
Freedman has recently had published a superb balanced history of america and its relations with this part of the world. And by no measure would it be considered "neo con" or whatever. He is no Andrew Roberts and frnakly his appearance makes sense givven that he is simply a leading expert on the region
I don’t understand the full details of what happened but, was it not technically illegal when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair put pressure on Nato to bomb parts of Yugoslavia, which brought about an end to the civil war? That war terrified me, because it happened in a country that I knew quite well and it made me realise just how close our own ‘civilised’ society is to chaos and disorder. I was opposed to the war with Iraq from the start [along with pretty much the rest of the country], but Sadam Hussein did some rather evil things and killed an awful lot of innocent people, and maybe he needed to be got rid of? There was nothing to be gained financially from getting involved in Yugoslavia; it was done to bring about peace..perhaps there were elements of that with Iraq also?
Fair point
Given that it is the UN who decide the legality and given that self same UN has recently "praised" Sri Lankas slaughter of the Tamil Tigers (whilst shrieking about every action taken by the jewish state), to use a recent example, then the "law is an ass" some might say
The same UN that continually blocked (through the arab members and china) peacekeeping to attempt to prevent the race driven genocide in Sudan
I cant recall how the resolutions initially stood with Yugoslavia, but frnakly i couldnt care less anyway. The right thing was done
As an organisation, its a waste of space. Their "legality" is of no interest to me
I don’t think we should lose of sight of the fact that the only reason that the sham inquiry will be held in secret is to cover politicians arses shouldn’t be lost. A bit like the censored expenses that they have just published.
Surely we had to go into Iraq if only to prevent Al Quaeda getting their hands on the oil. I can`t believe there are people who think the politicians will one day tell the truth whaqtever party. They never have .
Don’t want to get your hopes up, guys and girls….but..
The cabinet have had a "secret" meeting and voted to hold a public enquiry after all. The only proviso being that some parts of the speeches will not be mouthed at all and any written text deemed unsuitable will be blanked out. Soon to be Euro President Blair is also allowed another free paper shredder on his expenses form so that he can check a few documents.over the last 6 years.
Have some faith in Parliament!
Zip
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.