I've been following the current inquiry into the Iraq War that's taking place in London. Last Friday was evidence from General Sir John Reith, Chief Joint Operations Aug 2001 - Jul 2004, Britain's top military planner.
Here's an extract from the transcript. It's a tale of gung-ho Americans who can't wait to fire off their extraordinary firepower and a chap leading a bunch of Brits who haven't the least clue what conditions in Iraq actually were before they arrived, at which point their jaws dropped and they realized what a clunker of a war they'd bought into.GEN SIR JOHN REITH: At this stage [16th January 2003], as I said, I told him [General Franks] that the Prime Minister had agreed to the package, and so, therefore, you know, I'm making an assumption that he now expected us to participate. I would also say in this conversation that I had told him I was unhappy with the way the planning was going.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because of delay and hold-up?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: No, because they were going into shock and awe, and we had been - we, the British, in the planning had been very much the custodians of, "Let's worry about Phase 4". So we got on to Phase 4 in our discussion and I made the point to Franks - because at this stage they were going to go rather as they had done in the Gulf War in 1991 - they were going to go with a fairly extended air campaign followed by a land entry but I made the point that the oil fields were absolutely essential for Phase 4, to provide revenue to Iraq for its reconstruction, and, therefore, we needed to secure the oil fields rather than have them destroyed. I also made the point to him that the more china that we broke, the more we would have to replace afterwards. So I left him with those thoughts, and, actually, between that meeting and obviously when we went in, they changed the phasing of the plan so that there was an early land entry.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: This is important, obviously, in terms of Phase 4, because there are a number of phrases you have just used which I would like just to go over with you. Just in terms of what you have just said, this is - what you do in the Phases 2 and 3 that are going to affect Phase 4. That is, it is about using our air assets and what you destroyed through your air attacks and waiting until you have got a more permissive environment before you put in your land forces, and you are saying, if you are not careful on both of those areas, you will be in trouble for Phase 4?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: I mean, we had a fairly long discussion. I made the point that, you know, we were going in as the liberation of Iraq, we were actually going for a regime change, not to try and destroy Iraq, and, therefore, we needed to be very selective in our targeting to ensure that we were only taking out the command and control of the regime, and not, as the previous time, where we had taken down every bridge and so forth, which, of course, you know, caused huge damage, much of which was still not repaired when we went in in 2003.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: Did you get a sense that this was a dazzling new insight to him? Shouldn't he have been concerned about these things already?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: He listened, and clearly he took note, because he made the changes. I have to say that my American counterparts were very much sort of combat-oriented. The American development of the American armed forces has been different to that of the British armed forces and they didn't have the benefit of years in Northern Ireland. So they, at that stage, were very much in combat mood looking at Phase 3, but, as you rightly said, one has to look beyond Phase 3 to know what to do in Phase 3.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: When you described the UK as custodians of Phase 4, what did you mean by that?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: In the planning, at every opportunity, we had been feeding in the need to start thinking about Phase 4 and considering that in Phase 3, and what are we doing about Phase 4, and I was continually getting from Tommy Franks that the Americans had thought about Phase 4. There was a huge organisation in Washington They had a multimillion - I think looking at it. billion contract with Bechtel, and that it was all going to be all right. Well, we know what happened.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: But - I mean, we now know what happened. Were you worried about what might happen?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: I was looking at Phase 4, at that stage, primarily at humanitarian assistance immediately after the combat phase, and in the build-up I had got authority for £2 million a month for humanitarian aid and an initial start-up of 20 million for quick impact projects, which I know you have been briefed on by other people before. So I was content that I had that money available. We had already started. For instance, Albert Whitley, who was my liaison officer with the combined force land component command in Kuwait, had been dealing with the Kuwaitis and they had already laid a water pipe right up to the border from water sources in Kuwait, which we almost straight after the - we had moved through on the combat phase extended up to Um Qasr, so that we could provide fresh water into southern Iraq. So there were a series of things going, but they were all related to the humanitarian assistance.
All of our intelligence assets were looking at the combat phase. They were all looking at, you know, the Iraqi forces. What they weren't looking at was the infrastructure, and I have to say that, when we arrived in there, I was amazed, you know, at the fact that it was completely broken. I would say probably there had been no investment in the infrastructure for at least 20 years, and we found, you know, the state of the electricity power supply was outright dangerous and you had main pylons held together with bolts and all sorts of systems, which, you know, in a modern society wouldn't be allowed at all. So what we found when we arrived was that we weren't just having to deal with humanitarian assistance, we were having to, as best we could, kickstart the reconstruction for the essential services.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
This is playing straight into every prejudice I have about the US military (and government) and their inability to listen.
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope.
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
spot;1283581 wrote: I've been following the current inquiry into the Iraq War that's taking place in London. Last Friday was evidence from General Sir John Reith, Chief Joint Operations Aug 2001 - Jul 2004, Britain's top military planner.
Here's an extract from the transcript. It's a tale of gung-ho Americans who can't wait to fire off their extraordinary firepower and a chap leading a bunch of Brits who haven't the least clue what conditions in Iraq actually were before they arrived, at which point their jaws dropped and they realized what a clunker of a war they'd bought into.
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: At this stage [16th January 2003], as I said, I told him [General Franks] that the Prime Minister had agreed to the package, and so, therefore, you know, I'm making an assumption that he now expected us to participate. I would also say in this conversation that I had told him I was unhappy with the way the planning was going.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because of delay and hold-up?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: No, because they were going into shock and awe, and we had been - we, the British, in the planning had been very much the custodians of, "Let's worry about Phase 4". So we got on to Phase 4 in our discussion and I made the point to Franks - because at this stage they were going to go rather as they had done in the Gulf War in 1991 - they were going to go with a fairly extended air campaign followed by a land entry but I made the point that the oil fields were absolutely essential for Phase 4, to provide revenue to Iraq for its reconstruction, and, therefore, we needed to secure the oil fields rather than have them destroyed. I also made the point to him that the more china that we broke, the more we would have to replace afterwards. So I left him with those thoughts, and, actually, between that meeting and obviously when we went in, they changed the phasing of the plan so that there was an early land entry.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: This is important, obviously, in terms of Phase 4, because there are a number of phrases you have just used which I would like just to go over with you. Just in terms of what you have just said, this is - what you do in the Phases 2 and 3 that are going to affect Phase 4. That is, it is about using our air assets and what you destroyed through your air attacks and waiting until you have got a more permissive environment before you put in your land forces, and you are saying, if you are not careful on both of those areas, you will be in trouble for Phase 4?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: I mean, we had a fairly long discussion. I made the point that, you know, we were going in as the liberation of Iraq, we were actually going for a regime change, not to try and destroy Iraq, and, therefore, we needed to be very selective in our targeting to ensure that we were only taking out the command and control of the regime, and not, as the previous time, where we had taken down every bridge and so forth, which, of course, you know, caused huge damage, much of which was still not repaired when we went in in 2003.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: Did you get a sense that this was a dazzling new insight to him? Shouldn't he have been concerned about these things already?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: He listened, and clearly he took note, because he made the changes. I have to say that my American counterparts were very much sort of combat-oriented. The American development of the American armed forces has been different to that of the British armed forces and they didn't have the benefit of years in Northern Ireland. So they, at that stage, were very much in combat mood looking at Phase 3, but, as you rightly said, one has to look beyond Phase 3 to know what to do in Phase 3.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: When you described the UK as custodians of Phase 4, what did you mean by that?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: In the planning, at every opportunity, we had been feeding in the need to start thinking about Phase 4 and considering that in Phase 3, and what are we doing about Phase 4, and I was continually getting from Tommy Franks that the Americans had thought about Phase 4. There was a huge organisation in Washington They had a multimillion - I think looking at it. billion contract with Bechtel, and that it was all going to be all right. Well, we know what happened.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: But - I mean, we now know what happened. Were you worried about what might happen?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: I was looking at Phase 4, at that stage, primarily at humanitarian assistance immediately after the combat phase, and in the build-up I had got authority for £2 million a month for humanitarian aid and an initial start-up of 20 million for quick impact projects, which I know you have been briefed on by other people before. So I was content that I had that money available. We had already started. For instance, Albert Whitley, who was my liaison officer with the combined force land component command in Kuwait, had been dealing with the Kuwaitis and they had already laid a water pipe right up to the border from water sources in Kuwait, which we almost straight after the - we had moved through on the combat phase extended up to Um Qasr, so that we could provide fresh water into southern Iraq. So there were a series of things going, but they were all related to the humanitarian assistance.
All of our intelligence assets were looking at the combat phase. They were all looking at, you know, the Iraqi forces. What they weren't looking at was the infrastructure, and I have to say that, when we arrived in there, I was amazed, you know, at the fact that it was completely broken. I would say probably there had been no investment in the infrastructure for at least 20 years, and we found, you know, the state of the electricity power supply was outright dangerous and you had main pylons held together with bolts and all sorts of systems, which, you know, in a modern society wouldn't be allowed at all. So what we found when we arrived was that we weren't just having to deal with humanitarian assistance, we were having to, as best we could, kickstart the reconstruction for the essential services.
If you actually buy that, then I have a seafront home in Phoenix Arizona I'll sell you.
Actually I was wondering if you were watching the last few days. Those guys are lying through their teeth! I watched the Alistair Cambell one while I was writing my essay. Blairs man to the bitter end.
Here's an extract from the transcript. It's a tale of gung-ho Americans who can't wait to fire off their extraordinary firepower and a chap leading a bunch of Brits who haven't the least clue what conditions in Iraq actually were before they arrived, at which point their jaws dropped and they realized what a clunker of a war they'd bought into.
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: At this stage [16th January 2003], as I said, I told him [General Franks] that the Prime Minister had agreed to the package, and so, therefore, you know, I'm making an assumption that he now expected us to participate. I would also say in this conversation that I had told him I was unhappy with the way the planning was going.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because of delay and hold-up?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: No, because they were going into shock and awe, and we had been - we, the British, in the planning had been very much the custodians of, "Let's worry about Phase 4". So we got on to Phase 4 in our discussion and I made the point to Franks - because at this stage they were going to go rather as they had done in the Gulf War in 1991 - they were going to go with a fairly extended air campaign followed by a land entry but I made the point that the oil fields were absolutely essential for Phase 4, to provide revenue to Iraq for its reconstruction, and, therefore, we needed to secure the oil fields rather than have them destroyed. I also made the point to him that the more china that we broke, the more we would have to replace afterwards. So I left him with those thoughts, and, actually, between that meeting and obviously when we went in, they changed the phasing of the plan so that there was an early land entry.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: This is important, obviously, in terms of Phase 4, because there are a number of phrases you have just used which I would like just to go over with you. Just in terms of what you have just said, this is - what you do in the Phases 2 and 3 that are going to affect Phase 4. That is, it is about using our air assets and what you destroyed through your air attacks and waiting until you have got a more permissive environment before you put in your land forces, and you are saying, if you are not careful on both of those areas, you will be in trouble for Phase 4?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: I mean, we had a fairly long discussion. I made the point that, you know, we were going in as the liberation of Iraq, we were actually going for a regime change, not to try and destroy Iraq, and, therefore, we needed to be very selective in our targeting to ensure that we were only taking out the command and control of the regime, and not, as the previous time, where we had taken down every bridge and so forth, which, of course, you know, caused huge damage, much of which was still not repaired when we went in in 2003.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: Did you get a sense that this was a dazzling new insight to him? Shouldn't he have been concerned about these things already?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: He listened, and clearly he took note, because he made the changes. I have to say that my American counterparts were very much sort of combat-oriented. The American development of the American armed forces has been different to that of the British armed forces and they didn't have the benefit of years in Northern Ireland. So they, at that stage, were very much in combat mood looking at Phase 3, but, as you rightly said, one has to look beyond Phase 3 to know what to do in Phase 3.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: When you described the UK as custodians of Phase 4, what did you mean by that?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: In the planning, at every opportunity, we had been feeding in the need to start thinking about Phase 4 and considering that in Phase 3, and what are we doing about Phase 4, and I was continually getting from Tommy Franks that the Americans had thought about Phase 4. There was a huge organisation in Washington They had a multimillion - I think looking at it. billion contract with Bechtel, and that it was all going to be all right. Well, we know what happened.
SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: But - I mean, we now know what happened. Were you worried about what might happen?
GEN SIR JOHN REITH: I was looking at Phase 4, at that stage, primarily at humanitarian assistance immediately after the combat phase, and in the build-up I had got authority for £2 million a month for humanitarian aid and an initial start-up of 20 million for quick impact projects, which I know you have been briefed on by other people before. So I was content that I had that money available. We had already started. For instance, Albert Whitley, who was my liaison officer with the combined force land component command in Kuwait, had been dealing with the Kuwaitis and they had already laid a water pipe right up to the border from water sources in Kuwait, which we almost straight after the - we had moved through on the combat phase extended up to Um Qasr, so that we could provide fresh water into southern Iraq. So there were a series of things going, but they were all related to the humanitarian assistance.
All of our intelligence assets were looking at the combat phase. They were all looking at, you know, the Iraqi forces. What they weren't looking at was the infrastructure, and I have to say that, when we arrived in there, I was amazed, you know, at the fact that it was completely broken. I would say probably there had been no investment in the infrastructure for at least 20 years, and we found, you know, the state of the electricity power supply was outright dangerous and you had main pylons held together with bolts and all sorts of systems, which, you know, in a modern society wouldn't be allowed at all. So what we found when we arrived was that we weren't just having to deal with humanitarian assistance, we were having to, as best we could, kickstart the reconstruction for the essential services.
If you actually buy that, then I have a seafront home in Phoenix Arizona I'll sell you.
Actually I was wondering if you were watching the last few days. Those guys are lying through their teeth! I watched the Alistair Cambell one while I was writing my essay. Blairs man to the bitter end.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
The one I would like to have heard is Robin Cook. I reckon if he had not dies he would be leader of the labour party by now. As it is I think they are finished as a viable political party at least in the short term.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
You know it. The 'special relationship' is code for thick as thieves when it comes to big contracts and splitting the spoils.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
The 'special relationship' is code for thick as thieves when it comes to big contracts and splitting the spoils.
So where's our share of the loot???????
So where's our share of the loot???????
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Clodhopper;1283703 wrote: So where's our share of the loot???????
Didn't you know, we're non-American and have to queue up with everyone else and bid for the 10% not reserved for American companies
Didn't you know, we're non-American and have to queue up with everyone else and bid for the 10% not reserved for American companies
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Bryn: I rather thought so.
No doubt I'm shockingly naive. But if a British General of good reputation says that is what happened, I believe he believes that is what happened. The Armed Forces still have a code of personal honour - anachronistic as it sounds.
No doubt I'm shockingly naive. But if a British General of good reputation says that is what happened, I believe he believes that is what happened. The Armed Forces still have a code of personal honour - anachronistic as it sounds.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
I'd go with that too, the chap being essentially honest and believable.
The CIA often set out to find or generate blackmail material on up-and-coming foreigners, I've often wondered whether that explained the incomprehensible behaviour of people like Tony Blair. I don't think it could apply to this chap though, his decision-making is out in the open by comparison.
The CIA often set out to find or generate blackmail material on up-and-coming foreigners, I've often wondered whether that explained the incomprehensible behaviour of people like Tony Blair. I don't think it could apply to this chap though, his decision-making is out in the open by comparison.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Clodhopper;1283583 wrote: This is playing straight into every prejudice I have about the US military (and government) and their inability to listen.
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope.
:yh_rotfl hysterical....you really like us
you loathe and despise us...
WTF....What a sh*t post for you to make:(
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope.
:yh_rotfl hysterical....you really like us
you loathe and despise us...WTF....What a sh*t post for you to make:(
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
He was addressing the military, Kathy, not the American people.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Ahso!;1285336 wrote: He was addressing the military, Kathy, not the American people.
Oh really.....I don't believe it
The hate here by some members runs deep....
Oh really.....I don't believe it
The hate here by some members runs deep....
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Kathy Ellen;1285338 wrote: Oh really.....I don't believe it
The hate here by some members runs deep....If you reread the first sentence of the post you quoted before you will see CH is in fact addressing the US military and government, not you and I. The dislike is for government and corporate policy. Sometimes its extreme displeasure as it is with me too and I'm an American.
Try not to take it so personally. These guy here are decent people.
The hate here by some members runs deep....If you reread the first sentence of the post you quoted before you will see CH is in fact addressing the US military and government, not you and I. The dislike is for government and corporate policy. Sometimes its extreme displeasure as it is with me too and I'm an American.
Try not to take it so personally. These guy here are decent people.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned on the eve of war ("I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post"), appears today and the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, tomorrow.
This is from Elizabeth Wilmshurst's written statement:3. In 2002 and 2003, my role as a deputy legal adviser included primary responsibility for some legal issues, and shared responsibility for others such as those concerning Iraq. It is probably true to say that all major legal issues leading up to the 2003 conflict were fully discussed between the Legal Adviser Sir Michael Wood, myself and the relevant Legal Counsellor. We worked as a team.
4. Before the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1441, the advice given by FCO legal advisers was that an invasion of Iraq would be contrary to international law in the absence of a new Security Council resolution. I shared and contributed to this view. The legal principles are well-known. In summary, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another State; the exceptions to this prohibition are first, action in self-defence, as referred to in Article 51 of the UN Charter, second, action authorised by UN Security Council resolutions and, as a possible third, more controversial, exception, action to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Of these exceptions, force in self-defence may be used only against an attack, actual or imminent; only where it is necessary to use force in the absence of other means; and only where the force is proportionate to the object of averting the attack. In the circumstances of Iraq, the facts did not justify the use of force in self- defence. Existing Security Council resolutions did not authorise the use of force. There was no other legal justification. A desire to change the regime did not give a legal basis for military action.
5. After the adoption of resolution 1441, the legal advice given in the FCO, and to which I contributed, was that a second Security Council decision was necessary if military action were to be lawfully taken against Iraq; resolution 1441 was not sufficient. The reasoning has been sufficiently explained elsewhere. In summary, the resolution had introduced an enhanced inspection regime to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its obligations; it stated that reports of non-compliance by Iraq would be referred to the Security Council for assessment. ‘Assessment’ did not mean merely an inconclusive discussion in the Council. The decision that Iraq had failed to take its final opportunity was to be one for the Council and not simply for individual governments. Advice that a second resolution was legally required was given by the FCO Legal Adviser consistently after the adoption of resolution 1441 and in the following three months.
6. An alternative view was discussed in the Attorney General’s minute of 7 March 2003. The view was that resolution 1441 itself constituted the decision of the Council to revive the authorisation - given in resolution 678 in 1990 - to use force in order to restore international peace and security in the region. The Government participated in the invasion of Iraq on this basis.
7. I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post. I would have been required to support and maintain the Government’s position in international fora. The rules of international law on the use of force by States are at the heart of international law. Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the Charter of the United Nations. Acting contrary to the Charter, as I perceived the Government to be doing, would have the consequence of damaging the United Kingdom’s reputation as a State committed to the rule of law in international relations and to the United Nations.
This is from Elizabeth Wilmshurst's written statement:3. In 2002 and 2003, my role as a deputy legal adviser included primary responsibility for some legal issues, and shared responsibility for others such as those concerning Iraq. It is probably true to say that all major legal issues leading up to the 2003 conflict were fully discussed between the Legal Adviser Sir Michael Wood, myself and the relevant Legal Counsellor. We worked as a team.
4. Before the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1441, the advice given by FCO legal advisers was that an invasion of Iraq would be contrary to international law in the absence of a new Security Council resolution. I shared and contributed to this view. The legal principles are well-known. In summary, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another State; the exceptions to this prohibition are first, action in self-defence, as referred to in Article 51 of the UN Charter, second, action authorised by UN Security Council resolutions and, as a possible third, more controversial, exception, action to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Of these exceptions, force in self-defence may be used only against an attack, actual or imminent; only where it is necessary to use force in the absence of other means; and only where the force is proportionate to the object of averting the attack. In the circumstances of Iraq, the facts did not justify the use of force in self- defence. Existing Security Council resolutions did not authorise the use of force. There was no other legal justification. A desire to change the regime did not give a legal basis for military action.
5. After the adoption of resolution 1441, the legal advice given in the FCO, and to which I contributed, was that a second Security Council decision was necessary if military action were to be lawfully taken against Iraq; resolution 1441 was not sufficient. The reasoning has been sufficiently explained elsewhere. In summary, the resolution had introduced an enhanced inspection regime to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its obligations; it stated that reports of non-compliance by Iraq would be referred to the Security Council for assessment. ‘Assessment’ did not mean merely an inconclusive discussion in the Council. The decision that Iraq had failed to take its final opportunity was to be one for the Council and not simply for individual governments. Advice that a second resolution was legally required was given by the FCO Legal Adviser consistently after the adoption of resolution 1441 and in the following three months.
6. An alternative view was discussed in the Attorney General’s minute of 7 March 2003. The view was that resolution 1441 itself constituted the decision of the Council to revive the authorisation - given in resolution 678 in 1990 - to use force in order to restore international peace and security in the region. The Government participated in the invasion of Iraq on this basis.
7. I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post. I would have been required to support and maintain the Government’s position in international fora. The rules of international law on the use of force by States are at the heart of international law. Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the Charter of the United Nations. Acting contrary to the Charter, as I perceived the Government to be doing, would have the consequence of damaging the United Kingdom’s reputation as a State committed to the rule of law in international relations and to the United Nations.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
This is rather a neat image of having the rug pulled from under your feet. I've picked it more for the use of language and an indication of how things were being done than from any major sense of outrage.SIR JOHN SAWERS: When I arrived in Baghdad on 8 May, one of the problems that ORHA were facing was that they had been undiscriminating in their Iraqi partners. They had taken, as their partners, the most senior figures in the military, not in the military, sorry, in the ministries, in the police, in institutions like Baghdad University, who happened to be there. And in several of these instances, Baghdad University was one, the trade ministry was another, the health ministry, the foreign ministry, the Baghdad police the working level were in uproar because they were being obliged to work for the same Ba'athist masters who had tyrannised them under the Saddam regime, and they were refusing to cooperate on that basis. So I said, in my first significant report back to London, which I sent on the Sunday night, the day before Bremer arrived, that there were a number of big issues that needed to be addressed. I listed five and one of those five was we needed a policy on which Ba'athists should be allowed to stay in their jobs and which should not. And there was already a debate going on among Iraqi political leaders about where the line should be drawn.
So I flagged it up on the Sunday evening in my first report, which arrived on desks on Monday morning, on 11 May. When Bremer arrived late that evening, he and I had a first discussion, and one of the first things he said to me was that he needed to give clarity on de-Ba'athification. And he had some clear ideas on this So I reported again and he would want to discuss it. early the following morning that this was high on Bremer's mind and I needed a steer as to what our policy was. I felt that there was, indeed, an important need for a policy on de-Ba'athification and that, of the various options that were being considered, some, I felt, were more far-reaching than was necessary but I wasn't an expert on the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and I needed some guidance on this.
I received some guidance the following day, which was helpful, and I used that as the basis for my discussion with Bremer -- I can't remember if it was the Wednesday or the Thursday that week but we had a meeting of -- Bremer and myself and our political teams, where this was discussed, and there was very strong support among the Iraqi political parties for quite a far-reaching de-Ba'athification policy.
Before the meeting itself I had concerted with Ryan Crocker, who was the senior American political adviser, and I said to him that my guidance was that we should limit the scope of de-Ba'athification to the top three levels of the Ba'ath Party, which included about 5,000 people, and that we thought going to the fourth level was a step too far, and it would involve another 25,000 or so Iraqis, which wasn't necessary.
And I thought Crocker was broadly sympathetic to that approach but at the meeting itself Bremer set out a strong case for including all four levels, ie the top 30,000 Ba'athists should be removed from their jobs, but there should be a policy in place for exemptions.
I argued the alternative. Actually, unhelpfully, from my point of view, Ryan Crocker came in in strong support of the Bremer proposal, and I think he probably smelled the coffee and realised that this was a policy that had actually already been decided in Washington and there was no point getting on the wrong side of it. I was not aware of that at that stage and, in fact, it was only when I subsequently read the very thorough account by the Rand Corporation of these issues that I realised there had been an extensive exchange between agencies in Washington.
SIR RODERIC LYNE: Just to pause on that, this crucial decision, not just to take the top 5,000, which probably was not a matter of argument, but to add 25,000, sweeping up a lot of professionals, teachers, doctors people like that, who had been obliged to become members of the Ba'ath parties, had been stitched up between agencies in Washington but without any consultation with the number 1 coalition partner, Britain, who were going to be vitally affected by that?
SIR JOHN SAWERS: I cannot vouch for that because I wasn't in London, I wasn't involved in those exchanges.
So I flagged it up on the Sunday evening in my first report, which arrived on desks on Monday morning, on 11 May. When Bremer arrived late that evening, he and I had a first discussion, and one of the first things he said to me was that he needed to give clarity on de-Ba'athification. And he had some clear ideas on this So I reported again and he would want to discuss it. early the following morning that this was high on Bremer's mind and I needed a steer as to what our policy was. I felt that there was, indeed, an important need for a policy on de-Ba'athification and that, of the various options that were being considered, some, I felt, were more far-reaching than was necessary but I wasn't an expert on the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and I needed some guidance on this.
I received some guidance the following day, which was helpful, and I used that as the basis for my discussion with Bremer -- I can't remember if it was the Wednesday or the Thursday that week but we had a meeting of -- Bremer and myself and our political teams, where this was discussed, and there was very strong support among the Iraqi political parties for quite a far-reaching de-Ba'athification policy.
Before the meeting itself I had concerted with Ryan Crocker, who was the senior American political adviser, and I said to him that my guidance was that we should limit the scope of de-Ba'athification to the top three levels of the Ba'ath Party, which included about 5,000 people, and that we thought going to the fourth level was a step too far, and it would involve another 25,000 or so Iraqis, which wasn't necessary.
And I thought Crocker was broadly sympathetic to that approach but at the meeting itself Bremer set out a strong case for including all four levels, ie the top 30,000 Ba'athists should be removed from their jobs, but there should be a policy in place for exemptions.
I argued the alternative. Actually, unhelpfully, from my point of view, Ryan Crocker came in in strong support of the Bremer proposal, and I think he probably smelled the coffee and realised that this was a policy that had actually already been decided in Washington and there was no point getting on the wrong side of it. I was not aware of that at that stage and, in fact, it was only when I subsequently read the very thorough account by the Rand Corporation of these issues that I realised there had been an extensive exchange between agencies in Washington.
SIR RODERIC LYNE: Just to pause on that, this crucial decision, not just to take the top 5,000, which probably was not a matter of argument, but to add 25,000, sweeping up a lot of professionals, teachers, doctors people like that, who had been obliged to become members of the Ba'ath parties, had been stitched up between agencies in Washington but without any consultation with the number 1 coalition partner, Britain, who were going to be vitally affected by that?
SIR JOHN SAWERS: I cannot vouch for that because I wasn't in London, I wasn't involved in those exchanges.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Oh really.....I don't believe it
The hate here by some members runs deep....
I said I wouldn't reply....
O lord. But Kathy Ellen, I don't hate Americans. It is true some of your government departments make no friends for the USA. But I don't hate you.
The hate here by some members runs deep....
I said I wouldn't reply....
O lord. But Kathy Ellen, I don't hate Americans. It is true some of your government departments make no friends for the USA. But I don't hate you.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Clodhopper;1283583 wrote: This is playing straight into every prejudice I have about the US military (and government) and their inability to listen.
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope. Your gulliable If you believe the tosh of blaming the Bush Administration. Blair was talking to Bush about over-throwing Sadam as far back as 2002. Bush has gone down In history as a war Monger and now It's convienient to excuse Blair by blaming the US.
From what I have heard of the proceedings today, the blame piling up seems to be on Jack Straw who was warned Invasion would be highly un-popular but he Ignored many key figures. The whole Issue Is down to corruption on Blair's part. But, of course, we are British and we can't have any=one accussing us of Tyranny can we? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope. Your gulliable If you believe the tosh of blaming the Bush Administration. Blair was talking to Bush about over-throwing Sadam as far back as 2002. Bush has gone down In history as a war Monger and now It's convienient to excuse Blair by blaming the US.
From what I have heard of the proceedings today, the blame piling up seems to be on Jack Straw who was warned Invasion would be highly un-popular but he Ignored many key figures. The whole Issue Is down to corruption on Blair's part. But, of course, we are British and we can't have any=one accussing us of Tyranny can we? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Clodhopper;1285607 wrote: O lord. But Kathy Ellen, I don't hate Americans. It is true some of your government departments make no friends for the USA. But I don't hate you.
I'd actually quite like Kathy Ellen to come back and try to explain why she thinks anything's been posted into the thread which indicates a "hatred of Americans" to her. I don't see it, I've long failed to see it but Kathy Ellen has this bee in her bonnet that it's true. You know it's not, I know it's not but she's completely blind to what's being said and why. Talking it out might help her finally realize it's not true. American Government foreign policy bad, American people good though occasionally misguided, sometimes nutty as fruitcakes and often patchy on religion, that's my take.
I'd actually quite like Kathy Ellen to come back and try to explain why she thinks anything's been posted into the thread which indicates a "hatred of Americans" to her. I don't see it, I've long failed to see it but Kathy Ellen has this bee in her bonnet that it's true. You know it's not, I know it's not but she's completely blind to what's being said and why. Talking it out might help her finally realize it's not true. American Government foreign policy bad, American people good though occasionally misguided, sometimes nutty as fruitcakes and often patchy on religion, that's my take.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Imo Kathy is a patriotic woman who finds it increasingly difficult to see threads that throw bad light on her government, being patriotic she sees it as a direct reflection on herself, hence her reply.
The decisions our governments take are a bitter pill to swallow for sure.
The decisions our governments take are a bitter pill to swallow for sure.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
spot;1285626 wrote: I'd actually quite like Kathy Ellen to come back and try to explain why she thinks anything's been posted into the thread which indicates a "hatred of Americans" to her. I don't see it, I've long failed to see it but Kathy Ellen has this bee in her bonnet that it's true. You know it's not, I know it's not but she's completely blind to what's being said and why. Talking it out might help her finally realize it's not true. American Government foreign policy bad, American people good though occasionally misguided, sometimes nutty as fruitcakes and often patchy on religion, that's my take. I with Kathy. Clods Post re: we are the only Country who likes America was offensive.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
spot;1285626 wrote: I'd actually quite like Kathy Ellen to come back and try to explain why she thinks anything's been posted into the thread which indicates a "hatred of Americans" to her. I don't see it, I've long failed to see it but Kathy Ellen has this bee in her bonnet that it's true. You know it's not, I know it's not but she's completely blind to what's being said and why. Talking it out might help her finally realize it's not true. American Government foreign policy bad, American people good though occasionally misguided, sometimes nutty as fruitcakes and often patchy on religion, that's my take.
Sorry Spot,
I'm tired of doing the Marino waltz with you. You've spun me around so much that I'm too dizzy. I've tried to explain to you why I think that you dislike Americans to no avail.
It's not only my government that you dislike...and that's fine that you don't like my government...
But....it's also the American citizens that you dislike, and that's not fine with me.
You can deny it all you like, but I know better from your words that this is true. No, I'm not going to try to pull up your posts to try to prove it.
You'd only make me do the waltz again...although I do love the waltz....:wah:
YouTube - Marino Waltz - Irish Waltz Line Dance by The Girls
Sorry Spot,
I'm tired of doing the Marino waltz with you. You've spun me around so much that I'm too dizzy. I've tried to explain to you why I think that you dislike Americans to no avail.
It's not only my government that you dislike...and that's fine that you don't like my government...
But....it's also the American citizens that you dislike, and that's not fine with me.
You can deny it all you like, but I know better from your words that this is true. No, I'm not going to try to pull up your posts to try to prove it.
You'd only make me do the waltz again...although I do love the waltz....:wah:
YouTube - Marino Waltz - Irish Waltz Line Dance by The Girls
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Kathy, I can agree sometimes Spot gets carried away with insinuations that Americans don't do enough to keep their government in check. i guess he believes it to be easier than it actually is, and I'm not sure he understands what it means to be raised in a capitalistic culture such as ours just as he insists we don't understand the socialism he says he lives. Perhaps he wants to be the Thomas Paine of the 21st century. Who knows, but Spot's contributions to this forum are overwhelmingly more positive than anything else.
Spot is not responsible for any former members leaving here, they are themselves. They decided to move on, they believe it to be the best solution for them and therefore it probably is.
Since I've been back here, and even before then, Spot has been tenacious but not disrespectful though its easy to mistake one for the other. Sometimes people of passion get caught up in thought and expression as CH did earlier in this thread, but clearly, he was addressing the American Military and government. I misjudged it initially too and had to reread the post.
One other thing I'd like to remind you of and that is that Spot is very aware of the fact that many people are both lurking here and search certain keywords and phrases and attempts to begin threads which might attract certain elements that may be accommodating to him for debating purposes. Theres nothing wrong with that, its how forums grow.
Spot is not responsible for any former members leaving here, they are themselves. They decided to move on, they believe it to be the best solution for them and therefore it probably is.
Since I've been back here, and even before then, Spot has been tenacious but not disrespectful though its easy to mistake one for the other. Sometimes people of passion get caught up in thought and expression as CH did earlier in this thread, but clearly, he was addressing the American Military and government. I misjudged it initially too and had to reread the post.
One other thing I'd like to remind you of and that is that Spot is very aware of the fact that many people are both lurking here and search certain keywords and phrases and attempts to begin threads which might attract certain elements that may be accommodating to him for debating purposes. Theres nothing wrong with that, its how forums grow.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Ahso!;1285939 wrote: Kathy, I can agree sometimes Spot gets carried away with insinuations that Americans don't do enough to keep their government in check. i guess he believes it to be easier than it actually is, and I'm not sure he understands what it means to be raised in a capitalistic culture such as ours just as he insists we don't understand the socialism he says he lives. Perhaps he wants to be the Thomas Paine of the 21st century. Who knows, but Spot's contributions to this forum are overwhelmingly more positive than anything else.
Spot is not responsible for any former members leaving here, they are themselves. They decided to move on, they believe it to be the best solution for them and therefore it probably is.
Since I've been back here, and even before then, Spot has been tenacious but not disrespectful though its easy to mistake one for the other. Sometimes people of passion get caught up in thought and expression as CH did earlier in this thread, but clearly, he was addressing the American Military and government. I misjudged it initially too and had to reread the post.
One other thing I'd like to remind you of and that is that Spot is very aware of the fact that many people are both lurking here and search certain keywords and phrases and attempts to begin threads that might attracts certain elements that may be accommodating to him for debating purposes. Theres nothing wrong with that, its how forums grow.
Hi RJ,
This issue is between Spot and me. You weren't here when events happened.
I have no idea what you're talking about in your last 3 paragraphs.....Please stop assuming what I'm thinking...I never said or thought those things that you've written about Spot. Those are your words not mine.
What are you talking about:(??????????????? Please don't include me in your thoughts about Spot and how I'm misunderstanding things.
I know exactly what I'm talking about....
Thank you...
Spot is not responsible for any former members leaving here, they are themselves. They decided to move on, they believe it to be the best solution for them and therefore it probably is.
Since I've been back here, and even before then, Spot has been tenacious but not disrespectful though its easy to mistake one for the other. Sometimes people of passion get caught up in thought and expression as CH did earlier in this thread, but clearly, he was addressing the American Military and government. I misjudged it initially too and had to reread the post.
One other thing I'd like to remind you of and that is that Spot is very aware of the fact that many people are both lurking here and search certain keywords and phrases and attempts to begin threads that might attracts certain elements that may be accommodating to him for debating purposes. Theres nothing wrong with that, its how forums grow.
Hi RJ,
This issue is between Spot and me. You weren't here when events happened.
I have no idea what you're talking about in your last 3 paragraphs.....Please stop assuming what I'm thinking...I never said or thought those things that you've written about Spot. Those are your words not mine.
What are you talking about:(??????????????? Please don't include me in your thoughts about Spot and how I'm misunderstanding things.
I know exactly what I'm talking about....
Thank you...
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Kathy Ellen;1285949 wrote: Hi RJ,
This issue is between Spot and me. You weren't here when events happened.
I have no idea what you're talking about in your last 3 paragraphs.....Please stop assuming what I'm thinking...I never said or thought those things that you've written about Spot. Those are your words not mine.
What are you talking about:(??????????????? Please don't include me in your thoughts about Spot and how I'm misunderstanding things.
I know exactly what I'm talking about....
Thank you...What is it exactly you believe I've said you misunderstand other than CH's post? Apparently, you still see it as offensive even though CH himself has clarified the post? And what have I said that leads you to think I don't think you know what you're talking about?
All I did in my post was give you my assessment of Spot's demeanor. I had not challenged anything or attempted to make you a part of my thoughts.
This issue is between Spot and me. You weren't here when events happened.
I have no idea what you're talking about in your last 3 paragraphs.....Please stop assuming what I'm thinking...I never said or thought those things that you've written about Spot. Those are your words not mine.
What are you talking about:(??????????????? Please don't include me in your thoughts about Spot and how I'm misunderstanding things.
I know exactly what I'm talking about....
Thank you...What is it exactly you believe I've said you misunderstand other than CH's post? Apparently, you still see it as offensive even though CH himself has clarified the post? And what have I said that leads you to think I don't think you know what you're talking about?
All I did in my post was give you my assessment of Spot's demeanor. I had not challenged anything or attempted to make you a part of my thoughts.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
spot;1283581 wrote: It's a tale of gung-ho Americans who can't wait to fire off their extraordinary firepower and a chap leading a bunch of Brits who haven't the least clue what conditions in Iraq actually were before they arrived,
As it should be... all is right with the world and in synchronicity.:wah:
As it should be... all is right with the world and in synchronicity.:wah:
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Saint_;1285963 wrote: As it should be... all is right with the world and in synchronicity.:wah:
I can't wait to see how Spot will react to the outcome of The Chilcot Enquirey myself.
After all this time of trashing the Bush Administration and The Capitaslism of the US, It could be rather Uncomfortable to have our former Prime Minister exposed as a war mongering, lying bastard.
As Spot Is more or less in favour of our Labour Government, It will be Interesting to see how he re-acts If the enquiry deems that Our Government carried out an Illegal Invasion.
That Is of course providing the Enquirey is not a total whitewash with no justifiable means or ends as most British Enquiries tend to be.
I can't wait to see how Spot will react to the outcome of The Chilcot Enquirey myself.
After all this time of trashing the Bush Administration and The Capitaslism of the US, It could be rather Uncomfortable to have our former Prime Minister exposed as a war mongering, lying bastard.
As Spot Is more or less in favour of our Labour Government, It will be Interesting to see how he re-acts If the enquiry deems that Our Government carried out an Illegal Invasion.
That Is of course providing the Enquirey is not a total whitewash with no justifiable means or ends as most British Enquiries tend to be.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Ahso!;1285939 wrote: Kathy, I can agree sometimes Spot gets carried away with insinuations that Americans don't do enough to keep their government in check. i guess he believes it to be easier than it actually is, and I'm not sure he understands what it means to be raised in a capitalistic culture such as ours just as he insists we don't understand the socialism he says he lives. Perhaps he wants to be the Thomas Paine of the 21st century. Who knows, but Spot's contributions to this forum are overwhelmingly more positive than anything else.
Spot is not responsible for any former members leaving here, they are themselves. They decided to move on, they believe it to be the best solution for them and therefore it probably is.
Since I've been back here, and even before then, Spot has been tenacious but not disrespectful though its easy to mistake one for the other. Sometimes people of passion get caught up in thought and expression as CH did earlier in this thread, but clearly, he was addressing the American Military and government. I misjudged it initially too and had to reread the post.
One other thing I'd like to remind you of and that is that Spot is very aware of the fact that many people are both lurking here and search certain keywords and phrases and attempts to begin threads which might attract certain elements that may be accommodating to him for debating purposes. Theres nothing wrong with that, its how forums grow.
Actually we didn't exactly do a very good job of keeping our own government in check and are making a right pig's ear of holding those responsible to account even now. we have a kind of detached government at the moment-detached from the people and detached from reality. At least Bush thought he had the interests of the US at heart-albeit they perhaps equated their own vested interests with those of the US to the long term detriment of the US-god knows what Blair was thinking. That's part of the problem-if he had come out with anything suggesting god was directing him or guiding his decisions while in office there would have been outrage-the fact he knew that and kept it hidden says a lot about his character.
He also altered intelligence reports and lied to parliament to get support for the invasion of iraq. Unlike the states the prime minister does not have presidential powers, parliament is sovereign, and his government governs at the whim of parliament-at any time a vote of no confidence would have stopped him and forced an election but we have a situation where a political party with less than a third of the votes ends up with an overwhelming majority of the seats and we are ruled by a bunch of apparatchiks beholden to the party leader with the moral integrity and backbone of an amoeba. It's even worse than it was with the tories and I thought after thatcher no one could be as bad. This special relationship is a myth and most people in the UK view it as such. it's a source of annoyance that we play second fiddle to the states and get involved and back them in their foreign policy when most in the UK don't agree with it. Criticising our government is not seen as unpatriotic and criticising the us government is seen in the same way we criticise the french and germans-it's not actually anti french or anti it's juat anti what their government happens to be doing at the moment. If you think the british press are anti american you must think we absolutely hate everyone in europe if you read some of the comments.
We can take the **** out of the germans and the french-and do so on a regular basis- without them throwing the toys out the pram and they are quite capable of responding respond in kind. It's kind of hard to understand why americans take things so personally. Even if a comment is anti american-so what? you need to stop worrying about what johnny foreigner thinks of you. We don't care what anybody thinks cos we know you are just envious.
No offence kathy but you manage to find offence when there is none to find. If I said the chrysler 300c is a crap car it's not anti American it's just a comment on the crap cars Americans make. If you find what spot says wrong or offensive the correct thing to say is bollocks. (no offence spot) he's welsh and is used to being insulted.
By the way capitalism is not an american concept and you have a bastardised version of it. What you have in the states is arguably a corporatist economy not a capitalist one. Sadly we have it as well and a bunch of wallies in charge that won;t admit they have done anything wrong. Capitalism still works you just need to go back to basics and regulate it properly and stop being hung up about labels. The roots of capitalism are the same as those of socialism. I don't know we give you all these great idea-liberal democracy, socialism, capitalism, liberty equality etc. etc and you have the cheek to lecture us about them :sneaky:In fact without European ingenuity you would still be living in wooden huts with outside toilets-yes we even invented the flushing toilet for you.
Don't let oscar put you off it's quite interesting hearing a foreigner's
perspective on things and she is now officially the british right wing resident nutter and paid up member of the british nazi party.
posted by oscar
I can't wait to see how Spot will react to the outcome of The Chilcot Enquirey myself.
After all this time of trashing the Bush Administration and The Capitaslism of the US, It could be rather Uncomfortable to have our former Prime Minister exposed as a war mongering, lying bastard.
As Spot Is more or less in favour of our Labour Government, It will be Interesting to see how he re-acts If the enquiry deems that Our Government carried out an Illegal Invasion.
That Is of course providing the Enquirey is not a total whitewash with no justifiable means or ends as most British Enquiries tend to be.
AHA! take note folks oscar has again conceded that gordon is a moron.
I can't believe spot is a die hard labour supporter. Even die hard labourites are leaving the party in droves nowadays. He's too intelligent to think gordon brown is wonderful.:-3
Spot is not responsible for any former members leaving here, they are themselves. They decided to move on, they believe it to be the best solution for them and therefore it probably is.
Since I've been back here, and even before then, Spot has been tenacious but not disrespectful though its easy to mistake one for the other. Sometimes people of passion get caught up in thought and expression as CH did earlier in this thread, but clearly, he was addressing the American Military and government. I misjudged it initially too and had to reread the post.
One other thing I'd like to remind you of and that is that Spot is very aware of the fact that many people are both lurking here and search certain keywords and phrases and attempts to begin threads which might attract certain elements that may be accommodating to him for debating purposes. Theres nothing wrong with that, its how forums grow.
Actually we didn't exactly do a very good job of keeping our own government in check and are making a right pig's ear of holding those responsible to account even now. we have a kind of detached government at the moment-detached from the people and detached from reality. At least Bush thought he had the interests of the US at heart-albeit they perhaps equated their own vested interests with those of the US to the long term detriment of the US-god knows what Blair was thinking. That's part of the problem-if he had come out with anything suggesting god was directing him or guiding his decisions while in office there would have been outrage-the fact he knew that and kept it hidden says a lot about his character.
He also altered intelligence reports and lied to parliament to get support for the invasion of iraq. Unlike the states the prime minister does not have presidential powers, parliament is sovereign, and his government governs at the whim of parliament-at any time a vote of no confidence would have stopped him and forced an election but we have a situation where a political party with less than a third of the votes ends up with an overwhelming majority of the seats and we are ruled by a bunch of apparatchiks beholden to the party leader with the moral integrity and backbone of an amoeba. It's even worse than it was with the tories and I thought after thatcher no one could be as bad. This special relationship is a myth and most people in the UK view it as such. it's a source of annoyance that we play second fiddle to the states and get involved and back them in their foreign policy when most in the UK don't agree with it. Criticising our government is not seen as unpatriotic and criticising the us government is seen in the same way we criticise the french and germans-it's not actually anti french or anti it's juat anti what their government happens to be doing at the moment. If you think the british press are anti american you must think we absolutely hate everyone in europe if you read some of the comments.
We can take the **** out of the germans and the french-and do so on a regular basis- without them throwing the toys out the pram and they are quite capable of responding respond in kind. It's kind of hard to understand why americans take things so personally. Even if a comment is anti american-so what? you need to stop worrying about what johnny foreigner thinks of you. We don't care what anybody thinks cos we know you are just envious.
No offence kathy but you manage to find offence when there is none to find. If I said the chrysler 300c is a crap car it's not anti American it's just a comment on the crap cars Americans make. If you find what spot says wrong or offensive the correct thing to say is bollocks. (no offence spot) he's welsh and is used to being insulted.
By the way capitalism is not an american concept and you have a bastardised version of it. What you have in the states is arguably a corporatist economy not a capitalist one. Sadly we have it as well and a bunch of wallies in charge that won;t admit they have done anything wrong. Capitalism still works you just need to go back to basics and regulate it properly and stop being hung up about labels. The roots of capitalism are the same as those of socialism. I don't know we give you all these great idea-liberal democracy, socialism, capitalism, liberty equality etc. etc and you have the cheek to lecture us about them :sneaky:In fact without European ingenuity you would still be living in wooden huts with outside toilets-yes we even invented the flushing toilet for you.
Don't let oscar put you off it's quite interesting hearing a foreigner's
perspective on things and she is now officially the british right wing resident nutter and paid up member of the british nazi party.
posted by oscar
I can't wait to see how Spot will react to the outcome of The Chilcot Enquirey myself.
After all this time of trashing the Bush Administration and The Capitaslism of the US, It could be rather Uncomfortable to have our former Prime Minister exposed as a war mongering, lying bastard.
As Spot Is more or less in favour of our Labour Government, It will be Interesting to see how he re-acts If the enquiry deems that Our Government carried out an Illegal Invasion.
That Is of course providing the Enquirey is not a total whitewash with no justifiable means or ends as most British Enquiries tend to be.
AHA! take note folks oscar has again conceded that gordon is a moron.
I can't believe spot is a die hard labour supporter. Even die hard labourites are leaving the party in droves nowadays. He's too intelligent to think gordon brown is wonderful.:-3
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
If you find what spot says wrong or offensive the correct thing to say is bollocks. (no offence spot) he's welsh and is used to being insulted.
He is bloody Welsh ?........it all makes sense now.
Thanks for that Paddy.
He is bloody Welsh ?........it all makes sense now.
Thanks for that Paddy.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
The Chilcot Inquiry is into the final straight and about to take the last couple of fences.
We got a couple of unexpected gifts this week and the prospect of a sweaty Blair on Friday.
If we could all turn to Iraq Inquiry publishes transcripts from private hearings please? Questions to the Attorney General:You had agreed to provide a draft advice on the question of whether a second resolution was necessary. Was your advice in relation to the question of "unreasonable veto" draft or definitive?
In one sense the whole of the advice of 14 January 2003 was draft, but I was clear on this part of it and that must have been understood by the Prime Minister.
Was the status of this part of your advice sufficiently clear to the Prime Minister?
I believe so.
On 15 January 2003 the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons: "We have said that a second UN resolution is preferable, because it is far better that the UN come together. We have also said that there are circumstances in which a UN resolution is not necessary, because it is necessary to be able to say in circumstances where an unreasonable veto is put down that we would still act. That is the position that the Government have set out throughout, and it is the position that remains."
On 6 February 2003 the Prime Minister told Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight: "If the inspectors do report that they can’t do their work properly because Iraq is not co-operating there’s no doubt under the terms of the existing UNSCR that that is a breach of the Resolution. In those circumstances there should be a further resolution. If, however, a country were to issue a veto, because there has to be unanimity amongst the permanent members of the Security Council … then I would consider action outside of that.”
Do you consider that the Prime Minister's words were compatible with the advice you had given him?
No.
Electrifying stuff, eh.
The Prime Minister will, one hopes, be grilled on Friday.
We got a couple of unexpected gifts this week and the prospect of a sweaty Blair on Friday.
If we could all turn to Iraq Inquiry publishes transcripts from private hearings please? Questions to the Attorney General:You had agreed to provide a draft advice on the question of whether a second resolution was necessary. Was your advice in relation to the question of "unreasonable veto" draft or definitive?
In one sense the whole of the advice of 14 January 2003 was draft, but I was clear on this part of it and that must have been understood by the Prime Minister.
Was the status of this part of your advice sufficiently clear to the Prime Minister?
I believe so.
On 15 January 2003 the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons: "We have said that a second UN resolution is preferable, because it is far better that the UN come together. We have also said that there are circumstances in which a UN resolution is not necessary, because it is necessary to be able to say in circumstances where an unreasonable veto is put down that we would still act. That is the position that the Government have set out throughout, and it is the position that remains."
On 6 February 2003 the Prime Minister told Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight: "If the inspectors do report that they can’t do their work properly because Iraq is not co-operating there’s no doubt under the terms of the existing UNSCR that that is a breach of the Resolution. In those circumstances there should be a further resolution. If, however, a country were to issue a veto, because there has to be unanimity amongst the permanent members of the Security Council … then I would consider action outside of that.”
Do you consider that the Prime Minister's words were compatible with the advice you had given him?
No.
Electrifying stuff, eh.
The Prime Minister will, one hopes, be grilled on Friday.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Clodhopper;1283583 wrote: This is playing straight into every prejudice I have about the US military (and government) and their inability to listen.
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope.
Now you know how it feels .......Anzac. America is just doing what you 've always done. They're arseholes for doing it and so are you guys for doing it to us. .....And the merry go round continues.
Dammit guys. The only country in the world that actually likes you and you treat us like this? Even if we weren't right (with our long experience of colonial wars which the British Army is based on) why do you try so hard to make us loathe and despise you? You seem to do it to such an extent that you'd rather lose than take British advice.
Ok it seems that the man on the ground tried to. Is it really just down to Cheney et al making money for Halliburton?
If it is, change or die. Obama is your great hope.
Now you know how it feels .......Anzac. America is just doing what you 've always done. They're arseholes for doing it and so are you guys for doing it to us. .....And the merry go round continues.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Moving forward it we may? Sir Richard Dearlove, at that time head of the British spy service, sent three documents to the Prime Minister's "top foreign policy adviser" Sir David Manning in December 2001, one of which set out ‘a route map for regime change very openly’ - and this is the redacted private session transcript of Sir David Manning relating to December 2001, and to the deathly hush from Jack Straw when he saw the paperwork...[...] SIR RODERIC LYNE: "At our meeting on 30 November" ... This is [SIS4] to you still: "... we discussed how we could combine an objective of regime change in Baghdad with the need to protect important regional interests which would be at grave risk." Then it sets out a route map for regime change very openly. He says the key idea is that it is possible to speak openly about support for regime change in Iraq. So there's a shift between 30 November and 3 December. Can you enlighten us on why they would have produced or been asked to produce a second paper looking at the other side of the coin?
SIR DAVID MANNING: Well, maybe just because of that. You know, what are the options we have got, rather than having any specific plan to do it.
I can't remember exactly what would have triggered that, but regime change at this stage, of course, is not about invading Iraq. I think it's important to remember, until the spring of 2002, when one talks about regime change, certainly the idea is how can you foment regime change within the country, [***]
SIR RODERIC LYNE: A final question before we move on. The Foreign Office was informed of this. They received two of the three papers that Richard Dearlove sent to you, although, interestingly, not all three. They got a slightly expurgated version. And the Foreign Secretary sent a letter saying he thought these papers were very perceptive and he hoped the Prime Minister would read them, or his private secretary sent them.
So no reservations expressed at that stage by the Foreign Office, either in terms of SIS leading on a bit of action that was heavily political, going direct to Number 10 on it, rather than through the traditional orthodox route via the Foreign Secretary; nor reservations about [***] regime change, when the Foreign Secretary's consistent public position, and indeed private position, in advice to the Prime Minister was that regime change could not be a legal or legitimate objective of British policy. So what impression does that leave one of the Foreign Office at this stage?
SIR DAVID MANNING: [***]
SIR RODERIC LYNE: [***] So what he sent was a short letter, having seen the [SIS4] papers [***] -- these were briefing papers -- saying these are good papers, perceptive, and he hopes the Prime Minister will read them. So no reservations expressed there. He has looked at them. He has sent an approving comment on them. But it's otherwise a rather curious vacuum. There is the Foreign Secretary who is arguing already, and continues to argue, for caution on this subject. We will come back to that later.
SIR DAVID MANNING: Yes.
SIR RODERIC LYNE: Yet here are papers saying let's co-operate with the Americans on regime change, and he says these are good papers, the Prime Minister should read them. Otherwise you are not getting input from the Foreign Office on this subject. That's all you get, one sentence.
SIR DAVID MANNING: I think he's had pretty frequent discussions with the Prime Minister himself. I don't know if you count that as input, but there's no doubt that they see a lot of each other. Again, I think you have to ask him, [***]
SIR RODERIC LYNE: The words "regime change" are all over these papers, and that normally triggers in him a red light, but it doesn't on this occasion.
SIR DAVID MANNING: I doubt -- and you would have to ask him -- whether that for him, at that stage, meant hitting the beaches. I think "regime change" for him at this stage is, is it possible for us to get -- rather as we talk now about Iran, can we get a more congenial government to deal with? But you would have to ask him that.
SIR DAVID MANNING: Well, maybe just because of that. You know, what are the options we have got, rather than having any specific plan to do it.
I can't remember exactly what would have triggered that, but regime change at this stage, of course, is not about invading Iraq. I think it's important to remember, until the spring of 2002, when one talks about regime change, certainly the idea is how can you foment regime change within the country, [***]
SIR RODERIC LYNE: A final question before we move on. The Foreign Office was informed of this. They received two of the three papers that Richard Dearlove sent to you, although, interestingly, not all three. They got a slightly expurgated version. And the Foreign Secretary sent a letter saying he thought these papers were very perceptive and he hoped the Prime Minister would read them, or his private secretary sent them.
So no reservations expressed at that stage by the Foreign Office, either in terms of SIS leading on a bit of action that was heavily political, going direct to Number 10 on it, rather than through the traditional orthodox route via the Foreign Secretary; nor reservations about [***] regime change, when the Foreign Secretary's consistent public position, and indeed private position, in advice to the Prime Minister was that regime change could not be a legal or legitimate objective of British policy. So what impression does that leave one of the Foreign Office at this stage?
SIR DAVID MANNING: [***]
SIR RODERIC LYNE: [***] So what he sent was a short letter, having seen the [SIS4] papers [***] -- these were briefing papers -- saying these are good papers, perceptive, and he hopes the Prime Minister will read them. So no reservations expressed there. He has looked at them. He has sent an approving comment on them. But it's otherwise a rather curious vacuum. There is the Foreign Secretary who is arguing already, and continues to argue, for caution on this subject. We will come back to that later.
SIR DAVID MANNING: Yes.
SIR RODERIC LYNE: Yet here are papers saying let's co-operate with the Americans on regime change, and he says these are good papers, the Prime Minister should read them. Otherwise you are not getting input from the Foreign Office on this subject. That's all you get, one sentence.
SIR DAVID MANNING: I think he's had pretty frequent discussions with the Prime Minister himself. I don't know if you count that as input, but there's no doubt that they see a lot of each other. Again, I think you have to ask him, [***]
SIR RODERIC LYNE: The words "regime change" are all over these papers, and that normally triggers in him a red light, but it doesn't on this occasion.
SIR DAVID MANNING: I doubt -- and you would have to ask him -- whether that for him, at that stage, meant hitting the beaches. I think "regime change" for him at this stage is, is it possible for us to get -- rather as we talk now about Iran, can we get a more congenial government to deal with? But you would have to ask him that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
I have an Indian friend who is a history (for equivalent?) major who would love to get in on this .......Sorry still thinking of the IRA. What can I say eh?
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
So. Sweaty Blair, eh.Mr Blair, who is now a UN Middle East peace envoy, said there was "a looming and coming challenge" from Iran.
"I am out in that region the whole time. I see the impact and influence of Iran everywhere. It is negative, destabilising and it is supportive of terrorist groups," Mr Blair told the inquiry.
He said Iran "is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process, and to facilitate a situation in which that region cannot embark on a process of modernisation it so urgently needs".
BBC News - Tony Blair "regrets" Iraq dead in Chilcot grilling
So. Iran "is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process", is it? Thank Christ for that then. Thank God there's a bunch of people capable of making it clear for all time that the form of intervention PNAC and Bush and your Downing Street Office pursued doesn't pay, that regime change by way of invasion will not under any circumstances engender a peaceful and positive attitude either on the part of those invaded or on their neighbours who end up subsequently threatened in turn. Perhaps this generation of gung-ho killer politicians has taught itself the Vietnam lesson and we'll be free from bloody-minded jingoism for a couple of decades.
I still think you and Brown were blackmailed into it, Mr Blair. I honestly can't see any other reason for your incredible stupidity. I still think resigning rather than going to war would have been an honorable way out though. Nobody, surely, can have been so witless as to unleash all that charnel airborne weaponry and trained killer squads imagining it would improve matters the way you claimed it would.
"I am out in that region the whole time. I see the impact and influence of Iran everywhere. It is negative, destabilising and it is supportive of terrorist groups," Mr Blair told the inquiry.
He said Iran "is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process, and to facilitate a situation in which that region cannot embark on a process of modernisation it so urgently needs".
BBC News - Tony Blair "regrets" Iraq dead in Chilcot grilling
So. Iran "is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process", is it? Thank Christ for that then. Thank God there's a bunch of people capable of making it clear for all time that the form of intervention PNAC and Bush and your Downing Street Office pursued doesn't pay, that regime change by way of invasion will not under any circumstances engender a peaceful and positive attitude either on the part of those invaded or on their neighbours who end up subsequently threatened in turn. Perhaps this generation of gung-ho killer politicians has taught itself the Vietnam lesson and we'll be free from bloody-minded jingoism for a couple of decades.
I still think you and Brown were blackmailed into it, Mr Blair. I honestly can't see any other reason for your incredible stupidity. I still think resigning rather than going to war would have been an honorable way out though. Nobody, surely, can have been so witless as to unleash all that charnel airborne weaponry and trained killer squads imagining it would improve matters the way you claimed it would.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
The prelude to publication has arrived, with Tony Blair wiggling on his hot seat:Tony Blair has apologised for mistakes during the Iraq War - and said there were "elements of truth" to claims it caused the rise of Islamic State.
The ex-PM said "those of us who removed Saddam" did bear some responsibility for the situation in Iraq today.
But he again defended the invasion, saying it was "hard to apologise" for removing Saddam Hussein and that Iraq might have become like Syria otherwise.
Tony Blair concedes link between Islamic State and Iraq War - BBC News
Only if you'd paid mercenary Iraqis to foment regime change from within Iraq, Mr Blair. And that's still interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, just as it has been since in Syria. If you'd left Iraq alone, and avoided this fresh route of destablilization you're hypotheticating, Iraq would still be a working Secular Republic. Just as Syria would have been in similar circumstances. Just as Libya would have been.
It may well be "hard to apologise" for removing Saddam Hussein, Mr Blair, nobody doubts that. Try, even so. It was a lousy policy, the results of your regime change have been catastrophic, and it's entirely your own personal fault because you could have chosen to stop it from happening.
The ex-PM said "those of us who removed Saddam" did bear some responsibility for the situation in Iraq today.
But he again defended the invasion, saying it was "hard to apologise" for removing Saddam Hussein and that Iraq might have become like Syria otherwise.
Tony Blair concedes link between Islamic State and Iraq War - BBC News
Only if you'd paid mercenary Iraqis to foment regime change from within Iraq, Mr Blair. And that's still interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, just as it has been since in Syria. If you'd left Iraq alone, and avoided this fresh route of destablilization you're hypotheticating, Iraq would still be a working Secular Republic. Just as Syria would have been in similar circumstances. Just as Libya would have been.
It may well be "hard to apologise" for removing Saddam Hussein, Mr Blair, nobody doubts that. Try, even so. It was a lousy policy, the results of your regime change have been catastrophic, and it's entirely your own personal fault because you could have chosen to stop it from happening.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
I've been looking at all those asterisks in post #31. I wonder whether they're excised MI6 references to the potential for covert assassination. Have we any other suggestions?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Just to remind us before tomorrow........
And a sane voice..........
And a sane voice..........
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Parliament could have stopped blair has they chosen to do so.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
Whatever Tony Blair says today has to be compared with his April 2002 agreement at Crawford secretly taking the UK to war in Iraq for the purpose of regime change. Either he ducks responsibility yet again or he finally acknowledges the point.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Musings from the Iraq Inquiry
May I post a smattering from the report?3.2 Development of UK strategy and options, January to April 2002 – “axis of evil to Crawford
104. Mr John Sawers, British Ambassador to Egypt, who had been closely associated with the development of the UK’s policy on Iraq as Mr Blair’s Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs (see Section 1.2), responded to Mr Goulty’s minute with a teleletter to Sir Michael Jay and senior colleagues offering his views on the direction of policy on Iraq.
105. Mr Sawers began:
“I have hesitated to offer my own [views], in the knowledge that contacts between London and Washington will already be intensive and rightly held close. But I sense a danger of us becoming too predictable. I do not advocate a US march on
Baghdad. But I do think we need to box more cleverly, not least to retain leverage in Washington.
106. Mr Sawers stated containment had worked for 10 years but the price had been high. Iraq’s WMD activities were “still without doubt going ahead and Saddam Hussein’s regime would “remain an obstacle to every single Western objective in the Middle East. In his view the UK needed to say:
“... clearly and consistently that our goal is Regime Change – for the sake of stability in the Middle East, for the Iraqi people, and for the goal of controlling the spread of WMD.
107. Setting out a list of other countries where regime change had been and remained a goal of UK policy, Mr Sawers wrote:
“Whether or not we actually express it is purely a matter of tactics. So the lawyers and peaceniks should not prevent us from saying what we really want in Iraq. And by associating ourselves with Bush’s heartfelt objective of seeing Saddam removed, we will be given more houseroom in Washington to ask the awkward questions about how.
“And there are many such questions. What is the plan? How long would it take for a direct confrontation to succeed? How do we retain the support of our regional friends ... If we were to build up the Kurds and Shia as proxies, what assurances would we have to give them that we would not let them down yet again? How would we keep the Iranians from meddling? How do we preserve Iraq’s territorial integrity ... How would we provide for stability after Saddam and his cronies were killed?
“All these are much more important questions than legality, the Arab street and other hardy Foreign Office perennials. On a tactical point, I recall Colin Powell ... in 1993 saying that one of the blessings of retirement was that he would never have to listen to another British legal opinion. Presenting Washington with one now will both irritate and weaken him. We can look for the legal basis once we have decided what to do, as we did in Kosovo.
104. Mr John Sawers, British Ambassador to Egypt, who had been closely associated with the development of the UK’s policy on Iraq as Mr Blair’s Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs (see Section 1.2), responded to Mr Goulty’s minute with a teleletter to Sir Michael Jay and senior colleagues offering his views on the direction of policy on Iraq.
105. Mr Sawers began:
“I have hesitated to offer my own [views], in the knowledge that contacts between London and Washington will already be intensive and rightly held close. But I sense a danger of us becoming too predictable. I do not advocate a US march on
Baghdad. But I do think we need to box more cleverly, not least to retain leverage in Washington.
106. Mr Sawers stated containment had worked for 10 years but the price had been high. Iraq’s WMD activities were “still without doubt going ahead and Saddam Hussein’s regime would “remain an obstacle to every single Western objective in the Middle East. In his view the UK needed to say:
“... clearly and consistently that our goal is Regime Change – for the sake of stability in the Middle East, for the Iraqi people, and for the goal of controlling the spread of WMD.
107. Setting out a list of other countries where regime change had been and remained a goal of UK policy, Mr Sawers wrote:
“Whether or not we actually express it is purely a matter of tactics. So the lawyers and peaceniks should not prevent us from saying what we really want in Iraq. And by associating ourselves with Bush’s heartfelt objective of seeing Saddam removed, we will be given more houseroom in Washington to ask the awkward questions about how.
“And there are many such questions. What is the plan? How long would it take for a direct confrontation to succeed? How do we retain the support of our regional friends ... If we were to build up the Kurds and Shia as proxies, what assurances would we have to give them that we would not let them down yet again? How would we keep the Iranians from meddling? How do we preserve Iraq’s territorial integrity ... How would we provide for stability after Saddam and his cronies were killed?
“All these are much more important questions than legality, the Arab street and other hardy Foreign Office perennials. On a tactical point, I recall Colin Powell ... in 1993 saying that one of the blessings of retirement was that he would never have to listen to another British legal opinion. Presenting Washington with one now will both irritate and weaken him. We can look for the legal basis once we have decided what to do, as we did in Kosovo.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.