You're the only person who keeps going on about contracts. So let's ignore that. The UK went to war to remove Saddam. He was a Bad Man who killed lots of his political opponents, invaded Kuwait and generally ran a nasty despotic government. So that's the ultimate aim - regime change. However, Saddam did, at one point, have biological weapons and ambitions to go nuclear. This is a fact. The West slapped sanctions and weapons inspections on Iraq/Saddam, which in reality actually made him get rid of all those WMDs and abandon the nuclear programme. However, US and UK intelligence agencies simply didn't believe this to be true, because Saddam was a bad man, and happily listened to people who told them that Iraq still had WMDs, but was just good at hiding them. Those claims then formed the dossiers given to Blair (plus other dodgy intelligence, none of which in hindsight should have been convincing enough). So, Blair basically kills two birds with one stone - removal of Saddam as a primary goal of regime change (yay democracy etc etc) with the bonus of WMDs being taken away as well. The latter got oversold to the public because we're all scared of somebody dropping a dirty bomb on the Home Counties and less keen on invading because there's a bad man who does things to people a long way away. So they are totally connected. Logically. Interestingly, Chilcot is also clear that Saddam could have restarted his weapons programmes and obtained fissile material for nuclear weapons within five years of sanctions ending. So Saddam may have been a toothless donkey when we invaded in 2003, but the future threat was there as long as Saddam remained in power. The obvious answer in hindsight, and as Chilcot says, is that containment could have continued instead of invasion - see North Korea. But I can understand the decision made at the time, even if I don't agree with it. EDIT: If you want to talk about the invasion of nations to enact regime change as your basis for illegality I think you might want to review your history books. Just because you think it is illegal doesn't make it so - and as I've said above, I'd willingly bet that no international, independent, court would find that war to be technically illegal. Hell, the UN agreed to it. I'd also suggest you go read something on the Chilcot report, because it's obvious you haven't. How you can sit there and claim there's no incompetence is staggering. Unless you're seriously suggesting the entire thing was a setup and this 7 year inquiry is a big plot by the illuminati to whitewash history?
Whats past is past id let this one go in truth. Blair and Bush both wanted a reason to invade Iraq. UN Agreed to the invasion so the war was legal first and foremost, So he can not be a war criminal.
? quote: The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal. One thing you have to be clear about is, to go into war, you have to have one reason that is important enough that justifys the war. That is to say. You cant have several small reasons and build them up like lego. - We want their oil. - They are not compliant to the international banking cartel. - They are not Christians they are "x". - They are not returning our emails or voice mails. you have to have one clear and evident danger or knowledge of a expecting attack from that nation and intervene? It was illegal to invade this country period. They had zero threat to us which has later been born out, they had zero to do with 911. Saddam was compliant on weapons inspections. And post invasion it is a free for all fc** fest. There is no defence here, it was wanted from our side because it fit our agenda, not there was a critical issue that needing addressing. I don't think its possible to put it any clearer than that. Even if the war was a legitimate mistake which it was not, if you by accident kill some one, with out intention you can still be charged with a term manslaughter which as I am aware carries a jail sentence. How can you go off kill 100k people and not even get a moderate punishment, the UK Armed forces deserve a little more respect imo than to be used as a tool for political preference about who sits on the big seat in some place of the world. Also lets not confuse matters but look at the state of Libya another flavour of the month for attacking. We all need to keep our mouths shut Imo, its all pretty grim.
Basically took the words out of my mouth. The past 15 years have been a catastrophic mess, thanks largely to the UK and USA governments. It's going to take decades to repair the damage they have done all around the world, if it's even possible to repair it at all. Hundreds of dead British soldiers, thousands of dead American soldiers and Iraqis, and over one hundred thousand more injured, and for what? The world is less safe now than it was in 2003, killing a few terrorists and dictators did nothing, and we have less faith in our corrupt governments now than ever. We're still expected to believe what the news tells us about global affairs, even though it has been proven time and time again to be full of lies, and I haven't even mentioned how poor the choices for the UK prime minister and US presidency are. The more that Britain and America screw up, the more determined I become to emigrate. Anyone else want to join me in Australia?
Isn't regime change illegal under international law without a UN mandate? IIRC they didn't say he still had them, they said some WMD's were unaccounted for and Blair quoted from that section in parliament saying... But he quoted it out of context as the intelligence report said the following... But he didn't stop their in misleading the public and MPs... ....... That's not how i understand it, Blair was handed the intelligence reports and he cherry picked what he needed to validate his opinion, i think Newsnight got it right when they said it's one of the worst cases of confirmation bias in history. The UN didn't (afaik) agree to the invasion, The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
Not the first time a government has ignored the UN, Russia in Ukraine anyone ? They can blame us for Syria next.
That was brutal and saddening. I guess we knew this already since a lot of people claimed the war was wrong from day one, but its still a hard watch and thought provoking when from the lips of an Iraqi. Can you imagine London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Paris, California or any other major hub becoming lawless? Imagine the evil that would seep through the cracks and destroy those cities.
Yeah that video is pretty interesting, One thing I learnt by way of talk radio was the reality of the war and what was reported ( although bad enough) were two different worlds. So that is to say, the war and occupation reporting was filtered and the "heat" of it was kept out of visability. We were kept away from the true level of harshness about this war, I guess a lot has come out but it doesn't compare reading and going through it. We had some solid, hardcore dudes go out there and get broken, like nevious break down or damaged mentally for life, to me this is an indication of how bad it was out there when even professional hunter killers fold up, We don't know, Sadden was a US trained agent, he was their prodigal son who decided to start selling Iraq oil NOT in the US dollar, this was his mistake. Also col kedafi trying to set up the African gold denar, another foolish mistake.
Where do you get your worldview from rainbowbridge? Where did you get the idea that Saddam was a US trained agent, he was their prodigal son who decided to start selling Iraq oil NOT in the US dollar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 Under Security Resolution 1441 the US/UK thought they had said mandate. The exact legality of that is honestly unknown at the moment, and would have to go before and international court. However it's pretty clear the governments thought they had obtained agreement of the UN. It's pretty easy to get in to the mindset that "unaccounted" means "still has". This is hindsight kicking in again, as we know in retrospect that it was simply the numbers being wrong. It's also one of the critical intelligence failings, as they failed to make it crystal clear that there was a large element of doubt. Blair is no saint, and like all politicians he took things and made them fit his desired narrative. That's how politics works unfortunately. As I said, Blair clearly was of the opinion that Saddam, as a bad man, was still keeping stocks of weapons. Therefore that is what he said in public. As for the degraded biological weaponry? Yeah that's a big omission to make. As I say, Blair isn't a saint. Equally I want to read more than a single quoted paragraph. Also feasible. But doubtful it was intentional - it was Blair being wrapped up in an era of fear over WMDs/terrorism and jumping to a conclusion that was likely not justified. See above. Kofi Annan's personal opinion does not equal fact. It needs to go to court for a final arbiter.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 has nothing to do with regime change or going to war, it was a mandate giving a final opportunity to comply with disarmament obligations, nothing in 1441 gives anyone the power to go to war, in fact the wiki article you linked to says the following... .... It's only easy to get into that mindset if you're that way inclined, unaccounted means something needs accounting for, not still has, you can only make that assumption once you know all the facts, it's also not a matter of hindsight, it's a matter of evidence and investigations, that's how the legal system works (afaik), it's not based on assumption. The intelligence was supplied to Blair as was and he made a choice based on that, the intelligence wasn't flawed it was Blair's interpretation and his misrepresenting of the evidence that made it flawed, he presented it with a certainty that was not justified, the report even criticised intelligence chiefs for allowing the Prime Minister to get away with misrepresenting what they had told him. The PM's opinion isn't justification for going to war. Well most of the information's out there now (the Chilcot report is online now), although I'm not sure i have the times to read through all 2 million pages. Intentional or not is irrelevant IMO, he was intent on regime change in Iraq 3 months after 9/11, he then spent the next year and a half making the evidence fit his intention. So when do we (the world) get our day in court.
If it was as clear cut as you make out, with 1441 not supporting the war, then it would have been declared illegal by an international court years ago. The resolution, as you say, was a final opportunity to comply with disarmament...with the obvious follow through that not doing so would result in actions being taken. The lack of a second resolution, with more clarity, is obviously concerning, but doesn't automatically make the war illegal. If you're against the PM's opinion being the driving force for decisions then I'm afraid you're living in the wrong country. It's how our government works on decisions like this.
Why would it, just because 1441 doesn't support war doesn't mean a nation can't declare war on another nation. Yes 1441 was a final opportunity to comply with disarmament but that's all it was, it didn't set out what would happen if it wasn't complied with, you can read it for yourself if you like in this PDF. While you're correct that a UNSC decision doesn't make going to war illegal what does is if a nation goes to war with the intention of regime change, something that's becoming increasingly clear was Blair & Bush's original intention. Re: That how our government works, it's not, the PM can't make a declaration of war, only the queen can do that, the PM can however commit British forces to armed conflict, so technically Blair wouldn't be a war criminal he'd be an armed conflict criminal. If you're bored I found this Select Committee report on Waging war: Parliament's role and responsibility, personally i found it an interesting read but i may bore the sock of you, in it they say... Going on the Chilcot report they sure got it wrong on the inconceivable bit.
They sure did, and I personally think it's something that should be fixed. The UK should not go to war (sorry, armed conflict) on the say so of one person. Problem is, that's how our system works, and worked back then. So the PM's opinion was, unfortunately, enough. As I said, if the case was clear cut on 1441 we wouldn't be arguing this years later.
you see the problem is thou. And this is a very important point to understand. When it comes to War, it has to be absolutely necessary, it needs to have been triple quardpul checked, You need the best minds of the day in all areas looking at it and seeing if DIPOLOMATIC avenues are possible. Here is an example: Watch this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36734136 This is the BBC radio 4 today program. What is the last thing in closing Tony says in this interview....with having moments previous his soul put into the conversation by the host in a most compassionate manner. See what he says. Why didn't that happen, BEFORE. I have spoken to a number of people today about this topic and the considered opinion is that he had BLOOD LUST. It was not his place to do what he did, it was outside of the rules. If there is any possible question with regards to legality, morality, necessity, that people fck agree man. War is the last option, here it was the FIRST OPTION. Do you see the difference? first / last... already draw up and agreed to happen years previously. That is toxic, that's pre-arranged war/murder/invasion. Those detailing there is any possible (never mind the full picture on top as well) those detailing that this is at all acceptable, understandable or "can pass just". This was a crime. When we do legitimately need to go to War every body is going to know it. How can war, set up years previously not of the current available information be legit. Passing is not easy, for some one like Blair he is going to have a very difficult, the government around him should have had checks and balances to keep him straight. Look what he did he brought us into a war that was wrong, that he had a BIAS towards to say the very least. This war was a mistake, this is the official line today, lets not forget that and also putting in a puppet government which is "internationally recognised", does not cut it. Iraq had its affairs to deal with an unless they started making damage to its a real hell down there there is no reason for us to have got involved, if later on down the line which is often quoted as a reason to do it (war) the western powers could have flatted the country with in 6 minutes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-decision-iraqi-army-rise-isis-philip-hammond further reading Here is Tony.. Face eternity with a reasonable state affairs about your conduct here, vs killing + 500k people... All those people.. death most horrific, whilst we worry about other nice news. putrid personified
Blaming that war for ISIS whilst fun, Is not a reality. ISIS For all the terible things they have done have ignored british soil. If we are as to blame as people think we would be the primary target ? Crime? I know 3 people who served in Iraq they all say they thought it was justified. They all thought it was a better war than Afganstan where the general feeling was they had no objective and no goals. They defended poppy fields for 3months, The drugs that kill us we defended the feckers lol. If they can charge him for Iraq why not Afgan they did not invite us there, We did not seek UN approval. Do not here anyone crying for the Afgan population. America has lost 3k + people in Iraq, Thats more than in the Twin Towers remember. Do not hear them baying for Bushes head.
Worlds media rounds on the UK... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36734619 "Those who said that Mr Blair and his government were 'misled' by faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction before the war have lost their claim" - Carne Ross in New York Times "For all the evidence of close relations between Blair and the former US president, the Chilcot inquiry actually found that London ultimately had very little to show for offering unwavering support to Washington" - Time magazine I think every one needs to stop for a minute in their life time and reflect on what this all means, for each of us personally. People crushed, blown up, murdered hand to hand, shot, stabbed, mutilated, put on fire whilst alive, suffocated, raped, and worse. Depleted uranium altering DNA, new-born's, baby's a puddle, a mess on the floor of disfigured tissue but alive. Clear victory and a vision of peace never sort.
