Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43

Thread: War inquiry

  1. #16
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    Tankie: The Howard Govt wanted to send our Leo 1's to participate until someone told Cabinet that the Iraqi's were better equipped than us (or so rumour has it) Apparently it was a driving motive for getting Abrahms quick smart.

    Nothing like a bit of reality



    More reality , but i hope she can prove her accusations .

    Former minister Clare Short launched a damning attack on Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and said she believed the government's chief legal adviser at the time had misled the cabinet over its legality.

    Short, a long-time Blair critic who was then International Development Secretary, disputed evidence the former prime minster gave last week to an inquiry into the war, saying he had kept ministers in the dark about his plans.

    Discussions were limited and there had been a "block on communications," said Short, who voted in favour of the 2003 invasion but quit Blair's government shortly afterwards.

    Last Friday, Blair made a robust defence of his decision to go to war, saying Saddam Hussein had posed a threat to the world and had to be disarmed or removed.

    He also told the inquiry that there had been "substantive discussion" with senior ministers in the cabinet.

    But Short said she had been excluded from talks and that Blair had not wanted Iraq discussed in the cabinet because he was afraid of leaks to the media.


    "There was secretiveness and deception on top of that," she told the Chilcot inquiry which is examining Britain's role in the war and its aftermath.

    "Normal communications were being closed down."

    Short criticised former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith who she accused of not telling the cabinet of his doubts about the legality of war, nor that senior Foreign Office lawyers believed it would be illegal without a second U.N. resolution.

    Goldsmith has said he too initially doubted the war's legality and only concluded it would be lawful without such a resolution a week before the invasion, and just days before the cabinet were briefed.

    "I think he misled the cabinet, he certainly misled me, but people let it through," Short said. "I was stunned by his advice."

    She told the inquiry she believed Goldsmith had been pressured by Blair, something he denies, but had no direct evidence to back this up.

    Short said she had seen the intelligence and there was no imminent threat from Saddam, and she was also damning of the planning that had been made for the aftermath of the invasion.

    "There was no reason why it had to be as quick as it was," she said. "It was all done on a wing and a prayer.

    "We could have gone more slowly and carefully and not had a totally destabilised and angry Iraq into which came al Qaeda which wasn't there before and that would have been safer for the world."

    Short quit the Labour Party parliamentary group in 2006 to become an independent, saying Blair had engaged in deceit over the Iraq War.
    Last edited by tankie; 02 Feb 10, at 13:15.


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  2. #17
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,634
    He voted for it so he should also be accountable IMO


    Reuters

    The majority of the British public believes Prime Minister Gordon Brown should share the blame for the Iraq war with his predecessor Tony Blair, according to a survey on Wednesday.


    The ComRes poll for The Independent newspaper found 60 percent of 1,001 adults questioned agreed Brown should share responsibility with Blair, while 34 percent disagreed.

    Just over half of Labour supporters agreed, compared with 68 percent of Conservative voters.

    Brown, Chancellor at the time of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, is due to give evidence to a public inquiry into the Iraq war before an election due by June, a move commentators say could damage Labour at the ballot box.

    The decision to go to war has been most associated with Blair. The most controversial episode of his 10-year premiership, the war sapped support for Blair and his party.

    But Brown faces criticism for decisions on defence spending which critics say have hampered British operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The poll also found 37 percent of those questioned between January 29 and 31 believed Blair should be put on trial for going to war in Iraq


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Location
    Libturdia
    Posts
    1,257
    The remits of this enquiry are 'not to punish anyone but to learn lessons for the future'

    What kind of lessons are they talking about? 'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?

    Blair and Brown will get away with it, like they always have.

  4. #19

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,820

    Such B.S.

    "'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?"

    We had all the rationales necessary with Hussain's multiple cease-fire violations in the interim years. There was no PEACE TREATY. It was a cease-fire. Didn't need smoking guns to know that Chemical Ali made a living by gassing folks and would do so again just as soon as they'd received their beautifully contrived good housekeeping inspection certification.

    Only those who are willfully pedantic and dissembling pursued otherwise, i.e. every single fcuking soul who'd NEVER, EVER lift a finger against injustice nor defend themselves when faced with robbers in their midst. I'm sure you can think of a few...

    "Damning"? Well damn those governments for not going to war earlier and, instead, wallowing with the do-gooders who mis-managed oil-for-food while letting that unconscionable fcuk continue slaughtering Iraqis.

    Or just do yourselves and everybody else a favor, abolish your armed services and sign a pre-emptive surrender treaty with the rest of mankind to have at you at their discretion.

    Oh! And get those damned stuffed piggies off your desks lest you offend somebody irrelevant to any useful purpose.

    Thanks.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Location
    Libturdia
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    "'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?"

    We had all the rationales necessary with Hussain's multiple cease-fire violations in the interim years. There was no PEACE TREATY. It was a cease-fire. Didn't need smoking guns to know that Chemical Ali made a living by gassing folks and would do so again just as soon as they'd received their beautifully contrived good housekeeping inspection certification.

    Only those who are willfully pedantic and dissembling pursued otherwise, i.e. every single fcuking soul who'd NEVER, EVER lift a finger against injustice nor defend themselves when faced with robbers in their midst. I'm sure you can think of a few...

    "Damning"? Well damn those governments for not going to war earlier and, instead, wallowing with the do-gooders who mis-managed oil-for-food while letting that unconscionable fcuk continue slaughtering Iraqis.

    Or just do yourselves and everybody else a favor, abolish your armed services and sign a pre-emptive surrender treaty with the rest of mankind to have at you at their discretion.

    Oh! And get those damned stuffed piggies off your desks lest you offend somebody irrelevant to any useful purpose.

    Thanks.

    Can you not just nicely disagree with someone? Is it really necessary to insult them too?

  6. #21

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,820

    Zara Reply

    "Can you not just nicely disagree with someone? Is it really necessary to insult them too?"

    Zara, my dear, what would you call the below comment by you?

    "'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?

    Blair and Brown will get away with it, like they always have."


    Can I presume that you've just called a former and present P.M.- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cauliflowers from the above comment?

    Is that your idea of "nicely disagree"[ing] or do you reserve your unvarnished venom only for those not likely to directly reply?

    Please clear this matter for me, if you don't mind? I'll be eternally grateful. Thank you ever so much beforehand for this consideration.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Location
    Libturdia
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    "Can you not just nicely disagree with someone? Is it really necessary to insult them too?"

    Zara, my dear, what would you call the below comment by you?

    "'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?

    Blair and Brown will get away with it, like they always have."


    Can I presume that you've just called a former and present P.M.- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cauliflowers from the above comment?

    Is that your idea of "nicely disagree"[ing] or do you reserve your unvarnished venom only for those not likely to directly reply?

    Please clear this matter for me, if you don't mind? I'll be eternally grateful. Thank you ever so much beforehand for this consideration.

    Ill tell you what, next time Tony Blair logs into WAB, ill personally apologise.

  8. #23

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,820

    Zara Reply

    "Ill tell you what, next time Tony Blair logs into WAB, ill personally apologise."

    And when I see that magnanimous display of generous mannerisms I'll do the same for you. Or you may presume me his surrogate and offer your apologies now...humbly.

    Or you can keep slagging him and Brown without any basis other than your instinctive coarse dislike and I'll do you one better. I at least couch my disdain in some rationale.

    You? Nothing but invective.

    You called the former and current prime ministers of a major nation "cauliflowers". Now I haven't witnessed G. Brown before Parliament's questioning sessions but I have seen Blair at work.

    Let me suggest this-were you to do so before him, he'd quite rightfully rip your pea-sized intellect to SHREDS before your eyes and we'd see you melt like an ice cube in the hot Iraqi sun. Or turn to tears. Deservingly so.

    He is an intellectual giant in comparison to you-eloquent, forthright, and possessing far greater decorum than you might possibly muster only in your wildest dreams.

    I'm a poor substitute but should you persist in mindlessly lashing those who won't be lashing back, I'll stand their stead to the best of my abilities to unseat your pathetic drivel.

    Thanks.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  9. #24
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,634
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    Ill tell you what, next time Tony Blair logs into WAB, ill personally apologise.
    Your discriminating against G/Brown huh :P


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Location
    Libturdia
    Posts
    1,257
    For you S2. Think this might help.

  11. #26

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,820

    Zara Reply

    "For you S2. Think this might help."

    And for you, lovely Zara, with my best wishes

    Love, kisses, and peace...

    Stay away from the vegetables and I'll stay away from you...
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  12. #27
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,634
    I must admit ,i have always found this person to be a bully ,he overides proper advice with arrogance ,he was the same when he was involved in union disputes and matters , now what is it he reminds me of , ahh yes a caulliflower comes to mind


    Reuters


    Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw denied on Monday he had ignored legal advice that the 2003 invasion of Iraq would be illegal without specific U.N. authorisation.

    Giving evidence for the second time in a month to the Iraq Inquiry, Straw said the advice from top lawyers at the Foreign Office had been "contradictory" and that the final decision on the legality of war lay with the Attorney General.

    Two weeks ago, the inquiry heard from Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office until 2006, who said he believed there was no legal basis for military action without a second U.N resolution.

    Declassified documents showed that Wood had written a memo to Straw in January 2003 that using force without the U.N. Security Council's authorisation would be a "crime of aggression."

    It followed a meeting between Straw and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney which concluded Britain "would be OK" with taking military action without a further resolution.


    Straw wrote back to Wood saying he rejected his advice
    .

    "Far from ignoring this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael's minute with great care, and gave it the serious attention it deserved," Straw said in a statement to the inquiry.

    "So much so that I thought I owed him a formal and personal written response, rather than simply having a conversation with him."

    Straw said Wood had been wrong to say there was no doubt that military action was illegal as there contrary views, as he said the legal adviser had acknowledged in a letter to the Attorney General the month before.

    "The legal advice he offered was contradictory and I think I was entitled to raise that," Straw said.

    Straw also told the inquiry team that negotiations for the first U.N. resolution would not have taken so long if Britain and the United States had not sought to make it clear that further authorisation was needed.

    Straw, now Justice Secretary, also defended the decision not to give the cabinet the full details of the advice of the then Attorney General, who had wanted to say that the war was lawful but the arguments were finely balanced.

    Straw said ministers would have been aware of the doubts because of arguments being waged in the media.

    However, Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said Straw had broken the ministerial code over the issue, had misled parliament and should resign.

    "It's absolutely ridiculous that Jack Straw, the secretary of state for justice, the minister in charge of the legal system, should suggest that ministers should get their legal advice from newspapers," Davey told BBC radio.

    In his earlier testimony, Straw said that British involvement in the war would have been impossible had he decided to oppose it, such were the divisions in the Labour Party and the government.

    He said he had never wanted war but the government had made "the best judgements we could have done in the circumstances.


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  13. #28
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Aug 07
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    103
    Apologies that I didn't study nearly half as hard as I should have in International Law, otherwise I could have contributed to this better.

    But here's a question and story:

    How is it that leading up to OIF our nation's leaders were receiving 'contradictory advice' or even the 'all clear', but now 7 years later there's this apparent indisputable consensus that the invasion was illegal.

    I remember in one tutorial we actually looked at Iraq, after analysing all the steps we reached our conclusion. The tutor said at the end 'So was the invasion illegal? I think so, I think so'. Mind you, I must add, the tutor was very careful to emphasize that it was just his opinion. Granted, it was his professional legal opinion, but he was humble in offering it and making a visible effort to be impartial.

    So is the legality of the war still debated by International lawyers? Does anyone here work in the field?

  14. #29
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,636
    Ramo,

    Here's a thread to go through, http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/war...q-illegal.html.

    The lack of vast quantities of WMD and evidence of active programs along with the (now debunked) Lancet Report provided many folks with the perfect storm to change their minds. However, this hindsight bias is simply that - bias.

    It's like getting a warrant to raid a suspected drug dealer's home and then coming up empty. The warrant is still legally sound, it just turns out that you were wrong. Now, in the case of Iraq, it's a little different in that the analysis from the evidence is that there were dormant programs that were simply waiting the end of sanctions to be reactivated.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  15. #30
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Aug 07
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    Ramo,

    Here's a thread to go through, http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/war...q-illegal.html.

    The lack of vast quantities of WMD and evidence of active programs along with the (now debunked) Lancet Report provided many folks with the perfect storm to change their minds. However, this hindsight bias is simply that - bias.

    It's like getting a warrant to raid a suspected drug dealer's home and then coming up empty. The warrant is still legally sound, it just turns out that you were wrong. Now, in the case of Iraq, it's a little different in that the analysis from the evidence is that there were dormant programs that were simply waiting the end of sanctions to be reactivated.
    Oh, that's the exact sort of thread I was looking for! Thank you very much.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why We Are in Iraq
    By Leader in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 07 Nov 10,, 15:46
  2. ‘US had designs on Iran before Iraq invasion’
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01 May 08,, 17:29
  3. Armenian Genocide, did it happen?
    By zraver in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 13:14
  4. No End to War. What the conservatives think of the Neo-thugs!
    By lulldapull in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13 Feb 05,, 23:16

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •