Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chilcot report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chilcot report

    After 7 years its revealed , B,liar has been slated along with J Straw , proven liars and as im sat here now B,liar is about to burst into crocodile tears on the TV news , but he will come through this looking like mother teresa , murdering useless money mad pissflap twat .

    If there is a God ,,not arsed which one , FFS smite him down .



    Deaths on all sides , thousands and thousands and for civvies still going on .

    I really do hope they ( Bush n B,liar both get their heads handed to them in a used clay pisspot ) .
    Last edited by tankie; 08 Jul 16,, 18:06.

  • #2
    Originally posted by tankie View Post
    After 7 years its revealed , B,liar has been slated along with J Straw , proven liars and as im sat here now B,liar is about to burst into crocodile tears on the TV news , but he will come through this looking like mother teresa , murdering useless money mad pissflap twat .

    If there is a God ,,not arsed which one , FFS smite him down .

    For any Iraqis on here , my apologies , it was not done in my name .

    Deaths on all sides , thousands and thousands and still going on .

    I really do hope they ( Bush n B,liar both get their heads handed to them in a used clay pisspot ) .
    Hi, I tend to agree with your sentiments. I'm also concerned that Blair might manage to "get away with it".

    Saddam's dictatorship was, I understand, pretty brutal if you poked your head above the fence, but otherwise, unless you were a Kurd, or marsh Arab (whom he seemed to loather and detest for some reason), life could be pretty Ok for most. I understand that it was a fairly secular regime with considerable freedom for women etc., at least compared to other countries in the region.

    However it was a dictatorship, and one effectively installed by the USA anyway.

    I once had an Egyptian neighbour who told me a different slant to things - he told me that the invasion of Kuwait was made out of absolute desperation after continued requests for Kuwait to stop taking oil from Iraqi regions. Kuwait ignored them. I accept that there was more to the story.

    Saddam was assured by the USA that they would not interfere - but they did - brutally.

    The destruction of Iraqi military and civilians on Highway 80 would seem to have been a massacre - esp. considering that most there were retreating/evacuating.

    The worst crime that I think was committed was that there was no sensible strategy for Iraq after the coalition destroyed their military, and the police and the infrastructure.

    It occurs to me that western notions of democracy is not the answer for all countries and cultures.
    I wonder how much the west would have medeld with the region if it wasn't for oil?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
      However it was a dictatorship, and one effectively installed by the USA anyway.
      Bullshit!

      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
      I once had an Egyptian neighbour who told me a different slant to things - he told me that the invasion of Kuwait was made out of absolute desperation after continued requests for Kuwait to stop taking oil from Iraqi regions. Kuwait ignored them. I accept that there was more to the story.
      Kuwait and Saudi Arabia funded Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War with zero expectations to be paid back. Saddam considered Kuwait his.

      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
      Saddam was assured by the USA that they would not interfere
      More bullshit

      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
      The destruction of Iraqi military and civilians on Highway 80 would seem to have been a massacre - esp. considering that most there were retreating/evacuating.
      So we were going to let an army that committed this crime to get away clean so they can do it again in the future.

      You can stop this bring the bull back to the barn. All this has been well documented up to and including the dormant nuclear weapons program. All the research was buried, not destroyed as required by the terms of surrender. The Chilcot Report conveniently ignored that. Also, the vast chemical weapons stores were found. Not in the quantities suspected but they were there and quietly disposed of.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • #4
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...6ac_story.html

        another instance of how the Iraq War badly damaged US leadership.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you for your eloquent and considered response.

          Regarding the first point. I retract that statement - I was confusing Saddam with Gaddafi.

          Second issue - IO understand that Saddam sought agreement with Kuwait many tmes and invaded reluctantly - however if you have personal knowledge of his thinking - please share.

          Third issue - see :"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America".

          Last issue : Not all members of police and armies are 2war criminals - they obey orders. Recruiting defeated soldiers to rebuild/defend their country is a common strategy - the Romans used it frequently, as have many others. The alternative is anarchy - which is what Iraq was given.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
            Second issue - IO understand that Saddam sought agreement with Kuwait many tmes and invaded reluctantly - however if you have personal knowledge of his thinking - please share.
            Saddam never recognised Kuwait, A military outpost created by the Brits along with Bahrain and the UAE.

            He did allege the Kuwaitis were sideways drilling into iraqi fields. But to invade is a bit much. A complete stab in the back to a people who backed him to the hilt against Iran.

            Third issue - see :"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America".
            Silence was misconstrued by Saddam as acceptance.

            In those days regime change was a no-no. The model for the gulf was leaders stay so long as they do not change the status quo. That long standing position that held through out the cold war changed with the second gulf war.

            I found your post a bit difficult to follow as it seems to commingle the two wars. My reply is in reference to the first.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Jul 16,, 17:07.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              We were still following American leadership in Afghanistan. Even the Germans.
              That war started before GW2. America had just been attacked by a terrorist being sheltered in Afghanistan. 3000 Americans dead. The entire western world shocked. Nobody was going to say no to joining the US in that war.

              It was the Iraq war that was a fiasco. There was no immediate threat. Another war would affect America's commitment in Afghanistan (and it did). The "intelligence" about WMD turned out to be lies. The French rightly balked and Blair is regretting that he didn't. Nothing Obama does will come close to undermining American leadership as that unforgivable decision by the Bush administration.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                Nothing Obama does will come close to undermining American leadership as that unforgivable decision by the Bush administration.
                Probably the worst foreign policy decision since Tonkin Gulf.
                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                Comment


                • #9
                  Which FP is the worst? Bit hard to follow.
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    That war started before GW2. America had just been attacked by a terrorist being sheltered in Afghanistan. 3000 Americans dead. The entire western world shocked. Nobody was going to say no to joining the US in that war.
                    Really? I didn't see any Chinese, Russian, or Indian troops there. And if you recalled, Pakistan needed to be threatened.

                    And the NATO allies were given a choice. You do Iraq or you do Afghanistan. Canada's 2CMBG was preparing for Iraq when they were given the orders for Afghanistan.

                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    It was the Iraq war that was a fiasco. There was no immediate threat.
                    The threat was there ever since Bush Sr assassination attempt. 11 Sept just taught Saddam how to attack the US. To this day, I still think it a strategic imperative to remove him.

                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    Another war would affect America's commitment in Afghanistan (and it did). The "intelligence" about WMD turned out to be lies.
                    And the liar was Saddam.

                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    The French rightly balked and Blair is regretting that he didn't. Nothing Obama does will come close to undermining American leadership as that unforgivable decision by the Bush administration.
                    You don't have to live with the consequences of being wrong. What's worst, you don't have to live with the consequences of being right.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 07 Jul 16,, 22:11.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
                      Thank you for your eloquent and considered response.
                      It was a considered response. Google is there for you to use. Instead, you posted this drab.

                      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
                      Regarding the first point. I retract that statement - I was confusing Saddam with Gaddafi.
                      Qaddafi was also NOT installed by the Americans.

                      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
                      Second issue - IO understand that Saddam sought agreement with Kuwait many tmes and invaded reluctantly - however if you have personal knowledge of his thinking - please share.
                      He tried to take Kuwait several times before the Iran-Iraq War. A British battle group dissuaded him.
                      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
                      Third issue - see :"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America".
                      That is not permission to attack no matter which way you take it.

                      Originally posted by Silly Moustache View Post
                      Last issue : Not all members of police and armies are 2war criminals - they obey orders. Recruiting defeated soldiers to rebuild/defend their country is a common strategy - the Romans used it frequently, as have many others. The alternative is anarchy - which is what Iraq was given.
                      Until they surrendered, they are legitimate military targets. They didn't care about looting and burning and raping Kuwait City. I had no qualms bombing their retreating ass.
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 08 Jul 16,, 00:03.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Really? I didn't see any Chinese, Russian, or Indian troops there. And if you recalled, Pakistan needed to be threatened.
                        I should have made myself clear. I was talking about your allies. China, Russia and India aren't American allies. I remember the Indian PM saying that they were willing to provide whatever help they could. But the US didn't ask for it. Why would it? They had the whole of NATO solidly behind them. No point in asking for help from militaries with whom you have no interoperability whatsoever.

                        And Pakistan had to be threatened because they were in bed with the Taliban. It is your fault if you have allies like that.

                        And the NATO allies were given a choice. You do Iraq or you do Afghanistan. Canada's 2CMBG was preparing for Iraq when they were given the orders for Afghanistan.
                        Which wouldn't have been needed if there was no Iraq war. It diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan, which is part of the reason why the Taliban is still present there and why US troops still cannot be completely recalled.

                        The threat was there ever since Bush Sr assassination attempt. 11 Sept just taught Saddam how to attack the US. To this day, I still think it a strategic imperative to remove him.
                        If the assassination attempt was the reason, why did the war happen 10 years after it occurred? The attempt occurred after Bush Sr. was out of office. So was the whole war a personal vendetta by his son? That undermines American credibility even more.

                        And the liar was Saddam.
                        No it wasn't that simple. Please read the Senate report on that intelligence fiasco. You had one highly questionable defector feeding you information. Even the people handling him didn't think he was reliable. The Nigerian yellowcake documents weren't thought to be authentic by the CIA. But it didn't really matter to the Bush admin. They had already made up their minds about attacking Saddam. And they lied to everyone, including the UN that all their intelligence was solid.

                        You don't have to live with the consequences of being wrong. What's worst, you don't have to live with the consequences of being right.
                        Didn't really follow you there. If US allies doubt American leadership or credibility, today it is direct consequence of what Bush and his cronies did. You are already living with those consequences.
                        Last edited by Firestorm; 07 Jul 16,, 22:39.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Uh, Colonel, there was some error in quoting. I did not make those comments. Silly Moustache did.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            Which wouldn't have been needed if there was no Iraq war.
                            2CMBG wasn't needed in Afghanistan. We were preparing for Iraq. It was a last minute change of orders that blind sided the Canadian Army. MGen Cameron Ross resigned in protest. That being said, we still had CF personnel in Iraq as part of the Officer Exchange program and Canadian frigates was providing a screen for the US carriers attacking Iraq.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            It diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan, which is part of the reason why the Taliban is still present there and why US troops still cannot be completely recalled.
                            The outcome would have been the same even if we had over 100,000 troops there. The Soviets did.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            If the assassination attempt was the reason, why did the war happen 10 years after it occurred?
                            The assassination attempt is an indication of Saddam's thinking.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            The attempt occurred after Bush Sr. was out of office.
                            It occurred because Saddam thought he could away with it.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            So was the whole war a personal vendetta by his son? That undermines American credibility even more.
                            And this is where all the anti-Bush and anti-Blair folks all failed. None of you considered just how conniving Saddam is. That he never lets anything go. Bush Sr was out of office and Saddam still wanted payback. The only reason why he didn't sought payback against the US was because he didn't know how to get away with it.

                            Where here it is, 11 Sept just showed him how. Not only that, you've got a ready made stooge you can pin all the blame on, Osama Bin Laden.

                            Is there any strategic thinkers out there who would think that Saddam was not going to do something stupid just to get payback?

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            No it wasn't that simple. Please read the Senate report on that intelligence fiasco. You had one highly questionable defector feeding you information. Even the people handling him didn't think he was reliable. The Nigerian yellowcake documents weren't thought to be authentic by the CIA. But it didn't really matter to the Bush admin. They had already made up their minds about attacking Saddam. And they lied to everyone, including the UN that all their intelligence was solid.
                            The lies I'm talking about are well maintained chemical artillery shells that were supposed to be destroyed; modifying SA-2 SAMs into illegal chemical warhead mating SSMs; the Ring of Fire; and the chemical weapons released order.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            Didn't really follow you there. If US allies doubt American leadership or credibility, today it is direct consequence of what Bush and his cronies did. You are already living with those consequences.
                            Yes, we don't have an Iraqi freighter docking at any of our harbours with pallets of mustard gas.

                            Say what you want on how Bush fucked up in Iraq but he read Saddam right. Bush read him very right.
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 08 Jul 16,, 00:01.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                              Uh, Colonel, there was some error in quoting. I did not make those comments. Silly Moustache did.
                              My mistake. Corrected.
                              Chimo

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X