Chilcot Enquiry

Tony Blair passed up on the opportunity to regret the deaths of the British soldiers killed in the Iraq War at the end of his appearance at the Chilcot Enquiry. His attitude was described by some as defiant as he presented his evidence, in which he maintained, per guardian.co.uk, that the invasion was not a disaster, but a heroic act which he would readily do again.

He persisted in the old lie that 9/11 revealed the risk Saddam presented to the whole world, he maintained that regime change justified the invasion, despite the fact that under international law, regime change is not a legitimate reason for going to war.

He also said that Iran will be next.

Do we need to worry for his sanity ... has he become maddened by the experience. On his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church, did he see himslef as the first New Crusader in a holy was against the Islamic infidel who would destroy us all?

Finally, what do we think of a politician who defies the families of the soldiers who gave up their lives in his political adventures?

Most politicians justify their actions no matter how extreme. Look at Chenney for an example in recent times, or just go back a few decades and read what guys like Hitler had to say about their own actions.

Additonally you will find that current political leaders are no different in that regard. If you make a careful study of Obama's new found points of view since he has come to power you will find he now fully supports the idea of not only staying in Iraq and Afganistan as long as is nessesary to give himself "victory" but also invasion of Iran and North Korea as fully possible steps towards regiem change just for those very same reasons as admitted by Blair and others to justify their own endeavors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Tony Blair passed up on the opportunity to regret the deaths of the British soldiers killed in the Iraq War at the end of his appearance at the Chilcot Enquiry.

---

Tony Blair, would not lower himself to say such things, his head is so far up his own ass, that he has no brain to work with. He would rather spit in the face of the people that he sent to die, than humble himself to the families of the dead heroes, and make no mistake they are. He was talking nothing more than politicians drivel, that members of the House of Commons don’t understand, but all speak it when the shit is flying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

His attitude was described by some as defiant as he presented his evidence, in which he maintained, per guardian.co.uk, that the invasion was not a disaster, but a heroic act which he would readily do again.

---

This man that lied to everyone on a daily basis, has the balls to say it was a heroic act, wtf is heroic in sending British troops to die, because he went to bed and dreamt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and all the weapons inspectors out there had no idea what they were doing. He must think that everyone is as thick, stupid and naive as he is.

[QUOTE=MMI;842264]He also said that Iran will be next.[QUOTE]

Now is he talking through knowledge, or through his ass, if it is knowledge then I hope for all our sakes he is going it on his own, with his politically correct lawer wife? He can dazzle them with those shiny white teeth and Sherrie can read them the riot act if they don’t stop playing with nuclear reactors. The man has lost the plot, power has gone to his head, and thank god they never made him King of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Do we need to worry for his sanity ... has he become maddened by the experience. On his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church, did he see himself as the first New Crusader in a holy war against the Islamic infidel who would destroy us all?

---

No I don’t think there is any need to worry about his sanity, I always thought he was a mad man, in fact if you put him in an asylum, they would think the inmates had been cured over night when standing next to him.

New Crusader? No I don’t think so, Sir Tony of Europe, England and St George? Er um! No it just doesn’t work for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Finally, what do we think of a politician who defies the families of the soldiers who gave up their lives in his political adventures?

---

An asshole.

Now don't get me wrong, because I have little time for Gordon Brown, either, but when I think of Tony bLIAR ... I mean Blair ... I get warm feelings for our current PM ...lol

... until he has to give evidence before Chilcot, that is ... such a shame it's only pretend ... not a real trial at all.

MMI, The Chilcot enquiry is going to go on for a while, and there are a few more people that i want to see wrigling in their chairs, ones that cannot hold themselves together as Blair did. I want to see Gordon Browns jaw drop when they ask him the same questions, because he is not very good with his own cock ups let alone those he was standing on the fringes of, just before the elections too. still he can always put is soiled underwear into the cleaners and claim off the expences that he has done nothing about, maybe this was the reason. Let's just see who trys to distance themselves from Iraq and the lies of the Labour Government.

When you say you have warm feelings of our now fearless leader, have you had visions or something, like he is being burnt at the steak, lol. I think that Blair and Brown are making Guy Fawlks look like a rank amature.

According to everything Ive found about the Inquiry its not designed to put any one on trial so much as be used as a tool for future administrations as a planning debrief.

"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."

Sir John Chilcot

For more information about the Inquiry: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

According to everything Ive found about the Inquiry its not designed to put any one on trial so much as be used as a tool for future administrations as a planning debrief.

"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."

Sir John Chilcot

For more information about the Inquiry: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

---

You're quite right about that, den, but it's the best chance we have of getting to the truth of why Tony Blair took us into a war that most legal opinion says was illegal, in spite of the advice he was given, causing the death of two hundred Britons and thousands ("we don't do body counts") of Iraqis.

We can only hope that enough little smippets drop to the ground so that the jackals that call themselves news reporters can pick them up and make enough sense of the matter to show whether he was truly acting as a hero in a vital war, striking at the heart of terrorism, and making the world safe once more, or if he was doing something else, something far less glorious.

Watch this space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

You're quite right about that, den, but it's the best chance we have of getting to the truth of why Tony Blair took us into a war that most legal opinion says was illegal, in spite of the advice he was given, causing the death of two hundred Britons and thousands ("we don't do body counts") of Iraqis.

We can only hope that enough little smippets drop to the ground so that the jackals that call themselves news reporters can pick them up and make enough sense of the matter to show whether he was truly acting as a hero in a vital war, striking at the heart of terrorism, and making the world safe once more, or if he was doing something else, something far less glorious.

Watch this space.

---

For once we actualy agree on something, it will never be proved but i have always thought there was a alterior motive, and i hope that the press pick up on it whatever it is.

Regards ian 2411

I refuse to be sucked into this rehash of events that occurred between 1991 and 2003!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

I refuse to be sucked into this rehash of events that occurred between 1991 and 2003!

---

I is not a rehash of events, it is a truth finding mission, there were a lot of lies told and a great meny cocieted people that were doing things for their ego boost. They never will find the truth, because every one involved is distencing themselves from the war. The British people deserve to know why a man with a mouth full of white shiny teeth and big ears took our forces and Country to war on a whim. Why any person can take this country to war, when they hadn't a clue what the hell they were going to do after the [shock and awe] ended; and as MMI stated it was not even legal to go to war in the first place, even the prosess of going to war was done with stealth. The only time that Tony Blair was not lying to the British people was when he was asleep.

Regards ian 2411

For every legal opinion you can find that the war was illegal, you can find one that says it was legal. for every moral objection you can find a moral justification.

at the end of the day, Britain, like Australia, went to war to prove its loyalty to the US Alliance. The justification then lies in whether that alliance is worthwhile; it involves not simply a future guarantee of military aid but current access to technology and intelligence that is not available to anyone else. For Australia's part it was worthwhile; not being British it is hard to say if it was worthwhile for Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

For every legal opinion you can find that the war was illegal, you can find one that says it was legal. for every moral objection you can find a moral justification.

at the end of the day, Britain, like Australia, went to war to prove its loyalty to the US Alliance. The justification then lies in whether that alliance is worthwhile; it involves not simply a future guarantee of military aid but current access to technology and intelligence that is not available to anyone else. For Australia's part it was worthwhile; not being British it is hard to say if it was worthwhile for Britain.

---

Yes, you can always find an opposite point of view. That's not to say that the opposite point of view has any validity at all, especially when it comes to interpreting international law.

It is my understanding that members of the UN have agreed not to go to war against another country solely in order to effect a regime change. Knowing your access to historical records/books etc., I'm sure you can restate that more accurately for me.

(I think the position is different in USA, because they passed a law disapplying that particular requirement in America.)

That being so, it would be a contravention of international law for the UK to invade Iraq to remove Saddam. The British AG formed the provisional view that this would be so and issued a lengthy and reasoned document to that effect. After discussions with Tony Blair and White House advisers, he changed his mind, despite what his own legal team, supposedly the best in the land, advised him to the contrary, and he issued a brief statement that it would now be legitimate to invade.

Two opposing legal views in one head. Which commands the greater respect?

I don't think Britain's subservience to the US has ever been in question, and a popular feeling is that Britain gains little from the relationship/alliance while America takes what it likes. I like the description I heard recently of the Special Relationship:

"Special Relationship" means something different to the British than it does to Americans. In Britain, it is the closest of partnerships, where nothing is hidden or held back. In the US, a special relationship is an affair with a woman who doesn't want to get married and who doesn't want to be paid. She just wants to get screwed.

The most obvious result of the recent adventures in the Middle East within the UK is the alienation of the 2.4 million moslems living here.

The purpose of the Chilcot Enquiry is to establish what happened before and during the invasion, and it is possible that what is revealed could lead to other things. For example, if the Enquiry says that Parliament was misled, then Parliament itself would have to get involved. And Parliament can, I believe, turn itself into a court.

I will only address the main grounds and not the smaller issues.
As I understand the main arguments, technically speaking the invasion is legal on two grounds and illegal on two grounds;
Legal
Existing UN Resolutions; Hussein's refusal to co-operate with the AEC was a 'trigger- point' for military action under the resolutions.
Human Rights Treaty; this is the more tricky one; as discussed in a previous thread, in order to be in violation of the Treaty, Iraq had to 'dob' themselves in- which they obviously weren't going to do. but the Treaty does allow for the removal of a 'genocidal' government.

Illegal
UN Charter; specifically rules out invasions without UN approval (Security Council) which the US/UK/Aus/Spain/Poland did not seek since this undermined their argument as to pre-existing resolutions giving them the authority they required.
Human Rights Treaty; Yes! it makes it illegal too. which is one of the major criticisms of the Treaty. Under the second Treaty (Hague Accords? Sorry, going from memory), the invasion is specifically ruled out because it has to be approved by the UN as well as being 'okay' under the Treaty.

An additional factor is that it could be argued that there is a precedent (legally) for the Alliance action; the Viet Namese invasion of Cambodia.

Under the Westminster System, Parliament can not be a court. I could be wrong in my interpretation of what would happen, but under Parliamentary Privilege a member of Parliament can not be prosecuted for what is said in Parliament. If, however, Parliament decides (by two thirds majority of both houses) that you have lied TO Parliament, then that Privilege is removed and you are then liable for prosecution. Parliament can recommend charges through special hearings or by convening a Royal Commision, but it can't empanel itself as a court.

The problem with the deal between the US/UK on matters of Intelligence and Technology exchanges is that, by definition, much of the exchange is of classified material. The Australian deal is not so good as the UK deal and I have not heard one person who has a good idea of what it involves for us say it is not worth it. But then we didn't lose 200soldiers either. I suppose it depends on whether you're more 'interested' in the big picture or the smaller picture. (I could probably put that better but everything else i thought of sounded worse- it's not meant as a criticism).

Amost forgot;
there is a legal/ illegal debate about the conduct of the war. under the HRT you have to take care not to kill civilians. the argument runs that the war was illegal because civilians died; the counter-argument is that it was legal because it was meant to save civilians and all due care was taken to minimise civilian casualties.

Thanks, bren. You have explained that very succinctly, as usual. I guess it must be the "smaller issues" that vex me.

"Parliament cannot empanel itself as a court" ... wonder how I got the idea it could. Perhaps because the House of Lords used to be a court before it lost that function to the new Supreme Court.

The history of English Parliament is a great example of an existing organisation taking on functions it is not actually designed for. Originally, Parliament served two purposes- to acclaim the King (queen) at their coronation and as a sort of finance committee. Because individual Lords dispensed justice on their own lands there has always been a judicial element to the House of Lords. The King, and later Commons, used various non-aristocratic justiciars to make their own power effective and, as a by-product, to eliminate the more grevious injustices in the feudal system. Even then, however, the best Judges were often to be found in Lords. RW Southern gives a good account of the career of a Circuit Judge at various times in the Middle Ages and later and the one thing that sticks out is how little time they actually had for doing their job (which often included non-judicial matters) much less improving their knowledge (days in the saddle, stuck somewhere in bad weather, etc).
When judges were rewarded for service by elevation to the peerage it was not uncommon for King or Commons to call them back to the bench in important cases, and then the chief judges of the land were automatically appointed to Lords as Life Peers. Technically the Law Lords are not supposed to vote on legal matters but were able to speak on them. How it actually operated I am not sure; while it still leaves a lot to vote on there must be occasions when the lines blur. Technically speaking the Law Lords did not hear cases as Lords but as Judges; thus their courts were not, by the same technicality, part of Lords.

I should also clarify one thing- a parliamentarian has to be found to have knowingly lied to Parliament. We had an incident here a few years back where a parliamentarian, later to be Premier, made a series of accusations against a member of the government involving an alleged affair. The woman involved committed suicide and in the uproar that followed it quickly became clear that there was no foundation to the accusation. The MHR who made the allegation was found not to have breached the rules because he had received the information from a source that he could not have 'reasonably' expected to be biased, though the source was a close friend of the husband of the woman and they were in the process of divorce. Of course everbody was sure he knew it was biased information but without proof nothing more could be done.

It cannot be the case, however, that the information that the "in" section of the Cabinet depended upon when deciding to go to war could reasonably be supposed to be reliable, nor when Tony Blair declared to Parliament that Saddam definitely had WMDs that he planned to use on the Shi'a population, that this information was based on extensive detailed and authoritative intelligence which he reasonably believed was true

Well it didn't hurt that Saddam had already previously used WMD's (chemical weapons does fit the bill if I recall) on his own people when it pleased him.

Nor that evidence was found during the first war that he not only possessed more than what was found but had moved said weapons across boarders to attempt and save them. Something I believe they also found evidence of in the 2nd war, but of course the media quashed it or did their best to discredit it. (Though for the record I seriously doubt that Syria or Iran would give them back so easily)

I wonder when the inquiry is due to be over and if so what kind of propaganda will be touted to the public of its results or conclusions if any.

I am wholly unimpressed that Blair chose to go to war on the basis that Saddam had wiped out Kurdish and Shi'ite villages before, when he did not trouble himself to do anything about it sooner, nor did he concern himself about the genocide in Dafur, or the murderous regime in Zimbabwe. Convenient excuse, I call it.

It amuses me to see you lable the Inquiry's conclusions as propaganda even before they have been arrived at. What do you fear they will be? Personally, I anticipate a whitewash. Maybe a hint here or an allusion there, but nothing to make Tony Blair and his cronies really accountable for the illegal war he took us into.

Giggles, let me be more clear MMI

I would guess that the reason Dafur and Zimbabwe isnt first on his list is that its not first on anyones list other than their own.

There is no oil of any signifigant value there. And its not in the middle of the middle eastern powder keg siting on top of any said oil.

But then I am only guessing.

I wouldnt presume to say what is really behind Blairs actual motives where (save that of doing as told by his bigger younger brothers rumsfield and chenney) what I was postulating was that he may give those as some of the reasons.

I am sure he cares not a woot if your impressed or not.

When I say propaganda, I mean to imply that your goverment will most likely eaither let it fizzle out if they can and whitewash it as you say. Whitwashing is after all another form of propaganda is it not.

You appear to share my cintisism in that regard if in nothing else I take it?

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
I refuse to be sucked into this rehash of events that occurred between 1991 and 2003!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

I is not a rehash of events, it is a truth finding mission, there were a lot of lies told and a great meny cocieted people that were doing things for their ego boost. They never will find the truth, because every one involved is distencing themselves from the war. The British people deserve to know why a man with a mouth full of white shiny teeth and big ears took our forces and Country to war on a whim. Why any person can take this country to war, when they hadn't a clue what the hell they were going to do after the [shock and awe] ended; and as MMI stated it was not even legal to go to war in the first place, even the prosess of going to war was done with stealth. The only time that Tony Blair was not lying to the British people was when he was asleep.

Regards ian 2411

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

It cannot be the case, however, that the information that the "in" section of the Cabinet depended upon when deciding to go to war could reasonably be supposed to be reliable, nor when Tony Blair declared to Parliament that Saddam definitely had WMDs that he planned to use on the Shi'a population, that this information was based on extensive detailed and authoritative intelligence which he reasonably believed was true

---

I probably should have made the point in another way.
Unless there is evidence presented that Blair clearly knew that he was lying (say a video recording or a confession) it is unlikely that a finding of knowingly lying to parliament will be upheld for two reasons not wholly unrelated. Firstly, the Conservatives supported the War and made a great deal of fuss over the evidence even though it is likely that they were merely committed to the conflict because it was backing up the USA. Secondly, had the Conservatives been in power then it is unlikely that things would have unfolded any differently. Finding that Blair knowingly lied to Parliament could mean that a future scenario involving a Conservative government acting to support the USA but knowing this was not a sufficient justification for the British people would then have to be much more careful in its own justifications.
A quick flip through the pages of history will demonstrate many occasions when one party or another went to or conducted a war where there was clearly lies being told but the opposition not taking this up for fear that it would constrict its own actions when in government; i am thinking particularly of the Suez Invasion and the Nile Expedition to 'rescue' General Gordon. Another example is the execution of Admiral Byng for abandoning the fortress of Minorca without a fight to cover up the years of neglect of the garrison by both parties in the lead-up to the war, when it was obvious that the first target of the Spanish would be that fortress. The execution was widely seen and reported in Europe for what it was but in England, for a long time, it was viewed very differently.
It is a vote in parliament and as such will be decided by politics and not by the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

I refuse to be sucked into this rehash of events that occurred between 1991 and 2003!

---

Perhaps instead of just denying his interpretation of how things unfolded you could present an alternate viewpoint.

The main reason for a lack of effort in Darfur and Zimbabwe is a bit more complex than merely being for want of oil reserves (both Darfur and Zimbabwe are thought to have reserves of strategic minerals that would make an invasion even more attractive than oil). As it stands the British want to go into Zimbabwe and the French into Darfur. As both regimes are backed by China and an attack on these regimes would likely draw a response, possibly even war, it is up to both countries to convince their main ally, the USA, to take that risk. The USA would then have to consult those allies it would rely on in a war against China- Australia, Japan, Phillipines and Singapore. I don't know about the other countries, but the general consensus in Australian policy circles is that neither situation is worth risking a war with China- especially as we could expect no help from either Britain or France in such a war.
You could argue it is a small risk but it is there nonetheless; China relies on Sudan for much of its oil imports. As a strike against Sudan would invariably involve targetting infrastructure it could be seen by the Chinese as an attempt to destabilise their economy under the guise of humanitarian action.
It will never happen for Darfur because the consensus view here is that while regrettable, there is too much moral ambiguity attached to the Darfurese themselves. There was a reasonable compromise peace worked out to end the Sudanese civil war between Muslim North and Christian South that the animist Darfurese could have used diplomatically to broaden their own freedoms. Instead they initiated a conflict, and the atrocities.
Zimbabwe is even more complex because of the position of South Africa; it is difficult to justify risking a war with China if the South Africans do not see a problem with the situation.

I knew there had to be some kind of reason, thanks Bren.

Why wouldn't Britain and France get involved in a Chinese war, especially if they initiated invasions in Zimbabwe and the Sudan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

I probably should have made the point in another way.
Unless there is evidence presented that Blair clearly knew that he was lying (say a video recording or a confession) it is unlikely that a finding of knowingly lying to parliament will be upheld for two reasons not wholly unrelated. Firstly, the Conservatives supported the War and made a great deal of fuss over the evidence even though it is likely that they were merely committed to the conflict because it was backing up the USA. Secondly, had the Conservatives been in power then it is unlikely that things would have unfolded any differently. Finding that Blair knowingly lied to Parliament could mean that a future scenario involving a Conservative government acting to support the USA but knowing this was not a sufficient justification for the British people would then have to be much more careful in its own justifications.
A quick flip through the pages of history will demonstrate many occasions when one party or another went to or conducted a war where there was clearly lies being told but the opposition not taking this up for fear that it would constrict its own actions when in government; i am thinking particularly of the Suez Invasion and the Nile Expedition to 'rescue' General Gordon. Another example is the execution of Admiral Byng for abandoning the fortress of Minorca without a fight to cover up the years of neglect of the garrison by both parties in the lead-up to the war, when it was obvious that the first target of the Spanish would be that fortress. The execution was widely seen and reported in Europe for what it was but in England, for a long time, it was viewed very differently.
It is a vote in parliament and as such will be decided by politics and not by the facts.

---

I understand all of that, but the scrutiny of the modern press is less respectful of politicians now than it was in 1956, and it is prepared to worry at an issue for as long as it takes for them to make the point they want to make. One can only hope thay want to make it perfectly clear that Blair did lie to Parliament, and he did ignore legal advice that the war would be illegal, and that, as a result, the politicians, when voting - if ever it comes to a vote - will vote for appropriate action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Why wouldn't Britain and France get involved in a Chinese war, especially if they initiated invasions in Zimbabwe and the Sudan?

---

The British and French are pretty stretched already. Commitments to Afghanistan and then the new invasions would tie up everything you have. Even if Afghanistan was wound up the logistics of a campaign in Africa are pretty daunting much less fighting in the Pacific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I understand all of that, but the scrutiny of the modern press is less respectful of politicians now than it was in 1956, and it is prepared to worry at an issue for as long as it takes for them to make the point they want to make. One can only hope thay want to make it perfectly clear that Blair did lie to Parliament, and he did ignore legal advice that the war would be illegal, and that, as a result, the politicians, when voting - if ever it comes to a vote - will vote for appropriate action.

---

The legality or illegality of the war is a moot point- no country is going to test it in case it sets a precedent that backfires against them.
The same with the vote in parliament- nobody is seriously going to vote on the matter unless there is absolutely foolproof evidence that he lied in case it limits their own party when they are in power.
The press and minor parties can bang on about it as much as they want; as with Gladstone and the Nile Campaign it might even bring down the government; but at the end of the day the Conservatives and Labour (and the Lib-Dems if they thought they will ever get into power) will not vote for it because it threatens to tie their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Perhaps instead of just denying his interpretation of how things unfolded you could present an alternate viewpoint.

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
I refuse to be sucked into this rehash of events that occurred between 1991 and 2003!