Iraq Chilcot Inquiry

Remove this Banner Ad

JackOutback said:
Disagree, plenty of people disagreed with the case for war in the months and weeks leading up to it, there were protests in England, I know that I opposed it and so did many of my friends. The whole thing stunk from the beginning and that's why people should be punished but, as mentioned above, no one will actually go to prison for it.
Click to expand...
Agree.
literally thousands of people questioned every facet of the claims made to support Australia's involvement and at every turn Howard hinted at "incontrovertible evidence" too sensitive to be made public underlying his decision to send Australia into an illegal invasion of a foreign country.
I'd love to him prosecuted for his lies, but know nothing will come of it.
I was always ashamed that he destroyed our countries impeccable record at war, as impeccable as such could be in any event.
 
My name geoff said:
The only way I would agree that there was any justification for western intervention in Iraq, is if there was an overwhelming plea from the Iraqi people to help overthrow Saddam's regime.

To my understanding, there wasn't.

The people responsible for this atrocity need to be held to account.
Click to expand...
How do you know there wasn't?
It was certainly there in 1991 and the Coalition let Saddam murder this opposition in the most dreadful ways.
The figures vary but anything from 25,000 to 180,000 iraqis were killed opposing Saddam's regime in 1991.
But I suppose you're right - there were no more pleas from the Iraqi's after that :(
 
chelseacarlton said:
Iraq 1
The Kuwaiti's owed Saddam money,when he asked for it,he was told to gagf,so he invaded.
Iraq 2
Oil and continuous war.
Click to expand...
You got that the wrong way around :rolleyes:
Iraq owed money to Kuwait for loans it borrowed from Kuwait to support it's war against Iran. Saddam didn't want to pay the money back so he invaded Kuwait.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Only two things I cannot say – it's claimed by some that by removing Saddam we caused the terror today in the Middle East and it would have been better to have left him. I profoundly disagree. Saddam was himself a wellspring of terror, a continuing threat to peace and his own people. If he'd been left in power in 2003 I believe he'd once again have threatened world peace and when the Arab revolutions of 2011 began he would have clung to power with the same deadly consequences we see in the carnage in Syria today.
Click to expand...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...efence-invading-iraq-chilcot-press-conference

Give us a spell Tony.

You campaigners wanted war from the start. If it was all about 'regime change', you coulda managed that the old fashioned way. Developing informants and fomenting rebellion from within. Evil, delusional campaigner, you and all those responsible should be sent into Mosul wearing nowt but 'Mohammed's a campaigner' Tee shirts, with only a bag of yonnies for protection
 
CLUBMEDhurst said:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...efence-invading-iraq-chilcot-press-conference

Give us a spell Tony.

You campaigners wanted war from the start. If it was all about 'regime change', you coulda managed that the old fashioned way. Developing informants and fomenting rebellion from within. Evil, delusional campaigner, you and all those responsible should be sent into Mosul wearing nowt but 'Mohammed's a campaigner' Tee shirts, with only a bag of yonnies for protection
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe no one tried that?
The Allies found the mass graves of people who had tried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq
 
Sinjin Smith said:
I don't really buy that at all. The plan for Saddams removal (the dubya one) was planned in the late 90s, the UN resolution non adherence was a supposed PR and legal reason to remove him, most likely some personal vendettas as well. Countries usually use much more diplomatic methods than shock and awe to resolve UN resolution conflicts.

Don't get me wrong Saddam was a campaigner, an absolute piece of s**t that took delight in torturing his people however the the invasion was the completely wrong way to go about it, I mean they had no plan for government, infrastructure, public services, social services after the onslaught and in Iraqs burning remnants rose a bunch of vey pissed off and targeted (by both Shia regime and western troops) Sunnis comprising of elite republican guards that knew how to wage urban guerilla warfare and create utmost fear, they are now known as Islamic State.
Click to expand...
That's just complete BS. Saddam had no intention of honouring UN Security Council Resolution 688 and never did and was in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 144, and France and China knew it because they were selling Iraq the equipment that breached the resolution. But hey, it's much easier to blame the US and UK and buy into the whole 9/11 conspiracies :drunk:
 
CLUBMEDhurst said:
Apologies, rebellion was the wrong term, I meant Coup. Sure attempts had been made to destabilise and even depose him, half arsed or clumsy they were. They wanted to seize the moment, while they had the populous scared and vengeful
Click to expand...
FMD. You meant coup d'état instead of rebellion? I'll think about that while I drink my tall soy carmel machiato latte with no foam :drunk:
 
Pie eyed said:
I was always ashamed that he destroyed our countries impeccable record at war, as impeccable as such could be in any event.
Click to expand...

Impeccable? Vietnam was hardly a justifiable war! The second Gulf of Tonkin incident, the one that gave the U.S and its minions the green light to attack North Vietnam in force, was an outright fabrication. This, from the U.S Naval Institute;

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin

...Historians have long suspected that the second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin never occurred and that the resolution was based on faulty evidence. But no declassified information had suggested that McNamara, Johnson, or anyone else in the decision-making process had intentionally misinterpreted the intelligence concerning the 4 August incident.

More than 40 years after the events, that all changed with the release of the nearly 200 documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and transcripts from the Johnson Library.

These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.

Among the most revealing documents is a study of the Gulf of Tonkin incidents by NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok. Titled "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964," it had been published in the classified Cryptological Quarterly in early 2001.

Hanyok conducted a comprehensive analysis of SIGINT records from the nights of the attacks and concluded that there was indeed an attack on 2 August but the attack on the 4th did not occur, despite claims to the contrary by President Johnson and Secretary McNamara.

According to John Prados of the independent National Security Archive, Hanyok asserted that faulty signals intelligence became "vital evidence of a second attack and (Johnson and McNamara) used this claim to support retaliatory air strikes and to buttress the administration's request for a Congressional resolution that would give the White House freedom of action in Vietnam..."
Click to expand...

NOTE: This does not disparage those who served in Vietnam, nor their partners and families, only the f*cktards who sent them.
 
CLUBMEDhurst said:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...efence-invading-iraq-chilcot-press-conference

Give us a spell Tony.

You campaigners wanted war from the start. If it was all about 'regime change', you coulda managed that the old fashioned way. Developing informants and fomenting rebellion from within. Evil, delusional campaigner, you and all those responsible should be sent into Mosul wearing nowt but 'Mohammed's a campaigner' Tee shirts, with only a bag of yonnies for protection
Click to expand...

Does Blair really believe the s**t that comes out of his mouth? It was obvious many months out that Bush and Blair intended to invade Iraq regardless of what Saddam did or what the weapons inspectors found. Saddam was not a threat to world peace. It was actions of Bush and Blair that were responsible for the carnage in Syria today and the resulting refugee crisis and increased threat of terrorism in Europe.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Elroo said:
Iraq was the 1st of 7 nations the neo-conservatives wanted to topple in 5 years along with the likes of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. They actively funded/cultivated unrest amongst the local population and rebel groups which the US and west are now having to deal with.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-...q-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.

AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?” It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat — a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...
What happened to those 7 countries in five years? Go to the conspiracy theory board ffs!
 
Present Not Past said:
How do you know there wasn't?
It was certainly there in 1991 and the Coalition let Saddam murder this opposition in the most dreadful ways.
The figures vary but anything from 25,000 to 180,000 iraqis were killed opposing Saddam's regime in 1991.
But I suppose you're right - there were no more pleas from the Iraqi's after that :(
Click to expand...
comes with the territory of running a dictatorship, nothing really out of step with the rest of the mid-east in general from my understanding?

I found this video pretty interesting. If you have time, have a watch.
 
sherb said:
Fantastic. I'm a much better person because of it.
Click to expand...
I admit that the Iraq war was wrong and based on false intelligence concocted by the CIA on behalf of the warring elite. However, getting rid of Saddam, the person wasn't. Getting rid of Saddam, the president, was a big mistake. The instability that has created is the biggest problem and should of been foreseen by Bush's advisors. Then again, I don't think they care because America only remains as a world power if they keep in place the petrodollar.
In saying all of this, you shifting radically to the left (this I doubt), makes zero sense!
 
My name geoff said:
comes with the territory of running a dictatorship, nothing really out of step with the rest of the mid-east in general from my understanding?

I found this video pretty interesting. If you have time, have a watch.
Click to expand...

Salam Pax's Bagdad Blog is a good read if you want to read about life in Iraq in the lead up to the invasion.
 
Saddam was an evil man, but what would you choose, life in Iraq over the past 12 years or life in Iraq in the 12 years prior?
 
Lester Burnham said:
Does Blair really believe the s**t that comes out of his mouth? It was obvious many months out that Bush and Blair intended to invade Iraq regardless of what Saddam did or what the weapons inspectors found. Saddam was not a threat to world peace. It was actions of Bush and Blair that were responsible for the carnage in Syria today and the resulting refugee crisis and increased threat of terrorism in Europe.
Click to expand...
Blair is an odious turd who now advises dictators instead advocating for regime change, but he's got nothing on American neocons:


And people wonder why Sanders, Trump, Corbyn and Brexit happen when these slimeballs make up the political class.
 
coerced said:
Saddam was an evil man, but what would you choose, life in Iraq over the past 12 years or life in Iraq in the 12 years prior?
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussien was open and candid about the violence in his country. john howard still denies the violence and genocide in this county. but you call saddam evil but not howard, are you racist like howard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top