Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Chilcot: Iraq War Inquiry
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Other Discussions
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
carmella
From the Herald Scotland.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-i...E56T1GJ20090730

Not before time - this will be interesting to hear, I shall be glued when this is aired.
Rabbie
Hmm, whos to blame?

Any bets that it won't be "The Usual Suspects"

Aye, will be a very interesting read and not withoot some fireworks too!

I remember flying through Kuwait the night the hostilites began, and thought to maself; "This rammy will make a many a good book."
carmella
You're right Rabbie, and I wonder if the questions with regard to Dr. David Kelly will be brought up - we shall have to wait and see.

I often enjoy (depending on subject matter) watching the interrogations before the Commons Select Committee.

It's too early to say if this will be broadcast live, probably not, probably just reported on a daily basis in the media. Given its importance, perhaps we will see some of the live coverage.
dugald_old
I read the newspaper article you mentioned Carmalla, and found it interesting. Enquires such as this concerning government behavior frequently lead to nothing being done, let's hope this will not be the case here. I detest this man Blair and would dearly love to see him keel-hauled! The one aspect of this inquiry to which I am really looking forward, is a confrontation between parents of dead soldiers and this man who had much to do with the Iraq crime... i'll be very surprised though, if such a confrontation ever takes place. I can imagine Tony-the-creep scurrying in and out a side door before any of the parents have a chance to say their piece!

The Dr. David Kelly affair, must I feel, feature to some extent surely? If this gent carrying out the "Enquiry" is as capable as his rank suggests he is, there might just be a chance of the Kelly suicide being brought up...it desrves some discussion. At the time it happened, I was so surprised and disappointed that there appeared to be so little attention taken of it. Wonder if Kelly would have taken his life had he realised it would hardly cause a ripple.
auldbutcher
yep i won't hode my breathe here its odds on it will be a white wash ,still i live in hope if there was any justice in this world this guy blair would be standing along side these serb warlords who are standing trial for war crimes including genocide ,if not that then being tried here for lying to the house o commons, thus leading into the unfair invasion of another country and the subsequent devastation this caused. on a brighter note folks this grininng hyena o a man has had his hopes o european president,s job dashed, thus robbing him of another chance tae further the trail o corruption he leaves behind i.e the house o commons and the house o lords . the real blow would be the salary and perks he would have weaseled out of this jo, for as we all know he ,and the aussie kids cancer robber ie, his cherie ah more ,love the feel o the green back dollar.
carmella
auldbutcher - I have also seen on one of the newsgroups, where individuals have expressed the same opinion that Blair and Bush should stand trial because of the war in Iraq as it was based on lies, lies and more damned lies. Blair has come in for a lot of flack because of his support for Bush during this.

I don't think he did actually stand a chance of being elected European President, but until this week Brown was supporting him - that has all changed. As you will probably be aware, people whom we have never heard of have been elected.

These individuals were duly elected during a Dinner, we have never been told anything about the decision process. Have you or any of the others contributing to this thread, ever heard of the two individuals named?

I haven't. The Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, apart from the fact that he is the Belgian Prime Minister - what do I know about him and why he was thus elected. Catherine Ashton, or to give her the title she appears to be known by Baroness Ashton of Upholland. She is one of the many currently unelected Labour stooges of this Government. Indeed, I don't know if she has ever had what we might call a 'proper' job - where did she come from etc. Well she has now been named as high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. I have read articles today that say she is so out of touch with the British people - like the rest of her party.

Anyway, I digress.

I think this Inquiry like so many before will not tell us anything other than a rehash of past lies, phrased differently. But, I shall stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

I watched Question Time last night, and heard Clare Short say that Tony Blair didn't have a chance of becoming President of Europe, and I think it's worth remembering too that when we went to war in Iraq much of Europe did not agree - that alone to me meant Tony Blair would not be elected, despite the fact that we are a member of the European Community.

Clare Short resigned from the Cabinet over the war in Iraq. I was looking at her book, where she stated when giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs select committee on 17th June 2003, a month after her resignation from the Cabinet over Tony Blair’s policy on Iraq, when she was asked if she thought she had been deliberately deceived by him in the run-up to the war, she said that she believed that Blair saw it as ‘an honourable deception’.

I bet she will be glued, if not actually called, to this Inquiry to see what comes out of it.
I think it will be interesting to see who gives evidence.
Tommy Kennedy
Yes, it will be a white wash with a lot of 'Ah,well, if buts' - like sport, when 'your' team loses - it was because of, this/that and that lousy ref.

My first post on the board when Iraq was accused of having WMDs was '

'Liars, Liars, Liars, pants on fire''

I said then, and say again: The absolute proof that Iraq had no WMDs was that the the U.S. invaded it!!! - U.S. losses would have been great and.....according to Blair, Cyprus would have been attacked with a WMD within 45 minutes.

The 4 major conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since WW2, Result:
Korea - Draw
Vietnam - Defeat
Iraq - a disaster, plus loss of credibilty thru out the world
Afghanistan - a fiasco

Major result: Smaller, less powerful countries have learned the military power of U.S. can be challenged.
There is a similarty here to Britains 'Boar war'; altho' Britain won in the end it was the beginning of the end of the British Empire, colonies learned that Britain's supremacy could be challenged.

Iraq/Afghanistan is the beginning of the end of the American Empire, for as said, other countries are seeing that their military might can be challenged. Add to that while U.S. is 'wasting' it's resources; the countries that U.S doesn't 'Like' is growing in 'ecconomical & military might.'

The U.S. Neo-Cons declared plan of 'Full Spectrum Dominence' is in tatters!
auldbutcher
an honourable deception rolleyes.gif she sounds like a true blairite next time i,m in court givin evidence an perjure mysel al say sorry yer judgeship its an honourable deception .you see what i mean the bigger yer wealth and standing you are above the law.blair, i detest him, for all its faults the old labour was based on truth and integrity, and if you like was the one party that sought to better the welfare o the common man ,enter blair who turned it into a corrupt version o the tory party ,his policys have left us with scroungers that don,t ever need tae work ,feral kids wie nae discipline i.e mammy who,s ma daddy ffs. and the war that bleeds us of money and man power that a small country like oors can ill afford .and in doing so destroyed the labour party ,hi but what the hell ,he made himself a klondyke how do i rate him as a labour leader JUDAS comes tae mind .
carmella
My dislike of Tony Blair is well documented, and for all the right reasons, some of which have already been pointed out or discussed here.

He did ok out of his time as PM as we all know, and because his wife Cherie fell in love with the late Sir John Gielgud's Wotton House stately home, he bought it for her at a cost of more than 4 million - not bad eh! He is still making money, and she is too of course. And the wee hoose, is open to the paying public in the summer months - more money, but I guess a place like that needs a lot of money for it's keep biggrin.gif Another who did very well springs to mind, Lord and Lady Kinnock who made a pile out of working in the EU Parliament. - but perhaps that's another story for another time.

Here's a wee article.....

http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk...n-stately-home/
Tommy Kennedy
Another forecast I made of Blair was the he was a' Religous fanatic' - that this was his reason for going with Bush on Iraq - not that Bush was a fanatic, he was/is a phony Christian
carmella
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 20th Nov 2009, 06:26pm) *
Another forecast I made of Blair was the he was a' Religous fanatic' - that this was his reason for going with Bush on Iraq - not that Bush was a fanatic, he was/is a phony Christian


Hear! Hear!
ashfield
Nice to see everyone is keeping an open mind about the outcome rolleyes.gif

Carmella, I don't think there is enough paper to record all of those from all the parties who have done well on the back of being at the Palace of Westminster.

Now, can someone remind me, at the time of the invasion, which of the major parties leaders disagreed with the action based on their access to the information avalable at that time? Answers please on a very small peice of paper unsure.gif
wombat
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 20th Nov 2009, 06:26pm) *
Another forecast I made of Blair was the he was a' Religous fanatic' - that this was his reason for going with Bush on Iraq - not that Bush was a fanatic, he was/is a phony Christian
aye tommy but hes a phony christian that nose the pope laugh.gif or shood that be brown nose ,now that he's in " their" club he can get a papal pardon bestowed on him ,see the method in his madness ?,aw this mob pull each others puddins ,an no a grain o trooth among thim .
andypisces
you should read...."the prosecution of george w bush for murder" written by vincent bugliosi. Vincent was the prosecutor on the charles manson trials. he makes a strong case agains t bush....Andy
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 20th Nov 2009, 06:26pm) *
Another forecast I made of Blair was the he was a' Religous fanatic'

What are the defining characteristics of a 'religious fanatic', and how does Tony Blair demonstrate these?

TeeHeeHee
Well noted, Alex, that you have not queried the defining characteristics of a phoney Christian rolleyes.gif
Tommy Kennedy
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 20th Nov 2009, 11:49pm) *
What are the defining characteristics of a 'religious fanatic', and how does Tony Blair demonstrate these?


I should think Alex there are different 'Characteristics/ Degrees' of a 'Religous fanatic' ie.: a child brainwashed with religion: Some a adult who 'Hears' a God talking to him

I have to say Alex, in Blair's case it is only my opinion that he is a religious fanatic.

Unlike Bush, he is a highly inteligient man, he would not have been fooled by the WMD bull (I'm not suggesting Bush was, he knew it was bull, suited the Neo-cons plans to 'accept it')

There were rumours of his possible conversion to Catholocism. I think his conversion was odd, to say the least, a man of his intellgience to change for C.O.E/ or C.O.S...something going on in his mind.Might simply be of course his wife's influence. Most 'converts' are VERY devout and certainly Catholocism is opposed to Islam - I think he maybe thought he was 'doing God's work' re-Iraq, an Islamic country
TeeHeeHee
I had never given a thought to that view ... before now unsure.gif
auldbutcher
food for thought there tommy ,if i wis pope ad be gettin worried, how does pope antonious ra 1st sound ohmy.gif tongue.gif frightnin intit .o those spondules in the papel bank like lead fillings tae ah magnet ,ah rest ma case.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 21st Nov 2009, 01:29am) *
I should think Alex there are different 'Characteristics/ Degrees' of a 'Religous fanatic' ie.: a child brainwashed with religion:

Whenever I see someone make some observation, I ask myself "Why do you think that? Why do you believe that?" It's not unusual to see someone say something like this, that someone being taught religion is being "brainwashed". Most descriptions of 'brainwashing' I'm familiar with involve the concept of extreme mental coercion employed for forcible alteration of an individual's beliefs. This is certainly not what happens in schools up and down the land where religion is taught, and it is primarily in schools that children encounter religious instruction in any formal context. Teaching religion, therefore, is no more "brainwashing" than is teaching children grammar or chemistry or history.

QUOTE
I have to say Alex, in Blair's case it is only my opinion that he is a religious fanatic.

This merely invites the question 'What is a religious fanatic?' Your answer may be different, but to me, a fanatic is not merely someone who is an enthusiast, but who is prepared to use menace and coercion in furtherance of his objectives. Religious fanaticism, to me, includes such practices as 'punishing' apostasy with violence. Tony Blair kept his religious beliefs to a very low profile, so low a profile that when he converted to Catholicism, it was major news. This is hardly the profile of a religious fanatic. Neither has he sought to impose his religious perspective on others. This hardly fits the profile of a religious fanatic. His engagement in the military action against Saddam Hussein had no religious component. This hardly fits the profile of a religious fanatic. He hasn't sought to proselytise others. This hardly fits the profile of a religious fanatic. It is very hard to see where the word 'fanatic' has a role to play here.

QUOTE
Unlike Bush, he is a highly inteligient man, he would not have been fooled by the WMD bull (I'm not suggesting Bush was, he knew it was bull, suited the Neo-cons plans to 'accept it')

Virtually all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, it suited Saddam's militaristic brinkmanship to have his neighbours, not least Israel, believe he really had weapons of mass destruction, which is surely one solidly-grounded reason why he played such cat-and-mouse games in the public eye with the hapless Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors.

QUOTE
There were rumours of his possible conversion to Catholocism. I think his conversion was odd, to say the least, a man of his intellgience to change for C.O.E/ or C.O.S...something going on in his mind.Might simply be of course his wife's influence.

Mr Blair's interest in Catholicism pre-dates his marriage to Cherie Booth in 1980.

QUOTE
think he maybe thought he was 'doing God's work' re-Iraq, an Islamic country

I can't see any rationale for that. No part of the was against Saddam Hussein involved any kind of religious objective.
Tommy Kennedy
I say again, if the the Neo- cons believed Sadaam had WMDs no way would they have attacked Iraq - indeed if Iraq had a strong army they would not have attacked it!!!

U.S. well knew how weak, what a rag tag army Iraq had.

Being taught 'Of religions in the world' as pupils of non faith schools are in this country is NOT brainwashing.

A child being taught in a Faith school 'one religion'....that the religion being taught is the 'true' religion IS brainwashing

Give me the child from one to seven - teach him 'one religion' and you have a potential 'Fanatic'.
auldbutcher
yep tommy the jesuits had a credo some thin along these lines but fer the life o me a canny spout it verbatim somethin aboot gie me the child ,etc etc . like i've said many a time if there had never been such a thing as religion then i reckon the human race might have been spared many wars,murders,bigotry and intolerance . or am i just bein gullible. huh.gif
tomtscotland
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 10:14am) *
Virtually all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.


To quote you again “Whenever I see someone make some observation, I ask myself "Why do you think that? Why do you believe that?"”

Your use of “believed” is nave. Truth is the “weapons of mass destruction” was pre-war scare-mongering propaganda – and you, like most of the public, were conned into thinking there was substance to the assertions. The war was pre-determined. The dossier was dodgy and re-written to provide a premise. Scarlett, the intelligence agent who approved the dodgy dossier, took the flak in all the subsequent "white-wash" enquiries. A grateful Tony Blair rewarded Scarlett by appointing him head of MI6. No doubt Tony felt “guided by God” when he made that appointment.

Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 21st Nov 2009, 11:37am) *
I say again, if the the Neo- cons believed Sadaam had WMDs no way would they have attacked Iraq - indeed if Iraq had a strong army they would not have attacked it!!!

Do you think Iraq's army was stronger than Hitler's or Emperor Hirohito's?

The point is that the United Nations thought Saddam had prohibited weapons, not just the US. Otherwise, how do you explain the Security Council Resolutions instructing Saddam to admit weapons inspectors?

QUOTE
A child being taught in a Faith school 'one religion'....that the religion being taught is the 'true' religion IS brainwashing

How can that be true? Brainwashing is a technique, not a belief set. Is anyone taught biology in such a way that it is not the 'true' biology? Can anyone be taught the theory of evolution in such a way that it is not the 'true' theory? Is teaching moral values as 'true' moral values likewise 'brainwashing'?

It looks to me that 'brainwashing' to you is teaching anything you don't believe in.


Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (tomtscotland @ 21st Nov 2009, 12:21pm) *
To quote you again “Whenever I see someone make some observation, I ask myself "Why do you think that? Why do you believe that?"”

Your use of “believed” is nave.

Can you explain why?

QUOTE
Truth is the “weapons of mass destruction” was pre-war scare-mongering propaganda – and you, like most of the public, were conned into thinking there was substance to the assertions.

Can I take if from this that you were admitted to Saddam's weapons facilities to inspect them, and are able to pronounce with certainty on a matter that the United Nations Security Council could not?

QUOTE
The war was pre-determined.

I don't see how. If Saddam had complied with the Security Council Resolutions, the imperative for military action against Saddam would have been lost.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (auldbutcher @ 21st Nov 2009, 11:50am) *
if there had never been such a thing as religion then i reckon the human race might have been spared many wars,murders,bigotry and intolerance . or am i just bein gullible.

If that were true you should be able to point to societies with no organised religion, that are therefore free of wars, murders, bigotry and intolerance. What examples can we look to?

bilbo.s
To be fair, Auldbutcher said that we might have been spared many wars etc.
TeeHeeHee
But still a good question, Bilbo.
bilbo.s
I think Alex might have made his point better by pointing to wars not caused by religion e.g. WWI & WWII. He seems more intent however on defending religion. Is he implying that religion does not cause any of these problems? I suppose I should address the question to him. Perhaps he could also provide a list of countries with no religion to afford us a fair comparison. I cannot think of any offhand or I may well have moved there. smile.gif
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 21st Nov 2009, 02:58pm) *
I think Alex might have made his point better by pointing to wars not caused by religion e.g. WWI & WWII. He seems more intent however in defending religion. Is he implying that religion does not cause any of these problems?

Like the good general, I do not fire all my rounds on the first volley.

I can think of many situations where religious adherences have given oxygen to the blue touch paper (even though a good fuse works in the absence of oxygen) ; however, the notion that religion causes conflict is challengeable. It is at least as arguable that most wars are fought over territory and resources, not religious imperatives. Men may march into battle under the banner 'For God and the King', but that no more makes it a religious war than marching to fife and drum makes it a musical war.

Perhaps one should consider that conflict and war and murder are primitive human attributes, not properties of religion, and that religion can be press-ganged into service just as all other sorts of motives and rationales in pursuit of fundamentally human objectives.
bilbo.s
Some might consider religion a primitive human attribute.
TeeHeeHee
Among the cave drawings, found in France and dated as 30,000 +/- years old, was there any form of religious depictions?
bilbo.s
Who knows, Tomi. We have no idea what they believed in and can therefore not tell if they depicted relevant images. Maybe they had not reached the Age of Wonder and were too busy keeping alive to bother with philosophy. biggrin.gif

Who knows, Tomi. We have no idea what they believed in and can therefore not tell if they depicted relevant images. Maybe they had not reached the Age of Wonder and were too busy keeping alive to bother with philosophy. biggrin.gif
tomtscotland
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 01:34pm) *
Can you explain why?


You've asserted that virtually all security services believed there were weapons of mass distruction.
I'm asserting that your argument based on this premise is naive.
Now you're asking me to explain this. Try reading the second part of my previous response.
In addition the credibility of the "intelligence" has been damaged by a whole series of revelations about it's accuracy. Of course there are some who will believe anything. It really does take the biscuit when "trust me - I'm Tony" can have the brass neck to say that he did not realize that the 45' references were to battlefield weapons. So we go to war on the basis of a dodgy dossier and a PM who is either (1) an idiot who cannot establish the facts by asking questions or (2) a conman who thinks he can get away with anything. It seems (2) is the reality.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 21st Nov 2009, 04:51pm) *
Who knows, Tomi. We have no idea what they believed in and can therefore not tell if they depicted relevant images.

You can tell a surprising amount, even in the absence of drawings and the like. Fossils can tell a lot about the existence of primitive religious belief : for example, burial mounds where the remains have been laid so that they are facing the same direction, say, the east, can be fairly interpreted as indicators of significance to the direction, like sun-god worship ; the existence of familiar objects in the burial mound, such as bowls, or personal objects, indicates the concept of making provision for journey to another world, whether you call that underworld or afterworld. Such arterfacts in mounds are very old indeed, suggesting that religious beliefs are very old, and primitive human attributes.

auldbutcher
lotta food fer thought here, thanks fer makin it interestin troops, an you too general wink.gif
carmella
There is indeed a lot of food for thought.

I too, wish to thank every contributor for giving their viewpoints in a clear manner. This is what intelligent debate is all about. We may not always agree with each point raised. I have certainly enjoyed reading through the replies.

I think (a word since I started this thread), a word from me seems in order.

Since the war in Iraq has been going on for some time, yet no-one has discovered any further weapons of mass destruction, bearing in mind that Saddam Hussein is no longer there, or his government to hinder, or impede any searches, this further convinces me that there were none to begin with, other than those previously discovered between 1990 and 1991.

We already knew he had a track record with his use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people, during the Iran-Iraq war when thousands were killed. We knew he was intent on pursuing a biological programme as well as a nuclear weapons programme - this much is documented.

More equipment was discovered during the '90s which could be used in the production of WMD by the UNSCOM. But, no weapons of mass destruction were found. I feel, therefore, that the war is illegal, on the premise that it was because we were told there were still WMD there, which remained hidden, and that it was right we go to War for that reason. The British public was deceived and lied to.

In September 2002, Tony Blair told the Commons that "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing", a stance with which he persisted, until he left office. Tony Blair has also stated (I can't recall the date) that these WMD might never be found. Well the latter is certainly true, as none have been!

As for his religion, he has been married to a practicing Catholic for many years. It always amazed me, why if he had a genuine wish to convert, he did not do so sooner. Instead, he waited until he was out of office. Perhaps others can understand and/or explain his reasons better than I.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (tomtscotland @ 21st Nov 2009, 05:09pm) *
You've asserted that virtually all security services believed there were weapons of mass distruction.
I'm asserting that your argument based on this premise is naive.

Naive means lacking in sophistication, simplistic, childlike. I think it is a fact that most intelligence agencies considered that Saddam had prohibited weapons. That I should report this fact is hardly naive. It was what the security services were reporting, and therefore is hardly unsophisticated or childlike or uneducated to point this out. Saddam had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Hans Blix, then weapons inspector, admonished Saddam for playing cat and mouse games over weapons inspections. If it was not believed that Saddam could be harbouring prohibited weapons, there would have been no need for a Security Council Resolution on disarming Iraq and compelling it to admit the weapons inspection team. It is hardly 'unsophisticated' or 'childlike' to draw attention to this, unless you have a peculiar definition of 'naive' in mind.

QUOTE
Now you're asking me to explain this. Try reading the second part of my previous response.

If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam. It's function was to persuade the public of the justification for it, but the military action had as its rationale the refusal of Saddam Hussein's government to comply with a series of existing and ignored Security Council Resolutions.

QUOTE
In addition the credibility of the "intelligence" has been damaged by a whole series of revelations about it's accuracy.

It is the fate of all intelligence to risk being inaccurate. That is why it is intelligence, and not knowledge.

QUOTE
PM who is either (1) an idiot who cannot establish the facts by asking questions or (2) a conman who thinks he can get away with anything. It seems (2) is the reality.

I don't believe Tony Blair is an idiot -- far from it, he is highly intelligent. I suppose you could label all politicians as con-men, and not expect too much in the way of adverse reaction ; indeed, most would nod sagely and agree. Oddly enough, whilst I consider Mr Blair to have betrayed so many electoral and manifesto promises that I could not, in all conscience, vote for him without there being a prior threat of harm to my person if I refused, I think his reasons for pursuing the military course against Saddam were reasoned and in good faith.
tomtscotland
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 07:35pm) *
Naive means lacking in sophistication, simplistic, childlike. I think it is a fact that most intelligence agencies considered that Saddam had prohibited weapons. That I should report this fact is hardly naive. It was what the security services were reporting, and therefore is hardly unsophisticated or childlike or uneducated to point this out. Saddam had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Hans Blix, then weapons inspector, admonished Saddam for playing cat and mouse games over weapons inspections. If it was not believed that Saddam could be harbouring prohibited weapons, there would have been no need for a Security Council Resolution on disarming Iraq and compelling it to admit the weapons inspection team. It is hardly 'unsophisticated' or 'childlike' to draw attention to this, unless you have a peculiar definition of 'naive' in mind.


If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam. It's function was to persuade the public of the justification for it, but the military action had as its rationale the refusal of Saddam Hussein's government to comply with a series of existing and ignored Security Council Resolutions.


It is the fate of all intelligence to risk being inaccurate. That is why it is intelligence, and not knowledge.


I don't believe Tony Blair is an idiot -- far from it, he is highly intelligent. I suppose you could label all politicians as con-men, and not expect too much in the way of adverse reaction ; indeed, most would nod sagely and agree. Oddly enough, whilst I consider Mr Blair to have betrayed so many electoral and mandate promises that I could not, in all conscience, vote for him without there being a prior threat of harm to my person if I refused, I think his reasons for pursuing the military course against Saddam were reasoned and in good faith.

My bold above.
I think your definition of naive is somewhat lacking and narrowly defined to suit your argument - "naive means lacking in sophistication, simplistic, childlike". I'm sure that most posters will recognize that in this context it meant "lacking critical judgement" - your acceptance as truth the word of security services when it could quite possibly be no more than trumped up propaganda - as with the dodgy dossier.

I'm not going thru' every point of your reply because I don't believe in debating a point with someone who twists and changes their own point and argues black is white. Besides that this forum restricts the amount of emoticons I can put laugh.gif

However here are just a couple -

"If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam."

Wrong - it was quoted in Parliament to win a vote supporting war. Blair misled parliament with the 45' minute claim.

"It is the fate of all intelligence to risk being inaccurate. That is why it is intelligence, and not knowledge. "

Difference here is being deliberately wrong for propaganda purposes. We need to use our intelligence to make a value judgement and not naively believe everything we are told.
Tommy Kennedy
The U.S. Neo- Cons made it quite clear in their Documents of 'America in the 21st. Century' & ''Full Spectrum Dominence' - beore 9/11 - their intention to invade Iraq.

With the Object of: To Control Iraqs Oil:, privatise Iraq's Utilities, have them run by U.S. companies
From their to do dominate the Midlle East. With 'Shock & Awe' they were - they thought - going to, with such a display of military might, put the frighteners on other nations. This had the opposite effect, other nations realising they would only be safe from U.S. if they had a strong army and chase nuclear capability........

'The best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft aglay'
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (tomtscotland @ 21st Nov 2009, 08:37pm) *
My bold above.
I think your definition of naive is somewhat lacking and narrowly defined to suit your argument. I'm sure that most posters will recognize that in this context it meant "lacking critical judgement" - your acceptance as truth the word of security services

This last statement is genuinely naive. I don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services. I report that the intelligence services say there was enough evidence to believe Saddam had prohibited weapons or had a prohibited weapons programme. I think there was enough to persuade me that Saddam either had prohibited weapons, or wished others to believe he had prohibited weapons, since he had already been found to have them, and refused to co-operate with weapons inspections to demonstrate that he no longer had them. Brinkmanship was Saddam's speciality.

QUOTE
I'm not going thru' every point of your reply because I don't believe in debating a point with someone who twists and changes their own point and argues black is white.

That's naive. I don't argue black is white, nor "change my point". I have enough confidence in my dialectical skills to be able to defend any argument I make. Constructive debate is much more engaging if you can forego the temptation to engage in the ad hominem.

QUOTE
"If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam."[/b]
Wrong - it was quoted in Parliament to win a vote supporting war. Blair misled parliament with the 45' minute claim.

I am not wrong. The Prime Minister may have put the question to parliament, but did not require a vote to go to war. Constitutionally, he can on behalf of the sovereign declare a state of war without reference to parliament. The case for the war rests solely with the response of Saddam's government to refuse to comply with a series of UN Security Council Resolutions, including failure to supply full and final reckoning of weapons stocks, and continued breach of SCR687, among others. Everything else was window-dressing.

Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 21st Nov 2009, 08:58pm) *
With the Object of: To Control Iraqs Oil:, privatise Iraq's Utilities, have them run by U.S. companies

Who owns Iraq's oil?
auldbutcher
alex lay oots reminds me o some wan, the cherry picked quotes ,an then his answer tae them. but fer the life o me i canny remember who. laugh.gif rolleyes.gif
tomtscotland
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 09:18pm) *
This last statement is genuinely naive. I don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services. I report that the intelligence services say there was enough evidence to believe Saddam had prohibited weapons or had a prohibited weapons programme. I think there was enough to persuade me that Saddam either had prohibited weapons, or wished others to believe he had prohibited weapons, since he had already been found to have them, and refused to co-operate with weapons inspections to demonstrate that he no longer had them. Brinkmanship was Saddam's speciality.


That's naive. I don't argue black is white, nor "change my point". I have enough confidence in my dialectical skills to be able to defend any argument I make. Constructive debate is much more engaging if you can forego the temptation to engage in the ad hominem.


I am not wrong. The Prime Minister may have put the question to parliament, but did not require a vote to go to war. Constitutionally, he can on behalf of the sovereign declare a state of war without reference to parliament. The case for the war rests solely with the response of Saddam's government to refuse to comply with a series of UN Security Council Resolutions, including failure to supply full and final reckoning of weapons stocks, and continued breach of SCR687, among others. Everything else was window-dressing.


Crivvens - here we go with the circular arguments.
You say you don't change your point or argue black is white - well quite simply that is what you continue to do.
My original comment referred to your assertion "Virtually all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."
I said that was naive - you replied with a nonsensical (in this context) definition of naive.
You have now changed the argument from "weapons of mass destruction" to "prohibited weapons / programme"
You are now arguing that you "don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services". Unfortunately that is a contradictory position to your assertion that "all intelligence agencies believed" which you used without qualification as a point of argument - and this prompted my "naive" comment.
I made the point that the dodgy dossier was used to win support in parliament - the government won the vote. This was in response to your previous assertion that the dossier was only needed to get public support. So now you are asserting "I am not wrong" because Blair did not require a vote to go to war. Did I say he did? However - you were wrong - because the dossier influenced parliament as well as the public.
Tommy Kennedy
QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 21st Nov 2009, 03:22pm) *
Some might consider religion a primitive human attribute.



YES ,There is overwhelming evidence that humans practiced various forms of worhsip centuries before to-days leading religions.....the Druids here. Humans are a superstious species

Tommy Kennedy
Do you think Iraq's army was stronger than Hitler's or Emperor Hirohito's?- said Alex

I take it Alex that you are alleging the U.S. attacked/declared war on a 'Strong enemy'

Germany was greatly overstreched - manpower/rescource wise by the time U.S. entered the war.

U.S. had the great advantage that while they could attack/Bomb Germany it's own homeland, the production of war machinery was 'Safe' - while Germany had superior weapons U.S had the great advantage of 'Qauntity' - not least oil/fuel - a massive civvie 'workforce'; with Hitler taking on Russia the defeat of Germany was inevitable.
Similar Japan

Ecconomicaly WW2 was a good war for U.S.; It's ecconomy boomed during and post war.

Both Germany & Japan greatly understimated America's resources and it's productivity capabilities - but U.S. 'Knew' what it had.
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (tomtscotland @ 21st Nov 2009, 10:11pm) *
Crivvens - here we go with the circular arguments.

Before you accuse me of offering "circular arguments", I suggest you familiarise yourself with what a circular argument (petitio principii) is.

QUOTE
You say you don't change your point or argue black is white - well quite simply that is what you continue to do.
My original comment referred to your assertion "Virtually all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."
I said that was naive - you replied with a nonsensical (in this context) definition of naive.

This is Humpty Dumpty wordplay.

QUOTE
You have now changed the argument from "weapons of mass destruction" to "prohibited weapons / programme"

No I have not. I have expressed it more accurately than the otherwise incomplete "weapons of mass destruction", because Saddam was prohibited from having, not only weapons of mass destruction, but a range of other weapons and delivery systems that did not themselves constitute weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gasses, bacteriological methods, and chemical weapons, stocks of agents, weapons sub-systems, research and manufacturing facilities". Also in the scope of SCR687 were ballistic delivery systems with a range of more than 150km, and parts and production facilities. There were also prohibitions on the power of rocket motors in ballistic systems. Hence, "prohibited weapons" encompasses "weapons of mass destruction" plus other weaponry subject to Security Council constraints and prohibitions and within the scope of the UN weapons inspectors' remit.

QUOTE
You are now arguing that you "don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services".

What I had in mind was that I have no way of knowing the truth of the situation. If they say they believe there to have been long-range rockets, I have no way of knowing if this is true, but I do know that they have said it. I am in no more privileged a position here than you are. If you are implying that merely because an intelligence agency says something, I automatically believe it to be the truth, then you are mistaken.

QUOTE
I made the point that the dodgy dossier was used to win support in parliament - the government won the vote. This was in response to your previous assertion that the dossier was only needed to get public support.

The Iraq dossier was issued to journalists in early February of 2003 by Alasdair Campbell, for public consumption, almost seven weeks before the vote on Iraq in the House of Commons.That's the function of Alastair Campbell's 'Directory of Communications' role. The documents presented for the House in the March vote were Security Council Resolution 1441, which the Prime Minister reminded the House that it had already endorsed the provisions of this Resolution the year before, and a series of reports from UN weapons inspectors. He reminded the House that Iraq had previously admitted to having undisclosed weapons of mass destruction. He drew attention to a series of "full and final declarations" on Saddam's armoury (how can you have more than one "full and final declaration"?). Other documents presented included weapons inspectors reports from 1998, UNMOVIC reports, and reports submitted by Hans Blix. Almost the entire debate centred on the contents of UNSCR 1441. The House voted that Iraq was in material breach of SCR 1441, and that the authority to use force was revived and continued by SCR 678. That's what they discussed, and that's what they voted on.
kerry4652
QUOTE (auldbutcher @ 21st Nov 2009, 10:45pm) *
alex lay oots reminds me o some wan, the cherry picked quotes ,an then his answer tae them. but fer the life o me i canny remember who. laugh.gif rolleyes.gif


Aye Alex ye disagree wae the lord haw haws an ye'll soon be accused of being someone else. It happens all the time.

Soon you'll be accused of being several people. This means you are winning the debate so the looney left must use the usual tactics to change tact.

Yer horsing them so enjoy the moment.

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands and deserved to hang.

Saddam threatened to wipe out anyone who dared to tackle him so he boasted of having a huge arsenal. That don't matter when you want to cloud the truth.

Kennedy will always evade the truth, burgess, mc clean philby blunt lord haw haw, all one big happy family
Alex MacPhee
QUOTE (auldbutcher @ 21st Nov 2009, 09:45pm) *
alex lay oots reminds me o some wan, the cherry picked quotes ,an then his answer tae them.

The only quotes I cite are the specific points made by the original poster that demand consideration and answer. I try to lay out my replies as clearly as I can, and to answer each point I'm responding to under the original writer's words, so that it's clear what I'm responding to. I do it this way because people have interesting things to say worth listening to, even if I don't agree with them.

I put it down to having had a good Glasgow schooling. You can take the man out of Glasgow, but you can't take Glasgow out of the man...
kerry4652
I can't believe that so much time and energy was wasted in creation of dossiers and sending in Hans Blix to Iraq. What was the point of all the threats and promises of invasion. We surely have no need for any intelligence services either, all the governments of the world needed to do was read this board and listen to a few anti Western rants by the same old brigade and Iraq and Afghanistan and every other problem of the world could have been avoided. Might you the Jews would be an endangered species by now.
All the sabre rattling on here will not change anything.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.