|
Replies:
|
|
RJD
|
Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
Post #81
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
- RJD
- Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil
Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq. Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil. We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion. You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these?
As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM
Post #82
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
- RJD
- Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil
Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq. Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil. We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these? As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't? If you wish to discus Mugabe I suggest you open a thread on him.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:15 PM
Post #83
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
- RJD
- Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil
Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq. Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil. We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these? As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't?
If you wish to discus Mugabe I suggest you open a thread on him. Why are you avoiding the question? This is not about Mugabe per se, but about British Gov., NL Goe., motivations. Maybe you are lost for words and have no counter to my claim that oil was a determining factor?
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:22 PM
Post #84
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 11:54 AM
- Affa
- Jan 9 2015, 11:00 AM
- Steve K
- Jan 9 2015, 12:23 AM
You do know Affa that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. Not many and arguably saddam didn't even know he'd got them but not so "ludicrous" then?
You do also know don't you that they already had a UN resolution that made it legal to go and take out Saddam Hussein's regime?
I guess not but do a little research and you'll find both statements are true.
My argument is that those who persist in singularly 'blaming' Blair, his lies deceiving all and sundry, and especially those of a Tory persuasion, do so for entirely political reasons that deny the facts that the UN itself presented much of the evidence for the resolution 1441. Whether 1441 was authorisation to invade was not clear at the time - some argued it was not. Blair himself tried to get another resolution for authorisation - if 1441 was enough he too had his doubts. i seem to have a better grasp of it than you, and have no need to research it.
Res. 1441 stated that it was "A FINAL OPPORTUNITY" for Saddam to fully comply with the requirements of the UN, and if Saddam was in breach of this FINAL OPPORTUNITY then the situation should be referred back to the UN Security Council. It was stated at the time that the Security Council would then be expected to ratify the appropriate action. This process was blocked by the French threat to veto any such move. IMO, with troops on the borders the options were very limited; 1. For Saddam to fully comply with the UN Res. 1441. 2. For Saddam to give up his aggressiveness and to join the international community. 3. For Saddam to introduce free elections. 4. For Saddam to take the advice of his neighbours and leave Iraq. 5. Or for an invasion to take place. Any suggestion that the Troops should have left leaving Saddam to continue on his megalomaniacal way was out of the question. Why should Saddam have free elections,Saudi doesn't Why should Saddam stop being aggressive,Saudi doesn't Why should Saddam get out of Iraq,it's his country
|
|
|
| |
|
krugerman
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:24 PM
Post #85
|
- Posts:
- 1,152
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Who is to decide when we act as the worlds policeman, and when we do not act as an international law-keeper. ?
Allthough Robert Mugabe is bad, very bad, he is not in the same league as Saddam Hussain, who over the years oversaw the torture and killings of many thousands of political opponents, as discovered in mass burial sites by our own forces.
Whilst we accept that Mugabe indulges in beatings and in the jailing of anyone who speaks out, he has not gassed thousands of ordinary Zimbabweans, nor has he dropped chemical weapons upon his own people.
What many would call the ethnic cleansing of white farmers in Zimbabwe by Mugabe, this policy was in actual fact very popular amongst most ordinary people.
But most of all, Mugabe has not invaded or threatened neighbouring countries, unlike Saddam Hussain who indulged in a long and costly war with Iran, invaded neighbouring Kuwait and repeatedly threatened Israel and other neighbours.
Clearly Saddam Hussain had "crossed the line" and George Bush and Blair decided that something had to be done, he was a war mongerer, a mass murderer, and he was a threat to peace and stability, why should we apologise for getting rid of him. ?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:33 PM
Post #86
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
- RJD
- Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil
Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq. Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil. We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't?
- Quote:
-
You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices Iraqi oil belonged to the people of Iraq, and still belongs to the people of Iraq. In the first round of offering Iraqi oil field development onto the markets. BP, a multinational company, won part of a contract which also included China and the Iraqi Oil Co. The US got a knock back because they wanted too much per barrel produced.
- Quote:
-
and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these? That looks like a typical piece of suggested insinuation, if you do not know, I suggest you research it.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:37 PM
Post #87
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
K: Who is to decide when we act as the worlds policeman, and when we do not act as an international law-keeper. ?
UN that's part of it's Charter.
K: Allthough Robert Mugabe is bad, very bad, he is not in the same league as Saddam Hussain, who over the years oversaw the torture and killings of many thousands of political opponents, as discovered in mass burial sites by our own forces.
So we don't need to remove Mugabe because he is not as bad as Saddam. Where is the line to make such a judgement?
K: Whilst we accept that Mugabe indulges in beatings and in the jailing of anyone who speaks out, he has not gassed thousands of ordinary Zimbabweans, nor has he dropped chemical weapons upon his own people.
So using Chemical weapons is your line? But did Saddam not stop using these a decade or so before we decided to bomb the Hell out of Iraqi citizens?
K: What many would call the ethnic cleansing of white farmers in Zimbabwe by Mugabe, this policy was in actual fact very popular amongst most ordinary people.
I recall that >99.9%+ voted for Adolphus, but that did not mean the German Volk made the right decision. We ended up bombing German citizens.
K: But most of all, Mugabe has not invaded or threatened neighbouring countries, unlike Saddam Hussain who indulged in a long and costly war with Iran, invaded neighbouring Kuwait and repeatedly threatened Israel and other neighbours. Not a nice chap, but was that not just history? Was he not one our best mates at that time?
K: Clearly Saddam Hussain had "crossed the line" and George Bush and Blair decided that something had to be done, he was a war mongerer, a mass murderer, and he was a threat to peace and stability, why should we apologise for getting rid of him. ?
Not sure that this claim is justified as Saddam was no longer threatening anyone and as we discovered he did not have any peas for his pea-shooters. Me thinks there is a lot of Bush unfinished business in this.
Me thinks K that what you are attempting is a re-writing of history for political reasons. That said I am glad Saddam is dead, but I deplore the cost to innocents.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 9 2015, 12:39 PM
Post #88
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 12:15 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these? As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't?
If you wish to discus Mugabe I suggest you open a thread on him.
Why are you avoiding the question? This is not about Mugabe per se, but about British Gov., NL Goe., motivations. Maybe you are lost for words and have no counter to my claim that oil was a determining factor? IMO, the situations created by Mugabe and Saddam are two very different situations, your attempt to confuse the two only reflects the confusion that exists in your mind.
Edited by C-too, Jan 9 2015, 12:40 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Jan 9 2015, 01:03 PM
Post #89
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:33 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
- RJD
- Jan 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Common denominator = Oil
Labour did nothing about Mugabe. Enough said.
There is just so much nonsense posted over the invasion of Iraq. Neither the UK or the US benefitted from Iraqi oil. We should remember that it was the international community that issued Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with the ceasefire agreement that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And, while I'm at it, Tony Blair NEVER claimed in his own right, that Iraq had WMD. Anyone who claims he did is mistaken. He was not a weapons inspector and to my knowledge he never visited Iraq. His references to WMD were based on his belief that the information he received from the intelligence agency was correct. And that is what he said BEFORE the invasion.
You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't?
- Quote:
-
You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices
Iraqi oil belonged to the people of Iraq, and still belongs to the people of Iraq. In the first round of offering Iraqi oil field development onto the markets. BP, a multinational company, won part of a contract which also included China and the Iraqi Oil Co. The US got a knock back because they wanted too much per barrel produced. - Quote:
-
and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these?
That looks like a typical piece of suggested insinuation, if you do not know, I suggest you research it. I do know, however, from your comments it appears that you do not. But that is to be expected.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Jan 9 2015, 01:06 PM
Post #90
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:39 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 12:15 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
If you wish to discus Mugabe I suggest you open a thread on him.
Why are you avoiding the question? This is not about Mugabe per se, but about British Gov., NL Goe., motivations. Maybe you are lost for words and have no counter to my claim that oil was a determining factor?
IMO, the situations created by Mugabe and Saddam are two very different situations, your attempt to confuse the two only reflects the confusion that exists in your mind. Again you seek to avoid what is a very sensible question, a question often posed by very many others; Politicians, men of the cloth, media, Academics and Laymen. C2 you are nothing much other than a white-wash brush and it is very difficult take take your comments here seriously.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 9 2015, 04:22 PM
Post #91
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 01:03 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:33 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 11:59 AM
- C-too
- Jan 7 2015, 08:13 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
You do not explain the differences between the problems of Zimbabwe and that of Iraq. You seek only to white-wash and paint up Blair's reputation. Please explain why it was that we could spend £b and destroy a lot of lives in Iraq, but found ourselves incapable of lifting a finger against Mugabe? Surely Mugabe and Saddam came from similar moulds. As for Blair we shall see as all the evidence is not in the public domain and he has not yet had his day in Court. That said pressure appears to be growing and that might just force him out into the open. As for the Dodgy Dossier, well no doubt you see none of Blair's or his Henchmen's finger prints on the margins, but you wouldn't or is it couldn't?
- Quote:
-
You also make the mistake of defending Labour on the basis that it did not seek to control Iraqi oil directly, when the objective was to see more oil flow onto the markets to moderate prices
Iraqi oil belonged to the people of Iraq, and still belongs to the people of Iraq. In the first round of offering Iraqi oil field development onto the markets. BP, a multinational company, won part of a contract which also included China and the Iraqi Oil Co. The US got a knock back because they wanted too much per barrel produced. - Quote:
-
and assist US and British companies obtain construction projects. Who obtained the Lion's Share of these?
That looks like a typical piece of suggested insinuation, if you do not know, I suggest you research it.
I do know, however, from your comments it appears that you do not. But that is to be expected. Why have YOU raised the issue if you do not know?
If you do know then why not post it.
Edited by C-too, Jan 9 2015, 04:41 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Jan 9 2015, 04:30 PM
Post #92
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 01:06 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:39 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 12:15 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Why are you avoiding the question? This is not about Mugabe per se, but about British Gov., NL Goe., motivations. Maybe you are lost for words and have no counter to my claim that oil was a determining factor?
IMO, the situations created by Mugabe and Saddam are two very different situations, your attempt to confuse the two only reflects the confusion that exists in your mind.
Again you seek to avoid what is a very sensible question, a question often posed by very many others; Politicians, men of the cloth, media, Academics and Laymen. C2 you are nothing much other than a white-wash brush and it is very difficult take take your comments here seriously. Eh,your kidding,you have been taking him seriously
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 9 2015, 04:38 PM
Post #93
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 01:06 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:39 PM
- RJD
- Jan 9 2015, 12:15 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Why are you avoiding the question? This is not about Mugabe per se, but about British Gov., NL Goe., motivations. Maybe you are lost for words and have no counter to my claim that oil was a determining factor?
IMO, the situations created by Mugabe and Saddam are two very different situations, your attempt to confuse the two only reflects the confusion that exists in your mind.
Again you seek to avoid what is a very sensible question, a question often posed by very many others; Politicians, men of the cloth, media, Academics and Laymen. C2 you are nothing much other than a white-wash brush and it is very difficult take take your comments here seriously. When was the UN "final opportunity" issued to Mugabe? When did Mugabe use WMD on his own people? When was Mugabe recognised by the UN as "a threat to international peace and security"? When did Mugabe invade a neighbouring country and was forced out by Western forces.
You are nothing more than a hater of anything from the centre of politics to the left of politics. You are so neurotic over it you will stoop to any level in an attempt to foist your bias upon others. I really do feel sorry for you.
It is impossible to take you seriously.
Edited by C-too, Jan 9 2015, 04:39 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Jan 9 2015, 11:06 PM
Post #94
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 11:54 AM
- Affa
- Jan 9 2015, 11:00 AM
- Steve K
- Jan 9 2015, 12:23 AM
You do know Affa that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. Not many and arguably saddam didn't even know he'd got them but not so "ludicrous" then?
You do also know don't you that they already had a UN resolution that made it legal to go and take out Saddam Hussein's regime?
I guess not but do a little research and you'll find both statements are true.
My argument is that those who persist in singularly 'blaming' Blair, his lies deceiving all and sundry, and especially those of a Tory persuasion, do so for entirely political reasons that deny the facts that the UN itself presented much of the evidence for the resolution 1441. Whether 1441 was authorisation to invade was not clear at the time - some argued it was not. Blair himself tried to get another resolution for authorisation - if 1441 was enough he too had his doubts. i seem to have a better grasp of it than you, and have no need to research it.
Res. 1441 stated that it was "A FINAL OPPORTUNITY" for Saddam to fully comply with the requirements of the UN, and if Saddam was in breach of this FINAL OPPORTUNITY then the situation should be referred back to the UN Security Council. It was stated at the time that the Security Council would then be expected to ratify the appropriate action. This process was blocked by the French threat to veto any such move. IMO, with troops on the borders the options were very limited; 1. For Saddam to fully comply with the UN Res. 1441. 2. For Saddam to give up his aggressiveness and to join the international community. 3. For Saddam to introduce free elections. 4. For Saddam to take the advice of his neighbours and leave Iraq. 5. Or for an invasion to take place. Any suggestion that the Troops should have left leaving Saddam to continue on his megalomaniacal way was out of the question. Exactly.
1441 was never an authorisation to invade. 678 was. 1441 was Saddam's final chance to preserve the cease fires that had delayed further action under 678
Legal but immoral.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Jan 10 2015, 12:49 AM
Post #95
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 11:54 AM
IMO, with troops on the borders the options were very limited; 1. For Saddam to fully comply with the UN Res. 1441. 2. For Saddam to give up his aggressiveness and to join the international community. 3. For Saddam to introduce free elections. 4. For Saddam to take the advice of his neighbours and leave Iraq. 5. Or for an invasion to take place.
Any suggestion that the Troops should have left leaving Saddam to continue on his megalomaniacal way was out of the question.
Disagree! The options (Summer coming) were to go in or go home. Going home was a victory for Saddam, so there was no option at all really.
|
|
|
| |
|
johnofgwent
|
Jan 10 2015, 08:30 AM
Post #96
|
- Posts:
- 7,075
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- Whirlpool
- Jan 6 2015, 11:29 AM
.....what about the hutsis killing the tutsis in Africa?
Its none of our business ......
Too young to have been around for korea ...
But you have provided the tutsi/hutu answer yourself and I highlighted it in my selection from your own pist.
A while ago, as I said on the old site, radio 4s thought for the day featured a man who asked "what sort of man can sink a machete into the head of a child and throw their dying body still quivering into the blood red waters raging below ..."
And then he gave the answer.
Three generations ago the tutsi tribe rose up against the hutu. Or maybe it was the hutu rose up against tge tutsi.. it doesnt really matter which it was but lets say it was a who chose to rise up and slaughter b.
But being men of some heart and soul they ciuld not bring themselves to put the children to the sword and spear. So they spared them.
Twenty years passed and those children grew up. And one night they took up sword and spear and knife and went out and slew the men and tyeir wives, now grandparents, who slew the parents they had never known, and then they slew the men and women those killers had raised to grow fat on the lands taken from the dead.
But they too balked at putting the innocent to the sword and spear.
And so twenty years later the children they spared rose up in vengeance.
And this time they would do the job properly.
Moses knew what he was doing when he came out with that bollox about some sky fairy telling him to tell HIS people to kill them, kill them all. Only one way to solve this sort of problem ...
Every year the local assembly members fatwa committee march through the streets to celebrate how their sect slaughtered loads of the other in retribution for the "martyrdom" of a wanker who thought he could tell the local warlord allah spat on him from above ... and the other lot march and chant war cries a week or two later to taunt them that theyre still here.
Thats the reality. But they have no monopoly on such acts.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 10 2015, 09:11 AM
Post #97
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Jan 9 2015, 11:06 PM
- C-too
- Jan 9 2015, 11:54 AM
- Affa
- Jan 9 2015, 11:00 AM
- Steve K
- Jan 9 2015, 12:23 AM
You do know Affa that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. Not many and arguably saddam didn't even know he'd got them but not so "ludicrous" then?
You do also know don't you that they already had a UN resolution that made it legal to go and take out Saddam Hussein's regime?
I guess not but do a little research and you'll find both statements are true.
My argument is that those who persist in singularly 'blaming' Blair, his lies deceiving all and sundry, and especially those of a Tory persuasion, do so for entirely political reasons that deny the facts that the UN itself presented much of the evidence for the resolution 1441. Whether 1441 was authorisation to invade was not clear at the time - some argued it was not. Blair himself tried to get another resolution for authorisation - if 1441 was enough he too had his doubts. i seem to have a better grasp of it than you, and have no need to research it.
Res. 1441 stated that it was "A FINAL OPPORTUNITY" for Saddam to fully comply with the requirements of the UN, and if Saddam was in breach of this FINAL OPPORTUNITY then the situation should be referred back to the UN Security Council. It was stated at the time that the Security Council would then be expected to ratify the appropriate action. This process was blocked by the French threat to veto any such move. IMO, with troops on the borders the options were very limited; 1. For Saddam to fully comply with the UN Res. 1441. 2. For Saddam to give up his aggressiveness and to join the international community. 3. For Saddam to introduce free elections. 4. For Saddam to take the advice of his neighbours and leave Iraq. 5. Or for an invasion to take place. Any suggestion that the Troops should have left leaving Saddam to continue on his megalomaniacal way was out of the question.
Exactly. 1441 was never an authorisation to invade. 678 was. 1441 was Saddam's final chance to preserve the cease fires that had delayed further action under 678 Legal but immoral. Res. 1441 was a final opportunity for Saddam to comply with UN requirements, he did not comply. Nothing about allowing Saddam to continue his deceptions and his megalomaniacal ambitions. Remember, troops were only on the borders of Iraq in the first place because Saddam would not allow UN inspections into Iraq. This leads to the situation where Saddam, the UN and the troops all had an agenda. Saddam wanted to continue to ignore the ceasefire agreement and to continue with his prohibited missile programmes. After 12 years of playing cat and mouse with the UN inspectors and 4 years of banning inspectors from Iraq, the UN had no option but to insist on a final opportunity for Saddam to comply. The troops had only two options, either a change of direction from Saddam, or an invasion. The UN understood the position of the troops yet were once again playing stupid games with Saddam, and that despite admitting that Saddam was in breach of 1441. IIRC 1441 required immediate and pro active cooperation from Saddam, neither of which were forthcoming.
1441 obviously held the threat of invasion because troop movements and 1441 went hand in hand. As I posted earlier, the return to the UN security council was for the expected go ahead for invasion, the French stopped that happening by threatening to veto that move.
The French had economically advantageous agreements with Iraq which included oil agreements plus weapons, planes and missile sales to Iraq. The French had reasons for not wanting the situation in Iraq to change. They had also backed out of policing the no fly zones protecting the Kuwaitis and the Kurds, perhaps they liked the idea of leaving that protection in the hands of the US and the UK?
For what it's worth, as I understand it a ceasefire is a short break in hostilities while negotiations for peace take place. If the negotiated agreement is not adhered to then a state of war still exists.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Jan 10 2015, 12:09 PM
Post #98
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
They should have given Hans Blix the extra month he asked for. The evidence he'd amassed was already strongly suggesting 2 things
- Iraq could never produce evidence of no WMDs as its decommissioning of same after 1991 had been so chaotic proper records were not kept - Saddam had every intent of moving to restart WMD production as soon as sanctions ended
I weep no tears for Saddam or his close associates. They had made a war inevitable but we should and could have kept the moral high ground
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 10 2015, 01:39 PM
Post #99
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Jan 10 2015, 12:09 PM
They should have given Hans Blix the extra month he asked for. The evidence he'd amassed was already strongly suggesting 2 things
- Iraq could never produce evidence of no WMDs as its decommissioning of same after 1991 had been so chaotic proper records were not kept - Saddam had every intent of moving to restart WMD production as soon as sanctions ended
I weep no tears for Saddam or his close associates. They had made a war inevitable but we should and could have kept the moral high ground Saddam may not have been able to provide proof of decommissioning but he could have given his full and pro active cooperation to the inspectors. He chose instead to "play cat and mouse" antics (Hans Blix) with the inspectors making it impossible for them to do their job.
Hans Blix asked for extra time, a request that was in conflict with UN Res 1441, which required immediate and pro active compliance.
Blix had some time previously voiced his opinion that with Saddam's cooperation the problem could be sorted in months, without that cooperation it could take years. No such cooperation ever existed, not even in March 2003 and that was the fly in the ointment. Blix also said that if after being given extra time there was no change in the situation, then the invasion would have taken place some months later. IIRC in June 2003. There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade.
Extra time had been the norm up until December 1998 when Saddam had banned the return of inspectors into Iraq. IMO asking for extra time yet again only exposed a weakness in the UN and the inability of the UN to resolve this issue.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Jan 10 2015, 03:43 PM
Post #100
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 01:39 PM
- Steve K
- Jan 10 2015, 12:09 PM
They should have given Hans Blix the extra month he asked for. The evidence he'd amassed was already strongly suggesting 2 things
- Iraq could never produce evidence of no WMDs as its decommissioning of same after 1991 had been so chaotic proper records were not kept - Saddam had every intent of moving to restart WMD production as soon as sanctions ended
I weep no tears for Saddam or his close associates. They had made a war inevitable but we should and could have kept the moral high ground
Saddam may not have been able to provide proof of decommissioning but he could have given his full and pro active cooperation to the inspectors. He chose instead to "play cat and mouse" antics (Hans Blix) with the inspectors making it impossible for them to do their job. Hans Blix asked for extra time, a request that was in conflict with UN Res 1441, which required immediate and pro active compliance. Blix had some time previously voiced his opinion that with Saddam's cooperation the problem could be sorted in months, without that cooperation it could take years. No such cooperation ever existed, not even in March 2003 and that was the fly in the ointment. Blix also said that if after being given extra time there was no change in the situation, then the invasion would have taken place some months later. IIRC in June 2003. There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade. Extra time had been the norm up until December 1998 when Saddam had banned the return of inspectors into Iraq. IMO asking for extra time yet again only exposed a weakness in the UN and the inability of the UN to resolve this issue. We couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,,heard it all now
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 10 2015, 05:35 PM
Post #101
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 03:43 PM
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 01:39 PM
- Steve K
- Jan 10 2015, 12:09 PM
They should have given Hans Blix the extra month he asked for. The evidence he'd amassed was already strongly suggesting 2 things
- Iraq could never produce evidence of no WMDs as its decommissioning of same after 1991 had been so chaotic proper records were not kept - Saddam had every intent of moving to restart WMD production as soon as sanctions ended
I weep no tears for Saddam or his close associates. They had made a war inevitable but we should and could have kept the moral high ground
Saddam may not have been able to provide proof of decommissioning but he could have given his full and pro active cooperation to the inspectors. He chose instead to "play cat and mouse" antics (Hans Blix) with the inspectors making it impossible for them to do their job. Hans Blix asked for extra time, a request that was in conflict with UN Res 1441, which required immediate and pro active compliance. Blix had some time previously voiced his opinion that with Saddam's cooperation the problem could be sorted in months, without that cooperation it could take years. No such cooperation ever existed, not even in March 2003 and that was the fly in the ointment. Blix also said that if after being given extra time there was no change in the situation, then the invasion would have taken place some months later. IIRC in June 2003. There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade. Extra time had been the norm up until December 1998 when Saddam had banned the return of inspectors into Iraq. IMO asking for extra time yet again only exposed a weakness in the UN and the inability of the UN to resolve this issue.
We couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,,heard it all now Fortunately your attempts at attacking me are so immature and so lacking in common sense and insight they just show you up as being of very limited intelligence. That at least gives me a laugh at your expense.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Jan 10 2015, 05:52 PM
Post #102
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 05:35 PM
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 03:43 PM
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 01:39 PM
- Steve K
- Jan 10 2015, 12:09 PM
They should have given Hans Blix the extra month he asked for. The evidence he'd amassed was already strongly suggesting 2 things
- Iraq could never produce evidence of no WMDs as its decommissioning of same after 1991 had been so chaotic proper records were not kept - Saddam had every intent of moving to restart WMD production as soon as sanctions ended
I weep no tears for Saddam or his close associates. They had made a war inevitable but we should and could have kept the moral high ground
Saddam may not have been able to provide proof of decommissioning but he could have given his full and pro active cooperation to the inspectors. He chose instead to "play cat and mouse" antics (Hans Blix) with the inspectors making it impossible for them to do their job. Hans Blix asked for extra time, a request that was in conflict with UN Res 1441, which required immediate and pro active compliance. Blix had some time previously voiced his opinion that with Saddam's cooperation the problem could be sorted in months, without that cooperation it could take years. No such cooperation ever existed, not even in March 2003 and that was the fly in the ointment. Blix also said that if after being given extra time there was no change in the situation, then the invasion would have taken place some months later. IIRC in June 2003. There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade. Extra time had been the norm up until December 1998 when Saddam had banned the return of inspectors into Iraq. IMO asking for extra time yet again only exposed a weakness in the UN and the inability of the UN to resolve this issue.
We couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,,heard it all now
Fortunately your attempts at attacking me are so immature and so lacking in common sense and insight they just show you up as being of very limited intelligence. That at least gives me a laugh at your expense. I don't need to attack you,,your making yourself look like an idiot,sandstorms lol
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Jan 10 2015, 10:04 PM
Post #103
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Have you ever been in that area of the world Highway? I've been near (Saudi) and I've worked with people that have tried to work there in the summer months. The sand effs everything that the heat doesn't stop.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Jan 11 2015, 01:03 AM
Post #104
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Jan 10 2015, 10:04 PM
Have you ever been in that area of the world Highway? I've been near (Saudi) and I've worked with people that have tried to work there in the summer months. The sand effs everything that the heat doesn't stop. So your saying the British army is not geared for fighting in the desert?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Jan 11 2015, 10:21 AM
Post #105
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 11 2015, 01:03 AM
- Steve K
- Jan 10 2015, 10:04 PM
Have you ever been in that area of the world Highway? I've been near (Saudi) and I've worked with people that have tried to work there in the summer months. The sand effs everything that the heat doesn't stop.
So your saying the British army is not geared for fighting in the desert? Not geared up for major offensives in those conditions no.
You really need to think this through. If they'd delayed 2 months then they'd have had to fight twice as viciously to make sure they had control before the hottest months. If as I suspect you know very little about the realities of complex military gear and the logistics of fighting can I suggest you do some reading up before you next post trying to make a point on this.
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Jan 11 2015, 10:42 AM
Post #106
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- Affa
- Jan 6 2015, 12:06 AM
- Rich
- Jan 5 2015, 11:54 PM
And yet it must be stated that as bad as Saddam and Gadaffi were, they did keep a lid on the ME until the west decided to initiate regime changes, now look where we are.
How can you say 'Keeping a lid on it" when the methods were torture, murder, and oppression? How can you when there were more deaths then than since? On a side note, if Genghis Khan hadn't murdered 40 million, the world population would be heading for 9 billion right now.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 11 2015, 11:09 AM
Post #107
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 05:52 PM
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 05:35 PM
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 03:43 PM
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 01:39 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
We couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,,heard it all now
Fortunately your attempts at attacking me are so immature and so lacking in common sense and insight they just show you up as being of very limited intelligence. That at least gives me a laugh at your expense.
I don't need to attack you,,your making yourself look like an idiot,sandstorms lol From my earlier post;
"There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade". Your post 100; (My highlight)
"we couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,, heard it all now.
I never suggested we could not keep troops in desert etc. condition. Clearly you do not understand the difference between my "were not going to be kept" and your own "we could not keep". Your comment is the sort of comment that makes so many of your posts both nonsensical and quite comical.
And of course many others will be reading your silliness.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Jan 11 2015, 12:43 PM
Post #108
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
If the Lib-Dems get their way we will see the Chillcot Report in a few weeks. Maybe that will cast some light, however, I suspect more shadows of redaction.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 11 2015, 01:55 PM
Post #109
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Jan 11 2015, 12:43 PM
If the Lib-Dems get their way we will see the Chillcot Report in a few weeks. Maybe that will cast some light, however, I suspect more shadows of redaction.
Your signature reminds me of the laughable Laffer.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Jan 11 2015, 01:58 PM
Post #110
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 11 2015, 11:09 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 05:52 PM
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 05:35 PM
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 03:43 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Fortunately your attempts at attacking me are so immature and so lacking in common sense and insight they just show you up as being of very limited intelligence. That at least gives me a laugh at your expense.
I don't need to attack you,,your making yourself look like an idiot,sandstorms lol
From my earlier post; "There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade". Your post 100; (My highlight) "we couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,, heard it all now. I never suggested we could not keep troops in desert etc. condition. Clearly you do not understand the difference between my "were not going to be kept" and your own "we could not keep". Your comment is the sort of comment that makes so many of your posts both nonsensical and quite comical. And of course many others will be reading your silliness. Why mention sandstorms them
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Jan 11 2015, 02:01 PM
Post #111
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Jan 11 2015, 01:55 PM
- RJD
- Jan 11 2015, 12:43 PM
If the Lib-Dems get their way we will see the Chillcot Report in a few weeks. Maybe that will cast some light, however, I suspect more shadows of redaction.
Your signature reminds me of the laughable Laffer. Explain as I fail to spot your version of what you consider might be humour. What is a laughable Laffer?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Jan 11 2015, 03:11 PM
Post #112
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 11 2015, 01:58 PM
- C-too
- Jan 11 2015, 11:09 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Jan 10 2015, 05:52 PM
- C-too
- Jan 10 2015, 05:35 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I don't need to attack you,,your making yourself look like an idiot,sandstorms lol
From my earlier post; "There was nothing to suggest that Saddam would change his position. And battle ready troops were not going to be kept in desert, often serious sandstorm conditions, for months while Saddam continued to do what he had been doing for over a decade". Your post 100; (My highlight) "we couldn't keep troops in the desert because there might be sandstorms,,, heard it all now. I never suggested we could not keep troops in desert etc. condition. Clearly you do not understand the difference between my "were not going to be kept" and your own "we could not keep". Your comment is the sort of comment that makes so many of your posts both nonsensical and quite comical. And of course many others will be reading your silliness.
Why mention sandstorms them Why not? Serious, everything stops sandstorms were a part of what went on in that region. Part of your problem is you shoot from the hip without either thinking about or knowing about the issues you are referring to, that's what turns you into a comedy act. End of.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|