Any Labour Supporters care to....

[Angus]

defend the Labour war criminals waging an illegal war in Iraq? Let's have your reasoned and valid justifications for going to war and for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of British lives fighting a war that was waged on the basis of blatant LIES and DECEPTION told to the other parties and to the country by Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell, and the rest of the lying, cheating, corrupt Labour government.

[Sticks]

I am not a labour supporter by nature, if I ever vote for them it will be for tactical reasons only

That said

Saddam was lying and cheating over WMDs

Remember Halabjah? or was that an Israeli backed CIA weapons test? The tone of the OP, I would not be surprised if that is what they belived.

Getting back to Saddam, he played a never ending cat and mouse game with the UN weapons inspection team that by a UN resolution after the first Gulf War were mandated to seek out his WMD programme.

It became obvious to some, but obviously not all that Saddam may have wanted everyone to think he had WMDs and was prepared to use them (Again Remember that obvious CIA / Israel Weapons test at Halabjah). This is a well recognised gambit that also exists in the animal kingdom. If you make your enemies think you have mega weapons, then that scares them off (Hoverfly v wasp comes to mind).

Saddam most likely thought that if the world believed he had WMDs then we in the soft and decadent west would not dare attack him. So he lied and cheated and made life difficult for the UN weapons inspectors and gave the impression he was hiding something.

The west called his bluff and showed we were not as soft and decadent as he believed.

If your enemy is giving a clear impression they have WMDs and are prepared to use them, is it any wonder that they may take action?

Saddam put up a bluff and grossly misjudged what the response would be.

We reacted to a threat that was perceived. It was only after the war with 20/20 hind sight did we discover Saddam was not as armed to the teeth as we thought he was.

If Saddam had been more co-operative with the UN Weapons inspectors the war need not have happened.

Responsibility for the ensuing actions therefore lie at his feet.

The other scenario is that Saddam had subcontracted development to Syria and when the war kicked off, they spirited them away.
Here is a question, suppose we actually had found WMDs how would you feel?

[Sticks]

Also I almost forgot the role of the French and the Russians in all this

We needed a second UN resolution and those countries pledged to veto any such resolution

Why?

Both countries were up to their necks in trading with the Saddam regime in defiance of UN Sanctions.

Had they not been so interested in their grubby little trade deals with a vile dictator we would have got the second UN resolution and perhaps the war need not have happened.

I do not see you blaming the French and the Russians for what happened.

[arista]

Sticks this is Not Zimbawe
this is the UK.



We can not have Yet Another UnElected New Labour Leader.


We had 3 TV debates
he or she was not on them.



This is About Our Democracy.


The Markets say no LabLib

We do not want to become another Greece.

[ElProximo]

A Just war. Not an 'easy call' but a good call and the right thing.

Not a Labour Supporter but credit where its due - they did the right thing in this case despite being a difficult choice.

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/11/article-1276808-0984A682000005DC-308_964x285.jpg

[ange7]

great post Sticks ... as usual

[Tom4784]

Now you're just trying to bait people Angus, why don't YOU try to justify the Thatcher reign? Chances are you've got what you wanted and now you're just sticking the boot in. I thought more of you then that....Well before all this election business but you've been petty as hell taking shots at anyone who doesn't agree with you just like a typical tory.

[ange7]

Dezzy's angry face is angry

[Tom4784]

Dezzy's angry face is angry

Even Arista's avatar cowers before my said angry face.

[WOMBAI]

defend the Labour war criminals waging an illegal war in Iraq? Let's have your reasoned and valid justifications for going to war and for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of British lives fighting a war that was waged on the basis of blatant LIES and DECEPTION told to the other parties and to the country by Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell, and the rest of the lying, cheating, corrupt Labour government.

Don't you think you're getting a bit carried away with your Tory propoganda and your dislike of the Labour party - it is getting a bit tedious now! You sound like a party political broadcast for the Tories most of the time - lets not forget this is a bb chat forum - no need to be so heavy handed with the politics!

[Crimson Dynamo]

labour are a shambles

reid and blunket fired the death salvo


the next leader? - look at the choices

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Scarlett.]

Don't you think you're getting a bit carried away with your Tory propoganda and your dislike of the Labour party - it is getting a bit tedious now! You sound like a party political broadcast for the Tories most of the time - lets not forget this is a bb chat forum - no need to be so heavy handed with the politics!

Well said Wombai

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well said Wombai

that deserves a frame and a clean wall

[WOMBAI]

that deserves a frame and a clean wall

Why is that then LT? :hugesmile:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why is that then LT? :hugesmile:

hens teeth

[WOMBAI]

hens teeth

More commonplace than yours! What another classic case of pot and kettle! :hugesmile:

[Spike]

A thread just to bash Labour I see. This Tory bias of your posts is become very boring and repetitive now and i'm sure people would value your posts more if you weren't so biased.
I see no mention of The Conservatives in your post, thats strange seeing as they also openly support the war in Iraq..

Anyway back onto the topic, I don't know how I feel about the war. I'm really split on the issue. I see why we went to war and I think at the time it was justified with the fear that Iraq had these Weapons of Mass Destruction. However looking back, we didn't find any of these, so yeah it probably was a mistake. What was best at the time was done by our government, they weren't willing to take the risk and carry on with Saddam's defiance.

[BB_Eye]

I hated the Iraq war, but lets not pretend the Tories wouldn't have been just as happy to aid Bush in everything he did. They even supported the war at the time back in '03 as did the Tory press.

[Angus]

Well said Wombai

And there was I thinking it was a forum for "serious debates" since there are plenty of other "chat forums" on TIBB if that's what you want.

[WOMBAI]

And there was I thinking it was a forum for "serious debates" since there are plenty of other "chat forums" on TIBB if that's what you want.

Serious debates it is - which of course includes politics - but your posts, although very well written, are very abrasive and repetitive! Just grates a bit! Could well have the opposite effect of what you would like!

[Angus]

Serious debates it is - which of course includes politics - but your posts, although very well written, are very abrasive and repetitive! Just grates a bit! Could well have the opposite effect of what you would like!

There are plenty of threads on here which I find irritating, ridiculous, poorly argued, repetitive, pointless etc, and for that reason I do not bother to respond at all. Or are you suggesting my threads should be censured because YOU or anyone else doesn't like them? But I guess Labour supporters subscribe to the same ideology as the party they support, to seek to drown out dissenting voices instead of allowing others freedom of speech -after all just look at their behaviour post election, still clinging onto power when they have absolutely no mandate to govern.

If you don't like my tory politics and see a thread I have started, it sounds rather masochistic of you to join it just to be bored or irritated.

And by the way, still haven't read a single valid argument for the illegal Iraqi war, just a lot of regurgitated Labour spin - they really have done a number on many of you!

[WOMBAI]

There are plenty of threads on here which I find irritating, ridiculous, poorly argued, repetitive, pointless etc, and for that reason I do not bother to respond at all. Or are you suggesting my threads should be censured because YOU or anyone else doesn't like them? But I guess Labour supporters subscribe to the same ideology as the party they support, to seek to drown out dissenting voices instead of allowing others freedom of speech -after all just look at their behaviour post election, still clinging onto power when they have absolutely no mandate to govern.

If you don't like my tory politics and see a thread I have started, it sounds rather masochistic of you to join it just to be bored or irritated.

That is exactly what I mean! Actually I am NOT a Labour supporter, nor a Tory one - but your 'rantings' just serve to switch me off Tory even more! :hugesmile:

[Angus]

Let's see, you don't support Labour nor the Tories, so it's either LibDems (watered down version of Labour), or an "Other":hugesmile: O..kay then.

Unless I am breaking any forum rules I will continue to blithely start threads and make posts without worrying whether other FMS are irritated, bored or turned off. After all, I have had the misfortune to read many a virtually illiterate, rambling, offensive, abusive and quite frankly totally "point"less post from FMs who seem unable to string a sentence together. I choose to ignore the worst offenders since it is as much their right to post as it is mine, and I wouldn't presume to comment on that right.

By the way, still waiting for any valid justifications/arguments - still none forthcoming. I rest my case.

[WOMBAI]

Let's see, you don't support Labour nor the Tories, so it's either LibDems (watered down version of Labour), or an "Other":hugesmile: O..kay then.

Unless I am breaking any forum rules I will continue to blithely start threads and make posts without worrying whether other FMS are irritated, bored or turned off. After all, I have had the misfortune to read many a virtually illiterate, rambling, offensive, abusive and quite frankly totally "point"less post from FMs who seem unable to string a sentence together. I choose to ignore the worst offenders since it is as much their right to post as it is mine, and I wouldn't presume to comment on that right.

By the way, still waiting for any valid justifications/arguments - still none forthcoming. I rest my case.

Your idea of 'valid' no doubt!

I am not particularly interested in making any justifications/arguments - particularly when addressed to someone who is very pompous in her opinions and, it seems, has no intention of having rational 'debates' with anyone! Your posts are no longer debating anything - just 'shouting' your views!

I have always been totally against the war - and have a lot of contempt for both Bush and Blair for their self-serving decision to sent our troops to Iraq - but I have absolutely no doubt that Cameron would have done exactly the same! The Tories made their support of the war very clear at the time! You just conveniently ignore that!

[Angus]

Your idea of 'valid' no doubt!

I am not particularly interested in making any justifications/arguments - particularly when addressed to someone who is very pompous in her opinions and, it seems, has no intention of having rational 'debates' with anyone! Your posts are no longer debating anything - just 'shouting' your views!

I have always been totally against the war - and have a lot of contempt for both Bush and Blair for their self-serving decision to sent our troops to Iraq - but I have absolutely no doubt that Cameron would have done exactly the same! The Tories made their support of the war very clear at the time! You just conveniently ignore that!

NO you choose to conveniently ignore the FACT that Blair LIED about the WMD to the other parties, withheld vital information which proved there were NO WMD, and went on to the deceive the nation in order to get agreement to pursue the illegal war and cosy up to the Americans who had their own agenda where the "liberation of Iraq" was a convenient and worthy smokescreen for the "liberation of the oilfields". Funny how this same Labour Government sits quietly by while other tyrants every bit as evil and corrupt as Saddam Hussein can commit genocide in their countries, but then of course they have nothing in the way of natural resources that anyone wants.

I don't give a hoot whether I come across as hectoring, pompous, irritating or whatever - I am not forcing you to read my threads/posts, anymore than I am forced to read anyone else's. If I find something sufficiently of interest to respond to I will, and it's just too bad if my ability to express myself in words of more than one syllable rubs some people up the wrong way. If I provoke reaction, that's the nature of debate. I have had plenty of rational debates with several FMS who actually do know what they are talking about, and have some interesting and often diametrically opposed opinions.

I find a lot of YOUR posts on different threads extremely patronising, although often veiled in fake chumminess to sweeten the implied criticism, so Pot/Kettle springs to mind. So here's a thought, if you find my threads and posts so utterly, mind numbingly tedious/pompous/ranting/repetitive/irritating/pointless etc....... (if I've missed any out fill in the blanks), why not just give them a miss?:hugesmile: I'll survive without your erudite and unwarranted attempts at censure, and you'll have a happier day all round.

[WOMBAI]

NO you choose to conveniently ignore the FACT that Blair LIED about the WMD to the other parties, withheld vital information which proved there were NO WMD, and went on to the deceive the nation in order to get agreement to pursue the illegal war and cosy up to the Americans who had their own agenda where the "liberation of Iraq" was a convenient and worthy smokescreen for the "liberation of the oilfields". Funny how this same Labour Government sits quietly by while other tyrants every bit as evil and corrupt as Saddam Hussein can commit genocide in their countries, but then of course they have nothing in the way of natural resources that anyone wants.

I don't give a hoot whether I come across as hectoring, pompous, irritating or whatever - I am not forcing you to read my threads/posts, anymore than I am forced to read anyone else's. If I find something sufficiently of interest to respond to I will, and it's just too bad if my ability to express myself in words of more than one syllable rubs some people up the wrong way. If I provoke reaction, that's the nature of debate. I have had plenty of rational debates with several FMS who actually do know what they are talking about, and have some interesting and often diametrically opposed opinions.

I find a lot of YOUR posts on different threads extremely patronising, although often veiled in fake chumminess to sweeten the implied criticism, so Pot/Kettle springs to mind. So here's a thought, if you find my threads and posts so utterly, mind numbingly tedious/pompous/ranting/repetitive/irritating/pointless etc....... (if I've missed any out fill in the blanks), why not just give them a miss?:hugesmile: I'll survive without your erudite and unwarranted attempts at censure, and you'll have a happier day all round.

On your first paragraph - I agree with most of what you say, except that I haven't chosen to ignore anything!

On your second - I have already stated how your posts are well written - so fail to see how you can accuse me of having a problem with your ability to express yourself! And I don't doubt your ability for rational debate - just that you have been more inclined to spend your time lately attacking any posters that have opposing opinions - than engaging in debate! And like most when I open a thread I read them all, unless they are illegible! It is hard not to! Look I don't have a problem with your posts as such - just, like others, become irritated by the constant Tory political broadcasts!

Lastly - I was not intentionally trying to censure your posts - just could not resist passing comment on the increasing volume of Tory hype coming from them! FACT! And I certainly disagree with the fake chuminess bit - just trying to be a bit tactful with my words and not wishing to offend - not necessarily a bad thing! No need to be quite so belligerent in your response!

[ange7]

NO you choose to conveniently ignore the FACT that Blair LIED about the WMD to the other parties, withheld vital information which proved there were NO WMD, and went on to the deceive the nation in order to get agreement to pursue the illegal war and cosy up to the Americans who had their own agenda where the "liberation of Iraq" was a convenient and worthy smokescreen for the "liberation of the oilfields". Funny how this same Labour Government sits quietly by while other tyrants every bit as evil and corrupt as Saddam Hussein can commit genocide in their countries, but then of course they have nothing in the way of natural resources that anyone wants.

I don't give a hoot whether I come across as hectoring, pompous, irritating or whatever - I am not forcing you to read my threads/posts, anymore than I am forced to read anyone else's. If I find something sufficiently of interest to respond to I will, and it's just too bad if my ability to express myself in words of more than one syllable rubs some people up the wrong way. If I provoke reaction, that's the nature of debate. I have had plenty of rational debates with several FMS who actually do know what they are talking about, and have some interesting and often diametrically opposed opinions.

I find a lot of YOUR posts on different threads extremely patronising, although often veiled in fake chumminess to sweeten the implied criticism, so Pot/Kettle springs to mind. So here's a thought, if you find my threads and posts so utterly, mind numbingly tedious/pompous/ranting/repetitive/irritating/pointless etc....... (if I've missed any out fill in the blanks), why not just give them a miss?:hugesmile: I'll survive without your erudite and unwarranted attempts at censure, and you'll have a happier day all round.
"withheld vital information which proved there were NO WMD"
have a think ffs hehe. You think there existed PROOF that there were no WMDs. Missed that session at the chilcot enquiry. Did you dream it?

[Angus]

"withheld vital information which proved there were NO WMD"
have a think ffs hehe. You think there existed PROOF that there were no WMDs. Missed that session at the chilcot enquiry. Did you dream it



ooh Angepange, people will start talking if you keep chasing me round the forum like this:hug:Did you really miss that session - poor you, must have been when you were in maths class instead eh?:joker:


Labour are OUT, Tories are IN. Difficult to type when I'm dancing round the room:elephant::dance::elephant::dance::cheer2:

Even better news : Brown is resigning as Leader of the party at the same time, so Harriet Harman will be their Acting Leader in opposition - oh joy of joys, from one hated Labour leader to another (though to be fair she was at least ELECTED).

[Sticks]

Gloating is seldom becoming of anyone

[Angus]

Gloating is seldom becoming of anyone

Nor is the wheeling and dealing that has been attempted by the UNELECTED Labour leader and his UNELECTED inner circle, Mandelson, Campbell and Adonis.:xyxwave:


So here's to a gloatfest:hugesmile:(hic)

[Shasown]

Halabja certainly happened and it was perpertrated by Saddam's regime. However during the period 92-97 UNSCOM acting quite often on American intelligence located and destroyed a significant amount of outlawed missiles and materials operating under UN Security council resolution 687 and others.

Hans Blix the American leader of the UNSCOM team reported back several times from 97 that they were chasing their tails following American Allegations, you can find some of his later comments here;

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

There was very little possibility of anything being spirited away, because of the amount of surveillance being carried out in and over Iraq. To quantify that, if a civilian uses a satellite location system it will use mostly civilain satellites and the very odd open military satellite which will produce at best anywhere in the world an accuracy down to an acceptable error of about 12 metres. Using military equipment in Iraq would give you a guaranteed accuracy of less than 30 cm's. Thats because of the number of satellites based over the country.

Nothing could have moved over any border without the Americans knowing about it and they would have provided some evidence of suspicious movements by now. Also temperature changes in the region are quite significant in the storage and eventual degradation of any chemical weapons, what therefore have the Syrians done with them, you cant just bury them in the sand and hope they just disappear.

By 1998 Saddam did not have either the means to produce weapons grade radioactive material. or any sort of biological or chemical weapons systems or manyfacturing facilities. US and the UK leaders knew that prior to the invasion. The UNSCOM team were not expelled by Iraq as Bush claimed but advised to leave for their own safety, they were warned about a series of offensive air strikes about to be launched by the US and UK, they left the airstrikes went in under the guise of a punitive strike against Saddam for expelling UNSCOM. That was Operation Desert Fox, condemned by the UN afterwards as not being sanctioned.

Former Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter said at the time the US/UK were as bad as the Iraqi's for muddying the waters, given that he was the one expert forced onto UNSCOM at the request of the US government.

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability

In 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed

According to documents provided by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, ten days after taking office in January 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration

Prior to the Gulf War, in 1990, Iraq had stockpiled 550 tons of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Baghdad In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports (later found to be forgeries) that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq's attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January, 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources

The US acted unilaterally in deciding to invade Iraq in 2002, they had already drawn up plans to go in the spring/summer of 2001 it acted without UN mandate and direct contravention to decisions taken within the Security Council, we were invited along, as well as other members of the coalition forces to give an air of legitimacy to the invasion.

From 2002 to 2005 UNMOVIC (the replacement to UNSCOM) scoured Iraq and could find no traces of any CBR weapons or production, storage facilities other than those already investigated and dealt with by UNSCOM. You can check their databases here:

http://www.vertic.org/onlinedatabase/unmovic/dsp_unmovicBackground.cfm

In line with UNSCOM, the US also allocated to taskings to their Disaster Preparedness units(they deal with CBR Recce) and the UK tasked assets of its CBR Defence Regiment to parallel work alongside UNMOVIC. Again no evidence of any WMD was found.

As for Chilcott, during the enquiry Blair sidestepped any questions about whether he actually knew that the Iraqi regime had no WMD's. Even when asked directly. Read the transcipts of his testimony, watch the videos of it, the questions were toned down so there was no allegations of his wrong doing and even those that challenged his versions of accounts were carefully sidestepped or answered in a deliberately vague way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7072427/Watch-Tony-Blair-live-at-Iraq-war-inquiry.html

Saying all that even if the Conservatives had been in power at the time we would probably have still allocated the same resources in the same way at the time of invasion.

[Angus]

Your post has set out clearly the sequence of events and you are, of course, entitled to your conclusion that the tories would have done the same.

However we are talking about actual events, not hypothetical events and the crucial point is that the other parties and certainly the public were not made aware of any contradictory evidence to their being WMD. Therefore any opinion as to whether or not the Tories would have done what Labour did is mere conjecture, and a matter of personal opinion of course.

However, after witnessing the sordid wheeler dealing and underhand tactics Brown and Co have used in the last few days in an attempt to cling to power (undemocratically), I am now even more convinced that the higher echelons of the Labour Party have no morality or decency which to me lends further weight to the view that we were deceived and lied to in order to get support for what was an illegal war.

Do I believe the Conservatives would have taken us into a war without a UN mandate? Do I believe they would have taken us into a war if they had been privy to all the intelligence? A resounding NO to both questions, because it is a party that still respects democracy and the rule of law.

The topic, however, was not whether hypothetically any other party would have done the same as Labour, it was really seeking to understand what justification Labour supporters can come up with for the criminal behaviour of Blair and co who DID lie to us all and take us into an illegal war - FACT. No matter how much they may duck and dive to shift blame, that, along with the destruction of our country in so many fundamental ways, will be the legacy of this labour government.

[Shasown]

Your post has set out clearly the sequence of events and you are, of course, entitled to your conclusion that the tories would have done the same.

However we are talking about actual events, not hypothetical events and the crucial point is that the other parties and certainly the public were not made aware of any contradictory evidence to their being WMD. Therefore any opinion as to whether or not the Tories would have done what Labour did is mere conjecture, and a matter of personal opinion of course.

However, after witnessing the sordid wheeler dealing and underhand tactics Brown and Co have used in the last few days in an attempt to cling to power (undemocratically), I am now even more convinced that the higher echelons of the Labour Party have no morality or decency which to me lends further weight to the view that we were deceived and lied to in order to get support for what was an illegal war.

Do I believe the Conservatives would have taken us into a war without a UN mandate? Do I believe they would have taken us into a war if they had been privy to all the intelligence? A resounding NO to both questions, because it is a party that still respects democracy and the rule of law.

The topic, however, was not whether hypothetically any other party would have done the same as Labour, it was really seeking to understand what justification Labour supporters can come up with for the criminal behaviour of Blair and co who DID lie to us all and take us into an illegal war - FACT. No matter how much they may duck and dive to shift blame, that, along with the destruction of our country in so many fundamental ways, will be the legacy of this labour government.

Technically Brown and the Labour Party are allowed to wheel and deal to remain in power because he is the sitting PM and there was not a decisive election result to remove him and his government. Thems the rules when no party reaches a majority, thats why its called a hung parliament.

The tories wouldnt invade a country unless sanctioned by the UN? And they always act under UN Mandates and would never go against one?

Is that what you are saying?

Could I remind you on April 2 1982 the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands, On April 3, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 502, calling for the withdrawal of Argentine troops from the islands and the cessation of ALL hostilities. The same day Britain drew up and initiated Operation Corporate.

The keywords of the above paragraph are "cessation of all hostilities", that means by both sides. Britain reclaimed her rights to govern the Falklands through Operation Corporate in direct contravention of Resolution 502.

There was no mandate to retake by force, oh and the PM at the time was a certain Mrs Thatcher, wasnt she a Conservative?

[Angus]

The difference being that Thatcher sent our troops to defend an illegal invasion by the Argentinians upon BRITISH citizens. There was no deception or ambiguity about the reasons for the deployment of our troops, and in fact the Falklands War boosted her popularity to such an extent that she was re-elected in 1983 and 1987.
You have mentioned Resolution 502 but have omitted the full terms:

Resolution 502, which was in the United Kingdom's favour, gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing it to claim the right of self-defense. It was supported by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina and by the members of the Commonwealth

So contrary to what you imply the Conservative Government, brilliantly led by Margaret Thatcher, acted properly within UN law. It is no surprise that in 1983 her government was returned with a landslide.

[Shaun]

I was in favour of the invasion but because I disagreed with Saddam's regime and found him abhorrent in his treatment of certain races, political opponents, etc.

But that should have been reason enough for a regime change, not all this fabrication of WMDs and the invasion itself was very poorly planned.

[Shasown]

The difference being that Thatcher sent our troops to defend an illegal invasion by the Argentinians upon BRITISH citizens. There was no deception or ambiguity about the reasons for the deployment of our troops, and in fact the Falklands War boosted her popularity to such an extent that she was re-elected in 1983 and 1987.
You have mentioned Resolution 502 but have omitted the full terms:

Resolution 502, which was in the United Kingdom's favour, gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing it to claim the right of self-defense. It was supported by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina and by the members of the Commonwealth

So contrary to what you imply the Conservative Government, brilliantly led by Margaret Thatcher, acted properly within UN law. It is no surprise that in 1983 her government was returned with a landslide.

The EEC is not the UN, Resolution 502 demanded an end to all hostilities,

Resolution 502 drafted by the UK:

3 April 1982

The Security Council,

Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,

Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Thats the resolution were does it mention defence of British citizens, Article 51 or any other right to retake the FI's by force.

It doesnt. Regardless of the little addendum someone has placed on the Wikipedia entry. It was in Britains favour because Britain drafted the bloody thing.

Legally speaking it was to prevent the Argentinians from hunting down any British forces on the Islands who had not surrendered.

Notice the words "diplomatic solution". That means lets talk a peaceful solution, not as what happened; we talk and we launch half of our armed forces to retake whats ours.

[Angus]

Seeing as how Argentina had ALREADY invaded and refused to enter into any diplomatic negotiations, Margaret Thatcher had every right to defend our citizens, or are you suggesting that self defence is the same as unprovoked aggression?

[Shasown]

Seeing as how Argentina had ALREADY invaded and refused to enter into any diplomatic negotiations, Margaret Thatcher had every right to defend our citizens, or are you suggesting that self defence is the same as unprovoked aggression?



I would suggest you google the UN Charter and I think you will find if a nation intends to invoke Article 51 they should declare the same immediately to the UN, so in fact by not specifically invoking Article 51 in the draft resolution 502, Britain actually ruled themselves out of using it.

in fact here:

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

A small legal point but perfectly valid, which is why Argentina actually holds the moral high ground over the Falklands currently.

Article 51 wasnt mentioned until a few days later when some bright spark at the Foreign Office picked up the point and brought it to the attentions of COBRA. Its actually mentioned in Sandy Woodwards autobiography.

[Angus]

How it can be considered that a country that, without warning or provocation, invaded British territory in an act of aggression can be considered to have the "moral high ground" is just laughable, as are your attempts to divert attention away from the topic under discussion. Historically the consensus is that Britain had every right to defend herself against the aggressors, and there is no country on this planet that would not have done the same.

The Iraqi War was entered into with subterfuge, lies and deceit. The wishes of the Iraqi people themselves were so far removed from the equation as to be meaningless and, irrespective of the tyrannical regime in power it was not our business or responsibility to interfere in the politics of a foreign country without any legitimate justification.

[Shasown]

How it can be considered that a country that, without warning or provocation, invaded British territory in an act of aggression can be considered to have the "moral high ground" is just laughable, as are your attempts to divert attention away from the topic under discussion. Historically the consensus is that Britain had every right to defend herself against the aggressors, and there is no country on this planet that would not have done the same.

The Iraqi War was entered into with subterfuge, lies and deceit. The wishes of the Iraqi people themselves were so far removed from the equation as to be meaningless and, irrespective of the tyrannical regime in power it was not our business or responsibility to interfere in the politics of a foreign country without any legitimate justification.

Given that the islands history is somewhat chequered, there is a view we took them from the Spanish overseers(who were based at Buenos Aires), so they maintain the argument that they were reclaiming their terrority although it was occupied by British Squatters.

Historically the consensus worldwide is we shouldnt have retook them but settled the dispute diplomatically which is what we drafted 502 for. The idea we were defending ourselves is laughable, that sort of theologising died out with the Empire.

Mind you along with the Falklands islands the British also fought for the South Sandwich islands and South Georgia, why, there is no native or permanent population?

And it wasnt about self defence it was about the rights of the islanders to self determination there is a hell of a big difference.