[ange7]

Originally Posted by angus58

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? 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]

Originally Posted by ange7

"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 thisDid you really miss that session - poor you, must have been when you were in maths class instead eh?


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

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]

Originally Posted by Sticks

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.


So here's to a gloatfest(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...Background.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/news...r-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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[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.