BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

Subject: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:50 AM

It's 1.25pm and the Chilcot enquiry is have tea and butties in between grilling Tony Blair to try to establish the reasoning behind his thinking when taking the country to war.

In my opinion, he's been typically evasive and lacking a hint of contrition or regret for the deaths he's responsible for. Interesting that he virtually excluded the cabinet from the decision process and he won't look the families of dead soldiers in the eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM

"After 9/11 we could not allow Saddam to have WMD's"
WHY ?
WMD's were not used in that atrocity! Nor was Saddam involved in it.

"I felt that 9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on us"
DUH?

Sorry Tony, but you are talking crap, it may have been construed as an attack on the free world, to reuse a hackneyed phrase, but it certainly wasn't an attack on the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:13 AM

Tangential to the thread (in agreement with you, J MacK, by the way), but I found a remark made years ago by one member of that Cabinet so revealing that I think the more widely known it becomes the better. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor, now PM, was asked by a Reporter, "How much will this War cost?", to which GB replied without hesitation, "as much as it takes". Ask any of these bastards about how much they'll spend on Hospitals or Schools and it won't be long before they start gabbling about "prioritization of limited resources" &c &c &c.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:37 AM

Looks like he's gunning for Iran big style. Thank the maker he's the Middle East Peace Envoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM

What a performance! The problem is he actually seems to believe his own lies. 9/11 -nothing to do with it as John MacKenzie says. What Saddam might have done; imagine if we all used arguments like that. Did I hear him says the West is safer: he obviously doesn't read the newspapers. 'It would be right even if it was wrong', Private Eye paroded Bliar very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:14 PM

Tony Blair has a great capacity for himself and his own family; it's just a pity he didn't have the same consideration for other people. It isn't surprising that families of those soldiers who died in that war are angry and distressed at his evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:32 PM

Before the war the majority of the population were in favour (look it up), parliament was in favour, the press was in favour, even Dr Kelly thought we had to take Saddam out (yes, kelly as a witness would probably be an advantage to TB).

Virtually everyone thought he had wmd (he'd already used them).

Blair had to make a decision, the rest of us don't face these sort of decisions for which we should be grateful .

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:33 PM

Time to get out the waterboard... Jus' funnin'... No one, not even Tony Baloney, should be tortured...

But, hey, askin' Tony to come clean is an exercise in stupidity... He and Bush will both go to their graves singin' the same ol' song... I mean, everyone else has figured out that the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on lies so there is no reason on Eart why these two bafoons can't figure it out but...

...if they admitted that they were wrong then they would have to deal with the guilt of upwards of a million people have been killed as a result of their decision...

Tone, in some ways, is worse tham Bush because when Bush needed that one last nail to shut to coffin lid he called on Tony and Tony came thru with a bogus 20 year old college kids term paper as the last piece of the puzzle to prove that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons... That is 100% on Tony!!! I mean, even our own CIA folks who have seen this term paper say it reeks of being junk...

But for the rest of the day it will be "Lie, Tony, lie..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:49 PM

I am afraid I missed the morning session and about half the afternoon, but I thought that he gave a fairly good account of himself in the bit I did see.

Nothing really new came out of it, as has proven to be the case with the responses given to questions by the other witnesses. Much to the disappointment of many, who basically did not, nor ever had, have any interest in an inquiry. What they wanted was just simply a lynching.

John MacKenzie (29 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM)

Blair stated: "After 9/11 we could not allow Saddam to have WMD's"

John MacKenzie asks: WHY ?

Comment: John MacKenzie obviously has no bloody imagination whatsoever, or failing that an extremely selective memory.

John MacKenzie adds knowledgably : WMD's were not used in that atrocity! Nor was Saddam involved in it.

Comment: No shit Sherlock.

Little bit of background for Mr. MacKenzie.

1. Question: Is this the Iraqi President who ordered an assassination attempt on Bush Snr in April 1993? Bill Clinton was convinced enough by the evidence to lob 23 cruise missiles into the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters.

2. Question: Is this the Iraqi President who was the only head of state and only world leader to publicly congratulate the 9/11 Hijackers?

3. The attacks of 9/11 demonstrated to the world how vulnerable mass centres of population are to asymmetric attack. Amongst all those citizens of the world that that fact had been demonstrated to was Saddam Hussein - True?

4. OK then John, what pushes it totally beyond the bounds of possibility that Saddam would not attempt a strike at the USA in a similar fashion excepting that this time WMD (either chemical or biological) would be added to the equation to increase the number killed. I mean it is not as though he had any qualms about using those kind of weapons on harmless civilians is it?

Now going back to Tony Blair's statement. Was that all he said about 9/11 John, or did he mention anything about changes to the "risk calculus" occasioned by the attacks of 9/11 by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:39 PM

IMO the truth of the matter is, that after 9/11, the US, and Mr Bush and friends in particular,simply had to do something to show that they were still "kings of the shitheap".....mainly for domestic consumption.
They chose a weakened(by sanctions) country, run by a troublesome and unpopular ex friend and dictator(Saddam), which they presumed would be an easy conquest militarily and which the rest of the world would not be to perturbed about.

In fact, the infrastructure of Iraq and the Iraqi people were to be sacrificed to restore America's pride.

Blair became convinced of the plan and saw reflected glory in becoming joined at the shoulder to the Commander in chief.
The UK cabinet which contained so called "lefties" demonstrated their cowardice and hypocricy by ditching their credentials and allowing Blair to set the agenda, because he was an electible leader and could, with a good result in Iraq, could guarentee their jobs for life.
This with one exception, Mr Robin Cook, who was shrewd enough to foresee that they were sleepwalking into a political and military nightmare, but unfortunately not sufficiently psycic to foesee his own demise.
Mr Cook resigned from the cabinet, I believe with the intention of returning as the saviour of Labour and Labour ideals, when the whole enterprise ended in tears and recriminations.

Mr Cook died shortly after, adding credence to the auld quote by Rabbie Burns.....that "the best laid plans o' rats an' politicians gie often come aff!"

Blair and Bush "marched into Baghdad tae the beat o' the drum,
                tae be showered wi' bananas and Pedigree Chum"(dog food)................from"The chimp and the poodle" by Davie R.

The rest, as they say ...is history....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:57 PM

sl said: Blair had to make a decision, the rest of us don't face these sort of decisions for which we should be grateful .

But that's not quite what happened. Instead of taking a decision, as he could have done (but no future PM would be able to do), he secured cabinet backing and then put the question of war to parliament. To ensure cabinet support he withheld pertinent information, not least the non-war options. Regrettably the cabinet dummies (with the honourable exception of a former foreign secretary, Robin Cook) didn't raise a murmur. And the incompetents who comprise the Chilcot team (I mean that in the kindest possible way; they are simply not qualified for the task) didn't think the point worth raising.

Parliament supported the war simply and entirely because it was misled, as is now widely acknowledged by MPs across all the main political parties.

In his evidence this afternoon Blair put a straightforwardly wrong meaning on UNSCR 1441. No-one on the inquiry team picked up on that, suggesting that none of them bothered having the text to hand. But beyond semantic arguments about the text, there is another fatal flaw in Blair's reliance on 1441, which is this: in order to discourage any risk of a veto, both the UK and the USA in presenting their text to the security council, stated explicitly that it was NOT intended as a war ultimatum.

Specifically US ambassador John Negroponte said: ...this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. And for the UK, Jeremy Greenstock said: If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. France in particular had objected to any hint that 1441 was a war ultimatum, and Syria stated that it supported the resolution only on the strength of UK and USA assurances that it was no such thing.

Again Chilcot & Co completely ignored this point.

There is some cause for hope now, however, that some of these issues will be kept in mind when the inquiry report is being drafted. (They also have the option to recall witnesses including Blair, and have already said that Jack Straw will be brought back for further questioning.) It was clear from some of the questioning today, particularly from the two Jewish members ironically (ironic because there was media speculation in advance that they would be biased towards the pro-Israel Blair), that the panel were not impressed by Blair's arguments, notwithstanding the undeniably capable way he marshalled them.

He may well have cause to reflect in due course that his biggest mistake today was his refusal to express a single regret, despite being pressed twice on the point. He could hardly have made it more plain that far from being a last resort, war had been his preferred option all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:00 PM

Akenaton

Cook was prepared to go to war if there was a second un resolution, so I don't get your point about his shrewdness, i don't see that the legality or otherwise would have changed the military outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM

I think Mr Cook was well aware...as were most of us, that there would be no second resolution. Mr Cook was as much, if not more of a politician than Mr Blair, and VERY ambitious.

As I said before, I dont believe he had any intention of sacrificing his career for a principle, but was shrewd enough to realise that Iraq was an "elephant trap" which Labour would never escape from.

I believe, if Cook had lived, he would today be leader of the Labour Party, Prime Minister and set to defeat Mr Cameron in the next election.

Because of Blair's ego, Iraq before any other issue, will ensure Labour lose power for the next decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM

Because of Blair's ego, Iraq before any other issue, will ensure Labour lose power for the next decade.

Sheer nonsense. He won an election after the invasion.

The election will be fought on home policy as it always is.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:28 PM

Ya'll are conviently leaving out the facts as they unfolded...

Blair and Bush had decided long before WMDs and the rest of their trumped up excuses to go to war to change the regime... This has been fairly well doucmented...

Secondly, if ya'll will recall Bush was all ready to order the invasion when millions or people took to the streets in protest and then Secretary of State Colin Powell pushed as hard as he could to slow the process down and insisted that the matter be taken to the UN...

Thirdly, yeah the UN did pass Resolution 1441 but at the time there was a feeling that getting inspectors back into Iraq that no WMD would be found and B & B's thirst for the invasion would subside...

Forthly, Hanz Bliz went before the UN on Jan. 28th (okay, maybe it was the 27th) and said that the Iraqis were cooperating and letting his inspectors inspect anywhere they wanted to inspect...

Now, if the story stopped here and any sane person were to examine those fact on the ground as of the end of January, 2003 then the only conclusion would be that a war was about to be averted...

The operative word here is "sane"...

Well, the rest is history... Sanity never entered into the thinking of either B or B and now B & B have one heck of alot of blood on their hands... And so do the folks here and elsewhere who supported this insanity... T included...

But all these folks have takin' history and facts and woven them into a tapestry of mythology... Ya' know, I'm sure that Hitler did the same thing in his day... Seems that lieing to everyone including themselves is one thing that all evil people have in common...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:33 PM

Bobert

If you're trying to group Bush and Blair to Hitler then it shows how little you know and you're not worth talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM

While the world is probably better off now that George Carman is dead, it would have been nice to see Tony B.Liar cross examined by him.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:43 PM

You're wrong SL, the disenchantment with New Labour and Blair began with the massive demos against the war, and slowly increased as Labours duplicity became more and more apparent.

Its true that Labour won an election after the war, but with a very much reduced share of the vote. Results in local elections and By-elections have continued the trend even the seats held have been with reduced majorities.

I've lived a fairly long time, and made a bit of a study of politicians, sometimes, as in this case, the public have simply had enough of them....I dont know if its hatred at being duped again, or shame that they voted in such devious cowardly scumbags, but they want them gone...the public want to cleanse themselves.....pity its got to be with Tory piss!!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:51 PM

Well I agree that "public have simply had enough of them" - same thing happened to the tories, and I also agree that the tories are a poor alternative, but earlier you wrote "Because of Blair's ego, Iraq before any other issue, will ensure Labour lose power for the next decade"

And by the way, even as the "massive demos" were taking place majority opinion backed Blair, I did then and I still do, though since his religion has become overt I would never vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:09 PM

Well sl, I was in some of the demos, and I can say honestly there was a feeling among the demostrators of a great injustice about to be perpetrated in their names.....something I had not experienced since the great popular movements for black equality and against the war in Vietnam.

Its strange and inexplicable, but there is an almost spiritual element in these great comings together of huge numbers of people.
You can almost smell the rising of the spirit.
When that happens a government or officialdom is finished, they can pack their bags and book a very long holiday.

So let it be with Labour, I would never consider voting Labour while the remnants of the Iraq debachle remain candidates.
Blair and his ideology has neutered a great vehicle for social good.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:17 PM

Well, sl....Any time you have a leader who is willing to rationalize his or her own evil decisions while going on a killing spree then yer gonna have comparisions to Hitler... If folks don't want to be lumped in with himthen they oughtta think long and hard about starting wars of choice...

If you don't like the comparasion then get on the correct side of the real story here... Upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed because of B & B's decision...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:25 PM

Yes thats right Bob.
I heard Blair at todays inquiry blast Saddam for being responsible for the "deaths of thousands"..... and he was a bad man, but Blair and Bush have as you say, been directly responsible for the deaths of a million.....and the complete destruction of 90% of the Iraqi infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM

Some poor mortal fucker in supreme power always has to take the blame for decisions
forced upon them by extreme unpredictable circumstance
and constant malevolent opertunistic adversarial political machinations..

sure glad it aint me.. not a job most of us would want !

I never liked Blair that much.. but he sure aint the child killing monster
some of our lesser mentaly mature slogan shouting armchair politicos
paint him out to be.


there are still bigger murderous power mad cunts in the world still in power today.


well thats my well thought out political contribution to this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:08 PM

When that happens a government or officialdom is finished, they can pack their bags and book a very long holiday

Took me a while to respond - i was laughing.

The demos were years ago, they won an election since the "spiritual" gathering and they're still there.

The trots (STW) that organised the demos are in disarray and you still only have a choice between new labour and the tories.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:14 PM

Uncle rumpo
Daft name, good comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:14 PM

oh, and while I'm awake enough to remember.

Please never vote the tories back in.

what the f@ck do you think Thatchers mad arse end of days rapture military regime
would have done to help Bush out
if they had still been in power in 9/11 !!!????

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:00 AM

1. upwards of a million people have been killed - Bobert

PROVE IT

2. Tone, in some ways, is worse tham Bush because when Bush needed that one last nail to shut to coffin lid he called on Tony and Tony came thru with a bogus 20 year old college kids term paper as the last piece of the puzzle to prove that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons... That is 100% on Tony!!! I mean, even our own CIA folks who have seen this term paper say it reeks of being junk... - Bobert

Have you got the faintest notion of what you are referring to and talking about? The post-graduate paper that was sourced and plagiarised had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The post-graduate paper based on the information contained in over a million Iraqi documents captured and confiscated after the end of Desert Storm related to the lengths that the Iraqi's went to conceal what they were doing from UNSCOM. It was, at the time, and still is the most authorative work undertaken on this subject of concealment.

3. Blair and Bush had decided long before WMDs and the rest of their trumped up excuses to go to war to change the regime... This has been fairly well doucmented... - Bobert

Certainly the fact that Regime Change in Iraq was adopted as official Foreign Policy in the United States of America was well documented, so much so that it was well documented over three and a half years before George W. Bush took the Oath of Office.

4. the UN did pass Resolution 1441 but at the time there was a feeling that getting inspectors back into Iraq that no WMD would be found and B & B's thirst for the invasion would subside... - Bobert

The only reason UNSCR 1441 was passed was because the world and its dog were totally convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Later the man himself admitted that he deliberately did everything in his power to convince the world and his immediate neighbours that Iraq still had WMD capability. The mission of the UNMOVIC Inspection teams was to independently verify that Iraq had disarmed. Now read that last sentence again, let it sink in and then let it finally perculate through to your brain that UNMOVIC did not go into Iraq on a mission to find WMD, doubt that read their mandate, read what Dr.Hans Blix said about inspection not being a process of "hide-and-seek".

5. Hanz Bliz went before the UN on Jan. 28th (okay, maybe it was the 27th) and said that the Iraqis were cooperating and letting his inspectors inspect anywhere they wanted to inspect... - Bobert

Perfectly correct Bobert, Hans Blix, its Hans Bilx Bobert, not Hanz Bliz, did say that on the 27th January:

"that the Iraqis were cooperating and letting his inspectors inspect anywhere they wanted to inspect"

But that was not what was required of them was it Bobert?

For agruments sake, you have something on your property that you have agreed to surrender to say the police, court order after court order has been served on you to deliver whatever this is up, and you by and large ignore them, until you get one that says give this up, we expect your full proactive co-operation on this matter, or we confiscate everything. You letting the police onto your property and letting them inspect anywhere they want to inspect does not meet the requirement does it, what you have got to do is meet them at the front gate and you take them to the very spot that you have got it hidden and surrender it up to them, that is full and proactive co-operation and that is what Dr Hans Blix said he was not getting in that same report delivered to the Security Council of the United Nations on 27th January, 2003.

6. Instead of taking a decision, as he could have done (but no future PM would be able to do), he secured cabinet backing and then put the question of war to parliament. - Peter K

Shadow Cabinet and senior members of other parties in the House would have intact all the information that Cabinet made its decision on. Nothing was withheld, the JIC presented its report to Cabinet, and Cabinet decides what weight to give it (i.e. view the report with the perspective of "best" or "worst" case scenario, in matters affecting security it is normal and logical that "worst" case is always adopted)

7. To ensure cabinet support he withheld pertinent information, not least the non-war options. - Peter K

What pertinent information was withheld? The options where clearly outlined and known to all members of the House. The debate was on what again? Authorising Military action against Iraq if necessary wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM

Oh God Teribus, don't ruin a good discussion by bringing facts into the conversation. You won't be thanked.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GRex
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM

Surely the invasion of Iraq was to enable us, both Brits and Yanks, to get our grubby hands on Iraqi oil.

    Who now holds the oil contracts?

                  GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:24 AM

grex

ffs here we go again.

Read the papers, china got the most deals, the US very few.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:29 AM

If Blair knew better, he'd be a member of the S.N.P, a supporter of the U.N., and would not have made England less safe with his extreme pro-immigrationism - as I've said here, it's the world/United Nations that should be multicultural.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:32 AM

Teribus, Carne Ross's paper outlining alternatives to war, including targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, was not presented to Cabinet. It would seem that as well as not bothering to watch Blair's testimony yesterday you also didn't bother to find out what he said. Might it be sensible to stand back from arguing about that until you've had a chance to catch up?

One of the most striking aspects of yesterday's performance was Blair's innocent bewilderment that destabilising Iraq actually made Iran stronger. Some of us right here on Mudcat were anticipating that consequence long before the invasion How could it have been otherwise?
Indeed Norman Schwazkopf had long-since presented that as one of the reasons for not removing Saddam the first time round.

Poor old Blair was left huffing and puffing that if he had his way, Iran "would be next." With whose army? The US-UK axis is already overstretched and couldn't even contemplate intervention in Yemen, never mind Pakistan or Iran. Why, horror of horrors, they're having to put millions of dollars on the table to entice the Taliban into a negotiated resolution of the quagmire they've created in Afghanistan! That's some victory our boys are notching up over there, Teribus.

Oh, and it's Blix, Teribus. Not Bilx. Slow down!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:50 AM

One of the most striking aspects of yesterday's performance was Blair's innocent bewilderment that destabilising Iraq actually made Iran stronger

Actually he dealt with this. He made the point that it was both wrong and not sensible to support one bad regime against another. Better not support either and deal with them one at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: s&r
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:21 AM

WAV stick to Australian politics please

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:22 AM

I see we have a new one- issue folk music enthusiast. While he's rewriting history, could he (or perhaps she) rewrite Annachie Gordon with a happy ending?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:43 AM

The "Bilx" was a joke, lighten up.

The Ross Carne paper dated when?

1. "Ross testified during the Butler Review, which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He testified that at no time during his work on Iraq (1998-2002) did the UK or US assess that Iraq's WMD posed a threat."

So "at no time during his work on Iraq (1998-2002) did the UK or US assess that Iraq's WMD posed a threat" Well that is patently incorrect:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

and this

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Perhaps those making those comments weren't making it plain enough for Mr. Carne.

2. "He also argued that available alternatives to war, namely targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, were ignored."

Argued with whom? So he suggested that we target Iraq's illegal oil revenues did he Peter? Did he offer any plausible or feasible ways of doing that considering that most went out overland through Syria, Turkey and Iran. Tell us how "WE" could possibly have prevented those illegal exports of oil, apart from which, post-invasion when the full picture of that fiasco that was the "Oil for Food Scandal" came out it was established that half the UN officials dealing with it were corrupt, and they were the ones that would "do something about it" on our behalf - that's a joke if ever I heard one. With suggestions such as that it is little bloody wonder that they were ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:55 AM

I assume you're referring to me Mr Burke. Well I'm not new and I'm not stuck on one issue, neither am I in the business of re-writing history.

Still you got one thing right, which is one more than you usually do, I like folk music.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 10:39 AM

Blix might have been a joke to the war mongers here but to the sane and logical world he and his team of inspectors represented the civilized and sane part of the story...

As per usual, T-Bird expected the impossible from Saddam... The rest of the sane and civilized world fully understood that Saddam could in no way prove he he didn't have anything... BillD, who majoer in pholosphy and is a purdy smart cookie, has disected this puzzle that B & B presented Saddam and shown that it is not possible to prove a negative... So, to the sane and civilized world Blix was the the entire story and the only way to prove that Saddam didn't have WMD...

But Terrible-is, Bush and Blair ploded along as if Blix didn't exist???

This is the crux of the story... Not 1441... Not Saddam was a bad man... Not Saddam gassed the Kurds 20 some years ago... Not Saddam tried to kill my daddy.... Not aluminum tubes... Not Joe Wilson and Niger... Not, not, not...

Blix's team was going to prove what Bush and Blair were demanding... But as in the 2000 election Bushhad to short circuit the truth and now he and his bed-buddy, Blair are stuck with havin' been caught lieing and all they can do until they die is keep lieing which, BTW, they have both perfected...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 10:53 AM

" OK then John, what pushes it totally beyond the bounds of possibility that Saddam would not attempt a strike at the USA in a similar fashion excepting that this time WMD (either chemical or biological) would be added to the equation to increase the number killed. I mean it is not as though he had any qualms about using those kind of weapons on harmless civilians is it?"

As you well know this is pure speculation Teribus, and NOT a basis for a cogent defence as to why we went to war with Iraq. Blair's constant repetition of the fact we should consider the "2010 question" (got to be Alistair Campbell behind that one) was a diverting tactic that worked a treat on the sops that were supposed to be questioning him.

I sat through the entire day and Blair gave a textbook barristers performance, only really faltering when the question of the legality of the war was raised. There's no doubt this is a problem for Blair and Goldsmith etc, as it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that pretty much everyone (including Goldsmith himself) thought the war was illegal. For some reason the inquiry didn't winkle out exactly why Goldsmith changed his mind and is now being painted as the fall guy for the entire venture. Blair even had the neck to shove all the responsibility for the decision onto his hapless colleague suggesting had Goldsmith stuck to his guns and said the war wasn't legal then he wouldn't have continued with the venture. This statement sits in contrast to the rest of his evidence where he is remarkably robust in his attitude.

Blair is one of those people who has a 'reality distortion field' around him (the term was coined to describe the uncanny power Steve Jobs has to influence his cohorts), and his performance on front of the inquiry panel was an apt demonstration of this; he led the proceedings and pretty much controlled the proceedings, asking questions of the questioners and adroitly batting away awkward questions with aplomb. To those of us watching it looked like what it was: a charismatic, egocentric politician so mired in his own self-deception any hint of regret and contrition about the consequences of his actions don't occur to him. Obviously Goldsmith et al weren't immune either at the time, and at least he did manage to get a huge dig in at Clare Short who should have had the courage of her convictions and walked at the time.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:01 AM

2. He also argued that available alternatives to war, namely targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, were ignored.

Subtly misquoted, Teribus. Alnmost as good as Blair's dissembling on 1441. What do you do - cut and paste then edit to suit your needs? And what has that Snopes link got to do with whether Saddam's WMD programme (even supposing it existed) posed a threat to the UK?

In case you don't unmderstand, the WMD programme and the question of what threat it posed, are two different issues. On the latter point - quite an important one when it comes to justifying a war of choice - it was amusing to see Blair responding to Lawrence Freedman yesterday. He passed off the "45-minute" sexing-up of the dossier as a minor detail that played little part in the debate - notwithstanding that he had thought to put it in the foreword and that - as Freedman pointed out - it filled most of the following day's front pages.

Sorry, T, but Blair's going to take a hammering in the Chilcot report. That won't trouble you any more than the evidence in the Butler report annexes will have bothered you. But it's a shame for Blair, obsessed as he is to leave a lily-white legacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:01 AM

There's a reason that the term "pathological" has been coupled to "liar"... These folks are so mired in denial that they truely believe what they are saying??? I know... Go figure??? Everyone else, other than their small band of apolpogists and shills, knows they are lieing but that doesn't seem to matter...

I wonder if it would have mattered had Hitler won???

Seems that the victors appear to get a pass when it comes to being held accountable...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM

Bobert, ever thought that people who disagree with you are simply that; people who disagree with you, or are they all pathological liars?

Must be great to be know you're right - always.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM

Not new? Thirteen posts in two days, twelve on one topic? Of course you could be a regular, posting under a changed pseudonym, which believe is an abuse of the forum.

But your points:

(1) Opinion polls: these are from the MORI website, and refer to February and March 2003.

Q Would you support or oppose British troops joining any American-led military action against Iraq in each of the following circumstances?

                Feb    March
Support         24         26         +2
Oppose                67         63         -4
Don't know         10         11         +1

Certainly a rise in support for war, from over two- thirds against to almost two- thirds against.

Parliament: place- seeking cowards whipped to death. The decent ones who resigned were conspicuous by their small number.

The press: do us a favour. The Guardian certainly wasn't in favour, the Murdoch press including the Chunderer do what they are told, and the redtops

Dr Kelly: opposed the "45 minute" claim. We don't know his thoughts in detail, and he wasn't spared to tell us his full reasons. He was certainly convinced afterwards that the invasion had been wrong; and fear of what he knew was trhe reason he was either murdered or at best hounded to death. And rather mysteriously we aren't to know any more for 70 years.

So perhaps, when you've come out as to who you "really" are, you'll also tell us why you need to make ridiculous assertions in support of the insupportable?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:09 PM

Well, are the Bush/Blair shills "pathological liars"... Some are and some aren't... If folks truely belive that going to war for no apparent reason is okay then they probably aren't pathological liars... I mean, that's what they believe...

But when in the face of facts and they still repeat the same reasons that were being given during the selling of this war then, yeah, the term aptly fits...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:43 PM

OK then Peter I will ask you again as you seemed to have ducked the question:

Subject: "Carne Ross's paper outlining alternatives to war, including targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, was not presented to Cabinet."

Question: "The Ross Carne paper dated when?"

Subject: "He (Ross Carne) testified (To the Butler review) that at no time during his work on Iraq (1998-2002) did the UK or US assess that Iraq's WMD posed a threat."

Question: Does he not say "UK or US"? Hence the links provided that show clearly that there were many in the US on both sides of the political divide who thought in the period specified by Carne that Saddam posed a threat. As for the UK, if memory serves me correctly United Nations Resolution 1441 was drafted and proposed by the United Kingdom and seconded by The United States of America. I would suggest that Mr. Ross Carne read through that document and decide for himself whether or not Iraq was considered to be a threat or not.

Subject: "Threat to the UK"

Question: What was the full context and scope of the threat. I believe that when first raised it was couched in the following terms:

"A threat to the United Kingdom, to the national interests of the United Kingdom and to the allies of the United Kingdom within the region."

Now that is a whale of a difference.

"As you well know this is pure speculation Teribus, and NOT a basis for a cogent defence as to why we went to war with Iraq." Sugarfoot Jack

Yes Jack of course what I outlined was pure speculation, but I note nobody has bothered to answer the question regarding why the possibility of that happening could be totally discounted. All immaterial really as all 19 of the United States of America's intelligence and security agencies stated quite clearly that that possibility represented the greatest threat to the USA in the wake of 9/11, and that urgent action was required to eliminate that threat.

Oh and at no point did I state that the scenario I outlined was the basis for invading Iraq. The basis for resuming hostilities with Iraq was their failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement that they signed at Safwan in April 1991.

Unfortunately for Saddam he couldn't comply with those terms and conditions could he? Of the 605 Kuwaiti nationals that he had abducted in 1990, the ones he had to repatriate in order to satisfy the terms and conditions of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement, he had already murdered 602 of them. Bit of a poser for the old boy wasn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:44 PM

Apologies Carne Ross.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM

Ah, Teribus, the obfuscations continue.

Teribus, I can't give you a date for the paper by Carne Ross because it is not in the public domain. My source was Carne himslf, in a BBC TV interview last night.

Would you mind saying who you are quoting when you refer (in quotes) to Ross's evidence to the Butler inquiry? It seems to be irrelevant, anyway, to anything I said. I wasn't discussing whether the UK and/or the US considered Saddam to pose a threat; only whether the UK, US or anyone else considered Saddam to pose a threat to the UK. Ross believed that he did not. We know now of course that Saddam couldn't have presented any kind of credible threat even to Cyprus.

I'm sure Ross would appreciate your advice that he familiarise himself with the text of 1441. However you would discover from the most cursory research that he has good reason to be a lot more familiar with the text that you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:10 PM

""Before the war the majority of the population were in favour (look it up), parliament was in favour, the press was in favour, even Dr Kelly thought we had to take Saddam out (yes, kelly as a witness would probably be an advantage to TB).

Virtually everyone thought he had wmd (he'd already used them).

Blair had to make a decision, the rest of us don't face these sort of decisions for which we should be grateful .""

That is a really dumb comment.

Of course everybody you mentioned was in favour, based on the pack of lies Tony B Liar had composed and presented to Parliament.

One of the greatest snow jobs since Josef Goebbels in the 30s, and just as cynically self serving.

Blair knew that Saddam had no WMD.   Blair knew that Bush and his cronies were sexing up the figures to justify invasion ten months before the war. Blair knew that the documentary evidence was based on some C Grade paper from a university degree course.

Blair screwed Parliament, and the British people, and not out of conviction, but out of an ambition to be remembered as the PM who liberated the down trodden people of Iraq.

SELF AGGRANDISEMENT, pure and simple.

What gripes me is the easy ride he was given by this so called public enquiry. Whitewash all over Whitehall........AGAIN!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:23 PM

What I object to is that there were folks out there who were callin' the lies as they werer being told... Scott Ritter, who worked as an inspector in the 90s, said the entire WMD claim was bogus... Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to check out the claim that Saddam was trying to buy uranium and came back and said it was bogus...

So what we had were, yeah, some folks who for partisan reasons believed everything that Bush and Blair said and alot of folks who saw thru their lies...

But really... Whether one believed the lies or not isn't really the issue... The issue was that after 1441 Hans Blix and his folks were welll on their way to proving or disproving the lies but were stopped short because Blair and Bush were in just too big of a hurry to get their little shock 'n awe show going to entertain, yes, entertain their partisan supporters...

That was why this war was fought (plus oil, of course)... Bush and Blair just had to show the world how tough they were... Well, next time we get a couple of chickenhawk bozoz who want to show how tough they are let them lead the charge... Nuff said...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:30 PM

""You letting the police onto your property and letting them inspect anywhere they want to inspect does not meet the requirement does it, what you have got to do is meet them at the front gate and you take them to the very spot that you have got it hidden and surrender it up to them,""

But he didn't have them hidden, did he, Teribus?

In fact, he didn't have them at all, did he?

So how could he show them where he had hidden these fictitious items?

They found none then, and they've found none since, and it is generally agreed now that if he had any left after using them on Iraqis, he had long since disposed of them, which of course happens to be what he told the UN, and also seems to have been the truth.

So your whole argument about his non compliance seems dead in the water.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM

"Blair knew that Saddam had no WMD."

Very definite statement there Don T - PROVE IT.

"based on the pack of lies Tony B Liar had composed and presented to Parliament"

Didn't they have a special review or inquiry into that very topic? So it should be very easy to detail and list the "lies" told. According to everyone who had anything to do with it the only input Tony Blair had to the September Dossier was his introduction. All the information came from UNSCOM Reports and the intelligence services. They were responsible for the evaluations, conclusions and recommendations. I await with baited breath the production of this "List of Lies" based upon what was known in the late summer and early autumn of 2002.

Particularly liked this Peter K:

"I'm sure Ross would appreciate your advice that he familiarise himself with the text of 1441. However you would discover from the most cursory research that he has good reason to be a lot more familiar with the text that you."

That undoubtedly being the case Peter he would be fully aware of the opening lines of it:

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002

The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Now what was it he said about Iraq and Iraq's WMD not posing a threat again Peter?

United nations Security Council Resolution 1441, specifically states:

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"

Reading through that sentence I instantly recognise the following words - THREAT; IRAQ; WMD; INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. Can you imagine Ross reading that and failing to join those dots?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:40 PM

""We know now of course that Saddam couldn't have presented any kind of credible threat even to Cyprus.""

You are right, but they knew then as well. Anybody who was paying attention would know that the longest range weapon Saddam had was barely capable of reaching Tel Aviv, let alone any Western Country. And the accuracy was so abysmal that you couldn't even be sure it would hit a City the size of Tel Aviv.

Teribus is obviously under the delusion of an Iraqi bomber walking into the US or the UK with a nuke up his backside, ignoring the insignificant stumbling block presented by the fact that no bomber has so far come from Iraq.

No, when the two playground bullies were looking for a victim, Saddam was the the littlest boy in school.

With all the abusive regimes in the world, many of them much worse than Saddam, why, do you suppose, that B Liar and the Shrub chose Saddam.

Because they already knew he had NO weapons that could stop, or even hurt them.

And there are still some lamebrains who think they believed he had WMD.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:49 PM

""Blair knew that Saddam had no WMD."

Very definite statement there Don T - PROVE IT.

"based on the pack of lies Tony B Liar had composed and presented to Parliament""


The Downing Street memo, so studiously ignored by those who wanted war, which clearly indicated that the lying bugger knew as early as ten months before hostilities that Bush and Co were sexing up the figures to support and justify a military incursion, plus the fact that they were willing to attack Iraq.

If they thought he had genuine WMD, they wouldn't have gone to war, for fear he'd use them.

Why do you think they tiptoe around Korea, and keep out of the Israelis' hair. Those guys can retaliate.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:52 PM

Oh dear, Teribus. What has a threat to the abstract concept of "international peace and security" got to do with Carne Ross's view that Saddam presented no threat to the UK? You may remember it was the US and UK, not the international community, that decided to start a war. (Bush was shameless in admitting that regime chamge was the aim, so for him it didn't matter a damn whether Saddam was a threat to the US.)

Incidentally, Blair wasn't too clear about how the so-called threat to the UK changed as a result of 9-11. Perhaps you could help us there, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 05:53 AM

"You are right, but they knew then as well. Anybody who was paying attention would know that the longest range weapon Saddam had was barely capable of reaching Tel Aviv, let alone any Western Country."

And things NEVER CHANGE do they Don? If you take what you have written there and apply it to Iran 18 months ago it would have been equally true. Now they have IRCBM's that could hit any target they want to in Europe, their rapid acquiisition of this capability aided by the North Koreans even caused a gasp in the Kremlin.

"Teribus is obviously under the delusion of an Iraqi bomber walking into the US or the UK with a nuke up his backside, ignoring the insignificant stumbling block presented by the fact that no bomber has so far come from Iraq."

With Saddam left in place, sanctions lifted or just ignored by his trading partners, and the lesson demonstrated to him by Al-Qaeda on the 11th September, 2001, the operative words in you sentence above Don are "no bomber HAS SO FAR come from Iraq". But I understand your sense of fair play, you actually want to wait until after we have been successfully attacked before we take any measures to defend ourselves.

"With all the abusive regimes in the world, many of them much worse than Saddam, why, do you suppose, that B Liar and the Shrub chose Saddam."

Tony Blair covered that during questioning on Friday. After 9/11 when the US conducted their evaluation as to what represented the greatest threat they landed on an asymmetric attack carried out by an international terrorist group covertly backed by a rogue state with access to WMD or WMD technology. They drew up a list of candidates to fulfil the role of rogue states that included Iraq; Iran; North Korea; Syria; Libya. Of those states Iraq came top of the list for the following reasons:

- Known to have links to terrorist organisations (Sponsorship of suicide bombers in Palestine)
- Known to have WMD, WMD material; WMD know-how.
- Known to be hostile to the USA
- Known to be in conflict with the United Nations over the terms and conditions of UN Resolution 687 relating to among other things disarmament.

They were the easiest target because of the above. Your contention that:

"If they thought he had genuine WMD, they wouldn't have gone to war, for fear he'd use them."

Is utterly ridiculous Don. Please remember that if in 2003, putting the kindest interpretation on things, Saddam MAY HAVE HAD WMD, in 1991 HE MOST DEFINITELY DID HAVE THEM, and that did not stop Coalition Forces taking him on and entering Iraq.

"So how could he show them where he had hidden these fictitious items?

They found none then, and they've found none since, and it is generally agreed now that if he had any left after using them on Iraqis, he had long since disposed of them, which of course happens to be what he told the UN, and also seems to have been the truth."

The details related to WMD in Iraq were compiled by UNSCOM from Iraq records and showed marked discrepencies in materials bought, agents manufactured, munitions manufactured, munitions loaded and munitions and agents used.

Take your first point there:

"So how could he show them where he had hidden these fictitious items?"

- How about detailing where this stuff had all gone;
- Detail any errors or ommissions all the way along the chain that caused a numerical difference;
- Take inspectors to sites where the items were unilaterally destroyed without UN monitoring or oversight;
- All the above backed up by interviews with the personnel involved.

That would have done it Don T.

Now the second point:

"They found none then, and they've found none since, and it is generally agreed now that if he had any left after using them on Iraqis, he had long since disposed of them, which of course happens to be what he told the UN, and also seems to have been the truth."

That Saddam has no WMD has far from been conclusively proven. None have been found, but Saddam was given time to hide them courtesy of his major trading partners Russia; China and France.

Immediately on inviting resumption of the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC inspections, surveillance flights were supposed to have started over Iraq - The Iraqis refused permission and there never were any such flights.

The Iraqi's were asked to submit a full and final declaration of their WMD programmes on 7th December, 2001. In a submission that Dr. Hans Blix described as disappointing none of the former discrepencies and errors were explained.

UNMOVIC inspectors were taken to sites where the Iraqis claimed they had destroyed their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Those sites were inspected and no forensic evidence turned up to indicate that anything had been destroyed there.

One of the requirements of UNSC Resolution 1441 was that Iraqi scientists and technicians who had been working on Iraq's WMD programmes were to interviewed in locations of UNMOVIC's choosing, free from threat or intimidation - No such interviews took place, attempts were made to supplant real scientists and technicians with Ba'athist "stand-ins".

Now I am sure that you Don will find all of that totally above board and perfectly reasonable, I don't.

Saddam Hussein himself, after capture told his captors that between 1991 and 2003 he had done everything in his power to convince his own people and his neighbours that in defiance of the UN Iraq still possessed WMD and the ability to deploy it.

The Downing Street Memo:

"the lying bugger knew as early as ten months before hostilities that Bush and Co were sexing up the figures to support and justify a military incursion, plus the fact that they were willing to attack Iraq."

Please show what bit of the September Dossier related to what WMD Iraq may, or may not, have possessed that was provided by the US. What figures were "sexed up" by Bush & Co? I ask you see because the figures outlining what WMD Iraq may, or may not have, possessed came directly from the United Nations, neither the UK or the USA added to them or subtracted from them. So what figures were "sexed up"? Easy enough to show Don, what UNSCOM said they may have is a matter of record, and for you to say what you are saying there must be figures declared by US sources that differ significantly to those provided by UNSCOM, give us a source and the figures showing that difference.

"What has a threat to the abstract concept of "international peace and security" got to do with Carne Ross's view that Saddam presented no threat to the UK?"

What Carne Ross's opinion amounted to was simply his opinion. And please correct me if I am wrong but the United Kingdom did write Resolution 1441 didn't it? 1441 was passed unanimously by all 15 members of the Security Council. It did specifically link Iraq to WMD and to a threat. But the most important fact was Peter, that Carne Ross was not the person responsible for looking after the security and national interests of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair was, and he took the decisions he did based on the best advice available at the time in the light of threat situation defined by the worst case scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 08:12 AM

I guess all that hot air in your last paragraph, Teribus, is some kind of admission that Saddam never posed a threat to the UK and that Blair hever had cause to think otherwise.

I'm not sure how it helps your argument, but UNSCR1441 was indeed drafted by UK diplomats, Carne Ross included.

As for the rest of your outpourings above, why do you bother? The facts are simple. Bush Jnr wanted Saddam out because of what he and Cheney perceived as unfinished business by Bush Snr. Regime change, pure and simple. Blair wanted to be Bush's buddy (like he is desperate to ingratiate himself with absolutely anyone with wealth or influence) but he couldn't admit the regime-change objective because that's illegal. And unlike the US, the UK is not quite big enough to flout the law at will. Thus, WMD and waffle like "threat to international peace and stability" had to be invoked.

Your tortured analysis - or was it Blair's? I don't remember him presenting it as you did - about why Iraq was chosen rather than some other candidate state, is a distraction at best. It is not a convincing case that Iraq was more deserving of destruction than (say) North Korea, and it does not begin to address why it was necessary to find ANY nation on which to vent spleen.

For Blair it was simply a case of whatever lie would do the job. Did you not hear what he said to Fern Britton, Teribus?

He explained the Britton interview to Chilcot with a laboured little joke to the effect that even he, consumately media-savvy as he is, could still be ensnared by a tenacious, briefed-to-the-hilt investigative journo like Fern Britton. LOL.

But what was his mistake? To tell her a lie, or to tell her the truth? Alas, he didn't attempt to say. So do share that with us, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 09:12 AM

Poor Teribus...

Can't fathom that had the inspectors been allowed to continue doing their jobs that all of this would have been sorted out along, long time ago...

...without this costly (human and treasury) war...

This is what I call "selective history" which is slightly different than "revisionist history"...

But to T and his buddy, Blair, Hanz Blix never existed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 09:26 AM

So Peter having read through 1441 you come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq with WMD posed no threat to the UK, and you state that Ross was involved in the drafting of it.

Where is the Post Script to 1441 that advises the members of the Security Council to "Please ignore the above cos we're only kidding!"

I take it that are are with the Camberwick Green and trumpton crowd who only recognise a threat to the UK to be a direct attack, and even then that direct attack would have to be by using conventional military forces. Are you really that obtuse or naive.

Were the UN given the opportunity to sort out Iraq? - They most certainly were and like everything else in that organisations history they simply fucked it up. Not surprising seeing how many of them were on the take.

Could Saddam Hussein have averted war? - Of course he could, but he could not do it and remain in power. He listened to the French, the Russians, the Chinese and the Germans, who all told him to sit tight the Americans and the British are only bluffing, and as soon as things calm down we'll get those nasty sanctions lifted. What a mistake to make, what a complete and utter clown to listen to such self-serving advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 10:07 AM

Again, T is eat up with revisionism...

If one recalls the atmosphere during the 1441 days it was one of an international community is shock over B&B's plans to invade Iraq... Had Colin Powell not prevailed in insisting that B&B go before the UN then B&B would have invaded 6 months earlier... But Powell did prevail and the international community let out a sigh of relief... The feeling of the sane and civilized world at the time was that war was going to be averted... That was reality in the sane and civilized world...

Of course, it was not part of the T/B&B reality, or dillusions, but it was very much the reality of sane and correct thinking people...

But now that the dillusional people are being called on to explain jsut what the Hell were they thinking we're getting more "selective history" from the dillusional... They won't answer the very real questions regarding intellegence and the inspections which were going nicely at the time that B&B short circuited sanity and logic...

But, as I have said going back a long, long time, the dillusional are forever stained by their actions and their lies... This is kinda like O.J. Simoson... I mean, just 'cause O.J. "got away with it" doesn't mean that the world doesn't know what he did...

And had Hitler prevailed in WW II he wouldn't have been prosecuted either... The winners, no matter how evil, wrong and dillusional always get away with their crimes against humanity...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM

I take it that are are with the Camberwick Green and trumpton crowd who only recognise a threat to the UK to be a direct attack, and even then that direct attack would have to be by using conventional military forces. Are you really that obtuse or naive.

Since you obviously set the bar so low, Teribus, you are probably urging the US and UK right now to dive in and trash Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, China, France and Russia among others. Just to be on the safe side. Your nerdish obsessions have suddenly become understandable, now I realise what a state of terror you must be living in. I assume the FOP gear in your back garden has been recently inspected and passed fit for purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 11:24 AM

Like I said...

..."dillusional"...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 01:31 PM

Shhhh Peter, no one's supposed to talk about Israel's WsMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 02:47 PM

But Isreal's WMDs are the good kind, Paul... They are so smart that they know to only kill the bad people... That's why they are called smart bombs...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:30 PM

The questioning in the Chilcot enquiry was weak to say the least.

I was very surprised(well perhaps not),that the enquiry team did not press Blair on his offer to Saddam, "to allow him to retain power if he would give up his WMD's"

As Blair's latest excuse is "regime change" above all else.....what would his answer have been?

I dont have dates to hand, but the offer was made not long before the outbreak of war(couple of months?)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:35 PM

"Teribus, you are probably urging the US and UK right now to dive in and trash Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, China, France and Russia among others. Just to be on the safe side."

Well Peter K if you care to look up a few of my postings during the period summer 2002 to March 2003, I think you would be surprised to find that I was one of the number who did not think that the invasion would happen - Why?? Because I could not believe that Saddam Hussein would be so c*****g stupid to think anything other than that "Pay attention here, the Yanks are really serious this time".

Now why would I be urging the US and UK to dive in and trash;

- Pakistan?
- India?
- Israel? (Sure you didn't mean Iran??)
- North Korea?
- China?
- France?
- Russia?
- Or anybody else for that matter?

But "Just to be on the safe side" I am not stupid enough to believe that bombs and rockets have to be launched directly at Great Britain before the country is under threat, and I sincerely hope that those elected to look to the nations interests and its security are not as stupid as you appear to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:54 PM

"If one recalls the atmosphere during the 1441 days it was one of an international community is shock over B&B's plans to invade Iraq... Had Colin Powell not prevailed in insisting that B&B go before the UN then B&B would have invaded 6 months earlier... But Powell did prevail and the international community let out a sigh of relief..."

Revisionism Bobert!!! You come out with that crap above and you have the gall to talk about revisionism??

The main driving force to go the UN route was Tony Blair and the British Government, the fact that Powell agreed with that approach is neither here nor there.

"But to T and his buddy, Blair, Hanz Blix never existed..."

Not read the good Doctor's book "Disarming Iraq" have you Bobert. It might interest you to know that in it, Hans Blix was quite complimentary about Tony Blair and his commitment to the UN route right up until the end. As to who sunk the diplomatic process - President Chirac of France, after he came out with his statement that France would veto ANY Second Resolution the UN had run out of road, right at the start of the UN's involvement the US had told them quite clearly - "You sort this out and address our concerns or we will do it ourselves". They did and they were perfectly correct to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM

sl?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 04:55 PM

You are fulll of it that I'd bet yer eyes are brown, T...

Are you saying that Blair was going to invade Iraq without the US on board??? I mean, that seems to be your implication is saying that it was the UK that pushed for a UN Resolution... That's garbage... Colin Powell pushed for it hot and heavy... Maybe Blair got on board but don't go thinkin' that yer buddy, Blair, was all that concerned about any UN resolution until after the demonstartions and after Powell's insistence...

And talk about dillusions... Now you wnat to balme the French on the Iraq war??? Is that yer final answer???

Sheesh!!!

(But, Boberdz... Them Brits love to blame the French for anything that goes wrong... I mean, it's part of their culture, mah man...)

Bull feathers, T... This all started with Bush... He came into office consumed with Saddam Hussien... I mean, eat up consumed... Then he got Blair doing the company fight song and that's the way it went down...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM

Recorded fact Bobert easily demonstrated -

Regime Change in Iraq became official US Goverment policy in late summer of 1998, NOT, repeat NOT January 2001 or even April 2002.

The fact that Regime Change in Iraq became official US Goverment Policy had absolutely NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with George W. Bush; "unfinished business"; or the assassination attempt on his father in April 1993.

"Are you saying that Blair was going to invade Iraq without the US on board??? I mean, that seems to be your implication is saying that it was the UK that pushed for a UN Resolution... That's garbage... Colin Powell pushed for it hot and heavy..."

OK then Bobert give us the timeline - When exactly was it that Colin Powell first pushed for a UN Resolution either "hot and heavy" or in any other manner. We all know when Tony Blair and the UK Government decided that that was the only way to go. You come up with your date and we shall see which is the earlier shall we??

Oh, and while you are about that, could you please explain Bobert why it would be that, if Colin Powell instigated the UN proceedings (pushing hard and heavy in the process), it was the UK that proposed and drafted 1441 and it was the USA that seconded it? (Hint Bobert: If you read what you have written the answer is as plain as a pikestaff and confirms conclusively that it was the UK that pushed the UN route and not CP).

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 06:31 PM

Teribe:

There's just a little difference between LEGAL attempts at regime change, and blowing the whole shooting match (and your own credibility) to fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 06:35 PM

Blairs attempt to justify the invasion based on lower infant mortality rates now, as opposed to when Saddam was in power, is particularly sickening.

The sanctions regime, put in place by the UNSC resulted in an overall fall in national health figures.
Infant motality rose from 47 deaths per 1000 in 1990(when sanctions started) to 180 deaths per 1000 in 1999.
In the autonomous Northern sector of Iraq, the rates dropped from 64 per 1000 to 58 per 1000 in the same period.

These rates meant that infant mortality was at an all time high at the time of the invasion, and remained high, during the invasion and its aftermath
Infant mortality was bound to fall, when sanctions were abandoned
and indiscriminate bombing of cities like Falluja stopped.

Infant mortality in Iraq pre 1990 was at one of the lowest rates in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 07:09 PM

So what if "regime change" was official or even unofficil policy, T... If it meant going to war than why didn't Clinton do it??? Huh???

As fir the timeline??? There really isn't going to be any evidence on either side of the debate because the relationship that Powell had with Bush and those discussion's have never been made public... However, there were alot of "un-named" sources during the Bush/Blair mad-dash-to-Iraq days that we sayin' that Powell was the lone-wolf within the admistration going back way before a UN resolution was even discussed...

As for why the UK put forth the resoultion all comes down to the selling of the war....Remember August of 2002, T... B&B had allready sent out alot of sabre rattliong trial baloons and the the consensus was that they would hold off the campaign until Sepetemebr and folks were back from vacation and the kids were in school... That was exactly the way it was put... One member of the Bush administartion even said that August was not good timing to sell a war... Do you rememebr that or have you conviently put that in you trash bin because it doesn't jive with yer mythology???

Now, make up your mind, T... One minute you are saying that the Iraq war was because of the French, then Blair... Which one??? And why not Bush??? Was the UK going to go it alone??? When did Blair first say he wanted to take out Saddam??? before January 20, 2001??? That's when Treasury Secretary O'Niel said that Bush was consumed with taking out Saddam...

And if "regime change" was somekind of offical policy why hadn't it been done???

And while we are at it, if Saddam was such a problem then why wasn;t he assasinated rather than killing upwards of a 1,000,000 ***other people***???

Huh???

And, ahhhhhh, me thinks that it's well past time for you to pee in the cup 'cause whatever drugs you are on are seriously effecting your ability to grasp reality or even remember the way that things were... If you need a refresher you can go back and reread the threads... Lotta stuff in there that you have conviently forgotten...

Now, pee in the cup...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 07:28 PM

I wonder if Blair appreciates what a faithful devotee his has in Teribus, the poodle's poodle?

According to Teribus, Blair it was who urged the honourable course of going back to the UN. (No pressure from other European leaders of course or from his own diplomats; entirely his own idea.) When it became clear that the UN would show a bit more backbone than Blair had done in dealing with Bush, Blair very honourably said "Fuck the UN. Who needs it anyway."

As someone said yesterday, if Blair believed as sincerely as he has been claiming that UN authority was not necessary, why would he even have considered urging that route?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 08:14 PM

Right. Peter... And no millions and millions of folks in the streets in just about every develope country on the planet saying "No"... Guess T doesn't remember those either of if he does he has conviently reduced the millions to a "couple hundred" or maybe a "van full" for folks...

I mean, T is just like Blair and just like Bush... He spent hours and hours every day singing the company fight (war) song back then... I even accused him of being on the payroll and wouldn't be a bit surprised if he still isn't...

But reality is that alot of folks will have to take their "pathological lies" (meaning that they have told them so long that they believe them to represent actual, ahhhhh, facts) to the grave with them... I'm sure that alot of Hitlers henchmen also had this problem in that they knew what they had done and just built whatever mythologies were needed to allow them to try to live out normal lives... The difference here is that because the victors are never held accountable its much easier for T and B&B... Saddam had his head seperated from his body but T's head will remain intact... So will B&B's heads... Saddam was convicted of gassing a few hundred Kurds back a long time ago after a Kurdish uprising... B&B are equally responsible for the death of upwards of a million people yet they will be allowed to carry their carefully crafted mythology to their natural deaths...

And the beat goes on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:41 AM

Ah so now Peter descends to ad hominem attacks and the old socialist trick of putting words into my mouth where upon he then proceeds to take me to task for them.

1. "According to Teribus, Blair it was who urged the honourable course of going back to the UN."

Not according to me Peter, it is recorded fact, easily checked I have challenged those telling me I am in error to prove it and so far none of you have come up with anything that shows what I have said is incorrect.

2. "(No pressure from other European leaders of course or from his own diplomats; entirely his own idea.)"

Now when exactly did I infer, imply, say that, or anything like that? I believe the record shows that Blair was advised to go to the UN, as the UK's cause for concern and their point of leverage centred on Iraq's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement.

Over Iraq Peter K, the UN showed as much "backbone" as it did over Rwanda and Darfur, now compared to either of those the damage caused to Iraq was minor.

Akenaton:

"The sanctions regime, put in place by the UNSC resulted in an overall fall in national health figures.

Infant motality rose from 47 deaths per 1000 in 1990(when sanctions started) to 180 deaths per 1000 in 1999.

In the autonomous Northern sector of Iraq, the rates dropped from 64 per 1000 to 58 per 1000 in the same period."

OK then Akenaton, we know for definite that Iraq during the "UN Sanctions" period was not short of money (The UN Scam otherwise known as the "Oil for Food" Programme). We also know for definite that during this period Saddam somehow found the money and the means to smuggle 384 Rocket motors into Iraq and develop two new types of missile. He also build 34 Presidential Palaces (One the size of Washington DC) in order to conceal things from UNSCOM's inspectors. We also know that as you stated infant mortality in the areas that Saddam controlled went up by a factor of 3.83.

However in the North of Iraq that was not under Saddam's control in the same period, no doubt with the same degree of illegal oil smuggling going on the infant mortality rate fell.

Simple question Ake, if the Kurds could achieve that drop under the same sanctions regime why couldn't Saddam?

Your figures prompt another question Ake, why was the infant mortality rate in 1990 for Kurds 1.4 times higher than for the rest of Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule?

Bobert:

"So what if "regime change" was official or even unofficil policy, T... If it meant going to war than why didn't Clinton do it??? Huh???"

Now just for arguments sake let us take Peter K's Camberwick Green/Trumpton view on what constitutes a direct threat to a nation:

An attack involving a direct assault on the country in question with bombs, missiles, launched by conventional forces"

Why didn't Clinton do what Bobert? If I remember correctly he (Clinton) lobbed 23 cruise missiles into Iraq in June 1993 after Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate his predecessor (Act of War Bobert? Did he ask either Senate or House of Representatives permission to do this? Did he go to the UN before he did this?) I also recall that in December 1998 he ordered the UNSCOM Inspectors out of Iraq and launched an air assault on Baghdad, you might remember this too Bobert, the operation was called "Desert Fox" (Act of War Bobert? Did he ask either Senate or House of Representatives permission to do this? Did he go to the UN before he did this?)

Just to save you the trouble Bobert the answers to the last lot of questions are as follows:

- Act of War Bobert? Most certainly.
- Did he ask either Senate or House of Representatives permission to do this? No he did not.
- Did he go to the UN before he did this? No he did not.

" if Blair believed as sincerely as he has been claiming that UN authority was not necessary, why would he even have considered urging that route?"

Simple Peter K, to give Saddam Hussein and Iraq exactly what was stated in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - One Last Chance.

The fact that neither the UK or the USA HAD to go back for a second resolution was pointed out to Goldsmith by the French Ambassador. The justification for resumption of hostilities against Iraq was their failure to comply with a ceasefire agreement they had signed in April 1991, pure and simple. If you sign agreements and deliberately fail to comply with what you have agreed to do, expect that there will be consequences, that may at times be serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:41 AM

"The fact that neither the UK or the USA HAD to go back for a second resolution was pointed out to Goldsmith by the French Ambassador. The justification for resumption of hostilities against Iraq was their failure to comply with a ceasefire agreement they had signed in April 1991, pure and simple. If you sign agreements and deliberately fail to comply with what you have agreed to do, expect that there will be consequences, that may at times be serious."

But it's not as cut and dried as that. As the inquiry continues it's becoming increasingly apparent that the war was very likely illegal (as every lawyer in the Foreign Office said it was); Blair went back for a second resolution to put the legality of any military action beyond doubt. The Americans didn't give a shit and Bush was going in no matter what but Blair didn't have the country behind him and had to sell the war at home, so that was his only remaining option seeing as virtually every reason he'd put forward before failed to persuade the majority.

The Guardian is today reporting Blair is to be hauled back before the inquiry to clear this up, something he won't do as we know. One thing his performance at Chilcot showed was his complete lack of personal integrity and his disregard for the consequences of his actions - a shameful and quite repugnant attitude for a public servant (although he's by no means alone in Parliament in this regard).

The real question here is: What made Goldsmith change his mind and declare the war legal?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 09:45 AM

But it's not as cut and dried as that. As the inquiry continues it's becoming increasingly apparent that the war was very likely illegal (as every lawyer in the Foreign Office said it was)

Not quite cut and dried as that even. As the inquiry continues there have been number of people who have appeared before Chilcot & Co who have expressed their opinions as to what they thought regarding the legality of the war. Unfortunately that is all it is a collection of opinions. For "legal" purposes there was only one opinion that ever really counted, i.e. that of the Attorney-General. So Blair is to be recalled to clarify what advice he was given by Lord Goldsmith, wouldn't the best plaan be to recall Lord Goldsmith and ask him, why he changed his mind, although I think that if you did that you would not get an explanation that you would agree with or accept, because I don't think Goldsmith changed his mind at all did he? But I think that is the way it was rather carelessly reported.

He was asked about about Regime Change, and he quite correctly said Regime Change does not work from the UK's point of view because Regime Change is not mentioned as being required in any of the previous UN Resolutions relating to Iraq.

Rather poorly Goldsmith put up three circumstances under which military action would be considered legal:

- Direct threat
- Humanitarian Grounds
- UN Authorisation

It could not be argued that Iraq was a direct threat to the UK

The case for acting out of humanitarian concern could not be argued

Which left UN Authorisation, at that time that devolved to UNSCR 678 & UNSCR 687. 678 authorised military action against Iraq related to its occupation of Kuwait; 687 detailed the terms and conditions that Iraq had to comply with in order to halt hostilities associated with 678. As 1441 was not at this time in force, and Iraq had not complied with the terms and conditions agreed to, then military intervention to enforce Iraqi compliance was perfectly legal.

Blair went back for a second resolution to put the legality of any military action beyond doubt.

Oh, no he did not, he may have wanted to, but Chirac had made it perfectly plain that France was going to veto any second resolution. So the diplomatic route came to a dead end, the second resolution was never even drafted for consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 02:19 PM

I agree with some of the points you make Teribus,like the Kurdish population being victimised and discriminated against by Saddam, but Blair still lies by saying that the invasion helped infant mortality rates in Iraq.

When the invasion started,infant mortality rates were at an all time high due to the effect of UNSC sanctions on the community(not Saddam personally)
The rates continued to be high during the invasion and the insurrection, and have not yet dropped to the level achieved by the Saddam regime before sanctions.

Leaving facts aside, you must be aware that the guy is a dangerous egotistical nutter and a "liberal" of the very worst type....and I had been saying that long before the war in Iraq.

I simply cannot understand why you continue to support him, when you consider the status of women under the Shia dominated administration which we assisted in bringing to power.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM

""With Saddam left in place, sanctions lifted or just ignored by his trading partners, and the lesson demonstrated to him by Al-Qaeda on the 11th September, 2001, the operative words in you sentence above Don are "no bomber HAS SO FAR come from Iraq". But I understand your sense of fair play, you actually want to wait until after we have been successfully attacked before we take any measures to defend ourselves.""

If that's the best you've got in terms of repartee, I don't think you should be butting into grown up conversations.

You know, only too well, that Hussain had ditched any WMD he had. You also know that Bush and Blair wanted an excuse to out him, to finish the job that should have been completed in the first Gulf War.

If that job had been done then, it would have been legitimate, and there would not have been the same bitter aftermath, because there were plenty of West friendly Iraqis to take over the reins.

But it wasn't done, so a concerted period of PR devoted to linking Iraq with 9/11, so successfully that half the population of the USA and a good many Brits believed it.

But we know better don't we? The only action outside of its own borders was the invasion of Kuwait, and there was absolutely no reason in 2002/2003 to believe that Iraq presented any threat to the UK or the USA.

If we were going to invade on the basis of defence, perhaps we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. After all that's where the 9/11 terrorists came from.

It's a bit like having your neighbour threaten you with a gun, then kicking the stuffing out of the neighbour on the other side, because he is a)Smaller and b)Unarmed

Bush and Blair lied time and time again (directly and by omission) to paint Saddam as a threat to the West, which he almost certainly was not.

If the justification were to get rid of a despot, there were plenty of more evil candidates, but they all WERE armed and dangerous.

If you are too dumb to see the truth in that, then I pity you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 05:16 PM

In response to Don T:

first paragraph - meaningless pointless crap

second paragraph -

1. When did I or anybody else know that Saddam Hussein ditched any WMD he had?? 20th March 2003 maybe? Ask Dr. Hans Blix he still thought Iraq had WMD, WMD programmes running, weapons development programmes running.

2. To finish the job that should have been completed in the first Gulf War?? That job was specific, that job was to expell Iraq from Kuwait and that is what was done.


third paragraph -

If that job had been done then, it would have been illegal, the Arab members of the coalition would have rebelled at that (They actually warned the UN about this) and collapsed. Bitter aftermath?? We would have been stuck out there with no means of fighting our way out, the entire region would have been ablaze.

fourth paragraph - If you are mug enough to read and believe what newspapers, Television or radio reports then more mug you, maybe you are the one who shouldn't butt into to grown up conversations. I prefer to listen to what the people involved actually say and on the 16th September 2001 I heard first from Colin Powell and second from Vice-President Dick Cheney that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 11th September, 2001

fifth paragraph -
1. But we know better don't we? The only action outside of its own borders was the invasion of Kuwait

So there was no sponsoring of suicide bombers in the West Bank; there was no assassination attempt on the former President of the United States in April 1993; there was no threat to Kuwait from the Iraqi Army in 1994. That is very odd Don because I can recall all of those.

2. and there was absolutely no reason in 2002/2003 to believe that Iraq presented any threat to the UK or the USA.

I think that there was every reason in 2002/2003 to believe that an Iraq that had not disarmed in a verifiable manner presented a threat. And guess what Don all 15 members of the Security Council of the United Nations thought exactly the same as me.

sixth paragraph - more meaningless idiotic crap.

seventh paragraph - ditto

eighth paragraph - Give me one, just one example of one of these lies. I keep asking for this from the clowns he keep blurting this out like some sort of mantra and I have yet to be given anything in evidence that any lie was told.

Oh by the way, the thing those reporters, whose line you seem to have swallowed hook-line-and sinker, sort of truncated in their reporting was the line in speeches that stated that Iraq under Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the USA/UK, the national interests of the USA/UK and to the allies of the USA/UK in the region. Go by what was said not by what was reported as having been said.

ninth paragraph - And how many of those other evil despots were on the hook having signed a binding ceasefire agreement who were not complying with it?? How many of those other evil despots were in China's back pocket (Burma; Sudan; Zimbabwe; North Korea)

Oh by the way, realistically you cannot deconstruct science. You could ban all the bombs, you can sign as many agreements as you like, you can ban and destroy all weapons - All of that will do you no good whatsoever because - We still know how to make them.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 05:58 PM

""I think that there was every reason in 2002/2003 to believe that an Iraq that had not disarmed in a verifiable manner presented a threat. And guess what Don all 15 members of the Security Council of the United Nations thought exactly the same as me."

Which makes all 15 members just as fucking stupid as Blair and Bushites like yourself, since none of you have the sense to understand
a)That it is impossible to prove that you don't possess a particular thing, and
b)It is therefor impossible to prove compliance with imposed conditions, when compliance involves proof as in a).

Q.E.D. Saddam Hussain was stitched up by Bush and Blair, since there was no way to comply with the requirements placed upon him.

The depth of your ignorance is further proved by your statement further up this thread, that the way to comply would be to show the inspectors where he had hidden the weapons.

This will, I know, come as a complete surprise to you, but, in the abscence of ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE that he had any WMD, his failure to produce any did not confer legal, or ethical, justification for acting as though he had, and invading Iraq.

In order to give you something which you may conceivably understand,

Take a hypothetical situation:-

You are in a house when it is suddenly surrounded by armed American Police.

A voice outside demands that you throw out your gun, and then come out with your hands up.

You are told that, if you leave the house without tossing your gun out, you will be shot.

You are further told that, in five minutes the police will come in shooting.

You don't have a gun in the house.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

So, T, you think that 23 missles fired at Iraq by Clinton in response to a plot to kill Daddy Bush amounted to an attempt ar regime change???

Come on, man... Yer a military guy, right??? Are you relly expecting any to buy into that slice of mythology???

BTW, the US hasn't decalred war since 1941 so that straw man won't hunt...

Keep the delusions comin'... They are getting funnier and funnier... If I didn't know better I'd think you were writing satire for The Onion or somethin'... No logic and skimpy on reality...

BTW, why do you keep poo-pooin' Hanz Blix??? You don't like him, 'er what???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 10:46 PM

Poor Goldsmith invested huge amounts of thought and lawyerly brainpower in trying to explain to Chilcot why he changed his mind on the legal advice. Yet if he'd had Teribus at his side to guide him he would have realised that he never changed his mind at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 01:59 AM

Don T - your hypothetical situation.

Solution: Taking into account that they have come to arrest someone they think is armed and connected to some sort of crime that they are investigating. Take note of the time the 5 minute warning is given then within that time get anything in your house that looks remotely like a gun wrap it up wait until 4 minutes 45 seconds has elapsed toss out the "gun" and come out with hands up and obey all instructions without hesitation.

Oh and for things such as would be required for programmes that cover such activities as:

- The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons
- A nuclear weapons programme
- The manufacture of ballistic missiles

With all the specialist equipment required and the forensic traces that the above activities leave behind. Provided that you did have those things at one point (As was known to be the case with Iraq) if you are being totally transparent and honest it should be easy to prove that you no longer have anything connected with those activities, especially as you are dealing with the same people who had been working on your disarmament programme previously. So please do not try the rather childish tactic of over simplifying a problem just to make it suit your argument or point of view.

By the bye where and when did I demonstrate

The depth of your ignorance is further proved by your statement further up this thread, that the way to comply would be to show the inspectors where he had hidden the weapons.

Are you possibly referring the hypothetical example I gave of someone demonsrating what full procative co-operation means. If so your powers of comprehension of the english language are sadly lacking, and it is little wonder that you swallow the utter tripe dished out to you in the press.

Bobert:

So, T, you think that 23 missles fired at Iraq by Clinton in response to a plot to kill Daddy Bush amounted to an attempt ar regime change???

Nope, not in the slightest, but you asked:

So what if "regime change" was official or even unofficil policy, T... If it meant going to war than why didn't Clinton do it??? Huh???

I gave you two instances where Bill Clinton did attack Iraq in a manner that would amount to constituting an "Act of War", both those attacks were made without Clinton seeking congressional approval and without going to the UN for authorisation. As the US IRAQ Act did not come into force until late summer 1998 the first attack in 1993 could not possibly have had anything to do with Regime Change could it??? Huh???

The second time I mentioned the missile attack of June 1993, the example was given in response to someone stating that Saddam was confining his activities to inside Iraq. The sponsorship of suicide bombers in the West Bank and the attempted assassination of Bush Snr both took place outside of Iraq. That good enough for you or would you like it explained just a little bit clearer than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 02:17 AM

Poor Goldsmith invested huge amounts of thought and lawyerly brainpower in trying to explain to Chilcot why he changed his mind on the legal advice. Yet if he'd had Teribus at his side to guide him he would have realised that he never changed his mind at all!

Has Lord Goldsmith changed his mind and now stated that military intervention on the part of the UK is legal and justified in order to bring about Regime Change in Iraq?? Did he ever do that?? Because Peter K if he hasn't then he has not changed his mind has he, he still thinks that military action to achieve regime Change is not legal.

Now has he stated that military intervention is legal in order to enforce an existing UN Resolution?? Yes he did and that Peter K is exactly what was done.



Now to people who like to over-simplify things they read from some hack that in April/June /July/whenever "Goldsmith states military action illegal for UK" without linking it specifically to regime change, then reads months later, "Goldsmith states military action legal" without linking it to the enforcement of existing UN resolutions. Then yes I can see why the likes of yourself and Don then accuse him of changing his mind, when in actual fact he has not.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 02:28 AM

Additionally Bobert:

So what if "regime change" was official or even unofficil policy, T... If it meant going to war than why didn't Clinton do it??? Huh???

Simple answer to that question Bobert is that he didn't have the moral courage to do it, as with everything in his Presidency he took the easy way out and left his inconvenient problems to fester knowing full well that his successors would have to clear them up at some point in the future. But make no mistake Bobert it was on Clinton's watch that Iraq was identified as a threat. All of that is well reported and documented so please do not try and attempt to say it was GWB who "picked on" Iraq, or that it started the moment GWB entered the White House because that simply is not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GRex
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 05:22 AM

sl

I do read. I've just spent over an hour reading, after Googling 'Iraqi oil contracts'.

I'm now more firmly convinced that it was all about oil.

             GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 08:09 AM

Oh, let me see if I have this right, T???

It takes moral courage for a man who knows nuthin' about war to order kids off to bomb and shoot upwards of a miliion men, women and children???

That's moral courage??? Where exactly is the courage part??? And, oh... Where is the moral part???

Moral courage, my butt!!!

BTW, we are now getting closer to understanding you, Blair and Bush if that's the way you think of the Iraq invasion...

B~

P.S. Still nothin' on Blix...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 08:36 AM

So far GRex my reading of it is as follows:

1. Qayara & Najamah Oil Fields to Angolan State Oil Company Sonangol

2. Majnoon Oil Field to a Royal Dutch Shell/Petronas (Malaysian National Oil Company) Joint Venture.

3. Halfaya Oil Field to CNPC (Chinese State Oil Company); Petronas; Total (French Oil Company)Joint Venture.

4. Rumaila Oil Field to CNPC & BP (British) Joint Venture.

5. West Qurna Oil Field to Exxon Mobil (USA); Iraq Oil Company; Royal Dutch Shell Joint Venture.

6. Zubair Oil Field to ENI (Italian); Korea Gas (South Korean); Occidental (USA)

Note the above are Oil Field Service Contracts, i.e. the oil and the oil fields still belong to Iraq the companies mentioned above get a fee for operating the fields. In example 2. above the service contract dictates that the field has to be developed and output increased from the current 46,000 barrels per day to 1.8 million barrels per day (a factor of 39 times current production) in order that the Joint venture will be paid USD 1.39 per barrel.

All previous contracts signed during Saddam Hussein's period in office which includes all the FAS contracts that were not in Iraq's best interests have all been honoured, they are primarily with Russia; China and France, the nations whose Governments did their absolute damnedest to keep Saddam in power, and the people who used to pay for their oil with weapons.

Particularly liked this, I came across whilst googling:

1. The announcement last week that the Iraqi government had awarded foreign contracts for the exploitation of a number of its oil fields created a remarkably mild, one-day reaction in the popular press. The gist of the awards, of course, was that virtually everybody, from the Russians and Chinese to the Malaysians and Angolans, were given contracts on one field or another, while American companies were essentially left holding the bag, with participation in a couple of relatively minor deals.

2. Two not especially complimentary explanations have snuck forward into the public dialogue. One is that the Iraqi government of al-Maliki is simply snubbing its nose at the Americans and showing that if we expected any gratitude for invading, conquering, occupying, dismantling, then putting back together Iraq six and a half years after the fact, we can forget it. The other is that it shows the failure of what some believe to have been the primary underlying motivation for invading Iraq in the first place, which was to gain control–or at least influence–over Iraqi oil reserves for the future. My book, What After Iraq?, is among the places where this argument can be found. Defenders of the war even argue this demonstrates that oil was not the motive in the first place, or we would not be standing by so docilely as the Iraqis sell it to other people.

The writer then goes on to explain that it is not Iraqi oil that the US wanted to control but Kurdish oil. Well he will be out of luck there as well, the Kurds seem to doing business with the Chinese and the Norwegians and have been given the all-clear to export through the Iraq Oil Company's, Northern Oil Company pipeline network as of 25th January 2010.

I have always stated on this forum to those who prattle on about the USA stealing people's resources that they do not know what they are talking about, and you GRex would appear to be no exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 08:40 AM

"It takes moral courage for a man who knows nuthin' about war to order kids off to bomb and shoot upwards of a miliion men, women and children???" - Bobert


PROVE IT!!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

Prove exactly what, T??? Apparently you did not take the question in context with the rest of the post...

Bottom line, you say that the reason that Clinton didn't invade Iraq is because Clinton lacked moral courage... Right so far???

But Bush and Blair did so I'm guessin' that in your eyes that meant that Bush and Blair had moral courage... Is that correct???

Assuming that that is exactly what you meanm then I am questioning the merits of the term "moral courage"... Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on what you think "moral couarge" is... I donno... Maybe you don't want to elaborate...

And while you're elaboratin' maybe you could also elaborate on just why you ignore Hanz Blix as if he were a radiation pit???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 03:11 PM

Ah well....there y'are! My but they're a laugh these "liberals"

Miss Claire Short, heroine of the "liberal" left appeared on the Chilcot Show to give her views on the conduct of Blair and his mates.

For her first gag Miss Short stunned nobody by claiming that she "agreed with military action to remove Saddam." She then went on to give a wonderful impression of "a woman scorned" by knifing everyone who supported Blair, with the exception of herself.

Cast your minds back to the month or so before the invasion(sorry liberation), there had been huge public demonstrations against the war, Robin Cook had resigned(admittedly with his own agenda), the pro war faction were struggling to con parliament on the legality of the war, the "dodgy dossier" had been exposed and we waited with bated breath for the Iron Lady of Socialism to bring the whole charade to a shuddering halt......we almost screamed at her....Do it now Claire! Resign before its too late. Support Cook.

But we underestimated the artful dodger Blair.
How to neutralise Short and with her the whole anti-war movement? Seemples! Invite her to join us!....massage her ego!....tell her we need her input!
Displaying the virulent type of hypocricy which can only survive in the mind of a true "liberal", Claire was up Tone's arse like a rat up a drainpipe. She made a Faustian deal with the Devil, signing away not her life, but her political credibility.

Before long Claire realised that her man had done her wrong, Tony didn't want her input, only her body......on the cabinet seat beside him......That is why Miss short huffed and puffed today, not for the Iraqi people, not for our brave boys, not even for Socialism, but to get even with the man who striped her principles bare and showed to the world that beneath most on the political left lies a throbbing streak of hypocricy.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 04:55 PM

The true political left were the people in the streets, Ake, and not the bozo's in ya'll's governemnt... No political leftest would have ever bought into invading Iraq for the bogus reasons that were invented on almost a daily basis...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 05:32 PM

What you are being asked to prove Bobert is that upwards of a miliion men, women and children were killed by US forces in Iraq.

If for any reason you cannot prove that idiotic statement then stop repeating it. Because to knowingly repeat and broadcast something that you know not to be true means Bobert that you are deliberately telling lies, with the intent of misinforming people, and you have told us often enough how much you dislike people doing that very thing. It is called hypocrisy Bobert, I am sure that you wouldn't want to be accused of it would you?

By the bye Bobert who is Hanz??

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 05:35 PM

Yea that's right Bob...I know we were both on the streets, but memories are short even on the streets and I know many on the "left" who have been bought.....Teribus and his friends would contend that we could all be bought....quite cheaply and I couldn't put up much of an argument against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

Google up "Opinion Research Buisness Survey", T... It has the total gretaer than 1,000,000... Other sources slightly less...

And now yer gonna play games over spelling??? What ya' yryin' to do??? Put off the enivitable where you have tyo admit that the inspectoAnd if you want to argue with anyone over those nembers or methodology, do it with those folks... Unlike you and I, they do this stuff for a living...

And stop yer little spelling bee games... You know exactly who Blix is... Very childish on your part...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 06:01 PM

You are the one who's playing games Teribus, you know very well what Bobert is alluding to.....The removal of the Saddam regime and its botched up aftermath caused the deaths of a million.

A lot of people, myself included, warned of that when removal of Saddam was first muted.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

Opps... Some of my post got erased... Maybe Blair's boys playin' around???

That part starting "What are you trying to do...." should read "put off the enivitable where you have to admit that the inspections would have averted the war"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

...oh, and...


...100...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:21 PM

Nowhere near a million both the John Hopkins Study and the ORB Survey are both Batch Sampled - ESTIMATES not actual death statistics

Where deaths have occured and bodies actually buried are the criteria the figure is about 10% of the number you claim.

But still while you mourn the million dead Iraqis I will mourn all those babies the Iraqis pulled out of incubators and killed when they invaded Kuwait.

And at least I have actually read through what Dr Hans Blix wrote Bobert, which is damn sight more than you have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM

I will mourn all those babies the Iraqis pulled out of incubators and killed when they invaded Kuwait.

You might have read Hans Blix, which is more than Blair did, but you haven't read Snopes.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

No, T... We know you couldn't have possibly read Blix or even followed his speech to the UN in January, 2003, or you would know what the rest of the civilized world knows which is there was no justification in B&B ordering up the invasion of Iraq...

And while you admitting to be ignorant of the Blix report does expalin why you have sonsistentyly been wrong about the war it does not excuse it... We tried to bring you up to speed but you were too busy arguning insignifacant stuff and missed the big picture...

Your bad!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:19 PM

Mr Burke, the stories about babies being thrown out of incubators during the occupation of Kuwait is as true as the fable about US Forces killing 1 million+ Iraqi civilians.

We know you couldn't have possibly read Blix or even followed his speech to the UN in January, 2003.

"We" Bobert, "We", who are this "We" you are talking about?? You actually know the square root of damn all about what I have read, what I have listened to, what I have watched. But I will tell you this I have read a great deal of what the good Doctor has written, I actually watched and listened to him and Mohammed el-Baradei deliver their report to the assembled UN Security Council on the 27th January, 2003. In fact I watched and listened to all the reports that he delivered to the UN. Which from your comments, remarks and assertions related to what Hans Blix has said is something that you most certainly have never done.

Tell me when it was that Dr.Hans Blix reported that there were no WMD in Iraq?? Rhetorical question Bobert because he never did.

Did the good Doctor believe that there were WMD and WMD programmes running in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?? Another rhetorical question Bobert - You bet your ass he did But then you would have known that if you had read the good Doctors book.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:20 PM

As Ake said, Clare Short's performance was indeed woeful. Whatever Cook's agenda might have been, this inquiry would have been a lot more fun if he was still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

Well, T... It's this way... Given the fact that B&B were so scared that Saddam had WMDs and were prepared to invade Iraq Saddam unless Saddam did the impossible of proving he didn't have any, Saddam agreed to let inspectors come in and look for WMDs... I mean, logic has it that if Saddeam didn't have any WMDs the only thing he could do was invite B&B's boys in for a looksie... Right???

So Saddam said, "Come on in" and then Blix and his boys did just that... Might of fact things were going so welll that Blix went before the UN and said the "most imposrtant" thing was that the Iraqis were letting them inspect where ever the inspectors wanted...

So, other than B,B&T, the sane and civilized world was happy 'cause wioth Blix's boys in Iraq to prove to the world that Iraq and Saddam were not a danger that logic woulde prevail and there would be no war... Right???

Well, T, this is where the story kinda does an Apollo 13 'cause B&B wanted to have a war anyway... Really didn't matter why... They just wanted themselves a new shiney war to show that they had what you call "moral courage" (translated, "small penis complex so lets send some folks with bigger ones to go fuck up some folks") and that's excactly what happened... How many people got killed is still an unknown... Several studies have it upwards of a million people, T... That's a lot of folks, BTW... Other studies much less but nowhere near the 14,000 that you once vlaimed... Or was that BB???

So fast forward I keep askin' you about Blix but you don't seem to want to talk much about Blix??? I reckon I wouldn't either if I was playin' yer hand... BTW, yer hand sucks in case you hadn't noticed...

As for "we"... Heck, T, you know who we are... "We" are the many folks here who have tried over the years to get you to see just how wrong you were then and now... Maybe you'd forgotten thos folks, too... I donno... You do seem to be having probles with yer focus so maybe more stuff is slippin' thru yer thinkerator than I suspect...

Hey, maybe one day alhiezemers will set completely in and then you will be at peace with yourself... I donno... Maybe not...

Anyway, ol' Bobert would love for yout o find some peace... Of course, yer going to have to start by confessin' yer sins... Yes, it is a sin to support senseless killing... You don't have to be the trigger man... But you know that, right???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:02 PM

Thanks for the endorsment Peter..they're rather thin on the ground these days :0)

It's my belief that Robin Cook's resignation was very much a "politicians decision" based on not emotion, but astute assessment of the political situation.
Cook viewed Blairs gamble in giving his personal backing to Bush and war as a monumental political blunder, a blunder which would give Cook his chance to lead the Labour Party; but for that to happen,Cook was obliged to dis-associate himself from Blair and his foreign policy by resigning from the govt. His resignation speech was a masterpiece of political theatre.
It was also important for Cook that the war actually took place, so after his resignation he did not join the demonstrators, but kept a very low profile.

If Cook had lived, when the political tide began to run against Blair, as you and I knew it would, he would have stepped forward as the authentic voice of the Labour Party, with no blood on his hands.

The reason the Labour party are losing seats and credibility is not because of Brown the "Non Personality" the electorate are sick of posturing personalities, but because he and most of his cabinet are still associated in the public perception with the support of Blair, against the wishes of grass roots Labour voters and most of the British public.

Cook would have walked in!

Too devious?.....well you know politicians better than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 01:38 AM

No Bobert it was actually this way:

1. From around 1993 Saddam Hussein started giving the UNSCOM weapons inspectors and the rest of the UN the run around in Iraq to such an extent that Scott Ritter complained about it and resigned five years later because the UN were not dong enough to enforce their own resolutions.

2. Late in 2001 GWB was advised by the same people who had advised Clinton in 1998 that Iraq armed with WMD posed a threat to the USA, the national interests of the USA and the allies of the USA in the middle-east and Persian Gulf region. Perhaps you could tell me Bobert why your President would ignore such a warning??

3. The US went to the UN advised them of their concerns and asked them to enforce the terms of Resolution 687 and verify Iraq's compliance, adding that if the UN did not do this the USA would do it militarily.

4. US starts to build up troops in the area, while the UN does what it does best - Talk. It was the build up of troops on his borders that prompted Saddam Hussein to invite the UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, he also had an ulterior motive in that he thought that by inviting the inspectors back he would pre-empt the UN and that there would be no Resolution 1441. By the time the inspectors actually turned up in Iraq Saddam Hussein had had roughly nine months to relocate, destroy and kill anything that could potentially embarass him.

5. Proposed by the UK and seconded by the USA 1441 = Iraq's Last Chance. It was passed unanimously in the Security Council on 8th November 2002. No messing about full proactive co-operation to be given by Iraq from Day 1. No material breaches of the Resolution to be tolerated. That was how it was supposed to be done, they were supposedly Dr Hans Blix's riding instructions. But none of that ever happened, Blix, who Saddam had no respect for (After all he'd run circles round Blix during the UNSCOM days), and the UN caved into pressure from Russia, France and China and ensured that 1441 was not enforced to the letter.

6. So Saddam agreed to let inspectors come in and look for WMDs But that was not UNMOVIC's Job according to 1441 Bobert and you would have known that if you had ever read that or any of Hans Blix's Reports.

7. There were seven instances that could be classified as material breaches of UN Resolution 1441 and at that point the US and UK said enough something has to be done. The UK starts to draft a second resolution, President Chirac of France states that France will veto ANY second resolution irrespective of the circumstances. That in effect killed the diplomatic process and the UN train ran into the buffers. The US had warned right from day 1 of the process - You act to address our concerns or we will - On 20th March, 2003 the US invaded.

8. How many people got killed is still an unknown... Several studies have it upwards of a million people, T... That's a lot of folks, BTW... Other studies much less but nowhere near the 14,000 that you once vlaimed... Or was that BB???

No Bobert several studies have tried to estimate how many people have been killed. Others have painstakingly logged and researched actual deaths, witnessed (not heard about) and confirmed and they all arrive at figures around one tenth of the million you tout. The other lie that you cling to is that those killed were killed by US Forces, where the truth puts roughly 80% of the deaths in Iraq down to Iraqi civilians being killed by foreign Jihadist groups; Ba'athist insurgents; sectarian militias and criminal gangs. I believe the figure that varies between 11,000 and 14,000 dates back to 2003 and covers the total number killed by MNF troops during the invasion.

9. I keep askin' you about Blix Naw Bobert what you did was misquote, take out of context and cherrypick little bits and pieces from Blix's reports that suited your purpose. And far from not responding myself and others went to great lengths to refute your wilder flights of fancy and imagination. So now Bobert I generally don't bother responding to the crap you come out with with regard to the good Doctor Blix, you obviously are not going to read what he has written, so there seems little point in pursuing the matter.

But one thing Bobert, should it ever come to a trial for Tony Blair, which I very much doubt, what was written, what was actually said, and what was done will be judged in full in context under the rules of evidence, and all your lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and myths will be dismissed for what they are and the verdict will come in "NOT GUILTY".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:34 AM

#1... Correct

#2... Correct

But then the story goes off the tracks... What occured that you don't want to talk about has nothin' at all to do with UN resolution and that is Bush started with his sabre rattling about this and that... Saddam is a bad man... Musroom clouds... Aluminum tubes. Blah, blah, blah... Thie is the part of thet story that you ignore and ignore... No one was talkin' about UN resolution back in then, T...

The war was rolled out to be sold in August of '02 with no mention of UN resolutions or even going to the UN... That fact changes everything... If Bush and Blari had sold the war correctly then...
maybe more people would have said, "Geeze, maybe we do need to do this..."

But the war was sold with a bunch of emotionally charged lies... That's B&B's bad...

That being a given then #3, #4 and #5 were steps that didn't have to happen as the premise for these cations was flawed...

Then we get around to points #6 thru #9 and here we have some very major differences...

You wanted and war and were going to find any rationilzation to have one... I didn't want a war and so I did the same on my side...

You think when Blix said that the "most important" thing was that Iraq was "cooperating" in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted that that statement was not the "most imortant" or even "important"...

Well, if yer looking to go to war then, yeah, you would skim past that statement like it was a radiation pit... Problem is that inspite of the other problems that the inspectors ahd had in the ***past*** they were now able to do their jobs of proving or disproving the existence ot WMDs...

That's what Blix said... That's why it was premature to order up and invasion... That is how histporians will judge this... I really don't care about what Iraq had done prior to January, 2003 in terms of cooperating... That is completely irrelevent... We weren't in the business or revenge... We were supposed to be in the business of keeping the world safer... We failed on both counts...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:34 AM

""Don T - your hypothetical situation.

Solution: Taking into account that they have come to arrest someone they think is armed and connected to some sort of crime that they are investigating. Take note of the time the 5 minute warning is given then within that time get anything in your house that looks remotely like a gun wrap it up wait until 4 minutes 45 seconds has elapsed toss out the "gun" and come out with hands up and obey all instructions without hesitation.

Oh and for things such as would be required for programmes that cover such activities as:

- The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons
- A nuclear weapons programme
- The manufacture of ballistic missiles

With all the specialist equipment required and the forensic traces that the above activities leave behind. Provided that you did have those things at one point (As was known to be the case with Iraq) if you are being totally transparent and honest it should be easy to prove that you no longer have anything connected with those activities, especially as you are dealing with the same people who had been working on your disarmament programme previously. So please do not try the rather childish tactic of over simplifying a problem just to make it suit your argument or point of view.""

Facile, stupid, and ineffectual!

Facile because you are avoiding answering a serious question, by fabricating a nonsensical response.

Stupid, because you must be aware that any subterfuge purporting to give up a weapon, while failing to reveal said weapon would not be accepted.

Ineffectual, because it still doesn't deal with your obvious belief that a negative is susceptible of proof, something the rest of the world agrees is impossible.

Your second point, regarding the mythical Iraqi WMD, is ridiculous in the extreme, for the following good reasons.

1). Before the fighting, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis were allowing his team access to anything they asked for, and allowing them to go wherever they chose, yet they didn't turn up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

2). The fighting over, inspection teams went into Iraq, and assiduously searched for WMD, or evidence thereof, without turning up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

If you were right, and Saddam had these weapons, why were there no "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind", either before, or after, the war.

Given that there were no "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind", it would seem that they did not exist.

Regarding your accusation of over simplification, I find it more effective to simplify explanations, when dealing with the "hard of understanding".

If this is too difficult for you, ask somebody else to explain it. I've had my fill of Bush/Blair apologists who would prefer to keep crooked leaders, rather than make any effort to understand WHY they should be brought to book.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM

Ah Don, admit it you're just pissed off because I came up with a solution to your little problem.

You have obviously never been in any situation remotely like the one you described, therefore it is highly unlikely that I will take your word for what might or might not happen.

Something gets thrown out that is of the right size and lands with a convincing thud, followed by a person appearing through the door, preferably as near naked as possible with both hands in full view and guess what Don - They aren't going to open fire

1). Before the fighting, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis were allowing his team access to anything they asked for, and allowing them to go wherever they chose,

But that is not what was required was it Don 1441 demanded full proactive co-operation and that is not what you have described above.

yet they didn't turn up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

Could it possibly be because nothing was destroyed at the site the Iraqis have brought you to. The site where they swear that the unaccounted for WMD were unilaterally destroyed without the required oversight by UNSCOM years previously.

Go to the former battle-fields of Northern France Don with a forensic scientist with the right kit and he can tell where shells landed and whether they were from the First or the Second World War

2). The fighting over, inspection teams went into Iraq, and assiduously searched for WMD, or evidence thereof, without turning up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

They were still operating blind in a very large country. However items were found both by UNMOVIC and by the post-invasion Iraq Inspection Teams. In bringing Baghdad airport back into service they found a Mig 29 buried in the sand, they weren't looking for it they just stumbled across it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:50 PM

Without stage 4 Bobert UNMOVIC would never have been invited abck into Iraq.

Now as far as Blix and Iraqi Non-Complaince with UN Resloution 1441 goes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/iraq.jackstraw

As far as what Blix did say when he reported to the UN Security Council on 27th January 2003:

1. I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.

It would appear Bobert that Dr. Blix does not think that Iraq is co-operating fully and to decide something in principle does not equate to doing something in practice.

2. In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

There weren't supposed to be any tolerance of problems and total compliance was required from day 1.

3. I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment.

Were the Iraqi Authorities supposed to harass UNMOVIC Inspectors Bobert??

4. The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust

Not quite the picture of co-operation that you would like us to believe Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:29 PM

Tell ya' what, T... Rather than provide you with the quote yet again I'll make you a deal... If I provide Blix's own words that can be verified where he said that the Iraqis were cooperating will you just admit that the war was a mistake???

Deal???

B~!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:49 PM

Cut the cack, Teribus. Everyone knew that Saddam was trying to save face. It was obvious to the allies that he had no serious military capability, let alone WMD- he was a small town bully. How do we know that? They went and camped in Kuwait, well within the range of an international hand grenade. I bet he wished he'd kept the gas shells he'd bought off the Germans then- he could have wiped out the lot, or at least given them velvet pause, with a simple artillery barrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:06 PM

The deal is still on the table, T...

Blix quote for your confession...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:55 PM

BTW, T... Just thought you should know that there's a major snow storm headin' my way which will more than likely knock me off the pudder for days so if you take the deal or not and just want to do yer usual arguin' over how many angels can stand on the end of a pin, not to fear... I'll be back when I can get back... Don't wnat you to get no self-righteous bigass head thinkin' that whatever you said was goin' unanswered 'cause I didn't have an answer... I'll allways have an answer 'casue I was on the right side of the "moral courage" arguement... It's just friggin' snow and my pudder dish is gonna be covered with the stuff... But I'll be back... You can take that to the bank...

And I got Hanz Blix's speech right here next to my pudder...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:56 AM

The words in RED are those delivered by Dr. Hans Blix to the assembled Security Council of the United Nations on the 27th January 2003 Bobert

What in effect he is saying that they have agreed in principle to partially co-operate.

Letting the inspectors look where they wanted to amounts to a game of hide-and-seek and that is not what was demanded of the Iraqis under the terms of 1441 - Their Last Chance - well they got their last chance and they blew it by heeding the advice of the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and seriously underestimating the determination of the USA and the UK.

Was the war a mistake - HELL NO

Mr Burke - you didn't read that Guardian link did you.

Why did Saddam not use his undoubted and undeniable WMD capability in 1991 Paul? Because Saddam was probably given that hint that if he did so he along with the whole of Iraq would be destroyed. He also knew that in facing the opponents that he did he was looking at an army that had been trained to deal with and fight through a chemical or biological attack.

In Europe during the Cold War the Soviets and their Warsaw pact Allies were told in no uncertain terms that use of Chemical or Bacteriological Weapons as they were called in those days would result on an immediate counter-attack involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Neither the armed forces of the UK or the US had C&B weapons from 1956 & 1960 respectively. Not once in all the time I served in the RN did I ever come across any Chemical or Bacteriological munitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:03 AM

PS Bobert if you've got Blix's speech next to your computer might be a good for you to actually read it while you're snowed in.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:24 AM

Here is the transcript of Blix's speech in its complete form:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

This is paragraph that Bobert clings onto out of a whole catalogue of difficulties Blix is reporting

I shall deal first with cooperation on process. In this regard, it has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

Blix says that they are co-operating on process but goes to state that they are NOT co-operating on substance

What was required:

Resolution 1441 was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active.

What co-operation UNMOVIC got was patchy, sporadic and in the case of active co-operation non-existent.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:13 AM

T,

So I take it that you just want to cherry pick Blix's speech where he was going thru a review of problems he had had (past tense) with the Iraqis but not at all concerned with the here-and-now as of the day he delivered the speech???

That's called revenge, T!!!

Was tyhe invasion of Iraq, which BTW some sources say was responsible for upwards of a 1,000,000 death about revenge???

Danged!!!

Why didn't you just say that???

Oh, BTW, T... Seein' as you are stuck on what Iraq had done in the past prior to the here-and-now as it existed on January 27th, 2003 here is where things were as of that date:

"Iraq has on the whole COOPERATED rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The MOST IMPORTANT point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect...

...We have further had GREAT HELP in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our planers and our helicopters have been GOOD. The environment has been WORKABLE"   

(Hans Blix Update to the the UN Security Council, January 27th, 2003)

Sorry about the CAPS, T... I'm not screaming at you... It's just that you seem to conviently skip by the here-and-now conditions on the ground in Iraq as of January 27th, 2003...

This is why the Iraq was was wrong and didn't need to be initiated by Blair and Bush... The apparatus was in place and if the word "workable" means "working" then whether or not Iraq had WMDs was to be proved one way or another... But Blair and Bush didn't want to have their claims (lies) disproved so rather than allow the process to work itself thru they short circuited sanity and called up the invasion...

That's the way it went down in a nutshell... Of course you don't like that and of course you'll never admit it because in doing so you would have to admit that you, yes you, have blood on your hands...

It must really suck to be in your position...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:24 AM

So no UK or USA chemical/biological weapons since 1960, Teribus? How do you categorise napalm? ASnd the uranium-depleted armour-piercing stuff that still litters parts of Bosnia-Hercegovina? And if I may be allowed a little diversion into morality, why was it OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920s (in Iraq, by happy coincidence) and not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980s.

After quoting Blix above you then tell us (in red, but forgetting to tell us who you are quoting) "what was required." Well for sure there were indeed "requirements". The bit that's missing is any suggestion that failure to meet the requirements would be all-out war. Let's keep in mind here that Iraq is not the only country to have flouted a UN resolution. Israel has done it repeatedly, with impunity.

On the question of 1441, of course, we now know that your assertion about Chirac's position was completely without foundation. Chirac did NOT say he would oppose a second resolution in all circumstances. He just said he would not support such a resolution until Iraq (and Blix) had been allowed more time.

In this respect Chirac, Blix and most of the civilised world were all on the same page. Only the US admin was pressing for a war without UN authority. Perhaps your mistake has been to accept too readily that "might is right."

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:31 PM

Napalm Peter is an incendiary and would definitely not be classified as either chemical or biological weapon.

Depleted Uranium is exactly what it says it is, it is less radioactive than all that naturally occuring uranium that is lying about planet earth, I could eat the stuff by the bucket load and it would not affect me. The DU stories are a myth, particularly those relating to Iraq and Coalition use of the munitions that are used in and anti-tank role. During Desert Storm there were no major battles involving Coalition Forces around Basra.

After the Iraqis signed the ceasefire at Safwan (which they never honoured) they were allowed to fly helicopters. And they used their helicopters to suppress a Shia uprising in the South of Iraq. now let me see what helicopters did they fly again, oh yes Soviet supplied M-24 Hinds armed with rotary 20mm cannon firing - Yes Peter you've got it DU rounds, so IF there is any problem related to the dust spatter from DU rounds in Southern Iraq they can from Iraqi Gunships not Coalition aircraft.

WHO reckons DU radiation is a load of rubbish.

And if I may be allowed a little diversion into morality, why was it OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920s (in Iraq, by happy coincidence) and not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980s.

I don't know you tell me, although I can't ever remember saying that it was OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920's. The reason why it was not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980's had something to do with an agreement that he had signed saying that he wouldn't use them maybe.

Bobert I would read that speech/report again, you have obviously skipped most of it to land on the bits that you think supports your arguement.

Oh Peter the text I quoted in red comes from the speech given by Blix to the UN Security Committee on 27th January 2003. You can confirm that by opening the link, its there in the transcript for all to see.

Was the US right to invade Iraq and enforce the terms of the Safwan ceasefire - Most certainly

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:53 PM

No, T.... I have hit upon the single most important part of Blix's speech... You know, the part that made the war a war of choice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,t
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:29 PM

Thesenon-existent chemical weapons are easy to forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 03:23 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle - PM
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:29 PM""

Do you really expect anyone to actually plough through that lot?

What really counts, is that the pretext for war was a false one, and the need for invasion was trumped up and sold to the public of both the UK and the USA as a "clear and present danger", which it very clearly wasn't.

As for chemical weapons, the last major nation to avail itself of their use was indeed the US of A, which, as Freda pointed out, liberally sprayed Vietnam with Agent Orange.

Now Teribus will, I expect, enlighten us with his rationale re-classifying Agent Orange as a gardeners aid.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

Albeit long, it makes for good reading; it helps show that no matter how these "kooks" try to twist the facts, it clearly shows which powers have been complicit in starting wars and fomenting civil unrest and revolutions. The SAME powers that benefited from upheaval and chaos one hundred years abo are doing it now, and for the same basic reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

Well Freda & Don T, Agent Orange was not considered to be a chemical warfare agent, it was classified as a Herbicide and a Defoliant.

Chemical and Biological Warfare agents are designed to be targeted at personnel and they are designed to deliberately kill or incapacitate people. Agent Orange was never targeted at people and it most definitiely wasn't designed or used to kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:24 PM

Doesn't change anything one way or another...

The war was a moral disaster....

And that's to say the least...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:45 PM

""Chemical and Biological Warfare agents are designed to be targeted at personnel and they are designed to deliberately kill or incapacitate people. Agent Orange was never targeted at people and it most definitiely wasn't designed or used to kill people.""

Tell that to the relatives of those it did kill or incapacitate, you warmongering arsehole.

It don't make much difference to them whether they are intentional, or collateral, damage.

And don't try to tell me that the US government didn't know what that so called de-foliant does to people. That was the bonus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:57 PM

Don its a very bad idea to call Teribus nasty names.
Just a word of wisdom....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:22 AM

Bobert and Dr Hans Blix's Report to the UN Security Council 27th January 2003

Bobert wishes to infer that all the problems that Dr.Hans Blix mentioned during his delivery of the UNMOVIC Report on 27th January 2003 referred to problems encountered in the past and that as of 27th January 2003 everything was just perfect and that UNMOVIC was enjoying total co-operation from the Iraqi Authorities.

Blix's report was some 104 paragraphs long

Paragraphs 1 to 4 were the introduction. At this point UNMOVIC has been back in Iraq for 60 days.

Paragraphs 5 to 14 recalls and summarises the UNSCOM period of inspections from 1991 to 1998.

Paragraphs 15 to 18 cover the period between the end of UNSCOMS time in Iraq and the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1441. These four paragraphs detail the following points of importance:

The key questions:

1. How much (WMD) might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter?

2. What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left?

3. How it (Iraq) can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?

Key Statement: It was only after appeals by the secretary-general and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other member states that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.

Paragraphs 19 to 22 cover UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and UNMOVIC Reporting frequency.

Paragraphs 23 to 25 deals generally with Iraqi co-operation and legislation that Iraq should implement:

It is in these paragraphs that Blix refers to:

"       Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process

"       That it would appear that Iraq was co-operating with regard to process, notably access

"       That they have yet to be found to be co-operating in terms of substance

"       That there are certain items of legislation that the UN require IRAQ to pass into law so that the disarmament process and civil rights obligations can be undertaken.

Paragraphs 26 to 37 deals specifically with co-operation on process:

"       Blix backs up what he said previously on co-operation on process by stating: I shall deal first with cooperation on process………. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

"       Blix describes the environment as being workable.

"       On access he only notes one exception to access being granted.

"       He notes problems on co-operation related to air operations. U2 surveillance flights were not permitted by Iraq counter to the requirements of resolution 1441. (The U2 surveillance flights never did take place)

"       He noted problems relating to helicopter movements to support inspections, but these were resolved by both UNMOVIC Inspectors and Iraqi Officials travelling in the same helicopters. This delaying tactic and the solution had been experienced during earlier UNSCOM inspections and should not have arisen with UNMOVIC.

"       Blix reports disturbing incidents and harassment. Allegations of intelligence gathering, again tactics used against UNSCOM inspections previously.

"       Blix reports anti-UN demonstrations in front of UNMOVIC Offices and at inspection sites. Blix also notes that "Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities"

Paragraphs 38 & 39 relate to Iraq's lack of co-operation in substance both paragraphs are quoted in full below:

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

Paragraphs 40 to 46 covers the submission of Iraq's "last-chance-full-and-final" Declaration to the UN:

"       In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward.

"       Declaration of 7th December should have addressed outstanding matters dating back to UNSCOM Inspections and detailed in the Amorim Report of March 1999. As of 27th January 2003 UNMOVIC finds the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved.

Paragraphs 47 to 58 covers the known status of the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Programme and their Declaration Document:

"       Declared, manufacture on a pilot scale only, of poor quality and unstable, therefore never weaponised. The small quantity that remained was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991 without UNSCOM supervision (A requirement at that time)

"       UNMOVIC information is in conflict with the above from documentary evidence found relating to purity and stabilisation of the agent and that the VX agent was weaponised.

"       No trace or accountability of key VX precursor chemicals which Iraq says were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq without the required UNSCOM Supervision.

"       The "Air Force Document" originally found by UNSCOM in 1998 and confiscated by Iraqi "Minders" from the UNSCOM Inspector who found it. Iraq has now produced the document and details chemical munitions (Bombs) produced and used during the Iran/Iraq War. Between records of bombs actually dropped and the figure of bombs consumed during this period there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs that are unaccounted for.

"       Chemical warheads for 122mm have been found. Iraq explains that they were overlooked from the 1991, but the facility in which they were found was built after that date. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.

"       More Chemical warheads found plus mustard gas precursor chemicals.

"       Equipment previously used in the production of chemical weapons and destroyed by UNSCOM was found to have been repaired and moved and used for the production of chlorine and phenols.

Paragraphs 59 to 64 covers current known status of the Iraqi Biological Weapons Programme and their Declaration Document:

"       Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

"       Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

"       There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

"       In its recent submitted Declaration of 7th December 2002 Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. This serious omission appeared to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered

"       In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Paragraphs 65 to 75 covers the current known status of the Iraq Missile Programme and their Declaration Document:

"       As of 27th January 2003, there remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War.

"       Declaration of Iraqi missile development, two systems Al-Samud II and Al-Fatah may be proscribed systems (Al-Samud range 183km with an OD of 760mm contravenes UN instructions dating back to 1994) Iraq says missiles are under development but have been deployed already with Iraqi armed forces.

"       Iraq has ignored UN instructions dated back to 1997 regarding use of engines from surface-to-air missiles for use in ballistic missiles.

"       Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.

"       Illegal import of items associated with rocket and missile development as late as December 2002.

Paragraphs 76 to 95 "Helping prove the negative" - Documentation and Personnel Interviews:

Paragraphs 79 to 87 relates to documents:

Key Paragraph 79:
UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq. But nor is it, or I think anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98 presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help.

"       Touches on information received from the intelligence services of other member states relating to movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons.

"       Discovery of undeclared chemical warheads for 122mm rockets and invites Iraq to - Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision.

"       The Iraqi excuse that - All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons - Is not credible, citing other documentary evidence that still would exist.

"       Some NEW documents produced voluntarily 1093 pages covering 1983 to 1990

"       Over 3000 pages of new and undeclared documents relating to Iraq's nuclear programme discovered in the home of scientist may indicate that Iraqi authorities are hiding documents in private homes deliberately.

Key paragraph 87:
Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site will be very serious matter.

Any further concealment? - There should not have been any concealment from the outset, here Blix oversteps his authority to give Iraq a second last chance. Iraqis accept access to private sites? That was understood and required from day 1 where is this supposed co-operation in allowing inspectors to look wherever they wanted to gone?

Paragraphs 88 to 95 relate to Personnel interviews - or lack of them:

"       UNMOVIC ask for a list of persons in accordance with Resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs, as well as their missile programs, were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. When questioned further on this obvious discrepancy the Iraqis provided some 80 additional names. 3,500 does not equal 480.

"       Private interviews to the extent required just did not happen, interviewees were afraid to undergo interviews unless Iraqi Authorities were present. When the Iraqi Authorities were told that this was not acceptable and that they would have to encourage interviewees to take part in private interviews none would come forward under those circumstances.

Paragraphs 96 to 104 cover a description of UNMOVIC facilities and capabilities within Iraq.

Not quite the rosey picture that Bobert would like to portray and it gives a damning indictment of the manner that Blix carried out his role as head of UNMOVIC. With the full backing and authority of the UN Security Council he was not sent to Iraq to:

"       Put up with things
"       Request things from the Iraqi Authorities

He was sent there to demand and enforce, he was woefully ill-equipped in terms of track-record, nature and bearing to do either and expect any sort of respect or compliance from Saddam Hussein, after all Saddam Hussein had danced circles round Blix between 1991 and 1998, why should this time be any different. Saddam Hussein was perfectly aware of that and so too were the USA and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:27 AM

Well Freda & Don T, Agent Orange was not considered to be a chemical warfare agent, it was classified as a Herbicide and a Defoliant.

Chemical and Biological Warfare agents are designed to be targeted at personnel and they are designed to deliberately kill or incapacitate people. Agent Orange was never targeted at people and it most definitiely wasn't designed or used to kill people. –Teribus

Well, Magnesium is "classified" 12th and Phosphorus is "classified" 15th on the periodic table. They can also be used on anything from toothpaste, road flares and even herbicides. Unfortunately, they can also be used for bombs and nerve agents.

White Phosphorus is also "classified" as a chemical weapon by the U.S., but is sure did not stop them from using it in Iraq, nor did it stop the Israelis from using it in Gaza.

Hypocrites and wicked, best describes anyone that thinks that random or mass murder is justifiable, under ANY circumstance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:54 AM

Down that road Captain, just because you can kill someone with a pencil does not make it an offensive weapon.

White Phosphorus is used as a marker or for smoke, and in your rules of engagement that is its permitted use and function.

Having said that, purely as a hypocritical warmongering arsehole, if I were to find myself and the men under my command in a life threatening situation, then my priorities are to ensure that I protect the lives of my men before any others to ensure that the maximum number of my men get through the engagement alive. If you are at war there is only one rule - You make damn sure you win.

Now if, in a similar situation, the likes of yourself Captain Subtle, or Don the Twat (I take it that that IS what the T stands for), would prefer standing there getting hammered while you confer with somebody who looks up what are supposed to be the rules in order to advise you. Then all I can say is thank fuck I would never find myself under your command. I say that for primarily your own good because if I was present the first thing I'd do is damn well shoot the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM

Oh dear!.....I did warn you Don, you might get away with your inaccuracies, and abuse with ole softy's like me, but if you wish to debate with Teribus, you first need to read and understand accurately what he says; he is very precise.
Secondly, dont make him angry as he doesn't make any allowances for the infirm.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 05:57 PM

Having said that, purely as a hypocritical warmongering arsehole, if I were to find myself and the men under my command in a life threatening situation, then my priorities are to ensure that I protect the lives of my men before any others to ensure that the maximum number of my men get through the engagement alive. If you are at war there is only one rule - You make damn sure you win. -Teribus

It's amazing how the same criminal minds that invade and occupy other countries think that they can always justify screwing the natives out of their land, resources and lives, by breaking the same rules they themselves created.

No matter how you try to spin it, I do not think that even you can justify the killing of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003. Please justify killing a defenseless 23 year female, that probably did not even weigh 100 pounds, with a Bulldozer of all things. Talk about chicken shit and straight up evil. Go ahead and justify it "tough guy".

I say that for primarily your own good because if I was present the first thing I'd do is damn well shoot the pair of you. -Teribus

That is interesting. If you keep talking like that you may actually cause someone to lose a half of second of sleep. You "tough guy" you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

Dont shoot the messenger Captain

"If you are at war there is only one rule - You make damn sure you win."

and we were taken to war, not by teribus, but by the UK's strongest believer in "liberal democracy"....Mr Tony Blair!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:34 PM

Yes, we all know, silver-tongued Tony Blair, George W. Bush's lapdog.

Of course, not even "Bush" had anything to do with invading Iraq. I assure you, that twit is barely capable of tying his own shoes, let alone making a decision about which country to attack and how to attack it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:18 PM

It's amazing how the same criminal minds that invade and occupy other countries think that they can always justify screwing the natives out of their land, resources and lives, by breaking the same rules they themselves created. - Captain Subtle

I will take your word for it Captain, having never made or created any rules in my life or personally invaded or occupied other countries or screwed the natives (or anybody else) out of their land, resources or lives. Tell me Captain on that latter one would that be screwing them out of their lives as in the shag of a lifetime?

No matter how you try to spin it, I do not think that even you can justify the killing of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003. Please justify killing a defenceless 23 year female, that probably did not even weigh 100 pounds, with a Bulldozer of all things.

Ah your little troll agenda now gets revealed. Not here to talk about the testimony being given at the Chilcot Inquiry at all are you? Just want to have a little Anti-Israeli rant, that being the case why not start your own threat on the subject. Oh wait a minute, you are a Guest so that option is not open to you tough luck.

But:
1. I do not think that even you can justify the killing of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003.

And oddly enough Captain Subtle I cannot think for the life of me why I would want to.

2.    Please justify killing a defenceless 23 year female, that probably did not even weigh 100 pounds, with a Bulldozer of all things.

No, but it is interesting to know that you have to be over 100 pounds in weight before you can be officially considered as a suitable potential candidate for death by Bulldozer. What an absolute mine of obscure, idiotic but interesting information you are Captain.

Picture of your murder weapon Cap'n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D9R-pic0010.jpg

Now how high do you think that stands? (4 metres)

And what height would you have to be standing at to be able to tell that Rachel Corrie's head, shoulders and upper body would be plainly visible above the blade at the front? (At least 1.5 metres off the ground)


Where in relation to the Bulldozer would you have to be standing to be able to state that Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the driver? (A witness who could state with any degree of certainty that Rachel Corrie was standing head, shoulders and upper body directly in front of the driver of the Bulldozer would also have to have been standing directly in front of the Bulldozer and the driver)

And Guess What Cap'n - (Witness reports don't match up to any of that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

""Now if, in a similar situation, the likes of yourself Captain Subtle, or Don the Twat (I take it that that IS what the T stands for), would prefer standing there getting hammered while you confer with somebody who looks up what are supposed to be the rules in order to advise you. Then all I can say is thank fuck I would never find myself under your command. I say that for primarily your own good because if I was present the first thing I'd do is damn well shoot the pair of you.""

I hadn't realised T. Oh those poor pilots, being placed in such an invidious position.

They must have agonised for hours before deciding that self preservation required them to rain down Agent Orange, and Napalm, from 30,000 feet.

I understand now. Those treacherous Vietcong could have brought 'em down quite easily with their missiles and AA, if they could have seen 'em through the trees, and if they had missiles and AA.

What a bugger, to be forced to use chemical weapons. My heart bleeds.

You, on the other hand, have just shown yourself to be exactly what I called you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:57 PM

Yeah, T... I've read every single word of Blix's statement... Your colorized posts are very entertaining to look at with all them colors but rereading portions of a statement I have now read several times is a total waste of time...

It all boils down to my argument that all this would have been sorted out without a war... I mean, we had Saddam "by the shorts" and he knew it, the international community knew it and it was a new ball game...

But, no... You have to put your doom and gloom spin on it because you are a negative person... I don't mean that to be disrepestfull or mean... That's just the way you are... Your history here is one of military solutions for jsut about everything... That is anti-human and anti-Erath and anti-anti-anti... There are folks in the world like that... Maybe a psychologist could explain it, I donno...

You will never ever admit that you were wrong... Folks that start wars never ever do... So I reckon you are stuck witgh your colorized rationalizations... Won't change that you and Blair and Bush short circuited the inspections before things could get sorted out without war...

That, my friend, is on you and yer buds, B&B...

B~

Subject: Lyr Add: John Chilcot
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 07:43 PM

The idea for the following came to me while walking to Cardiff's BBC folk club tonight. With verse written between performances I was ready with this for my spot.
I know it still needs polish, but this is how it came out.
If anyone thinks they can use it, consider ir 'public domain'.
Cheers
Nigel

_____________________________________________________


The Chilcot Enquiry
(TTTO Who's afraid of the big bad wolf)

(Chorus)
Who's afraid of John Chilcot,
(is) Tony Blair? No he's not.
Who's afraid of John Chilcot,
tra la la la la.

It was just a few years back,
(with) Bush's party on the rack.
He called his crony, brother Tony,
Let's invade eye-raq
Ha, ha ha, the two little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Chorus)

So they planned a small foray,
'Til the UN said "No way!"
We don't give a damn, if you kill Saddam,
But regime change don't pay.
Ha, ha ha, our two little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Cho)

So, Lord Goldsmith, help us please,
This is why we pay your fees.
We need the right to start this fight,
Can you cite some WMDs?
Ha, ha ha, the three little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Cho)

Well, the goverment had qualms,
That they'd not find any arms.
But with Campbell in, they included 'spin'
To find missiles midst the palms.
Ha, ha ha, the four little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Cho)

Now John Chilcot holds the rein,
While our "leaders" feel the pain.
(Tho') He's not done yet, still it's fair to bet
On a whitewash once again!

(spoken) At this point I'll stop singing & laughing, as it's just not funny anymore!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 07:57 PM

No, it's not, Nigel... But you got the story right...

Reminds me of the name of a song that Black Sabboth wrote: "War Pigs"...

That's really what we have here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM

Motherearth is the body, and you, Teribus, represent a single cancerous cell that makes up the malignant neoplasm that threatens to consume our world.

You and your ilk are a dying breed. Your lizard brain is obsolete. You are nothing but a candy-ass, tough talking, pansy.

I have first hand experience with your type. Talk tough... Act tough... But when the chips are down are no where to be found. But, once the chaos settles, you always come back wearing a certain new scent of... "Je ne sais quoi"... of... I just crapped my pants cologne.

Do your self and all of us a favor... tough guy, enlist to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq, and be sure to trip an "IED".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM

Saw Blix on the BBC programme Hardtalk with Jonathon Charles the other day. Charles made absolute mincemeat out of him, catching a very much revisionist Blix script out time and time again. But Charles just kept hauling Blix back to explain the words he used on the day as opposed to the words he now wishes he had used. Watching it it almost rekindled my faith in the BBC as an objective impartial broadcaster. Long and short of it was Bobert that:

- in November 2002 Blix thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD
- in January 2003 Blix thought that Sadam Hussein had WMD
- in February 2003 Blix thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD
- in March 2003 Blix still thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD

Negativety Bobert?? I cannot think of anything more negative, or heartless, than to condemn the peoples of both Afghanistan and Iraq to the regimes that they were living under in 2001 and 2003 respectively.

The middle-east has been more peaceful in the past 10 years than it has been in the fifty years before that, and it is getting better by the minute.

Negativety Bobert?? Who was it that was spouting on about Baghdad being a "Stalingrad"; who was it spouting about "Civil War" destroying Iraq and causing it to break up into three states. You would dearly love to believe that 1 million + people had been killed, you would dearly have loved to have seen the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq fail. Why?? Because you could not accept in 2000 what Al Gore could - That George W. Bush won the US Presidential Election, it further infuriated you that he won his second term in 2004, despite all the crap that you and your fellow travellers tried to tar him with. By all means cling to your fantasies, your myths, your half-truths and misrepresntations if they give you comfort. But do not for one minute think that you can trot them out here and expect to get away with it.

Take a good look back at various predictions made and you will find Bobert that most of mine have been borne out while most of yours have not.

Cap'n - if the UK military would take me back, I'd go out to Afghanistan tomorrow, without a seconds hesitation. I would love to serve in the same theatre of operations as my son. Unfortunately they have age restrictions and and medical fitness requirements, while I might still be able to get fit enough, I most certainly cannot duck the age thing. I had my experience in what they refer to as conflict zones in Borneo and in Northern Ireland, which judging from your posts is a damn sight more "service" than you have ever seen, or are ever likely to see, which means that your remarks are water-off-a-ducks-back, totally meaningless, nothing but magpie chatter.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:17 AM

Oh one more thing Bobert, this observation of yours (incorrect as usual):

You will never ever admit that you were wrong

There are people on this forum who I have argued and discussed things with fiercely and one thing that they can testify to is that if I ever have been shown to be in error I have always openly admitted it, which is a damn sight more than you have ever done.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:34 PM

"if the UK military would take me back, I'd go out to Afghanistan tomorrow, without a seconds hesitation." -Teribus

"if the UK military would take me back, I'd go out to Afghanistan tomorrow, without a seconds hesitation." -Teribus

"If", "if". That is a lot of "ifs" there tough guy.

Keep it positive tough guy. "Where there's a will, there's a way".

Call "Blackwater Worldwide", they may give you a "shot" to serve in one of there "theatres", "if" you really want the gig.

"I had my experience in what they refer to as conflict zones in Borneo and in Northern Ireland..." -Teribus

Listen here braggart, I do not need to, nor will I, talk about my personal experiences with you or anyone else. Rest assured, that most people, especially YOU, would not be able to cope with my life experiences. Quit trying to make your self into this mythical "G.I. Joe" figure, no one is buying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM

Well there would be a lot of "ifs" "if" you keep double pasting the same bloody sentence wouldn't there you feckin eedjit.

In fact you stupid twat in the portion of that post of mine addressed for your attention the word"if" only appeared once, I know the mental arithmetic might be a tad challenging for someone such as yourself with so much experience of the world (too busy to learn to count past 1 - by fuck you really must have been a busy little troll)

Listen here braggart, I do not need to, nor will I, talk about my personal experiences with you or anyone else.

Please, please, please do hold to that promise for fucks sake, that would give us all a break (But as a possible cure for insomnia it might have a use).

Rest assured, that most people, especially YOU, would not be able to cope with my life experiences.

Well any life experience that tells you what weight you have to be before you can get killed by a Bulldozer, I would describe as leaning towards the bizarre, although not particularly harrowing.

Life experience moron you wouldn't recognise it if it jumped up and bit you, you pathetic poseur.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:59 PM

Obviously, you candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be, the wrong sentence was posted by accident.

As I stated previously, "if" you truly would like to see some military action, you would take the necessary steps to make your wet dream possible.

Please do human kind a great favor and find someone that can use you in Afghanistan or Iraq, preferably as a mine sweeper, you disgusting braggart.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 07:50 PM

Well, T....

Yeah, I did predidct that Iraq would break into 3 states... Stayed tuned... As long as the US is pouring it's treasury into Iraq that ain't gonna happen... I never said it would happen as long as the US is throwing $$$ and arms into Iraq... It's when the US leaves... That has always been my prediction... We both know it...

I mean, you might call that "negativity" on my part and. yeah, it is... I never saw a successful outcome in Iarq and I still don't... That's why I have consistenetly opposed this war going back forever...

As fir the 2000 elections... Hey, show me where I ever supported Al Bore... I didn't... I supported and voted for Green Party candidates... But that doesn't change the ****fact**** that the Bush handlers were ready for the election to go to the Supreme Court where 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents... That was the sorriest election since the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 where a deal was made and the winner became the loser...

As for your predictuions, T???? Name one that has come to pass??? Just one... Don't hurt yer head on this one... What, are you gonna say that Iraq is a sterling success??? If so, pee in the cup so we can find out what drugs you are on...

As for me admittin' I am wrong??? I'm not... Historians will get it right... Most allready have... But you wouldn't know about the many people who have said that Iraq was the largest blunder in US history because you don't want to face that reality...

If you wanted regime change, T, why didn't you just kill Saddam??? You won't nawer that question becuase you have no answer for that... Might of fact you won't answer any of the tuff questions because you don't have answers for them... You cherry pick Blix but ignore the here and now in his report of Jan 27... You ignore the "most important"... You ignore "cooperating"... Those realities (facts) don't jive with yer little pathology/mythology... That's your problem... Not mine... I was on the correct side of history... You weren't... You are now forever damned by your own denial... Your problem... Not mine...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:37 AM

Cap'n grits teeth and furiously types:

Obviously, you candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be, the wrong sentence was posted by accident.

This just could not get any better. Wrong sentence eh Moron? Been through the whole post, Guess what Cap'n?? The word "if" only appears TWICE Sort of reinforces the point made previously:

I know the mental arithmetic might be a tad challenging for someone such as yourself with so much experience of the world (too busy to learn to count past 1 - by fuck you really must have been a busy little troll)

Still Cap'n you can now jot this down as yet another experience and if you go back and read that post of mine you will now know with absolute certainty how to count to TWO. Look at it this way, you will have doubled your skill in one department and pat yourself on the back as you are now well on your way to learning what the two words "a lot" means when put together.

Thanks Cap'n your provided me with some really good laughs in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

1. Yeah, I did predidct that Iraq would break into 3 states... Stayed tuned... As long as the US is pouring it's treasury into Iraq that ain't gonna happen... I never said it would happen as long as the US is throwing $$$ and arms into Iraq... It's when the US leaves... That has always been my prediction... We both know it...

Yeah, well Bobert we both know that that is your 20x20 hindsight in operation as it leads me to recall another of your predictions and a standpoint of yours taken at the time:

The US was NEVER going to leave Iraq they were there to set up permanent military bases in order to control the region and the regions oil.

Make your mind up sunshine cant have it both ways. Oh and of course there was this one:

"the CPA was permanent wasn't it Bobert, the US were never going to hand over to any Iraqi Government."


2. I never saw a successful outcome in Iarq and I still don't... That's why I have consistenetly opposed this war going back forever...

Well Bobert there are millions of Iraqis who would disagree with you.


3. As fir the 2000 elections... Hey, show me where I ever supported Al Bore

Illustrates your poor skill in English comprehension Bobert, you show me where I stated that you supported Al Gore, I merely stated that you could not accept what Al Gore did accept – that GWB won the 2000 Presidential Election. I did not say that you supported Al Gore there now did I (Pssst Bobert here is a chance to do something that you have never done before – admit that you got it wrong)

4. As for your predictuions, T???? Name one that has come to pass??? Just one... Don't hurt yer head on this one... What, are you gonna say that Iraq is a sterling success??? If so, pee in the cup so we can find out what drugs you are on...

Let me see now as you brought up Iraq:

- That the taking of Baghdad would not result in a house-to-house middle-east version of Stalingrad

(I was correct there was no "Stalingrad type stand was there)

- That if committed to the invasion offensive military operations would be swiftly completed

(The War phase lasted about eight weeks)

- That the Iraqi Army would not stand and fight it would simply melt away.

(Totally correct there wasn't I Bobert)

- That the failure of the Turks to allow access into Northern Iraq for US Forces would have a negative impact on the operation.

(Correct there as well, had Turkey allowed US forces access the border with Syria to the west would have been sealed cutting off western and central Iraq to foreign jihadi fighters and the Ba'athists in Syria)

- That any Ba'athist inspired insurgency would never succeed.

(Didn't did it? Also AQ's second-in-command admitted that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq had failed completely and turned muslims against the movement)

- That there would be no "Civil War" in Iraq

(Correct again - How many elections have they had now Bobert?? I mean ones where they can actually vote, not just slip a premarked slip into a box?)

- That US & UK oil companies would not be allowed into Iraq to "steal" Iraq's oil.

(Correct again Bobert, how depressing for you. Only present in two fields as part of joint ventures, the rest went to the French; the Russians; the Chinese; Malaysians; Angolans; Dutch; Norwegian and guess what Bobert the oil still belongs to the Iraqis, not stolen by the US at all.)



5. As for me admittin' I am wrong??? I'm not... Historians will get it right... Most allready have... But you wouldn't know about the many people who have said that Iraq was the largest blunder in US history because you don't want to face that reality...

Of course you are not wrong Bobert as all your arguments are based upon those things that we have come to know and love – THE BOBERT FACT – which is more accurately described as BOBERT BULLSHIT


6. If you wanted regime change, T, why didn't you just kill Saddam??? You won't nawer that question becuase you have no answer for that...

FFS not this again!! This so-called "tuff question" of yours has been answered so many times it has now become boring, you keep bringing it up because you do not like the answers. But nevertheless:

The objective (the aim if you like Bobert):   Regime Change In Iraq (Official US Foreign Policy from summer 1998)

Proposed Bobert solution: Kill Saddam Hussein

Why it would not work:

1. Killing Saddam Hussein does not effect regime change

2. Ba'athist Regime would remain in power in Iraq

3. The policies of the Ba'athists in Iraq would not have changed in any significant way

4. Likeliest candidates to succeed Saddam would have been one of his two sons who were actually both worse in their excesses than their father

5. Since the many failed and bizarre attempts at the assassination of Fidel Castro by the US over the years I believe that deliberate targeted assassinations are illegal under US law.

There you go Bobert that is your "Tuff question" answered for the umpteenth time. You might not like the answer but even you cannot doubt that an answer has been given to your question - or will BOBERT FACT deny that??

Now you tell me what you think killing Saddam Hussein would have achieved??


7. You cherry pick Blix but ignore the here and now in his report of Jan 27... You ignore the "most important"... You ignore "cooperating"... Those realities (facts) don't jive with yer little pathology/mythology...

So I produce and link to actual transcripts of what Blix actually said in full and I stand accused of cherry-picking the speech?? You are the one who should be peeing in the cup.

I highlight the speech dividing the sections as Blix wrote them to cover the various points of his report. You accuse me of ignoring "most important", accuse me of ignoring "co-operating" where just by review of my posts on this thread anyone can clearly see that far from ignoring them I actually highlighted them and put them into the context in which they were used by Blix.

Your trouble Bobert is that you just cannot read anything and "GET" what is actually being said, and that Bobert is your problem…… It is certainly NOT MINE.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:42 AM

"F'n" this, "F'n" that. You are so eloquent. Talk about a crutch. I guess that is how they communicate in the trailer park that you live in. Am I right, tough guy?

Or do you fall into the "you can take the person out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the person" category?

I have always wondered why reasonable, intelligent people tolerate Cretans, such as you, Teribus. I guess it is some kind of morbid curiosity to watch the train wreck. To find out how YOU can sleep at night, knowing the type of pathetic, vulgar, despicable, poor excuse for a human being that you are. But, I guess you answered that question "insomnia" boy, you can't cope with your own scummyness.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:39 PM

Took you 11 "F'n" hours to come up with that Cap'n?? You're slipping, surely you can do a great deal better than that.

You're no competition at all chum, but nevertheless fume on, I am having a whale of a time.

"kooks", "candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be", "trailer park"??? you from across on the west side of the pond, you sad little troll? Might explain your "insomnia" remark but that would be taking us into the realms of arithmetic as yet unplumbed by people of your experience so for the sake of brevity I will not even attempt to explain it all for you. Ask your Mum or Dad, best pick the one who is actually using the family brain-cell at time of asking.

BYEEEEEE.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... Blah, blah, blah.

That is what you sound like, Teribus.

You're a bore, but I am sure your wife has already told you that. You repugnant, piece of bottom feeder dung.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 PM

Pee in the cup, T...

You are so prejudiced (not biased) that you can't even see that just about everything that you said you predicted actually didn't come to pass...

The war in Baghdad hasn't ended yet...

The US military is still fighting and dieing in Iraq... BTW, T, That's why they call it "war"...

The 2000 elections are something that you brought up in yer usual confrontational/argumentative so it was fair game for me to answer that... I mean, why else di you bring it up???

On Turkey, you were correct but I never took an advesarial position on that anyway... Who cares' you were due to be right once in a hundred... Good job, T...

The Iraq army did fight... Gorella style... Many of them still at it...

The book is still out on the Ba-athists... Right now the US is payin' them to not shoot at US... Same on the "Civil war"... When the US leaves (or sets up a miliatry base somewhere away population centers) then we'll see... I still say that there a shit load of bad things yet to happen in Iraq when either of those scenerios comes to pass...

The only reason that the US oil companies didn't glam onto the oil is because the war has gone very, very badly for the US and UK in terms of international reputation... That's a no-brainer.... You don't get credit for that because it happened for resaons other than the above things that you have claimed that are false claims...

What next... Oh yeah... TERIBUS BULLSHIT!!!

Regime change didn't have to involve killing upwards of a million civilains, T... That was a purdy dumb idea...

Lastly we get around to Blix... What is it that you still can't comprehend about the terms "Most important" and "cooperation" both, BTW which are conatined in the same sentence??? Those words to hard for you... Maybe Blix should have given another speech written in crayons using only one syable words???

Did I miss anything???

Don't think so...

Congrates on getting the Turks thing right... Really has nothin' to do with the big picture but at least you did get 1 point... Beats gettin' skunked...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

1. The war in Baghdad hasn't ended yet...

Must be the quietest war ever fought then Bobert, either that or nobody is bothering to report it.

2. The US military is still fighting and dieing in Iraq... BTW, T, That's why they call it "war"...

Oh yes Bobert that may go on a while yet. By the way Bobert care to tell us how many of those still "dying" have died in non-combat related events.

3. The 2000 elections are something that you brought up in yer usual confrontational/argumentative so it was fair game for me to answer that... I mean, why else di you bring it up???

GWB your attack-dog trigger, just love the way you start to splutter whenever he is mentioned.

4. On Turkey, you were correct but I never took an advesarial position on that anyway... Who cares' you were due to be right once in a hundred... Good job, T...

Well you did ask for one JUST ONE prediction that I made that was correct, and well, there you have it. Always try to oblige Bobert.

5. The Iraq army did fight... Gorella style... Many of them still at it...

Naw Bobert they didn't. The Iraqi Army didn't like Saddam that much and if many of them are still fighting they are now part of the new Iraqi Security Forces fighting the last remnants of a dispirited and beaten insurgency. Gorella style - WTFIT???

6. The book is still out on the Ba-athists... Right now the US is payin' them to not shoot at US... Same on the "Civil war"... When the US leaves (or sets up a miliatry base somewhere away population centers) then we'll see... I still say that there a shit load of bad things yet to happen in Iraq when either of those scenerios comes to pass...

They will all be making far, far too much money to bother with any of that crap Bobert

7. The only reason that the US oil companies didn't glam onto the oil is because the war has gone very, very badly for the US and UK in terms of international reputation... That's a no-brainer.... You don't get credit for that because it happened for resaons other than the above things that you have claimed that are false claims...

Sorry Bobert, that is just more of your bullshit, the field service contracts were awarded as they were, and to who I said they would go to at the time in exchange for debt cancellation (France; Russia & China) The Iraqis then drove very hard bargains that US companies baulked at, but other oil rich national companies took them up on (Malaysians; Angolans) You were of the opinion that the US was in there to steal Iraq's oil I said that that was impossible - I proved to be right. It had bugger all to do with international reputation.


8. Regime change didn't have to involve killing upwards of a million civilains, T... That was a purdy dumb idea...

What 1 million people and upwards were killed Bobert?

9. Lastly we get around to Blix... What is it that you still can't comprehend about the terms "Most important" and "cooperation" both, BTW which are conatined in the same sentence??? Those words to hard for you... Maybe Blix should have given another speech written in crayons using only one syable words???

Ah but Bobert it was the words, sentences and paragraphs that preceeded, went in between "most important" and "co-operation" as well as the words, sentences and paragraphs that followed that tell you what Blix was actually reporting. I dare say that you will get the jist of it one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Pee in the cup, T... You are dillusional... Either that or you are watching a much different chain of events...

It's not me that ain't gettin' the jist... You are jist-less... Dillusional and jist-less...

Now pee in the cup and quit with the mythology...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GRex
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:46 AM

Teribus

      I will not dispute your details regarding the Iraqi oil contracts. What I said was that the intention was to obtain the oil.
      The fact that Bush and Blair failed is not supprising.

      Not sure whether I'm pleased or not. This war is a terrible thing and seems entirely unjustified.

             GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

What I said was that the intention was to obtain the oil.

   The fact that Bush and Blair failed is not surprising.


The economics of what you think they tried to do is ludicrous and makes no sense at all. Iraq at the time that sanctions were applied was ranked 17th in the world for oil exports. Neither the UK or the US took any oil from Iraq all the time that sanctions were in place or if they did it came through traders in extremely small amounts. After 2003 the US bought a token amount of oil from Iraq and contrary to popular believe the USA is not dependent on oil from the region.

You cannot steal oil and although field service contracts have been awarded to foreign companies (Mostly National Oil Companies of foreign countries) the oil still belongs to Iraq or whatever other country an oil field is located in, it is a national resource and is treated as such. That has been the way that the international Oil & Gas Industry has worked for at least forty years. I am sorry but there is just no way at all that Bush or Blair could obtain Iraq's oil even if they had wanted to.