BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

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.