Republican Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 It was a crazy way of dealing with this situation, completely irrational. Sort of how like animals do not have the same capability as people, people just have a slightly more better understanding of they're surroundings. Animals can't think about much, people can. So that is what I mean by animalistic. We aren't far from animals at all, we have the similarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Nothing irrational about the decision to go to war in Iraq. It's a strategically placed area; there was a US government vendetta against Saddam; and a regime that is more compliant with the US is of benefit to the US. Once the excuse arose to invade, they invaded. That's not crazy. It is how the US and UK operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share Posted January 3, 2010 LDV - why isn't the US invading Venezuela? Surely from your logic such an action is inevitable. Same with Iran? This was far far more complicated than you are making out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 The US wouldn't touch Venezuela. The rest of Latin America would be outraged by such a move and so would the world. You can't really fabricate a believable and publicly acceptable story to the public as to why invasion would be necessary. Chavez can't be demonised as easily as Saddam. And nor would the Latin American countries accept a US invasion. The control the US has had over Latin America has changed considerably over the past thirty ears. The United States isn't going to risk pissing off these nations. Besides it is easier to invade brown people. They evidently don't matter as much. Iran would be invaded if the US had the resources and was resisted for any longer than it is. Who knows what the future might hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well Gordon will be up on the stand giving evidence of his involvement in the iraq war prior to the election. Link. Wonder what he'll have to say about funding the troops, and backing TB. Is all this just a boring irrelevence now? Or will it effect the election. And if so is it right he's on the stand now, or should it have waited til later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Is all this just a boring irrelevence now? Or will it effect the election. I don't think the inquiry is getting the reaction some people thought it might. Joe Public has a short memory, as well as other problems to worry about now such as his job. It's not telling us anything much most of us already didn't know, and no one is going to be held to account as a result of this inquiry (remit). Just more whitewash...as the world moves on again, learns nothing again, holds no one to account again...waiting to make the same mistake somewhere else in another 10 years again, and thousands of allies' (and who knows how many other) lives lost again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 It seems to me that the 'spin' endemic in this labour GOV is clear for all to see, the witnesses are clearly rehearsed and whilst not offering wholehearted support to the grinning idiot Blair cannot be seen as putting the blame on his shoulders for the misleading of the commons. The questioning is meek to say the least. It is a great shame that the truth will not out for those who have unnecessarily lost sons etc in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 It doesn't matter about Labour or conservatives, they would of either had done the same thing. And yes, there may be more conflict in future, its just so surreal to see someone like Blair keep mentioning the same thing all over again. The truth won't be told, the media never add it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 The US wouldn't touch Venezuela. The rest of Latin America would be outraged by such a move and so would the world. You can't really fabricate a believable and publicly acceptable story to the public as to why invasion would be necessary. Chavez can't be demonised as easily as Saddam. And nor would the Latin American countries accept a US invasion. The control the US has had over Latin America has changed considerably over the past thirty ears. The United States isn't going to risk pissing off these nations. They didn't need to invade Chile in 1973 to bring about regime change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 26, 2010 Author Share Posted January 26, 2010 I have to say I wish I had more time to read some of the details about the enquiry. To have Jack Straw quoted as saying something along the lines of ... "I have often been advised things were unlawful and gone ahead anyway" ... after being advised by his chief legal advisor that any invasion would be illegal is a pretty amazing example of real politic! If you are the home secretary and you do something illegal it can end up in the Supreme Court and you might have to change course - but if you are the US's chief ally and you decide to break international law - well you know that you can get the UN to pass Resolutions normalizing the occupation after the event. I always found the post invasion resolutions fascinating - they just nipped off any black hole of illegality and welcomed the US, the UK, and its installed Iraqi government back into the international system. That's international politics for you - but you rarely get to see the justifications for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 To have Jack Straw quoted as saying something along the lines of ... "I have often been advised things were unlawful and gone ahead anyway" ... after being advised by his chief legal advisor that any invasion would be illegal is a pretty amazing example of real politic! As I understand it they pushed the AG for a clear Go / No Go and didn't get either. Not been reading The Torygraph have you? It's happened time and time again where a politician pushes something out and eventually the courts say "Errr - you can't do that..." Not exactly "news" is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 Quick PK, I know you don't like the Torygraph, but now looks like there all at it. The quotes below from the front pages of the online editions. You'd better contact them sharpish and let them know it isn't exactly 'news' before they go and print it in the morning editions and make themselves look foolish. Independent: "Invade and be damned: Foreign Office lawyers say advice on legality of war was ignored" Guardian: "Lawyers expose pressure to give green light for war" Times: "Former Attorney-General gave approval for invasion days after coming under pressure from Prime Minister, inquiry told" Irish Times (International Section): "UK lawyers advised war was illegal" Scotsman: "Iraq inquiry: Government knew invasion was 'crime of aggression" Glasgow Herald: "Straw ignored advice that Iraq invasion had ‘no basis’ in law" The Daily Mail: "Iraq war was a crime of aggression: The damning verdict of top Whitehall lawyers which No. 10 refused to accept" The Morning Star: "Chilcot inquiry: 'Gung-ho' Jack Straw was told Iraq war would be illegal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 South America back then was more divided. It was America's backyard. As one former CIA member put it, it was either us or someone else. Backyards, and sphere of influences are a part of history, that isn't new. More conflicts will happen in future, the British defence review is all about planning for future strategically interested wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 Quick PK, I know you don't like the Torygraph, but now looks like there all at it. The quotes below from the front pages of the online editions. You'd better contact them sharpish and let them know it isn't exactly 'news' before they go and print it in the morning editions and make themselves look foolish. You need to get a life after the time you've spent putting that lot together. Some of these "newspapers" are so amusing. They're forever accusing politicians of "spin" when they've been doing it for years. The Daily Wail is the classic. They accuse Labour ministers of "lying" based on this logic - they've not said what we want to hear i.e. enough for us to condemn them - ergo they must be lying! Pathetic. Today the AG stated he thought a second UN resolution would be required to "legalise" an invasion but after listening to the arguments of his US counterparts (you remember the US - they fund the UN) he decided that it was not needed. He made a decision and will live with it. Which is why this inquiry will cost a huge amount of time and money and will achieve nothing. Say it concludes the AG made the wrong decision? He will say "Sorry, but I'm only human after all". Then what Freggyragh? For reference decisions made by UK ministers are not only declared illegal by our own system but also by the EU. Happens all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 Having watched the AG perform at the enquiry, you could see the strings moving his arms, insincerity personified ! mind you he is a lawyer LOL get ready for Bliar tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.