Dannat: "It was about regime change"

[CirrusF]

Dannat gave a robust defence of HM Forces on BBC News this evening - and good for him.

But unless I am going deaf, did he not let slip that the Iraq invasion was "about regime change"?

If so, Blair might need to look into applying for US (or Vatican?) citizenship...

[Melchett01]

Of course it was always about regime change, something tacitly acknowledged in many pre-TELIC meetings. Afterall, George Jr was still holding a grudge against that nasty man for taking a pop at his daddy George Sr, and George persuaded Tony to lend a hand whilst whispering sweet nothings over the late night coco.

Shame then the govt thought we were stupid and would believe their lies about WMD.

[minigundiplomat]

Agreed,

but given the high levels of 'politicization' within all areas of the civil service, police and even Armed Forces (Admiral West?), it was fairly inevitable.

At least Dannat has a set.

[capewrath]

I think a lot of us did believe the WMD story, at least initially.

As things now stand, we went in on the strength of a lie and are coming out on the strength of another lie. Mission complete according to Brown.

I suppose it depends on how you define "complete".

[phil gollin]

If anyone says it was about "regime change" then they are admitting to an agressive war and open their government up to war crime charges - so NO it was NOT actually or tacitly seen as the reason for the war - it was constantly denied by both US and UK governments.

Now what Bush's and others' actual reasons really were, no one knows - but the real reason "regime change" caught on was to try to excuse the complete mess they made of the occupation/nation building.

.

[Melchett01]

so NO it was NOT actually or tacitly seen as the reason for the war - it was constantly denied by both US and UK governments.


Sorry, but whilst the politicians may have publically denied it it was up there at the top of the list in the meetings I was invovled in late 02. Like it or not (and I didn't particularly), that was the reason. It just became politically expedient to suggest that was the reason once the WMD hunt had been revealed for the debacle it was.

[walter kennedy]

P G wrote <<Now what Bush's and others' actual reasons really were, no one knows >>


At the time I found the excuse of WMD unbelievable as, even if Iraq had any left that were still within the sell by date, they would not have dared use them (did they even have conventional warheads on the SCUDs they actually launched? – seem to remember they did not but maybe I forget just now).
They were not a big deal years earlier when Israel had supplied both Iraq and Iran with Bio and Chem to use against each other – no concern over that?
The records of who supplied what to Iraq were in a UN report the relevant sections of which were snatched by the Americans before they could be made public – no concern over the American behaviour?


I rather thought the following issues were more to the point:
1 Iraq was to move to the Euro as opposed to the US dollar for future oil sales;
2 Iraq was a potential threat to Israel;
3 Iraq was a mouthpiece for the Palestinian cause – as long as countries like Iraq remained independent it gave hope to the Palestinians and offered some financial compensation to the families who lost breadwinners in the fight against Israeli occupation;
4 Iraq has lots of oil.


A side issue which should be of great concern to the British public is just why the 2 heads of the BBC were replaced by mssrs Grade and Yentob for running what we now all know was a true version of the WMD story that was in the interest of the public – an inquiry into who dictated that move would be good – perhaps we would get an insight into who really runs UK.


If biological and chemical weapons were of such concern, think over these examples which did not result in the UK condemning the respective countries for their conduct:
1 Israel has heaps of WMD and, apart from their apparent willingness to proliferate them (eg Iraq & Iran in the past) and their high likelihood to use them, has a bad record of safe handling such stuff – remember the El Al cargo plane that crashed into a block of flats in Amsterdam? - component constituents of several tons of sarin and 28 lbs of powdered plutonium on board? - flying across crowded Europe where it is a requirement for even nuclear power plant waste to be in crash proof vessels on trains.
2 The anthrax used in the attacks that immediately followed the WTC attacks came from the USA's own facility – if you can't keep it secure, surely you should not keep it at all.
It is interesting that, long after the source of the anthrax was known, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on Iraq's alleged WMD capability gave the impression that the anthrax used in the attacks in America had come from Iraq.


If you want to have a think about regime change then perhaps you should ponder the regime change that was effected in the UK by the untimely deaths of John Smith and Robin Cook – do you think we would have gone into Iraq if these two decent men were in government?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

walter mitty said:

At the time I found the excuse of WMD unbelievable as, even if Iraq had any left that were still within the sell by date, they would not have dared use them (did they even have conventional warheads on the SCUDs they actually launched? – seem to remember they did not but maybe I forget just now).
They were not a big deal years earlier when Israel had supplied both Iraq and Iran with Bio and Chem to use against each other – no concern over that?
The records of who supplied what to Iraq were in a UN report the relevant sections of which were snatched by the Americans before they could be made public – no concern over the American behaviour?


I rather thought the following issues were more to the point:
1 Iraq was to move to the Euro as opposed to the US dollar for future oil sales;
2 Iraq was a potential threat to Israel;
3 Iraq was a mouthpiece for the Palestinian cause – as long as countries like Iraq remained independent it gave hope to the Palestinians and offered some financial compensation to the families who lost breadwinners in the fight against Israeli occupation;
4 Iraq has lots of oil.


A side issue which should be of great concern to the British public is just why the 2 heads of the BBC were replaced by mssrs Grade and Yentob for running what we now all know was a true version of the WMD story that was in the interest of the public – an inquiry into who dictated that move would be good – perhaps we would get an insight into who really runs UK.


If biological and chemical weapons were of such concern, think over these examples which did not result in the UK condemning the respective countries for their conduct:
1 Israel has heaps of WMD and, apart from their apparent willingness to proliferate them (eg Iraq & Iran in the past) and their high likelihood to use them, has a bad record of safe handling such stuff – remember the El Al cargo plane that crashed into a block of flats in Amsterdam? - component constituents of several tons of sarin and 28 lbs of powdered plutonium on board? - flying across crowded Europe where it is a requirement for even nuclear power plant waste to be in crash proof vessels on trains.
2 The anthrax used in the attacks that immediately followed the WTC attacks came from the USA's own facility – if you can't keep it secure, surely you should not keep it at all.
It is interesting that, long after the source of the anthrax was known, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on Iraq's alleged WMD capability gave the impression that the anthrax used in the attacks in America had come from Iraq.


If you want to have a think about regime change then perhaps you should ponder the regime change that was effected in the UK by the untimely deaths of John Smith and Robin Cook – do you think we would have gone into Iraq if these two decent men were in government?

I can do you a good bulk deal on bacofoil if you're interested.

[soddim]

Why on Earth, Vortex, did you consider it necessary to cut and paste Walter's entire post directly beneath the original?

Beggars belief!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Why on Earth, Vortex, did you consider it necessary to cut and paste Walter's entire post directly beneath the original?

Beggars belief!

Because it's so full of barking madness it deserves repeating. But thanks for your input, and these days we don't have broadband and it really slows down peoples connections when you quote them - in Zimbabwe :\ I bet you agree with him too. :ugh:

[TEEEJ]

Walter Kennedy wrote

did they even have conventional warheads on the SCUDs they actually launched?

The Iraq's didn't fire any SCUDs during 2003. The longest ranged weapon that they fired was the Al Samoud 2.

Iraqi Delivery Systems - 2003 Prewar Assessments (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/missile-isg.htm)

Missiles - Iraq Special Weapons (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/missile.htm)

U.S.: No Scuds Or WMD Found In Iraq, American Forces Have Yet To Find Such Weapons - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/23/iraq/main545485.shtml)

[phil gollin]

Quote (Melchett01) :

Sorry, but whilst the politicians may have publically denied it it was up there at the top of the list in the meetings I was invovled in late 02. Like it or not (and I didn't particularly), that was the reason. It just became politically expedient to suggest that was the reason once the WMD hunt had been revealed for the debacle it was

unquote

In which case you, and any others attending seem to have forgotten your duty in not just blindly "following orders" and should have reminded whoever was talking that aggressive war is a war crime.

.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

PG

What a load of bollocks. Saddam was murdering his people in the tens of thousands for decades and not a dissenting murmur from our bleeding hearts (including you I would surmise ?) which only encouraged him. The only mistake we made was not finishing him off in 1991 when he was cowering in his Rommel caravan on 25th February waiting for the baillifs. He couldn't believe his luck when the whingers started moaning about Mutla Ridge and our lack of resolve became self evident. We all said he would have to go eventually and the price would be higher later on, and strangely enough, those prophecies were self fulfilling.

[minigundiplomat]

Saddam was murdering his people in the tens of thousands for decades


Like Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, the Chinese and a couple of dozen African dictators.

But then, they had no oil, or were able to provide a credible opposition.

[Beatriz Fontana]

So when are we going to go into Palestine to stop the Israelis and Hamas from killing each other?

[Maple 01]

Spot on UA, and unsurprising that that only counter argument was the 'oh it's unfair because you didn't go after x,y and z'

Should we stand-by and do nothing all the time because we can't solve all the worlds problems? I heard the same arguments over Kosovo, Bosnia and a few other sh*tholes by those who now seem happy to support Sadam, how long before it turns out to be the Jews fault? Oh sorry, that one's been done, so international jewish conspiticy or Blood for Oil? Tin foil hats on gentlemen

No WMD? Hmmm, must have been misinformed about the 500 CW shells then, and the prohibited long range missiles were a fiction too I guess

[glad rag]

The plain facts are the government of the day lied to the parliament and people.

Why they are still have not been brought to account after some 303 British servicemen/servicewomen have given their lives in service in Iraq/AFG is open to question.

[TEEEJ]

Maple 01 wrote

No WMD? Hmmm, must have been misinformed about the 500 CW shells then, and the prohibited long range missiles were a fiction too I guess

Not even the U.S. used the WMD munitions found as evidence. The U.S. regarded them as the remnants of the old legacy Iraqi WMD. Even the binary shells discovered in the hands of militants were not deemed as proof of an Iraqi WMD cache.

The Al Samoud 2's were a bit of a blurred range issue. They were slightly over the range permitted, but not by much. UNMOVIC were in the process
of destroying them right up until they had to leave.

Even up until the invasion UNMOVIC were destroying Iraqi WMD.

Media Advisory 2003/2502 - UNMOVIC IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq - 25 February 2003 (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/ma_iraq_2502.shtml)

UN Inspectors Found No Evidence of Prohibited Weapons Programmes as of 18 March Withdrawal, Hans Blix Tells Security Council; Says New Environment in Iraq, with Full Access and Cooperation,should Allow Establishment of Truth About ?unaccounted For? I (http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2003/sc7777.html)

ISG report

Iraq Survey Group Final Report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/)

In terms of WMD a working cache would have had to have been discovered. For example if Coalition forces had overrun a Republican Guard unit with 155mm chemical shells, or a SCUD battery.

TJ

[minigundiplomat]

Regardless of whether the decision was right or wrong, how valid the reasons were, and how much political spin was applied, the fact remains; Tony Blair committed troops to a war, pledging to pay the 'blood price' in order to neutralise Iraq's WMD.

That was the specific reason given to Parliament, the UN, and the British public. No WMD have been found.

That, along with far too many deaths on all sides, is enough reason for us to question the reasons for going to war, question the political motives for going to war, and to question the whole pretext for invasion of a soveriegn nation.

Yes, Saddam Hussein did have a great deal of blood on his hands, but his removal was not the reason given for invasion, and should not be used as justification. Ever!

[In Tor Wot]

Bliar knew full well that he couldn't sell 'regime change' so used WMD and a bogus interpretation of the facts to justify a 'threat' to the UK. If he didn't have the testicular fortitude to state openly that his objective was regime change, the U.S. weren't so particular about it:

". . . the [U.S.] Administration maintains that regime change has been declared U.S. policy since November 1998 and remains the desired goal."

Access my Library (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-3795950_ITM) Dec 2002

Anyone that thought we'd just go in and remove any WMD we happened to find and leave the regime intact must have been in a different war to me.

Dannett was right - it was all about regime change, we just chose to believe that we were doing it for a different reason.

btw A war of aggression is not a war crime, in nuspeak it is called pre-emptive self defence (and that was the phrase used in the U.S. to justify the war).

[Gundog01]

Looks like there has been regime change. Blair....gone, Bush....gone?????

[Maple 01]

Yes, Saddam Hussein did have a great deal of blood on his hands, but his removal was not the reason given for invasion, and should not be used as justification. Ever!

Yes, Adolph Hittler did have a great deal of blood on his hands, but his removal was not the reason given for invasion, and should not be used as justification. Ever!

[minigundiplomat]

Adolph Hittler did have a great deal of blood on his hands, but his removal was not the reason given for invasion, and should not be used as justification. Ever!


Big difference. Hitler had already invaded several European countries, was in the process of de-stabilising Europe, and had invaded an Poland, with whom the UK had defence agreements.

The USA also has defence agreements with the UK, namely NATO, and used Article 5 of the treaty post 9/11.

There, similarities end.

Germany continued to invade country after country. There is, and never has been any link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, Article 5 of the NATO treaty cannot apply, hence NATO troops in Afghanistan, and a 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq.

As an argument for the war, any comparison between 1930's Germany and Iraq 2003 is as feeble as it is incorrect.

[Maple 01]

Not even the U.S. used the WMD munitions found as evidence. The U.S. regarded them as the remnants of the old legacy Iraqi WMD. Even the binary shells discovered in the hands of militants were not deemed as proof of an Iraqi WMD cache.

Under the terms of UNSCR 678 ALL stocks were to be destroyed without delay, where they in existance in 2003? Where they chemical weapons? Therfore breach of the resolution

The Al Samoud 2's were a bit of a blurred range issue. They were slightly over the range permitted, but not by much. UNMOVIC were in the process of destroying them right up until they had to leave.

Where they over range? Did they breach the resoultion? why did they exist 11 years after they were supposed to have been destroyed?

Even up until the invasion UNMOVIC were destroying Iraqi WMD.

So there must have been WMD to destroy - why?

[minigundiplomat]

Trying to escape the deluge of mince pies and turkey sandwiches!

[TEEEJ]

Maple 01 wrote

Under the terms of UNSCR 678 ALL stocks were to be destroyed without delay, where they in existance in 2003? Where they chemical weapons? Therfore breach of the resolution

These were NOT stocks. They were the remains of the old Iraqi WMDs. UNMOVIC were still finding chemical munitions in the remains of 1991 bombed facilities. The Iraqi WMD programme was huge and badly documented. UNSCOM had destroyed thousands of tonnes of munitions in the 1990s and their work was not complete. The vast amount had been destroyed, but remnants still remained and were scheduled to be destroyed under U.N. inspection.

Media Advisory 2003/2602 - UNMOVIC IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq - 26 February 2003 (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/ma_iraq_2602.shtml)

Tracking Inspections in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030211-refl.htm)

11 FEBRUARY 2003

Five inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited the Al-Tuwaythah site belonging to Iraq's Atomic Energy Organization. According to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the inspectors searched the "Italian project," where inspectors checked and photographed waste basins. Inspectors also searched the "destroyed French project," the ministry stated. Radiation testing was conducted at the site. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) did not provide details on this inspection, except to note that they were "no-notice" inspections.

Two IAEA inspectors returned to the Al-Jadiriyah Science Complex and the 17 Nisan Company where they removed the air-sampling devices installed on 8 February. UNMOVIC stated that samples were taken from the removed devices for analysis. The devices will be placed at new locations on 12 February.

A third team of three IAEA inspectors carried out a radiological survey from the areas of Al-Bu'aythah to Al-Yusufiyah, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry stated. The survey included "farms on the bank of the river adjacent to the Atomic Energy Organization and military units," the ministry added. UNMOVIC stated that the radiation surveys were taken at two military bases and the surrounding areas.

A team of 10 chemical inspectors visited the Al-Muthanna site belonging to the Al-Tariq State Company and located 50 kilometers north of Baghdad. UNMOVIC stated that inspectors went to Al-Muthanna to begin preparations for the destruction of 10 155-millimeter artillery shells and four plastic containers filled with mustard gas. The destruction process, UNMOVIC added, was expected to take up to five days and begin on 12 February. UNMOVIC noted that its inspectors are assisting an Iraqi team in the destruction process.

"These artillery shells were scheduled to be destroyed by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1998 but the plan was halted when UNSCOM withdrew from Iraq," UNMOVIC stated. Inspectors confirmed that the shells were still stored at the site during a 4 December 2002 inspection at Al-Muthanna, UNMOVIC reported. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry confirmed that the purpose of the inspection was to prepare "to destroy [mustard] shells and to address technical matters related to the destruction process."

Where they over range? Did they breach the resoultion? why did they exist 11 years after they were supposed to have been destroyed?

Al Samouds 2 were not in existence 11 years before 2003. The production of Al Samoud 2s began in 2001 and were declared to UNMOVIC. The Iraqi's were allowed to retain a defensive ballistic programme and developed SRBMs under this agreement. Under the programme UNMOVIC tagged the SA-2 Guideline engines and the Iraqi's were allowed to test them. Without a warhead fitted they exceeded the 150km range allowed by about 20km and UNMOVIC wanted them destroyed. The Iraqi's complied and UNMOVIC started destroying the missiles up until just before the conflict.

UNMOVIC supervision of test-launches.

Media Advisory 2002/1212 - UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq, 12 December 2002 (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2002/ma_iraq_1212.shtml)

So there must have been WMD to destroy - why?

These were remnants of the old WMD programme. Between the old UNSCOM and UNMOVIC they were still a work in progress hampered by delays of inspectors in country. Not even UNMOVIC or ISG regarded them as being claims for a viable WMD find. None of those remnants found were regarded as an active WMD programme. If they had then Bush would have been telling a different story to the world.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Bush regrets Iraqi WMD failure (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7759908.stm)

TJ

[Maple 01]

These were NOT stocks. They were the remains of the old Iraqi WMDs.

What you mean stockpiles?

UNMOVIC were still finding chemical munitions in the remains of 1991 bombed facilities.

So there were still stocks?

The Iraqi WMD programme was huge and badly documented.

So there were stockpiles kicking about and no-one knew about them?

UNSCOM had destroyed thousands of tonnes of munitions in the 1990s and their work was not complete. The vast amount had been destroyed, but remnants still remained and were scheduled to be destroyed under U.N. inspection.

Funny, I thought UNMOVIC had been kicked out several times, not exactly in compliance with UNSCRs. I thought they were denied access to several locations, not in accordance with the UNSCRs…etc. How many chances did Saddam need to learn compliance wasn’t optional?

So in other words there were stocks of CW that hadn’t been destroyed in a country that was failing to meet its UN mandated responsibilities. Furthermore the military had produced rockets that broke the ceasefire agreement contained in UNSCR 678 and were still producing them 11 years after the project should have been abandoned?

[phil gollin]

Quote :-

PG

What a load of bollocks. Saddam was murdering his people in the tens of thousands for decades and not a dissenting murmur from our bleeding hearts (including you I would surmise ?) which only encouraged him. The only mistake we made was not finishing him off in 1991 when he was cowering in his Rommel caravan on 25th February waiting for the baillifs. He couldn't believe his luck when the whingers started moaning about Mutla Ridge and our lack of resolve became self evident. We all said he would have to go eventually and the price would be higher later on, and strangely enough, those prophecies were self fulfilling.

unquote


Oh dear, more of the selective memory syndrome which has afflicted the idea of discussiong Iraq. IF you remember correctly, there was no real desire to finish off Saddam in 1991. The Military were complaining about being sent on bombing raids and massacering (sp ?) unarmed thousands of soldiers on the Basra Road and the politicans were pointing out that the UN mandate was ONLY to free Kuwait. It is amazing what a decade and a half will do to peoples' memories

And, yes there were lots of dissenting voices complaining about Saddam, both before and afterwards.

The only reason the propheses became self-fulling was because of the lies told about WMDs.

.

[phil gollin]

Quote (In Tor Wot) :

Bliar knew full well that he couldn't sell 'regime change' so used WMD and a bogus interpretation of the facts to justify a 'threat' to the UK. If he didn't have the testicular fortitude to state openly that his objective was regime change, the U.S. weren't so particular about it:

". . . the [U.S.] Administration maintains that regime change has been declared U.S. policy since November 1998 and remains the desired goal."

Access my Library (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-3795950_ITM) Dec 2002

Anyone that thought we'd just go in and remove any WMD we happened to find and leave the regime intact must have been in a different war to me. .....................

unquote


The OFFICIAL reason for the US war was WMDs - NOT regime change.

Regime Change is against the UN Charter and classed as agressive war and opens up people conducting it to charges of war crimes.

.

[Maple 01]

Regime Change is against the UN Charter and classed as agressive war and opens up people conducting it to charges of war crimes.

So if the UN charter was retrospective the WW2 Allies would be had up for war crimes because they got rid of Hitler, he should have been allowed to get on with murdering Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc because Germany was a sovereign state! Sack of cack

[Biggus]

Maple 01

You quote Iraq's breach of UN resolutions as justification of the invasion, but when the very UN charter appears to say that Regime Change is unacceptable you chose to ignore it - selective or what??

I'm not going to try to persuade you that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified - firstly because your mind is already firmly made up, and not open to persuasion, and secondly because I am still undecided myself ...

However, I am very "uncomfortable" with the whole Iraq enterprise, as are many people, both inside and outside the UK military. The previous few responses show you that many people are uncomfortable with it, and have evidence, arguements to back their point of view. This (apart from pacifists, possibly UK communists?) was not the case in WW2.

That is the whole point, that the UK public, indeed the UK military, were/are not firmly convinced of the need to invade Iraq (1 million odd people marched in the UK in protest). But the military carried out the wish of the UK government, whether they agreed with it or not ...

[JessTheDog]

War planning commenced in mid-to-late 2002 in advance of any UN resolutions or Parliamentary votes. The war was a fait accompli. Bush and Blair wanted a resolution explicitly authorising military action due to Saddam's non-compliance, didn't get one, cobbled together a case for war based on existing resolutions and a threadbare WMD threat, and went for it anyway. The only thing about war planning is that it can be argued it is contingency planning as they may look similar, but it will take disclosures from some very senior people (as for Gen Dannatt) to get to the truth.

I remember perusing the dodgy dossiers on the internet and laughing about the lame WMD claims with colleagues in the crewroom....

WMD threat from modified SCUD missiles....it is very difficult to weaponise a chemical or biological agent for effective delivery. Take anthrax for example. Very nasty but deliverable in spore form which is incredibly difficult to ingest. Also, none of this is much use unless delivered with clear strategic or tactical effect in mind - degrade enemy performance due to wearing IPE, use blood agent to degrade canisters, then nerve agent - and central to this is the ability to deliver the agent effectively with some degree of accuracy and precision in significant quantities.

A missile could hit Cyprus....yeah, if the wind was behind it and they got really lucky! See point above.

Some WMDs could be used in 45mins....rubbish. Saddam killed a good number of his own troops in botched chemical attacks. Out of date Soviet/Warsaw Pact doctrine/C2 procedures regurgitated by a single source, as we all know thanks to the Hutton inquiry and others (even if they didn't join the dots).

Credible WMD threat....why then, did I speak to colleagues in more than one theatre (within supposed range) whose units were either stripped of IPE or collective protection equipment for delivery up-threat or who did not possess enough IPE etc, in particular NBC suits which require periodic change? This touches on wider issues of ill-preparedness: troops without body armour, troops crossing the line without anything near their ammunition issue, SP artillery without desert filters. I was involved in a UOR which wasn't signed off until the war had started (attempt to keep things under wraps to placate Labour MPs).

I respect the arguments of those who support regime change, but that was not the basis for the war. This country was taken to war on a false premise, using intelligence manipulated and disseminated as propaganda. As time passes and some of those involved start to speak out (like Gen Dannatt) it may become uncomfortable for certain individuals. We're due a decision on the release of the pre-war Cabinet minutes...should be interesting reading (I reckon they'll be leaked if not released, as for the Attorney-General's initial advice).

As an aside, I was working closely with US colleagues during the period, and their opinion was that "it was about oil".

[Maple 01]

You quote Iraq's breach of UN resolutions as justification of the invasion

er...because it was? UNSCR 678 was a ceasefire, fail to comply and the 1991 war is back on

but when the very UN charter appears to say that Regime Change is unacceptable you chose to ignore it - selective or what??

I would have been happy for the bastard to have been put down back in 1991, but I’m happy he’s gone, would you want him back, and if no how were YOU planning to get rid of him?

1 million odd people marched in the UK in protest

Very odd IIRC, but then millions vote on the x-factor and I wouldn’t want them to make big decisions based on their ill informed views either

[minigundiplomat]

Maple,

I've come to the conclusion that you had some sort of personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, or you actually believed the flimsy evidence offered up by Nu Labour.

Your not George Dubya Bush are you?

[phil gollin]

Quote (Maple 01) :-

So if the UN charter was retrospective the WW2 Allies would be had up for war crimes because they got rid of Hitler, he should have been allowed to get on with murdering Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc because Germany was a sovereign state! Sack of cack

unquote


Thus showing a complete lack of historical knowledge !

If you don't know that WW2 started because Hitler invaded Poland then I think you need to join a Library !

(Likewise Russia joined in because Germany attacked and the US because Japan attacked her and Germany declared war on her).

A few facts explain a lot.

.

[RileyDove]

Maple - UNSCR678 covered the removal of Saddam from Kuwait. The subsequent resolution covered his conduct and reparations for the invasion.
It's very convienient to use 678 as a justification for war but in reality that resolution was specific in it's aim and didn't cover anything outside of it's remit.

As for 1 million people marching in London against the war - well people at the time thought that the democratic process was being ignored and that Blair was on a route to war no matter what. Strangely enough in a lot of ways they were right - the WMD's as was didn't have a 45 minute time to readiness-they didn't threaten Cyprus -Iraq wsn't an operating base for Al Qaida(it is now!) and various other reasons wich have now pretty much been debunked.

So in essence - stick to the Mod pathlets on why we went to war if you wish - however many think that the oil was the reason and a bit of family revenge !

[TEEEJ]

Maple 01,

We appear to be going round and round in circles here, so my last word on the subject. Go back and read the ISG and UNMOVIC reports. There were no stockpiles or stocks of useable and viable WMD. Regardless of how you want to spin it that is the crux of the matter here.

None of these finds were the smoking gun that they were looking for. With the size of the Iraqi programme it was inevitable that remnants were going to be found. The Al Samouds 2s were declared to UNMOVIC and tested with UNMOVIC inspectors present. They failed to meet the 150km or under limit and the Iraq's accepted that they had to be destroyed.

[adminblunty]

Sir Christopher Meyer's (HMA Washington DC) book about his time in Washington during 2002 makes for a very interesting read.