Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Chilcot report

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Chilcot report

Old 7th Jul 2016, 16:20
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
think he is a spineless oleaginous t**t.
Spineless? the man who has taken the firm resolve to go to war when so many around him were against it? Not sure you picked the right insult there.

And as he clearly isn't coated in oil, I have to assume you mean he's obsequious and eager to please. This doesn't align much with ordering an unpopular war, either.

Perhaps you could be a little less random with these scattergun epithets so that we might actually start to see some substance in your arguments?

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 16:28
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,929
we might actually start to see some substance in your arguments?
Like yours?
charliegolf is online now  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 16:49
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 55
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
Clearly he should be tried as a war criminal.
I assure you that I am not among those who want Tony Blair tried as a war criminal. I’m not convinced there’s a legal basis for doing so and I can’t see what good it would do.

Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
This doesn't align much with ordering an unpopular war, either.
For me that goes to the heart of the issue. He didn’t think it would be an unpopular war. He thought (and this is only my personal opinion) it would be a cakewalk and that afterwards he would be feted by world leaders and hailed as a hero by grateful Iraqis. I’m quite convinced that’s why he displayed such “firm resolve”, as you put it, to go to war. I’m sure he genuinely thought the world would be a better place as a result, but uppermost in his mind was the thought of the glowing tributes he would receive as one of the architects of that victory. He was a slave to his own vanity.
Andy_S is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 17:26
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 64
Posts: 4
To be a war criminal, the crimes have to be commited in the theatre of operations. Teflon Tony by definition can not be a war criminal. He did commit misconduct in public office perhaps by misleading parliament and taking sole decisions that should have been considered by a committee at least. Had the conflict spread to the UK and Iraq had won, then he would most certainly have faced the fate of Saddam Hussein. History (and the rules) are written by the victors.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 17:30
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Clearly he should be tried as a war criminal.
There is overwhelming evidence that Bush and other senior administration officials authorized and implemented a regime of torture and ill-treatment of hundreds of detainees in US custody, including at least two Canadian citizens. Under the Convention Against Torture, Canada is obligated to prosecute individuals suspected of committing torture found in its territory if other countries have failed to do so.

In February of last year, George W. Bush had to cancel a speaking engagement in Switzerland because human rights groups put pressure on the Swiss government to arrest him over torture allegations if he enters the country. Even though officials claimed Bush had diplomatic immunity because he was a former head of state, they recognized that torture is a legitimate crime under international law. Organizers of the event felt the “atmosphere had become too threatening” and the gala went on without Bush.

War Criminals Bush and Cheney Can No Longer Travel Outside the U.S.

To be a war criminal, the crimes have to be commited in the theatre of operations. Teflon Tony by definition can not be a war criminal. He did commit misconduct in public office perhaps by misleading parliament and taking sole decisions that should have been considered by a committee at least. Had the conflict spread to the UK and Iraq had won, then he would most certainly have faced the fate of Saddam Hussein. History (and the rules) are written by the victors
.

To be a war criminal, the crimes have to be commited in the theatre of operations
Do you not remember who was at the Nuremberg trial in 1945 ?
jcjeant is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 17:40
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Signing the Geneva Convention does not make it law, BTW - it just signifies that a country agrees with the principles.
That's a bad understand of a treaty and it's value
Im many countries who sign (ratification !) international laws or conventions ... this law come as part of the country constitution (amendement)
So it's automatically a law of the country
jcjeant is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 17:43
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by G0ULI View Post
He did commit misconduct in public office perhaps by misleading parliament and taking sole decisions that should have been considered by a committee at least.
This is the sort of thing we see where hysterical rhetoric has become mistaken for fact.

Not taking such decisions by "committee at least" has no basis in statute or common law, so it isn't even "perhaps" a case of an indictable charge of misconduct in public office. It might go against "best practice" or "a good idea", but that isn't a crime and the hysterics really need to get a grip on reality and come to terms with it.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 17:48
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
Hi,


That's a bad understand of a treaty and it's value
Im many countries who sign (ratification !) international laws or conventions ... this law come as part of the country constitution (amendement)
So it's automatically a law of the country
Really? Care to give some authoritative cites on:

1. Countries where this is so
2. Whether the UK is such a country
3. Examples of successful prosecutions that have arisen from such a principle.

I would remind you that the UK was a signatory to (and principle architect of) the ECHR, but we still deemed it necessary to incorporate it into English law via the 1999 Human Rights Act to give it proper legal effect...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 18:04
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: France
Posts: 167
I'm absolutely no fan of Bush or Blair, but I do wish people would grow up and accept that there are no grounds for either of them to be charged with war crimes.
seen_the_box is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 18:22
  #150 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,731
PDR1, from my reading of Churchill' s history of WW 1, in particular Gallipoli, there were many reasons for failure when coup de main would have succeeded.

The Naval commander was too timid and the transports were not loaded for a properly orchestrated assault; they had to be disembarked and reorganised.

Regarding bombing the civilian population, it was total war. The inability to attack targets in urban areas with precision was lacking. Plans for nuclear war to follow made no distinction between a military target and collateral damage among the civilian population.

It is wrong to compare norms of warfare in the 20th Century with the 21st.

Remember the Falklands and GW 1 were wars of necessity (as was our involvement in WW 1 and WW 2) whereas GW 2 and Libya were wars of choice.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 18:25
  #151 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,731
PDR, we were bound by the Geneva Conventions and were required to study and refresh our knowledge annually. Had it had no legal force in UK then we would not have done so.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 21:34
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 578
Point of order re Churchill, he did not drag this country into any conflict, he was a backbencher in September 1939.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 21:45
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 647
Pontius

I totally agree: Re the Geneva Convention(s)

OK take for example the 45 minutes from attack scenario.

OK it was UK sovereign territory but 3.5 Hours flying time from the UK proper. (I know that's contentious)

The big stupid in this was that: nobody had the intellect to establish and make public the fact that the figure probably related to the time taken to pressurise the propellent tanks on the Scuds. Kerosene & Nitric Acid Oxidiser)

These weapons are adaptations of Soviet descendants of the V2 Rockets that bombarded London & Antwerp in WWII. The variants used; being the Iraq developed Al-Hussein Missile

They required considerable preparation time in all respects ( Any accurate details available from Co-posters) - and I suspect not very accurate. (relatively speaking) a CEP between 1 & 3 Km.

Not a weapon you could hide from Reconnaissance quickly

There was no quantification of the nature of the the threat - Just simplistic headlines (Specialist publications may have been better)

The degree of analysis and the lack capability of the threat was not made public.

Instead we got a gross simplification PR exercise aided by the press & BBC !

I'm using this as an example and someone a lot better informed than I can pick better examples.

[A failure to analyse, A failure to question & a failure to act intelligently. We really are in a bad way}

CAT III

Last edited by Guest 112233; 7th Jul 2016 at 21:51. Reason: Conclude
Guest 112233 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 21:51
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Blair understands, as we all do- that he went 'a war too far' in Iraq.

He knows, as we all do- that his other minor wars turned out.....well, not too bad, and clearly those experiences left him a little hubristic.

He was, a confident chap, and his judgement had more or less been proven good, right up until his big boo-boo- but hands up the man who'se not been there?

Iraq was a monumental fugg up for Blair, for everyone involved in it- whether one of the many tainted by bad judgement, or one one of the wounded or dead.

Blairs' reputation went straight down the bog with this error of judgement, and although it's easy to see how it happened, just like a pilot who cuts a little corner and usually gets away with it, but fcuks up, there's really no excuse.

He's a dead duck. He sounded utterly broken on the Today prog this morning, because he is.

Whenever I think I'm doing great, I get worried that a giant cock up eesa-coming.

Blair forgot that, went on to drop a giant bollock, and will feel bad about it until he goes to his grave.

Sad, though- that his hubris helped so many into their's a little early.

AtomKraft is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 23:31
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 73
Posts: 1,247
Much as I feel Bair ought to be in jail, and even more so, dropped six feet through a hole in the floor with a rope around his neck, there really isn't to my mind enough evidence that would enable a UK court to put him there. Incompetent, yes. Misled the country deliberately? Definitely. Same applies about Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia. Plus he's a politician and that sort are always protected.

Stuck with what we have, were I to be at a social gathering and introduced to him, would I shake hands? No way! Would he care from a menial such as I? No! And neither would anyone else....
radeng is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 23:44
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Really? Care to give some authoritative cites on:
1. Countries where this is so
2. Whether the UK is such a country
3. Examples of successful prosecutions that have arisen from such a principle.
France
Les traités internationaux et la constitution - Approfondissements Découverte des institutions - Repères - vie-publique.fr

USA
Constitutional Myth #10: International Law is a Threat to the Constitution - The Atlantic
Sotomayor's answer took note of one fact the far-right does not understand: international law is part of the Constitution. The framers knew a great deal of international law. Article I § 8 cites among the powers of Congress "to define and punish.. offenses against the law of nations," and "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." Article II empowers the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to "make treaties." Article III extends the judicial power of federal courts "to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls [and] to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;" a
and Article VI § 2, as noted above, says "treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States" will form part of "the supreme law of the land... any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

UK
The British constitution explained
The United Kingdom does not have a constitution
The UK has no written constitution. Nor does England have a constitution, neither written nor formulated. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries of the world that does not have a written constitution: it just has what is known as an "uncodified constitution".
Thus the only "British Constitution" that exists is a set of rules and regulations constituted by jurisprudence and laws (English and Scottish law), and by various treaties and international agreements to which the United Kingdom has signed up. This uncodified constitution has largely developed out of historic English law, since many of its founding principles and essential laws go back to charters and bills that were drawn up by the English parliament long before the creation of the United Kingdom.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 23:55
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hereford UK
Age: 64
Posts: 0
Jcjeant, you can call it what you like, written or not, but the simple fact is; the UK has no constitution - just Acts of Parliament.
MOSTAFA is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 01:05
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
Apparently, Chilcott COULD NOT FIND the person responsible for sending our military in to battle without decent kit.
That person has a name and it is Donald Rumsfeld. As US Secretary of Defense, he approved the invasion plans that Britain and other Coalition members were talked into.

While we had more than enough firepower on the ground and tactical air supremacy over Iraqi forces to quickly vanquish them primarily, the major mistake made by Rumsfeld and the Bush hawks, was how our forces would be received in the aftermath once major battle operations had concluded.

Top Bush Administration people (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the man himself) said we would be treated as "liberators", "welcomed" with "open arms", and the war would be over within "weeks" or "months" at the latest.

They were dead wrong, and our soldiers and sailors and the innocent civilians of Iraq have been paying the price for their mistakes ever since. These same mistakes have led to an increasing instability in the region and can be directly tied to the rise of ISIL and the ever-increasing global threat of terrorism.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 05:22
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
As with so much in life that is both wrong and tragic, there were so many willing players. Not only willing but bullying to the nth degree. A war like this corrodes so deeply and widely that the true effects are only fully known with the passage of time.

Murdoch's Fox News in the U.S. was frightening with the likes of Hannity (with his lapel flag and the accompanying attitude of if you do not wear one you are not a patriot) and other bully boys spewing venom at anyone who was not on board to attack at dawn. His sneering dismissal as a Nancy boy of anyone who did not think that Bush and Cheney were being prudent was something to witness. Joey Goebbels would have stood in awe at the propaganda expertise on display on that network alone.

Of course who knows what Murdoch himself really thought--he probably does not give a wit about any of the stuff his network and newspapers trot out as long as the advertising revenue is there.

Lest those who worship at the alter of Fox, there were many other organs that were playing the same tune--The Economist, the Spectator, etc. albeit with much more reason and apparent discretion. At least they put forth their ideas in an intelligent manner.

Yes, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Blair were the architects of the war, but there were millions in the U.S. who joined in lockstep for the cause.

In the meantime, the corrosion may never be scraped away. Tony was just one part of this torrid mess.
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 10:58
  #160 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
How Tony Blair put forward his case for war with Iraq during heated Gateshead interview.
G-CPTN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.