In light of recent events
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Thread Starter
In light of recent events
Amazing what you find when the weather isn't too good.
Not so much the subject title, but the comments made further into the thread. Do these contributors still feel the same in light of recent revelations?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=79085
Just a few snippets.
---------
ORAC
"The U.N. has documented evidence of the prior presence of WMD material. Iraq has been asked to provide proof of it's destruction. In the absence of such proof the material must be deemed to still be in existence."
" I would agree that one of the major wishes of Bush is to get Saddam. Legally, however, that's not the basis for any action, it's Just a fortunate side product."
-----------------------
Flatus Veteranus
"Most of those who doubt the morality or wisdom of a possible second Gulf war seem to do so because they think the evidence of Iraqi WMD lacks substance. "
"Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed."
"If the evidence supporting continued Iraqi WMD manufacture/acquisition was too slight or conjectural to justify the commitment of the British armed forces, I am certain that by now these great men would have blown the gaff. We might have seen a letter to The Times signed by CDS, the COS, the Cabinet Secretary, the Chairman of JIC and the DGs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (and of course the Archbishop of Canterbury!). Try sacking that lot!"
"I still find it impossible to believe, having
worked in the MOD as a serving officer and later as a civil servant, that the sort of criminal conspiracy you describe could happen there."
---------------------
ClearBlueWater
(probably the most sensible contribution)
"ORAC may have taken the time to put together a well argued point of view but that doesn't make his opinion correct."
I think Used Ink may have been watching Alan Partridge too much!
It would be interesting to hear from these people 6 months+ on, NOT about Conscientious Objection directly though.
It would seem to me that some people had a little insight, including those who went to London that day to protest.
If I learnt one thing from the military it was,
"Never assume check"
"Assume make an ASS out of U and ME"
So it turns out I did learn more than one thing !
SS
Not so much the subject title, but the comments made further into the thread. Do these contributors still feel the same in light of recent revelations?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=79085
Just a few snippets.
---------
ORAC
"The U.N. has documented evidence of the prior presence of WMD material. Iraq has been asked to provide proof of it's destruction. In the absence of such proof the material must be deemed to still be in existence."
" I would agree that one of the major wishes of Bush is to get Saddam. Legally, however, that's not the basis for any action, it's Just a fortunate side product."
-----------------------
Flatus Veteranus
"Most of those who doubt the morality or wisdom of a possible second Gulf war seem to do so because they think the evidence of Iraqi WMD lacks substance. "
"Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed."
"If the evidence supporting continued Iraqi WMD manufacture/acquisition was too slight or conjectural to justify the commitment of the British armed forces, I am certain that by now these great men would have blown the gaff. We might have seen a letter to The Times signed by CDS, the COS, the Cabinet Secretary, the Chairman of JIC and the DGs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (and of course the Archbishop of Canterbury!). Try sacking that lot!"
"I still find it impossible to believe, having
worked in the MOD as a serving officer and later as a civil servant, that the sort of criminal conspiracy you describe could happen there."
---------------------
ClearBlueWater
(probably the most sensible contribution)
"ORAC may have taken the time to put together a well argued point of view but that doesn't make his opinion correct."
I think Used Ink may have been watching Alan Partridge too much!
It would be interesting to hear from these people 6 months+ on, NOT about Conscientious Objection directly though.
It would seem to me that some people had a little insight, including those who went to London that day to protest.
If I learnt one thing from the military it was,
"Never assume check"
"Assume make an ASS out of U and ME"
So it turns out I did learn more than one thing !
SS
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Id like to put out a personal plea for a general amnesty for our pro-WMD kindred. Without mentioning any names at least two of those above dramitically changed there arguments when the Iraqi-diplomatic WMD snafu ground on to its inevitable "George Bush inspired" conclusion 
There's no need to bring up old scores when we all now admit it was a crock of sh
in the first place.
There's no need to bring up old scores when we all now admit it was a crock of sh in the first place.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I have no intention of reopening old arguments, but since I have been directly quoted I believe I should exercise my right of reply and state my own views, rather than have others misrepresent them.
I believed that Saddam posed a threat, not because of large stocks of WMD, but because he had a WMD capability which could, if he so desired, be used to support terrorist activities. I also believe that he had the intention to resume full scale protection once sanctions were lifted. My reason for backing the war was that sanctions had failed. Their primary aim of forcing the removal of Saddam had failed and, as stated above, would not prevent the reacquisition of WMD if lifted. In the meantime, the presence of the sanctions was causing immense suffering to the Iraq people with little effect on the regime. They were, however, having a profound effect on the opinion and attitude of the larger arab population.
As stated at the time, and as quoted above, the legal justification for the war was not the possession of WMD by Saddam, it was the failure of Saddam to abide by the terms of SCR 1441. These were much more wideranging than WMD and included research into WMD, ballistic missiles and much else. Is anyone denying that was the official legal justification?
I believed and continue to believe; as did Dr Kelly, and as does David Kay; that action against Saddam's regime was therefore not only justified, but necessary. Since everyone is making much of David Kay's pronouncement last week, I may as well quote from the transcript of his recent statement to Congress:
"In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had. We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."
Much is being made of the fact that no large scale stocks of WMD have been found. As if the scale of the stocks was a vital criteria. I will quote from the late Dr Kelly's Panorama interview, since he was also an accepted expert in this field.
"In the interview Dr Kelly also made it clear that he did regard Saddam as an "immediate threat". Describing Iraq's weapons, Dr Kelly told Panorama that.... Saddam Hussein's biological weapons programme posed a "real threat" to neighbouring countries. Dr Kelly said: "We're talking about Iran and Israel, and certainly he can use those weapons against them and you don't need a vast stockpile to have a tremendous military effect."
In summary, I believed, and still believe, that Saddam posed a continuing long term threat and, since sanctions had failed, he needed to be removed and that his failure to obey the terms of resolution 1441 provided a legal justification for doing so.
There then, however, arises the matter of politics and national consent. Whilst I believed the above was justification, many did not.
George Bush persuaded Congress that action was necessary based on several arguments. The failure to uncover large stocks of WMD, whilst a worrying intelligence failure, is not particularly damaging, as it did not remove his case for war.
Tony Blair had a much more difficult job to persuade Parliament, and the country, to support him, and did base much of his case upon the existence of an immediate threat. As such the failure was not in incorrectly seeing the real threat, but in using spin and false threats to deceive the country and win the vote.
In short, right decision, wrong justification. There may have been major intelligence failures, but they should not be used to disguise the far greater major political failure. For which Blair should pay the political penalty at the next election.
At which point I will leave the matter.
I believed that Saddam posed a threat, not because of large stocks of WMD, but because he had a WMD capability which could, if he so desired, be used to support terrorist activities. I also believe that he had the intention to resume full scale protection once sanctions were lifted. My reason for backing the war was that sanctions had failed. Their primary aim of forcing the removal of Saddam had failed and, as stated above, would not prevent the reacquisition of WMD if lifted. In the meantime, the presence of the sanctions was causing immense suffering to the Iraq people with little effect on the regime. They were, however, having a profound effect on the opinion and attitude of the larger arab population.
As stated at the time, and as quoted above, the legal justification for the war was not the possession of WMD by Saddam, it was the failure of Saddam to abide by the terms of SCR 1441. These were much more wideranging than WMD and included research into WMD, ballistic missiles and much else. Is anyone denying that was the official legal justification?
I believed and continue to believe; as did Dr Kelly, and as does David Kay; that action against Saddam's regime was therefore not only justified, but necessary. Since everyone is making much of David Kay's pronouncement last week, I may as well quote from the transcript of his recent statement to Congress:
"In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had. We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."
Much is being made of the fact that no large scale stocks of WMD have been found. As if the scale of the stocks was a vital criteria. I will quote from the late Dr Kelly's Panorama interview, since he was also an accepted expert in this field.
"In the interview Dr Kelly also made it clear that he did regard Saddam as an "immediate threat". Describing Iraq's weapons, Dr Kelly told Panorama that.... Saddam Hussein's biological weapons programme posed a "real threat" to neighbouring countries. Dr Kelly said: "We're talking about Iran and Israel, and certainly he can use those weapons against them and you don't need a vast stockpile to have a tremendous military effect."
In summary, I believed, and still believe, that Saddam posed a continuing long term threat and, since sanctions had failed, he needed to be removed and that his failure to obey the terms of resolution 1441 provided a legal justification for doing so.
There then, however, arises the matter of politics and national consent. Whilst I believed the above was justification, many did not.
George Bush persuaded Congress that action was necessary based on several arguments. The failure to uncover large stocks of WMD, whilst a worrying intelligence failure, is not particularly damaging, as it did not remove his case for war.
Tony Blair had a much more difficult job to persuade Parliament, and the country, to support him, and did base much of his case upon the existence of an immediate threat. As such the failure was not in incorrectly seeing the real threat, but in using spin and false threats to deceive the country and win the vote.
In short, right decision, wrong justification. There may have been major intelligence failures, but they should not be used to disguise the far greater major political failure. For which Blair should pay the political penalty at the next election.
At which point I will leave the matter.
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd Feb 2004 at 02:42.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
It takes a big man to admit he got it wrong.
Shame you ain't a big man.
You have been damned by your own words and to quote Blackadder "you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing"
Cheers
BHR
It takes a big man to admit he got it wrong.
Shame you ain't a big man.
You have been damned by your own words and to quote Blackadder "you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing"
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is perhaps understandable that some use the advantage of hindsight to judge others; however, contributors to PPrune share with many others the opinion that we were justified in defeating Saddam. If they held that conviction through the information they had been given on his WMD capability then it appears they were misled - if that is so why blame them because, after all, that was how the UK parliament was persuaded.
What really counts is how those in power used the information they had - did they use it selectively, over-emphasise certain points or simply have it changed to suit their case. If it was just plain wrong who screwed up and why have they still got a job?
The next few weeks are going to be interesting - the terms of reference for the expected inquiry into the intel are, I understand, already provoking dissention from the opposition parties. I do not believe Blair & Co are going to wriggle out of this one so easily as the Hutton inquiry.
What really counts is how those in power used the information they had - did they use it selectively, over-emphasise certain points or simply have it changed to suit their case. If it was just plain wrong who screwed up and why have they still got a job?
The next few weeks are going to be interesting - the terms of reference for the expected inquiry into the intel are, I understand, already provoking dissention from the opposition parties. I do not believe Blair & Co are going to wriggle out of this one so easily as the Hutton inquiry.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Surely you cannot be happy with this.
I have just heard that the RN plans to sell Iraq all the Sea Harriers to reconstitute their air force.
They are the perfect aircraft for the job :
1) No airfields in Iraq - all bombed to dust
2) Sea Harrier range means it is no threat to neighbours
Cheers
BHR
Surely you cannot be happy with this.
I have just heard that the RN plans to sell Iraq all the Sea Harriers to reconstitute their air force.
They are the perfect aircraft for the job :
1) No airfields in Iraq - all bombed to dust
2) Sea Harrier range means it is no threat to neighbours
Cheers
BHR
Of course getting rid of Saddam is great.
But that's not what we were given as the justification for war. And that matters because it has undermined many people's faith in Government and in the democratic process, while we may find it hard to gain and keep the faith of allies in any future operation.
And that's why people are making a fuss.
But that's not what we were given as the justification for war. And that matters because it has undermined many people's faith in Government and in the democratic process, while we may find it hard to gain and keep the faith of allies in any future operation.
And that's why people are making a fuss.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to put to fine a point on it but we all know Al Queada links, and WMD are an absolute crock of utter steaming ****e. Those that brought it are in a word "thick". God knows how many times they have to witness the same mindless crap ad infinitum before it soaks through to their puny excuses for a brain they are seeing the same US sideshow. Its like some ghoulish sitcom ..........same scenario different actors. Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and yes OSAMA and farking SADDAM as well, all good buddies of the US now cast out and demonised. Ohhhh but while they're useful we'll just turn off our great concern for human rights. So for the love of God if you're young read some history on these issues and if your thick....................well what can I say its not really your fault.
WEBF
As Jackonicko has said, yes the fact that Saddam has gone is a good thing, but that is not the point. The point is that Tony Blair made his arguement for going to war on the basis that Saddam had WMD that posed an 'imminent' threat to this country. Not on the basis that Saddam was an evil man, or that he was in breach of UN resolution 1441 (or whatever number it was). Many people in this country (even his own party) did not feel that war was justified. The French and Germans did not think so even when they thought he had WMD!
It now turns out that it is unlikely that such WMD existed, but the government is now arguing that we should still have gone to war because Saddam was a tyrant and in breach of UN resolutions. They didn't use that arguement before because they knew it wasn't strong enough to carry support. The world is full of tyrants, and many countries are in breach of UN resolutions. Are we about to declare war on Zimbabwe (tyrant), Israel (breach or resolutions) or North Korea (both?)?
What happens the next time a UK government elects to undertake military action?
Yes we are about to have another enquiry, which will no doubt find the intelligence services at fault. So the intelligence services were wrong, the BBC were wrong, but the politicians made no mistakes? It is the British public that Tony Blair, etc, have to convince of the correctness of their actions, not the press or some enquiry, and the high handed attitude of the politicians is just worsening their case. Still Tony hopes to be able to draw a line under it all this summer, and hope that the short term memory of the people will have erased this matter by the time of the next election in 2005!
As Jackonicko has said, yes the fact that Saddam has gone is a good thing, but that is not the point. The point is that Tony Blair made his arguement for going to war on the basis that Saddam had WMD that posed an 'imminent' threat to this country. Not on the basis that Saddam was an evil man, or that he was in breach of UN resolution 1441 (or whatever number it was). Many people in this country (even his own party) did not feel that war was justified. The French and Germans did not think so even when they thought he had WMD!
It now turns out that it is unlikely that such WMD existed, but the government is now arguing that we should still have gone to war because Saddam was a tyrant and in breach of UN resolutions. They didn't use that arguement before because they knew it wasn't strong enough to carry support. The world is full of tyrants, and many countries are in breach of UN resolutions. Are we about to declare war on Zimbabwe (tyrant), Israel (breach or resolutions) or North Korea (both?)?
What happens the next time a UK government elects to undertake military action?
Yes we are about to have another enquiry, which will no doubt find the intelligence services at fault. So the intelligence services were wrong, the BBC were wrong, but the politicians made no mistakes? It is the British public that Tony Blair, etc, have to convince of the correctness of their actions, not the press or some enquiry, and the high handed attitude of the politicians is just worsening their case. Still Tony hopes to be able to draw a line under it all this summer, and hope that the short term memory of the people will have erased this matter by the time of the next election in 2005!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus you wrote
"Still Tony hopes to be able to draw a line under it all this summer, and hope that the short term memory of the people will have erased this matter by the time of the next election in 2005!"
I'm afraid that the Teflon Turd looks set to stay for another 15/18 months or so, I hope I am wrong and that he goes soon, God knows who will take his place. I just think that Joe Public is too sensible to give the tw@t another term in office despite the huge majority he commands.
"Still Tony hopes to be able to draw a line under it all this summer, and hope that the short term memory of the people will have erased this matter by the time of the next election in 2005!"
I'm afraid that the Teflon Turd looks set to stay for another 15/18 months or so, I hope I am wrong and that he goes soon, God knows who will take his place. I just think that Joe Public is too sensible to give the tw@t another term in office despite the huge majority he commands.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He will go, either now or at the next general election. Remember dude 1.5 million people marched in the anti-war demo in London last year. Thats 2.5% of the population of the entire country 
With that sort of demograph percentage against them Bliar and by extension the Labour party is going to get slaughted next election.
With that sort of demograph percentage against them Bliar and by extension the Labour party is going to get slaughted next election.
I wish you were right, but........
Most voters don't care about foreign policy.
Most voters especially don't care about Iraq.
How many of those who marched against the war voted for Blair and will switch this time? To the Conservatives?
To win the next election the Tories have to keep their existing support, win back traditional Tories (many moderate soft left Francis Pym-, Ian Gilmour- or Heseltine-type Tories have already gone over to other parties) and win back Essex man. I'm not sure that is possible.
I think Howard is a decent man and a good parliamentary performer, but I can't see him attracting the kind of swing necessary to kick out Tony, and I could even see the Lib-Dems taking more seats, reducing the Government's overall majority but actually increasing Labour's lead over the Tories.
Most voters are so stupid that promises to raise tax thresholds mean nothing to those they will benefit, while the prospect of tax rate cuts dazzle, even if indirect taxation wipes them out. Many still believe anything that people like Hutton say, and dismiss those who criticise his report as conspiracy theorists and troublemakers. Assuming that any of this will seriously dent Tony's credibility and majority is a pipe dream, I think.
Most voters don't care about foreign policy.
Most voters especially don't care about Iraq.
How many of those who marched against the war voted for Blair and will switch this time? To the Conservatives?
To win the next election the Tories have to keep their existing support, win back traditional Tories (many moderate soft left Francis Pym-, Ian Gilmour- or Heseltine-type Tories have already gone over to other parties) and win back Essex man. I'm not sure that is possible.
I think Howard is a decent man and a good parliamentary performer, but I can't see him attracting the kind of swing necessary to kick out Tony, and I could even see the Lib-Dems taking more seats, reducing the Government's overall majority but actually increasing Labour's lead over the Tories.
Most voters are so stupid that promises to raise tax thresholds mean nothing to those they will benefit, while the prospect of tax rate cuts dazzle, even if indirect taxation wipes them out. Many still believe anything that people like Hutton say, and dismiss those who criticise his report as conspiracy theorists and troublemakers. Assuming that any of this will seriously dent Tony's credibility and majority is a pipe dream, I think.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think of our situation like this dude.
The American government gets told by the French government that you have to goto war in Outer Mongolia because the French say so. You're President promptly bend's over backwards to the French and begins bliaring through its teeth to goto war. Thinking that even if you're president doesnt have the guts to tell the French where to go you put you're faith in congress to do the right thing only to find out that 2/3's of them have got a backbone made out of rubber. War starts, war end (susposedly), war keeps going on with no end in sight
Now do you see what its like.
The American government gets told by the French government that you have to goto war in Outer Mongolia because the French say so. You're President promptly bend's over backwards to the French and begins bliaring through its teeth to goto war. Thinking that even if you're president doesnt have the guts to tell the French where to go you put you're faith in congress to do the right thing only to find out that 2/3's of them have got a backbone made out of rubber. War starts, war end (susposedly), war keeps going on with no end in sight
Now do you see what its like.
