Iraq murder trial charges dropped
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone
Thanks, good reply despite clear differences of opinion which neither of us will resolve on this or any other forum?
I remember the "whispers", but as always it depends on who is doing the whispering and the IRA propaganda machine beats even New Labour spin into a cocked hat.
I think we beat them at their violent game in a very dirty war, and the American reaction to all forms of terrorist murder after 9/11 certainly removed a very important, emotional prop from under their feet but we lost the propaganda war and the so called higher ground on bad political calls.
I saw the look on McGuinness' face after his bollocking in Washington and the wily bas
d still managed to wangle massive concessions from Mowlam, Short (calling for a military withdrawal from NI?), Reid, Mandelson 
, Blair et al
Thanks, good reply despite clear differences of opinion which neither of us will resolve on this or any other forum?
I remember the "whispers", but as always it depends on who is doing the whispering and the IRA propaganda machine beats even New Labour spin into a cocked hat.
I think we beat them at their violent game in a very dirty war, and the American reaction to all forms of terrorist murder after 9/11 certainly removed a very important, emotional prop from under their feet but we lost the propaganda war and the so called higher ground on bad political calls.
I saw the look on McGuinness' face after his bollocking in Washington and the wily bas
d still managed to wangle massive concessions from Mowlam, Short (calling for a military withdrawal from NI?), Reid, Mandelson , Blair et al
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Age: 52
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wrong men on trial.
The people who should be on trial over Iraq are not the brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who had no choice in engaging in this outrageous conflict.
I would like to see Trust me Tone and his entire war cabinet dragged before the International Criminal Court for waging the illegal, imoral and wholly unjustifiable Iraq war. Perhaps they could also be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice over the manipulation of the 'legal advice' from Goldsmith. The real criminals are our own government, not members of the armed forces.
I certainly did not join the forces so that I could be party to acts of aggressive warfare, the like of which has not been seen since 1939.
I would like to see Trust me Tone and his entire war cabinet dragged before the International Criminal Court for waging the illegal, imoral and wholly unjustifiable Iraq war. Perhaps they could also be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice over the manipulation of the 'legal advice' from Goldsmith. The real criminals are our own government, not members of the armed forces.
I certainly did not join the forces so that I could be party to acts of aggressive warfare, the like of which has not been seen since 1939.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly did not join the forces so that I could be party to acts of aggressive warfare
I'd rethink this comment if I were you.
16B
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on 16, you know what Pylot meant; that we do not start wars, conflict or a humanitarian crisis but that we will intervene where necessary to protect life not oil.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 'defence of the realm' springs to mind! The original idea was to protect the U.K and the Commonwealth. The commitment
to NATO has somewhat changed since the Cold War defrosted.
However places like Zimbabwe need regime change and re-entry into the Commonwealth . There are two big problems 1. No oil there and 2. Bush cannot find it on the map let alone spell it!
So it isn't going to happen - we need an outbreak of ethics.
to NATO has somewhat changed since the Cold War defrosted.
However places like Zimbabwe need regime change and re-entry into the Commonwealth . There are two big problems 1. No oil there and 2. Bush cannot find it on the map let alone spell it!
So it isn't going to happen - we need an outbreak of ethics.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Age: 52
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twonston, Thanks, my point entirely.
16 Blades,
What I meant was that Iraq was not a morally justified conflict, as well as being illegal. If we are killing people, we need to have right on our side. WWII, the Falklands and GW1, as well as the UN endorsed multi national campaign in Afghanistan, are all fine with me. Attacking a country in order to effect a change of government was not on my 'reasons to join list'. It is has brought violence to our doorstep, achieved nothing for the Iraqi people, apart from 30000 or so dead, and is percieved by most of the world as American Imperialism. I do like the travel though, especially 5 star hotels.
16 Blades,
What I meant was that Iraq was not a morally justified conflict, as well as being illegal. If we are killing people, we need to have right on our side. WWII, the Falklands and GW1, as well as the UN endorsed multi national campaign in Afghanistan, are all fine with me. Attacking a country in order to effect a change of government was not on my 'reasons to join list'. It is has brought violence to our doorstep, achieved nothing for the Iraqi people, apart from 30000 or so dead, and is percieved by most of the world as American Imperialism. I do like the travel though, especially 5 star hotels.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq was not a morally justified conflict, as well as being illegal
It is has brought violence to our doorstep
achieved nothing for the Iraqi people
I do see your point, in that you didn't join up to do something you fundamentally disagree with; however, we are not here to have political or moral opinions - we're here to do as we're told. The govt, on advice from the country's top lawyer, said it is legal - so go do it.
To borrow a line from a film, we're here to preserve democracy - not to practice it.
16B
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...in your opinion. Only the UNSC can rule it illegal, and they will not.
Gulf War 2 was not legal, and Kofi Annan - boss of the UN - has said that. Like many mugs, I believed that there was a credible WMD threat and did not suspect that two governments would concoct a bogus case for war. I thought the Cyprus scenario in the dossiers was absolute b0llocks, but that there was critical int somewhere in the pipeline.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have walked out of the camp gate (I was working in the bowels of the Earth in rural Buckinghamshire at the time) on March 17th, dropping my kit off on the way out.
Ironically, I believe the Kinloss doctor is wrong in his stance as there is now a UN resolution concerning the presence of coalition troops. This does not make good the illegal war of 2003.
To return to the topic of the thread - perhaps, if anyone subject to the impartial process of the law (surely stitched up by the attorney general) as the result of any incident in Iraq, they should consider bringing a lawsuit against HMG for a failure in duty of care as the result of ordering participation in an illegal war.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16B
You cannot possibly believe that we are just here to "do as we are told" without thinking things through? To motivate your troops/airmen/sailors you must have an understanding of what you are getting in to and why. When Bloggs comes up and says " What's the gen with this bulls hit Boss" You can then cofidently respond "To make the World a better place, free Iraqis from a Tyrant or create Bliar's legacy etc".
Moreover, have we made Iraq a better place? When I was last there, the locals now have a choice of who kills them rather than just Saddam (think Al Sadr Brigade, IPS, Coalition Forces, Tribal feuds etc).
You are right though when, ulitmately, we have to obey our deployment orders. If only the Government (Lab, Lib or Con) of the Day would ever listen to the Chiefs of Staff but twas ever thus!
You cannot possibly believe that we are just here to "do as we are told" without thinking things through? To motivate your troops/airmen/sailors you must have an understanding of what you are getting in to and why. When Bloggs comes up and says " What's the gen with this bulls hit Boss" You can then cofidently respond "To make the World a better place, free Iraqis from a Tyrant or create Bliar's legacy etc".
Moreover, have we made Iraq a better place? When I was last there, the locals now have a choice of who kills them rather than just Saddam (think Al Sadr Brigade, IPS, Coalition Forces, Tribal feuds etc).
You are right though when, ulitmately, we have to obey our deployment orders. If only the Government (Lab, Lib or Con) of the Day would ever listen to the Chiefs of Staff but twas ever thus!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that just isn't so Jess, the war was as legal as you can get. Were it not so then more than half of the legal profession in the USA would be queueing up to file a suite!
In 1991 a Cease Fire was signed with a number of terms and conditions attached. Saddam Hussein failed to meet the requirements of these conditions. In 2003 hostilities were resumed , nothing more, nothing less.
Time and time again we see people claiming the resumption of hostilities amounted to an "illegal war", never yet have we seen a word to justify that claim.
In 1991 a Cease Fire was signed with a number of terms and conditions attached. Saddam Hussein failed to meet the requirements of these conditions. In 2003 hostilities were resumed , nothing more, nothing less.
Time and time again we see people claiming the resumption of hostilities amounted to an "illegal war", never yet have we seen a word to justify that claim.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is awful. It is difficult to comment if we do not know all the facts as to what Col. Mendonca may and may not have done, but if it is just a case of an Army witchhunt to satisfy the media cry for blood then it is a disgrace to the Col. the Army and to this country.
I have been slow to join-in the anti-Tony Blair talk, however I am beginning to think that it is time for a change of government. It is a shame that there is no one competent enough to replace him.
G
I have been slow to join-in the anti-Tony Blair talk, however I am beginning to think that it is time for a change of government. It is a shame that there is no one competent enough to replace him.
G
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum -Thats a bit like saying WW2 was just a continuation
of WW1 because Hitler failed to abide by the Versailles agreement! The first Gulf War was finished because the coalition
had liberated Kuwait . There was no mandate from the UN to invade Iraq although that obviously did happen in the pursuit of Scuds and various elements of the Rebublican Guard.
Because of the disasterous way the Kurds were encouraged to attack Saddam and then left in the cold the various 'no fly'
zones in the country gave the allies the ability to keep a close eye on the Iraqi forces and give slight protection to the civilians.
There is scant evidence to suggest that the status quo had changed in any way - the so called 'spikes of activity' which preceded the second Gulf War are decidedly in the area of illegality because there was no manadate to carry out sustained
bombing of the Iraqi air defence network as a self defence measure . The justifications of which the war was based have been comprehensively shown to be decidely flawed - it's wasn't a case of getting it slightly wrong - the reasons were totally wrong.
of WW1 because Hitler failed to abide by the Versailles agreement! The first Gulf War was finished because the coalition
had liberated Kuwait . There was no mandate from the UN to invade Iraq although that obviously did happen in the pursuit of Scuds and various elements of the Rebublican Guard.
Because of the disasterous way the Kurds were encouraged to attack Saddam and then left in the cold the various 'no fly'
zones in the country gave the allies the ability to keep a close eye on the Iraqi forces and give slight protection to the civilians.
There is scant evidence to suggest that the status quo had changed in any way - the so called 'spikes of activity' which preceded the second Gulf War are decidedly in the area of illegality because there was no manadate to carry out sustained
bombing of the Iraqi air defence network as a self defence measure . The justifications of which the war was based have been comprehensively shown to be decidely flawed - it's wasn't a case of getting it slightly wrong - the reasons were totally wrong.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RileyDove,
Read UNSCR 687 which was the 'ceasefire' for GW I, notice I said ceasefire - if Saddam failed to meet ANY part of the UNSCR the war was back on
Remember Saddam's frantic atempts 12 years later on the eve of GW II to get rid of the illegal long-range rockets?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2756987.stm
Twelve years grace - 687 there's the mandate
Just saying GW2 was illegal dosen't make it so - as Koffie knows
Unless Kosovo was too?
Read UNSCR 687 which was the 'ceasefire' for GW I, notice I said ceasefire - if Saddam failed to meet ANY part of the UNSCR the war was back on
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2756987.stm
Twelve years grace - 687 there's the mandate
Just saying GW2 was illegal dosen't make it so - as Koffie knows
Unless Kosovo was too?
Last edited by Maple 01; 14th Nov 2005 at 21:18.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple - UNSCR 678 was the authority to use force to remove Saddam from Kuwait - this was based on the previous resolution
which called on him to withdraw from Kuwait. UNSCR687 was the ceasefire document which outlined the provisions under which Saddam would disarm post the war .
The breaches of 687 however didn't in any way allow 678 to be used again because 678 was incredibly specific in that it allowed for military force to be used for his removal from Kuwait
but it didn't authorise the invasion of Iraq . It wasn't a blank cheque for war against Iraq at any time.
The breaches of 687 were serious but if you follow the wording of the resolution - the length of time that this resolution
could run for was almost unending and could hardly have been
within the spirit of what the U.N decided in 1991 . The purpose wasn't to turn Iraq into a destitute state.
Effectively there needed to be a new resolution authorising force against Iraq. The 'spikes of activity' carried out by the co -allition previous to GW2 to soften up the Iraqi air defence network clearly didn't come within the terms of 687.
which called on him to withdraw from Kuwait. UNSCR687 was the ceasefire document which outlined the provisions under which Saddam would disarm post the war .
The breaches of 687 however didn't in any way allow 678 to be used again because 678 was incredibly specific in that it allowed for military force to be used for his removal from Kuwait
but it didn't authorise the invasion of Iraq . It wasn't a blank cheque for war against Iraq at any time.
The breaches of 687 were serious but if you follow the wording of the resolution - the length of time that this resolution
could run for was almost unending and could hardly have been
within the spirit of what the U.N decided in 1991 . The purpose wasn't to turn Iraq into a destitute state.
Effectively there needed to be a new resolution authorising force against Iraq. The 'spikes of activity' carried out by the co -allition previous to GW2 to soften up the Iraqi air defence network clearly didn't come within the terms of 687.
