Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Dannat: "It was about regime change"

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Dannat: "It was about regime change"

Old 28th Dec 2008, 06:46
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like there has been regime change. Blair....gone, Bush....gone?????
Gundog01 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 11:14
  #22 (permalink)  

TAC Int Bloke
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
Maple 01 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 11:53
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 51
Posts: 1,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 12:18
  #24 (permalink)  

TAC Int Bloke
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Maple 01 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 12:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 51
Posts: 1,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trying to escape the deluge of mince pies and turkey sandwiches!
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 14:14
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

Tracking Inspections in Iraq

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

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

TJ
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 16:26
  #27 (permalink)  

TAC Int Bloke
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Maple 01 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 16:56
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 16:59
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 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.

.
phil gollin is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 21:20
  #30 (permalink)  

TAC Int Bloke
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Maple 01 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 21:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ...
Biggus is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2008, 22:51
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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".
JessTheDog is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2008, 01:31
  #33 (permalink)  

TAC Int Bloke
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Maple 01 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2008, 11:40
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 51
Posts: 1,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2008, 12:18
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

.
phil gollin is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2008, 20:22
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 !
RileyDove is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2008, 21:43
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2008, 22:10
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sir Christopher Meyer's (HMA Washington DC) book about his time in Washington during 2002 makes for a very interesting read.
adminblunty is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.