Dannat: "It was about regime change"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dannat: "It was about regime change"
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...
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...
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.
Shame then the govt thought we were stupid and would believe their lies about WMD.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In a house
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter mitty said:
I can do you a good bulk deal on bacofoil if you're interested.
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on Earth, Vortex, did you consider it necessary to cut and paste Walter's entire post directly beneath the original?
Beggars belief!
Beggars belief!
I bet you agree with him too. 
Walter Kennedy wrote
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
Missiles - Iraq Special Weapons
U.S.: No Scuds Or WMD Found In Iraq, American Forces Have Yet To Find Such Weapons - CBS News
did they even have conventional warheads on the SCUDs they actually launched?
Iraqi Delivery Systems - 2003 Prewar Assessments
Missiles - Iraq Special Weapons
U.S.: No Scuds Or WMD Found In Iraq, American Forces Have Yet To Find Such Weapons - CBS News
Last edited by TEEEJ; 26th Dec 2008 at 21:46.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Saddam was murdering his people in the tens of thousands for decades
But then, they had no oil, or were able to provide a credible opposition.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple
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.
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.
Maple 01 wrote
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
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
ISG report
Iraq Survey Group 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
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
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
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
ISG report
Iraq Survey Group 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
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regime change? Of course it was
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.
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).
". . . 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.
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).