[drblow]

Imponderable wrote:

drblow. I did not mean to turn it into an Israeli/ Palestinian thread, in fact there was nothing further from my mind. I was merely trying to point out, rather clumsily as it turned out, that the USA tends to be led by Israeli, wants and needs in the area. I do apologise drblow.

No problem. Like I said, it's not like I disagree with you ... but this thread would get closed pretty quickly if it turned into an Israel debate, an unfortunate consequence of previous threads on the forum.

However, posting about the Iraq war inquiry, and associated matters, is of course encouraged. Blix on the stand next week!

[drblow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239

Hans Blix re-affirms that Iraq had no WMD, and that the intelligence the UK & US governments acted upon was "over interpretted". Given that Blix was an actual weapons inspector on the ground in Iraq at the time, his testimony is vastly more reliable and believable than any of the excuses so far offered by other witnesses at the inquiry. It is clear from his testimony that the UN resolutions were not broken by Saddam's Iraq, and that further UN resolutions would have been required to make the invasion legal. He also states that the US administration was set upon regime change in Iraq and would not be dissuaded - regime change as a motivation for invasion is illegal.

It is clear that Blix would like to see an international tribunal about the Iraq invasion, at which he has stated it is very doubtful that the war would be judged as anything but illegal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10813352

Even John Prescott states that the intelligence for going to war in Iraq was "not very substantial".

These people took our country to war, costing the lives of British troops and countless Iraqi civilians ... on the basis of intelligence that was unreliable, over-interpretted, not substantial. Regardless of your opinion on the real motivation for the invasion, this is a crime against humanity and ought to be treated as such in order to prevent further instances of powerful western nations invading countries whom they would prefer to have more sympathetic or easily manipulated leadership.

If the Chilcot inquiry concludes anything less than that Blair & Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity, it will have failed utterly to act upon the evidence it has been given.

[General Mike]

Quote:

It is clear from his testimony that the UN resolutions were not broken by Saddam's Iraq, and that further UN resolutions would have been required to make the invasion legal.

Wrong. As the Iraq Survey Group concluded, Saddam unilaterally destroyed parts of his WMD stockpiles, in violation of Resolution 687 which stipulated, emphasis added:

Quote:

Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of...

Without verification and supervision, he was not in compliance.

[drblow]

Bah. The ISG was directly answerable to Rumsfeld, and hardly objective - even David Kay resigned.

But, as confirmed, no WMD stockpiles were found. Ever. Destroying WMD stockpiles without supervision is not what the rhetoric at the time mentioned ... as you remember, the threat from Iraq was supposed to be imminent and severe. Can you provide any reference to anyone at all mentioning this at the time of the invasion?

Resolution 687 was adopted in 1991 - there was adequate time to deal with issues arising from it. Even resolution 1441 was passed to give Iraq another opportunity to comply, which Hans Blix says they were doing, right up to the moment when the weapons inspectors had their work cut short so the invasion could begin.

[General Mike]

Quote:

The ISG was directly answerable to Rumsfeld, and hardly objective - even David Kay resigned.

And Blix is hardly a disinterested observer. After driving around the desert like a tit for half a decade drawing (apparently) all the wrong conclusions, the man now has some seriously revisionist tendencies and a desperate need to save face. Before you keel over in admiration for his self-serving Chilcott performance, take a look at what he was telling the UN six weeks before the war and tell me this was a man who knew or thought Saddam had no WMD:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Now, d'ya think speeches like that hurt the case for war or help buttress it?

Quote:

Destroying WMD stockpiles without supervision is not what the rhetoric at the time mentioned ... as you remember, the threat from Iraq was supposed to be imminent and severe. Can you provide any reference to anyone at all mentioning this at the time of the invasion?

That's not the point. The reason the stipulation for verifiability was introduced in 1991 was precisely so the international community could be sure about the disposition of those weapons. The threat posed by Saddam was highly controversial, but that he had some form of WMD was generally believed -- even if people didn't believe he would or could use them. If Saddam had verified their destruction, anyone claiming any kind of threat from Iraq would have had to contend with iron-clad proof of WMD destruction. Which Saddam could easily and self-servingly provided.

The fact is, from the best evidence we have, Saddam DID try to hide his active WMD programme until 1995, then, after a close call with weapons inspectors, decided to uniaterally destroy large parts of it in violation of UN Resolutions. He then played an elaborate game with the weapons inspectors and the region and the world. And unfortunately for him, somebody called that bluff.

[drblow]

Quote:

And Blix is hardly a disinterested observer. After driving around the desert like a tit for half a decade drawing (apparently) all the wrong conclusions, the man now has some seriously revisionist tendencies and a desperate need to save face. Before you keel over in admiration for his self-serving Chilcott performance, take a look at what he was telling the UN six weeks before the war and tell me this was a man who knew or thought Saddam had no WMD:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Now, d'ya think speeches like that hurt the case for war or help buttress it?

It sounds like exactly what it was ... a speech given by a weapons inspector who wanted to regain access to Iraq to continue the inspections. There is as much positive indication of increased Iraqi cooperation after resolution 1441 as there is mention of evidence to suggest further weapons that MAY have existed. Which of course now have been proven to not have existed. Unless you know where they are?

Granted, it is not quite the kind of statements Blix has made subsequently, but then, they hadn't actually invaded at the point at which he gave the address you posted above, had they now?

Disinterested observer Blix certainly is not. A man on the ground, with the most direct experience of Iraqi weapons, and who owes nothing to the US or UK administration, he is.

Quote:

That's not the point. The reason the stipulation for verifiability was introduced in 1991 was precisely so the international community could be sure about the disposition of those weapons. The threat posed by Saddam was highly controversial, but that he had some form of WMD was generally believed -- even if people didn't believe he would or could use them. If Saddam had verified their destruction, anyone claiming any kind of threat from Iraq would have had to contend with iron-clad proof of WMD destruction. Which Saddam could easily and self-servingly provided.

The fact is, from the best evidence we have, Saddam DID try to hide his active WMD programme until 1995, then, after a close call with weapons inspectors, decided to uniaterally destroy large parts of it in violation of UN Resolutions. He then played an elaborate game with the weapons inspectors and the region and the world. And unfortunately for him, somebody called that bluff.

No. The point is that nothing you mentioned above, true or not, was given as the case for war in 2003. That is the only point. Retrospective reasoning is meaningless - the only thing that matters are the reasons publicicsed by Bush & Blair in the lead up to the invasion.

The case for war given in 2003 was a far cry from anything you mentioend above. If anything you mentioned above would have been adequate and legal basis for invasion then it would have been used - I am assuming that Bush & Blair would have used actually legal means had they been available in order to avoid all the unpleasantness of their campaign of lies. However, the overwhelming evidence before the world of the subsequent campaign of lies is the (quite literally) smoking gun.

Resolution 1441 had stated that Iraq was to comply with the inspectors, which Blix in the article you posted above states they were. More work was to be done, of course, but if the UN had felt Saddam had breached 1441 then there would not have been any issue with Bush & Blair seeking a new resolution to allow military action. This was not what happened, so regardless of your own synopsis of the inspections and breaches of resolutions, the UN did not agree. I am afraid I will have to accept the decision of the UN security council over your opinion.

[General Mike]

Quote:

No. The point is that nothing you mentioned above, true or not, was given as the case for war in 2003. That is the only point. Retrospective reasoning is meaningless - the only thing that matters are the reasons publicicsed by Bush & Blair in the lead up to the invasion.

You said Saddam was not in violation of resolutions pertaining to WMD. Clearly he was -- that was why I made the point.

Quote:

Granted, it is not quite the kind of statements Blix has made subsequently, but then, they hadn't actually invaded at the point at which he gave the address you posted above, had they now?

In other words, Blix didn't have the kind of certainty that could only have been obtained by ousting Saddam Hussein and implementing a thorough unimpeded investigation. Now, with the knowledge of the outcome of the kind of investigation he could never hoped to have performed in his role on the ground, he pretends he could have reached the same conclusions given time. It's bollocks. If Saddam was still there, Blix would still be driving around the desert in his jeep like a tool and you'd be bawling about sanctions or some such.

Quote:

Resolution 1441 had stated that Iraq was to comply with the inspectors, which Blix in the article you posted above states they were.

If Iraq was complying with the inspectors, it would have come clean about what it had done with its WMD in 1995. It didn't. It was playing them. That's plain to see for anybody with open eyes.

You obviously didn't read it very clearly. It is heavily qualified account of Iraq's sporadic co-operation and pattern of obstruction. It had gotten better -- it had to as Saddam realised his brinkmanship was failing, but as we now know, the whole thing was an elaborate parlour game being played by Saddam Hussein. Just enough co-operation (he thought) to avoid military intervention, more than enough obstruction and lack of co-operation and honesty to avoid any definitive pronouncement on the status of his WMD thus leaving the world in doubt. That's what he wanted -- we know, because it was within his power to change that state of affairs since 1995 and he chose not to.

The invasion of Iraq may have turned up no WMD, but it exposed the depth of Saddam's subterfuge of the weapons inspections regime and for the international community who forced it upon him. Honest co-operation with UN resolutions was just about the last think he was interested in.

Quote:

if the UN had felt Saddam had breached 1441 then there would not have been any issue with Bush & Blair seeking a new resolution to allow military action.

Of course there would have been an issue. Saddam been in blatant violation for years. You think China and Russia had even entertained the thought of approving a resolution which explicitly allowed military action even for a moment, co-operation or no co-operation? If so you are very naive about the workings of the UN. Blair was foolish to even consider it a possibility.

Quote:

I am afraid I will have to accept the decision of the UN security council over your opinion

There was no 'decision'.

[Am_Fìobhach]

I fail to understand why Comrades Mike and Blow are so entrenched on this argument.

Or, to put it another way, to what extent does it really matter what the niceties and preciseties of who had what and when mean in the context of a major military engagement in Iraq?

I mean, Fred says, "Bert's got a gun", then Sid says "No, he hasn't", so Bill and Ben decide to do Bert over anyway, just in case. To my mind, what Fred or Sid might say is somewhat irrelevant - it's not a matter that should have been decided on a "rough justice" basis.

[drblow]

Let's not argue over who killed who

No, but seriously ... what on earth do you mean? Why should people be upset about being lied into a war that was unecessary, illegal, immoral and has done nothing but waste the lives of soldiers and civilians alike? Why should people be upset about that, or entrenched in an argument about it?

Sometimes I wonder. I really do.

Quote:

I mean, Fred says, "Bert's got a gun", then Sid says "No, he hasn't", so Bill and Ben decide to do Bert over anyway, just in case. To my mind, what Fred or Sid might say is somewhat irrelevant - it's not a matter that should have been decided on a "rough justice" basis.

Way to trivialise war. You may not care about it, but I bloody well do.

Not in my f**king name, was the cry. From some at least.

[Pat]

Prescott shows his true colours:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... attle.html

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

There was no 'decision'.

There was in sending the weapons inspectors. That's a major decision, though selective given only Iraq was subject to them.

[General Mike]

Quote:

That's a major decision, though selective given only Iraq was subject to them.

Only Iraq was subject to Resolution 687, and only surrendered on those terms.

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

Only Iraq was subject to Resolution 687

That's rubbish. It establishes a 'nuclear-free zone' in the region. Well, inspectors to Iraq is selective as there's 2 other countries in the region with WMD; Turkey and Israel.

[General Mike]

Quote:

It establishes a 'nuclear-free zone' in the region.

Wrong as can be. The preamble 'recalls the objective' of such a zone (in preparation for the conditions); it does not establish it, nor does this resolution mandate any other states to take any actions towards such a goal.

687 is a specific set of requirement for Iraq to comply with after the Gulf War.

You will find nothing in its text which would suggest otherwise.

[drblow]

General Mike wrote:

In other words, Blix didn't have the kind of certainty that could only have been obtained by ousting Saddam Hussein and implementing a thorough unimpeded investigation. Now, with the knowledge of the outcome of the kind of investigation he could never hoped to have performed in his role on the ground, he pretends he could have reached the same conclusions given time. It's bollocks. If Saddam was still there, Blix would still be driving around the desert in his jeep like a tool and you'd be bawling about sanctions or some such.

The point is that invasion and regime change are not legal means to go about assessing the extent of whatever games Saddam was playing. The point is that, again, your retropsective look at the way Saddam dealt with weapons inspection and UN resolutions has no bearing whatsoever on the reasons we were given at the time for going to war in Iraq. We were told catagorically that Saddam had WMD, chemical and biological weapons, that there was clear and substantial evidence proving that he had them, and that the world was in imminent danger of him using them or of him giving them to terrorists who would use them. THAT is why the invasion happened - nothing, again, you have said above (true or otherwise) is a justification for invasion. Blair & Bush knew it, so they side-stepped the UN security council, knowing full well that what they were planning was illegal.

Look, you and I can debate the details of Saddams games of cat and mouse with the inspectors forever. The simple fact remains, and the only pertinent one, that none of thsi was given as reasons for the invasion at the time. What we were told at the time was a load of horseshit. Now proven beyond any doubt to be horseshit by the startling reality that there are/were no WMD in Iraq to find.

Quote:

The invasion of Iraq may have turned up no WMD, but it exposed the depth of Saddam's subterfuge of the weapons inspections regime and for the international community who forced it upon him. Honest co-operation with UN resolutions was just about the last think he was interested in.

Again, true. But again, not a justifiable reason for an invasion and regime change. Hence the lack of UN resolutions permitting it. Hence the calls for inquiries etc.

If Saddam's lack of co-operation had been a valid reason for military action, then it should have been undertaken by a unilateral force, with a solid legal basis and a good level of support across the UN, as has happened in previous conflicts. That is not what happened here.

Quote:

Saddam been in blatant violation for years.

Aye. And again, not a reason to invade and depose the government of Iraq. Resolutions are broken ... we all know who the record holder is.

Quote:

Blair was foolish to even consider it a possibility.

Unfortunately for Blair (and you) he had no choice but to consider it, as it is a legal requirement. Up until about 2 days before the invasion began, Blair had Goldsmith in his ear telling him he needed UN agreement and resolutions in order to proceed. Goldsmith's sudden turnaround is a matter of hilarity.

[General Mike]

Quote:

THAT is why the invasion happened - nothing, again, you have said above (true or otherwise) is a justification for invasion. Blair & Bush knew it, so they side-stepped the UN security council, knowing full well that what they were planning was illegal.

Legal or not is a matter of who you ask in international law. There is nobody with universal jurisdiction to pronounce definitively on it. Some scholars will tell that breaking the terms of 661 was in effect, a negation of the ceasefire on Iraq that resolution signified.

The UN could have pronounced the Iraq war an act of illegal aggression (though that, in itself, would not have any consequence -- unlike in real bonafide jurisdictional law). It didn't. And when you work out why, you might begin to wonder why you put so much stock in such a fundamentally flawed institution.

Quote:

The simple fact remains, and the only pertinent one, that none of thsi was given as reasons for the invasion at the time

Saddam 'games' (as they now turn out to be) and the presumed reason for him playing them were central to reasons for invasion.

Quote:

If Saddam's lack of co-operation had been a valid reason for military action, then it should have been undertaken by a unilateral force, with a solid legal basis and a good level of support across the UN, as has happened in previous conflicts. That is not what happened here.

Clinton didn't seek a UN mandate before military action on Iraq in 1998. Actual military action approved by the UNSC has happened in only two conflicts since the UN's creation in 1945 - the Korean War and the first Gulf War. Countless military actions -- for example, the Falklands conflict, the Kosovo intervention etc -- have happened without the UN seal of approval. The idea that something that has come through the UN's sewer politics is some 'gold standard' is not very convincing.

Quote:

Unfortunately for Blair (and you) he had no choice but to consider it, as it is a legal requirement.

In the opinion of some people.

[drblow]

Quote:

Legal or not is a matter of who you ask in international law. There is nobody with universal jurisdiction to pronounce definitively on it.

When signing the UN Charter, the member states agreed a set of principles to prevent the use of force unless directly attacked. This is the reason why Blair & Bush went to such lengths in their campaign of misinformation in order to create the circumstances necessary to invade Iraq - they had to create the impression that Iraq was a serious and imminent threat to world security. This of course has now been proven to be complete nonsense.

Article 6 of the US constitution states that any declaration signed under international law becomes a part of the supreme law of the land. The UN charter allows military action in only 2 situations ... one in which a country is directly attacked and acts in self-defence (hence Bush's relentless campaign to link Iraq with 911) and under specific authorisation by the UN. Neither of these situations was the one we saw in 2003.

The actions of Bush & Blair in their media-frenzy of lies proves beyond doubt that they themselves were aware of the legal problems - indeed we know that Blair had been advised that invasion was not legal up until Goldsmith so startlingly and suddenly changed his mind 3 days before the invasion started. If there had been a sound basis for invasion under current UN law or current UN resolutions then they would not have needed to go to the lengths they went to in order to pervert public opinion with lies.

It is fairly well accepted now that Bush had designs on Iraq even before 911. Plenty of evidence from the Chilcot inquiry has pointed to the invasion plans being well established and unstoppable by the time Blair got involved. The Downing Street memo quotes Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq in order to depose Saddam, but the case was thin and the information was being manipulated in order to fit the needs of the situation.

Whether you percieve the UN as effective or not, the simple fact remains that both the US & UK signed up to it.

Quote:

Saddam 'games' (as they now turn out to be) and the presumed reason for him playing them were central to reasons for invasion.

No they weren't. Central to the reasons for invasion were claims that Saddam was in possession of WMD and chemical/biological weapons, that he was aiding and abetting terrorists (specifically Al Quaida), and that he was an imminent and serious threat to world security.

You hit the nail on the head with your use of the word "presumed". You may support our country going into a war on presumption, but alot of people do not.

His "games" with weapons inspectors were not even close to giving a reason for invasion. Hence (again) the campaign of horsecrap that came out of Washington and London in the run up to the invasion.

Quote:

Clinton didn't seek a UN mandate before military action on Iraq in 1998.

He didn't invade the country under the banner of "war on terror". Big difference.

Quote:

In the opinion of some people.

Yeah, generally people like Kofi Annan, Nick Clegg, Sir Michael Wood, the Dutch government, the International Commission of Jurists, the National Lawyers Guild etc etc ... and a large enough percentage of the British public that government has spent money on 4 inquiries so far.

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

Saddam 'games' (as they now turn out to be) and the presumed reason for him playing them were central to reasons for invasion.

No it wasn't The central reasons were;

He HAD WMDs and was concealing them

He had a relationship with al-Qaeda and planned to give them WMDs

And finally was a 'threat' to the region and even whole world.

Quote:

The preamble 'recalls the objective' of such a zone

You're cherrypicking is blatant;

Quote:

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region

Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means, including a dialogue among the States of the region,

The UNSC clearly declared "the region" is now imposed with the "objective", not just Iraq.

[General Mike]

Quote:

He HAD WMDs and was concealing them

An entirely reasonable conclusion to draw -- given the games he ultimately turned out to be playing.

Quote:

The UNSC clearly declared "the region" is now imposed with the "objective", not just Iraq.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. A simple look at the language should tip you off.
It's you whose cherry-picking.

Quote:

Conscious also of the objective...

of the need to work towards...

Conscious further of the importance...

A reference to an objective or a need is not the same as a resolution mandating those things.

These are statements in the preamble setting up the conditions of the resolution on Iraq. They impose nothing.

Hence no weapons inspectors anywhere else.

If there was any requirement for any other nation to undertake any action, perhaps you find a single specific requirement in the body resolution itself (not the preamble) directed at any state other than Iraq?

You won't be able to you.

Nice try though. Some people will fall over themselves to bring Israel into just about anything.

[drblow]

General Mike wrote:

An entirely reasonable conclusion to draw -- given the games he ultimately turned out to be playing.

Bullshit. The Chilcot inquiry has shown that the Blair government was well aware of the dodgy nature of the intelligence they were using. Saddam had been playing games with inspections for years, it was nothing new and everyone concerned knew it was more to do with posturing to the rest of the Middle East than any threat to the west. As Blix said in the article you quoted above, Iraq's cooperation since resolution 1441 had increased, so if anything they should have been in a much better position to negotiate diplomatically, indeed practically everyone claimed that was their prefered solution.

Yet again I am required to point out that rhetoric about cooperation with weapons inspectors was missing from the pre-war propaganda, or certainly the kind of importance you now place on it. Pre-war propaganda was based on THREAT level - it was based upon that because that is the ONLY means by which a military invasion is legal. Regardless of what you have now retrospectively created as reasonable motives for invasion based on non-compliance with inspections, the reality was, and remains, that was not the reason for the invasion. Non-compliance would be enforced by the UN, and would therefore have been endorsed by majority and have had a secure basis in further resolutions as necessary.

You have forgotten again that the reasons for the war were the presence of WMD, terrorist links (to AQ), and imminent and serious threat to security. No amount of diversion about inspections will change that fact. It's what the Chilcot inquiry is about.

It's ok, I will continue to remind you as necessary.