Chilcot report.

[999tigger]

So is everyone agreed......Jeremy Corbyn was right all along?

 

No.

 

Biggest mess up was insufficient planning for what happened after.

Edited July 6, 2016 by 999tigger

[Radan]

No.

 

Biggest **** up was insufficient planning for what happened after.

 

Yup. There was a very good reason they left Saddam in power after he was defeated in the first gulf war in '91.

 

They must have forgotten those reasons when they went in the second time.

[Brian Equato]

Has North Korea gassed Kurds? Has anyone really ever believed North Korea has WMDs? Did North Korea ever invade Kuwait?

 

Was Iraq backed by China?

 

You are far too simplistic in your analysis.

 

I think they murder and maltreat enough of their own people to be going on with, Blair seemed to justify invading Iraq on the basis that at least it removed Saddam, that also seems pretty simplistic. No Iraq wasn't backed by China, doubt we'd have ever invaded if it was, we only invade countries that won't make a decent fist of fighting back.

WMD's, well NK boast of having them, what the truth is, who knows, might be just bluster but the Iraq didn't have them either.

[S1 1DJ]

I disagree with you on all points:

1) Gaddafi was gotten rid of by his own people after a civil war.

2) The second Iraq war was not started because Saddam started selling oil in euros.

3) I'm not ashamed to be British because some of our old cluster bombs are being used in Yemen. We don't make them anymore. We don't sell them anymore.

 

And I disagree with Brian's whole post

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2016 at 19:20 ----------

 

 

A cynic might say he was just voting against his own party. Again.

 

He didn't resign like Short or Cook did.

 

Corbin was a back bencher, not a cabinet minister. Remember Galloway

[Brian Equato]

WMD's, well NK boast of having them, what the truth is, who knows, might be just bluster but the Iraq didn't have them either.

 

Might be a bit like that urban 'myth' that Saudi Arabia have booby trapped all their oil wells with radioactive mines to be detonated in the event of invasion or overthrow of the ruling house and rendering the biggest oilfields in the World useless, true, untrue, who knows but everyone loves a good conspiracy theory.

[999tigger]

Yup. There was a very good reason they left Saddam in power after he was defeated in the first gulf war in '91.

 

They must have forgotten those reasons when they went in the second time.

 

Care to explain?

[Radan]

I think they murder and maltreat enough of their own people to be going on with, Blair seemed to justify invading Iraq on the basis that at least it removed Saddam, that also seems pretty simplistic. No Iraq wasn't backed by China, doubt we'd have ever invaded if it was, we only invade countries that won't make a decent fist of fighting back.

WMD's, well NK boast of having them, what the truth is, who knows, might be just bluster but the Iraq didn't have them either.

 

Oh? Then what had Saddam used to gas Kurds?

 

You have at least understood my point about China. Do you feel we should invade North Korea and risk war with China as well then? Just to make us feel better about invading Iraq?

 

No-one believes North Korea has a functioning nuclear weapon. But WMDs are not limited to nuclear arms.

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2016 at 19:50 ----------

 

Corbin was a back bencher, not a cabinet minister. Remember Galloway

 

Sadly yes.

 

Yeah I know he was a back bencher. I'm pleased he disagreed with the party over the war. But he disagreed with them about everything. He should become an independent or even join the greens.

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2016 at 19:53 ----------

 

Care to explain?

 

I thought you were hinting at that yourself?

 

Saddam in power kept order in the country. With him gone they knew it would descend into the kind of anarchy it has now. So he was left in power in 91 after he 'vacated' Kuwait and surrendered.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Radan

[Bob Arctor]

Yes. Another time in human history that the common man was sacrificed for the aims and agendas of the rich and powerful.

Nothing was 'cocked up'. We were lied to. The soldiers were lied to. Iraq was invaded because Saddam decided to sell HIS oil in Euros instead of Dollars. When he did that his days were numbered. Same deal for Gaddafi. He decided he was going to switch his oil from Dollars to gold Dinar. Look where that got him.

We never invaded Iraq to rescue its people from an evil dictator. To think our Government gives a hoot about the common man is almost laughable. I mean, just look at what we are doing right now in Yemen. Dropping BRITISH made cluster bombs onto civilian targets.

Makes you feel proud, eh?

 

The sole purpose of patriotism is to get young people to fight and risk their lives in wars which benefit someone else.

[999tigger]

 

I thought you were hinting at that yourself?

 

Saddam in power kept order in the country. With him gone they knew it would descend into the kind of anarchy it has now. So he was left in power in 91 after he 'vacated' Kuwait and surrendered.

 

1. He was left in power after the first Gulf War because they didnt have the authority under UN resolition for rehime change. It was just to remove him from Kuwait.

 

2. My point was that the reason the 2nd Gulf War became controversial wasnt just because they didnt find the wmd's, but because the post conflict planning was so poor and draged on. thats where we lost the most casualties. They messed it up not keeping on the Iraqi army etc, so everything collapsed and we got dragged in. Thats not about Topny Blair war criminal, its a just a mess up.

[Radan]

1. He was left in power after the first Gulf War because they didnt have the authority under UN resolition for rehime change. It was just to remove him from Kuwait.

 

2. My point was that the reason the 2nd Gulf War became controversial wasnt just because they didnt find the wmd's, but because the post conflict planning was so poor and draged on. thats where we lost the most casualties. They messed it up not keeping on the Iraqi army etc, so everything collapsed and we got dragged in. Thats not about Topny Blair war criminal, its a just a mess up.

 

Agreed on 1) there was no UN backing to invade Iraq proper. But Colin Power has claimed they wanted Saddam in place as a bulwark to Iranian fundamentalism.

 

And there certainly was foresight about post-Saddam rebel fighting causing major issues not unlike what has actually happened since the 2003 invasion, albeit different factions.

 

"The Bush administration feared that a victory by Iraqi Kurds might encourage the ongoing Kurdish uprising in Turkey, a NATO ally. They also feared what a radical Shiite Arab entity would mean to U.S. Gulf allies with restive Shiite populations.

 

Keeping Saddam Hussein in power while subjecting his country to debilitating sanctions and sending in international inspectors to destroy his offensive military capabilities seemed at the time like the preferred alternative.

 

There are many valid critiques of U.S. policy toward Iraq before, during, and after the Gulf War. Failing to invade and overthrow the Iraqi government, however, is not one of them."

 

http://fpif.org/why_the_us_did_not_overthrow_saddam_hussein/