Chilcot report.

[janie48]

 

I'm not convinced if someone else had been in power it would have been run any better or we would have decided not to support the US.

Me neither.

I was very much against the Iraq invasion, but I do remember the fear and emotional reaction following the 9/11 attacks, as well as a TV programme sometime later on the Iraq situation which showed Iraqi's pleading with us to help them.

 

Easy for those who didn't have that responsibility of power to say what decisions should or shouldn't have been taken at that time.

[Lex Luthor]

 

Any reason when you are offline Phil is online and vice versa?

 

You're scaring me now. He's not hiding behind my settee is he?

[Phanerothyme]

He could have resigned from his role as an MP or quit the Labour Party in protest.

Instead, he spoke as a serving member of parliament, and the labour party, against this war, both in the house and at the largest demonstration in British history, simultaneously with the two largest anti-war demonstrations ever held, ever, elsewhere in Europe. Then, as an MP he rebelled against his party, and voted against the war. Had he resigned, he would have had much less imapct.

 

It's also worth noting that Corbyn, like the million plus other people there, including Charlie Kennedy, correctly predicted the outcome of the war as a catastrophe. And we were all proved horribly, tragically correct.

In Libya it was a NATO intervention. The post you quoted is entirely about Libya, not Iraq.

My mistake, the military adventure in Libya was NATO-led, absolutely.

France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina. Great help to us!

That's the risk you take with a globalised defence marketplace. Argetines also flew French Super Etendards and American A4 Skyhawks and Delta Daggers, and British Canberras- Even the Belgrano was a rebadged US WWII ship.

 

It's a given, and its accepted.

 

But it was the defence secretary at the time who said "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," UK Harrier Pilots trained against imprompty aggressor squadrons of Etendards and Mirages. UK special forces learnt how to sabotage Exocets. France made its Atlantic assets available to the UK

 

How did America help us?

I'll leave that question to

Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington, who went on to become ambassador, told the programme: "My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic."

 

Reagan was keen to help, but there was a strong Latino opposition that could have made it difficult. Nevertheless, British forces did receive 105 AIM9-L all aspect SRAAMS. With a kill rate of 80% they led to 12 confirmed combat victories for Sea Harrier pilots against Skyhawks, Daggers and Mirages.

Who mentioned Chile??

I did, while we were on the subject of assistance during the Falklands War. I only mention it because, at the time, Chile was one of the vilest dictatorships in South America. And no friend of Argentina.

 

If only there was some way we could search the world's knowledge from our armchairs, I wouldn't have to bother typing all this out.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Phanerothyme

[Gamston]

We knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction which could be launched in 45 minutes in 2005. This information didn't prevent Tony Blair being re elected as UK Prime Minister in 2005.

[alchresearch]

I think this sums it up quite nicely:

 

http://viz.co.uk/letterbocks-203/

[Radan]

Instead, he spoke as a serving member of parliament, and the labour party, against this war, both in the house and at the largest demonstration in British history, simultaneously with the two largest anti-war demonstrations ever held, ever, elsewhere in Europe. Then, as an MP he rebelled against his party, and voted against the war. Had he resigned, he would have had much less imapct.

 

It's also worth noting that Corbyn, like the million plus other people there, including Charlie Kennedy, correctly predicted the outcome of the war as a catastrophe. And we were all proved horribly, tragically correct.

 

My mistake, the military adventure in Libya was NATO-led, absolutely.

 

That's the risk you take with a globalised defence marketplace. Argetines also flew French Super Etendards and American A4 Skyhawks and Delta Daggers, and British Canberras- Even the Belgrano was a rebadged US WWII ship.

 

It's a given, and its accepted.

 

But it was the defence secretary at the time who said "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," UK Harrier Pilots trained against imprompty aggressor squadrons of Etendards and Mirages. UK special forces learnt how to sabotage Exocets. France made its Atlantic assets available to the UK

 

 

I'll leave that question to

 

Reagan was keen to help, but there was a strong Latino opposition that could have made it difficult. Nevertheless, British forces did receive 105 AIM9-L all aspect SRAAMS. With a kill rate of 80% they led to 12 confirmed combat victories for Sea Harrier pilots against Skyhawks, Daggers and Mirages.

 

I did, while we were on the subject of assistance during the Falklands War. I only mention it because, at the time, Chile was one of the vilest dictatorships in South America. And no friend of Argentina.

 

If only there was some way we could search the world's knowledge from our armchairs, I wouldn't have to bother typing all this out.

 

So France sold Argentina missiles and the US sold us missiles? I was obviously talking about personnel though and they certainly didn't send troops, in the same way we didn't send our troops to Vietnam. There was a context to what I wrote which you chose to ignore. I understand multinational arm trading, but it was troops I was on about!

 

Corbyn spoke as an MP. Didn't stop the war though did he? So he could have resigned afterwards, in protest. Or switched to a non-war mongering party like, uh, maybe the greens, in protest, which is what I wrote. Again, if you understood the context of my post you'd have got that.

 

If only like, your armchair wasn't so smug and you were able to read what other people had written properly you wouldn't need to use Wiki to add trivial asides.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Radan

[Phanerothyme]

So France sold Argentina missiles and the US sold us missiles? I was obviously talking about personnel though and they certainly didn't send troops, in the same way we didn't send our troops to Vietnam. There was a context to what I wrote which you chose to ignore. I understand multinational arm trading, but it was troops I was on about!

If it was "troops [you were] on about, then why didn't you say so. The word you chose was simply "help". As backpedalling goes, it's pretty weak.

Corbyn spoke as an MP. Didn't stop the war though did he? So he could have resigned afterwards, in protest. Or switched to a non-war mongering party like, uh, maybe the greens, in protest, which is what I wrote. Again, if you understood the context of my post you'd have got that.

Ah, so it's Corbyn's fault for *not* stopping the Iraq war be quitting his job as a constituency MP - I see where you're coming from now.

If only like, your armchair wasn't so smug and you were able to read what other people had written properly you wouldn't need to use Wiki to add trivial asides.

Wikipedia is actually quite thin on a lot of this - but Google books and Google Scholar are good tools for drilling in to the subject. There is a prevailing anti-intellectualism that seems to dictate that if you don't already know something, using the internet to find out is somehow unacceptable.

[Radan]

If it was "troops [you were] on about, then why didn't you say so. The word you chose was simply "help". As backpedalling goes, it's pretty weak.

 

Ah, so it's Corbyn's fault for *not* stopping the Iraq war be quitting his job as a constituency MP - I see where you're coming from now.

 

Wikipedia is actually quite thin on a lot of this - but Google books and Google Scholar are good tools for drilling in to the subject. There is a prevailing anti-intellectualism that seems to dictate that if you don't already know something, using the internet to find out is somehow unacceptable.

 

My writing about Corbyn is purely personal opinion. He has rebelled against the Labour Party more than anyone I think. Taking the country to war could have been the straw that broke the camel's back for him. He could have thought, 'you know what, I'm done with this party now.' He didn't. You have misunderstood entirely where I was coming from.

 

You jumped into the conversation between me and Phil. It's your fault you didn't know I was only talking about troops and you could have asked. Instead you chose to write a smug reply. I haven't back pedalled, I wasn't even talking to you when I referenced the Falklands the first time!

 

---------- Post added 07-07-2016 at 12:15 ----------

 

That is the $64,000 question.

 

We stood up to America before in refusing to go into Vietnam. They didn't help us out in the Falklands.

 

Maybe, because Bush Jnr was so gung-ho and old Maggie had got the US on board for Round One, Tony Blair felt obligated.....

 

See Phane-I wrote we stood up to America by refusing to go into Vietnam. Clearly meaning not sending troops. They didn't help in the Falklands in that context obviously means they didn't send troops to help us.

 

If you can't read between the lines don't blame me.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Radan

[L00b]

Your context was specifically about troops?

 

Could have fooled me:

We stood up to America before in refusing to go into Vietnam. They didn't help us out in the Falklands.

France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina. Great help to us!

 

How did America help us?

Topically, France did what you argue Corbyn didn't do: Chirac told Bush, Blair and all others (1) , (2) that this 2nd round was needless and was going to end in lots of tears, and this was the reason France did not take part in the 2003 Coalition.

 

France was, accordingly, soundly vilified for it, with the usual "cheese eating surrender monkeys" taunts and more. Remember the "freedom fries" at all?

Edited July 7, 2016 by L00b

[Radan]

Your context was specifically about troops?

 

Could have fooled me:

 

 

Topically, France did what you argue Corbyn didn't do: Chirac told Bush, Blair and all others (1) , (2) that this 2nd round was needless and was going to end in lots of tears, and this was the reason France did not take part in the 2003 Coalition.

 

France was, accordingly, soundly vilified for it, with the usual "cheese eating surrender monkeys" taunts and more. Remember the "freedom fries" at all?

 

Uff not you as well L00b. What do think 'not going into Vietnam' means? I think it means we didn't send troops (or the Navy or Air Force!) to Vietnam. Hence the sentence after implies the same. Apologies if I was unclear but that is what I meant!

 

The point about the Exocet was the same. Phane says France helped us. They didn't send troops to help us though. But they did sell missiles to Argentina. And one sunk the Sheffield. But yes, I agree with Phane, that's arms dealing for ya.

 

Yes, France did well to keep out of the 2003 invasion.

 

Edit: As an aside it does look like Britain did assist in Vietnam. Though this is not officially stated and was never official policy. Much like the US selling us missiles for the Falklands was denied at the time. I add this because I expect Phane to come back with, 'well according to this Eyes Only and not officially confirmed document Britain did send a few troops to Vietnam scoff scoff scoff.' Officially we didn't. And America didn't send its troops to the Falklands but did sell us missiles, unofficially and denied at the time.

 

My response to TinFoilHat was quite simple. Official UK Government policy was to not send our forces to 'Nam. It was not US Government policy to send it's forces to the Falklands (and I do not claim either was the wrong policy). Based on those two precedents (and there are others) I think our Government could have said no to getting involved in the second invasion of Iraq, much like France did. That's all.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Radan