Chilcot Enquiry

[Bud the Baker]

Due out later today, hopefully it'll condemn Blair (& his cronies) for taking us into Dubya's war which was all about finishing off what his daddy didn't and restoring a hardman image after the failings of 9/11.

A tragedy for all those soldiers and civilians who have been killed, maimed or psychologically scarred by the war. A tragedy for a divided world where we are all a lot less safe as a result of this war. An ongoing tragedy with little prospect of peace in the near future.

[pozbaird]

Dickson v the Oaksoft alias. 10-15 pages....

[Stuart Dickson]

Dickson v the Oaksoft alias. 10-15 pages....

I can't see why. I didn't support the war in Iraq at any point and condemned Blair and the Labour Party for its actions. The only difference I could see between me and Oaksoft is that once the decision was made to go to war I backed our troops 100% as any right minded citizen should have done

[Bud the Baker]

Quote

Sir John Chilcot has outlined his findings on the UK's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War and the lessons to be learned from it.

The report spans almost a decade of UK government policy decisions between 2001 and 2009.

It covers the background to the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath, a period in which there was intense sectarian violence.

The main points are:

• The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
• The judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
• Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
• Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
• The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".
• There was "little time" to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither "properly identified nor fully exposed" to ministers, resulting in "equipment shortfalls".
• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".
• The Government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than 1m were displaced.
• The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found former prime minister Tony Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.
• It said ministerial discussion which encourages frank and informed debate and challenge is important. As is ensuring civilian and military arms of government are properly equipped.
• In future, all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with rigour. Decisions need to be fully implemented.

Tony's got of lightly.

Interesting to consider current actions in Syria with respect to the final point above - have the potential consequences been calculated, debated and challenged with rigour?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[BuddieinEK]

Our Tone was obviously inspired by George Orwell's 1984!

[shull]

Lessons will be learned. 

 

Anyway, why don't the demonstrators shut the f**k up. 

Have they no work to do?

Pointless people. 

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

Tony's got of lightly.

So far.

Although he's had a couple of months to get his legal team prepared for any law suits that might be brought against him by grieving relatives.

[FTOF]

52 minutes ago, shull said:

Lessons will be learned. 

Anyway, why don't the demonstrators shut the f**k up. 

Have they no work to do?

Pointless people. 

Maybe you should follow your own advice for once.

I take it the 90,000 to 500,000 Iraqi deaths that have occurred as a result of this have just to be swept under the carpet?

[Bud the Baker]

50 minutes ago, shull said:

Lessons will be learned. 

 

When?

1 minute ago, FTOF said:

So far.

Although he's had a couple of months to get his legal team prepared for any law suits that might be brought against him by grieving relatives.

It'll be a real shame if he if he's forced to spend that fortune he's amassed since leaving office in legal fees.

[Howard Hughes in BlueSuedeShoes]

1 hour ago, shull said:

Lessons will be learned. 

 

Anyway, why don't the demonstrators shut the f**k up. 

Have they no work to do?

Pointless people. 

Aye, but this will have meant a lot to them so they'd have taken the day off work to make their voice heard. They may even have got their opinions from a taxi driver as well.........

[shull]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

 

Lessons will never been learned. 

That's the point. 

Same statement after every enquiry. 

[shull]

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

Maybe you should follow your own advice for once.

I take it the 90,000 to 500,000 Iraqi deaths that have occurred as a result of this have just to be swept under the carpet?

Ridiculous post above. 

The relatives of the deceased soldiers were their usual totally dignified as they always have been. 

The Enquiry findings were today and we didn't need the usual rent a mob screeching and wailing. 

The relatives get all our support. 

[stlucifer]

This is a chance for Corbyn to do what should be done. Demand that Blair and co are tried as war criminals. This is why the rush to oust Corbyn was so frantic. It failed. It's time for the chickens to come home to roost. It WAS an illegal war and will be regarded as one of Britain's lowest points in history. If we truly want justice for the thousands who died during, and the many who have died due to the aftermath then those in power at the time need to be held accountable.

[Drew]

There was a military man (Colonel) on the John Beattie radio show at lunchtime saying Blair was right, and claiming that the UK has a right to and should invade any state that might present a risk to our security at some point in the future.

These people are dangerous fanatics, and little better than others whom they will happily brand 'terrorists'.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Drew

[rabuddies]

No chance of a "war criminal " charge from the international court. They were both democratically elected and had the backing of their elected legislatures. Also, like Drew said, there are plenty of folk in powerful and influential positions who would wholeheartedly support them.
Also the feeling that we are more at risk since then discounts the fact that the support of the US was payback for their help in dismantling the IRA who were more than a bit of a threat to UK citizens for over 30 years.

[saintnextlifetime]

5 hours ago, Drew said:

There was a military man (Colonel) on the John Beattie radio show at lunchtime saying Blair was right, and claiming that the UK has a right to and should invade any state that might present a risk to our security at some point in the future.

These people are dangerous fanatics, and little better than others whom they will happily brand 'terrorists'.

To be fair the military will always want to send the boys in , that is what they are trained to do , kill people that , they deem to be some sort of threat to British interests , they are almost as right-wing as Blair . .

[saintnextlifetime]

5 hours ago, rabuddies said:

No chance of a "war criminal " charge from the international court. They were both democratically elected and had the backing of their elected legislatures. Also, like Drew said, there are plenty of folk in powerful and influential positions who would wholeheartedly support them.
Also the feeling that we are more at risk since then discounts the fact that the support of the US was payback for their help in dismantling the IRA who were more than a bit of a threat to UK citizens for over 30 years.

 

You are right about the war criminal charge . However , the events of 9/11 meant the end of NORAD for the Americans , which in turn meant the end of funding for the IRA and so brought them to the table. The U.S . government had little to do . .

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

To be fair the military will always want to send the boys in , that is what they are trained to do , kill people that , they deem to be some sort of threat to British interests , they are almost as right-wing as Blair . .

Massive insult to the armed forces without who we would be..........................well................

[Stuart Dickson]

10 hours ago, shull said:

Lessons will be learned. 

 

Anyway, why don't the demonstrators shut the f**k up. 

Have they no work to do?

Pointless people. 

Yeah I never get the point of what a demonstration is supposed to do except cause massive disruption and turn locals against whatever cause the demonstration is supposed to be backing. Have you ever noticed that it's usually stupid ugly people that do all the protesting too? 

[Stuart Dickson]

38 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Massive insult to the armed forces without who we would be..........................well................

Absolutely. What those daft lefties don't ever appear to consider is that those armed forces to went to war in Iraq were doing so under order from their representatives in the House of Commons - the very MP's they had elected particularly if they voted Labour as the majority of Scots did back then. The armed forces had no say in the matter. They followed orders.