Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

droid

Well-known member
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq

Sir John Chilcot has delivered a devastating critique of Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, with his long-awaited report concluding that Britain chose to join the US invasion before “peaceful options for disarmament” had been exhausted.

The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. He described Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed his own people and attacked his neighbours.

But Chilcot - who was asked by Gordon Brown seven years ago to head an inquiry into the conflict - was withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. Chilcot said today: “We have concluded that 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 report also bitterly criticised the way in which Blair made the case for Britain to go to war. It said the notorious dossier presented in September 2002 by Blair to the House of Commons did not support his claim that Iraq had a “growing” programme of chemical and biological weapons.

The then Labour government also failed to anticipate the war’s disastrous consequences, the report also said. They included the deaths of “at least 150,000 Iraqis- and probably many more - most of them civilians” and “more than a million people displaced.” “The people of Iraq have suffered greatly,” Chilcot said today.

Chilcot’s report is more damning than expected and amounts to arguably the most scathing official verdict given on any modern British prime minister. His 2.6m word, 12 volume report was released this morning, together with a 145-page executive summary.
 

droid

Well-known member
I going up to 650wpm. Wish me luck lads.

EDIT: Fuck, thats still 61/2 hours.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
AGGRESSION.

Reacting to the Chilcot report, Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association, said: “The UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations, thus guaranteeing the territorial integrity of every country. The only exception to this mandate is through the authorization of the UN Security Council or through the inherent right of self-defence.

“The overwhelming evidence is that neither of these exceptions existed and, consequently, the invasion of Iraq violated international law. Yet, international law has not progressed to a stage where those who breached these legal principles will be brought to justice.

“To date, the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over ‘acts of aggression’. The only body able to initiate sanctions against states that trigger these acts is the UN Security Council. However, both the United States and Great Britain, as permanent members of the Council, would never consent to such sanctions.”
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Continued from the Corbyn thread:

My main assertion is one I made to Barty when he challenged me on the semiotics of alternate history is that we can only really deal with the political consequences of what actually happened and the opportunity costs of decisions that were actually made.

I don't believe Iraq had as much potential for chaos as it may seem is evident now, and even it had, it is possible that a relatively peaceful restructuring could have taken place, or more likely a continuation of a decrepit repressive regime but one in which most of its citizens lived in relative peace.

I think the most fist-bitingly obvious (in retrospect, of course) missed opportunity for good was the failure of the USA and its allies to support the army mutiny/Kurdish-Shi'a uprising in '91. There was a small window where a genuine popular insurgency could have toppled a severely weakened regime, with outside help of course but with Iraqi leadership. God knows, the Ba'athists wouldn't have given up without a damn good fight, there'd have been rivalry and probably fighting between the rebel factions in the power vacuum and it's not like a peaceful, democratic, secular Iraq would have miraculously emerged like a cake from an oven. And Iran, Turkey, Israel and the Saudis would all have had their fingers in it like a shot, naturally. But it would probably have been preferable to another twelve years of Ba'athist brutality, exacerbated by sanctions and propped up by Russian arms sales, and then the invasion, occupation and general aftermath.

Of course, in the event, it suited the allies to have regime humiliated, contained and partially defanged, so as to reduce the risk posed to Israel and the Gulf states, but ultimately left in place and largely intact to provide a bulwark against Iran - a strategy as cynical if not as destructive, in my view, as the eventual invasion.

War however has a tendency to spiral out of control, and blood, once spilled leads to streams, and then rivers... and now the tide has come in.

Lol, you want some chutney and crackers to go with that, cuz? ;)
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
I refuse to participate further in this thread until someone acknowledges my hilarious and thoroughly researched one act play on the previous page.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
Offputting , wouldn't be surprised if Iran sponsored shiite militias are siding with the official iraqi armee in this
 

droid

Well-known member
Iran, the US, Iraq and Turkey are all holding the same knife. Then there is the KDP and Barzani allowing the Iraqi advance.
 

...

Beast of Burden
I thought it was PUK with particular fingers pointed at Talabani's son for this, rather than KDP/Bazani who are the one's saying betrayal re: Iran/Iraqi Shi'ite militias. That's what I heard, but who knows?

Fact is Iraqi Kurds are at each others throats at exactly the wrong moment, just like the 90s.

Could be worse than 91 for the Kurds, this.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
DUQJxAFXcAIuh1A.jpg
 

CORP$EY

no mickey mouse ting
Surprised that a neocon is editor of The Atlantic, which for some reason I had pegged as a lefty liberal sort of publication.
 
Top