Chilcot report is finally out

 
gats
| alo
 
more |
XBL: goooots
PSN:
Steam: goootsby
ID: Gatsby
IP: Logged

19,293 posts
You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are. I hope you find peace in yourself and learn to love instead of hate.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

Won't copy all, just a few bits here and there. All in all I think it's too politicised to have any effects on Blair.

Quote
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 – whom Gordon Brown asked seven years ago to head an inquiry into the conflict – was withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. Chilcot said: “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.”

Quote
At times, Blair’s notes read more like stream of consciousness than considered policy documents. The note continued: “He [Saddam] is a potential threat. He could be contained. But containment … is always risky.”

According to Chilcot, Blair shaped his diplomatic strategy around the need to get rid of Saddam which – he told Bush – was the “right thing to do”. Blair suggested that the simplest way to come up with a casus belli was to give an ultimatum to Iraq to disarm, preferably backed by UN authority.

Chilcot rejects Blair’s view that spurning the US-led military alliance against Iraq would have done major damage to London’s relations with Washington. “It’s questionable it would have broken the partnership,” he writes, noting that the two sides had taken different views on other major issues including the Suez crisis, the Vietnam war and the Falklands.

Quote
The report also demolishes Blair’s claim made when he gave evidence to the inquiry in 2010 that the difficulties encountered by British forces in post-invasion Iraq could not have been known in advance.

“We do not agree that hindsight is required,” Chilcot says. “The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”

The actual report you can read here: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/
Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 07:21:27 AM by gats


 
 
Mr. Psychologist
| Imperial Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Mr Psychologist
IP: Logged

17,225 posts
<.<
2.6 gorillion words to state the bleeding obvious

And just like Clinton, Blair gets away with it because he has friends in high places.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,949 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Mordo | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Madman Mordo
IP: Logged

7,236 posts
emigrate or degenerate. the choice is yours
It might not have been a last resort, but it was a perfectly legal one.

Sure, the post-invasion planning was lamentable and many things afterwards could and should have been done differently. But I don't think people really understood what 20 years of Saddam was really like. There had been 17 UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq, with the last one making clear that Iraq would “face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations”. Saddam chose not to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors on innumerable occasions.

WMDs might have been overstated but the intentions were there. The Iraq Survey Group report in 2004 concluded: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability - which was essentially destroyed in 1991 - after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilised." If we had not acted, this would have been the likely result as, "Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."

Let's not forget his track record. He was the only national leader who had used chemical and biological weapons and who had invaded a sovereign state (Kuwait in 1989). In addition he had killed 100,000s of his own people, some of them personally. His 10-year war with Iran perhaps cost one million lives. Had he stayed in power, it is perfectly possible that he would have been responsible for far more deaths, not to mention the continuing torture and political oppression.

Not sure what this report is seeking to accomplish, whether it be Blair's indictment or otherwise, but it just seems like a pointless critique to what we already knew.
Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 10:49:59 AM by sad boi 420 ミームを吸い込みます


 
gats
| alo
 
more |
XBL: goooots
PSN:
Steam: goootsby
ID: Gatsby
IP: Logged

19,293 posts
You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are. I hope you find peace in yourself and learn to love instead of hate.
It might not have been a last resort, but it was a perfectly legal one.
In terms of international law and the UN charter the war was an illegal one. The Secretary General Annan at the time said so himself.


 
gats
| alo
 
more |
XBL: goooots
PSN:
Steam: goootsby
ID: Gatsby
IP: Logged

19,293 posts
You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are. I hope you find peace in yourself and learn to love instead of hate.
It's possible to oppose the Iraq War without romanticising pre-03 Iraq & it's the invaders who ignored Iraqi agency, Saddam made life hell for my family, I have no sympathy for him but it was the Iraqis' job to remove him, not a task for the West, a revolution from within is one that it is more stable rather than a foreign backed one, look at the Shah of Iran for example. People think that Iraqis, after decades of sanctions and wars (backed by the West and its allies), should have become democrats overnight. The arrogance and hubris of it! 'Here we invaded and destroyed your country for you, why aren't you becoming a liberal democracy, why?' I can't even begin to describe the impact of the economic sanctions on destroying Iraqi society, paving the way for what was to come next.
Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 11:15:20 AM by gats


Mordo | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Madman Mordo
IP: Logged

7,236 posts
emigrate or degenerate. the choice is yours
It might not have been a last resort, but it was a perfectly legal one.
In terms of international law and the UN charter the war was an illegal one. The Secretary General Annan at the time said so himself.
I'm not a law expert, so perhaps Flee or someone with more expertise can correct me on this, but various allies were already involved with military action against Iraq in response to various breaches of US resolutions. UN resolution 1441 does not constrain Member states to defend itself from the threat posed by Iraq and its breaches. 1441 also made clear that Iraq would “face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations”.

Annan is either blowing smoke up people's arses or his opinion holds no legal weight. Either way, it's clear there was at least some semblance of legal basis for this war, and if the UN want to chalk it up to illegality then perhaps they should stop making their resolutions so fucking vague.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
It might not have been a last resort, but it was a perfectly legal one.
In terms of international law and the UN charter the war was an illegal one. The Secretary General Annan at the time said so himself.
Kofi Anan can suck my polished dick.

The SG doesn't have the authority to declare the legality of a war; only the Security Council can do that.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,949 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


 
gats
| alo
 
more |
XBL: goooots
PSN:
Steam: goootsby
ID: Gatsby
IP: Logged

19,293 posts
You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are. I hope you find peace in yourself and learn to love instead of hate.
Does anybody actually care about whether or not a war is "legal"? I mean it's war.

It's about whether or not it's a good idea.
I was just addressing Mordo where he claimed that the war was legal which is simply untrue, only 4 nations in the UNSC announced they would support an invasion. Also in regard to whether it was a good idea the biggest issues that plagued the occupation post Saddam were recognised prior to the war as Chilcot says here: “The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”