And another thing…

“But generally speaking, war criminals are people who deliberately ordered the targeting of civilians during a military engagement, or who either ordered, or did nothing to prevent, the execution or torture of their opponents. In other words, someone who “committed war crimes”.”

Um… yes? That’s exactly it…

You make it sound so neat and tidy. tony Blair after two votes went into a war which was unpopular with some people, imposed democracy and withdrew. Job done. But to gloss over the catastrophe that the war was for the people and the infrastructure in Iraq, to dismiss the millions of people who protested in London in March 03 as “some people”, and to ignore the “horlicks” of dodgy dossiers and dubious claims (45 mins for example) – to do this is as facile as comparing Blair to Hitler. To be Not Nearly As Bad As Hitler does not mean what happened was ok.

You’ll never silence us libertarians Tom! Most of the time the use of ‘Gestapo’ or ‘Police state’ are used in the following context: ” we are BECOMING like a police state”.

Surely you cannot deny the erosions of liberties under your government? People merely want to draw light to this and show a dramatic view of where this can lead.

Oh and anything John Rentoul says on Tony Blair is not worth hearing. The man has such a hard on for the ex-PM its almost unbelievable! I attended a pannel with Mr Rentoul on it and he declared that not only did he think Mr Blair was a great PM (fair enough) but he was the best PM who had ever lived. Not since the war, not in the 20th/21st Century, but ever, ever. Such a strong sycophant has worthless opinions.

Is Tony Blair a “war criminal” – if Parliament is still sovereign (and thats debatable) then clearly the answer is no.

Totally agree that various ‘police state’ comments bandied about are ridiculous.

Just to play devil’s advocate on the last point though, wouldn’t you accept that some crimes are worse than others? If I nick a loaf of bread I’m hardly Harold Shipman but I’m still a criminal. If a leader orders an invasion and that act is contrary to international law is that not by definition a criminal act and thus the leader a war criminal?

That isn’t my view but an illustration that the term ‘war criminal’ is fairly ambiguous.

“unpopular with some people”…

Actually, according to the Wiki article on casus belli,
“Effectively international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN. Any war for another cause is considered illegal and those who engage in it subject to prosecution for a war crime.”

Now, whilst it can be (and the Americans have) argued that the Iraq invasion occurred because of self-defence, clearly Saddam did NOT posses the WMD’s that Bush claimed, and therefore the invasion was not due to self-defence.
In addition, the UN did not grant their approval. So, yeah, if you want to see things according to the letter of international law, as opposed to “international law as long as the US agree”, then yes, Tony Blair and his administration, along with George Bush and his staff, could well be war criminals. They may have illegally invaded Iraq. Just because some war criminals have committed extremely atrocious acts of barbarism and others have done things that are morally a lot less unpleasant doesn’t mean they’re not all war criminals, just like if i mugged someone I’d be a criminal even though someone who rapes and kills 15 women is also a criminal. Your argument’s looking a little damp on that score, Tom. I think it may even be leaking, ’cause it doesn’t hold water!

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think we all see the world is better off without Saddam, even with the myriad of horrors that have happened in Iraq due to insurgency, but the invasion was handled badly, not enough diplomacy was conducted, and as the Telegraph’s documents now show, Blair may have even misled the House by claiming preparations to invade were not being taken when in fact they were.
So, according to some very good sources, we have an illegal invasion of Iraq, the deliberate misleading of Parliament (to say nothing of the People), the deaths of numerous service personnel in said war…

I don’t think I’m adequately qualified to say whether Tony Blair and others involved are guilty of war crimes or not.
What I do know is that you’re not qualified to say so either. Neither are the Telegraph. Neither is Gordon Brown (who as a member of his Government would surely bear some blame as well). Nor the “independent” inquiry into Iraq that I understand won’t be allowed to consider the matter in any case….

I do know who is qualified to make that judgement though…
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC?lan=en-GB

You really are intent on becoming nothing more than a parody aren’t you?

Tony Blair ran roughshod over parliamentary democracy, declared an illegal war, was complicit in the torture of not only enemy combatants but civilians, is directly responsible for the deaths of Iraqi and Afghani civilians caught in the wars he was happy to join, and was nothing more than a lickspitle to those more powerful than himself.

…taking Britain to war …, then imposing democracy then withdrawing troops…

Interesting post. Analogies are always problematical and most intelligent people can manage to understand the sentiment.

War Criminal, well there is a debate regarding the legality of the invasion and questions over the truth behind what was really known and what was lied about.

Police State, perhaps you need to look at your parties changes to the law and try to have a closer look at the new legislation being debated in particular reference to Police Stop and Search powers.

You may also wish to consider a state in which ‘justice’ is meted out by other than the judiciary. Your state is one in which there is no need to tell people crimes for which they are being charged, before locking them up, sounds a little draconian to me.

That aside, your final paragraph …. impose democracy…. What right does this country have to tell any other country what system of leadership they should have. Other than being the USAs little poodle, running around on their super power status, is there any country which would give a damn about what little old Britain thinks about worldwide politics?

…impose democracy… that in itself is an indication of the aggressive thought control British politicians delude themselves they have a right to impose on everyone.

Really Tom. King Canute comes to mind, but being a Labour man you have probably never heard of him.

You are trying to defend the indefencable

You are spliting hairs. Blair knew what he was up to. He created the war, it was ilegal. He may not have ordered the killing of civilians directly, but he was responsible for their deaths. As a human being just how can you defend it. This is the most sickening piece you have posted and it saddens me greatly.

No UN mandate for attacking Iraq = illegal war.

I wasn’t aware of anyone suggesting Blair is anything like Hitler. Clearly he isn’t anything like as bad as history’s cast of evil dictators. However, he did lead Britain into an illegal and unnecessary war which has resulted in the deaths of many thousands. Surely, if we aspire to equality and justice in this world, he should be held to account for his actions in The Hague.

Tom

under the Geneva convention Blair had a duty of care to safeguard civilians. Due to the brazen lack of post-invasion planning, he could quite easily be tried for this war crime.

But far more importantly he allegedly took a prominent roll in an unprovoked attack-he made aggressive war-last time I checked that was a war crime. The Nazi’s to whom you refer were hanged for it.

I think you protest too much, are you honestly saying you disagree with these points?

Ross

‘War criminal? “Tony Blair’s as bad as Hitler, innit? I mean, taking Britain to war in Iraq after two votes in Parliament, then imposing democracy then withdrawing troops… I mean, two peas in a pod, eh?” ‘ – Excellent.

Looks like the quality of your barrack room lawyers is on the floor.

It is hard to imagine any state without some police, and the really scary news is that the Hannan/Carswell led Tories may want them elected. Bojo sacked one he had admitted was doing an excellent job – with crime down etc – for political reasons, and some senior army officers have been making party political propaganda.

This election may be the most critical since 1945.

This sort of failure in real professional accountability because “The People” or their populist representatives take direct control is reminiscent of fascism and trotskyism.

Scary . . . . and the silly “Blair ate Iraq” nonsense is just propaganda of the same ilk, whencever it comes, intended to push people into the arms of extremists.

Well the estimates range from 100,000 deaths upwards, and he lied through his teeth to take us into war.

These are my primary reasons for ceasing to vote Labour.

I find it genuinely offensive that you would seek to satirise people, natural Labour voters, who still feel betrayed by Blair’s actions.

You will have a long period in opposition to ponder whether not being as bad as the Nazis was really a high enough standard, and to chuckle about us ’silly’ people.

Ashley – I was not satirising those who opposed the war – some of my best friends, etc. I was attacking the middle class wet dream beloved of Guardian readers everywhere that Blair is a war criminal.

Going back to an earlier comment about International Law – there is no such thing.

There are a collection of national laws which each country agrees to abide by. There is nothing stopping the UK changing its own internal laws to render such international agreements void within the UK.

You only have to look at the vast array of “international laws” that have not been ratified by the USA to realise what a nonsense the concept is. Even the UK tends to pass edited versions of the agreements into British law when they are presented to Parliament.

I often ask people who claim there is some sort of international law in existence, what would happen if the UK turned around and stuck the proverbial two fingers up at it? Who in the UK would be prosecuted, how would they be arrested and who would prosecute them?

Agreed, the international community could impose sanctions on the UK, but there is no international policeman who can turn up unannounced one morning and arrest the Prime Minister (or the Queen).

There were no lies to take Britain to war of course. Those who claim there were are either deluded or up to no good.

It has been another sign of the fragility of their ‘beliefs’ that so many have expressed their fears that the current independent Inquiry – set up by HMG – will come to conclusions which correspond to those of previous Inquiries into related matters.

While there are and will be many matters for concern and action to prevent errors, innocent and NOT proven guilty would summarise the results so far.

The IraqWar2 irregulars remind me of Mr Chameleon’s calls for elections – one a week would suit – to be held until he wins one . . .

Tom,

While I do not think that our dtate is anywhere near the Nazi state, or that TB is as bad as Hitler.

The analogy to Nazi Germany are allowed as if the amount of laws and the way Justice has been done under Labour continues unabated, we will become such a state.

TB while not as bad as Hitler has possibly broken international law in regards to Iraq and if found guilty (by the Hague), is a war criminal.

The fact that I think we should just say “Veni vidi vici” when foreign countries moan at us is beside the point I generally want to put after that “get over it” but that might be going too far…

Tom, you may say I’m a wet dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

But I would argue that your final paragraph does satirise people who geneuinely believe that this war was illegal and that the govt did nothing to prevent the torture of detainees.

I hope some day you’ll join us, and the wo-orld can live as one.

Think This said to Tom: “Surely you cannot deny the erosions of liberties under your government?”

I think you’ll find Tom can deny this. Basically, because he caused most of it with his appalling voting record and complete unwillingness to hold the Government to account.

Guess that makes Tom a quisling (to carry on the Gestapo theme).

Well argued as far as it goes, but to paraphrase the French guy, the invasions were worse than a crime, they were stupid – as was evident from the moment we saw Blair standing beside Bush going ‘America stood beside us during the Blitz blah blah’.

Like no doubt thousands of others watching I was appalled that we were being led into war by a man who did not know that most Americans had no sympathy at al for Britain during the Blitz – one poll in 1940 gave 10% support in the US for the UK!

The simple truth is that Blair loved wars – indeed it seems that he took Britain into more wars than any other prime minister for over a hundred years. While I would agree with some of the interventions, and disagree with others, Blair’s motivations remain a complete mystery to me – and perhaps himself.

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

Economic control: So, what percentage of GDP is government? Add in all the off-the books projects… 55-60%? Up to 15 million jobs that require citizens to be subjected to a POLICE database search to enable them to work in roles that may bring them into contact with children.

Social control: What pictures can I looks at, books can I read? Where can I smoke next to other consenting smokers? How many laws passed have been purely moral laws with little to no evidence to back it up.

Political control: How are the laws on peaceful protest doing? Do I still have to give the police not only seven days notice, but the power of veto over the protest? Are there still ‘free speech’ zones? Do I still get monitored by the police and/or security services if I join a minority party? Also, 90 days detention? A political party in charge arguing for 3 months arrest without charge and expecting 48 days to be a ‘reasonable’ compromise!

“…little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive” Doesn’t really need much comment.

I would suggest warning that the UK is in danger of becoming a Police State is neither overkill nor does it reduce the power or legitimacy of the comparison.

It is actually quite ironic that the reasons given for most of the totalitarian laws, terrorism, isn’t being adequately defended against due to ridiculous political correctness, e.g. police have to randomly stop and search a demographically representative ratio of people in spite of the suicide bombing community being almost exclusively non-white.

All war is a crime.

A war criminal is someone on the losing side.

Whatever else Tony Blair is, and I have a not very flattering list, he is not a war criminal.

He is however directly responsible, along with Gordon Brown, for deploying British forces into elective wars knowing they were not properly equipped, a situation they both first tried to ignore, then tolerated for years, knowing this increased the risk to those personnel. The Twea Corbies certainly betrayed British forces, whether they committed a crime, such as culpable manslaughter, should be the subject of an enquiry and if need be, criminal prosecution.

Want to know whats wrong with Labour and this country. Read Toms blog again and the replies.

Tom just does not get it. Politics is so far removed from the people it hard to comprehend.
We have less say about our everyday lives than ever before. Power is being taken away from the sharp end bit by bit. Government is remote and totaly out of touch with the people. I have never known anything like it.

Like no doubt thousands of others watching I was appalled that we were being led into war by a man who did not know that most Americans had no sympathy at al for Britain during the Blitz – one poll in 1940 gave 10% support in the US for the UK!

Roosevelt was in favour of supporting Britain and was trying to gain the support of Congress at that time. Possibly the poll conducted asked a particular section of American society. Certainly Americans of Eastern European extract opposed Hitler’s aggression towards Poland and Czechoslovakia and wanted the US to support Britain’s stand against Hitler.

Blair is not a war criminal. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq are very complex, and it doesn’t help that most of the media had an anti-Blair agenda during the run-up and subsequent invasion of Iraq. However, it’s emotionally comforting for people to ignore the complexities and think in terms of black and white – and see Blair as a war-mongering caricature, ignoring the real villain of the piece, mass murderer of his own people, Saddam Hussein. No, conveniently ignore all that, it’s just so nice to revel in the warm glow of specious moral righteousness.

A definition of “properly equipped” would be equipment such that no-one was killed, or would it be so that no-one complained?

In every war people die, and there could always be more and better equipment.

Tory Gen Dannat said: “You can never have enough helicopters.”

Are the nations which, perforce, use the British hospital, inadequately equipped?

The defeat of the 48 days compromise, Paul, meant Only that the detention of suspected terrorists will be made public sooner than would otherwise have been the case, which might well lead to greater risk to those brave men and women who covertly spy on suspected terrorists.

Great Britain’s record of intercepting such people is superb. No wonder “libertarians” and other trolls etc try to scupper such.

And, of course, while such lengthy detention might not ever have been used, the traitors and twits who openly oppose security measures sent Their signal to the terrorists, undermining our country and her security, as ever.

At least Blair isn’t Jewish. That would scotch his reputation with Miles (check that nasty little article).

>> to dismiss the millions of people who protested in London in March 03 as “some people”,

It wasn’t even in the multiples of millions. And, so what? They were bused in as part of a managed event, with warm clothing and toilet stations and hot food. Hardly a latter day Jarrow.

And it still left 58 millions who didn’t march, and a majority of those polled who supported the invasion.

@Quietzapple “There were no lies to take Britain to war of course. Those who claim there were are either deluded or up to no good.”

Thank goodness for that. At last some hard evidence to bash those conspiracy-theorists with.

Except that the 45-minute claim was added to the Iraq Dossier by spin doctors and then presented to Parliament and the Country as a fact.

Except that one of the UK’s foremost experts in the field, didn’t think Iraq even had WMDs, let alone had the capability to launch them within 45 minutes. (But unfortunately we can no longer ask for his opinion.)

I really hope the lastest Iraq enquiry concludes without leaving more questions than answers.

This Government owes that much to Peter Brierley and others parents of soldiers killed in Iraq.

@ John

If your country is not attacked (it wasn’t) and neither were your allies (they weren’t) and you launch an elected (or unprovoked) war without UN backing then that is a war crime. Sorry mate, it just is.

what we should be even more worried about, is the fact that 100s of Labour MPs like Tom here voted it through parliament based on the total canard that Iraq had WMD. They did not, the Labour MPs were told that they did not by the people protesting in Glasgow and London and elsewhere, yet they still went ahead and did it.

Sickening really

>> No UN mandate for attacking Iraq = illegal war.

Poppycock. The UN is not a supra-democratic organization… concepts such as “war crimes” came into being after tens of millions of civilian deaths.

Furthermore, Saddam was in persistent violation of the 1993 UN Resolutions which were binding… how d’you suggest they have been enforced? Harsh language?

This is my main objection to the hysterical demands to completely own the conversation, to be morally and legally correct. Just as with the claimthat the invasion was hugely unpopular or, even, opposed by a majority of the country (it wasn’t), if the central plank is made of illegality, when it turns out that this charge is, at best, vague, an honest debater would cede the point.

Except, seeing everything through the prism of Iraq, some people just cannot.

>> Well the estimates range from 100,000 deaths upwards,

From presenting these deaths, caused mostly by the same forces opposing the invasion, as Blair’s responsibility to:

>> and he lied through his teeth to take us into war.

No he did not.

>> These are my primary reasons for ceasing to vote Labour.

This is not about how you feel about yourself. The responsibility of a national government is to care for its population and the country’s interests – domestic or foreign. If you claim to have been believed in the principles of Labour – workers rights, that sort of thing – what sort of perversion is there in welcoming in a Tory government?

Presumably you didn’t mind voting for Labour when it or organizations associated with it were riddled with Soviet sympathizers and KGB agents.

Sorry to break this to you, but the rank-and-file inhabitants of these nations who will be directly affected by any Tory government give no more thought to the invasion of Iraq than they do the current situation in Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile, you’ll feel pleased with yourself for not placing a cross on a piece of paper, and fall back onto your economic cushin.

It’s all a laff, innit?

I think there is a legal definition of what a war criminal is. But I don’t know what it is or whether Tony Blair fits the criteria.

On a common sense level I can’t agree that someone is automatically a war criminal if they “deliberately order the targeting of civilians”. By that definition Winston Churchill is a war criminal.

I have heard it quoted that 8 out of 10 people who die in wars are civilians. I don’t know if that is accurate but it sounds logical to me. Soldiers do have a greater degree of protection than civilians when they come under fire. Complaints have been made about the level of protective kit that our soldiers in Iraq were equipped with but at least they had some kind of protection. Ordinary Iraqis didn’t.

I think realistically therefore that we have to accept that in any war the majority of people who die are going to be civilians. We should not always assume that means that the people doing the killing are motivated by wanting to kill civilians or that the killing in itself is deliberate. More often I would suspect it means that the presence of civilians will not stay their hand.

For me, that does not mean that we can never fight wars. I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when it is necessary to fight wars and live with the consequences.

If however a war is not necessary then yes I tend to think it is a crime. Whether or not people believe that the war in Iraq was necessary is a matter of judgment. I don’t think it was necessary and furthermore I think that the UK Government engaged in some pretty dodgy tactics to make it appear necessary.

Tony Blair will never be tried for his role in the matter of course. But he will still have to live with the consequences of his actions and I don’t envy him that. He could have been remembered as the man who helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, instead his reputation will be forever tarnished by Iraq and the perception that he lied to take the country to a war in which many thousands of innocents have died.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/22/iraq-invasion-no10-cover-up

“Military commanders believe the governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes”

@Indy. You say “perception”. I say “knowledge”. We KNOW he lied.

Did David Kelly not *support* the invasion?

>> Like no doubt thousands of others watching I was appalled that we were being led into war by a man who did not know that most Americans had no sympathy at al for Britain during the Blitz – one poll in 1940 gave 10% support in the US for the UK!

At the time, Americans had as much investment in the European war as Britons did in the Saddam-induced mystery of Iraqis. If a much higher support for ending the latter amongst Britons polled can be dismissed, there can’t be any moral outrage at the former.

Plus, it could be argued that the benefits of American eventually joining weren’t seen for a few years.

PS I consider the invasion of Iraq to have been grossly ill-judged without any semblance of an end game in mind. I am relieved that there is no chance of Labour getting in for my constituency (even if the PPC weren’t a little squirt), and that I personally like the current MP (even though he’s a LibDem) because it won’t require me to make a decision over its social policies (same for the SNP), such as sooking up to Islamism which has damaged the *internal* make-up of the country.

It’s also woth mentioning that Blair is one of these people who ‘believes’. He is, as Iain Banks once eloquently put it; “an old- fashioned religious nutter”. The problem is he applied his ‘belief’ to his work. Not for him looking at the evidence or consulting as many people as possible before acting. No, his deeply held belief and feeling that he was doing the right thing was enough for him and, lo and behold, you have an illegal invasion. Of course he’s a bloody war criminal. And a liar.

@Alec,

deposing Saddam was not the reason for the Iraq war. If it was, people would legitamatly ask why we have not gone to war to depose Mugabe or the brutal leadership of Burma.

“It’s all a laff, innit?”

That just demeans your whole argument.

Simon:

Fraid your biggest porkie is as far as I need go.

Dr Kelly DID believe that Saddam still had or was developing the means to WMDs.

His close friend Julie Flint of the Guardian has not had her word on that matter challenged by any but trolls etc:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973387/posts

I know you, and your ilk, will feel free to . . . dissemble . . . as ever.

At least Blair was rejected by the EU. They know he has lost any reputation he had. He will never achieve real power again. He made the biggest foreign polcy mistake since Chamberlain in 1939, and that is what Blair will be remembered for.Gordon Brown will be remembered for ………

Quietzapple,

lol! Your naivete is actually rather endearing.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Depends very much on your point of view.

I’ll not mention Tony Blair, except to say that the facts suggest we were hoodwinked. I’ll leave it there.

What is interesting is why this post has been written. It’s been a long time coming, I think. Thinking back, you have been consistent in your eschewing of what you might call “rhetoric”. The “1984″/”Brave New World” topic springs to mind.

I say consistent because, even when you are interviewed you plough a very straight furrow, avoiding bombast, metaphor, exaggeration and in fact, anything but conviction with simple words. It works!

So it is no surprise that you find colourful and exaggerated language your bete noir.

I am guilty, by the way. Actually I think you are right about the “Gestapo” meme. It is a bit lazy, if you think about it, and ultimately devalues the reality.

There is a converse side to this. The loony left love to use “ist” or “phobic” to every little thing they find disagreeable. Maybe I will swop you, like for like?

I suspect it will transpire that GB was not the only ally which went to the Second Iraq war believing that the USA had adequate plans for the redevelopment of that country, politically, and economically.

Very few people anticipated the civil/religious war which ensued, and no-one has yet convinced me that such a conflict would not have occurred in time in any event.

The crisis in Islam worldwide was inevitable, as I learned in the ’70s, and its course remains uncertain.

@IanVisits

“…Going back to an earlier comment about International Law – there is no such thing…”

Absolutely, and a point I’ve made several times on this blog.

The nearest sanction having any international credence at all regards treaties. And we had no treaty with Iraq.

The war may have been wrong, either wilfully so, or, as I believe, through faulty intelligence.

But by definition, it was not illegal.

Oh Johnny, Johnny, Johnny . . . No, no no! (You aren’t related to Fanny Craddock are you?)

Angela Merkle and the others have their reasons, but both she and Sarcozy obviously trust Tony Blair, just not the most suitable man for that job, now, and the job needed to go to one of the smaller countries.

Von Rompuy’s initial term is 2.5 years, and max term 5 years.

My bet is Tony Blair will take the job of President of the EU Council at one of those junctures, it will be his time, and that will suit Britain very well.

Some great comments.

anarchyintheuk has very valid points, incl:

“Analogies are always problematical and most intelligent people can manage to understand the sentiment.”

And as Think This said,

“we are BECOMING like a police state.”

IanVisits’ comments about so-called ‘international law’ are really important. Some people (mentioning no MPs by name) still think the increasing numbers who talk about the New World Order are just conspiracy nuts, despite the exact phrase being used by world ‘leaders’.

Maybe they’re jokers like you, Tom, or perhaps they also think handing over their sovereignty to an unaccountable cabal that dreams up ‘international law’ and imposes ‘carbon taxes’ is the right thing to do.

Is Blair a war criminal? He’s arguably worse than that: he’s a traitor. I have absolutely no doubt about it. Someone mentioned Quisling. That’s what Blair is. A traitor who took this country to war for his buddy George W Bush, who went to war for his and Cheney’s buddies in the arms, petrochemical and infrastructure rebuilding giants, like Halliburton (Cheney’s former company).

“I was attacking the middle class wet dream beloved of Guardian readers everywhere that Blair is a war criminal.”

Blair led Britain into an illegal war. Therefore he is guilty of a war crime.

I, for one, am not “middle class” (I don’t earn anywhere near as much as an MP), I take no pleasure (sexual or otherwise) from Blair’s misdemeanours, and I read the Dundee Courier (which in my opinion is much better than the Guardian).

>> Blair led Britain into an illegal war. Therefore he is guilty of a war crime.

Spare us the childish petulance of repition. It’s the tactic of Arnold Judas Rimmer when he delayed a game of draughts with the skutters in order to win.

*child petulance of repetition

I gather that Chilcot has decided that he will not be deciding wether the 2nd Iraq War was illegal, illegally declared & etc.

He seems to suggest that the wisdom or otherwise of the war, and other related issues are worth studying.

The views of prof Geof Alderman are well worth considering. The war was legally declared, because of the correctly perceived threats, which had already been proven in previous conflicts & when Saddam used chemical weapons (for example) even against his own people.

Cannot recall wether the Iraqis executed him for war crimes or genocide against his own citizens?

Anyone help?

@Quietzapple “Very few people anticipated the civil/religious war which ensued, and no-one has yet convinced me that such a conflict would not have occurred in time in any event.”

Oh for goodness sake. it might be best not to comment if you really do have so little knowledge as this.

The Sunnis and the Shias have hated each other for years, and there is a wealth of evidence that the minority Sunnis subjected the majority Shias to systematic discrimination during Saddams reign.

Saddam, (a Sunni), ruled with an iron fist, so there was never going to be a civil war while he was alive. However, the second Iraq War left a huge power vaccuum, and subsequently years of civil war.

For anyone to suggest “very few people anticipated it”, is just silly.

Saddam actually did operate a police state on a particularly personal basis.

He had his own personal chemical weapons expert – Chemical Ali – and assistant murderers of various kinds, some of them relatives.

Those who claim we have anything like that, or have moved in that direction, should Quit the loop on their Space Opera Flicks . . . Have a cup of tea!

>> deposing Saddam was not the reason for the Iraq war.

You’re having a laff.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-06.htm

>> If it was, people would legitamatly ask why we have not gone to war to depose Mugabe or the brutal leadership of Burma.

Anti-war types make rubbish tactians. Zim would have required land-access across countries with poor infra-structure and transportation routes. Burma would have required a sea-borne invasion, but launched from where… Diego Garcia?

Considerable forces were already present right across the border from Iraq, and the skies under US control.

Beside, if Zim or Burma had been invaded, I have absolutely no doubt you’d be whining, why not Iraq?

>> That just demeans your whole argument.

Why, ‘cos you say so? I was referring to Ashley’s risk-free posturing and withdrawing of his gracious permission for Labour to exist.

What did you think I was referring to?

Funnily enough the Iraq/Afghanistan/WotIslamo-fascism? conspiracy theorists echo the idealism of the fascists and communists of the ’30s, and, while they often proclaim their liberalism or socialism, are often in parallel with such.

In a similar way we have muslims being confabulated with islamo-fascists, Saddam the victim, Tony Blair the villain.

@Quietzapple
Your unquestioning defence of this government does you no credit.

How are anti-terrorism laws being used? They are used by councils to see if you are trying to send your kid to a better school, they are used by average PCs to stop and search people 100% unrelated to terrorism, they are used to spy on the populous at large, they are used to justify huge databases of private information held (sometimes not held!) by ‘public servants’.

But to try to justify indefinite detention without charge as some way to save our brave spies is ridiculous. The police lock you up before they have to show ANY evidence that you have done or are planning anything, they then have 3 months to discover/fabricate evidence that you may be up to something (doesn’t have to be terrorist related) and then they charge you, or let you go. During which time your wife is shacked up with the local builder, your business has gone down the tubes and the bank has foreclosed on your mortgage. Or you could tell the police what they want to know on day 1. Explain how that isn’t torture, or cruel and unusual punishment at least.

Tosh that those who avoid the residential requirements for some state schools by lying or flipping their residences are innocent and deserve not to be effectively investigated, as benefit frauds, for example, always have been.

There may well be a case where charging terrorists will lead to the deaths of those who battle on our behalf, while holding them which highly complex technical IT evidence for example would avoid that.

Or release rather and charge is necessary and an operation being closed down, leading to terrorist atrocities which we might otherwise have prevented.

Some shame our country, often tax expats in my experience of such “debates” on the Dully Tele.

>> Saddam, (a Sunni), ruled with an iron fist, so there was never going to be a civil war while he was alive. However, the second Iraq War left a huge power vaccuum, and subsequently years of civil war.

He had stomach cancer. What did you think was going to happen when he went to chin-wag with a Higher Power? A transfer to stable governance led by those nice sons of his?

@Alec “>> deposing Saddam was not the reason for the Iraq war.

You’re having a laff.”

Going to war simply for regime change was not legal, hence to reason to invent WMDs.

“The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.”

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=000696

And again:

>> Saddam, (a Sunni), ruled with an iron fist, so there was never going to be a civil war while he was alive.

I honestly don’t know what to make of this. Is Simon saying that the state application of extreme violence, which made the Anne Clwyd’s belief in death by wood-chipper seem credible, is preferable to civil war? That he could sleep easier if it were Arabs killing Arabs, with no European involvement?

Something more morally foul?

Tony Blair lied to parliament and the public and if he hadn’t lied we would never have gone to war. Indeed the government then ’sexed up’ – New Labour speak for inserted lies, a dossier which proved the above.

Shameful enough, but let’s run with your definition:

“…did nothing to prevent, the execution or torture of their opponents.”

‘Guantánamo torture: UK wants claims of complicity to be heard in secret’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/guantanamo-torture-claims-court-case

Spin it how you wish but New Labour has the blood of Iraqis, Afghans and British Soldiers on its hands.

Quietzapple, if a certain level of terrorist activity is a necessary price of freedom then I gladly pay it.

You pay the price of freedom to live in security. When you awaken from your slumber you will see that your security is an illusion and your freedom has been taken by those who claimed to be looking after your security.

Of course, there are those that claim a reduction/cessation of foreign intervention would massively reduce the potential level of domestic terrorism and thus remove the need for draconian laws ‘for our own good’. I don’t subscribe to that view personally due to the moral imperative to stop genocides etc. but it is a decent argument.

@Quietzapple “Very few people anticipated the civil/religious war which ensued, and no-one has yet convinced me that such a conflict would not have occurred in time in any event.”
//

Preposterous statement. Any one with the slightest knowledge of the Middle East knows that our involvement in it over the past 100 years has been nothing short of disastrous.

I do not consider myself an expert, but when we went to war, I said to a cousin and a cousin’s partner, both of whom applauded it, that we did not have a clue what we had done, and that we had opened a Pandora’s box.

And so it has proved. There are still some 4000 deaths a month in Iraq from the leftovers of this bastard war, and we are no nearer peace in the Middle East.

Your final sentence is irrelevant. All you say is “I think it was going to happen anyway”. Therefore we were right do go to war, is that it?

QZ. Given your age, your debating skills are not yet even of the 6th form level. They seem to be

“I’m right, therefore, I’m right”

Yeah. Right.

Alec
Voting is not posturing. I think it’s only fair to let the Labour party know where it’s support is going. I don’t seek to change anyone else’s mind, I don’t think there’s any point in pursuing Blair, I don’t seek to own the debate and I graciously permit the Labour party to continue to exist.

It will have to do so, however, without my vote, the only democratic sanction I have.

@Alec,

“I honestly don’t know what to make of this. Is Simon saying that the state application of extreme violence, which made the Anne Clwyd’s belief in death by wood-chipper seem credible, is preferable to civil war? ”

Actually, I’m not saying that. There are many regimes around the world that treat their citizens poorly. I already mentioned Burma and Zimbabwe. Are you saying we should declare war on them all ? If not, what makes Saddam so much worse than the others, that we should have picked him out ? Is an Arab state-induced death somehow worse than a Burmese state-induced death ?

The truth is, we cannot, legally, effect regime change in any country. We can influence and cajole. That is how the iron curtain fell. Not through war.

On your earlier point, Saddams death by cancer would not have left the same power-vacuum created by the war.

SIMON >> Going to war simply for regime change was not legal, hence to reason to invent WMDs.

Really, really drop it. I’ve given you a Hansard report… have a look through it and tell me what demonstrable lies Blair made.

Invent WMDs??? Even Hans Blix and David Kelly suspected he had them as of 2003. And, what really makes me laff about claims that supplies of chemicals were six or more years out of date was that this STILL MEANT THEY WERE IN-DATE FOUR YEARS AFTER SADDAM HAD BEEN REQUIRED TO DESTROY THEM.

Of course he was trying to play the game. He failed. Bully for him.

The war’s over. The enemy leader is as dead as Napoleon. Get over it.

WRINKLED WEASEL >> One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Depends very much on your point of view.

I’m not one to take my political cues from Gerald Seymour novels, but this quotation refers to Harry’s Game and Norn Ireland.

Setting aside the matter of the threat there coming from Provo thugs, with eager assistence from Red Hand loonies, the killings post-2003 in Iraq have been of another league altogether.

They’re plain evil.

War criminal = No

Negligent to the point of culpable homicide = Yes

At least the former may be born of purpose.

His lack of knowledge, experience and worst of all his obsession with message and spin has left many many more people dead than needed.

Let this be a lesson as to what really happens when grinning showmen rather than statesmen are given the reins of power.

‘Things can only get better’, the ex-hippie wannabe and all round media whore had no idea what was round the corner when he was sipping champagne with Noel Gallagher. Can’t imagine those sofa chats in Islington spent much time going over the covenant, force projection, counter insurgency warfare and the next 30 years of Middle-Eastern politics…

Still, at least he had some more female MPs so its all OK in the end.

WMD materials are missing from the USSR arsenal, we still are not sure re Iraq’s materials, no need to have a rocket to deliver chemical or biological – even nuclear weapons.

Not prepared to pay with my kids’ lives, those of expats who troll on the subject to my certain knowledge debatable.

Good reason why Uk residents should have a vote, and those abroad should not. Not the only factor, true, but a big one.

I visited the coast yesterday, Gobsmacked there were no roadblocks, no self evident crime here or there, wasn’t interrogated, not the same country some of your Trolls write about, eh, Tom?

Question for you Tom.

When those folks in Germany called it a police-state, at which point were they predicting and being accused of falsity and at what point were they starting to be accurate?

When did those anti-Nazis go from scaremongering to prescience?

We may well not have a police state today, but the way you punters have been legislating, give it a few years and your above complaint will mean nothing.

Lefties can never think in long-term trends, seemingly only abstract concepts. Hence the consequences of their actions are always an unwanted surprise.

The great conceit, of course, is the belief that our “democracy” (of which more to follow, courtesy of CS Lewis’s wonderful Screwtape Letters) is not only the best way to run a state, but the only one, and that we have a right to impose it on others.

Grotesque arrogance.

Foolish Fuming . . .

Alastair Campbell claimed to have “sexed up” Blair’s case for parliament.

This was a grotesque exaggeration, read the two accounts and see for yourself. Google for yourself please.

Only a fool would believe a spin doctor’s self puffery without question, or someone who wanted to for their own reasons might pretend to I suppose . . .

Alec

“Spare us the childish petulance of repition”

As someone once said…

facts are chiels that winna ding, An downa be disputed’

@Paul,

Yes sirree. As one how missed an IRA bomb by five minutes, and heard three others go off whilst working in London, two within a quarter of a mile, I’d rather take the risk of being blown up that have my freedoms assaulted in the name of “freedom”.

I nearly kicked the radio across the room when I heard Blair say “The greatest freedom is security”. Classic New Labour pornographic degradation of language, against which Orwell warned us, to conflate the two utterly different words.

There is no other freedom than freedom, which means to not be afraid of your government. I fear this government as it has changed its remit whilst in power, as a result of 9/11 to corrupt and degrade the whole process. Everything that issues from them says – you are here to do as we say.

NO we ‘effing aren’t. YOU are there to do what WE WANT. That’s why you were appointed. Not, as the blessed Hazel used to say “What the people want…”. It is not your job to do that – it is OURS.

@QZ.

I assume Lord Chilcott will be talking to you, given your inside knowledge of the processes behind us going to war.

Given that, would you care to tell us how it was that the Attorney General, having decided initially that to go to war against Iraq would have been illegal, came to change his mind?

I’m all ears. Spill the beans, please.

Complete ninja turtle nonsense to suggest that the Islamic factional war was widely anticipated.

What was not widely anticipated was that the US would not take on the existing internal security forces and pay them almost as soon as military victory was assured.

That would have made a difference.

It ought to be amusing to be told that “we knew there would be a civil war” and “the dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people was a good thing” and “the USA’s behaviour is the fault of the British Government.”

But it is just silly, and tasteless too.

One might say, Tom, that Labour’s assault on our country devalued the memory of those such as my father who fought for it. Indeed, I would say so – he would be horrified to see what has happened to England since your lot got in.

As for a police state – do you think it OK, Tom, that the body which governs the police force, ACPO, should be a private company, which not only owns data about us, but is also, as a private company, immune to FoI requests?

What is clear is that we now have a ruling elite, answerable only to themselves (e.g. Jacqui Smith embezzling £100k from the public purse, and being allowed to keep it), to whom the laws of the land are a tool to keep us down, not to create a fair society.

Tell me how the more than 3000 new criminal offences have improved our green and pleasant land? Tell me, Tom, how streets devoid of police, but full of petty officials, in petty uniforms, ready to find you for shaking your cigarette ash on the ground, have improved society? Tell me how ASBOs, a lay which allows criminal offences to be invented on the spot, have improved society.

Indeed, tell me oh wise on, just HOW New Labour have improved our lot?

QZ

WTF are you on about? No-one is saying that Saddam was a good thing for Iraq (despite the fact that both our govt and the USA were happy to deal with him when it suited. Anyone who knows anything about Iraq knew that even before the war, the minority Islamic group had trouble from the majority – and it is not hard (though clearly it is for you) to extrapolate that if you remove the rule of law, you are going to get sectarian trouble?

Beardy bloke with sandals on a bicycle. You really like making an idiot of yourself in public, don’t you.

FACT. That Hussein was a tyrant was not – under international war – sufficient reason to go to war with him. Hence the WMD fantasy.

There. That wasn’t too difficult, was it.

Given what you say, why have we not also invaded Zimbabwe and Burma?

Sigh.

SERGEANT PLODDER >> Preposterous statement. Any one with the slightest knowledge of the Middle East knows that our involvement in it over the past 100 years has been nothing short of disastrous.

Gads, stupid pills are on free today, ain’t they? Releasing Arab-states from Imperial rule by the Ottoman Empire, and allowing self-determination… doh!

Decades of Soviet-meddling – it wasn’t the CIA handbook of torture techniques which Saddam used – and infiltration of post-1945 Arab states by Nazis, escaping with the help of some nice people in the Vatican… yeah, our fault.

It must be nice to think that nothing in the world happens without Western involvement. I mean, someone once told me that non-Europeans have moral agency and mastery of their own fates, but I don’t believe it.

I’ll apologize for any misguided or bad policy of the past 100 years just as soon as Europe gets an apology for the Corsair slavers who raided Ireland less than 200 years ago, or the years of subjugation of large swathes of Europe.

FRASER >> As someone once said… facts are chiels that winna ding, An downa be disputed’

So, tell us where Blair lied and why the war was illegal.

Or will you now say, “Listy, this is why men are better than machines”?

SIMON >> Actually, I’m not saying that.

It sure as heck sounds like it.

>> There are many regimes around the world that treat their citizens poorly. I already mentioned Burma and Zimbabwe. Are you saying we should declare war on them all ?

The simple reason is that we cannot ‘cos it’s no longer the age of European Imperialism when a few gunboats could take over an entire country, or just one thousand civil servants ran India.

Would Mr Common Sense please report to Simon’s head?

>> On your earlier point, Saddams death by cancer would not have left the same power-vacuum created by the war.

Don’t be bloody stupid.

SP, I’ll ask this more out of hope than expectation, where did anyone “lie” about WMD?

>> Given what you say, why have we not also invaded Zimbabwe and Burma?

I’ve dealt with that. You’d need more than Biggles in his Sopworth Camel to do that.

I’ll add that giving Gulf states billions and billions of our money in return for their vast, undeserved oil reserves has been positively cruel.

@Alec “Really, really drop it. I’ve given you a Hansard report… have a look through it and tell me what demonstrable lies Blair made.”

The dossier on Iraqs Weapons of Mass Destruction was presented to Parliament on 24th September 2002. Tony Blair falsely claimed it was solely the work on the Joint Intelligence Committee. He did not admit it had been changed by the CIC. He did not admit that the 45 minute claim was added by the CIC.

The truth is, without the changes made by Alistair Campbells department, there would not have been enough “evidence” to justify going to war.

As the British Ambassador to the US told the Bush Administration, the UK “backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever”.

Why did the plan have “to be clever” if the dossier has “established beyond doubt” taht Iraq possessed WMDs ?

Quietzapple

Go lie down in a darkened room and compose yourself. You would be far better commenting on Toms Dr Who blogs as they are about fantasy as well.

@SP

“Given what you say, why have we not also invaded Zimbabwe and Burma?”

And Sudan, Eritrea, Uzbekistan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia (where most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were from) and of course, China.

No, the ‘international community’ awarded China the Olympics instead and they just carried on with their abuses.

@Quietzapple,

The warmongers really did know that the removal of Saddam would most likely result in a civil war, thus giving them the excuse to stay in the country for as long as they want.

Humanitarian concerns were NOT the reason for the Iraq invasion.

>> The dossier on Iraqs Weapons of Mass Destruction was presented to Parliament on 24th September 2002. Tony Blair falsely claimed it was solely the work on the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Sheesh, you’re getting desperate. Six months elapsed before the vote on military action, during which time this could have been pursued in any number of directions.

Now, back to the Hansard report I gave. Given that this was concerns with the final vote in Parliament, you really need to find falsehoods in *that*.

Maybe if the public oppoisition to the invasion hadn’t been hijacked by raving, monomaniacal loonies something could have been done.

>> He did not admit that the 45 minute claim was added by the CIC.

That was true, was it not? There were weapons which could be deployed within 45 minutes. Just not CBN.

@Alec, “The simple reason is that we cannot ‘cos it’s no longer the age of European Imperialism when a few gunboats could take over an entire country, or just one thousand civil servants ran India.”

So you would invade any and all countries that treat their civilians poorly, if you could ?

Isn’t that called megalomania ?

@Alec, “That was true, was it not? There were weapons which could be deployed within 45 minutes. Just not CBN.”

Yep. He had a pistol.

>> So you would invade any and all countries that treat their civilians poorly, if you could ?

No, I’d leave them to suffer because I care more about propriety and moral righteousness. It’s probably their fault for living there.

>> Isn’t that called megalomania ?

No. Megalomania is something else.

You’ve missed the bit about my not supporting the invasion, I think. I also don’t support idiocy.

You asked a vapid question which was of as much value as pondering over the colour of your belly button fluff and presenting it as a profound cogitation. I answered.

Bohica.

>> And Sudan, Eritrea, Uzbekistan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia (where most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were from) and of course, China.

That’s it. Having a rational discussion with someone who thinks invading *China*, nuclear-armed, would be a sensible move is IMPOSSIBLE.

What is it about anti-war types which lends to complete inabaility to see the blinkingly obvious? Of course you don’t enter a war you would loose!

>> Yep. He had a pistol.

No, he had rockets and missiles, and a track record of using them – never mind CBN – against Iranian troops, and Iraqi civilians.

Stop pretending you’re in the least bit aware of the madness under the Ba’athists. Madness so extreme that, even after all that’s happened over the past six years, a majority of Iraqis *still* think Saddam’s removal was for the best.

Also, please do tell what you’ve done – other than complain on blogs – which places you on a level with, say, Harry Barnes or Nigel Griffiths or Anne Clwyd.

@Alec

Oh dear. Don’t you know how Iraq came into being. Or Israel? Even this non-historian knows that much.

@Alec “No. Megalomania is something else”

Megalomania “a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur ”

I think that definition fits.

“Also, please do tell what you’ve done – other than complain on blogs – which places you on a level with, say, Harry Barnes or Nigel Griffiths or Anne Clwyd.”

I’ve worked for 25 years. I pay my taxes. That entitles me to a vote, and an opinion. I’m not complaining. I’m debating, (along with the occasional flippancy).

It just so happens that I disagree with your opinion that war is the answer when a foreign country treats it’s citizens poorly. As I said before, war didn’t bring down the Iron Curtain.

If my opinion offends you, tough.

@Alec
//
No, he had rockets and missiles, and a track record of using them – never mind CBN – against Iranian troops, and Iraqi civilians.
//

None of these things justification for us to go to war against him. Irrelevant, in fact.

Next?

@Simon

Agreed. And these warmongerers never explain why we haven’t also invaded Zimbabwe and Burma. Or the USA (joke).

Alex,

“That’s it. Having a rational discussion with someone who thinks invading *China*, nuclear-armed, would be a sensible move is IMPOSSIBLE.”

I didn’t suggest it would be sensible. I was taking the false notion that wars are fought for humanitarian purposes to its obvious conclusion.

And I’m not an “anti-war type” if the war is justified, but in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t think it is.

If the West cared so much about Saddam’s brutality, then why did ‘we’ once support him and even let him continue after Daddy Bush’s Gulf War I?

It’s a game for your Cheneys, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, et al: real life war games and massive profiteering.

Neither Burma nor Zimbabwe has invaded a nearby country, nor used WMD materials on their own or a neighbouring country’s population. There may be other reasons . . . .

I am not convinced that the USA shared Tony Blair, let alone my own reasons for 2nd Iraq war.

If Tom doesn’t close this thread the men in white coats prob will, and Chilcot definitely will, just as previous independent inquiries should have.

You’ll want to mutter among yourselves until whichever eventuates first . . .

Quietzapple,

Typical New Labour drivel – “you are either a fool or have a sinister motive”.

Just like “if you question unfettered immigration you are racist” “if you don’t like us taking all your money in taxes and spraying the cash around you are an enemy of the poor”.

Get over yourself.

Blair has us believe that we were threatened with imminent attack from WMD’s with only 45 minute warnings. His own advisers said this was inaccurate – one voiced his opinion publicly, went for a walk and never returned.

He took us to war on blatant lies and the fact that so many young British soldiers have died is a crime against the state and therefore treasonous.

To return to the point in hand though, one of Tom’s definitions of war crimes was:

“…did nothing to prevent, the execution or torture of their opponents.”

To which I offerred the following from the Guardian:

‘Guantánamo torture: UK wants claims of complicity to be heard in secret’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/guantanamo-torture-claims-court-case

>> Oh dear. Don’t you know how Iraq came into being. Or Israel? Even this non-historian knows that much.

You clearly are a non historian. Territories in any collapsing Empire (e.g. the Ottoman Empire) geneally go to one section of the population or other. Ultimately, borders may have been determined by the likes of Sykes and Georges-Picot and Sazanov, but they were done so on the back-drop of Arab nationalism and met, in no small part, by the approval of the populations.

A territory in line with modern Iraq was created 90 years ago… that is more than enough time for mistakes to have passed into history, and current situation to become the responsibility of later generations. Some of whom may even be Iraqi.

Given the resulting mess from the creation of Balkan and Central/Eastern European post-1918, attitudes were not limited to be expressed towards non-Europeans. Yet you deny them any sense of moral agency, and present them as non-people buffetted by the true makers of history – Europeans.

And, why mention Israel rather than Lebanon or Jordan or Syria? The idea that she was founded as a European planted settlement in the region would be laughable were it not so sick, as anyone with the slightest idea of antisemitism in Europe and the presence of Jews in the region would know.

>> Megalomania “a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur ”

Yes, and commonly associated with grand statues/monuments to or ostentacious displays by the individual (rather like Saddam).

>> I think that definition fits.

Pathetic. You asked a ridiculous and assenine question, which I responded to in order to show how absurd it was. I did not support the invasion of Iraq and would not invade countries willy-nilly, so what’s the point of this brain-fart?

Given that the age of European Imperialism is long gone and never coming back, anything I say in 2009 cannot be extrapolated to what I would have had done had I been born a century beforehand to a position of absolute political power.

>> I’ve worked for 25 years. I pay my taxes.

No specific response, I see. Those three individuals, and others, have also worked and paid taxes; and dedicated a lot more of their personal time.

>> That entitles me to a vote, and an opinion.

Of course our votes do not entitle us to one-on-one influence in foreign policy. In democracies, we elect individuals for specific tasks.

Let’s see, I think I have that Alex Massie link somewhere:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5510076/sod-the-public-we-need-representatives-not-delegates.thtml

>> It just so happens that I disagree with your opinion that war is the answer when a foreign country treats it’s citizens poorly.

Whose comments are you reading?

>> As I said before, war didn’t bring down the Iron Curtain.

It did bring to an end Slobodan Milosevic’s reign of terror (and you should check out the brinkmanship which Regan and Thatcher played). A war did arguably bring an end to the Soviet Empire.

As with the pathological need to bring in countries X, Y and Z when discussing Iraq, this tendancy to splatter the conversation with third party information either indicates mental confusion – which has to present allhistory and current events as one metanarrative, with Iraq at the centre – or a conscious attempt to mislead by introducing new information rather than respond to that before.

Or both.

Fuming:

At the time I realised that the 45 minutes referred to the possible SCUD2 attack on our warships, perhaps Malta, why didn’t you?

And, of course, Saddam’s chemical weapons, which Dr Kelly was so worried about that he believed that war was going to be the only way to prevent him from using such, can be delivered without any complex system, to London, in a few minutes if you have them in situ.

Give it up, you will only suffer still more.

In effect you are merely defending an evil defunct dictator.

Jolly Good Show.

Oh, re the unfettered immigration,, my son’s band’s singer has been deported to Eygpt – she noticed the prospective fetters.

Easy to se where Frumious is coming from.

FUMING >> Blair has us believe that we were threatened with imminent attack from WMD’s with only 45 minute warnings.

Of course he did. All the contrary evidence was there, in the public domain. Tom originally referred to an article by the disgusting Oliver Miles, who believes Jews are too compromised to preform a public role.

One of the comments read, “Stop blaming others for your crimes. Blair is a Christian, Britain is a (still?) Christian country. You attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because you wanted too”.

Stop blaming Blair ‘cos you lapped it us.

>> His own advisers said this was inaccurate – one voiced his opinion publicly, went for a walk and never returned.

What, is this Kelly? D’you have evidence that there was foul play in his death? This coming from someone who has an insect in his rectum about “lying”.

>> Shameful enough, but let’s run with your definition:

>> “…did nothing to prevent, the execution or torture of their opponents.”

>> ‘Guantánamo torture: UK wants claims of complicity to be heard in secret’

No-one has been murdered at Gitmo. The criteria to enter it was armed opposition to America or extremely serious terrorism-related offences: under the Ba’athists, someone could be imprisoned for loosing a football match or being the husband of someone Saddam’s rapist-murderer son wanted.

Fewer people have passed through Gitmo in, in eight years, than would pass through Abu Ghraib (when it was Ba’athist run, and not as pressing a concern) in eight weeks.

To compare the two demonstrates your unsuitability to conduct such a discussion.

>> If the West cared so much about Saddam’s brutality, then why did ‘we’ once support him

Evidence? No, don’t claim the USA and Britain armed/trained Saddam, because you’d be wrong. Egypt supplied more equipment.

>> and even let him continue after Daddy Bush’s Gulf War I?

Because the UN writ at the time was onnly for removing him from Kuwait, not to mention the fact that he *did* have CBN weaponry. You can’t have it both ways.

>> I didn’t suggest it would be sensible. I was taking the false notion that wars are fought for humanitarian purposes to its obvious conclusion.

FFS, grow up! If you cared as much for humanitarian aims as you claim, your first concern would be alleviating the suffering where you could. Yet, in your morally depleted universe, you would leave one group of people to suffer further ‘cos you’re incapable of conceding one point to Bush or Blair.

You’re a disgrace.

And, who claimed that wars… even this war… was fought for solely humanitarian reasons? Are you smoking the same pipe as Simon who thinks that he can ask staged questions, and then project intentions onto me?

>> And I’m not an “anti-war type” if the war is justified,

You’re giving a jolly good impression of one, complete with the erroneous histories (e.g. “we” armed Saddam) and muddled thinking.

but in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t think it is.

What would one have to do for it be so? Overthrow the internationally recognized government and install one with no popular mandate, and then offer sanctuary to international pirates who launch attacks on US and Kenyan targets?

>> It’s a game for your Cheneys, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, et al: real life war games and massive profiteering.

You complete and utter moron. How many times do I have to say I did not support the invasion?

Do you have to work on this level stupidity, or does it come naturally?

>> Rothchilds,

Oh, great. Another Oliver Miles who thinks the Jews are behind it.

@Quitzapple
“Tosh that those who avoid the residential requirements for some state schools by lying or flipping their residences are innocent and deserve not to be effectively investigated, as benefit frauds, for example, always have been.”

How nice that not only do we have the massively disproportionate laws being applied to minor crime we have also lost the presumption of innocence.

Nice work, QZ!

Quietzapple, I realised the claim referred to a possible attack on say our bases in Cyprus.

Surely this is evidence of the massive spin. Since when has the ability to drop mustard gas on Cyprus (with no evidence of a desire to do so)grounds for an invasion?

If they were not spinning then why hand in an out of date university dissertation as evidence? I have witnessed no lower contempt for our intelligence than that. AC seems to have no dignity low enough to be beneath.

I was pro the war BTW.

@Alec, so, it comes down to name-calling now ? I don’t suppose you made it into the debating society then ?

“>> It just so happens that I disagree with your opinion that war is the answer when a foreign country treats it’s citizens poorly.

Whose comments are you reading?”

Yours. You claimed to have been against the war, but also glad it brought about the death of Saddam, the ends justifying the means, no doubt. You also claim that dictatorships across the world should be brought down because they mistreat their citizens, and the only reason we cannot do that is a lack of Sopworth Camels.

And to your earlier point. To separate the vote in Parliament in March 2003 from the evidence brought to Parliament in September 2002 is a little daft, since the Government did nothing in the time in between to correct the “errors” in the dossier.

“>> That entitles me to a vote, and an opinion.

Of course our votes do not entitle us to one-on-one influence in foreign policy. In democracies, we elect individuals for specific tasks.”

My goodness, you do like twisting things don’t you ? I didn’t say I’m entitled to influence foreign policy, I said I’m entitled to an opinion. I don’t have to have climbed Mount Everest to have an opinion on heights, nor do I need to have been to Ethiopia to have an opinion on starving children.

QUIETZAPPLE >> Neither Burma nor Zimbabwe has invaded a nearby country, nor used WMD materials on their own or a neighbouring country’s population.

To be fair, Zimbabwe has been firmly involved with the war in southern Congo (and nasty things happened during the Gukarahundi in the 1980s).

Not that this should be relevant to how we feel about a mistreated population. Our sympathy should be based on what’s happened, so a libertarian position in which breach of law and national soverignty is considered worse.

PAUL >> How nice that not only do we have the massively disproportionate laws being applied to minor crime we have also lost the presumption of innocence.

This refers only to not be incarcerated for an indefinite period or penalized without an investigation – otherwise arresting Police or prosecution counsels are breaching the concept.

I think it’s perfectly fair to be angered by the DWP adverts which show a claimant supplementing their income by a few quid a week being jumped upon whilst MPs bemoan being investigated as some of their colleagues have been claiming phantom mortgages.

ROGER DODGER >> Since when has the ability to drop mustard gas on Cyprus (with no evidence of a desire to do so)grounds for an invasion?

Shall we ask a Cypriot?

(Whoopsie, I see Paul was making precisely the point I was.)

SIMON >> so, it comes down to name-calling now ? I don’t suppose you made it into the debating society then ?

Oh, cry me a river. There is nothing inherently unacceptable about ad hominem personam when used as part of a wider argument. If you don’t like it, ba’heid, take up tiddilywinks.

>> Yours. You claimed to have been against the war,

Yes, and it must really confuse you. Having submitted yourself to the mob on this one, you’re filled with a mixture of complete befuddlement and contempt for anyone who doesn’t do the same.

Far from opposing subservience to Bush, you cast me out of the tent for not yeilding to *your* will. That you consider me indistinguishable from Blair and Bush is all the more darkly humourous when one considers the goons you’ve alligned your argument with, and the apologeia for the status quo ante you’ve made.

>> but also glad it brought about the death of Saddam, the ends justifying the means, no doubt.

What on Earth is wrong with having seen the removal of that thug and murderer as a consumation dearly to be wished for? The mayhem he inflicted – with Soviet training books and French or West German or Chinese equippment – on the Iraqis is beyond imagination; and despite all that’s happened since 2003, his removal is still considered for the best by them. They have also, twice now, voted in – after a fashion – their own choice of government.

But who are they to wish for control of their own fates when you, sitting in the comfort of a Western street protected by the same militaries and security services you can to criticize, are there to tell them they should have submitted to another 30 years?

Then again, considering the simmering contempt you must feel for your own countrymen who re-elected Blair just two years later, it’s maybe not surprising how little you actually care for Iraqis. It’s all a laff.

>> To separate the vote in Parliament in March 2003 from the evidence brought to Parliament in September 2002 is a little daft, since the Government did nothing in the time in between to correct the “errors” in the dossier.

Six months during which there was ample time to correct or challenge the claims without the hysterical and inaccurate outrage you’re displaying here. Where in the March 2003 *vote* – the one which actually authorized military action – were falsehoods made?

People heard from Blair what they wanted to hear. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

>> My goodness, you do like twisting things don’t you ?

This coming from the poster who accused me of being willing to invade any country if I had the military might. Twit.

Of course you were saying the fact that you pay your taxes gives you a say in this, regardless of t’others who do the same and disagree with you. Unless you live in a log-cabin with no running water, or electricity, you already avail yourself of the principle benefits of these taxes – i.e. municipal services, and living in a functioning social society.

Now, once again, what have you done a la Barnes/Griffiths/Clywd other than complaining on a blog?

Saddam had used battlefield chemical weapons, and Dr Kelly feared that he was manufacturing various chemicals which mixed together generate such.

However he was quite sure that the chemical plants of which Intelligence had aerial pics were not such. That was what he wished Gilligan to draw to the public’s attention, without making it inevitable that his name be drawn into the matter.

Obviously the 45 minutes figure might also have related to deployment of battlefield chemical weapons.

There were several excellent reasons to believe that the UK and other countries were threatened by Saddam’s WMD schemes, and, in pursuance of the UN resolutions, we were quite right to invade.

All else is byplay really.

It is still not established for certain that there were any but a few remnants of rockets and other materials in Iraq at that time. May never be.

As many chemical weapons decompose fairly quickly that would be expected.

@Alec,

You do get wound up easily don’t you.

To recap. You claimed “you’re havin a laff” when it was said the “deposing Saddam was not the reason for the war”.

Since the Attourney General stressed that in terms of legality, “regime change cannot be the objective of military action”, you are plainly wrong.

Unless you’re saying that regime change was the reason, and the whole WMD story was made up to ensure the legality of the war ?

Thanks goodness you’re not in a position of power, otherwise you’d have our fleet of Sopworth Camels flying all over the world inflicting your morality where you considered it was needed.

Only weak and selfish leaders retreat from actions which they believe are in the country’s interest, but which they realise have a strong possibility of bringing down upon them fevered obloquy for years to come.

In taking the course of most resistance, in what they perceived to be the interest of their country, Thatcher and Blair have much in common.

History may well condemn their results.

It should not condemn their motivation.

Quietzapple stop kidding yourself, it’s pathetic.

I can respect people like Anne Clwyd who supported the war because she wanted to see Saddam brought to justice. I don’t agree with her but that is a point of view that I can respect. She was motivated by concern for the Iraqi people. Fair enough.

That would never have been accepted as a reason to go to war however. Countries go to war for a number of reasons but very rarely if ever do they go to war for altruistic reasons. Sad but true.

Why did we go to war in Iraq? It was not, as Anne Clwyd wanted, to liberate people from an oppressive government If that was the reason we would be going to war with rather a lot of countries. It was for strategic reasons which were decided in Washington rather than London. The real issue is perhaps why Blair decided to back Bush because Bush was the one who decided to launch an invasion of Iraq.

Whatever those strategic reasons were they did not involve a genuine belief that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons at their disposal. How do I know that? Well go back and look at the pictures from the invasion. Look at our troops – were they wearing Noddy suits? No they weren’t. I know people who were out there – they didn’t even have Noddy suits in reserve.

If you buy into the idea that Blair genuinely believed that the Iraqis had battlefield chemical weapons then that means that he sent our soldiers into battle without the protective gear they would need to survive a chemical or biological attack. Now, I can believe all kinds of things about Blair but I don’t believe that.

Sorry, Tom, I must reply to Alec.

Alec,

Your comments are way off the mark. Let me explain a few things.

Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: “We would not be facing the problems in Iraq today if the technologically advanced countries of the world had seen the danger and strictly enforced the economic sanctions against Iraq.”

You can find all the evidence you need, like Saddam’s Mirage jets!

And ‘pro-West’ countries like Egypt were used by western companies and governments to supply arms to Saddam in order to bypass economic sanctions.

You might not be old enough to remember Matrix Churchill and ‘Arms to Iraq’.

There are loads of other instances, so to suggest Egypt is mainly at fault is very silly indeed.

No, GHW Bush left Saddam in place for later. Much like you throw a tiddler back in the loch when it’ll be of more use when its older.

“Alleviating the suffering where you could. Yet, in your morally depleted universe…”

Amazing stuff. It is estimated that at least a million people have died in Iraq since 2003 and many more are maimed for life. That’s not my idea of doing a good deed. The West helped create this monster in the first place.

“You complete and utter moron. How many times do I have to say I did not support the invasion?”

I never said you did. [Confused.] I was offering my thoughts. Hopefully you will do a bit of research and retract the insult.

As for your “Jews” slur, you don’t know how pitiful and inappropriate that is.

Q/apple:

“In effect you are merely defending an evil defunct dictator.”

What rubbish! The only one defending the evil around here is you!

As Tom said, war criminals are those complicit in torture – voila! The government were complicit in torture! Of course it will be a “nothing to do with me guv they were acting alone” just like the US planes that landed here on route to more torture.

YOU give it up.

>> Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: “We would not be facing the problems in Iraq today if the technologically advanced countries of the world had seen the danger and strictly enforced the economic sanctions against Iraq.”

Not quite the same as ‘our’ arming him (please don’t dig yourself further by claiming by “we” you weren’t implying Britain and America).

>> You can find all the evidence you need, like Saddam’s Mirage jets!

They’re French. I said just that.

>> And ‘pro-West’ countries like Egypt were used by western companies and governments to supply arms to Saddam in order to bypass economic sanctions.

You may not be a racist, but you’re standing in the way of anti-racism. Not once, NOT ONCE can you concede that just maybe a non-European actor does something out of choice… it always has to come back to the only individuals capable of independent thought.

Europeans.

>> You might not be old enough to remember Matrix Churchill and ‘Arms to Iraq’.

Yes I am, and I was not aware that MC was the British state. Feel free to peruse my comments and tell me where I said summat which could reasonably be seen as stating there were not *individuals* prepared to deal with Saddam.

You, on the other hand, presented a metanarrative in which all the efforts of Downing Street and the White House were alligned to curry favour with Baghdad. It simply wasn’t there. Okay?

This is why I don’t go in for metanarratives… one component detail is disputed, the whole structure has to collapse.

British and American deals accounted for about 1% of transfer. West German or French companies had no problem dealing large scale with Saddam, but British and American companies had to do it by proxy. Bit incredible, don’t you think?

>> It is estimated that at least a million people have died in Iraq since 2003 and many more are maimed for life.

Estimated by whom? This piece of fiction has been dealt with one dozen times over. It’s false. It has no basis in fact. It is peddled by those whose need to be right is so putrid that they *want* more Iraqis to be dead than there is evidence for.

>> There are loads of other instances, so to suggest Egypt is mainly at fault is very silly indeed.

Did no such thing: the only way you could think I did was if you thought Britain and American were deeply involved, so anyone who was more so was the prime player.

I said the USSR the main player.

>> No, GHW Bush left Saddam in place for later. Much like you throw a tiddler back in the loch when it’ll be of more use when its older.

You’re a buffoon. Someone who’d believe things they wouldn’t believe in Salt Lake City.

With this level of delusion, is there any point in continuing? Okay, then…

>> I never said you did.

Yes you did. You linked me semantically to the “Cheneys, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, et al”.

>> As for your “Jews” slur, you don’t know how pitiful and inappropriate that is.

Only a weary resignation at your inability to understand prevents me from plumbing the depths of my pedantry and explaining to you the difference between sardony and sarcasm.

Using the Rockefellers and Rochschildes as a by-word for petro-chemical deals or unrivaled wealth is at least 50 years out of date, and anyone who does so on top of wishing for an extra 900,000 dead Iraqis is setting themselves up for fall.

There are more evil things than the muddleheadedness of the deluded, and there may be those who ramble longer than trolls in the tory interest, but I shall engage no other: but I do declare that none have even dented my case, and none has admitted that poor Dr Kelly was pro war, because he knew of Saddam’s intentions from his own inspections and study.

Oh, and suits to protect against gas warfare were to be sent if Iraq dared use gas on the battlefield I recall. I don’t know how many we had, I expect that is information which has security written on it.

Anyone who recalls the turkey shoot on the run from Kuwait in the ’90s will understand the demoralisation of the Iraq forces.

There is no doubt that chemical weapons could be deployed in London’s water supply fairly easily. The lack of guards at all the many relevant points doesn’t indicate that there is no serious threat to be considered.

Alec,

Okay, so you won’t believe that Saddam’s regime was supported by the UK.

“You may not be a racist, but you’re standing in the way of anti-racism.”

Wow, now that is a weird jump of logic if ever I heard one. Obviously the Egyptians are culpable. Their pyramids, temples and artefacts give the game away as to their genius.

Matrix Churchill was aided by government in its attempt to get an export licence.

The Lancet estimated there were over 600,000 Iraqi deaths a couple of years ago.

“You’re a buffoon. Someone who’d believe things they wouldn’t believe in Salt Lake City.”

¿Qué?

“With this level of delusion, is there any point in continuing?”

Not really, but at least you’re admitting it now. Is ’sardony’ a word?

@Quietzapple,

Interesting that Norman Baker MP reckons that Iraqi opposition dissidents could have murdered Dr David Kelly because they thought he was jeopardising the upcoming war.

@Quietzapple, “Oh, and suits to protect against gas warfare were to be sent if Iraq dared use gas on the battlefield I recall. ”

I think it may have be a little too late by then…

>> Wow, now that is a weird jump of logic if ever I heard one.

Not particularly when your need to find European involvement, which you can then disavow support for a feel righteous, is palpable. I mean, Egyptians couldn’t have done so ‘cos they chose to.

>> The Lancet estimated there were over 600,000 Iraqi deaths a couple of years ago.

Yes, and it’s based on shoddy research. It’s dog’s poo. It’s worthless.

>> Matrix Churchill was aided by government in its attempt to get an export licence.

In my experience, chucking in random information is the sign of a liar who’s lost the argument and is trying to win through attrition (just as you’re hoping no-one notices you haven’t pursued the one about Mirage jets).

I never have claimed British policy was virtuous, but you are seizing on single bits of information to make an entire case. Your claim was that Britain and American were Saddam’s prime and knowing backers… a single company dealing with him in a democracy doesn’t prove that.

>> Interesting that Norman Baker MP reckons that Iraqi opposition dissidents could have murdered Dr David Kelly abecause they thought he was jeopardising the upcoming war.

Is this Norman Baker the well-known academic and security analyist?

Idiot.

Never mind human suffering, this thread is devaluing the concept of common sense… Kelly committed suicide six weeks after the war was declared formerly over.

@Alec, “>> The Lancet estimated there were over 600,000 Iraqi deaths a couple of years ago.

Yes, and it’s based on shoddy research. It’s dog’s poo. It’s worthless.”

Is that your opinion, or do you have facts to back this up ?

Iraq’s use of battlefield WMDs – gas – would not have had to be widespread for it to be a breach of the conventions of war ie illegal.

And they had already used such, against the kurds among others.

I doubt HMG were anticipating widespread use of gas, just that it was possible. As I have already suggested no-one can expect to prevent every attack.

Dr Kelly wanted to return to Iraq to track down more WMD materials, and it is easy to understand why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

>> Is that your opinion, or do you have facts to back this up ?

What did I say about liars chucking in information, answering questions with questions, to win through deceit?

The John Hopkins report has been debunked… accept it. I know how disappointed you must be that there not as many Iraqis have died as you had hoped, but accept it.

PS First the Mirage jets, now it’s the one about Kelly’s committing suicide three months after the war commenced you’re hoping no-one’s noticed.

@Alec “The John Hopkins report has been debunked” yet you refuse to say by who. In fact the opposite is true.

“The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war.

Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

But the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific adviser said the survey’s methods were “close to best practice” and the study design was “robust”.”

Another expert agreed the method was “tried and tested”.

Simon, I fail to see why I should be obliged to let you set the parameters of this conversation, any more than I should be obliged to entertain someone who claimed Hitler didn’t die ‘cos no body was found.

This thread as slowly, inexorably, drifted from the actual theme – the inquiry; and that nasty little anti-Jewish bigot (and bagman for Arab oil), Oliver Miles judging only Jewish panel members by their ethnicity (it’s in the article) and comparing Tony Blair to Kurt Waldheim – and onto anything which detracts attention from the previous piece of whataboutery being refuted.

It’s the tactics of trolls (and not those cute Norwegian-types as Alexander Ryback wants to be).

But, okay:

[*] One of the report authors failed to disclose that he’d stood on podia calling Bush a terrorist. Bias;

[*] Main-street bias, in particular, took the most intense sites of killings, with a disproportiantely low population, and extrapolated it country-wide;

[*] For the figures to be accurate, some 1/20 of the Iraqi population must have died violently – more than German or Japanese civilians during the Second World War. More even that Allied armed forces;

[*] The report authors have consistently equivocated when asked to reveal their methodology and/or source data.

You have no case. Sorry, more Iraqis are alive than you hope.

>> [*] For the figures to be accurate, some 1/20 of the Iraqi population must have died violently – more than German or Japanese civilians during the Second World War. More even that Allied armed forces;

This is not impossible. But, to entertain it, I would first have to see evidence of more than 10% of the claimed bodies being found.

Has anyone checked their make-up boxes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8369674.stm

“Idiot.”

Game over, Alec. You lose. Actually, you lost earlier with the ‘moron’ insult, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and played best of three.

It just looks to me like you believe the post-9/11 rewriting of history. You can still Google for the truth. If you dare.

Over and out!

@Alec,

thanks for that. If you had just said in your original post that the John Hopkins report had been debunked by you, then no further explanation would have been necessary.

Obviously the MOD’s chief scientific advisor was wrong.

Simon, you haven’t even given the name of this “advisor” and the source material. D’you know what “peer review” means and does not mean?

>> It just looks to me like you believe the post-9/11 rewriting of history. You can still Google for the truth. If you dare.

I have no idea what this means.

Oh, despite not being obliged to, I looked, and it appears Simon is referring to a BBC News article, i.e. secondary reportage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

Forgetting the matter of it being a bit rich to appeal to one MoD advisor when he’s ignoring the opinion of another (i.e. Kelly) that Saddam was pursuing CBN, let’s look at the full quotation from Good Advisor (aka Roy Anderson):

>> “The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to “best practice” in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq.”

Thus, not only does Simon present potentially selectively-quoted secondary information as primary, but he removes equivocably comments to make it look cast-iron.

Further on:

>> ‘Mainstreet bias’

>> In fact some of the British government criticism of the Lancet report post-dated Sir Roy’s comments.

>> Speaking six days after Sir Roy praised the study’s methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said: “The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern….”

>> “It would appear they were only able to sample a small sliver of the country” Dr Michael Spagat

>> Some scientists have subsequently challenged the validity of the Lancet study. Questions have been asked about the survey techniques and the possibility of “mainstreet bias”.

>> Dr Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway London University says that most of those questioned lived on streets more likely than average to witness attacks: “It would appear they were only able to sample a small sliver of the country,” he said.

>> Dr Spagat has previously conducted research with Iraq Body Count, an NGO that counts deaths on the basis of media reports and which has produced estimates far lower than those published in the Lancet.

>> If the Lancet survey is right, then 2.5% of the Iraqi population – an average of more than 500 people a day – have been killed since the start of the war.

There’s a term for your tactic, Simon. It’s “a conscious attempt to mislead”.

Note, the reference to the Iraq Body Count… this was conducted by Joe Sloboba, who was an opponent of the invasion.

But, like Simon, John Pilger and others didn’t think he was reporting enough dead Iraqis, so launched a shockingly thuggish online attack.

Alec,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

I am the m-o-o-o-narch of the sea!

No, Indy, bad dates!

@Alec, yep – well done. You can use Google, as well as I can.

The fact is, you didn’t provide any source material when you said the John Hopkins report had been debunked.

I spent 2 minutes googling and came up with a news item showing that a MOD special advisor backed the report and advised the Government not to criticise it.

So who is misleading who ?

>> I spent 2 minutes googling and came up with a news item showing that a MOD special advisor backed the report and advised the Government not to criticise it.

This is an admission that your argument is of little value. Taking pride in using Google… for Chrissaches!

I’ve responded to that inconsequential article. Return the favour.

Lettuce sea, Simon, your shilly-shallying in this thread has taken the following path:

[*] Accused me of treating the issue of invasion and death of Iraqis as a laff, when a casual reading of my comment should have showed that I was referring to Ashley Meredith’s attitude;

[*] Asked the asinine question of why we didn’t invade Burma or Zimbabwe;

[*] My response was to point out the simple issue of practicality, namely European Imperialism being over. I wouldn’t have raised this had you not asked said asinine question;

[*] Your response was to accuse me of thinking I was born 100 years ago to a position of absolute political control, and being willing to invade more countries than the one [Iraq] I didn’t approve of invading;

[*] Suggested that Kelly neither suspected the continue presence of CBN nor supported the invasion;

[*] My response, and that of others, was to state that yes he did and yes he did;

[*] Your response was no response;

[*] Claimed that no civil war would have resulted ‘cos Saddam had all the chips, and was the only one doing the killing and gassing entire villages. For some reason, you felt pleased with yourself;

[*] My response was call you a moral cripple, and ask what would have happened when Saddam died (either of old age, eventual assassination or stomach cancer) and his lovely sons started vying for power;

[*] Your response was to insist that no power vacuum would have ensued. No further explanation was given;

[*] Having previously referring exclusively to the legal argument and vote by Parliament for war, insisted that the ‘real’ reason was regieme change. Again felt pleased with yourself for being willing to leave one demonstrable vicious dictator in place ‘cos you couldn’t tackle ‘em all;
[*] Disregarded repeated questions from me as to what you had actually done, in practical steps, for supporting Iraqis. Insisted that as you pay your taxes, you should have a say;

[*] My response was to observe that you have no greater say than any other individual, more of whom may have supported the invasion;

[*] Your response was to insist that you weren’t insisted that as you pay your taxes, you should influence the foreign policy this whole thread has been about;

[*] Changed the subject to the 45 minute claim, which you insisted was false;

[*] My response was that it referred to conventional ordnance unrelated to CBN, and was probably true;

[*] Your response was to make a joke about Saddam having a pistol, which presumably could killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds;

[*] Stated explicitly that you disagreed with my view that war was the answer;

[*] My response was to remind you that I did not support the invasion;

[*] Your response was to insist that you never had accused me of supporting war;

[*] Cried to mummy about my calling you names;

[*] Suggested that wanting to see Saddam deposed was a sign of megalomania;

[*] Having been thoroughly ridiculed, started babbling about the discredited John Hopkins/Lancet report;

[*] Disregarded requests to explain what you thought peer-review means;

[*] Took pride in a brief Google to find an Internet page which, presumably, met with whatever search criteria you’d entered;

[*] Having implicitly disregarded MoD advisor Kelly’s belief in the continue presence of CBN technology, appealed to the unimpeachable authority of another MoD advisor. Snipped his comments, and ignored completely other text in the article, to present them as saying summat else.

In short, you have either told open falsehoods or simply ignored whatever didn’t validate your preconceived narrative. Tell me, what is your objection to Tony Blair? At least he didn’t lie.

Just how different is your attitude from GWB’s “you’re either with us or against us” mantra?

>> So who is misleading who ?

That’s be you.

“imposing democracy”. Great phrase.

Another whoopsie St. Anthony already

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6652310/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-told-days-before-invasion-WMD-had-been-dismantled.html

Oh dearie me. Who’s been telling porkies then.

No wonder he converted. He can get that instant absolution from the fires of hell, on his deathbed.

This is really to forestall the predictable QZ party line on WMD

Why would Saddam have been so coy about destroying the WMDs?

Bleedin’ obvious. Left him wide open to attack from Iran. So on the one hand he needed to convince Iran he was still dangerous, and the other, the UN, that he wasn’t.

Plodder – specialising in the bleedin’ obvious. It was some three years before I saw any politico come to the same conclusion.

Still what do I know?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6650949/Iraq-was-only-fourth-on-weapons-of-mass-destruction-danger-list-inquiry-hears.html

Iraq only fourth on WMD danger list, inquiry hears

In 2001 Iraq was ranked behind Iran, North Korea and Libya on the Foreign Office WMD danger list, inquiry told.

Libya. Our friends.

Another classic from the Big Q:

“suits to protect against gas warfare were to be sent if Iraq dared use gas on the battlefield I recall”

You couldn’t make it up.

Question to Alec – is Stewart Cowan not right about Bush senior leaving Saddam in place?

At the end of the first Gulf War when there was a revolt against Saddam why didn’t the US support it?

What stayed their hand at that time?

Saddam had just invaded Kuwait, he had gassed the Kurds, he gassed the Marsh Arabs too as I recall and the Americans and British did nothing.

Why did they do nothing then – and what changed between the end of the first Gulf War and the start of the second one?

The irony is that if they had gone into Iraq after the first Gulf War I don’t think there would have been half as much opposition as there was to the second Gulf War. But they left Saddam in place. That had to be a deliberate calculation. Or if their position was that it was not their business to overthrow the Saddam regime why did it become their business in 2003. That doesn’t make sense.

Alec, I’m flattered by the work you put into your last post. Unfortunately I don’t have time to correct aall your mistakes.

“Tell me, what is your objection to Tony Blair? At least he didn’t lie.”

Oh no ! You must be devastated to find out he did lie.

Best stay in bed tomorrow and avoid all newspapers and television.

Dare I also mention that Father Christmas doesn’t exist ?

>> is Stewart Cowan not right about Bush senior leaving Saddam in place?

That he did so in order to throw him back in the loch for later like a tiddler? No, he’s barking mad.

>> Libya. Our friends.

Especially of Oliver Miles, but why mention this when he’s saying summat we agree with on Iraq?

No, Simon, you were perfectly happy to clatter away when you thought there was someone who was going to let you set the parameters and constantly leap through hoops for you.

Not me.

Now, keeping it simple: you cannot even do academic fraud properly. You used the fundamentally untrustworthy googling to find an appropriate article, but gave one which confirmed precisely what I’d said about Main Street Bias and the shortcomings of the John Hopkins Report.

You have also suggested that Kelly opposed the invasion and didn’t believe in the continued presence of CBN technology, and endorsed the hackery of someone-or-other who claims he was murdered as he was undermining an invasion which had commenced three months previously.

Those two last points should have been the death of you in this argument, but you keep coming back like the energizer bunny.

Yes, Alec, I recall pointing to Julie Flint’s testimony re Dr Kelly’s belief that only by removing Saddam could the Iraqi WMDs threat be removed about 70 posts ago.

You must enjoy typing, Simon seems hell bent on having the last word, however inaccurate,

Well done, by the way!