ChatterBank0 min ago
Brown on Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk..._politics/8550779.stm
We went to war in Iraq because France refused to back a UN second resolution according to Brown. France did not agree with the resolution because it gave authority to go to war on the flimsiest of excuses.
If the resolution had been passed the war would still have taken place but would then have been legal.
So why are those responsible trying to squirm out of their actions?
We went to war in Iraq because France refused to back a UN second resolution according to Brown. France did not agree with the resolution because it gave authority to go to war on the flimsiest of excuses.
If the resolution had been passed the war would still have taken place but would then have been legal.
So why are those responsible trying to squirm out of their actions?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
France did not back the second resolution because they were effectively running Iraq's oil industry and raking in the dosh accordingly. Russia and China were doing the same via arms-selling. You need to ask all three why they DID sign the first resolution which stated perfectly clearly that Saddam Hussein was "proliferating weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery".
The question of the war's "legality" or otherwise is a nonsense...at least according to the Cambridge Emeritus Professor, an expert in international law, who wrote a letter to The Times on the topic a few weeks ago.
The question of the war's "legality" or otherwise is a nonsense...at least according to the Cambridge Emeritus Professor, an expert in international law, who wrote a letter to The Times on the topic a few weeks ago.
Quite right France and Russia did have oil interests in Iraq and they wanted to protect their investments. Having a war would destroy them.
They did sign the first resolution and that is why Blair thought they would do the same with the 2nd resolution. But because of the belicose nature of the US and the fact that Hans Blix was doing a good job they did not want to be a signatory to an unnecessary war which would give the green light to it.
Hindsight proved them to be right. There was no WMD. Bush had no qualms in regime change. Blair thought there would be WMD but came unstuck. So he invaded unlawfully.as it did not have the backing of the UN. If 1441 resolution was sufficient why then go for the 2nd resolution. The Foreign office lawyers said it was necessary so why not believe them? The Professor you quote is an academic and we know how the government treat these advisors judging by the recent one on drugs.
The invasion of Iraq can be put on a par with the Suez debacle by Eden.
They did sign the first resolution and that is why Blair thought they would do the same with the 2nd resolution. But because of the belicose nature of the US and the fact that Hans Blix was doing a good job they did not want to be a signatory to an unnecessary war which would give the green light to it.
Hindsight proved them to be right. There was no WMD. Bush had no qualms in regime change. Blair thought there would be WMD but came unstuck. So he invaded unlawfully.as it did not have the backing of the UN. If 1441 resolution was sufficient why then go for the 2nd resolution. The Foreign office lawyers said it was necessary so why not believe them? The Professor you quote is an academic and we know how the government treat these advisors judging by the recent one on drugs.
The invasion of Iraq can be put on a par with the Suez debacle by Eden.
It was very noticeable today that Brown said Britain should never go to war again in the way we invaded Iraq. He was referring to Blair's sofa government where the Commons was completely ignored. All the Commons had to go by were a pack of lies and fears of an imminent attack that Saddam could carry out (45 minutes fame).
There is a lot of blame shifting going on. No 10 blamed intelligence when they had no way of answering back until now in the inquiry. You can now see how Blair won three elections. He has the power of persuasion and managed to convince a gullible public each time although Cameron seems out of his depth.
What stands out is the way politicians back each other and Brown has shown the same regard. He could have said he did not agree with the war but chose not to do so. That makes him equally culpable. At least he had the decency to apologise to the relatives of the dead soldiers, Blair did not.
.
There is a lot of blame shifting going on. No 10 blamed intelligence when they had no way of answering back until now in the inquiry. You can now see how Blair won three elections. He has the power of persuasion and managed to convince a gullible public each time although Cameron seems out of his depth.
What stands out is the way politicians back each other and Brown has shown the same regard. He could have said he did not agree with the war but chose not to do so. That makes him equally culpable. At least he had the decency to apologise to the relatives of the dead soldiers, Blair did not.
.
As you say, Rov, "Hindsight proved them to be right." I have worn glasses since I was eight, but my hindsight has invariably scored an excellent 20/20 throughout the intervening decades!
The letter I referred to earlier can be seen here http://www.timesonlin...rs/article7004974.ece It was written by Philip Allott, Professor Emeritus of International Public Law, Trinity College, University of Cambridge.
Even if you look at nothing but the opening words and who the signatory is, you will perhaps grasp that the whole concept of an illegal war is a nonsense, as I said earlier.
An emeritus professor is one who has retired, so I would not be in the least surprised to find that he actually TAUGHT some of the Government lawyers who decided on the war's illegality. Who's more likely to be right...master or pupil?
NATO and Russia all went into Bosnia in the 1990s without asking the UN for permission, but I cannot recall anyone whining about "an illegal war" then, can you?
Believe what you like about Blair and Brown, but you cannot imagine they are educationally subnormal. If Blair, for example, actually KNEW there were no WMDs...ie he lied about them...what do you suppose he was going to say when the inevitable military victory came about and the equally inevitable truth about WMDs was revealed? He'd need to be a cretin not to see an elephant-trap this size yawning on the road ahead!
The entire Chilcot Inquiry is a total waste of time and money.
The letter I referred to earlier can be seen here http://www.timesonlin...rs/article7004974.ece It was written by Philip Allott, Professor Emeritus of International Public Law, Trinity College, University of Cambridge.
Even if you look at nothing but the opening words and who the signatory is, you will perhaps grasp that the whole concept of an illegal war is a nonsense, as I said earlier.
An emeritus professor is one who has retired, so I would not be in the least surprised to find that he actually TAUGHT some of the Government lawyers who decided on the war's illegality. Who's more likely to be right...master or pupil?
NATO and Russia all went into Bosnia in the 1990s without asking the UN for permission, but I cannot recall anyone whining about "an illegal war" then, can you?
Believe what you like about Blair and Brown, but you cannot imagine they are educationally subnormal. If Blair, for example, actually KNEW there were no WMDs...ie he lied about them...what do you suppose he was going to say when the inevitable military victory came about and the equally inevitable truth about WMDs was revealed? He'd need to be a cretin not to see an elephant-trap this size yawning on the road ahead!
The entire Chilcot Inquiry is a total waste of time and money.
The experts on legality will beg to differ.
The Chilcot enquiry may be a waste of time for many. But for the historians, and there are 2 on the panel, by taking witness statements and referring to government secret notes the real truth should be read by many in future years. The Chilcot enquiry has done great service as in the past the 30-year rule would have made the war and peoples recollections very sketchy. Now most of the witnesses are still alive even if most of them are politicians.
If only the politicians would tell the truth though!
The Chilcot enquiry may be a waste of time for many. But for the historians, and there are 2 on the panel, by taking witness statements and referring to government secret notes the real truth should be read by many in future years. The Chilcot enquiry has done great service as in the past the 30-year rule would have made the war and peoples recollections very sketchy. Now most of the witnesses are still alive even if most of them are politicians.
If only the politicians would tell the truth though!
1 to 6 of 6
