"Iraq Was No Threat" - Former Head Of MI5

[View From The Top]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14702644

 

Hardly a surprise.

 

Blair should be tried alongside Bush for war crimes.

[dune]

Of course it wasn't a threat. Saddam would never have tolerated Al Queda as they would have been a potential threat to him.

 

Thankfully we now have a Conservative government who know what they are doing.

[dubai_phil]

Wow, now that comes as a real surprise

 

 

 

 

 

Not

[pap]

There was no public justification for this war that made any sense.

 

There were no WMDs, no links to Al-Qaeda, and it's a matter of record that plans for invading Iraq pre-dated 9/11. It was actually one of the first things that the incoming Bush administration looked at - months before 9/11.

[aintforever]

Iraq was obviously no threat, and Blair and Bush should obviously be tried for war crimes - will anything ever get done about it - no.

 

As long as the west get their hands on the oil no one cares.

[Thedelldays]

Iraq was obviously no threat, and Blair and Bush should obviously be tried for war crimes - will anything ever get done about it - no.

 

As long as the west get their hands on the oil no one cares.

 

west...includes you my friend

[aintforever]

west...includes you my friend

 

I know, doesn't mean I agree with invading countries for oil though.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

west...includes you my friend

 

Everything seems very 'clear cut' in your world TDD.

[pap]

Iraq was obviously no threat, and Blair and Bush should obviously be tried for war crimes - will anything ever get done about it - no.

 

As long as the west get their hands on the oil no one cares.

 

What's truly sad is that the underlying problem, energy, is something that we have the wit to solve without the death and destruction that was wrought in Iraq. Most of the focus has been on the servicemen that have lost their lives. Estimates for Iraqi deaths vary wildly, but 100,000 people seems to be the minimum.

 

The whole thing was a disgusting conspiracy between the military-industrial complex and the neo-conservatives, who mistakenly believed that America's Next Century had to be built on warfare and bloodshed.

[ericofarabia]

Bristol Rovers must be quaking in their boots at what fate awaits them as Irene creates chaos in The U S of A.

[Saintandy666]

Something about the phrase 'War Crimes' doesn't sit well with me. Killing someone and doing lots of the stuff many countries do, and yes we did in Iraq is always a crime, it's just whether it is justified or not.

 

Then again crime is totally subjective.

[benjii]

We kill people for money. That is why we should have no armed forces.

[buctootim]

We kill people for money. That is why we should have no armed forces.

 

We kill people to avoid a rerun of the 1974 oil crisis and recession and to keep oil cheaper than bottled water. Its helpful that so much of the oil is controlled by bad guys. We'd be stuffed if it was controlled by stable democracies - where would our justification be then?

[Saintandy666]

The real solution is just to get into renewables already. I mean we are a bloody massive island... we could get tonnes are power from tidal.

[pap]

The real solution is just to get into renewables already. I mean we are a bloody massive island... we could get tonnes are power from tidal.

 

I'm amazed that we're so reliant on oil when you see how much energy there is to be had. It's fecking everywhere!

 

I know people will claim that we'll never get enough power from renewables. Personally, I don't buy that. We are very good at refining things for efficiency - the problem with renewables is that they've never had the focus or investment that oil companies have had.

 

Oil is tremendously useful stuff, but ultimately, it's just a means to several highly useful ends. I'm not saying that we can do without it, but at least some of those ends, such as power, can be achieved through other means. Problem is, too many people are making too much money out of it, whether it's the geologists, engineers, drillers, riggers, executives, transportation companies, supply chain, the bloke at the forecourt or the Government that taxes you on every litre. It is literally liquid gold at every stage. That's why we haven't harnessed the energy around us, and that's really what the 9/11 wars were all about.

Edited 29 August, 2011 by pap

[scotty]

I'm amazed that we're so reliant on oil when you see how much energy there is to be had. It's fecking everywhere!

 

I know people will claim that we'll never get enough power from renewables. Personally, I don't buy that. We are very good at refining things for efficiency - the problem with renewables is that they've never had the focus or investment that oil companies have had.

 

Oil is tremendously useful stuff, but ultimately, it's just a means to several highly useful ends. I'm not saying that we can do without it, but at least some of those ends, such as power, can be achieved through other means. Problem is, too many people are making too much money out of it, whether it's the geologists, engineers, drillers, riggers, executives, transportation companies, supply chain, the bloke at the forecourt or the Government that taxes you on every litre. It is literally liquid gold at every stage. That's why we haven't harnessed the energy around us, and that's really what the 9/11 wars were all about.

 

The renewables argument always reminds me of the car industry bleating about the change from 4 star to unleaded fuel. "We cant make cars that could use it, they will always break down, its impossible to mass produce cars with catalytic convertors, it will be so expensive nobody could afford to run cars any more and it will be the end of times......" etc etc ad nauseam.

 

When they were presented with unleaded petrol as the only alternative then hey presto, we still seem to be driving around in cars. If energy companies are presented with renewables as the only source of their energy and money stream, they will find a way through it. Nothing sharpens the mind so much as the alternative of no money.

[Saintandy666]

I'm amazed that we're so reliant on oil when you see how much energy there is to be had. It's fecking everywhere!

 

I know people will claim that we'll never get enough power from renewables. Personally, I don't buy that. We are very good at refining things for efficiency - the problem with renewables is that they've never had the focus or investment that oil companies have had.

 

Oil is tremendously useful stuff, but ultimately, it's just a means to several highly useful ends. I'm not saying that we can do without it, but at least some of those ends, such as power, can be achieved through other means. Problem is, too many people are making too much money out of it, whether it's the geologists, engineers, drillers, riggers, executives, transportation companies, supply chain, the bloke at the forecourt or the Government that taxes you on every litre. It is literally liquid gold at every stage. That's why we haven't harnessed the energy around us, and that's really what the 9/11 wars were all about.

 

Exactly. Capitalism really gets in the way here. I have no doubt that renewables will come in and replace it all when the oil runs out, but that won't do due to the damage fossil fuels do to the planet and the growing need for energy. The market is bloody useless on this, what is needed is government intervention to steer us to 100% renewable.

[Thedelldays]

Exactly. Capitalism really gets in the way here. I have no doubt that renewables will come in and replace it all when the oil runs out, but that won't do due to the damage fossil fuels do to the planet and the growing need for energy. The market is bloody useless on this, what is needed is government intervention to steer us to 100% renewable.

 

what we do with have about 1% effect on the way the world goes.......

[aintforever]

Whilst the future energy crisis is the reason for invading Iraq it is no excuse, the energy problems are a completely different matter.

 

It is preferable and convenient for the largest oil supplies to be in control of people we like. It is not an excuse to impose death and misery thousands of people.

 

Iran is obviously the next on the list, label the leader a crackpot, invent WMDs, bingo, you have a green light to invade.

[Saintandy666]

what we do with have about 1% effect on the way the world goes.......

 

As a world collective, there needs to be a push. Oil is going to run and it ****s up the world as well in many ways. As has already been said, there is plenty of energy around if we just made the moves and built the infrastructure.

[Thedelldays]

As a world collective, there needs to be a push. Oil is going to run and it ****s up the world as well in many ways. As has already been said, there is plenty of energy around if we just made the moves and built the infrastructure.

 

well, seeing as you dont want us at the "top table" who are we to push for anything......

[Saintandy666]

well, seeing as you dont want us at the "top table" who are we to push for anything......

 

I'm slightly confused as to what you are getting at.

[Thedelldays]

I'm slightly confused as to what you are getting at.

 

i was wrong, thought you said on the trident thread you cant see the point in the UK being at the "top table"

[Saintandy666]

i was wrong, thought you said on the trident thread you cant see the point in the UK being at the "top table"

 

Oh right, though I still want to see a world without nuclear weapons. And there are other ways to be at the 'top' table than military. Just look at Germany. Either way, I don't honestly care if other countries don't do. We should do it moral reasons, as well as economic reasons. Oil will run out and we want to be at the forefront of this all. The jobs it will create will also be helpful.

[Saint in Paradise]

Bristol Rovers must be quaking in their boots at what fate awaits them as Irene creates chaos in The U S of A.

 

 

I am really confused by this. Please would someone explain what Eric means.

[scotty]

I am really confused by this. Please would someone explain what Eric means.

 

Sarcasm. An infraction awaits

[Saint Paul C]

There was no public justification for this war that made any sense.

 

There were no WMDs, no links to Al-Qaeda, and it's a matter of record that plans for invading Iraq pre-dated 9/11. It was actually one of the first things that the incoming Bush administration looked at - months before 9/11.

 

Have you seen this before?

 

January 26, 1998

 

The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

Washington, DC

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

 

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

 

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

 

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

 

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

 

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

 

Sincerely,

 

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

 

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

 

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

 

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

 

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

 

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

from http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[ericofarabia]

I am really confused by this. Please would someone explain what Eric means.

 

For some bizarre reason Good Night Irene is Brizzle Rovers song of choice in the same way Man City have Blue Moon, Stoke City have Delilah etc.

 

Tenuous link to the topic of USA itching to bomb off the face of the world anybody who has ever done them any harm at the slightest excuse, and the pending arrival of Hurricane Irene which was about to decimate New York but ended up a bit of a damp squib, but still pretty nasty all the same.

 

You know, it's true jokes don't work when you have to explain them!!

[ericofarabia]

Sarcasm. An infraction awaits

 

My posts are invincible in A Big_Sam sort of way

[pap]

Have you seen this before?

 

I think I have. Their 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, goes even further.

[1976_Child]

"Iraq was no threat to us"

 

"Bear defecates in woods"

 

"Pope is a papist"

 

"Ayatollah is a Muhammadan"