buctootim Posted 5 July, 2016 Share Posted 5 July, 2016 Seven years + £10m + 2.6 million words = "Be more careful next time". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 5 July, 2016 Share Posted 5 July, 2016 Is Chilcot the longest whitewash in history? Or does it unblinkingly reveal the inner workings of a dysfunctional inner government intent on war? Or a government that thought it could avoid war but got it anyway? Is Blair finally declared by officialdom to be a war criminal (clue: the report’s terms of reference excluded consideration of war crimes)? Will surviving Iraqi victims and families of the dead each receive a bound and embossed copy? Will this be a Hillsborough verdict moment families of dead British soldiers? Or the beginning of years of struggle to get one? Will Corbyn and the Corbynista cultists be awarded special medals for being the only people on the planet who knew beforehand that the war would be a disaster? (And will catweazle shuffle off once he’s bathed himself in glory?) Can’t wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 July, 2016 Author Share Posted 5 July, 2016 Is Chilcot the longest whitewash in history? Or does it unblinkingly reveal the inner workings of a dysfunctional inner government intent on war? Or a government that thought it could avoid war but got it anyway? Is Blair finally declared by officialdom to be a war criminal (clue: the report’s terms of reference excluded consideration of war crimes)? Will surviving Iraqi victims and families of the dead each receive a bound and embossed copy? Will this be a Hillsborough verdict moment families of dead British soldiers? Or the beginning of years of struggle to get one? Will Corbyn and the Corbynista cultists be awarded special medals for being the only people on the planet who knew beforehand that the war would be a disaster? (And will catweazle shuffle off once he’s bathed himself in glory?) Can’t wait. A long report but few answers. I still don't understand Blair's motivation - if it wasnt WMD what was it? Did his Christianity have anything to do with it? Did he just think Saddam was evil and it was the right thing to do? Was there some deal with Bush and if so what was the makeweight? Why did they think it was worth the lives and money? What did they think would happen after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biscuits Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 It was about oil. Just like it always is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 It'll be another white wash . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 A long report but few answers. I still don't understand Blair's motivation - if it wasnt WMD what was it? Did his Christianity have anything to do with it? Did he just think Saddam was evil and it was the right thing to do? Was there some deal with Bush and if so what was the makeweight? Why did they think it was worth the lives and money? What did they think would happen after? Well as I write this the Chilcot Report has yet to be released. However, we don't really need a seven year long umpteen million word report to understand what the PM's real motivation was for taking us into that war. Indeed, this is as obvious as it could possibly be I think - i.e. he was pursuing the central tenent of postwar British foreign policy in maintaining our close alliance with the United States. Many will no doubt say he was wrong in doing that. Others might accept that this is the reality of Britain's place the modern world. But that is the fact of the matter whether we happen to approve of it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 A long report but few answers. I still don't understand Blair's motivation - if it wasnt WMD what was it? Did his Christianity have anything to do with it? Did he just think Saddam was evil and it was the right thing to do? Was there some deal with Bush and if so what was the makeweight? Why did they think it was worth the lives and money? What did they think would happen after? It was about oil. Just like it always is. Yep. Nail on head. It was all about the oil. Saddam had decided that he wanted to be paid in Euros for his oil instead of the worthless dollars that the US were printing to pay for it beforehand. The very first thing that the post-war administration did after assuming power was to repeal the law stating that any decisions regarding the sale of the country's oil must be ratified by a democratic consensus. That tells you all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 It was about oil. Just like it always is. It would have been cheaper for the US to simply buy the oil if that's what it was all about. The US was a cost overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 July, 2016 Author Share Posted 6 July, 2016 It would have been cheaper for the US to simply buy the oil if that's what it was all about. The US was a cost overall. Exactly. The Iraq war pushed up the cost of oil and interrupted supplies, the opposite of "its all about oil" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 Exactly. The Iraq war pushed up the cost of oil and interrupted supplies, the opposite of "its all about oil" theory.I suppose a lot depends if you are buying or selling. The big oil companies would have made plenty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 people were so angry about the Iraq war at the time, they voted Labour back in not long after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 Exactly. The Iraq war pushed up the cost of oil and interrupted supplies, the opposite of "its all about oil" theory. i think it was more about the control of oil. Plus though there was a cost to the tax payer, the oil, arms and security companies made money. You have to be naive in the extreme to not believe it was all about the oil. Blair and Bush should stand trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 6 July, 2016 Share Posted 6 July, 2016 So all about oil and nothing to do with 9-11 then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Well as I write this the Chilcot Report has yet to be released. However, we don't really need a seven year long umpteen million word report to understand what the PM's real motivation was for taking us into that war. Indeed, this is as obvious as it could possibly be I think - i.e. he was pursuing the central tenent of postwar British foreign policy in maintaining our close alliance with the United States. Maybe so, but... Everyone's so surprised here that Chilcot wasn't a whitewash that no one seems to have noticed that it really doesn't say much that's new. In its documentary evidence, it's also limited to the British side of the story - we get none of Bush's responses to Blair's painfully fawning memos (because the US - in true special relationship fashion - told Chilcot to go fish). So it seems a bit parochial. What was needed was an international commission, looking at the conduct of the war by the 'coalition' from more angles. What we actually got was a retired British civil servant's very diligent sift through mountains of paperwork from a narrow clique of British senior politicians, civil servants and military commanders. So geopolitics in Chilcot is reduced to Blair's desperate clinging to the 'special relationship' with Bush/the US. But this war didn't happen simply because Blair wanted to schmooze George W. I'm not sure how far this gets us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 The establishment of Official Inquires into the possible corruption and/or misdeeds of the powerful has become a valuable and important part of our famously 'unwritten' constitution. It is surely a good thing that people are held accountable for their actions both before Parliament and in court if need be. I doubt however that this nation's long term strategic relationships and foreign policy are really matters fit for judges to evaluate and pass judgement on. In a democracy these are issues that can only be decided by our politicans and, ultimately, the electorate who appoint them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashnats Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 i think it was more about the control of oil. Plus though there was a cost to the tax payer, the oil, arms and security companies made money. You have to be naive in the extreme to not believe it was all about the oil. Blair and Bush should stand trial. if you read the private emails between blair and bush, you will see it was not about oil at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 if you read the private emails between blair and bush, you will see it was not about oil at all. Do you really think they would put it down in an email if it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 July, 2016 Author Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Do you really think they would put it down in an email if it was? So explain to me how this war about oil theory works. What is it that the US and UK could get that they couldnt get with Saddam in place. Please don't tell me its because Saddam wanted to sell in euros rather than dollars and that would have cost the US control and money - because thats just conspiro weirdo horse droppings - economic illiteracy. The oil isnt 'free' if its sold in dollars any more than its free to Germany if its sold in Euros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 So explain to me how this war about oil theory works. What is it that the US and UK could get that they couldnt get with Saddam in place. Please don't tell me its because Saddam wanted to sell in euros rather than dollars and that would have cost the US control and money - because thats just conspiro weirdo horse droppings - economic illiteracy. The oil isnt 'free' if its sold in dollars any more than its free to Germany if its sold in Euros. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed8629ec-4390-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#axzz4DiyDjBTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 July, 2016 Author Share Posted 7 July, 2016 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed8629ec-4390-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#axzz4DiyDjBTR People tend not to pay for demolition of a house just so they can get a contract sweeping up the broken glass. The total value of the Iraqi oil industry is around $35 billion a year. So far the Gulf War has cost the US around $2 trillion and that could rise to $6 trillion. The US paid over $200bn to Iraq in reconstruction aid. Why would they spend 50-150 times more on the war than they could possibly get from the oil business, even if they appropriated all of it? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashnats Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Do you really think they would put it down in an email if it was? no i would expect an absence of evidence, a conspiracy theorists dream. however, i would not expect them to write memos to each other in the way they did, discussing saddam and their moral obligations etc., with no reason, unless you are suggesting they created it as a smokescreen. at which point you would be stretching credibility to satisfy a hypothesis that belongs in the daily mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 People tend not to pay for demolition of a house just so they can get a contract sweeping up the broken glass. The total value of the Iraqi oil industry is around $35 billion a year. So far the Gulf War has cost the US around $2 trillion and that could rise to $6 trillion. The US paid over $200bn to Iraq in reconstruction aid. Why would they spend 50-150 times more on the war than they could possibly get from the oil business, even if they appropriated all of it? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314 War is expensive but when the US army pay $115,000 for a Hellfire the money goes to Lockheed Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 no i would expect an absence of evidence, a conspiracy theorists dream. however, i would not expect them to write memos to each other in the way they did, discussing saddam and their moral obligations etc., with no reason, unless you are suggesting they created it as a smokescreen. at which point you would be stretching credibility to satisfy a hypothesis that belongs in the daily mail. I think it would take a bigger stretch of the imagination to think that the US would spend £2 trillion on a war because Saddam Hussein was a rather nasty man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW5 SAINT Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 I think it would take a bigger stretch of the imagination to think that the US would spend £2 trillion on a war because Saddam Hussein was a rather nasty man. Very well put......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Galloway on QT tonight , should be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Galloway on QT tonight , should be good Let's all salute his indefatigability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Galloway on QT tonight , should be good I doubt he will mention the Iraq war lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 July, 2016 Share Posted 7 July, 2016 Apart from The EU I've disagreed with everything Galloway stands for , but you have to admit he's a great orator and highly entertaining . Will liven it up tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 8 July, 2016 Share Posted 8 July, 2016 Apart from The EU I've disagreed with everything Galloway stands for , but you have to admit he's a great orator and highly entertaining . Will liven it up tonight I work near Trafalgar Sq. and a few weeks ago Galloway was driving round it on top of a great big open-top bus he bought for his mayoral campaign - pontificating with a microphone stood on the top deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now