Re: Iraq : Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:47 am  

Seems a good way to proceed to me: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... EFFER.html

Seems a good way to proceed to me: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... EFFER.html

[DaveO]

Re: Iraq : Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:07 am  

WIZEB wrote: Lakhdar Brahimi who was as close to the action as you can get being the former UN representative to Iraq holds no truck with Bliars revisionism! http://www.channel4.com/news/people-dont-listen-to-tony-blair-any-more-brahimi Well I can't watch that at the moment but saying something didn't exist before 2003, which is the headline on the site, doesn't mean the only reason it does is because of the invasion of Iraq. It would mean what has happened in Syria has nothing to do with the organisation which I think is obviously not true.

WIZEB wrote: Lakhdar Brahimi who was as close to the action as you can get being the former UN representative to Iraq holds no truck with Bliars revisionism! http://www.channel4.com/news/people-dont-listen-to-tony-blair-any-more-brahimi Well I can't watch that at the moment but saying something didn't exist before 2003, which is the headline on the site, doesn't mean the only reason it does is because of the invasion of Iraq. It would mean what has happened in Syria has nothing to do with the organisation which I think is obviously not true.

Re: Iraq : Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:18 am  

DaveO wrote:

Well I can't watch that at the moment but saying something didn't exist before 2003, which is the headline on the site, doesn't mean the only reason it does is because of the invasion of Iraq. It would mean what has happened in Syria has nothing to do with the organisation which I think is obviously not true.

Blair can waffle as much as he wants about Syria, Arab Springs et al, but most independent observers are in agreement that the fragmentation and destabilisation of Iraq is down to the Allies phoney War on Terror.
You see, the 'New Iraq' spiel was just fantasy, even when they put their own puppet-master in control, the one they are now trying to blame for the countries current woes.
When you launch an indicrimate war against a sovereign state, whilst in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innnoent people, bombing the country by air to smithereens without any serious attempt at putting it back together again, you unshockingly get just that, destabilisation.

[DaveO]

Re: Iraq : Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:38 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

Blair can waffle as much as he wants about Syria, Arab Springs et al, but most independent observers are in agreement that the fragmentation and destabilisation of Iraq is down to the Allies phoney War on Terror.
You see, the 'New Iraq' spiel was just fantasy, even when they put their own puppet-master in control, the one they are now trying to blame for the countries current woes.
When you launch an indicrimate war against a sovereign state, whilst in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innnoent people, bombing the country by air to smithereens without any serious attempt at putting it back together again, you unshockingly get just that, destabilisation.

The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake but it still doesn't mean the only reason ISIS exists is for because of it and it doesn't mean the conflict in Syria isn't a huge reason why this organisation exists either.

It looks like whoever said Bair should keep quiet because if he pointed this out the message would get lost in the noise was right.

The ISIS thing is a really complex one with backers from all over the place including Kuwait which was of course invaded by Iraq.

Re: Iraq : Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:47 pm  

It is indeed complex and here's George Galloway's take on it. Ignoring the grandstanding, I find it hard to argue with much of his analysis and conclusions. More interestingly, the article suggests that, however you do it, Gorgeous George "has started the process" of asking Parliament to impeach Bliar for his role in the Iraq invasion. Now that will be an eye-opener.

It is indeed complex and here's George Galloway's take on it. Ignoring the grandstanding, I find it hard to argue with much of his analysis and conclusions. More interestingly, the article suggests that, however you do it, Gorgeous George "has started the process" of asking Parliament to impeach Bliar for his role in the Iraq invasion. Now that will be an eye-opener.

Re: Iraq : Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:40 pm  

Dave reckons those ISIS fellows are planning attacks in the UK...

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:23 am  

100% Wire wrote:

Dave reckons those ISIS fellows are planning attacks in the UK...

The argument goes that if someone goes to Syria and/or Iraq to fight for their indoctrinated religion fueled agenda then when they come back here they'll already be programmed into continuing their jihad in the UK.

So lets just think about this for ten seconds, our security people state that there could be up to 500 of them, so presumably they know who they are, thats assuming that they haven't just pulled the 500 number out of thin air for political effect, so they know who they are, they know where they are, they know where they will be returning from - so just don't let them come back.

Or are our homeland "security experts" not quite that clever enough to know who these people are, this in itself wouldn't be surprising having seen what they rely on as cctv "evidence" in the most terrorist sensitive street in London ...

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:32 am  

I think you overestimate what they can do.

If 500 'possibles' set off abroad they have every right to do so. On what grounds could you stop them?

Once they are abroad they are free to travel wherever they want. What if, just for one example, one of them travels to Yemen, or Kenya, and then takes a ferry or a desert road into Somalia and meets up with some rum bunch somewhere there? What do you think they could do? Send a guy with a hat and raincoat to tail each one?

And despite being in Somalia, this individual hasn't yet done anything illegal. If he then moves on to some guerilla unit which makes its way to Syria, or Iraq, or wherever, just how do you propose they establish this? Man in raincoat again?

The biggest problem is you can't track everyone who goes abroad, even ones who you suspect are off to train or fight you can't follow, and so unless you are proposing detention without charge, what, practically, could be done?

[DaveO]

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: It is indeed complex and here's George Galloway's take on it. Ignoring the grandstanding, I find it hard to argue with much of his analysis and conclusions. More interestingly, the article suggests that, however you do it, Gorgeous George "has started the process" of asking Parliament to impeach Bliar for his role in the Iraq invasion. Now that will be an eye-opener. There little to no chance Blair would ever be tried for war crimes so the impeachment idea is interesting. The reasoning behind the no war crimes view is for a start the treaty of Rome that governs the International Criminal Court doesn't cover acts of aggression properly. There is no accepted definition of what constitutes it included in the treaty because when it was written Britain and the USA could not agree on a definition so it never made it into the treaty in a suitably defined way. As it is not clearly defined you can't try someone for the crime. You will also not get him in actual war crimes either which are defined by the treaty. For leaders to be tried for war crimes they have to be ones instigating them. So if a squaddy executes half a dozen prisoners this is a war crime but it doesn't mean Blair could be tried for it as he didn't send in the troops with the orders to execute prisoners. Such an incident as that would be dealt with by military or national criminal courts with a case against the squaddy not the prime minister of the time. Perhaps you could argue if the UK knowingly undertook torture such as waterboarding Blair could be seen as liable for prosecution but even then the ICC would only prosecute if it could be shown Britain wasn't going to. The ICC only acts where the country in question either can't because it does not have the set up to do so or won't. If the issue is being dealt with nationally the ICC doesn't get involved. So things like the Chilcot enquiry will help head off any such moves. Even if it acted on this idea it is still incredibly hard to prove it was actual policy. So I think with all that the best you are going to get is impeachment for misleading parliament about the reasons for going to war but even then I am not sure there would be a great appetite for it. It might also be biased because as Galloway says the views of an MP's constituents may influence them to vote a certain way and if they are just anti-Blair for the sake of it that could lead to an outcome based on bias not considered legal opinion. Here is another interesting article on why Blair won't be tried to counter Galloway's views: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/does-boris-johnson-really-want-to-see-tony-blair-tried-for-war-crimes/

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: It is indeed complex and here's George Galloway's take on it. Ignoring the grandstanding, I find it hard to argue with much of his analysis and conclusions. More interestingly, the article suggests that, however you do it, Gorgeous George "has started the process" of asking Parliament to impeach Bliar for his role in the Iraq invasion. Now that will be an eye-opener. There little to no chance Blair would ever be tried for war crimes so the impeachment idea is interesting. The reasoning behind the no war crimes view is for a start the treaty of Rome that governs the International Criminal Court doesn't cover acts of aggression properly. There is no accepted definition of what constitutes it included in the treaty because when it was written Britain and the USA could not agree on a definition so it never made it into the treaty in a suitably defined way. As it is not clearly defined you can't try someone for the crime. You will also not get him in actual war crimes either which are defined by the treaty. For leaders to be tried for war crimes they have to be ones instigating them. So if a squaddy executes half a dozen prisoners this is a war crime but it doesn't mean Blair could be tried for it as he didn't send in the troops with the orders to execute prisoners. Such an incident as that would be dealt with by military or national criminal courts with a case against the squaddy not the prime minister of the time. Perhaps you could argue if the UK knowingly undertook torture such as waterboarding Blair could be seen as liable for prosecution but even then the ICC would only prosecute if it could be shown Britain wasn't going to. The ICC only acts where the country in question either can't because it does not have the set up to do so or won't. If the issue is being dealt with nationally the ICC doesn't get involved. So things like the Chilcot enquiry will help head off any such moves. Even if it acted on this idea it is still incredibly hard to prove it was actual policy. So I think with all that the best you are going to get is impeachment for misleading parliament about the reasons for going to war but even then I am not sure there would be a great appetite for it. It might also be biased because as Galloway says the views of an MP's constituents may influence them to vote a certain way and if they are just anti-Blair for the sake of it that could lead to an outcome based on bias not considered legal opinion. Here is another interesting article on why Blair won't be tried to counter Galloway's views: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/does-boris-johnson-really-want-to-see-tony-blair-tried-for-war-crimes/

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:35 pm  

DaveO wrote:

...if they are just anti-Blair for the sake of it that could lead to an outcome based on bias not considered legal opinion.

"Considered legal opinion" - ah yes, I remember that. IIRC in summary, it considered war on Iraq wasn't legal, but as Bliar didn't like that, he got them to change "wasn't" to "was".