Put that man in the little room across the square!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by OldRedCap, Dec 18, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Much is being made of the (politician's) promise that our troops will be out of Iraq - less a few there to train Iraqi forces - by the end of July 2009. I would like to think that the euphoria will not distract attention from the real need that the Nation deserves to know just why we went there in the first place. Blair and Bush have wavered on this for longer than the forces have been in Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction? The only weapons of mass destruction have been Bush and Blair. 45 minutes from launching an assault - total lack of any supportive evidence. It seems to me that, other than Bush and his claim about The Voice Of God, they just settled on the excuse 'It Seemed a Good Idea At The Time'. Well, lads, I'm afraid that won't do although I would accept it if they in their turn accept that their trial in an International Court for war crimes also 'Seems A Good Idea Right Now' They are just as responsible for the deaths and destruction in Iraq as those Generals with unpronounceable names were in Bosnia.
    Doubtless they would squeak and squirrel away about having made genuine mistakes based upon duff intelligence given to them. Well, they employed the givers and assessors of that evidence and must be responsible for their ability and performance. I cannot see much sympathy for the driver who mistakes accelerator for brake and ploughs down a column of school kids en route to school. So it is for them. There is sufficient prima-facie evidence; the senior member of the Attorney General's office who resigned. The rejection of the first opinion when the senior law adviser was sent away to form another more favourable conclusion. Even that was a lukewarm statement:

    " I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force.... Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution"

    That further resolution was not sought despite it being identified as a 'safe legal course' . On the basis of what he was told, he accepts that there is a reasonable case ........ Blair chose not to accept the safe legal course - reckless at the least. Criminally reckless where the action he wanted was sure to result in loss of life. We now have reason to doubt what he was told so that destroys the basis for his secondary and grudging go ahead. He describes it as a 'reasonable case'. Not, notice, a stone cold certainty. The final opinion given almost under duress needs to be revisited in the light of the true situation as it was when he gave it. There is further documentation for the AG's study. The Downing Street Memo. The "Downing Street memo" sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior United Kingdom Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct references to classified United States policy of the time. The memo recorded the head of MI6 as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

    Blair has wormed his way into a strong diplomatic rank but no man is so superior that he cannot be brought to trial. And, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands killed and those families and dependants whose lives have been ruined, that is what should happen to him. And Bush as a joint conspirator.
  2. 100% agree. Discreet lobbying of Tory/Lib Dem frontbenchers by those who were in service at the time, and who have knowledge that may prove embarrassing, may help the process along.
  3. If he was correct in his judgements then he would be exonerated so he should have nothing to fear. :roll:

    I just wonder as to his real motives, not the declared ones. 45 minute WMD attack is just puerile, and why would Saddam have done so anyway?
    With the int. and Army counselling against the only reason was to support Georgie. Why?
    But perhaps the fact that he is rolling it in on a comfortable circuit and doesn't need his old country now could be a pointer.
    But as his whole career has been based on passing the buck then I would wager your next years wages that he feels absolutely no responsibility for the deaths of anyone on either side of the fence.
  4. For the life of me i still dont understand why we went to war with Iraq, and having done so why BLiar hasn't been held to account for it by now. The entire 'justification for war' was laughable from the 45 min WMD to the cut and paste internet 'Intelligence' assesment. There have been and still are worse regimes in the World than Sadams and they have been left alone (Mugabes for one). The only conclusion for me is that:- Bush went to war for oil, BLair went to war for Bush.
  5. I assumed I was just thick.
    I have enever been able to figure out why Britain really went to Iraq. Its not as if we aquired any cheap oil or anything else out of the deal.
    Watching the news this morning were the BBC said Brown was never a great supporter of the whole thing disgusted me. Lots of Bush's friends seem to have made a bundle on the job and an awful lot of people have died in the process.
    Worst of all I am absolutely sure that Blair has never lost a moments sleep over it.
  6. But to all you have said Ditto

    I would also seem that middle America is waking up to the magnitude of what the shrub caused and blair poodle'd too...

    Yes the little Room across the square, is a place i would be more than happy to see the shrub cheney rumsfield BLAIR AND BROWN in lets us face it BROWNS HANDS ARE NOT CLEAN NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS...

    Not shouting just ensuring that they can hear me at the back of the room.
  7. I see Blair as the really evil bstard here. Bush was carried away by wanting to do something about 9/11 but did not know what or to whom; his redneck supporters demanded action. The others were in it for whatever tit-bits dropped off the table. Blair, however, schemed and plotted, twisted and lied, connived and compelled to advance his own cause. I think he saw himself as Thatcher re-born and that Iraq was to be his Falklands in future history.
  8. He's been pondering his "legacy" since he got into office. President of the EU must be his next target with its attendant immunity from prosecution.
  9. I think, under the circumstances, we too would be justified in ignoring the 'safe legal course' in holding Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to account. He himself set the precedent that you can do away with due process when it gets in the way of your aim - he should be entirely satisfied with the outcome.
  10. This is something from a few years back: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3524133.stm)
    The International Criminal Court in the Hague is being asked to probe allegations of war crimes by Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon. The claims surround the UK's role in invading Iraq and have been raised by the group Legal Action Against War. They say a "principal charge" is "intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians".
    Michael Mansfield QC said the group wanted to re-establish the rule of law. As well as the prime minister, foreign secretary and defence secretary, the group is also targeting Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who advised that the war was lawful. The Foreign Office declined to comment on the petition, saying only that it stood by the legal basis given for the war.
    Mr Mansfield said none of the reasons given for the war - weapons of mass destruction, violation of United Nations resolutions and removing Saddam Hussein - provided a satisfactory legal basis for attacking Iraq. "What is the point of having the ICC if on one of the gravest things this country has even done the ICC is going to turn its back on it? The International Criminal Court (ICC) did not have jurisdiction to rule that unlawful aggression was a war crime" he told a news conference. But he continued: "The context of considering the particular individual war crimes has to be set against what we claim is an unlawful war. "Even if the ICC decided that the war was lawful, they still have to examine whether what was carried out was proportionate."

    Mansfield is a very smart cookie. The campaign started by Legal Action Against War needs to be resuscitated and supported by all those who marched under the banner "Not in Our Name". There were a hell of a lot of them then; now we have seen what US and UK are capable of in the sudden collateral death dealing, there must be many more. Very few Muslims came out and marched last time but they have become more assertive. There is a LAAW website (http://www.laaw.org/) which presents cogent arguments in the Blair = war criminal consideration. The evidence is there and clear. All it needs is someone to get things together and start the ball rolling.
    The job of the Opposition is to oppose the government; so, where is Cameron? What about all the high-principled faff we heard about Green's duty to leak whistle-blowers? Is the Iraq crime not blowing a loud enough whistle?
  11. Yes, this story cetainly is "food for thourght" and very well presented. It would certainly be "world shocking" news if bush and blair went on trail for war crimes, it would open up all sorts of worm cans, even question mans humanity. However, the secret club that these two belong to, certainly is above the law ! This means in reality, it would never happen, for fear of collapse of the western world! ! !
  12. Ive often wondered if he wasnt married to that creature of a wife then she would be pursuing him personnally through the courts right now. But then again everything he did seemed to offer her a court case for someone!! I hate the fact that so many people especially him have gained so much money out of it for no effect whatsoever on his family.

    Can anyone tell me what Britain gained financially or otherwise out of this.
  13. Weren't the Nazis tried for starting a War of Aggression ?
    And Regime change which seems to be part of King George II thinking is illegal.
    All those years ago I argued on another forum that it was all about Oil. Then I though No it can't be that simple there has to be more too it then oil. Power projection, The US surrounding Russia with all those bases in Whever-Istan, a Neo Cons wet dream.
    I came back to Oil, Haliburton and Yes a lot of very good friends of King George made a great deal of money.
    He tried to kill my Papa and God spoke to him, well at least Georgie Boy does seem to have some excuses, pretty pathetic but Tone, Dear Leader
    None, nothing just what as already been seen as an attempt to obtain Glory a resurrected Maggei, Cum back to Share her Glory with a quick sharpe successful War that gave Liberty and overthrew a hated Dictator.
    What a little sh1t.
    But of course Tone Dear Leader has Always been a good Catholic child, boy would I like to hear that Confessional.
  14. Iraq actually had "more weapons" when they decided to occupy kuwait, and they consisted mostly of artillery rounds donated for their war against Iran that I personally wouldnt even trust to be stood 5 miles behind they were that old and unsafe. Yet this was not a basis upon which to storm their capital and occupy it for the next 10 years, although the UN and the rest of the world let Blair and his pathetic mismatched war council condem our country to this.
    At least when the Bosnian war started their leaders had the 100% backing from its people, whereas how many of us wanted this? In 1991 yes maybe but to be sensible we left it and during the period after 91 how many countries did sadam bomb? Lets not forget who gave sadam his "conventional weapons" and why.
    Ithink it is without any reasonable doubt that they should now be brought to justice in the Haig, and I am sure there would be more than enough evidence to drown them. Blair should be hung from a HIAB just like Saddam. :x
  15. Picking upon Jonwilly's point "The US surrounding Russia with all those bases in Whever-Istan, a Neo Cons wet dream

    Just finished some while back reading book by a Yank who went round the world visiting everywhere that had US troops stationed - I've loaned it out and cannot quote here. The author was certain, and made a very good case for, American policy being to become even bigger Colonials that we ever were and determined to have a globe where the sun never set on a sphere of influence.

    I think the Halliburton's etc came onto the scene as opportunists once Bush pressed the button and did not influence his decision. Does not make them any nicer people but including them as plotters might confuse the search for the real crooks.

    Anyone want to run a book that O'Barmy will sign Bush off with a full pardon that would put him beyond reach of justice?