Off Topic Chilcot Report on the Iraq War

SIS source 'based intelligence on Hollywood movie'
David Blair, chief foreign correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, tweets:

please log in to view this image

This beggars belief

 

So Jeremy Corbyn apologises on behalf of the Labour Party, piss off you tree hugging fanny!

 

I don't know what it is about Corbyn and not having a chance but this guy correctly called and predicted the exact events and aftermath the we would leave behind in Iraq.

He's against the grain of the establishment- don't confuse that with weakness.

 

[QUOTE="smokethedeadbadger, post: One thing I do know is that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussain and his 'friends' in it.[/QUOTE]
Have to disagree Smokey mlad.Even though Saddam was a tyrant/scumbag there was some stability in Iraq-Look at the place now!Massive carbomb in Baghdad the other day by Isis,not sure this would have happened under the old regime.I think Isis replacing Sadam has made the world a more dangerous and not a safer place.

 

I can understand people either agreeing or disagreeing with the actual war in Iraq but i never thought i'd actually hear people arguing a case for Saddam Hussain being alive, i'm not quite sure what to say and its not often i'm left speechless

 

I'm not confusing it for weakness, i don't like the bloke, i don't like what he stands for, i disagree with his ideas, principles and beliefs, as is my right.

 

Smokey you can't just go invading countries just cus a nutjob like Sadam is in power.So the UK should invade North Korea and Zimbabwe to?! All I said was that there was more stability when Sadam was in power,I NEVER mentioned that I wanted him to stay in power so I'm not sure why you were left speechless esp when I mentioned I thought he was a scumbag!Your making it out im some pro Sadam supporter which is nearly as ignorant as Tony Blair's justification for an invasion!Of course Iraq would have been better off without him,the means by which that was done was ill thought though.'Sadam is gone now we have 1000 Sadams'-Quote just there on the news from the guy who helped topple first Sadam statute.

 

I'm not trying to get into an argument about it. He's better off dead end of for me. I'm going to unwatch this thread now, because i'm well aware that my opinions on this, Tony Blair and whether we should or shouldn't invade countries is going to differ greatly to most if not all on here

 

Ah sure if we all agreed about everything the world would be a dull place!Back to the more light hearted banter of horsies and footy!

 

I cannot claim to have read the Chilcot Report but a team of journalists at the BBC took twenty pages each and told us that most of it is was what we already knew:

• Bush and Blair were in such a hurry to get rid of Saddam that they did not bother with any other lines of inquiry.

• Our troops were badly equipped with out-of-date technology and insufficient quantities so that troops had to share body armour, whilst the Americans arrived with full kit and the latest tech.

• They had not bothered to figure out what they were going to do once they had got rid of the bogeyman; so Iraq has now become the main haven of the spreading tentacles of Islamic State as we left a power vacuum.

Blair still thinks that he was right.

Just like most public inquiries, a waste of public money...

 

A totally shocking event of affairs from start to finish. As a Squaddie at that time I spent 2 X 6 month tours in that **** hole of a country which if the revenue from the oil was spent wisely would have been one of the richest and possibly nicest places in the world. I have several opinions about this subject. 179 ill-equipped British Soldiers lost their lives along with thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians. As a result of this war a further 52 people needlessly lost their lives in London. The planning for the aftermath which was non exsistent has got rid of one tyrant and a few henchmen but has created thousands if not tens of thousands of these Isis parasites which is spreading throughout the region. Even now I can't believe that Blair has had a copy of this report for the last few weeks so he has had plenty of time to rehearse for today, yet the families only got 2 hours. It would be interesting if some legal people looked deeply into this report to see if Blair could be charged in some way as this could be possible having listened to the father of one soldiers killed. Obviously this would cost another monstrous amount of money but if the families believe in it then maybe we could have another Hillsborough scenario on our hands.

 

I was listening to a part of Blairs carefully rehearsed speech in the car this afternoon and thought exactly the same GM. Why did that ****er get to see it early? Every army guy says the same thing about equipment - not enough of it and poor quality. That's an outrage. If the government asks a man or woman to go into combat on their behalf the least it can do is make sure they've got the best of everything. I don't know how I'd react if my 20 year old son got slaughtered by a mob unable to call for back up in a spot where the same thing had occurred a few weeks earlier as happened to Reg Keays. I wouldn't want compo, I'd want to see Blair, the Foreign Secretary and the Army Chief in a court charged with manslaughter.

 

Tony Blair is a war criminal in my opinion and should be charged as such.

 

Indeed it is, and disagreeing is absolutely fine by me- it's part of debate.

 

GWB and Cheney too, but snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

 

I don't disagree with that but it won't happen. If you look at the facts behind the slaughter of those RMPs there's a clear duty of care issue which could and should lead to charges against the key decision makers. How many occasions, following reports emerging of dodgy equipment at the time did the PM and other senior figures state publicly that the Forces were properly equipped? They were lying, people died as a result and those individuals should bear the consequences.

 

The men behind Bush seemed to be pulling the strings there! Bush seemed a puppet when I look back now.

As we know, given the shambolic 9/11 report, it will all be too late by the time we know what went on behind closed doors in the US.

 

BBC Fivelive phone in which started at 09.00 about Tony Blair,Iraq and Chilcot.

 

Remember.
Paul Wolfowitz, PNAC :
What the US needed was a " catastrophic and catalyzing event— like a new Pearl Harbor."
and from Wikipedia, about PNAC:
"Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War."

There needed to be justification and they did so with soundbites; soundbites, ffs! Like a marketing presentation ... !
WMD - who came up with WMD? Remember that idiot and his presentation about using trains to move chemical weapons into range?

It's all about defense spending, power and money - it actually suits right wing neoconservatives to have a dangerous enemy in the middle east to justify the billions the US spends on defense; and so it goes on. The best way to keep people on-side is to have them scared of a credible enemy. So you could say the intelligence services have served the interests of the western powers very well indeed.

PNAC's website was live and fully open right up to 2003, if I remember, so you could easily see the influence this "think tank" was having on the Bush administration.

Now, on to Newmarket .... it's got to be a good day for Mehmas, hasn't it