Disgusted

[Tug]

Jack Straw grrrrrr

am i wrong in seeing this as an act by the government in covering up what they know is likely to enrage and anger a lot of the general public. granted in silencing the demands Mr straw has probably said as much as if he allowed them to be read but on a more cynical basis it also shows his insecurity in the stability of the current government and its ability to cope with hard times.

[Johnboy]

Jack Straw grrrrrr

am i wrong in seeing this as an act by the government in covering up what they know is likely to enrage and anger a lot of the general public. granted in silencing the demands Mr straw has probably said as much as if he allowed them to be read but on a more cynical basis it also shows his insecurity in the stability of the current government and its ability to cope with hard times.

No... You're not wrong at all Tug....

The case for going to war with Iraq was based on a pack of lies trumped up by the US and British governments.

The government will cover up that simple fact up for as long as they possibly can. A change of government wouldn't alter matters - the conservatives supported Blair with his trumped up case for helping Bush to bomb the chit out of Iraq.

Bush and Blair should be made to stand trial for war crimes, and when found guilty - executed.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Johnboy

[Tug]

what annoys me the most is that if we are supposed to beleive them you would think that given a gilt edged chance like this to say look its all true yet they continue to deny us the opportunity to give them a chance and in doing so they only succeed in making them selves look more guilty

[starchief]

In many ways, I agree with the decision but I'm sure if the evidence wasn't incriminating, they'd be happy to announce that, as a one-off, to reassure the public, they would release the minutes. I'd LOVE to know what Brown said. You could write on a matchbox the number of comments he has made.

[Johnboy]

Brown's always maintained the decision to bomb and invade Iraq was the right one - despite the fact that no WMD were ever found and that Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the UK or US.

See here

I'll never forgive him for that... I don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue it was the right thing to do, given the problems that have resulted from that action.

[starchief]

Yeah but in that he says, "I take my responsibility as a member of the Cabinet for the collective decisions that we made". And I remember what he said at the hustings when he put Blair in his pocket but what I meant was, what did he REALLY think. Neither of those statements were a personal view and his assistant Ed Balls said Brown was reluctant. But in the confidential meetings did Brown speak up? I guess we'll know in 30 years time.

[absent friend]

Brown's always maintained the decision to bomb and invade Iraq was the right one - despite the fact that no WMD were ever found and that Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the UK or US.

See here

I'll never forgive him for that... I don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue it was the right thing to do, given the problems that have resulted from that action.

Is there not a degree of past and future tense in the highlighted area?

Would the US or UK have gone ahead if they had your knowledge of the future?

I seem to remember the US President deciding, in Iraq, to the worlds press, that the job was done! Not quite the actions of a man with your knowledge of the future!

Was the attack, backed by both sides of the house, seen as a long drawn out affair, unleashing internal historic strife

between factions? I don't think so - but they did not have your knowledge of the future!

I'll never forgive the ICT Board for Butchers appointment... I don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue it was the right thing to do, given the problems that have resulted from that action.

HELP, what is he going to do??? Oh now wait a minute, we should all know that if we had your knowledge of the future!!

[starchief]

I have two big problems with Iraq:

1. Blair stood up in the House of Commons and said Saddam could keep his terror government as long as he complied with the weapons inspectors. He tries now to pass off Iraq as some great democracy experiment. He was either lying then or now. And that's too serious a lie to let go.

2. The biggest rally Britain has EVER seen said No War, with polls consistently against. After the farce of the election of Bush in his first term (and he has the cheek to promote democracy!), this destroyed any notion of representing the people in Parliament. An election over numerous issues isn't carte blanche to rough ride over the electorate.

[Johnboy]

Would the US or UK have gone ahead if they had your knowledge of the future?

I seem to remember the US President deciding, in Iraq, to the worlds press, that the job was done! Not quite the actions of a man with your knowledge of the future!

Was the attack, backed by both sides of the house, seen as a long drawn out affair, unleashing internal historic strife

between factions? I don't think so - but they did not have your knowledge of the future!

I certainly don't claim to have the second sight, but many, much wiser people than me, and whose opinions I hold in high regard, did express grave fears that over a million would die in Iraq and did correctly predict that the consequences of that military action would have serious ramifications for a long time to come.

When GWB declared to the world's press that "the job was done" what he meant was Saddam Hussein had been captured and would be executed, and that America had control of Iraqi oil. That was all he was interested in. During the run up to military action he lied by suggesting that Saddam/Iraq were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US.

The so called cover up of the cabinet meeting discussions in which the decision was taken to support the US, I suspect has much to do with the fact that Tony Blair persuaded the Attorney General to change his mind regarding the legality of bombing and invading Iraq and bringing about a regime change.

[Scotty]

The widely held belief in Canada, and one to which I subscribe is that Iraq was the wrong decision but that Afghanistan was correct. However, as they say over here ... regardless of whether you believe either war is justified or not, you have to support the troops.

In the case of Iraq it seems to have been a military action conducted under false pretenses. There were numerous layers of bad intelligence and although some people seem to have offered more accurate intelligence, it was largely ignored because it didnt say what certain leaders wanted it to say. The major factor in invading that nation seems to have been Saddam's alleged links to 9/11 and the existence of WMD, both of which can be (largely) disproven.

Personally, and I am sure I am not alone in saying this, I think it was partly based on the need for the defense industry to make money (war is good for business), partly based on gaining control of the oil (Saddam - once a strong ally against Iran - would not play ball), and partly based on "getting the job finished" (GB^snr stopped short of deposing Saddam in Gulf War I so Junior, who has been trying to prove himself to his dad all his life decided to try and get it done by creating Gulf War II).

In the case of Afghanistan, on the other hand, it can largely be proven that the ruling Taliban did offer Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven and therefore the decision to go after that organisation and those offering the safe haven seems justified.

The next question for me seems to be "when is the right time to stop?". Western powers, whether that be the USA, or the historically imperialistic powers such as the UK, Spain, France etc, or even the former Soviet Union have a history of going into almost every region of the world and creating bigger problems than they solve when trying to impose their ideas of an ideal solution. All of these regions have far more complicated political geographies than most of us realise and hopefully the new regime in the whitehouse can slowly but surely navigate some form of tangible solution that minimises the loss of both civilian and military personnel.

[Renegade]

Afghanistan is a strange one and really the job should've been done long ago. Remember, the reasons for going into Afghanistan were to overthrow the Taliban who were looking after Osama and the gang and to go and capture bin Laden himself. I for one would be very surprised if Bin Laden even alive today and secondly the reason he has never been captured (still, if he is still alive), is simple. They just don't want him.