The Iraq Enquiry
16 June 2009, 08:52 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
The Iraq Enquiry
Apparently to have an “open” enquiry it has to be held in secret
It reminds me of the American Major who, (Zippo in hand) during the Vietnam War, said of a village “to save it we have to destroy it” – and destroy it he did
its Orwellian doublespeak
It reminds me of the American Major who, (Zippo in hand) during the Vietnam War, said of a village “to save it we have to destroy it” – and destroy it he did
its Orwellian doublespeak
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 16 June 2009 at 10:05 PM. Reason: schoolboy spelling mistake
16 June 2009, 09:18 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: l'on n'y peut rien
Posts: 2,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bliar: that's your legacy, like it or not
16 June 2009, 10:37 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key element is what Blair agreed with Bush before Blair reported to parliament. But fat chance of ever learning that.
Interesting the enquiry is about a war but there is no military man on the panel.........
dl
Interesting the enquiry is about a war but there is no military man on the panel.........
dl
17 June 2009, 08:10 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
From Brown's acceptance speech as leader ... Gordon Brown: Leadership acceptance speech in full : ePolitix.com
"... And to build trust in our democracy, we need a more open form of dialogue for citizens and politicians to genuinely debate problems and solutions ... I believe government only works when it is dedicated to serving the people ..."
Well that was b*llux then!
Actually, we all know what happened in the leadup to the war. What we need is to learn the lessons of the c*ck-up that was the occupation of Iraq.
Dave
"... And to build trust in our democracy, we need a more open form of dialogue for citizens and politicians to genuinely debate problems and solutions ... I believe government only works when it is dedicated to serving the people ..."
Well that was b*llux then!
Actually, we all know what happened in the leadup to the war. What we need is to learn the lessons of the c*ck-up that was the occupation of Iraq.
Dave
17 June 2009, 08:27 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, perhaps, come to realise that we are wasting our time, money and good men in Afghanistan. It might just dawn on the government that shooting the Taliban doesn't achieve anything. A bit like scratching an ant's nest - there are hundreds more ready to come out and fight.
dl
17 June 2009, 10:08 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, perhaps, come to realise that we are wasting our time, money and good men in Afghanistan. It might just dawn on the government that shooting the Taliban doesn't achieve anything. A bit like scratching an ant's nest - there are hundreds more ready to come out and fight.
dl
dl
Trending Topics
17 June 2009, 10:28 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires
It’s taken the US military 10 whole years to realise that the absurd level of civilian casualties is counter productive
the lesson history teaches us is that we rarely learn any lesson from the past
It’s taken the US military 10 whole years to realise that the absurd level of civilian casualties is counter productive
the lesson history teaches us is that we rarely learn any lesson from the past
17 June 2009, 11:12 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 June 2009, 11:18 AM
#12
So you are saying we should be fighting the Taliban? What makes me laugh is that the US and UK walk into another persons country and then start blowing people up and then when they defend the country they get captured sent to jail and are accused of fighting the US/UK forces.......
If some other Army walked into the UK would the army fight them or just walk away?
If some other Army walked into the UK would the army fight them or just walk away?
17 June 2009, 11:24 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me to be yet another "eye catching NL initiative" to try to detract attention from the total horlicks they have made of failing to run this country in any manner which might have been advantageous to the people!
It all sounds good and may even lokk good on paper as they say, but from all practical sides it will be a complete waste of time and money from the point of view of discovering the real truth of the whole affair.
I see thay have carefully selected people on the enquiry who are already sympathetic to the NL cause anyway, and of course holding it in secret will make it considerably easier for the end result to be just what they want, like the other ones of course!
Luckily they have been castigated for this proposal by some fairly influential people so we can easily see it for what it really is.
Les
It all sounds good and may even lokk good on paper as they say, but from all practical sides it will be a complete waste of time and money from the point of view of discovering the real truth of the whole affair.
I see thay have carefully selected people on the enquiry who are already sympathetic to the NL cause anyway, and of course holding it in secret will make it considerably easier for the end result to be just what they want, like the other ones of course!
Luckily they have been castigated for this proposal by some fairly influential people so we can easily see it for what it really is.
Les
17 June 2009, 11:25 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying we should be fighting the Taliban? What makes me laugh is that the US and UK walk into another persons country and then start blowing people up and then when they defend the country they get captured sent to jail and are accused of fighting the US/UK forces.......
If some other Army walked into the UK would the army fight them or just walk away?
If some other Army walked into the UK would the army fight them or just walk away?
If our values mean anything then standing up to the Taliban is the only thing to do.
Remember your average Afganistani doesn't want a return to the dark days of Taliban rule, they want the NATO mission to succeed.
The people you refer to as fighting us are most certainly NOT defending their country, they are largely not from Afganistan, what they are defending is oppression and intollerance. The consequences of failure in Afganistan are dire for the people of that country as well as us in the West
17 June 2009, 11:27 AM
#15
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires
Retreat from Kabul
The Massacre of Elphinstone's Army was a victory of Afghan forces, led by Akbar Khan, the son of Dost Mohammad Khan, over a combined British and British Raj force, led by William Elphinstone, in January 1842. After the British troops captured Kabul in 1839, an Afghan uprising forced the occupying garrison out of the city. The British army, consisting of 4,500 troops and 12,000 working personnel or camp-followers, left Kabul on January 6, 1842. They attempted to reach the British garrison at Jalalabad, 90 miles away, but were immediately harassed by Afghan forces. The last remnants were eventually annihilated near Gandamak on January 13. Only one man, the assistant surgeon William Brydon, survived and managed to reach Jalalabad.
I remember being told as the story goes, when asked "Where is the army?" Bydon replied, "I am the army"
17 June 2009, 11:30 AM
#16
Yes absolutely we should be fighting the Taliban, I cannot think of a more just cause.
If our values mean anything then standing up to the Taliban is the only thing to do.
Remember your average Afganistani doesn't want a return to the dark days of Taliban rule, they want the NATO mission to succeed.
The people you refer to as fighting us are most certainly NOT defending their country, they are largely not from Afganistan, what they are defending is oppression and intollerance. The consequences of failure in Afganistan are dire for the people of that country as well as us in the West
If our values mean anything then standing up to the Taliban is the only thing to do.
Remember your average Afganistani doesn't want a return to the dark days of Taliban rule, they want the NATO mission to succeed.
The people you refer to as fighting us are most certainly NOT defending their country, they are largely not from Afganistan, what they are defending is oppression and intollerance. The consequences of failure in Afganistan are dire for the people of that country as well as us in the West
17 June 2009, 11:46 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This 'massive proportion' of government to which you refer, how many of those are a threat to our security?
It's also worth remembering that the Taliban ae NOT the government in Afganistan, that will only happen if we pull out!!
Last edited by Martin2005; 17 June 2009 at 11:47 AM.
17 June 2009, 12:36 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
You mention 9/11 - a bunch of Saudis wasn't it? Should we invade Saudi Arabia? Oh, guess what? They have oil ........
Dave
17 June 2009, 12:51 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can think of a damn sight more useful things to be doing with our own country. Let the Taliban screw their own country up. As I said, WHY should WE be fighting them?
You mention 9/11 - a bunch of Saudis wasn't it? Should we invade Saudi Arabia? Oh, guess what? They have oil ........
Dave
You mention 9/11 - a bunch of Saudis wasn't it? Should we invade Saudi Arabia? Oh, guess what? They have oil ........
Dave
I'm not ever going to bother correcting this because I suspect it's a wind-up
17 June 2009, 01:12 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelievable!!!
Was the Saudi government involved in the plot?
Did they train in Saudi?
Did the Saudi Goverment shelter Bin Laden?
I think you'll find the answer to all these question is no.
It was the TALIBAN in AFGANISTAN
So the point about attacking Saudi is just about as dumb as you can get, unless you believe that we should hold the government of Saudi Arabia responsible for the actions of a few of its citzens, and yet somehow ignore the Taliban who sheltered, helped train and finally refused to hand over the terrorists
Good enough?
Was the Saudi government involved in the plot?
Did they train in Saudi?
Did the Saudi Goverment shelter Bin Laden?
I think you'll find the answer to all these question is no.
It was the TALIBAN in AFGANISTAN
So the point about attacking Saudi is just about as dumb as you can get, unless you believe that we should hold the government of Saudi Arabia responsible for the actions of a few of its citzens, and yet somehow ignore the Taliban who sheltered, helped train and finally refused to hand over the terrorists
Good enough?
17 June 2009, 01:44 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 June 2009, 01:55 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
"... RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions. Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified." ..."
And ... Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(as it's Wikipedia I'm sure you can argue over a couple of details but ...) ..
"... American Airlines Flight 11 Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian) ....
United Airlines Flight 175
A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[7]
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian) ....
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian) ...
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian) ....."
Oh look, they're mostly Saudis .....
So, which part of my post was 'incorrect'???
Dave
17 June 2009, 02:03 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What to correct? Let's see ... USATODAY.com - Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
"... RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions. Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified." ..."
And ... Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(as it's Wikipedia I'm sure you can argue over a couple of details but ...) ..
"... American Airlines Flight 11 Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian) ....
United Airlines Flight 175
A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[7]
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian) ....
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian) ...
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian) ....."
Oh look, they're mostly Saudis .....
So, which part of my post was 'incorrect'???
Dave
"... RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions. Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified." ..."
And ... Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(as it's Wikipedia I'm sure you can argue over a couple of details but ...) ..
"... American Airlines Flight 11 Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian) ....
United Airlines Flight 175
A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[7]
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian) ....
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian) ...
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian) ....."
Oh look, they're mostly Saudis .....
So, which part of my post was 'incorrect'???
Dave
The fact that they were Saudis hardly makes the attacks on 9-11 an attack by Saudi Arabia does it?
In fact Bin Laden and his cohorts were sworn enermies of the Saudi Government
So in short I'm still not sure what your point is - unless this is just your usual arguing day is night
Last edited by Martin2005; 17 June 2009 at 02:06 PM.
17 June 2009, 02:14 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
"sensible" people never ask a question that they don't already have the answer too
17 June 2009, 02:17 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Martin2005 - So you're saying that by not fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, it would allow them to become more organised, meaning they would pose more of a threat to our national security?
What's wrong with just increasing the country's security in that case to prevent them ever being able to affect the UK?
What's wrong with just increasing the country's security in that case to prevent them ever being able to affect the UK?
17 June 2009, 02:23 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin2005 - So you're saying that by not fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, it would allow them to become more organised, meaning they would pose more of a threat to our national security?
What's wrong with just increasing the country's security in that case to prevent them ever being able to affect the UK?
What's wrong with just increasing the country's security in that case to prevent them ever being able to affect the UK?
17 June 2009, 03:04 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave is that the best you can do, find a load of links pointing to an undisputed fact?
The fact that they were Saudis hardly makes the attacks on 9-11 an attack by Saudi Arabia does it?
In fact Bin Laden and his cohorts were sworn enermies of the Saudi Government
So in short I'm still not sure what your point is - unless this is just your usual arguing day is night
The fact that they were Saudis hardly makes the attacks on 9-11 an attack by Saudi Arabia does it?
In fact Bin Laden and his cohorts were sworn enermies of the Saudi Government
So in short I'm still not sure what your point is - unless this is just your usual arguing day is night
I can think of a damn sight more useful things to be doing with our own country. Let the Taliban screw their own country up. As I said, WHY should WE be fighting them?
You mention 9/11 - a bunch of Saudis wasn't it? Should we invade Saudi Arabia? Oh, guess what? They have oil ........
Dave
You mention 9/11 - a bunch of Saudis wasn't it? Should we invade Saudi Arabia? Oh, guess what? They have oil ........
Dave
But we should still get the hell out of Afghanistan and let the Taiban sort themselves out.
Dave
17 June 2009, 06:25 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more moral and ethical level, we should never allow these people and their appalling oppression back to persectute, women and non conformers, that would be a national shame for us.
Finally we are part of NATO and this is a NATO operation, are you suggesting leaving the alliance.