Viewing Thread:
"Hmmmm"

BBC News Ticker
"Jack Straw admits second intelligence dossier "an embarassment for government" more soon"

This was the dossier that convinced the MPs to vote in favour of action, no? The dossier that was splashed all over the papers and news urging us to attack Iraq because of the "WOMD ready to be deployed within 45 mins".

The entire reason for the invasion. "an embarassment for government".
Still, as has been the standard response to "You lying warhawks", I'm sure we'll be handed the "But the Iraqis are free now, surely the ends outweigh the means" argument.
Except regime change was never offered as a reason for immediate invasion was it? The freedom of Iraqis only rose to prominance when it became blatantly clear that the government, media and public were lied to about Hussein's weapons capabilities.

Regime change - because you can't disagree with that or you're an Evil Hitler (c) The Sun/Daily Mail/Granuiad

The government at the moment reminds me of something my cousin did to me a while ago. I was happily playing some desert combat game (or something along those lines...quite apt really) and he was watching me.

Him: Hey, I know where you can get an ACE plane.
Me: Nah, I'm alright in this one. it's pretty good and I've only just found it, want to test it out first.
Him: Nah nah, this is EXCELLENT.
Me: We-
*He grabs the controller*
Him: Right I'll just get it......got it.
Me: That's exactly the same one as I had before!
Him: No it isn't, it's much better.
Me: yes it is, and that's where I found it!
Him:...
Me: Well?
Him: Hey cool, look what I can do!


Something similar about the type of responses.

Alistair Campbell drags the enquiry down into a word-war with the BBC, demanding deadlines etc and managing to effectively steer the committee away from the fundamental questions being asked in regards to the reasons offered for invading Iraq, namely:

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Except we cant find them, despite all of the intelligence offered in the run up with transcripts, satellite photographs, radar interceptions and "troves of documents instructing how to hide or destroy incriminating evidence" (sorry, that just sounds too Monty Python)

Iraq purchased uranium from Africa with intent to use in a nuclear programme. Which has since been proved to be false, utilising "blatantly false papers", as stated in the march 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, saying "U.S. officials, including President Bush, also had cited British intelligence documents indicating Iraq may have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the IAEA said the documents were obvious fakes."

Iraq presented an immediate and serious threat to this country. Except they never have, and never could because they lacked any form of long-range missile technology, nuclear programme or links to Al-Queda - remember that Hussein had met several Al-Queda leaders during the mid-nineties and they did not agree on pretty much anything. Iraq was an independant state, with no proven links (in fact evidence to the contrary) to any form of Al-Queda or terrorist cells. I challenge anybody to provide any links to any terrorist activity whatsoever initiated by Iraq towards The West.

---

This enquiry is laughable for one simple reason, the Prime Minister refuses to give evidence.
Which is odd, because he gave a special address to the nation detailing why we should invade Iraq. Now? He doesn't want to know.

Goatboy wrote:
> Yep.
> It's propoganda on a level with us being told Nazis ate babies in
> WWI.
> Shameful really.

Yes it is shameful. Im sure that even Kamikaze jap knows that the Nazis were from WW2 :-p

Our troops may be in Iraq for another five years too.

I have to admit I am somewhat suprised and annoyed to some extent that
the government has been so incompetent. If no weapons are found this is indeed a serious matter otherwise how can we believe anything that is said. Maybe we can't; if so I don't think anything has changed historically even with the rise of democracy in the west. Or maybe in the UK and USA at least.

Despite this I think it would be nieve to think that the government was really going into Iraq to either free the people of find WOMD. In my opinion I think it is in the long run the US wanting out of the Middle East. Contradiction? Well if democracy can indeed be installed in Iraq and it spreads throughout the Middle East the US should within the next 50 years remove itself from the region and also end extremism with improved government.

Of course I would expect the 'Imperial burden' will drag down the US first in both social, political, international and latter on even economic terms.

If I met Tony Blair.

I would punch him square in the nuts (thats assuming those are his kids and he isn't todgerless).

I would then face the consequences with a smug face.

Yeah, in the old days they were always corrupt, but at least you knew where you were with them.

And they're lazy

They could at least have planted some weapons... tsk tsk. Corrupt government, they don't make them like they used to. Well, actually I guess they do.

My faith in the government has spiralled down to zero after this whole debacle. I half-expected weapons to be found soon after Hussein was removed, but the longer and longer it went with no evidence, and the amount of spin generated since (Us: "But there's no evide... Them: "NUCLEAR TERROR ALERT, RUN AWAY!") has left me totally devoid of any trust in the people who run this country.

Yep, free to live in worse conditions than under Hussein...

'but the protests.. they couldn't protest before...'

I've never entirely understood the importance of the freedom of speech to Americans.
Of course, it's less important in Europe, so being a European I wouldn't entirely 'get it' anyway.

But I have to wonder to what extent the freedom of speech is (intentionally) used to distract people from all the other freedoms which they aren't allowed...