Where have all the chemicals gone?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shells of blister agent have been found in Iraq and were being looked after by Allied troops as far back as April.
I can only assume these stocks are being saved for some sort of comprehensive announcement. This may explain Tony Blair's smug certainty on the subject as the Poisoned Dwarf et al dig themselves ever deeper into a hole.
I can only assume these stocks are being saved for some sort of comprehensive announcement. This may explain Tony Blair's smug certainty on the subject as the Poisoned Dwarf et al dig themselves ever deeper into a hole.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We still don't have an answer, do we?
Now it seems like our own MPs and Intelligence Staff believed all along that even if they were there they could not be a threat to the UK. Does this not invalidate the sole legal justification for the war?
Don't get me wrong - getting rid of Saddam would be a great move (but have we done it yet?). However, if we are to hold the moral high ground it must be done LEGALLY!
And TB was advised that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would INCREASE the risk of terrorism by allowing Al Qaeda to gain access to Iraqi technology - yet he chose to ignore that evidence. The current "unrest" in Iraq may just be proving a point, Mr Bliar.
Now it seems like our own MPs and Intelligence Staff believed all along that even if they were there they could not be a threat to the UK. Does this not invalidate the sole legal justification for the war?
Don't get me wrong - getting rid of Saddam would be a great move (but have we done it yet?). However, if we are to hold the moral high ground it must be done LEGALLY!
And TB was advised that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would INCREASE the risk of terrorism by allowing Al Qaeda to gain access to Iraqi technology - yet he chose to ignore that evidence. The current "unrest" in Iraq may just be proving a point, Mr Bliar.
Moggie,
I think (but would welcome correction from a legal sort) that the legality of the operation was based not on whether Saddam had WMD, but on the fact that he was not co-operating fully with the UN inspectors. By not doing so, he was in breach of UNSCR 1441, which was used as the justification. Also, the breaches of UNSCRs left, right, centre, down and up was added as back up- again, these were predicated on the suspicion that he had a WMD programme, and the UN had demanded that he - NOT they - prove unequivocally that he did not have either the weapons or a programme. Although 1441 didn't specifically authorise force, there was sufficient room for the US and UK to claim leigitimacy.
On the other hand, threre was a good article in a recent RUSI Journal which gave an eloquent explanation of why the war was illegal (but again, this didn't revolve around possession of actual WMD).
Quite why Saddam didn't say:
'We have no WMD. Please come to Iraq, Dr Blix. Spend as long as you like, go anywhere you like, and my officials will not do anything to interfere with your investigations (not if they know what's good for them). Then please reveal to the world that the Great Satan and its poodle have been lying. And then please lift sanctions, by the way' is rather odd. I can only surmise that a) he had a WMD programme he wanted to conceal or b) he felt he would lose face if he was proven not to be cocking a snook at the US by complying with UN demands.
The end result was that although Blix and co thought they were making some progress, they didn't make enough to show that Saddam was complying fully with UNSCR 1441. Dubya and Tony then waded in, pausing only to answer CDS's pointed query as to whether the war was legal.
I think (but would welcome correction from a legal sort) that the legality of the operation was based not on whether Saddam had WMD, but on the fact that he was not co-operating fully with the UN inspectors. By not doing so, he was in breach of UNSCR 1441, which was used as the justification. Also, the breaches of UNSCRs left, right, centre, down and up was added as back up- again, these were predicated on the suspicion that he had a WMD programme, and the UN had demanded that he - NOT they - prove unequivocally that he did not have either the weapons or a programme. Although 1441 didn't specifically authorise force, there was sufficient room for the US and UK to claim leigitimacy.
On the other hand, threre was a good article in a recent RUSI Journal which gave an eloquent explanation of why the war was illegal (but again, this didn't revolve around possession of actual WMD).
Quite why Saddam didn't say:
'We have no WMD. Please come to Iraq, Dr Blix. Spend as long as you like, go anywhere you like, and my officials will not do anything to interfere with your investigations (not if they know what's good for them). Then please reveal to the world that the Great Satan and its poodle have been lying. And then please lift sanctions, by the way' is rather odd. I can only surmise that a) he had a WMD programme he wanted to conceal or b) he felt he would lose face if he was proven not to be cocking a snook at the US by complying with UN demands.
The end result was that although Blix and co thought they were making some progress, they didn't make enough to show that Saddam was complying fully with UNSCR 1441. Dubya and Tony then waded in, pausing only to answer CDS's pointed query as to whether the war was legal.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is now my humble opinion that the Secretary General of the UN should give the governments of the USA and UK 90 days to find irrefutable evidence that Iraq had, in March 2003, WMD that posed a clear and imminent danger to Iraqs neighbours, and that they could be launched within 45 minutes, as claimed by the UK government.
Failure to do so will result in George W Bush and Tony Blair facing war crimes charges.
Thoughts???
Failure to do so will result in George W Bush and Tony Blair facing war crimes charges.
Thoughts???
It'd mean the end of the UN as a political organisation.
First, the US and UK govts would tell Kofi Anan that he's in no position to make such ultimatums/ultimata (it's the job of the UNSC). result = UNSC debate.
US and UK veto without doubt. Probably a veto from China as well (could limit their freedom of action).
Debate in Congress, followed by legislation telling UN to clear off from New York post haste...
The point is that the legal justification (whatever one thinks of it's validity, it is a justification that could be argued in a court) isn't dependent upon Saddam having WMD. It was predicated on his having a WMD development programme (or not) and not complying totally with UNSCR 1441. The war was the US/UK definition of 'serious consequences'.
It was also that of Poland, Australia and Kuwait (and possible one or two other nations who gave support, tacitly or overtly).
Finally, such a resolution would probably be vetoed by the French, since it would open some interesting possibilities for some of their leaders that the French wouldn't want explored...
First, the US and UK govts would tell Kofi Anan that he's in no position to make such ultimatums/ultimata (it's the job of the UNSC). result = UNSC debate.
US and UK veto without doubt. Probably a veto from China as well (could limit their freedom of action).
Debate in Congress, followed by legislation telling UN to clear off from New York post haste...
The point is that the legal justification (whatever one thinks of it's validity, it is a justification that could be argued in a court) isn't dependent upon Saddam having WMD. It was predicated on his having a WMD development programme (or not) and not complying totally with UNSCR 1441. The war was the US/UK definition of 'serious consequences'.
It was also that of Poland, Australia and Kuwait (and possible one or two other nations who gave support, tacitly or overtly).
Finally, such a resolution would probably be vetoed by the French, since it would open some interesting possibilities for some of their leaders that the French wouldn't want explored...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, in the eyes of the UN who had passed that resolution he WAS complying because the inspectors were in there, were doing the job and had reasonable access.
Of course the Septics didn't want there to be NO evidence so jumped in ther, forcing the UN inspectors out!
The invasion was NOT legal (i.e. in accordance with the UN rsolution) because it was not sanctioned by the UN - it was a US/UK effort which bypassed the whole UN security council procedure.
Of course the Septics didn't want there to be NO evidence so jumped in ther, forcing the UN inspectors out!
The invasion was NOT legal (i.e. in accordance with the UN rsolution) because it was not sanctioned by the UN - it was a US/UK effort which bypassed the whole UN security council procedure.
Moggie,
If you'll forgive a slight bit of devil's advocacy rooted in pedantry and semantics...
They couldn't because two of the P5 states said he wasn't, and would've vetoed any resolution that said that he was. In effect, the UN was left in a position where it couldn't officially express an opinion.
Also, until the UNSC officially said that Saddam had met his obligations under UNSCR 1441, Saddam was officially in breach of UNSCR 687 (ordering the surrender of WMD development capability/or WMD themselves). 1441 said explicitly that 687 had not been met.
The end result is that the UN's official position (since it did not come to one on 1441) was that Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687...
Finally, Hans Blix did not say that the Iraqis were fully complying with 1441. His statements imply that the Iraqis were making greater efforts than in 1991 (not difficult, frankly), but do not say that they were complying - rather, his reminder to Saddam that he was required to provide "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" suggests that it wasn't quite as required - messing around with the interviews of the scientists didn't help.
The final blow struck for the Axis of Believers would be that there is enough evidence that the diplomatic world and his dog understand that 'serious consequences' means 'use of military force', and that the French, Russians and Chinese chose to re-translate this, stating in a proviso to the resolution that they thought that this did not imply 'automaticity' [yuk] of use of force'. However, it can be argued (and has been) that the French, Russians and Chinese botched this, since the majority of the UNSC voted in favour of 1441 without adopting the proviso. In which case, did the UNSC accept the US or UK interpretation or not, since it was well known that this was how the US and UK would interpret the wording - in which case, the three ought to have vetoed the resolution.
Or...
This is far too long already - but what I'm trying (and probably failing) to do is to suggest that a decent team of defence lawyers would probably inflict fatal damage on the credibility of the UNSC and UNSCRs in their efforts to get Bush and Blair off; also, they'd have a very good chance of arguing that there was legality (or hints of it) hiding behind their actions...
If you'll forgive a slight bit of devil's advocacy rooted in pedantry and semantics...
They couldn't because two of the P5 states said he wasn't, and would've vetoed any resolution that said that he was. In effect, the UN was left in a position where it couldn't officially express an opinion.
Also, until the UNSC officially said that Saddam had met his obligations under UNSCR 1441, Saddam was officially in breach of UNSCR 687 (ordering the surrender of WMD development capability/or WMD themselves). 1441 said explicitly that 687 had not been met.
The end result is that the UN's official position (since it did not come to one on 1441) was that Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687...
Finally, Hans Blix did not say that the Iraqis were fully complying with 1441. His statements imply that the Iraqis were making greater efforts than in 1991 (not difficult, frankly), but do not say that they were complying - rather, his reminder to Saddam that he was required to provide "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" suggests that it wasn't quite as required - messing around with the interviews of the scientists didn't help.
The final blow struck for the Axis of Believers would be that there is enough evidence that the diplomatic world and his dog understand that 'serious consequences' means 'use of military force', and that the French, Russians and Chinese chose to re-translate this, stating in a proviso to the resolution that they thought that this did not imply 'automaticity' [yuk] of use of force'. However, it can be argued (and has been) that the French, Russians and Chinese botched this, since the majority of the UNSC voted in favour of 1441 without adopting the proviso. In which case, did the UNSC accept the US or UK interpretation or not, since it was well known that this was how the US and UK would interpret the wording - in which case, the three ought to have vetoed the resolution.
Or...
This is far too long already - but what I'm trying (and probably failing) to do is to suggest that a decent team of defence lawyers would probably inflict fatal damage on the credibility of the UNSC and UNSCRs in their efforts to get Bush and Blair off; also, they'd have a very good chance of arguing that there was legality (or hints of it) hiding behind their actions...
I don't think that the MUSTARD GAS shells/cylinders that they found (after 70 years) in FRANCE have anything to do with it.
Not even Tony/Bush would be that desperate (WOULD OR ARE THEY ???) as these shells/cylinders were BRITISH/ALLIED.
Not even Tony/Bush would be that desperate (WOULD OR ARE THEY ???) as these shells/cylinders were BRITISH/ALLIED.
Well - Throbbin' Cock's disclosures in today's Sunday Chipwrapper make interesting reading. He alleges that Trust-me-Tone knew perfectly well that there were no usable Iraqi WMD poised to threaten us.....
Now the Downing St spin has already started. Just how much longer can Bliar, BuffHoon and the rest continue?
There's also an interesting story about the Nimrod 2000...err, 2001 - or was it 2002? 2003?? 200MRA4??? No - it looks like 2005 or 2006 now. Time to throw it away and put the mission system into an A321 with a stores bay, perhaps I might suggest? For verily I say unto thee, truly hath the Bungling Baron Waste o'Space bungled big time over this!
Now the Downing St spin has already started. Just how much longer can Bliar, BuffHoon and the rest continue?
There's also an interesting story about the Nimrod 2000...err, 2001 - or was it 2002? 2003?? 200MRA4??? No - it looks like 2005 or 2006 now. Time to throw it away and put the mission system into an A321 with a stores bay, perhaps I might suggest? For verily I say unto thee, truly hath the Bungling Baron Waste o'Space bungled big time over this!
