Friday, 29 January 2010
Nice one Tony.
Same old shit and still we're no closer to having any adequate answers to why you felt it necessary to destroy a nation and allow thousands of people to die on the fucking off-chance that Saddam Hussein might have still had the chemical weapons we sold to him, and might have had the capacity to 'reactivate' the weapons programs destroyed by over a decade of draconian sanctions that crippled a country and arguably killed even more people than our war of aggression.
There can be no doubt that this was a war of aggression. We didn't like Saddam anymore. Our former ally had become a liability and threatened to upset the applecart through the shrewd leverage of his national oil wealth and trading capacity.
Regime change was the only way to reverse this policy. And reverse it we most certainly have. Sadly this issue was not given as much weight as it should have been by our free and independent press.
Now, I'm not for one minute saying that Tony Blair had knowledge of the above situation and that his motives were impure in so far as Saddam Hussein was a "monster" with somewhat murderous tendencies when challenged, for example, by the Kurds.
However, this was NOT the reason we went to war - even ostensibly. We stood by and let him massacre the Kurds!
The 'inquiry' has proven itself to be a toothless affair dealing more on a media circus basis and focusing on the word of those directly involved in sanctioning the carnage.
Why, for example, are we not hearing the legal opinion of those who advised the rest of the UN Security Council, all those who opposed the war. This inquiry has avoided any line of questioning that might start getting to the point.
We were led to war on a false prospectus, by a divided cabinet - only two of which had the moral fortitude to resign over their spineless colleagues and megalomaniac self publicist of a Prime Minister's blind belief in "the right thing".
Christ! Launching a war of aggression on the basis of a tenuous point of law that did not have unanimous agreement within the respective governments concerned, let alone the UN Security Council, means that we committed the ultimate crime, an unprovoked war of aggression.
Lord Goldsmith is a mealy mouthed twat with as much blood on his hands as our former Prime Minister and every member of the cabinet and Opposition who supported our invasion of Iraq.
They didn't ask the right questions at the time and are therefore equally culpable, at least in moral, if not legal, terms.
They allowed themselves to be taken in by a convenient lie, a convenient pretext and the most convoluted, legal semantics/bollocks i have ever heard.
I want to hear what the French, Chinese and Russians have to say.
Surely the UN Security Council members and their legal representatives are crucial to our understanding this situation adequately?
We're getting the most flimsy side of the argument delivered by those with most to gain by having it 'accepted' and lodged in the history books as yet another example of well meaning but ultimately disastrous unilateral military action of highly dubious legal - and zero moral - integrity.
At best we were grossly misled into war and at worst we have all been party to the supreme war crime, which has been paid for with much blood and a vast chunk of our taxes. But thats okay because almost every global oil company has posted record profits consistently in every quarter since the invasion took place.
The Russians must be furious.
All they get is a tidal wave of cheap heroin and all the related social problems that accompany it.
Posted by marc deeley at 14:48