Author Topic: Chilcot  (Read 5528 times)

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Chilcot
« on: July 19, 2016, 11:02:12 AM »
Isn't anyone going to defend Blair and Bush against these unfair attacks?  I would expect Ornery's members who supported the war to jump to their defense by attacking the partisan nature of the report:
Quote
Overall, Chilcot’s explosive and excoriating report delivered a damning verdict on Mr Blair’s decision to commit British troops to the US-led invasion. It contains blistering criticism of his decision to go to war on the basis of flawed intelligence, which had been described as sporadic and patchy, and of a catastrophic lack of planning for the aftermath.

The report’s main findings were:

• The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options of disarmament had been exhausted so that military action at that time was not a last resort.

• There was no imminent threat from the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, and judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were presented with a certainty that was not justified because the intelligence was flawed and should have been challenged.

• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of invasion, including sectarian violence, were underestimated and the post-war planning was wholly inadequate.

• British troops were sent into battle ill-equipped for the task.

Specifically, Mr Blair was criticised for deliberately exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in making the case for military action. Despite warnings by the intelligence agencies about the inadequacies and unreliability of their sources, he had described the intelligence as “extensive, detailed and authoritative”, but fears were expressed at the time that the intelligence was being “fixed around the facts”.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2016, 12:16:10 PM »
For heaven's sake, guys. talk about *anything* except the election right now on the table.  hey look!  a bird!

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2016, 12:56:07 PM »
it squirrel not bird  ::)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2016, 01:10:06 PM »
Al, don't forget also that Blair has been caught in having begun planning for the Iraq war upwards of a year prior to the UK actually sanctioning it. Americans have a very short-term memory about things like this, but from what I hear the English don't. They haven't forgotten it and they're pissed off.

Although it's 'ancient history' (aka any event that happened more than a couple of years ago is irrelevant when there's BREAKING NEWS afoot) I actually do consider the matter you brought up to be at least as important as discussion about the current election cycle. We can note that something like 50% of the time will be during some kind of Presidential election cycle, which obviously doesn't mean that 50% of the time other topics are unimportant.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2016, 02:00:25 PM »
Quote
Although it's 'ancient history' (aka any event that happened more than a couple of years ago is irrelevant when there's BREAKING NEWS afoot) I actually do consider the matter you brought up to be at least as important as discussion about the current election cycle. We can note that something like 50% of the time will be during some kind of Presidential election cycle, which obviously doesn't mean that 50% of the time other topics are unimportant.
Agreed.  The fiction these days in politics is that international relations follows the daily news cycle like so much else.  You can't understand ISIS and the general chaos in the Middle East and its impact on the world unless you understand the timeline that led to the current events and the ongoing state of affairs.  There are powerful lessons to be learned from carefully assessing what worldwide governments did before, during and after the 9/11 attacks.  The UK has at least been willing to try to come to grips with their own country's role and involvement.  The US has not and probably never will, just as we never did with Vietnam.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2016, 02:27:31 PM »
The US has not and probably never will, just as we never did with Vietnam.

Thank you, Harry Truman.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2016, 02:30:07 PM »
Quote
Thank you, Harry Truman.
The name is familiar, but what's the reference?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2016, 03:12:07 PM »
Osama Bin Laden is laughing fear is winning

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2016, 05:01:09 PM »
Quote
Although it's 'ancient history' (aka any event that happened more than a couple of years ago is irrelevant when there's BREAKING NEWS afoot) I actually do consider the matter you brought up to be at least as important as discussion about the current election cycle. We can note that something like 50% of the time will be during some kind of Presidential election cycle, which obviously doesn't mean that 50% of the time other topics are unimportant.
Agreed.  The fiction these days in politics is that international relations follows the daily news cycle like so much else.  You can't understand ISIS and the general chaos in the Middle East and its impact on the world unless you understand the timeline that led to the current events and the ongoing state of affairs.  There are powerful lessons to be learned from carefully assessing what worldwide governments did before, during and after the 9/11 attacks.  The UK has at least been willing to try to come to grips with their own country's role and involvement.  The US has not and probably never will

As we never have with Kosovo.  Kosovo is to Putin's aggression what Iraq is to Daesh.

Quote
, just as we never did with Vietnam.

I don't know that one.  Anyone fill me in?  What global consequences of our unfortunate dalliance in Vietnam can be compared with what's happened in Iraq, or Kosovo for that matter?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Chilcot
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2016, 06:59:44 PM »
Quote
Thank you, Harry Truman.
The name is familiar, but what's the reference?

As someone else bumped it, and I missed this the first time. At the end of WW2, Ho Chi Minh wasn't yet invested in the "Communist Kool-aid" as it were. What he was, however, was one of the leading figures of the resistance that had existed against the Japanese. WW2 concluded, and Truman decided to restore France's colonial claim to Vietnam after the surrender of Japan.

Which ultimately lead to the war France then fought(and lost) which gave us North and South Vietnam fighting essentially a civil war. With Ho Chi Minh representing North Vietnam as a communist, since the communists were the only ones who were willing to help him fight for independence and unification against France. That withdrawal of the French, paired with Ho Chi Minh seeking unification and his being backed by communists, in turn lead to the United States becoming involved in Vietnam. In large part due to the "Domino Theory"/policy that was likewise put into place by none other than Harry Truman.

So yes, the (US) Vietnam War is very much a "Thank you, Harry Truman" item.