radioheadrule83
Banned
This is the chief instrument most commonly used in attacking Tony Blair's credibility. The sole purpose of which of course is to get people to vote Conservative or Lib Dem. But what really happened here?
UNSCR 1441
UNSCR (UN Security Council Resolution) 1441 was drafted by the UK and United States of America in November 2002. It backed the motions of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and would aim to see UN Weapons Inspectors re-enter Iraq on their own terms.
Motioned by these parties and accepted by the entire UN, 1441 referenced and recognised that the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with TEN previous United Nations resolutions over a period of over a decade. It recognised that Iraq's non compliance made it a threat to it's neighbours and the region, and insisted that Iraq must not persist in such behaviour and non-compliance therein.
A SECOND RESOLUTION?
In February the following year, work was under way in both the US and the UK to convince the United Nations to adopt a second UN resolution. The international community was split over the wording in 1441, and over how much leniency should be shown to Iraq and the Ba'athist regime. 1441 states that if Saddam does not immediately comply and disarm he will face "serious consequences". The French, German and Chinese argument was that Iraq should be given more time to comply and for inspections to continue. The UK and US position was that Iraq had already been given 11 years and was now pushing it's luck. A second resolution would call for a UN ultimatum to Saddam threatening a UN-led use of force.
Negotiations continued for a short time, and UK foreign secretary, Jack Straw, offered to set a serious deadline for compliance and disarmament at the end of March. Both sides accrued support from various members, many smaller members supporting the US/UK initiative. But the real collapse occured when France insisted that it would support NO resolution that delivers an ultimatum threatening force. As a permenant member of the security council, it's veto holds enough power to topple such an idea. The impetus for continuing the UK and US push for a UN movement was over.
THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
Prior to pursuing the second resolution, Tony Blair and members of the cabinet had warned that legality of a military campaign may already be authorised under the context of UNSCR 1441. It is argued by some that George Bush would have went ahead with the war with or without British assistance. In fact, a leaked memo over the weekend suggests that British MPs were aware of a US desire to go to war four months before UNSCR 1441. Even then, the advice was that the UN should be used to make an ultimatum to Saddam, emploring him to comply.
Quite rightly, when people read of such a pro-active US military campaign on so called axes of evil, they get kind of worried. They wonder why on Earth Britain is involved. Why us? Why now? What for?
The accusations of war-for-oil sprung up, just as they did in 1991 -- when the defence of Kuwait had the support of over 30 countries. If you look at the evidence, and particularly some ties to the US administration, you really can't blame people for saying these things. But are these ties some kind of proponent for the idea that punishing Iraq would never have been the right thing to do? Whether or not oil is an additional motive in some parts of the world, you have to look at the timeline I have described, the full UN picture, not to mention Iraq's pattern of non-compliance, deceit and of course it's history of atrocity. Then you have to decide for yourself. What would have been the right thing to do? Was Britain to side with Europe and push away America? Was it to side solely with America and push away Europe? What are the consequences to each? Was there a middle ground? A fence to sit on?
TRUST?
Put yourself in Tony Blair's shoes. It wasn't politically convenient to tell the country you're taking them to war -- war is ALWAYS a divisive issue. And so it proved when cabinet members resigned and protests emerged on the streets. Even now, you might be reading this and still strongly oppose what this country did out of pure principle. You might have a perfectly understandable disdain for every demonised character that has emerged in the debacle. Furthermore, I'm sure none of us like the idea of anyone losing lives on either side. No doubt, Iraq is something a lot of people the world over, would rather never happened. But does the Iraq war render this government's record inconsequential?
Does it automatically make this government untrustworthy? Does it suddenly make the opposition worth voting for?
I say that Tony Blair and our Cabinet showed conviction. He viewed Saddam's regime as deplorable... many in the UN did, all of the opposition parties over here did. WMDs may not have been found, but UNSCRs were ratified under the widespread view that Iraq had them. Our own intelligence community highlighted the possibility. Tony Blair also viewed the US as an important ally. He gave European allies and other UN members the offer of issuing an Internationally-led ultimatum in order to end a 12+ year-old saga, and he gave the US his backing in the event of failure. The message throughout to Iraq was: comply or be invaded. With 200,000+ troops on Iraqs doorstep, compliance was non-existant, deadlines passed... and the somber world no doubt looked on, very worried indeed.
Where we misled?
The government naturally say no. And I say there is evidence to support them. Again in the last week we have seen evidence suggesting that lines have changed as the war neared. Lord Goldsmith, attourney general (the man the government appoint to advise them on legal matters), said on March 7 that invasion could be deemed legal, but offered concerns that soldiers might be tried for war crimes among other things. Some time later and he has become furthermore convinced that invasion is legal under 1441. On both occasions, he advises the government that war is legal, but in the earlier instance he offers certain caveats and avenues of attack an anti-war contingent may use in an attempt to prosecute war crime.
Another criticism is that MPs never saw the March 7 documentation. Instead, Lord Goldsmith himself was invited to personally tell the Cabinet about his reasons for deciding the legality in this fashion. Geoff Hoon and other members of the defence community did see the document. Why not MPs? It is this kind of casual 'sofa-government' approach that Lord Butler criticised in his investigations into Dr David Kelly's death and the Governments case for war. More on Dr Kelly in a minute.
The JIC (Joint Intelligence Community) are the people who collate and evaluate threats to this country and the wider world. People often point to Mr Blair's comments that Iraq intelligence was "extensive, detailed and authoratative". Mr Butler's report noted that in March 02, the JIC felt intelligence about Saddam's weapon capability were "sporadic and patchy". But the Government can point to another JIC assessment six months following which warns of possible attacks from banned weapons "against key military targets or for strategic purposes, such as a strike against Israel or Kuwait". On every occasion, the governments legal advisers advocated war, the JIC had intelligence to support it, and Iraq's belligerence and 12 year mockery of the UN helped expediate the importance and underline it all.
Basically, depending on what side you support, just omit a little information and repeat the stuff that helps your argument. Nobody is lying, but then nobody is telling the whole truth. But then, that's why you should be engaged. As always: MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. I would recommend that everybody read what is available to them on various websites.
Here's the crux of this debate for me though: FOUR investigations into Government, not all of them on the Governments terms, and Blair's administration has accepted criticisms and been cleared of ill-faith time and again.
And coming back to Dr Kelly... back when this was a big issue in the news I remember being quite confused as to why he was basically used as a means to discredit government, when before his untimely death at the hands of media pressure -- he supported them!
So is this an election issue for you?
I was an initial advocate of a war against Iraq, I'll admit. Although I knew less than I know now. I don't know how I'd feel if something like this came up again. The soldiers who have fallen are souls braver than I who typically give the greatest sacrifice of all in good faith that their Government is doing the right thing, whether or not that is actually the case. And the opposition Army they fight is in many ways the same. The innocents who die are the most tragic aspect of all. But this is not to say I don't recognise that sometimes an unpleasant campaign is necesary to do a certain job. I think it's good that Saddam is gone, that Gadaffi is trying to turn his shit around, that Syria are supposedly pulling out of Lebenon. I'm fully aware how military campaigns such as ours might destabalise the world, and act as a recruiting sergeant for terror.. so don't get me wrong. I wish it hadn't happened. I wish it had been done differently. If you're going to ask where it ends, or ask if we should hit up North Korea or Iran next, I'm going to say: I hope it ends here. I truly think that this campaign was an exceptional case, and one that could not have taken place where it for the Iraqi position. I believe that the world and it's power structure are very fucked up things. I earnestly hope that people in Iraq can look back over their miserable history (which lets face it has been miserable since the end of WW2) and see something good come out of it. I hope they look back on what's happened and wonder why it never happened in 1990. I want them to have the freedoms that I do... and if that happens, our soldiers could have done no greater service IMO.
UNSCR 1441
UNSCR (UN Security Council Resolution) 1441 was drafted by the UK and United States of America in November 2002. It backed the motions of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and would aim to see UN Weapons Inspectors re-enter Iraq on their own terms.
Motioned by these parties and accepted by the entire UN, 1441 referenced and recognised that the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with TEN previous United Nations resolutions over a period of over a decade. It recognised that Iraq's non compliance made it a threat to it's neighbours and the region, and insisted that Iraq must not persist in such behaviour and non-compliance therein.
A SECOND RESOLUTION?
In February the following year, work was under way in both the US and the UK to convince the United Nations to adopt a second UN resolution. The international community was split over the wording in 1441, and over how much leniency should be shown to Iraq and the Ba'athist regime. 1441 states that if Saddam does not immediately comply and disarm he will face "serious consequences". The French, German and Chinese argument was that Iraq should be given more time to comply and for inspections to continue. The UK and US position was that Iraq had already been given 11 years and was now pushing it's luck. A second resolution would call for a UN ultimatum to Saddam threatening a UN-led use of force.
Negotiations continued for a short time, and UK foreign secretary, Jack Straw, offered to set a serious deadline for compliance and disarmament at the end of March. Both sides accrued support from various members, many smaller members supporting the US/UK initiative. But the real collapse occured when France insisted that it would support NO resolution that delivers an ultimatum threatening force. As a permenant member of the security council, it's veto holds enough power to topple such an idea. The impetus for continuing the UK and US push for a UN movement was over.
THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
Prior to pursuing the second resolution, Tony Blair and members of the cabinet had warned that legality of a military campaign may already be authorised under the context of UNSCR 1441. It is argued by some that George Bush would have went ahead with the war with or without British assistance. In fact, a leaked memo over the weekend suggests that British MPs were aware of a US desire to go to war four months before UNSCR 1441. Even then, the advice was that the UN should be used to make an ultimatum to Saddam, emploring him to comply.
Quite rightly, when people read of such a pro-active US military campaign on so called axes of evil, they get kind of worried. They wonder why on Earth Britain is involved. Why us? Why now? What for?
The accusations of war-for-oil sprung up, just as they did in 1991 -- when the defence of Kuwait had the support of over 30 countries. If you look at the evidence, and particularly some ties to the US administration, you really can't blame people for saying these things. But are these ties some kind of proponent for the idea that punishing Iraq would never have been the right thing to do? Whether or not oil is an additional motive in some parts of the world, you have to look at the timeline I have described, the full UN picture, not to mention Iraq's pattern of non-compliance, deceit and of course it's history of atrocity. Then you have to decide for yourself. What would have been the right thing to do? Was Britain to side with Europe and push away America? Was it to side solely with America and push away Europe? What are the consequences to each? Was there a middle ground? A fence to sit on?
TRUST?
Put yourself in Tony Blair's shoes. It wasn't politically convenient to tell the country you're taking them to war -- war is ALWAYS a divisive issue. And so it proved when cabinet members resigned and protests emerged on the streets. Even now, you might be reading this and still strongly oppose what this country did out of pure principle. You might have a perfectly understandable disdain for every demonised character that has emerged in the debacle. Furthermore, I'm sure none of us like the idea of anyone losing lives on either side. No doubt, Iraq is something a lot of people the world over, would rather never happened. But does the Iraq war render this government's record inconsequential?
Does it automatically make this government untrustworthy? Does it suddenly make the opposition worth voting for?
I say that Tony Blair and our Cabinet showed conviction. He viewed Saddam's regime as deplorable... many in the UN did, all of the opposition parties over here did. WMDs may not have been found, but UNSCRs were ratified under the widespread view that Iraq had them. Our own intelligence community highlighted the possibility. Tony Blair also viewed the US as an important ally. He gave European allies and other UN members the offer of issuing an Internationally-led ultimatum in order to end a 12+ year-old saga, and he gave the US his backing in the event of failure. The message throughout to Iraq was: comply or be invaded. With 200,000+ troops on Iraqs doorstep, compliance was non-existant, deadlines passed... and the somber world no doubt looked on, very worried indeed.
Where we misled?
The government naturally say no. And I say there is evidence to support them. Again in the last week we have seen evidence suggesting that lines have changed as the war neared. Lord Goldsmith, attourney general (the man the government appoint to advise them on legal matters), said on March 7 that invasion could be deemed legal, but offered concerns that soldiers might be tried for war crimes among other things. Some time later and he has become furthermore convinced that invasion is legal under 1441. On both occasions, he advises the government that war is legal, but in the earlier instance he offers certain caveats and avenues of attack an anti-war contingent may use in an attempt to prosecute war crime.
Another criticism is that MPs never saw the March 7 documentation. Instead, Lord Goldsmith himself was invited to personally tell the Cabinet about his reasons for deciding the legality in this fashion. Geoff Hoon and other members of the defence community did see the document. Why not MPs? It is this kind of casual 'sofa-government' approach that Lord Butler criticised in his investigations into Dr David Kelly's death and the Governments case for war. More on Dr Kelly in a minute.
The JIC (Joint Intelligence Community) are the people who collate and evaluate threats to this country and the wider world. People often point to Mr Blair's comments that Iraq intelligence was "extensive, detailed and authoratative". Mr Butler's report noted that in March 02, the JIC felt intelligence about Saddam's weapon capability were "sporadic and patchy". But the Government can point to another JIC assessment six months following which warns of possible attacks from banned weapons "against key military targets or for strategic purposes, such as a strike against Israel or Kuwait". On every occasion, the governments legal advisers advocated war, the JIC had intelligence to support it, and Iraq's belligerence and 12 year mockery of the UN helped expediate the importance and underline it all.
Basically, depending on what side you support, just omit a little information and repeat the stuff that helps your argument. Nobody is lying, but then nobody is telling the whole truth. But then, that's why you should be engaged. As always: MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. I would recommend that everybody read what is available to them on various websites.
Here's the crux of this debate for me though: FOUR investigations into Government, not all of them on the Governments terms, and Blair's administration has accepted criticisms and been cleared of ill-faith time and again.
And coming back to Dr Kelly... back when this was a big issue in the news I remember being quite confused as to why he was basically used as a means to discredit government, when before his untimely death at the hands of media pressure -- he supported them!
Dr Kelly said:
So is this an election issue for you?
I was an initial advocate of a war against Iraq, I'll admit. Although I knew less than I know now. I don't know how I'd feel if something like this came up again. The soldiers who have fallen are souls braver than I who typically give the greatest sacrifice of all in good faith that their Government is doing the right thing, whether or not that is actually the case. And the opposition Army they fight is in many ways the same. The innocents who die are the most tragic aspect of all. But this is not to say I don't recognise that sometimes an unpleasant campaign is necesary to do a certain job. I think it's good that Saddam is gone, that Gadaffi is trying to turn his shit around, that Syria are supposedly pulling out of Lebenon. I'm fully aware how military campaigns such as ours might destabalise the world, and act as a recruiting sergeant for terror.. so don't get me wrong. I wish it hadn't happened. I wish it had been done differently. If you're going to ask where it ends, or ask if we should hit up North Korea or Iran next, I'm going to say: I hope it ends here. I truly think that this campaign was an exceptional case, and one that could not have taken place where it for the Iraqi position. I believe that the world and it's power structure are very fucked up things. I earnestly hope that people in Iraq can look back over their miserable history (which lets face it has been miserable since the end of WW2) and see something good come out of it. I hope they look back on what's happened and wonder why it never happened in 1990. I want them to have the freedoms that I do... and if that happens, our soldiers could have done no greater service IMO.