Chilcot Report

[Noir]

Well damn, a WMD has just gone off under Tony Blairs chair, savage.

Summary - http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/246416/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_executive-summary.pdf

[Drummond]

Well damn, a WMD has just gone off under Tony Blairs chair, savage.

Summary - http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/246416/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_executive-summary.pdf

I understand the Report concludes that not all peaceful options had been exhausted, in dealing with Saddam ??

Nonsense, of course.

Saddam had spent many years in mucking the UN about. All Blix's people could ever do was to go to sites chosen by Saddam's people, and check them out (to the extent they could even do that !). Nobody could search the whole of Iraq for WMD's, which made Blix's actions farcical in the extreme. There was simply NO WAY to conclude that WMD's did not exist in Iraq.

Therefore, action had to be taken that was decisive, that settled the issue. Bush and Blair followed through in the only truly useful way possible.

And for this, Chilcot (the Inquiry commissioned by Gordon Brown, a RIVAL of Blair's ..) was ordered to investigate and come up with his Inquiry. It has taken SEVEN YEARS for Chilcot to deal with this ... if the issues involved were 'clear cut' and a position discernible ... HOW COME we had such an enormous delay ???

It stinks, Noir, and if you're being honest, you'll admit it does.

[Noir]

The report has taken far too long to come out, but those who have have been devouring its contents have commented on the unparalleled level detail of the report, so it may be that an investigation of this nature simply needs this amount of time for completion without diminishing the contents.


Nonsense of course

Great to see your already drawn your own conclusion on a 2 million word document that you haven't read. Makes it all worthwhile eh?
Personally I look forward to reading it, I hope that you do to.

[Drummond]

The report has taken far too long to come out, but those who have have been devouring its contents have commented on the unparalleled level detail of the report, so it may be that an investigation of this nature simply needs this amount of time for completion without diminishing the contents.



Great to see your already drawn your own conclusion on a 2 million word document that you haven't read. Makes it all worthwhile eh?
Personally I look forward to reading it, I hope that you do to.

Chilcot drafted two million words to cover the one point ? Really ?:rolleyes:

[Noir]

Chilcot drafted two million words to cover the one point ? Really ?:rolleyes:

I thought as someone of keen political sense you would have been more interested in this report and the documents it contains than you seem to be. But hey, whatever floats your boat (or doesn't in this case).

[gabosaurus]

The U.S. needs its own Chilcot report. To investigate George W Bush for his idiot decision to invade Iraq. Perhaps they can get Trump to testify. :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/us-george-bush-needs-chilcot-report-iraq-war

[Abbey Marie]

Just got home from a class taught by a former CIA director of operations (Middle East particularly) who said we didn't think there were WMDs in Iraq. We knew there were. As did the Russians, the Germans,and the Israelis, to name a few.

[Abbey Marie]

Just got home from a class taught by a former CIA director of operations (Middle East particularly) who said we didn't think there were WMDs in Iraq. We knew there were. As did the Russians, the Germans,and the Israelis, to name a few.

ETA: this man sat in on National Security Presidential briefings. He's the real deal.

[fj1200]

Just got home from a class taught by a former CIA director of operations (Middle East particularly) who said we didn't think there were WMDs in Iraq. We knew there were. As did the Russians, the Germans,and the Israelis, to name a few.

IIRC the question revolved around the existence of a WMD program which wasn't found.

[Abbey Marie]

IIRC the question revolved around the existence of a WMD program which wasn't found.

1. Never heard that. Everyone talks about how Bush lied, etc., because there were no WMDs.
2. Is there a difference between owning WMD's and having a "program"? I would contend that ownership is a program.
3. My CIA prof seems to think the issue was whether they existed or not. No mention of a program being the issue.

[Black Diamond]

Just got home from a class taught by a former CIA director of operations (Middle East particularly) who said we didn't think there were WMDs in Iraq. We knew there were. As did the Russians, the Germans,and the Israelis, to name a few.

Yup. Everyone from Cheney to Chomsky knew there were weapons.

[Drummond]

The U.S. needs its own Chilcot report. To investigate George W Bush for his idiot decision to invade Iraq. Perhaps they can get Trump to testify. :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/us-george-bush-needs-chilcot-report-iraq-war

It was idiotic to act to remove a brutal regime from power, one that had links to terrorists, one that bankrolled Hamas, one that had DEPLOYED a WMD against the Kurds .. yet, somehow, we were all supposed to 'know' that Saddam had no stock of WMD's ... and this ... just because SADDAM SAID SO ??

Going to however many sites Blix's team were led to, and have that team verify them to be sites where WMD's may have been neutralised .. said nothing at all about any REMAINING stocks. Short of physically scouring the entirety of Iraq for the sake of failing to find any being held, how else could the truth be determined ? Blix had no hope of doing that himself.

Only an invasion could hope to achieve such an aim, AND kill off any chance of their being used, or traded ... whatever.

According to Chilcot's 'findings', not all peaceful avenues had been explored with Saddam. Leaving aside the obvious one of just surrendering to Saddam and deciding he could do what he wanted, with whatever he had (!!!) ... can ANYONE suggest any alternative 'peaceful' outcome being available at the time ??

[Elessar]

I thought as someone of keen political sense you would have been more interested in this report and the documents it contains than you seem to be. But hey, whatever floats your boat (or doesn't in this case).

Noir....You are so damn dumb that you are Happy.

What were those conveys of trucks headed to Syria spotted by USA and UK aircraft carrying? Oranges?
Evidence was found of WMD. Saddam both sent the stuff into Syria and buried the rest to thwart the UN.

[Black Diamond]

Saddam said in his jail cell that he wanted Iran to BELIEVE he had WMDs.

Grain of salt. But an interesting tidbit.

[Elessar]

The U.S. needs its own Chilcot report. To investigate George W Bush for his idiot decision to invade Iraq. Perhaps they can get Trump to testify. :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/us-george-bush-needs-chilcot-report-iraq-war

Sometimes you are a complete idiot.
What has Trump got to do with Bush carrying out a UN Mandate?
That the UN Attorney-General was involved with the 'Oil for Food' scam under the table matters not to you.
Saddam thumbing his nose at the USA and the rest of the world for 8 years matters not to you.
Obama refusing to agree to a Status of Forces pact in Iraq and pulling out like a coward, means
nothing to You.

Obama birthed ISIS....yet you fool liberals always deny it. "Junior Varsity"....yeah, sure. Now they are
global thanks to Obama and Clinton.

[gabosaurus]

What were those conveys of trucks headed to Syria spotted by USA and UK aircraft carrying? Oranges?
Evidence was found of WMD. Saddam both sent the stuff into Syria and buried the rest to thwart the UN.

Where is your source for this outlandish and completely untrue allegation? The only "examples" of alleged WMD found were old canisters left over from the first Gulf War. None of which contained anything worthwhile.
There were no WMD. Dick Cheney admitted as such.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes you are a complete idiot.

What a swell guy, being so generous all the time. :)

[Drummond]

Where is your source for this outlandish and completely untrue allegation? The only "examples" of alleged WMD found were old canisters left over from the first Gulf War. None of which contained anything worthwhile.
There were no WMD. Dick Cheney admitted as such.

UNTRUE. In excess of 500 old WMD's were found (their existence violated UN Res 1441, thereby legitimising the 'serious consequences' action that followed !!). An Intelligence report found that, though they weren't viable as deployable WMD's, their contents were harmful enough to still be useful to terrorists, had they ever got their hands on them.

Saddam, thanks to some stupid dithering, had a six month window to sneak his cache of WMD's out of the country. And, surprise surprise, years later, Syria was found to possess some WMD's !! Question: where did they come from ??

Thin air, maybe ?

[jimnyc]

UNTRUE. In excess of 500 old WMD's were found (their existence violated UN Res 1441, thereby legitimising the 'serious consequences' action that followed !!). An Intelligence report found that, though they weren't viable as deployable WMD's, their contents were harmful enough to still be useful to terrorists, had they ever got their hands on them.

Saddam, thanks to some stupid dithering, had a six month window to sneak his cache of WMD's out of the country. And, surprise surprise, years later, Syria was found to possess some WMD's !! Question: where did they come from ??

Thin air, maybe ?

There were like 2,400 TONS of chemical weapons that were found, then bagged and tagged in 1998. The UN resolutions called for them to be destroyed. They were NOT weaponized. Meaning they were stored and would remain much more powerful. Then once weaponized... But Iraq tossed out investigators, and when they returned in 2001, these chemical weapons were nowhere to be found. The investigators demanded over and over and over and over for them to produce them - but they refused over and over. Remember, not just a few chemical weapons - but TONS. And the democrats conveniently never want to address this. Even if dated, do you know how much damage can be done if in the wrong hands? And they were PROVEN to be there, absolutely no doubt about it.

BOOM, they had them, and the lefties brains simply can't go back that far, or they can't read, or they simply don't care.

[Drummond]

There were like 2,400 TONS of chemical weapons that were found, then bagged and tagged in 1998. The UN resolutions called for them to be destroyed. They were NOT weaponized. Meaning they were stored and would remain much more powerful. Then once weaponized... But Iraq tossed out investigators, and when they returned in 2001, these chemical weapons were nowhere to be found. The investigators demanded over and over and over and over for them to produce them - but they refused over and over. Remember, not just a few chemical weapons - but TONS. And the democrats conveniently never want to address this. Even if dated, do you know how much damage can be done if in the wrong hands? And they were PROVEN to be there, absolutely no doubt about it.

BOOM, they had them, and the lefties brains simply can't go back that far, or they can't read, or they simply don't care.

Truth be told, Chilcot was always intended to be a hatchet-job undertaken to discredit the so-called 'rush' to war, back in 2003. It was Tony Blair's political rival, Gordon Brown, who commissioned the Inquiry in the first place, back in 2009.

Thanks to this, I believe any British politician would now think long and hard about ever supporting America in future large-scale anti-terrorist operations involving military operations overseas. Try it ... and you might suffer the demonising that Blair has had for supporting Bush, with political oblivion to follow.

The Left wants a climate that makes it impossible for the UK to be a close ally of yours, as we were, in 2003. Chilcot does much to make that true.

By the way, I'm still waiting for anybody to tell me just what further 'peaceful avenue' we could've possibly, usefully, pursued with Saddam, that we hadn't already. Chilcot claims it existed. As to what it was ... that remains a mystery ....

[fj1200]

1. Never heard that. Everyone talks about how Bush lied, etc., because there were no WMDs.
2. Is there a difference between owning WMD's and having a "program"? I would contend that ownership is a program.
3. My CIA prof seems to think the issue was whether they existed or not. No mention of a program being the issue.

1. It was one of the justifications:

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-winning-1) For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-transatlantic-2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

2. There is a big difference between owning and developing; we knew he had some because we sold/gave him some. I don't think we've found evidence that Iraq was developing.
3. They don't seem to have existed beyond what we knew about.

[jimnyc]

My OPINION is that the resolutions that they refused to abide by for over a decade was more than enough. They played games with the international community and lost.

[fj1200]

By the way, I'm still waiting for anybody to tell me just what further 'peaceful avenue' we could've possibly, usefully, pursued with Saddam, that we hadn't already. Chilcot claims it existed. As to what it was ... that remains a mystery ....

I'm pretty sure you're not really interested in an answer that doesn't comport with your view.


My OPINION is that the resolutions that they refused to abide by for over a decade was more than enough. They played games with the international community and lost.

They certainly defied resolutions but the question is was it worth it and was it in our national interests?

[jimnyc]

They certainly defied resolutions but the question is was it worth it and was it in our national interests?

Was it worth it is a question after the fact. No one can ever 100% predict how things will work out. And I do believe it was in our nations best interest and to that of our allies. Did things pan out that way? Certainly not.

[fj1200]

Was it worth it is a question after the fact. No one can ever 100% predict how things will work out. And I do believe it was in our nations best interest and to that of our allies. Did things pan out that way? Certainly not.

The answer to both of those IMO is no with 20/20 hindsight.

[Black Diamond]

If Saddam had attacked New York after Bush had done nothing, people would have wanted W's head on a stick.

[fj1200]

If Saddam had attacked New York after Bush had done nothing, people would have wanted W's head on a stick.

Should all governmental decisions be based on such an implausible if statement?

[Black Diamond]

Should all governmental decisions be based on such an implausible if statement?
Terrorists hijacking jets and crashing them into American skyscrapers was implausible.

[fj1200]

Terrorists hijacking jets and crashing them into American skyscrapers was implausible.

Not if you're aware of the threat.

[Black Diamond]

Should all governmental decisions be based on such an implausible if statement?

If you watch W when he was running for President. He came off as non-interventionist. I was more thinking of what changed in his head. And really more about him not getting caught with his pants down again than the "head on the stick " thing, although I think folks would start to question him seriously had we been attacked again.

[fj1200]

If you watch W when he was running for President. He came off as non-interventionist. I was more thinking of what changed in his head. And really more about him not getting caught with his pants down again than the "head on the stick " thing, although I think folks would start to question him seriously had we been attacked again.

I agree with all of that. I think that Iraq attacking the US was implausible but I do think he was trying to make positive changes in the Middle East but that doesn't mean that every decision made was correct or the best.

[jimnyc]

Too tired to look it up, see who can answer the quickest - WTF is "Chilcot" or who is it?

[fj1200]

Too tired to look it up, see who can answer the quickest - WTF is "Chilcot" or who is it?

Some British dude which virtually assures us that he has no sense of humor err, humour.

[Black Diamond]

Too tired to look it up, see who can answer the quickest - WTF is "Chilcot" or who is it?

Neville Chamberlain's illegitimate child.

[jimnyc]

Some British dude which virtually assures us that he has no sense of humor err, humour.


Neville Chamberlain's illegitimate child.

I feel like I'm about as lost as I was before. :dunno:

[fj1200]

I feel like I'm about as lost as I was before. :dunno:

Some conclusions from Sir John's report:


The report concluded:• There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/tony-blair-deliberately-exaggerated-threat-from-iraq-chilcot-report-war-inquiry).
• The strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.
• The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot) – WMDs – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/mod-left-uk-forces-in-iraq-ill-equipped-amid-lack-of-plan-chilcot-report-says)were wholly inadequate (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/mod-left-uk-forces-in-iraq-ill-equipped-amid-lack-of-plan-chilcot-report-says).
• The widespread perception that the September 2002 dossier distorted intelligence produced a “damaging legacy”, undermining trust and confidence in politicians.
• The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

[jimnyc]

Some conclusions from Sir John's report:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

I'm confused. Before I even click the link and read - does it tell me what/who "Chilcot" is?

[fj1200]

I'm confused. Before I even click the link and read - does it tell me what/who "Chilcot" is?

Yes.

[jimnyc]

Yes.


It was chaired by Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall mandarin,

WTF is a "Whitehall mandarin"?

[Black Diamond]

WTF is a "Whitehall mandarin"?

Dialect of a language spoken in China.

[jimnyc]

Dialect of a language spoken in China.

Oh, I know what Mandarin is, my son takes it in school, believe it or not! But considering it wasn't capitalized, and had "Whitehall" before it, I thought it was something else. But I'm a dumbass most of the time! :)