Larry
the PM voluntarily submits to questioning by a House of Commons select committee, but only twice a year. Its far more illuminating than the weekly prime ministers questions.
I'll keep an eye out for it. Is it happening soon? And is it on that website you mentioned earlier?
No sorry Larry you just missed it! Blair's appearance before the foreign affairs select committee was last week. 90% of the 2 hour questionning was on...you guessed it Iraq.
I thought it might be archived on parliamentlivetv but cant fint it.
However if you are interested in how things work here,
http://www.parliament.uk/works/index.cfm is a good site.
Having said that, I am a great admirer of the American system, especially when your constitution allows you to get rid of war mongers:-
International Law Professor Francis Boyle offers his services free of charge:-
Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Boyle says that waging a war of aggression is a crime under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles. "It's very clear," he adds, "if you read all the press reports, they are going to devastate Baghdad, a metropolitan area of 5 million people. The Nuremberg Charter clearly says the wanton devastation of a city is a Nuremberg war crime."
sorry about monopolising this thread at the moment but whilst you are all in the bathroom or breakfasting, I found this interesting article from the BBC
Iraq prepares special troops for chemical warfare
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2690163.stm
The last news is quite interesting in multiple context:
- while it is a big theme in European news since a couple of hours, I couldn't find any notice (up to now) in e.g. US-American media,
- the German magazine "Der Spiegel" is reporting about this BBC-article with a here unpublished quote by former CIA-member Bob Bear, who sees in this (he was stationed in Iraq), a probably forthcoming revolt by Iraq's Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard.
Der Spiegel - online
Sorry Walter, but i don't read German--but if you've got that in French or English, i could read it. Well, in French, anyway.
That's okay, Setanta :wink: .
Actually, it's basicly just the expanded BBC article, with the additional mentioning (Spiegel: three different opinions after reviewing this document) of the ex-CIA man.
Couple of very pertinent items's from your article, Steve:
Quote:According to a UK Government report last year and UN inspectors' findings, Iraq has undeclared stocks of VX and sarin nerve agent. It is thought Iraq could deploy such chemicals quickly.
and
Quote:"Today we know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered any scientist who cooperates during interviews will be killed, as well as their families," Mr Wolfowitz said.
Earlier in Baghdad, Iraqi officials had said they were encouraging scientists to speak to the UN, but six had so far resisted efforts to question them alone.
"We did our best to push the scientists but they refused such interviews without the presence of representatives of Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate," Iraq's chief liaison officer Hossam Mohammed Amin told a news conference.
Both items are blatant violation of UNR1441. I am puzzled that some still insist on waiting for a smoking gun ... I'd consider the above muzzle flashes ... perhaps Iraq is using 'Smokeless Powder"
also, from Stratfor (subscription):
http://www.stratfor.biz/Story.neo?storyId=209434
Quote:Interestingly, of all the opponents to war, France may be trying to hedge its bets. On Thursday, Paris deployed a handful of jets and 150 servicemen to Qatar, even as it continued to spar verbally with Washington.
Ahhhhh .... the French. They won't stand in line, but they appear to have a bus ticket anyway.
timber
And this doesn't matter why?
Quote:"It should be noted," Fleischer said, "that the attempted acquisition of such tubes is prohibited under the United Nations resolutions in any case." U.N. sanctions restrict Iraq's ability to import "dual-use" items that potentially could be used for weapons.
Prohibited is prohibited, period. Rockets or uranium enrichment, Iraq is denied such hardware by International Law. Lots of straws are being grasped at, but I don't see a raft being assembled from them.
timber
Steve
I would like to challenge your professor Boyle's premise that the US will devastate Bahgdad. He may be an expert on international law but he knows nothing about the way this war will be waged. First we have no desire or need to attack any of the cities. Second we don't want to destroy any of the infrastructure of the country.
You're an intelligent guy and I'm surprised you would present such an outlandish proposition.
The only devastation in cities will be wrought by Saddam and his thugs if they decide in desperation to dispense all those hundreds of barrels of chemical agents that the inspectors can't find.
Does anyone besides me think that if Saddam had WMD and were capable of delivering them to a target within a few hundred miles that the U.S. troops currently assembling in Kuwait would be a prime target?
If the US could...what's the right phrase? 'allow'?.. this sort of thing to occur then they would suddenly have complete justification for obliterating Iraq...wouldn't they?
I don't think I'd buy that Saddam is SO stupid he wouldn't do something like this...he's proven himself to be pretty ignorant.
What prevents a madman from going out in a blaze of glory?
Why set something off in Baghdad if you can do so in Kuwait City?
Some of you soldiers are welcome to assail my battle logic...
perception
He's not my professor
"International Law Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois has offered his services to any member of Congress to draft articles of impeachment against George W. Bush."
I would actually be proud to live in a country where it states in black and white that the president can be impeached. (Proving it is a different matter of course). We can't do it with our PM, or the monarch!
Its crunch time for Blair.
Its clear the US is going ahead regardless of anymore time for the inspectors or UN resolutions.
At last Britain has to choose between Europe or America, and my bet (odds please) is Europe. Why? Because Bush will **** up and declare war without even remembering to consult the Brits. If he did that it really would be the final straw as far as Blair is concerned.
Haven't been a soldier in decades, PDiddie, but I doubt it will happen that way. Well trained and equiped troops aren't expected to take heavy casualties from chemical munitions. Their main value is in hampering activites on the battlefield, or such is my understanding. Thus, no military benefit to Iraq for a chemical attack on Kuwait City. The civilian deaths and injuries would, of course, yield world wide support for an invasion of Iraq, which is probably not Saddam's objective.
By the way, I don't believe Saddam is either stupid or crazy. He does have a world class ego, however.
Hey, This is the first time I heard of Francis Boyle, but I like the guy already!
c.i.
perception has the right perception on the war with Iraq; the US is not going to destroy all their cities in this war. It's going to be a building to building war. c.i.
PDiddie
You are still very confused in your thinking----the US does not want to "obliterate" anything in Iraq except the military targets such as barracks and tanks.
The release of chemicals will be a final act of desperation and even that may not happen because his generals and high ranking officials have already been told in e-mails that they may be tried as war criminals if they use WoMD. Saddam can not himself or even his lunatic sons actually detonate anything unless they have everything wired to a central location where one button will release everything and that, while possible I suppose technically, is very unlikely. So he must depend on henchmen to do his dirty work---will they and risk the death penalty ---- I don't know but at least they will think twice.
C. I.
You may be right about the building to building warfare but Why? Once we control everything outside the cities why risk killing many innocent civilians? We don't want or need to do that. Have you bought into the premise from Professor Boyle----I know you are more intelligent than that.
I'm making my assumption from what we have seen from the special forces training, and what the pundits are saying. Other than that, it's all guesses. c.i.
Steve
I would guess that President Bush has daily discussions with Prime Minister Blair----he knows that he certainly cannot afford to go it alone. He's playing the most important "poker game" of his life and he knows it.
