THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands

An inquiry into the Iraq conflict is due to open in London.

A groundswell of public opinion is turning against Tony Blair, on the grounds that he led us into an unjust and illegal conflict, and falsified the justification for doing so. He has been called a war criminal to his face.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/09/iraq-war-service-blair-snub

What was unjusr and illegal about the Iraq conflict?

What was falsified about the justification for invading Iraq?

Good article in The Guardian today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/making-blair-eu-president-crazy

Blair has the distinction, which is a source of national pride in some quarters, of being one of the two greatest living mass murderers on earth. That he commissioned a crime of aggression " waging an unprovoked war, described by the Nuremberg tribunal as "the supreme international crime" " looks incontestable. I will explain the case in a moment. This crime has caused the death " depending on whose estimate you believe " of between 100,000 and one million people. As there was no legal justification, these people were murdered. But no one has been brought to justice.

....

The legal status of Bush's decision had already been explained to Blair. In March 2002, as another leaked memo shows, Jack Straw had reminded him of the conditions required to launch a legal war: "i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or such an attack must be imminent; ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack."

Straw explained that the development or possession of weapons of mass destruction "does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack." A third memo, from the Cabinet Office, explained that "there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD … A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers' advice, none currently exists."

It's just a matter of getting him in front of a judge. The crazy plan to make this mass murderer president could be the chance that many of us have been waiting for.

Isn't it silly that many Americans as well as Brits have done nothing to charge these murdering criminals of crimes against humanity? Humanity in contemporary times have not changed since man clubbed each other to death for some obscure reason.

Approximately 90% of the Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq war, 2003 to the present, were killed by mid-easterners like al-Qaeda, Sunni, Shiites, Kurds, Syrians and Iranians. The Americans and British are responsible for the other approximately 10% of Iraqi civilian deaths, killed in the process of rescuing the Iraqis from Saddam's murders that totaled over a million 1979 to 2003.

Not al Qaeda; they weren't in the central part of Iraq until after our invasion. Their numbers increased after Bush started his war. He refused to add enough troops on the ground to secure Saddam's military hardware, and that was used against our soldiers by the insurgents - and everybody else who hated Americans for being in their country.

You never learn history properly, and always arrive at the wrong conclusions.

I 100% agree, but I will say that there were people there with foreign passports fighting against us.
We captured people from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and several other countries.
So it wasnt only Iraqi's we were fighting.

But they were in north eastern Iraq when we invaded Iraq, and subsequently fled our invasion of north eastern Iraq for both Iran and central Iraq.

About 300 al-Qaeda moved into northeastern Iraq from Afghanistan in December 2001. By the time we invaded Iraq in March 2003, there were over 1000 al-Qaeda in north eastern Iraq. USA forces encountered them in March and April 2003.

By this time you, imposter, should have finally gotten it right. You, imposter, [almost] "never learn history properly, and [almost] always arrive at the wrong conclusions."

No, ican; Americans controlled Northern Iraq with our No Fly Zone. Them's facts. Can't blame Saddam for that!

From Wiki:

All the "no fly zone" did was prevent Iraq from using aircraft in that area.
It did NOT stop Iraqi govt forces from operating there, but it did severely limit their ability to operate.

That's right; "it severely limited their operations." What do you think that means when it concerns al Qaeda?

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html

You post from democraticunderground?
To paraphrase you, that is a a notorious liar and unreliable left-wing blog.

I dont know how the "no fly zone" affected the Iraqi military in its operations regarding Al Queda.
The Iraqi military did everything it could to avoid being in the zone, because the coalition forces were in no mood to allow them to do much of anything.

To be honest, we tended to shoot at them when we saw them.

I see you edited your post to remove the link to democratunderground while I was responding.
Why did you do that?

Because the link didn't work. Good enough for you?

As for the link provided, you didn't challenge the content. You only questioned the source. You seem incapable of intelligent debate.

Well if the link didnt work how could I have challenged the contents?
I couldnt see it.

"You couldn't see it?" That should be the obvious reason why I revised my post.

I do not blame Saddam Hussein for the fact that al-Qaeda infiltrated northeastern Iraq in December 2001, just 3 months after 9/11. I do not blame Saddam Hussein for the fact that al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq grew from about 300 to about 1,000 by the time we invaded Iraq 15 months later. Our sufficient reasons for removing Saddam Hussein do not include anything about al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein's relationship, if any, with al-Qaeda.

The lies of the Blair administration over the run-up to the Iraq invasion are now being exposed. Parliament was deceived, and even the army was falsely dealt with.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/22/iraq-invasion-no10-cover-up

May he soon answer for his crimes in a court of law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/23/chilcot-iraq-war-inquiry

And may he rot in hell.

Why do you believe what the Guardian publishes?