Britain to examine Iraq war errors in inquiry

[steve_spackman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_iraq

About bloody time. Hopefully the inquiry will bring to light the lies that led us into the war.

[race aficionado]

Good for the Brits.

Good for all of us.


Now let's see how far they go and see if they walk the walk.
:s mokin:

[Tazio]

I hope the Brits do what the Brits, and the Americans who care have here-to-for been unable to do.
Expose the collusion that there is little doubt existed before the war in a way that shows in no uncertain terms that
"The Fish Rotted From the Head" Perhaps a definitive finding will give the U.S. the inertia
to expose the Lying s that took us to, and tried to bully others into a useless war, base on contrived evidence,
resulting in unfulfillable (as stated at the time) benefits.

[Mark]

It is a sham. Held in private and not on the subject of why we went to war.

[Hondo]

I doubt the outcome will please or satisfy those looking forward to feasting on the corpses of past politicians. None of the countries involved are going to reveal their own intelligence resources or the manner by which it was obtained, in the name of national security. Too much secret stuff there for all the nations involved to be allowed to go public. This is just a "feel good" bone for the hungry public dog. It may even take the spotlight off the expenses nonsense.

At the least, it may shut up the people that are always going on about the "getting the oil" motive. Probably not. If all this Middle East stuff is about the USA getting the oil, why do we give the countries back. Why didn't we stay in Kuwait and run their oil production? Why aren't we staying in Iraq and taking over their oil production? Why haven't we invaded Mexico and taken their oil production? If we keep doing this for oil, tell me why we give it back. Hell, we don't even get a price discount.

[Hondo]

I hope the Brits do what the Brits, and the Americans who care have here-to-for been unable to do.
Expose the collusion that there is little doubt existed before the war in a way that shows in no uncertain terms that
"The Fish Rotted From the Head" Perhaps a definitive finding will give the U.S. the inertia
to expose the Lying s that took us to, and tried to bully others into a useless war, base on contrived evidence,
resulting in unfulfillable (as stated at the time) benefits.

I certainly agree we had no business invading Iraq and felt the same way from the beginning. Beyond that, in the US, both parties jumped on the bandwagon too fast and too deep for there to be a serious investigation. Just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[Tazio]

This is all very easy to agree on in hindsight. I'm not claiming anymore than you believing at the time that it was a bad Idea I wrote a letter to the editor of the San Diego Union Tribune stating just that
tell me why we give it back. Hell, we don't even get a price discount. Because the people of the U.S. and more importantly the world will look very disdainfully at a country that goes into a war under the auspices of liberation, and hangs out after the situation is normalized. That is why Bush 1 didn't try to take over Kuwait, and Iraq. That and the concept that we may be drawn into an insurgent war for...like...ever! The same thing would happen in Mexico, only we would have a lot more resouses nearby to control the people whose sovereignty has been denied. You say we gave back to Iraq. You and I gave back to Iraq in the form of tax money. Private enterprise sold refined gasoline to our government because we had destroyed Iraq's ability to refine their own. And don't forget because I never will GWB threatening countries like Germany and France that if they didn't participate in the Coalition of the Willing They would not be allowed to reap the benefits of the plunder in the aftermath! And I'm pretty sure he was referring to oil!

[Eki]

This is all very easy to agree on in hindsight. I'm not claiming anymore than you believing at the time that it was a bad Idea I wrote a letter to the editor of the San Diego Union Tribune stating just that Because the people of the U.S. and more importantly the world will look very disdainfully at a country that goes into a war under the auspices of liberation, and hangs out after the situation is normalized. That is why Bush 1 didn't try to take over Kuwait, and Iraq. That and the concept that we may be drawn into an insurgent war for...like...ever!
Plus they now have their Quislings in power to control those invaded countries for them.

[Eki]

I doubt the outcome will please or satisfy those looking forward to feasting on the corpses of past politicians. None of the countries involved are going to reveal their own intelligence resources or the manner by which it was obtained, in the name of national security. Too much secret stuff there for all the nations involved to be allowed to go public. This is just a "feel good" bone for the hungry public dog. It may even take the spotlight off the expenses nonsense.

At the least, it may shut up the people that are always going on about the "getting the oil" motive. Probably not. If all this Middle East stuff is about the USA getting the oil, why do we give the countries back. Why didn't we stay in Kuwait and run their oil production? Why aren't we staying in Iraq and taking over their oil production? Why haven't we invaded Mexico and taken their oil production? If we keep doing this for oil, tell me why we give it back. Hell, we don't even get a price discount.
You? They didn't do it for you, but for themselves and their buddies in the business elite. It was a good opportunity to transfer taxpayers' money to private companies like Halliburton and Blackwaters. I'm sure GW Bush and his relatives are richer now than they were 8 years ago, although the US President earns only about $300,000 a year.

[chuck34]

I'm sure GW Bush and his relatives are richer now than they were 8 years ago, although the US President earns only about $300,000 a year.

And Clinton is a poor man now? Hell I'm sure that Obama's net worth has skyrocketed and he's only been in office 5 months or so. Strawman arguments are fun.

[Eki]

And Clinton is a poor man now? Hell I'm sure that Obama's net worth has skyrocketed and he's only been in office 5 months or so. Strawman arguments are fun.
I didn't say they aren't. I also don't think it's OK to steal if someone else steals too or steals more than you do.

[chuck34]

I didn't say they aren't. I also don't think it's OK to steal if someone else steals too or steals more than you do.

No you said that he (GWB) must have done something wrong since he is rich now. So what did Clinton and Obama do that was wrong?

You have no proof that Bush did anything wrong, just innuendo.

[Eki]

No you said that he (GWB) must have done something wrong since he is rich now. So what did Clinton and Obama do that was wrong?

You have no proof that Bush did anything wrong, just innuendo.Do you have proof that Clinton and Obama did anything wrong?

[chuck34]

Do you have proof that Clinton and Obama did anything wrong?

No, I never said they did. You implied that Bush must have done something wrong since he has a boat load of money. So I point out that Clinton and Obama both have a boat load of money. Therefore by YOUR logic they MUST have done something as well.

[Eki]

No, I never said they did. You implied that Bush must have done something wrong since he has a boat load of money. So I point out that Clinton and Obama both have a boat load of money. Therefore by YOUR logic they MUST have done something as well.
OK. Some claim that Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro also had/have boat loads of money, do you believe that they haven't done anything wrong?

[chuck34]

OK. Some claim that Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro also had/have boat loads of money, do you believe that they haven't done anything wrong?

Eki, you are the master of never ever under any circumstances answering a question, and completely twisting people's points. Kudos to you.

[wedge]

Pointless exercise to appease the public in some way when in reality its an excuse to for politicians to clean dust off their shoulders

[Hondo]

If the Brits really want to see some war errors, they need to check out the peformance of their commanders in WW I.

[Dave B]

If the Brits really want to see some war errors, they need to check out the peformance of their commanders in WW I.
I don't doubt it.

We're proud of our record in world wars, and with some justification, but there was a lot of stuff brushed under the carpet. I'd imagine the full truth behind some of the decisions, not to mention the treatment of troops, would make uncomfortable reading. The media were complicit in keeping up a brave face for morale's sake - newspapers were little more than propaganda sheets - and there was nothing like the level of scrutiny we have nowadays where a soldier can blog from the front line and reporters are embedded with regiments.

That said, it's unfair to single out the "Brits". America's behaviour in, say, Vietnam wasn't exactly anything to shout about. Thankfully lessons are - slowly - being learned.

[Hondo]

I don't doubt it.

We're proud of our record in world wars, and with some justification, but there was a lot of stuff brushed under the carpet. I'd imagine the full truth behind some of the decisions, not to mention the treatment of troops, would make uncomfortable reading. The media were complicit in keeping up a brave face for morale's sake - newspapers were little more than propaganda sheets - and there was nothing like the level of scrutiny we have nowadays where a soldier can blog from the front line and reporters are embedded with regiments.

That said, it's unfair to single out the "Brits". America's behaviour in, say, Vietnam wasn't exactly anything to shout about. Thankfully lessons are - slowly - being learned.

Dave, I only singled out the Brits in WW I because I understand this to be an investigation of British errors in the Irag war.

As far as WW I goes, the loss of life due to stupid and egotistical attacks was incredible. The French were so bad, their troops mutined and refused to attack anymore. When the Americans got there, they refused to allow their troops to be put under Britsh or French control, even though American tactics weren't much different.

If everybody was required to study the history of WW I, and military service was completely voluntary, the few armies that did exist wouldn't be very large.

[555-04Q2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_iraq

About bloody time. Hopefully the inquiry will bring to light the lies that led us into the war.

Stuff an inquiry. Hang the liar George "Got no brain" Bush Jnr and his bum chum Tony "I'll follow whatever you say" Blair and save the costs.

[555-04Q2]

That said, it's unfair to single out the "Brits". America's behaviour in, say, Vietnam wasn't exactly anything to shout about. Thankfully lessons are - slowly - being learned.

I disagree. History repeats itself time and again, without fail. We learn only what we want or is convenient to learn.

[Tazio]

WW1 was an absolutely avoidable, useless war, which created more problems than it resolved, and laid the groundwork for WW2
The European counties that gained the most were Italy,
which annexed Friuli, Istria, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Trieste, Zara and some Dalmatian islands.
Italy completed its territorial expansion and gained securable borders.
The other was France which annexed Alsace-Lorraine

[Hondo]

WW1 was an absolutely avoidable, useless war, which created more problems than it resolved, and laid the groundwork for WW2
The European counties that gained the most were Italy,
which annexed Friuli, Istria, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Trieste, Zara and some Dalmatian islands.
Italy completed its territorial expansion and gained securable borders.
The other was France which annexed Alsace-Lorraine

Damn Taz, we agree! Essentially, all the big kids on the block wanting to use their new toys.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is nothing but a sideshow to keep the heat off Gordon Brown for the mess the UK's finances are in.

The intelligence that justified the war in the minds of Dubya and Blair does exist but it wont see the light of day, and while many of you can think Dubya was in this for personal reasons, I absolutely refuse 100% to believe Blair would go along if he didn't see some threat that justified this mess. My god, Blair before 9/11 was a liberal in the politcal sense and governed like it. He didn't have any great love for Dubya and was Clinton's little buddy until 9/11. That day did a lot to change a lot of people's perceptions about this world, just obviously not enough.