Treason or ?

[Spannerman]

The UK's Attorney General came through before GW2 to say that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolution 1441 and that it was lawful to go to war on that understanding and the perceived threat this imposed.

The coalition came forth and found a couple of missiles, some left over materials from GW1 and Foreign Secretary Jack (clutching at a) Straw told us all how, then, the UK was justified in going to war. Technically of course he is right but to the eyes of the world we were wrong, if it had been the UK that started this war alone, we would have been up in front of every international court for war crimes against humanity. But because the US is involved NO ONE is going to attempt to take the Yanks (or Brits) to any court of law, anyone who suggested such a thing would immediately become an enemy of the USA.

BANG!

[Frank S.]

but to the eyes of the world we were wrong

That's a crucial point. It's all about perceptions. Perceived threats. Perceived wrongs. Perceived rights and wrong.
It's fought in the media just as much if not more than in the field.

[Tab]

Spannerman
A Sarin gas shell was exploded near an American Convoy last week, so the stuff is still knocking about, could it be that there is stuff there but we haven't found it.

[Spannerman]

Yep Tab, that is correct re the Sarin gas shell, there might well be others, there might not be, we went to war on someones opinions and not facts as we have so far found out.

We declared war on Nazi Germany on September 3rd 1939 because it was known that Germany had invaded Poland, Iraq had not invaded anyone since Kuwait and they paid that price then, nothing changed much for 12 years until someone had the brilliant idea of telling Bush and Blair that Sad Man was an imminent threat.

We couldn't wait until Hans Blix finished dismantling all the missiles within 6 months, the job had to be done to get rid of Sad Man for some reason best known to the two B's, they have achieved that goal, they have removed a despotic leader and his regime.

Is Iraq any better for it, I think not, a puppet government will be in place on July 1st which is pro West, then it is up to the people to decide in January 2005 what they want. If 65% of the population is Shi'a then what, do we get an Iran type government run by the Mullahs and another despotic regime comes to power.

What of the Kurds in the North of Iraq or the Sunni's or the Marsh Arabs, who will hear their voices? You can bet your sweet bippy the Americans won't be listening, the election in the US will be over and a new President (probably) sworn in and someone then will be counting the mounting cost already in excess of $65 billion for this futile war.

I have to say that there never has been any strategy in winning the peace, the war yes, the peace no, what a debacle the last 12-14 months has been, I didn't want to see the horrific torture continue on his people from the man from Kirkuk and nor did we expect to see it from the US led Administration in Abu Ghraib.

The RPG's, the suicide bombers, the A10's, the Apache Helo's, the F16's, the hatred, the cost in materials but more importantly the cost in human lives on all sides beggars belief and someone, somewhere, ought to carry the can.

The people I most admire are those soldiers who are having to do their duty to God, Queen and Country and who are sweating it out in a God forsaken land to satisfy the whims of a few very misguided people who purport to call themselves democratic leaders.

[Ex-URNU-Student]

Lets look at the great statesmen of the past. Would Churchill and Roosevelt have produced sexed-up dossiers or cherrypicked intelligence? No chance, they were solid men of principle. The likes of Blair and Bush arent fit to lick their boots. I agree with your post Spannerman.

[cambridgebloke]

Top notch post Spannerman