 |
| Malbon |
on Tue 26 Jan 10, 11:53 PM to Malbon's blog.
Getting more interesting.
Well, in a way. There's nothing particularly new coming out, just more detail, and a chance to review the process.
They were advised the war was illegal, they tried to get a 2nd resolution and failed. At that point they told Goldsmith to change his advice to something a bit more helpful. He could have resigned, but didn't.
Ultimately the bottom line is that the Americans don't really give a flying fuck whether it's legal or not, whatever they want to do in the US "national interest" is ok. It's nice if you can get your ducks lined up at the UN, but they aren't going to tear up plan A if they can't do it.
Blair could have pulled the plug and said, no we can't come with you, it's an illegal act of aggression. But that would imply all kinds of things, including a really quite different kind of British government to the one we have now.
Goldsmith tomorrow is it, and then Blair on Friday.
A glimpse into the heart of realpolitik.
PS Just thinking - I suppose really if you think about it the quid pro quo for all this is will they come and fish us out of the shit again if we need them. Have we got that in writing, Tony?
Edited Wed 27 Jan 10, 12:23 AM by Malbon
| 27 Jan 10, 12:31 AM Telesto UK, 8 yrs |
I think it was quite clear 'at the time' that what they were doing was both morally and legally wrong. It's not a case of hindsight providing clearer vision. It's just that they didn't quite get away with it. Blair has always been a little shit: hanging onto other people's bum fluff. The fartleberry of all time. I doubt that he will ever be held accountable for the mayhem, misery and death that he has caused. | |
| 27 Jan 10, 8:57 AM katie_may UK, 7 yrs |
to be honest, the predicted outcome i'm expecting i think they would have been better spending the money they have used to do it on other things they only have these things to keep joe public happy because joe public demands it i dont much care who did what who said what, and no i really dont i care about cleaning it up first, and we have gone no where near to cleaning up the mess it all caused, those people deserve better at this point in time, no matter what the ins and outs of it we broke that country, least we could do is go mend it again not sit around a table like little boys n girls saying he did it, she did it, he started it, no she started it it's rediculous in this day and age, we all need to be ashamed of ourselves and before anyone expemts themselves, its alright joe public sitting and throwing sticks from the sidelines, but most of them were asleep when this all kicked off and did fuck all about it either if public opinion had been as strong as when that guy swore on the radio, the politicians would have had to think again about their decision but very few of joe public voiced any concern at all, and those who did were slated by those who didnt care show me something different xkx | |
| 27 Jan 10, 10:46 AM stormywaters PT, 4 yrs |
It's interesting, the level of interest in a thread like this about this country's involvement in the violent deaths of anything from 100,000 to 5oo,ooo people, compared to the vastly greater enrgy levels generated by a thread about Muslims, Christmas lights, immigration etc. My object all sublime... | |
| 27 Jan 10, 11:09 AM Malbon UK(LS), 8 yrs |
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/ They're having a pee break now but the next bit is Goldsmith explaining how he came to change his "provisional" view that it wasn't legal to his "definitive" view that it was. Absolutely riveting. A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion but doesn't. Edited 27 Jan 10, 11:10 AM by Malbon | |
| 27 Jan 10, 11:12 AM Board1 UK(DT), 7 yrs |
I am enjoying this enquiry far more than the previous ones. This was a hugely unpopular war from the very start, remember the marches and protests that were a huge mass of dissenting voices. It IS important to know who did and said what. I want to know what affects the decisions to send family, neighbours, friends into a conflict zone, especially an area that we had little natural interest in. I am not expecting to see our ex Prime Minister hang his head in shame and confess he made a serious error of judgement... but it is interesting to see how divided his cabinet (who nonetheless took a collective responsibilty) were at the time. Those that aquiesced seem to have the title "Sir" now.
| |
| 27 Jan 10, 11:34 AM katie_may UK, 7 yrs |
anybody who did nothing at all deserves to be in that same seat! anybody who phoned up about Mr Brand and Mr oh whats his name now deserves to be flogged show me something different xkx | |
| 27 Jan 10, 11:35 AM katie_may UK, 7 yrs |
but that still doesn't clean it up! show me something different xkx | |
| 27 Jan 10, 11:37 AM clare 11 yrs |
What a worm! Watch him wriggle and the questioning is not even pushy. "A reasonable case could be made, oh oooops I'm sorry, that there was a reasonable case that a second resolution not necessary" Oh dear. He interpreted the Resolution on the basis that the French knew (privately) that they didn't actually mean what the resolution said, the UN resolution was nothing more than diplomatic face and didn't have to be interpreted to mean what it said. Cringe. Edited 27 Jan 10, 11:55 AM by clare | |
| 27 Jan 10, 10:58 PM toothbrush UK(LS), 3 yrs |
+1 Previous inquiries were politically motivated and looking for scape goats. This one is trying to build a narrative, one that says how things came to be, rather than assigning blame. Edited 27 Jan 10, 10:59 PM by toothbrush | |
| 27 Jan 10, 11:00 PM toothbrush UK(LS), 3 yrs |
Same for Hoon. |
