AsifScoob

Incorrect would be a better description.

However, do you know if the enquiry is able to act upon the information? Seems to me that they can see it, but if it is to remain secret then presumably they have to act as if it doesn't exist?

If this assertion is correct, then in effect you or I will never know the truth then. Therefore these little differences in opinion matter little.

It's a cover up. Why fear when you have nothing to hide they told us. They evidently have something to hide. What do you think that might be?

oobyJu

iTrader: (2)

last post had it right..go for a pint and forget all about it. No-one will ever tell you the truth 'cos no-one wants to hear it...our comfortable lives are paid for by killing anyone who as resources the rich covet as it's the only way they can continue to live for free. Democracy doesn't exist never has never will, is just the public face of capitalism which in turn is just feudalism with good PR. Talking about it only gives it credibility it doesn't deserve (has been fun reading though lol). Love your family and friends (go for that pint) for tomorrow never knows....

Martin2005

So if it finds Blair et al guilty of leading the country into an illegal war 'it's a cover up'??

btw - the enquiry is perfectly able use this information in their deliberations, that's why they requested it. I do agree with you though; it should be made public

Leslie

In actual fact Martin, I think your accusation fits better on you rather than me.

I say what I see.

Les

AsifScoob

If they come to that conclusion, but it is based upon something that cannot be disclosed, I will say that it was an attempt at a cover up.

Personally, I cannot see that they would come to that conclusion. Perhaps I am just being cynical? However, this will be the fourth inquiry I believe, when there should only have been one, fully open and public.

Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but common sense tells me, "It's a cover up!"

JTaylor

Sometimes a man of principle will do the wrong thing for the right reason; Plato described this as the 'noble lie'. Where a mandate, within an existing legal framework, cannot be found, then it's not beyond the realms of reason that a righteous man might sacrifice 'truth' to deliver that which will be proved just when judged by history.

AsifScoob

I agree. However, I await eagerley any evidence pointing to TB being a man of (worthy) principle.

The undisclosed evidence will always remain to condemn him, IMO.

As I said before, "If you have nothing to hide..."

JTaylor

That which is 'worthy' will of course depend upon the side of the house you are sitting. It's relative to and subject to one's core beliefs. Additionally, there are those people that will publicly condemn the law as an ***, and then, the very next day, wield it as a reason to justify an anti-war position.

AsifScoob

My view of 'worthy' and why I put it in there, is to do with actually trying to carry out ones role as PM, as elected. Perhaps having the countrys best interests at heart? This allows a PM to make bad decisions. Something which should not be encouraged, but it is forgivable, given the prevailing conditions of my first sentence.

What I think is that he just had his personal interests at heart. It's my opinion and I am not prepared to change it unless all available evidence can be scrutinised and judged, publicly.

On your other point, people who slight the law that way, do not generally mean the 'whole' law, only where, in specific cases, it is clearly not working, is outdated, or whatever.

If you feel the laws governing the difference between an illegal war and a legal one are inappropriate, well say so. If you feel they are adequate, then there is no argument about that, is there?

JTaylor

I don't think or feel that it was simply the interests of Great Britain that Blair had in mind, but also that of our cousins across the globe and that of our future generations. The British have a long and noble history of Internationalism and an innate concern for secularism, democracy, freedom of conscience and the preservation of resources to perpetuate these agenda.

International law is not beyond scrutiny, and in this instance was found wanting. In excess of 30 states were involved with the removal of Saddam, alongside joint NATO forces and the UN mission. Precedents are sometimes set
upon retrospection as international law is not immutable.

AsifScoob

I could not disagree with this more, but you know that already. I feel that full disclosure of the information available would answer this conclusively and that I would be right. However, it is for precisly this reason that we will never really know for sure.

I completely agree, but which has been severely tarnished by TB!


I agree, but it a precedent that scares me TBH.

Numbers of states involved does not mean too much to me, as I am sure a couple of promises from GWB would have done the trick. (and there is plenty of precedent for this before you get on my case!)

Asif

Leslie

So it is alright then for us all to ignore any of our own laws which get in the way of what we want to do for our own personal reasons.

If the law is wrong then efforts should be made to get it changed before breaking it surely.

I cannot help feeling that the Iraq attack was influenced by the 2/3rds of the world's oil reserves in Iraq. I have not forgotten that the immediate priority when the war ended was to repair the damaged oil wells and to hell with the Iraqi people and their immediate problems.

As was mentioned above, and bearing that oil in mind, why has nothing been done about Mugabe who is an equally evil man and has been mistreating his countrymen for years?

Les

Martin2005

I think what you REALLY mean is that 'you see what you want to see'

Leslie

I am far too honest to myself to do that Martin. There is nothing to be gained living in a world of fantasy.

Les

JTaylor

2/3rds, you say? That's not the case, however, of course it was influenced, is that amoral?

You may find this interesting:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ging_the_world

Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Hussein crime family.