Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,567

    * “Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’” – The Times Online

    MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

    The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

    The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

    This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

    “US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

    The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

    The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

    “It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

    The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

    The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.

    There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.

    The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.

    The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.

    John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.

    He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.

    Continue to page 2…

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Well, with all the dust settling, and whatnot coming out of the woodwork about who knew what when and why, I'm still glad that Saddam is sitting in a prison cell. I'm just glad someone had the guts to finally overthrow his evil regime.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

  3. #3
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    Well, with all the dust settling, and whatnot coming out of the woodwork about who knew what when and why, I'm still glad that Saddam is sitting in a prison cell. I'm just glad someone had the guts to finally overthrow his evil regime.
    Bob,

    If we are in the business of getting rid of evil regimes then how come you aren't calling for a Britian/US invasion of China. After all China's communist regime has killed at least 30x the amount of people Saddam's regime has.......

    Ohh wait, China has a very large army and no oil fields, guess those people won't be having "freedom" any time soon.....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    2,813
    Ohh wait, China has a very large army and no oil fields, guess those people won't be having "freedom" any time soon.....
    That made me laugh, Ross, because it is the best and most accurate quote, I have seen, in my oppinion, that sums up the whole war against Iraq. I couldn't agree more.
    - Jamie Harrop

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,560
    without going into the rights and wrongs of the war, you cant argue that iraq shouldnt have been attacked because there were better/worse (opinion) targets..

    some people you threaten, some people you use a carrot + stick, others you plead with and further others you negotiate with.. some will take 2 mins, others will take 2 weeks, some 2 years and others 2 decades... if you believe for example that there are 10 countries that need a regime change to bring about democracy, but you only have the resources to go after 1-2 at a time, maybe its best to take out the easiest first, and get opinion with you for when the harder ones come about

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    734
    Originally posted by RossH
    Ohh wait, China has a very large army and no oil fields, guess those people won't be having "freedom" any time soon.....
    Completely agree, you’ve summed it up pretty well Ross. If there’s no possibility of oil then the Bush Administration don’t want to know IMO. Seriously, anyone who thinks the Americans were all about “freedom / liberation” when they invaded Iraq really has been taken in by the spin from both sides of the Atlantic.

  7. #7
    Originally posted by Slidey
    without going into the rights and wrongs of the war, you cant argue that iraq shouldnt have been attacked because there were better/worse (opinion) targets..

    some people you threaten, some people you use a carrot + stick, others you plead with and further others you negotiate with.. some will take 2 mins, others will take 2 weeks, some 2 years and others 2 decades... if you believe for example that there are 10 countries that need a regime change to bring about democracy, but you only have the resources to go after 1-2 at a time, maybe its best to take out the easiest first, and get opinion with you for when the harder ones come about
    You know the funny thing is when you talk about regime change and bringing democracy to countries, you sound just like the old soviet regime. They just wanted so spread communism and get rid of those dreaded imperialist leaders. We didn't think it was such a good idea when they were trying to do it, yet I guess because our government and ideals are the "right" ones it is okay for us to do it?

    Anyway if you want to see the true reason behind Iraq you need to click only one link:

    http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.htm...uf=0&x=19&y=14

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    I couldn't care less about oil and what not, and "freedom" from america for Iraq. I'm just glad that Saddam is finally in a prison cell, awaiting his war crimes trial.

    China is also an important trading partner to the US, although the US economy suffers (I think) a 100 Billion dollar a year trade defecit with China.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •