.
.
.
.
Britain's been in a few wars in the last 1000 years, and will no doubt be involved in a few more in the coming centuries. Nor is Britain Norway, the country has a very robust foreign policy and in addition has a veto as a permanent member of the Security Council. Britain is still a major Middle ranking power, which very often sends its troops around the world for peace keeping operations.
.
.
.
Britain's been in a few wars in the last 1000 years, and will no doubt be involved in a few more in the coming centuries. Nor is Britain Norway, the country has a very robust foreign policy and in addition has a veto as a permanent member of the Security Council. Britain is still a major Middle ranking power, which very often sends its troops around the world for peace keeping operations.
.
On the other hand we do live in the 21st century, and like most advanced nations the UK has certain responsibilities as a "civilised nation" and a Liberal Democracy to be responsive to the needs and wishes of its people first, and second under International Law, to be responsive to the needs of the global community.
.
Henry the 8th, King Edward Longshanks and George the 3rd are longer with us, fighting wars against France, and all in Europe. Wars often decided by the very few around the monarch, often based on dubious grounds of personal interest, or peculiar Ouija Board perceptions of their world view.
.
That is precisely why we had the Magna Carta in 1215, the Bill of Rights in 1689, and various constitutional conventions painstakingly developed over centuries to specifically prevent lone dictators taking the nation down the wrong road.
.
To be sure foreign wars are fun, when fought by others and sometimes even profitable, but.
.
Liberal Democratic Britain still involved itself in major wars even after this constitutional evolution, especially in the 20th century, but the one redeeming aspect of this is that one could say Britain in the instance of WWI, and especially WWII did not seek war, but was a reluctant participant, after all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted, and the main protagonist left no choice as a result of which Britain had to enter the war to defend herself.
.
Then we had "New Labor" with ley preacher Bliar at the helm of power. With wild eyes flashing, and rhetorical pulpit preaching, Bliar used the highly dubious instance of 9/11 instituted by Israel to join on going wars against many countries initially planned........Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon...and still later Saudi Arabia and Egypt.......Caucasus and Central Asia. At least that was the plan anyway.
.
30,000 British troops were in Oman in pre planned military exercises and were ready to participate in the Afghanistan adventure in 2001. After installing a Mafia narco administration in Afghanistan, and securing the heroin from that country, where production had previously almost disappeared under the Taliban, the "International" focus led by George Bush moved to Iraq, and Saddam.
.
Sheer total fabricated lies were used to institute a war against Saddam's Iraq:
- Niger Yellow Cake.
- Mobile WMD labs.
- Within 45 minutes to deploy WMD's against the "West"
- Links to "al-Qaeda"
Post "Liberation" the excuse shifted to establishing democracy, nation building and so on once it became clear that the initial excuses for war did not hold water.
Iraq since 2003 has been ethnically cleansed into three separate parts.
Is a failed state which according to transparency International is one of the most corrupt governments on earth.
$ 30-$50 billion of Iraqi and American funds are unaccounted for and have disappeared.
Perhaps as many as 1,300,000 Iraqis have died, and another 4,000,000 turned into internal and external refugees.
British troops involved in the torture and murder of Iraqis, and caught destabilising the country as under cover operatives.
Is this what Bliar meant by removing a "monster" and regime change in Iraq? What war crimes were commited by Bliar and his policies? What benefits did this war have for Britain, diplomatically, economically, politically or morally?............beyond showing solidarity with Bush Dubya, considered by many Americans to be the worst ever American presidency and administration.
By looking and investigating the Iraq war thoroughly and holding the relevant people to account through exposer (calling it as it is) or criminal sanction, Britain can avoid sleep walking into future misadventures and wars that may be even more damaging.
_______________________________
.
.
Blair Warned in 2000 Iraq War was Illegal
Secret papers withheld by Chilcot inquiry reveal Foreign Office fears over invasion
By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent of the Independent.
An invasion of Iraq was discussed within the Government more than two years before military action was taken – with Foreign Office mandarins warning that an invasion would be illegal, that it would claim "considerable casualties" and could lead to the breakdown of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.
The extent of Whitehall opposition to the policy eventually backed by Tony Blair emerges just three days before Gordon Brown will appear at the Iraq Inquiry, where he will be asked to explain his role in the Government's decision to invade.
Secret Foreign Office strategy papers drawn up by senior civil servants at the end of 2000 have been obtained by this newspaper and are published for the first time today. The Iraq: future strategy document considers options for dealing with the belligerent Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. It is one of the key documents that Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry has declined to release.
A policy of "regime overthrow" is proposed, but roundly condemned. In an eerily portentous assessment of the consequences of taking military action, it states: "Such a policy would command no useful international support. An overt attempt to be successful would require a massive military effort, probably including a land invasion: this would risk considerable casualties and, possibly, extreme last-ditch acts of deterrence or defiance by Saddam."
The mandarins add: "It would also be illegal. Covert attempts, on the other hand, seem very unlikely to succeed and run the risk of fragmenting Iraq, which runs clearly contrary to our wider interests in the region." Iraq descended into violence in the wake of the March 2003 invasion. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the aftermath, as well as more than 100 British troops.
The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York – and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' leader, said it was "yet more damning evidence" against Mr Blair's decision to take Britain to war in Iraq. He also warned that the fact that the document had not been published by the Chilcot inquiry raised "serious questions" about its powers to reveal sensitive material.
Secret papers withheld by Chilcot inquiry reveal Foreign Office fears over invasion
By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent of the Independent.
An invasion of Iraq was discussed within the Government more than two years before military action was taken – with Foreign Office mandarins warning that an invasion would be illegal, that it would claim "considerable casualties" and could lead to the breakdown of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.
The extent of Whitehall opposition to the policy eventually backed by Tony Blair emerges just three days before Gordon Brown will appear at the Iraq Inquiry, where he will be asked to explain his role in the Government's decision to invade.
Secret Foreign Office strategy papers drawn up by senior civil servants at the end of 2000 have been obtained by this newspaper and are published for the first time today. The Iraq: future strategy document considers options for dealing with the belligerent Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. It is one of the key documents that Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry has declined to release.
A policy of "regime overthrow" is proposed, but roundly condemned. In an eerily portentous assessment of the consequences of taking military action, it states: "Such a policy would command no useful international support. An overt attempt to be successful would require a massive military effort, probably including a land invasion: this would risk considerable casualties and, possibly, extreme last-ditch acts of deterrence or defiance by Saddam."
The mandarins add: "It would also be illegal. Covert attempts, on the other hand, seem very unlikely to succeed and run the risk of fragmenting Iraq, which runs clearly contrary to our wider interests in the region." Iraq descended into violence in the wake of the March 2003 invasion. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the aftermath, as well as more than 100 British troops.
The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York – and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' leader, said it was "yet more damning evidence" against Mr Blair's decision to take Britain to war in Iraq. He also warned that the fact that the document had not been published by the Chilcot inquiry raised "serious questions" about its powers to reveal sensitive material.
.
The Government has retained the power to veto publication of classified documents. Protocols agreed between the Chilcot team and Whitehall hand the final say on publication of disputed documents to the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell.
Requests to secure the document using the Freedom of Information Act were initially refused. However, the Foreign Office eventually agreed to release a redacted version – with the views of the United States and other countries blacked out – after The Independent demanded an internal review. "Releasing the paper would make Government more accountable and increase trust," the Foreign Office conceded. "There is public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and subsequent decision-making."
Critics of the decision to go to war pounced on the document. "Days before Gordon Brown will try to defend his role at the heart of the Government that took us to war, this is yet more damning evidence against the attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq," Mr Clegg said. "The Foreign Office was clearly advising against regime change as illegal and counter to our national interest."
The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential election which brought George Bush to the White House.
It states that a 1999 United Nations resolution, demanding that weapons inspectors be given access to Iraq, was "beginning to fray at the edges", and would soon "lose credibility" should Saddam fail to co-operate with inspectors. However, it recommends that the policy of "containing" Saddam, and perhaps loosening the sanctions imposed on the Baghdad regime, remained "the best option for achieving our policy objectives towards Iraq". It concludes: "Other alternatives remain unattractive at this stage."
Requests to secure the document using the Freedom of Information Act were initially refused. However, the Foreign Office eventually agreed to release a redacted version – with the views of the United States and other countries blacked out – after The Independent demanded an internal review. "Releasing the paper would make Government more accountable and increase trust," the Foreign Office conceded. "There is public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and subsequent decision-making."
Critics of the decision to go to war pounced on the document. "Days before Gordon Brown will try to defend his role at the heart of the Government that took us to war, this is yet more damning evidence against the attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq," Mr Clegg said. "The Foreign Office was clearly advising against regime change as illegal and counter to our national interest."
The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential election which brought George Bush to the White House.
It states that a 1999 United Nations resolution, demanding that weapons inspectors be given access to Iraq, was "beginning to fray at the edges", and would soon "lose credibility" should Saddam fail to co-operate with inspectors. However, it recommends that the policy of "containing" Saddam, and perhaps loosening the sanctions imposed on the Baghdad regime, remained "the best option for achieving our policy objectives towards Iraq". It concludes: "Other alternatives remain unattractive at this stage."
