Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Report delayed again. The enquiry started in 2009.
They must be on an hourly rate.
They must be on an hourly rate.
Show More
All this terrorism and oil stuff causing the invasion of Iraq was just a cover up of the real issue. Saddam Hussein had unearthed a Star Gate and Americans couldn`t have it in his hands or any other Middle East tyrant.
he has probally found f-all and is worried about everybody seeing the report and slagging him off
Has there ever been an enquiry that has found any member of the government to blame for anything?
As Theresa May and others have confirmed.
Rule 1. Choose a judge who's part of the establishment and pay them loads of money.
As Theresa May and others have confirmed.
Rule 1. Choose a judge who's part of the establishment and pay them loads of money.
The enquiries seem to be a token gesture to show how open our government is but as we already know that all parties involved will be totally whitewashed what's the point particularly if Blair is involved.
How can it take so long?
Perhaps the longer it goes on the more the public forget about the relevance of it to their lives today.
Perhaps the longer it goes on the more the public forget about the relevance of it to their lives today.
we can start another iraq war to really confuse chilcot
There are two very good reasons why this report will not see the light of day until after the election:
1. The war was prosecuted following a vote in the House of Commons in which the Tories and Labour put their differences aside to back GW Bush in his crusade. The entirely illegal nature of the said war, and the lies that were told to MPs and to the public in order to gain their assent, paint both parties with a damning brush. At a time when the Established duopoly have again come together to shut the door to their Augean stable to Farage's upstart party, they can not be exposed for the venal toadies they are, when such exposure will add yet another layer of public distrust to those which have built up already. This report will deliver millions more votes to UKIP, and thus its suppression is convenient for both parties.
2 There is also the question of the LIbDems. At present, the Tories are aware that in the public mind the LIbDems are soiled goods precisely because of their involvement in a Tory-led coalition. Anything which reminds the public that the Libdems are a distinct entity and not some willing accomplice to their assault on public services and their war on the poor is electorally damaging to the Tories - and Labour to a lesser degree - and electorally beneficial to the LibDems, in that it will enable them to disentangle themselves from the nasty Tories before the public gets to vote again.
Of course there will be those who suspect that the suppression of the Chilcot Report is designed to keep the secret workings of the security services hidden, or to protect the machinations of the judiciary from public inspection, but to my mind, the report will stay in a drawer for craven political advantage. It is not even remotely in the interests of the Tories or the Labour Party to publish it with an election looming, and it would be hugely advantageous to UKIP and the LibDems, who will in May be enemies of both.
1. The war was prosecuted following a vote in the House of Commons in which the Tories and Labour put their differences aside to back GW Bush in his crusade. The entirely illegal nature of the said war, and the lies that were told to MPs and to the public in order to gain their assent, paint both parties with a damning brush. At a time when the Established duopoly have again come together to shut the door to their Augean stable to Farage's upstart party, they can not be exposed for the venal toadies they are, when such exposure will add yet another layer of public distrust to those which have built up already. This report will deliver millions more votes to UKIP, and thus its suppression is convenient for both parties.
2 There is also the question of the LIbDems. At present, the Tories are aware that in the public mind the LIbDems are soiled goods precisely because of their involvement in a Tory-led coalition. Anything which reminds the public that the Libdems are a distinct entity and not some willing accomplice to their assault on public services and their war on the poor is electorally damaging to the Tories - and Labour to a lesser degree - and electorally beneficial to the LibDems, in that it will enable them to disentangle themselves from the nasty Tories before the public gets to vote again.
Of course there will be those who suspect that the suppression of the Chilcot Report is designed to keep the secret workings of the security services hidden, or to protect the machinations of the judiciary from public inspection, but to my mind, the report will stay in a drawer for craven political advantage. It is not even remotely in the interests of the Tories or the Labour Party to publish it with an election looming, and it would be hugely advantageous to UKIP and the LibDems, who will in May be enemies of both.
Chicott enquiry, paedophile rings at Westminster and elsewhere enquiries, Hutton enquiries - the list is very long
And we are told we live in a democracy!!!
Well I don't think I do
And we are told we live in a democracy!!!
Well I don't think I do
I think that we should forget about the report and be happy that oil prices are low. Oil's well that ends well IMO. 
The war was not illegal. The aims were just. The mistake was the overthrow of Saddam should have been followed by lraq becoming recolonised and all its institutions run froom Washington and London. This wouldbe an ongoing process of civilisation financed by Iraq oil for the benefit of the US, Britain and Iraq citizens.
The legality of the war will be adjudicated on by Chilcot lfc, although one should note that wars of aggression with the aim of regime change are illegal under International law, and that Blair and Campbell's attempts to manufacture evidence to justify the war muddy the waters. Also FWIW, I agree the aims were entirely just.
Jeb. the only point of war is to effect regime change. This is what the allies did in Germany and the US in Japan. These countries were rebuilt in the image of the west(and russia). If this is not done nothing is achieved.
What I have always found unconvincing is why Blair had to keep changing his justification for the war on Iraq.
He started by telling us Iraq had missiles which would only take minutes to reach the UK.
Then when this was found to be wrong he changed it to Iraq had weapons of mass destuction.
Then when no WMDs were found he changed it to WMD programmes
The first time he tacked the word programmes onto WMD was priceless. Even he seemed embarressed and mumbles "programmes" very quickly and almost inaudably.
You just wished someone had said
"excuse me did you say programmes then?
He started by telling us Iraq had missiles which would only take minutes to reach the UK.
Then when this was found to be wrong he changed it to Iraq had weapons of mass destuction.
Then when no WMDs were found he changed it to WMD programmes
The first time he tacked the word programmes onto WMD was priceless. Even he seemed embarressed and mumbles "programmes" very quickly and almost inaudably.
You just wished someone had said
"excuse me did you say programmes then?
The initial reason given to us for going to war was to disarm Iraq of WMD. Regime change came later.
WMD was of course a carefully developed phrase to scare the public into supporting the war.
lfc makes the excellent point that to justify war there had to be colonisation. It was the only way to stabilise the country.
We don't 'do war' properly these days. If you're gonna do it, put the whole country on a war footing, conscript soldiers and make a damn fine job of it. Instead we basically lost, retreated and now there's civil war.
Afghan? We lost there too.
WMD was of course a carefully developed phrase to scare the public into supporting the war.
lfc makes the excellent point that to justify war there had to be colonisation. It was the only way to stabilise the country.
We don't 'do war' properly these days. If you're gonna do it, put the whole country on a war footing, conscript soldiers and make a damn fine job of it. Instead we basically lost, retreated and now there's civil war.
Afghan? We lost there too.
The War was started to get the Star Gate ffs, all intelligent people know that 
The only point of war is to use billions of pounds of Ammunition which will have to be replaced ...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539