Chilcot Inquiry

Where can I watch this please?

Sky News.501

It's just embarrasing how wet and clueless the commission are

Thanks. I did have it on but for some reason they were giving me the impression it was happening but they weren't showing it.

Anyone who believes anything Blair says is clueless.

Reasoning for that moon light?

I presume like the jobless wastes of space protesting outside that you have none fwiw.

Although the enquiry won't mean anything in the end, if you believe Blair mate you must have had your head buried in the sand.

Or do you know where the WMD were?

No but i know he nuked 5000 of his own people in one attack. I presume you need some sort of WMD to do that SOF?

Maybe you could go and visit that town and harp on that he has never had WMD. Take that fat** George Galloway with you while you're at it

And the connection with Betting is........

I layed no WMD @ 20s :|

they knew

Chris - The enquiry is about the legality of going to war not whether removing Saddam was morally the right thing to do. I suspect, like me, nearly all the protesters would agree that Saddam being gone is a good thing but you can't just invade another country on false pretences. Blair could be proved to have lied to and misled parliament, don't you think constitutionally that that is a grave issue?

No

The Govt isn't entitled to just kill foreigners whenever it feels like it.
International law exists and should be complied with.

Apparently Saddam had to be fought. Why has Mugabe never been fought in the same way?

Got no oil.

sick of food,

The inquiry will not deal with issues of legality, but rather "lessons to be learned" before and after the invasion:
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx

If anybody has any hopes of major new revelations, they will be disappointed.

Any questions and discussions with the Blai administration would surely have to probe his responses by comparing iraq with zimbabwe.

what is the difference?

Why go to war with one and not the other?

Any chance that one could be put to Blair? Anyone able to offer a valid arguement for this?

President Robert Mugabe shocked the world at the weekend when he announced Zimbabwe had discovered deposits of uranium, saying the country would move to explore possibilities of turning to nuclear energy. Many have wondered if indeed Zimbabwe has the capacity and financial resources for such a project. The answer is NO -- and that comes from Stratfor -- an American based intelligence organisation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last updated: 11/12/2009 14:59:07
Summary
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said Nov. 19 that his nation would use newly discovered uranium deposits to produce nuclear power, adding that the government has no intention of producing nuclear weapons. While Mugabe likely meant to stir nationalist sentiment with his announcement, as well as gain some international attention, Zimbabwe lacks the technology needed for the uranium discovery to change its political or economic situation.

Analysis

Zimbabwe will use its newly discovered deposits of uranium to produce nuclear energy to meet its energy shortfall, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe told state radio Nov. 19. Small deposits of uranium are known to exist in northern Zimbabwe, though the deposits are not thought large enough to sustain profitable mining operations.

Mugabe's announcement represents little more than an attempt to rally his people around the idea that their country is significant enough to join the ranks of nations possessing nuclear power. Mugabe can thereby foment a sense of nationalism while projecting the image that Zimbabwe's economic and energy problems represent short-term issues with impending solutions. The prerequisites for nuclear energy, however, indicate that Zimbabwe will not possess nuclear power -- or weapons -- any time soon.
Energy supply constitutes a growing concern for Zimbabweans given the southern African nation's economic environment. The lack of a stable energy infrastructure in rural areas also represents a continuing concern. Zimbabwe requires just over 2,100 megawatts of power but currently falls between 400 and 500 megawatts short of that requirement, leading to almost-daily shortages and blackouts in many areas of the country.

Moreover, rampant hyperinflation -- standing at 411 percent in October -- and a dearth of incoming foreign currency has meant Zimbabwe does not have the currency to pay South Africa, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for the power it consumes, creating more instability for Mugabe and his ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front.

A small nuclear reactor could produce more than enough energy for Zimbabwe's energy needs, but near-term nuclear power production in Zimbabwe is not possible, even though the specifics of Mugabe's nuclear energy plan remain unclear. Nuclear energy production requires several key components: The first is a supply of nuclear material, such as uranium. This may prove to be the easiest requirement to meet, since Zimbabwe has plenty of unemployed laborers available to extract the materials. On the other hand, this extraction may not prove economical, depending upon the amount of uranium in the mines.

The second requirement is nuclear reactor technology. While Harare maintains good relations with several countries possessing a nuclear capability, the transfer of that technology would prove very difficult. The United States, European Union and others would strongly oppose any such deal, and would exert significant political and economic pressure to dissuade any nation from making such a transfer. Mugabe's long track record of seeking nuclear materials, both for power production and nuclear weapons, will make other nations more wary of allowing Mugabe to obtain any type of nuclear technology. Rumors have circulated since the mid-1990s that Mugabe sought nuclear weapons technology from North Korea. Later, Mugabe sent troops into the DRC in support of former President Laurent Kabila and, in exchange, sought to obtain uranium from the DRC's Shinkolobwe mine. As recently as early 2000, the Zimbabwean government engaged in talks for the acquisition of a nuclear reactor from Argentina for the production of electricity.

Third, even if Harare were able to acquire the necessary technological expertise, it would still need the capital to actualize its plan. Zimbabwe -- already in a financial mess of gigantic proportions -- has proved itself a less-than-worthy borrower, and thus likely would not be able to obtain the funds needed for the construction of nuclear facilities.

The production of energy also requires initial energy inputs, with nuclear energy in particular involving a power-intensive process for the conversion and enrichment of raw uranium into a form usable in a power reactor. For a country already experiencing power shortages, a new nuclear reactor hardly seems feasible.

As Zimbabwe's economy continues to deteriorate to an almost medieval level -- and with current policies not offering much hope of halting the decline -- Mugabe is grabbing at straws to maintain some level of legitimacy with the people. While the idea of Zimbabwean nuclear energy or weapons will surely grab attention both domestically and abroad, Zimbabwe will eventually find himself forced to face the consequences of yet another failed promise.
To know more about the organisation that drew up this analysis please CLICK HERE
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zimbabwe has not invaded another country as far as I'm aware ? IRAQ has!

Zimbabwe has not engaged in a WAR against a neighboring country .....IRAQ has.......where apparently there were millions of casualties.

IRAQ has used WOMD against its own people.......

So if you can't see any difference between two countries........you are blind!

Iraq did all that in 1980-1990

So hardly justifies invading in 2003.

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce) occurred in the period of March 1617, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan. The attack instantly killed thousands of people (3,200-5,000 dead instantly) and injured 7,000-10,000, most of them civilians;[1] [2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which some define as an act of genocide, was as of 2010 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history
=====================================================


So you believe SH was no threat to the Middle East with missile capability plus WOMD used against people in IRAQ.......................

The invasion of KUWAIT by SH was just an indicator as to how far this eeeeeeejjjjiiiiittttttt would go.........such an act was a threat to Middle East stability by itself......

If you add up what SH had done.......... then IRAQ was a threat to world peace....unfortunately ZIMBABWE has internal affairs "crimes" against own people.....not against other countries...as far as I am aware.

The difference was relatively "clear" between two countries......for anyone with common sense.

You were unlucky last night with late goal tobermory .............but surely it was worth going all green near end ...as there was every likelyhood a goal would be scored by home team.....

Anyway the Inquiry is not a GENERAL BETTING topic.....so G M the nooooooooooooo and GL with bets T.

Don't like 'greening up' DFC , it happens.

Iraq was not a threat to the middle east at all in 2003 .Barely had an Army worthy of the name , no Airforce,Navy , nothing at all, certainly no WMD . LOL that anyone thinks it was a threat to Europe etc .Couldn't have conquered Luxembourg, even if it had some way of getting there.

So it was hardly going to invade anything . And this had been the case for 12 years .

As for missiles, they didn't have one with a range of more than 170 miles, and its doubtful they even worked anymore .The WMD were all destroyed in 1991 . The Inspectors kept being sent there in order to humiliate Saddam (by looking in his palaces etc) in the hope the loss of prestige would encourage somoeone to overthrow him. He resented that and threw them out , but seriously they could go where they liked betwen 1991-1998 and found nothing .

All Saddam cared about after 1991 was staying in power in Iraq, because he knew from History that men like him don't retire to the countryside when they lose office, they are executed.

Saddam was zero threat to anyone in The Middle East or anywheere else from 1991 onwards .Of course he was still a threat to people in Iraq , but in that sense no different to Mugabe etc.

absolutely right, tobermory.

I keep hearing about these chemical weapons used previously as a justification for the invasion. Would these be the ones supplied by the west? Or a different lot ?|:

They are the ones sold him by Donald Rumsfeld, when he was in the private sector.