Mr Clegg stressed it was his personal opinion and said the Government did not have a view on the legality of the war.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Iraq War was illegal, repeats Clegg
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has restated his view that the Iraq War was illegal, saying: "I don't think the legality of that invasion has been proven."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This man is worthless, he is probably the most despised national political figure in the UK currently. The fact that he tells the truth for once means nothing. There have been several official enquiries into different aspects of the illegal war and, to my knowledge, Clegg has never appeared before any of them to point the finger at the war criminals. He holds a leading position in a cabinet composed of Iraq war enthusiasts without demur. He is full of **it.
ReplyDeleteI actually like Clegg, for a Brit. He is a centrist, and I believe in his heart pro entrepreneurship and pro business. :)
ReplyDeleteLegality is a difficult arguement. Iraq did not have a legitimate government between 1968 and 2004. In 1968 the evil Saddam and his uncle killed a bunch of Iraqis and established their hold on power. But they were never considered legitimate by the Iraqi people, especially Saddam.
Saddam wasn't even a real Iraqi. To be a real Iraqi you need to be a human being first.
The closest thing to a legitimate government Iraq had 1979-2004 was the anti Saddam Iraqi resistance.
This true Iraqi legitimate "government" formally assumed control over their country in June, 2004.
<p><span>In these transcripts it is shown that Bush had a criminal intent to launch a war of aggression against Iraq, no matter what, and that he turned down every Iraqi offer that would have avoided a murderous war that has killed more than one million people so far. <span> </span>This includes Saddam Hussein's offer to go into exile, and for Iraq to hold free and internationally-supervised elections as well as allowing armed foreign troops to conduct unfettered inspections for weapons of mass destruction. —But the Bush-Cheney regime of Neocons wanted war, and nothing could stop them. They wanted, above all, to balkanize the Middle East for Israel's sake.</span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span>http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/bush-aznar-transcript-war-crime-of.html</span><span></span></p>
"Ramble on, ramble on ..." (Nat King Cole)
ReplyDeleteAny comments anan?
ReplyDeleter.s. Bush junior went to war in 2003 because Saddam tried to kill his Dad and Laura in 1993. That is the <span>"real" </span>reason. The rest are justications and gymnastics in logic to hide the <span>"real" </span>reason.
ReplyDeleteCheney wasn't a neo con. He was an idiot however. So please forgive me for not defending him. [Idiot meaning I don't think Cheney was on the side of Iraqis.]
Saddam didn't offer to got to exile. He turned down the offer to go into exile. I don't believe Saddam was serious when he offered <span><span>for Iraq to hold free and internationally-supervised elections. Do you? The Bush administration didn't think it was a real offer.
</span></span>
Saddam was one of the most evil homo sapiens ever born.
R.S. I opposed the US involving itself so directly in the ongoing Iraqi civil war back in 2002 and 2003. Please don't expect me to defend Bush's decision to add America into the Iraqi civil war.
This said, I am pro Iraqi. You should be too.
"Saddam didn't offer to got to exile."
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact he did, yes, he did! I proved it!!!
Open the link dipshit.
(The objections of some observers that Saddam could have avoided the war by just admitting he had destroyed his WMD and providing the documentation ignore what we have since found out– that Saddam was afraid that if the world knew he had no chemical weapons left, the Shiites, Kurds and Iranians would finish him off in no time. He could not hope to stay in power if he came clean on this matter, but once he left power he knew that his actions of the 1980s could get him convicted at the Hague and so he needed to keep with him documentation on his Reagan/ Bush partners in crime as a hedge.)
ReplyDeleteSorry, Cole's interpretaion here is just not credible. So Sadaam says and of course we must believe ?
<span>What are you talking about?</span>
ReplyDeleteSaddam was offered exile many times. Several neighbors tried to persuade him to take the offer. Saddam refused each time.
ReplyDeleter.s. You are the first person I have ever encountered who believes that Saddam would ever willingly renounce power. Say this to any Iraqi you know. They will have a good laugh.
Saddam was about as evil as they come. Him willingly yielding power was inconcievable.
VZA, we now have declassified memos and documents about Saddam's inner circle, including towards the end.
ReplyDeleteWe know that the reason Saddam never revealed he didn't have WMD is because he knew that the Iraqi resistance would attack and defeat him if they knew the truth. Saddam was more concerned about the Iraqi resistance than the US/UK/Australian/Polish/Kuwaiti invasion right until the last few days.
If you are interested, VZA, I can suggest some books. Maybe you should read Cobra II.
<p><span>“We will be in Baghdad at the end of March. There is a 15% possibility that Saddam Hussein will die or flee. But that possibility will not exist until we have demonstrated our resolve. The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. It seems that he has indicated that he is willing to go into exile if he can take a billion dollars with him and all the information that he wants on weapons of mass destruction. [Muammar] Gaddafi told Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to go away. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances it is entirely possible that he will be assassinated.”</span><span><span><span> </span>- </span></span><span>George W. Bush, </span><span>at the Bush Ranch in <span>Crawford</span>, Texas, Saturday, <span>Feb</span>. <span>22</span>, <span>2003 </span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span></span></span>
<span><span></span></span><span>
<p><span>By refusing to allow Saddam to flee with guarantees, Bush ensured that a land war would have to be fought. This is one of the greatest crimes any US president ever committed.</span><span></span>
</p></span></p>
Open the link moron.
ReplyDeleteSorry, do not buy it. I have yet to see any evidence that would convince me that he would have been willing to leave. Saddam said many things to many people. What to believe?
ReplyDeleteThe man was found hiding in a hole in IRAQ. Once the invasion took place, he could have gotten out of Iraq. He chose to stay. I do not think there were any gurantees that would have convinced that man to give up power.
The utter negligence and mismanagement after the successful invasion was criminal, not the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
r.s. I read these accounts when they came out. For full disclosure, have discussed many issues relating to Iraq with Juan Cole in the past.
ReplyDelete<span>"Sorry, do not buy it. I have yet to see any evidence"</span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span><span>You have seen the evidence you goddamn disingenuous cowards!</span></span>
<span><span><span><span><span>More from the</span><span><span> </span></span><span>leaked transcript:</span><span> </span><span></span> </span></span></span></span>
ReplyDelete<span><span><span><span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>Aznar returned to the subject. "Is it true there's a possibility Saddam Hussein might go into exile?"
"Yes, it's possible," Bush responded. "It's also possible he could be assassinated." In any case, Bush said, there would be "no guarantee" for Hussein. "He's a thief, a terrorist and a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, [former Yugoslav president Slobodan] Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa."</span></span></span></span></span>
Name calling as argument? Okay.
ReplyDelete<p><span>"More Americans believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure"</span><span></span>
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/142367/Slim-Majority-Says-Iraq-War-Judged-Failure.aspx</p>
The historical reality remains that the Bush regime disregarded truth and international law in order to justify taking military control of Iraq, without provocation, even though it knew perfectly well that this country had no ties to the 9/11 attacks nor to bin Laden's terrorist organization, and that it had no weapons of mass destruction.
ReplyDelete<span>Who is happy with illegal and immoral wars? Answer: the Israeli government, its sycophants in the US and certain big interests in the US military-petroleum complex, plus Bush's wild-eyed fundamentalist supporters, for whom an attack on Iraq or Iran is just what God has ordered.</span>
ReplyDelete