BBC Chairman resigns

[xane]

From UN SC Resolution 687 (1991)

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,
...
Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,
...
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,
...
Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
...
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Now it is obvious that the UN were pretty much convinced Iraq had WMD or sought to acquire them, and since that time the UN were still not satisfied that Iraq's obligations to reaffirm that it no longer had such WMD up until the final UN Resolution 1441 (2002)

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

The fact WMD may never be found, presumably because they either never existed or because the UN Inspectors destroyed everything between 1991 and 1998, is not exactly relevant in the context of "why" we went to war. It is clear from the UN standpoint that WMD existed in 1991 and it was never established they were either destroyed or invalidated.

"Found" and "Exist" are two different things.

 

[Wij]

It's a bit like IRA decommissioning. Do you require evidence or just give violent maniacs the benefit of the doubt ?

 

[Stazbumpa]

It's a bit like IRA decommissioning. Do you require evidence or just give violent maniacs the benefit of the doubt ?

And that is another topic which pisses me off greatly, but I will spare you all for now

 

[Jonaldo]

The Hutton report is just one big joke really. Chummy mates helping each other out.

Tony Blair should be the next man to step down, but a little credit to him that he hasn't yet as there's clearly no-one worthwhile to replace him.

 

[Tom]

With respect Jonaldo, thats a bit of a silly thing to say. The guy is an independently appointed judge, with many years experience. To say that his report is biased in any way is just stupid really.

Sorry.

 

[Jonaldo]

Well it's a load of bollocks - but then I'm not going to go into the whole Iraq war thing again in this thread, suffice to say the BBC had every right to report what they did and we had no right to attack a largely unarmed country. End of discussion. It's happened and it doesn't affect me at all so fuck em, was probably paid to much to do whatever he did anyway.

 

[dysfunction]

So Hutton isnt a well respected Judge with a huge amount of integrity?

Whats the point in having an enquiry if you dont accept the results? Its just stupid to disregard it if you dont agree with its conclusions.

You'll just end up with enquiry after enquiry after enquiry after enquiry...

 

[xane]

If people had questioned Hutton's integrity before the report was published then maybe they'd have a leg to stand on, anyone who rubbishes him with whatever aspirations after the report is likely to be seen as "sour grapes".

 

[xane]

suffice to say the BBC had every right to report what they did

No journalist has any "right" to publish knowingly inaccurate information as truth.

Perhaps politicians can make decisions based on inaccuracies or opinions, that is the nature of the profession, but journalism is about reporting and accuracy is a key part of that, not speculation, not opinion, not mistruths, not expanding the original source of the information.

The BBC is as guilty as hell on this one, the shame is that they'll get away with it (bar the resignations) as within the media there is an agreement not to turn upon one's own, and you thought politicians were chummy ?

No-one has dragged Gilligan into this yet, why should that asshole get away ?

 

[nath]

Sorry for returning to Staz/DaGaffers points I know it's not entirely on topic. My point is, and always has been that despite the fact that we really thought war was the right thing to do at the time and there was plenty of evidence suggesting that we had valid reasons to go through with it.. at the end of the day it seems as though we could have gotten away without a war. Regardless of how much you say "but look back at the facts, it seemed to likely blahblahblah" .. we still didn't necessarily need to go to war. I don't think this is something we should just say "oh well" to.

 

[Tom]

I'm sure if you'd asked Saddam nicely, he'd of left his country of his own free will, and let his people live in something approaching a democracy, and a civilised country.

And personally, I don't buy all this 'its none of our business' line, if it were none of our business then who would give a shit about the holocaust?

 

[Jonaldo]

And personally, I don't buy all this 'its none of our business' line, if it were none of our business then who would give a shit about the holocaust?

Not sure what the holocaust has to do with no proof of any weapons of mass destruction

 

[Jonaldo]

On question time just now they had a vote and the question was "Should Greg Dyke have resigned".

YES 18% NO 82%

Shame I can't be bothered to watch the rest.

(Of course I know it is a BBC program before anyone mentions it)

 

[nath]

I'm sure if you'd asked Saddam nicely, he'd of left his country of his own free will, and let his people live in something approaching a democracy, and a civilised country.

And personally, I don't buy all this 'its none of our business' line, if it were none of our business then who would give a shit about the holocaust?

See, this is why I rarely allow myself to get in to these debates and why I'm pulling myself out of this one. There's always some cantankerous git who brings up some moot point in a really sarcastic way to try and belittle the other arguement. Fuck it.

 

[xane]

at the end of the day it seems as though we could have gotten away without a war.

Although Tom may have been a bit antagonistic, he replied to this perfectly, as I personally cannot see how the removal of the Iraqi regime could have been achieved any other way.

I firmly believe that the world should not have stood by to watch Iraq invade a second country, get kicked out, and then continue as if nothing had happened. The UN should have insisted the minimum requirement was the replacement of that regime, the only country who adopted that as a policy was the US, by Bill Clinton in 1998 (a fact often ignored by the "Bush is a warmonger crowd").

I hate it when arguments are belittled, but that seems to be the tactic used by the anti-war camp when they can't come up with a viable argument where Saddam Hussein should have remained in power, or why a non-intervention policy is better when dealing with dictatorships, it's always some spurious side issue.

I don't particularly like American foreign policy, and I don't particularly like Bush's political flavour either, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with what he did in this particular instance (the recovery of Iraq is another matter).

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm sure if you'd asked Saddam nicely, he'd of left his country of his own free will, and let his people live in something approaching a democracy, and a civilised country.

And personally, I don't buy all this 'its none of our business' line, if it were none of our business then who would give a shit about the holocaust?

We didn't give a shit about the holocaust (until after the fact). We fought the Germans because they attacked our allies; a justifiable legal cause for declaring war. This is the point. It is NOT the duty of one country to decide it is the moral guardian of another. In this particular case its also f*ckin' hypocritical since we spent decades arming the bastard to go off and fight our proxy wars.

WMD was used as the pretext for war because it made war justifiable under UN rules and international law (it actually didn't, but we'll let that pass for now), whereas there was no chance of justifying the war on legal grounds if they'd said "we're going in to remove Saddam because he's abusing his people and he's a nasty dictator", which is now their (and your, from the sound of things) post-war justification. The problem is that this sets up some very dangerous precedents; its basically saying the American 'moral' view of the world is the only view that counts, precisely the attitude of the British in the nineteenth century, in other words, the language of empire builders.

Now I personally don't believe in moral relativism and I do believe some cultures are 'better' than others (and I'm beginning to sound dangerously like Robert Kilroy-Silk here), but I don't believe its our job to impose those views on others. On a more practical note, I don't believe it'll work anyway; we're going to be stuck in middle-eastern shitholes for years to come, taking the costs and the lives of a few squaddies every month, with very little to show for it.

And I'd ask you one last question. Why now? If removing Saddam and/or WMD were reasonable justifications for invading Iraq, why didn't we do it in 1991? We know he had WMD then; we know he had delivery mechanisms, but we didn't drive on to Bagdhad. Let's be honest, this is about oil and the US's deteriorating relationship with Saudi Arabia. Everyone knows it, and things like Hutton help the government to distract us from the real reasons we went to war.

 

[xane]

WMD was used as the pretext for war because it made war justifiable under UN rules and international law

The whole "WMD justification" argument is a little removed from the legal one, being that the UN gave permission to use necessary force back in 1991, which could have included the direct removal of the government, this was suspended on the terms of a ceasefire, terms with Iraq never adhered to and consistantly violated. Where the legal issues lie is whether yet another resolution was needed to affirm that force was to be used, basically reiterating what was said in 1441 (2002).

its basically saying the American 'moral' view of the world is the only view that counts, precisely the attitude of the British in the nineteenth century, in other words, the language of empire builders.

The American moral view is based on capitalism, this is what gets right up people's noses, especially when they can't admit that capitalism has achieved much more than socialism ever did (and I'm a closet socialist too). One of my greatest criticisms of the American "morals" is how capitalism is hailed as the be all and end all of the worlds problems, without accepting that ultra-capitalism is just as worst as ultra-socialism (state run nationalism, or communism).

It is not "empire building", that is where you gain direct control of another state, like Saddam tried to do with Kuwait. The capitalist (and American) idea is to use "influence" rather than direct control, its dirty and nasty, but it is not imperialism and a lot less people die in the process. The major difference between American (capitalist) and Russian (communist) influence was either a McDonalds or a T-72 on every corner.

... but I don't believe its our job to impose those views on others.

And why the hell not ? If you want to take that line maybe we should let the rest of the world starve and die by refusing to give food and medicine, both products of our "enlightened" culture, because that's just as imposing.

You talk from a standpoint of governments imposing views on other governments, but the issue is the people underneath, and if they have no way of expressing their dissatisfaction with their government you have to take an informed view. Ridding a country of a bad government is just as beneficial as ridding it of hunger, malaria or smallpox, and the decision making process is just the same.

And I'd ask you one last question. Why now? If removing Saddam and/or WMD were reasonable justifications for invading Iraq, why didn't we do it in 1991? We know he had WMD then; we know he had delivery mechanisms, but we didn't drive on to Bagdhad.

Because the glorious liberal attitude of the western nations is to give the murdering bastard one more chance, we did, he fucked it up, he paid the consequences.

 

[throdgrain]

Xane owns all tbh

 

[Tom]

We didn't give a shit about the holocaust (until after the fact). We fought the Germans because they attacked our allies; a justifiable legal cause for declaring war. This is the point. It is NOT the duty of one country to decide it is the moral guardian of another. In this particular case its also f*ckin' hypocritical since we spent decades arming the bastard to go off and fight our proxy wars.

Oh, I think we did care, but when you're trying to defeat armies on several fronts, the plight of a few million refugees isn't quite so important. And personally, I think it is the duty of countries to be the moral guardians of eachother. I don't think a geographical border should also be a moral border.

Regarding the future of Iraq, democracies tend not to declare war on eachother.

 

[Jonaldo]

Actually DaGaffer got it spot on.

In the end we went to war because George Bush didn't like Saddam Hussein.

Far East leaders could very well be thinking(and now validly according to most people here it seems) 'hmmm, I don't like that George Bush or Tony Blair much, I think I'll attack their countries'. We'd have no moral ground to stand on as we're trying to justify our cause for the recent Gulf War as precisely this.

 

[DaGaffer]

The whole "WMD justification" argument is a little removed from the legal one, being that the UN gave permission to use necessary force back in 1991, which could have included the direct removal of the government, this was suspended on the terms of a ceasefire, terms with Iraq never adhered to and consistantly violated. Where the legal issues lie is whether yet another resolution was needed to affirm that force was to be used, basically reiterating what was said in 1441 (2002)..

Nevertheless, it was the justification for war, based on the rather vague threat of 'serious consequences' mentioned in point 13 of article 1441. However, it was the UN's job to decide what those 'serious consequences' were, NOT the US & UK.

The American moral view is based on capitalism, this is what gets right up people's noses, especially when they can't admit that capitalism has achieved much more than socialism ever did (and I'm a closet socialist too). One of my greatest criticisms of the American "morals" is how capitalism is hailed as the be all and end all of the worlds problems, without accepting that ultra-capitalism is just as worst as ultra-socialism (state run nationalism, or communism)..

I'm quite happy to be called a capitalist, and I believe in capitalism. That doesn't mean I can tell some muppet who lives in a theocracy or a communist or fascist state what to do! Its none of my business.

It is not "empire building", that is where you gain direct control of another state, like Saddam tried to do with Kuwait. The capitalist (and American) idea is to use "influence" rather than direct control, its dirty and nasty, but it is not imperialism and a lot less people die in the process. The major difference between American (capitalist) and Russian (communist) influence was either a McDonalds or a T-72 on every corner..

Hello? In case you haven't noticed, there's a Abrams' on every street corner in Bagdhad right now. Invading other countries, other than in the defence of your own or your allies, is building an empire. The Americans are in violent denial about it right now, but Empire building is precisely what they're doing.

And why the hell not ? If you want to take that line maybe we should let the rest of the world starve and die by refusing to give food and medicine, both products of our "enlightened" culture, because that's just as imposing..

Well funnily enough, many aid programmes make me nervous as well. But that's besides the point, once you go down that road, behaving in an imperialist fashion (and the British didn't just run an Empire by setting up viceroys and invading countries - in fact they did that quite rarely), where do you stop? Its like I said before, why is Iraq more important than Zimbabwe, or North Korea? If you beleive we've got a right or duty to impose our values, where do we stop?

You talk from a standpoint of governments imposing views on other governments, but the issue is the people underneath, and if they have no way of expressing their dissatisfaction with their government you have to take an informed view. Ridding a country of a bad government is just as beneficial as ridding it of hunger, malaria or smallpox, and the decision making process is just the same..

See above. Hunger, malaria or smallpox are objective and value-free (except to the bugs or pathogens ), "bad government" isn't. Sure, we'd all agree that Saddam's regime was obviously 'bad', but what about Iran? or Israel? Starts to get tricky when you set yourselves on that path. Israel is FAR more of a threat to regional stability than Iraq's been for a decade, but I don't see the marines landing anytime soon.

Because the glorious liberal attitude of the western nations is to give the murdering bastard one more chance, we did, he fucked it up, he paid the consequences.

Bollocks. It had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the western part of the coalition was worried about the reliability of their moslem 'allies' if they extended the war. That and worries about public opinion back home with an election coming up (not that it did Bush Senior any good); the Americans had had a good war up to the liberation of Kuwait, but they weren't going to push their luck so they encouraged the marsh arabs to revolt and then hung them out to dry.

 

[DaGaffer]

Oh, I think we did care, but when you're trying to defeat armies on several fronts, the plight of a few million refugees isn't quite so important. And personally, I think it is the duty of countries to be the moral guardians of eachother. I don't think a geographical border should also be a moral border.

Regarding the future of Iraq, democracies tend not to declare war on eachother.

Britain and America were both largely indifferent to the fate of the jews until the death camps smacked them in the face. You've got to remember that anti-semitism was pretty widespread back then, and not just in Germany. Ironically, the catholic church, which gets most of the flak for not protesting the fate of the jews, did more protesting than almost anyone else.

What you think about moral guardianship is irrelevant - in terms of international law, them's the rules.

And you're last line reinforces my point. What makes you think Iraq's going to be a democracy? If it becomes one it will be the first in the region. "America - bringing you democracy at the end of a bayonet"

 

[Tom]

Iraq will be a democracy because the US will make sure of it. And being the first in the region to be so, might bring the ME out of the dark ages, and into the modern world.

Personally I don't believe there is such a thing as 'international law'.

 

[Munkey]

Qatar is a democracy. Theres a constitution, there are elections, women have the right to vote and Parlimentary elections are on the way. Did we need the americans? Erm no. We're already the richest country in the world in terms of per capita and accelerating.

 

[Doh_boy]

Iraq will be a democracy because the US will make sure of it. And being the first in the region to be so, might bring the ME out of the dark ages, and into the modern world.

Personally I don't believe there is such a thing as 'international law'.

It also may not make us the most popular people in the middle east and as such create more bad feeling towards us; Which I'm sure you know is not what we need right now.

 

[sibanac]

Might bring the ME out of the dark ages, and into the modern world.

Screw what the people want !

 

[sibanac]

It also may not make us the most popular people in the middle east and as such create more bad feeling towards us; Which I'm sure you know is not what we need right now.

Hell if the middle east realy got pissed they could collapse the western economy in a month

 

[Deadmanwalking]

In the end we went to war because George Bush didn't like Saddam Hussein.

George Bush doesn't like the North Koreans.

George Bush doesn't like the Palestinians.

That's two countries to sort out, eh?

 

[Jonaldo]

Iraq will be a democracy because the US will make sure of it.

Make sure of a democracy?
America "YOU WILL MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS BECAUSE I TELL YOU TO DO SO!" This is a dictatorship you speak of, just sourced from outside the country.

Iraq will be a democracy because the US will make sure of it. And being the first in the region to be so, might bring the ME out of the dark ages, and into the modern world..

As Munkey has already pointed out, there are others way ahead of them and it hasn't made everyone change their ways.
Also saying the entire Middle East region is still in the dark ages is a bit silly and a tad xenophobic, Robert Kilroy Silk lost his job for generalising groups of people like this. Also am I right in thinking this region was out of the dark ages long before Western Europe?

 

[xane]

Nevertheless, it was the justification for war, based on the rather vague threat of 'serious consequences' mentioned in point 13 of article 1441. However, it was the UN's job to decide what those 'serious consequences' were, NOT the US & UK..

Agreed on the "serious consequences" part, but I doubt it referred to something other than "regime change", as far as international legalities it was the failure of Iraq to comply that justified the war, not because WMD actually existed, but because Iraq failed to satisfy they did not. Its a bit of a bugger trying to prove a negative but then that's what you get when you invade your neighbour.

That doesn't mean I can tell some muppet who lives in a theocracy or a communist or fascist state what to do!..

What about the poor "muppets" living under such regimes, what do you tell them to do ? The morals of exerting authority over another government are compounded by those of letting people suffer as a result, it's _exactly_ the same as deciding whether to give someone food or medicine.

Hello? In case you haven't noticed, there's a Abrams' on every street corner in Bagdhad right now. Invading other countries, other than in the defence of your own or your allies, is building an empire. The Americans are in violent denial about it right now, but Empire building is precisely what they're doing.

There's British tanks too, and some other nice people from around the world are helping out, strange is this new form of imperialism that you share with everyone, including the people you've just "conquered".

If you start losening the terminology then you can get "empire" to fit any mould, but in classic terms the "American Empire" extends no further than it's own shores. Extending your influence is a different matter altogether, but it is not imperialism.

BTW The King was Head Of State in every country in the British Empire, if that's not direct control of a nation I don't know what is.

why is Iraq more important than Zimbabwe, or North Korea? If you beleive we've got a right or duty to impose our values, where do we stop?

Stop ? No-one has started yet. How about waiting until NK drops a bomb on the south ? Remember all this was initiated by the actions of Iraq, if they'd stayed the right side of the Kuwait border then none of this would have happened.

Bollocks. It had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the western part of the coalition was worried about the reliability of their moslem 'allies' if they extended the war.

Worrying about poor little extremist theocratic dictatorships (Kilroy-speak for "those moslem allies") is precisely the liberal view I am attacking. If I recall, we bowed down to islamic concerns, yet America still got a skyscraper-airliner combo and 3000 body bags for it's pains.