blimey - have you been to bed tonight?

Can't sleep Issy  

But I voted that shower in and felt robbed.

I voted libdem last time round...

I feel your pain

Stick two cherry tomatoes in your frying pan for me    

And take care today - catch you later  

Try and have a rest Velvet..

Take care xxxx

Nope not legal at all.
If there was any justice then everyone responsible for this fiasco would be tried as a war criminal. I knew it was a load of hokum so why didn't the idiots in Paliament?
Truth is, they also knew it was bogus but went along with it anyway.

  My thoughts exactly, Veggie.

It is a question that none of us can answer - we do not have enough relevant information to do so.

We were given enough information to doubt it.  Blair and co have the answers. They refuse to answer the questions. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...inquiry-2185725.html

We were given enough information to doubt it.  Blair and co have the answers. They refuse to answer the questions

We were given the information that the media wanted us to have - never underestimate the power of the media.  With regards to Blair and Co - yes they do have answers however the fact that we don't know all of them kind of proves my point that we don't have enough informaton to come up with a definitive answer on this one.

I do.

It was outrageous  

The question as to whether it was illegal is irrelevant.
Whether it was needed is another thing though.. IMO it wasn't, but that's with a huge slice of hind-sight

The premise for the war were the alledged arms that Saddam had. It was pretty obvious from the start that there weren't any....and lo and behold none were found.  The actions were then 'justified' by the toppling of Saddam. However it is NOT LEGAL to oust another country's leader by military means just because you don't like the way they operate.

Therefore the whole thing WAS illegal. And the people who are mostly paying for it are the Iraqi citizens.

You need hindsight to see invading another country who posed no domestic threat was wrong?

And killing thousands of innocents.

Agree's with VD on that last point.

I don't rate any of the leading parties we have on offer at the moment, they are all a ball of excrement.

Blair quotes:  

"The document discloses that his (Saddam) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." 

Proven lies.

"It is absolutely clear from the Iraq Survey Group... that [Saddam] was concealing material he

should have delivered up to the UN." 

None were found. 

I, like milllions of others, didn`t rely on the media to convince us that this was an illegal war. 

Blair proved it by his own utterances. 

Btw did you read the link? 

I find it quite preposterous to consider any war 'legal' or 'illegal' - when can war really be justified in those terms. People die - how can it ever really be 'legal'?

I`m a pacifist too Soozy but unfortunately that`s not the way this shitty world works.

No. You needed it to be sure. I was of the opinion that is was wrong at the time of invasion though I suspected that W was just finishing off his Dads unfinished business.
As for WMDs, I remember thinking at the time that if anyone would know Iraqs armament capabilities, the Yanks would cos it would have been them that had sold them to Iraq in the first place.

Absolutely right.But then we have to find a court to prosecute several Governments which is why I said it is irrelevant because it isn't going to happen.

muf  

And killing thousands of innocents.

Thousands of innocents dies at the hands of Saddam - we have no idea how many more would have died at his hands had they not been invaded when they were

I think we can safely say the war killed innocents in huge numbers.

Okay  

Two wrongs don't always make a right.

When talking about the number of children who died under the Saddam regime, you should take into account the sanctions imposed by the UN at the behest of the US and their cronies, us included, as it was almost impossible to get medicines and other essentials into Iraq.
The US and their allies were killing plenty of Iraqi's before they started dropping bombs on them

Tony Blair just happened to be the poodle at the time. The Tories supported the war too. We knew it was fishy so they can't come the, "but Tony said it was OK!" excuse.

Sadman ran a pretty tight and secular ship. Any action against him has just destabilised the area, and let's face it! There are worse leaders than him walking the planet but they either, don't have oil, or would do us serious damage.

 And this

One interesting fact is that after the invasion, Iraq went back to trading it's hydrocarbon reserves in dollars rather than Euros.. Just saying that's all

We do know how many documented civilian fatalities there has been since..

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

or the Lancet survey..
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6045112.stm

We do know how many documented civilian fatalities there has been since..

We do however that still does not prove tht the war was completely wrong - for all we now had the invasion not occured the civillian death rate could have beem double what it currently is although also it could have been half.

uhuh.. but if I was a gambler, I'd put money on blitzing cities  producing more civilian casualties.

uhuh.. but if I was a gambler, I'd put money on blitzing cities  producing more civilian casualties.

Fair enough - suppose we'll never know though.

I know,, especially not while those responsible for the decision to attack don't tell the whole truth

Call me old fashioned but it would have been nice to have heard sandman explaining how he was supported by the west and who sold him various items.

Blimey Muf!   Its rare I see you post about serious stuff...   

in fact this could be the first time I have read you post about serious stuff...

I am impressed!  

MUF FOR PM! 

(that really really sounds very wrong!)

Every Muf has it's his moments

ta for the mental slideshow of bizarre images that just flew through my mind!