Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
It would have been "right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has said.

The former prime minister said it was the "notion of him as a threat to the region" which had tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Without WMD claims it would have been necessary to "use and deploy different arguments," he told the BBC.

Speaking on BBC One's Fern Britton Meets programme, Mr Blair was asked whether he would still have gone on with invasion plans had he known at the time that there were no WMDs.

He said: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8408918.stm

Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.
Without WMD Saddam simply wasn't a significant threat to anything.

I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-11 23:02:21)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717

Dilbert_X wrote:

It would have been "right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has said.

The former prime minister said it was the "notion of him as a threat to the region" which had tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Without WMD claims it would have been necessary to "use and deploy different arguments," he told the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8408918.stm

Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.

I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.
Cease-fire agreement was canceled. And no it's not a war crime.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
Cease-fire agreement was canceled.
No it wasn't.
And no it's not a war crime.
Invading another country with the purpose of changing the government is a war crime.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cease-fire agreement was canceled.
No it wasn't.
And no it's not a war crime.
Invading another country with the purpose of changing the government is a war crime.
Get the ICJ on it then.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6716|US
So, Saddam ignoring the terms of the cease-fire meant nothing?
(mind you, I'm not arguing that completely relieves the "Coalition of the Willing" from considering the situation...)

Is it a war crime?  Preventative war certainly isn't accepted by most of the international community, but I am unsure of the legal status...
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
Saddam ignoring the terms of the cease-fire meant nothing?
Did he?

Unless you're attacked all action has to be authorised by the UN, 'preventative' wars included.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6829
Saddams' forces shot at our jets every day that were patrolling the no fly zone.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6676|Canberra, AUS

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

It would have been "right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has said.

The former prime minister said it was the "notion of him as a threat to the region" which had tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Without WMD claims it would have been necessary to "use and deploy different arguments," he told the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8408918.stm

Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.

I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.
Cease-fire agreement was canceled. And no it's not a war crime.
It technically is, the Geneva conventions forbids wars based on regime change, like a lot of international law it's very fuzzy and very dodgy though.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6708|67.222.138.85

Dilbert_X wrote:

And no it's not a war crime.
Invading another country with the purpose of changing the government is a war crime.
must...not make...Nazi reference...
Benzin
Member
+576|5999

CC-Marley wrote:

Saddams' forces shot at our jets every day that were patrolling the no fly zone.
Prove it.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6676|Canberra, AUS

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And no it's not a war crime.
Invading another country with the purpose of changing the government is a war crime.
must...not make...Nazi reference...
Yeah, if you use international law as your only yardstick you'll end up with all sorts of odd contradictions.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6602|132 and Bush

Bush shouldn't have been listening to the countless other politicians before he took office I guess. At least 4 out of our last 4 presidents have authorized militarily force against Iraq.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

Kmarion wrote:

Bush shouldn't have been listening to the countless other politicians before he took office I guess. At least 4 out of our last 4 presidents have authorized militarily force against Iraq.
Funny that, why is America constantly meddling with Iraq?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|6588|sWEEDen
I know the Bush family practices it as familytradition....not sure about the others though....
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
I think the CIA agenda has been a long-running theme.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5475|Ventura, California
Sadam had WMDs. He used them before on his own people so, obviously he has them.

Bush gave the faggot 2 years before invading so I don't think it was too hard for him to get rid of them.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6676|Canberra, AUS

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Sadam had WMDs. He used them before on his own people so, obviously he has them.

Bush gave the faggot 2 years before invading so I don't think it was too hard for him to get rid of them.
Rid of what?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
Rid of the WMD.
Except Iraq destroyed them in 1991, ten years of inspections found nothing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

They can't exactly say it was to bring Democracy either. If it was they would have left after Saddam was captured.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6556
The only people who should have removed Saddam were the Iraqis.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717

CameronPoe wrote:

The only people who should have removed Saddam were the Iraqis.
They were being gassed remember?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6556

Cybargs wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The only people who should have removed Saddam were the Iraqis.
They were being gassed remember?
Halabja happened quite a long time ago in the context of the current war. Not a fan of personal responsibility I take it? They should just have sat there and 'taken their medicine' I guess? Very '1940s France'... The Irish got rid of the Brits for the most part, as plenty of other nations have with respect to their evil overlords - why do Iraq get a pass on responsibility? They seem very adept at resisting their new overlords, why the fuck were they so meek under Saddam?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-12 06:29:52)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England
The Iraqi's seem to be profiting handsomely...
BAGHDAD —  A consortium led by Russia's private oil giant won the biggest prize of Iraq's second oil auction this year, nabbing a field initially promised them a decade ago by Saddam Hussein while other companies Saturday showed little interest in offerings outside the secure southern part of the country.

Lukoil and Norway's Statoil ASA won rights to develop the 12.88 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 2 field in the Basra region, beating out three other consortiums led by France's Total SA, Malaysia's state-run Petronas and British giant BP PLC.

The field was the crown jewel of Iraq's second international oil auction, which has placed some of the country's most coveted sites up for grabs compared with the riskier fields that drew little interest in the first auction in June. In all, 15 fields were offered over two days, and of the seven offered Saturday, four were awarded.

"It is a big victory for Iraq," Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani told reporters after the final field was auctioned. "It is a big achievement for Iraq to win such contracts at the current prices."

Al-Shahristani said that the contracts awarded over the two days, coupled with those awarded over the past few months — including the June auction — would help the country boost production to 12 million barrels per day in six years. Iraq currently struggles to produce 2.5 million barrels a day.

The aggressive interest in West Qurna 2 — the biggest of the 15 offered — reflected not only its ample reserve base and cheap development costs, but also its location in the relatively Shiite heartland in Iraq's south.

In the opening round of the two-day auction Friday, an alliance grouping European giant Shell and Petronas was awarded the 12.5 billion barrel Majnoon field, also in the south.

But the bidding quickly tapered off as representatives from the 44 international companies participating in the auction showed little interest for fields located in the more restive eastern parts of Iraq, near Baghdad or near Mosul in the north.

"We are very happy today," said Lukoil representative Andrey Kuzyaev.

The Lukoil-Statoil alliance will get $1.15 per barrel they produce and will work to raise output from West Qurna 2 to 1.8 million barrels per day over 13 years.

Overall, the second and final day of the event drew more interest than the first in which only two fields went on the spot.

On Friday, companies steered clear from fields in the restive eastern region, as well as near Baghdad and in the north — opting instead for offerings that were both safe and cheap to develop.

Iraq was forced to withdraw five fields Friday and announce it would develop them by itself.

Even so, officials hailed that day as a success, as much perhaps for the actual outcome as the need to make up for the dismal showing in the June international auction — the country's first in over three decades.

At that event, only one deal field was struck on the spot, with Britain's BP and China National Petroleum Corp. nabbing the 17.8 billion barrel Rumaila field in the south. Deals on two other southern fields were brokered later.

Analysts said that event failed as much because of Iraq's restrictive terms as for security concerns.

In this bidding round, Iraq appeared to be more flexible, giving the companies more operational control over the fields while still focusing on heavily on the price it was willing to pay them for each barrel produced.

Companies must accept 20-year service contracts and receive a flat fee per barrel produced for their services instead of production-sharing contracts, which are much more lucrative.

Iraq, which holds the world's third-largest proven reserves of crude, is desperate for foreign oil investment to boost production and bring in new technology to revamp an oil sector battered by decades of war and sanctions.

It was counting on this auction to help them do just that.

But with no bids submitted on over half the fields offered, it was clear that the promise of Iraq's mother lode of oil was not enough to overcome concerns about operating in a country where bombings — while less frequent that just two years ago — are still a fact of life.

In other deals Saturday, the roughly 863 million barrel Gharraf field in the south went to Petronas and Japex, which outbid three other consortiums led by Turkey's TPAO, Kazakhstan's Kaz Munai and Petramania. The Petronas-Japex alliance will get $1.49 per barrel of oil they produce and are targeting boosting output to 230,000 barrels per day over 13 years.

Meanwhile, a consortium grouping Russia's Gazprom, TPAO, Korea's KOGAS and Petronas walked away with the Badra field in central Iraq, but only after they revised down their bid to match the $5.50 per barrel Iraq was willing to pay the companies for their efforts in the field.

The consortium had initially requested $6 per barrel and promised to raise output in the field to 170,000 barrels per day within seven years.

Three other fields on offer in central Iraq — Kifl, West Kifl and Merjan in Karbala and Najaf provinces — attracted no bids and al-Shahristani said the country would develop them by itself.

Nejma, the final field on offer, attracted interest only from Angola's Sonangol. The firm had to revise down its request for $8.5 per barrel produced in the northern field to the $6 per barrel Iraq was willing to pay.

Sonangol also agreed Saturday to Iraq's lower financial terms for the Qayara field near Mosul, also in the north.

On Friday, it has offered a bid that was initially rejected as too high.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580 … latestnews

For those that fail at reading comprehension. These are contracts to simply pump the oil from the ground. The Iraqi government owns the oil as soon as it leaves the pump.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-12 06:31:25)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6556
The original purpose of the mission. At the small cost of a broken infrastructure, tens of thousands of deaths and a country devoid of their educated middle class. They also had foreign oil companies pumping their oil pre-invasion too I might add.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-12 06:35:55)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

CameronPoe wrote:

The original purpose of the mission. At the small cost of a broken infrastructure, tens of thousands of deaths and a country devoid of their educated middle class. They also had foreign oil companies pumping their oil pre-invasion too I might add.
Devoid of their educated middle class? That was the result of Saddam and his school system. Will take a long time to fix thirty years of stupid.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard