Full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3449933.stm)
10,000 people dead, no WMD and the threat from terrorism greater than ever. Can someone explain to me how this qualifies for a peace prize?!?!? :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Edit: Link now amended!!

Originally posted by Zamo
Full story (http://www.21stcentury.co.uk/cars/ac_cobra.asp)
10,000 people dead, no WMD and the threat from terrorism greater than ever. Can someone explain to me how this qualifies for a peace prize?!?!? :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Can someone explain to me when the practice of giving an AC Cobra to the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize started?

Originally posted by max
Can someone explain to me when the practice of giving an AC Cobra to the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize started?
Please don't even joke Max - even the thought of such an injustice is too much to bear!!

From the story...

"The pair have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said toppling the Iraqi dictator had reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction."

Eeerrrrrr... which weapons of mass destruction would those be?
Pressure builds for WMD inquiry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3450251.stm)

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
From the story...

"The pair have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said toppling the Iraqi dictator had reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction."

Eeerrrrrr... which weapons of mass destruction would those be?
Pressure builds for WMD inquiry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3450251.stm)

Nomme

Those in Libya and North Korea perhaps. Not, you'll note, those in Israel though.

I was tempted to post about this on Saturday. It appears that they have been nominated for constructing the regime change in Iraq. With no WMD found I'd be surprised if they were to win the award. Weren't they both nominated a couple of years ago by a different Norwedgian politician?

It turns out that the 2 million people who marched in London and the rest of the UK had better intelligence than the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

Let the Americans deal with Bush.

Blair is our responsibility. He and his cohorts (Straw and Hoon particularly) should be required to account for their actions.

We still do not know how the attorney general arrived at his judgement that a war would be legal.

We do know that the intelligence services reporting to the JIC were either incompetent or deliberately misleading. Either that or the JIC was in full possession of the facts, but these facts were in fact massaged by one office or another for political purposes.

It is common knowledge that the US president came into office with a clear agenda to topple Saddam Hussein. Signatories to an open letter, to President Clinton from the Project for the New American Century, are now key members of Bush's Administration.

What I want to know is what are the real reasons that Britain took part in this invasion and occupation of a foreign sovereign state, the ejection of the existing political system, dissolution of the police and other civic organisations?

Post Hoc justification on nebulous humanitarian grounds is insufficient because the UK went to war specifically on the basis of a clear and immediate threat to Cyprus from Iraqi long range rockets tipped with chemical warheads. Within 45 minutes. (cyprus was the only British Outpost within range of Samoud missiles that could be found)

This was a complete and utter fiction.

There is something rotten in the City of Westminster, and many many people have lost their lives as a result.

okay I don't want to get into a mass argument or debate about the whole affair but can someone tell me why it would be wrong to go to war with a country who committed crimes against humanity?
Did no one notice the men women and children who were killed by saddam using chemical warfare? His own people?

I didn't support the war in iraq because of WOMD, I supported it because I do not wish to see repeats of the crimes against humanity caused in concentration camps in WWII or indeed the concentration camps made by the British during their waring in Africa. I do not know of every attrocity in the world but I was made aware of the ones in Iraq by relatives.

Can't comment on the Peace prize just yet, haven't read the story. *edit* having read the article I cannot honestly see how they qualify being that no WOMD have been found.

Moon

Moon Maiden, I guess it comes down to a matter of trust. If you believe that the war was fought on purely altruistic grounds then that's fine. But there are a lot of people, myself included, who don't believe for one fraction of one second that Bush and Blair fought this war for the benefit of the Iraqis. Phanerothyme has already mentioned the PNAC/Neo-Con posse, so I won't retread that ground. But put simply, I believe that any intervention that isn't based purely on altrustic grounds is doomed to failure. It will be years before we see the effects of USUK intervention and we can finally judge whether the war was "a good thing". Let's hope it was.

Another issue that comes out of all this, suppose some time in the future we come under a genuine threat from another nation/terrorist group. Having already cried "Wolf!", how are we as a nation going to be able to trust what we are being told by the government regarding the threat?

Even David Kay admits that Iraq was "researching better methods" of "weaponising" the deadly poison ricin. Saddam might not have had an enormous arsenal, but he was still "an active player in the mass-murder market."

Can we really afford to wait for threats to become so obvious that they are staring us in the face? By that time it might be too late to do anything.

Just a (devil's advocate) thought.

I think that once the whoo har has calmed down a little and the reasons behind the war come to the surface - it will be a sad day for all concerned.

I can see peoples point that they would perhaps have preferred a more honest approach - something like - this man is a maniac and is killing his own people look what he is doing (offer photographs).
But would people have cared enough to do something?

Moon

What the hell have they been putting in Norways water, LSD?

As some one, who once had to ask himself the question about readiness for conflict in Desert Storm 1. (I only didn't go because of the rapidity of the allied advance and we weren't required after all).
Seeing Saddam toppled can only be good for the Iraqi's. After all these years of abuse that Iraq has been subjected to it will take a long time to heal that country and billions invested wisely to see it through.
Should Bush and Blair receive the Nobel prize?
No!
Did they do the right thing in making a decision to get rid of Saddam.
Yes!
They're politicians with a job to do. And as a result make some pretty unpopular decisions, they're about as perfect as the rest of the populace they represent.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
I think that once the whoo har has calmed down a little and the reasons behind the war come to the surface - it will be a sad day for all concerned.

I can see peoples point that they would perhaps have preferred a more honest approach - something like - this man is a maniac and is killing his own people look what he is doing (offer photographs).
But would people have cared enough to do something?

Moon
Moon, you suggest that the deception by the US and UK governments was to justify an invasion which was really about liberating the Iraqi people from a disgusting regime. Well I don't believe that's true but even if it were it is still no grounds for invading a sovereign country. Under international law no country is allowed to attack another without the permission of the UN unless it is under attack itself or under serious threat.

The US and the UK were not under attack and the claimed threat from WMD is clearly untrue. Without UN approval for military action (the US and UK did table a motion with the UN security council to authorise military action but this was withdrawn when it became clear they were going to lose the vote) the invasion must now be considered illegal.

Now you may argue the ends justifies the means but I'd say just this. It's a dangerous thing when one country decides it knows best and to use military might to force another to submit to its will. The unilateral actions of the USA and the UK have undermind the UN and as a result the world has become a far more dangerous place.

I'm not sure how we go about putting this right but the heads of Bush and Blair (to act as a deterrent to future leaders) may go some way.

Sorry Zamo I suggest nothing. I merely put why I personally supported the war in Iraq.

Do you suggest that we should have left them all to die?? For men women and children to be tortured and killed?
You can throw all the politics and red tape at me you like but I cannot believe that it would be right to stand by and let people die the way Saddam killed his own people. I never will.

Moon

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Sorry Zamo I suggest nothing. I merely put why I personally supported the war in Iraq.

Do you suggest that we should have left them all to die?? For men women and children to be tortured and killed?
You can throw all the politics and red tape at me you like but I cannot believe that it would be right to stand by and let people die the way Saddam killed his own people. I never will.

Moon
It wasn't a choice between invasion or doing nothing. Moon, you over simplify things and ignore the enormous consequences that result from failing to respect the rights of sovereign countries to self-rule.

It is not for the "west" to impose it's views on the rest of the world. Fair enough, if we want to say we're not going to do business with these countries and impose sanctions then that's our right. If that helps to weaken the hold the leaders of these countries have over their people, and this ultimately leads to regime change, then all the better. But when you try and impose your will by force it just doesn't work.

Yes, Saddam killed and tortured people to keep power but I don't know how many years it would have taken him to get through the 10,000 civilians killed by US and UK forces during the invasion. A total that keeps going up every day.

I would suggest that had we carried on with sanctions (although more vigerously enforced) then in time the Iraq people would have over-thrown Saddam themselves, there wouldn't have been so many killed, the infrastructure would have remained in place, the west wouldn't be as feared and hated as it is now and the threat from terrorism wouldn't be so great.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You keep tripping over red tape mate.

Moon

Originally posted by Zamo Can someone explain to me how this qualifies for a peace prize?!?!? Looking at the precedent set by some of the winners in 1978 and 1994 Blair and Bush are equally deserving. However if you choose the precedent of, say 1979, they may have a bit of catching up to do.