iraq

no bravery

Submitted by antarchi on December 18, 2011 - 04:13

we're going to war with Iraq

Submitted by antarchi on November 4, 2011 - 19:46

I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you’re too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don’t know." He said, "I guess they don’t know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it’s worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir."

— General Wesley Clarke

Interview with Democracy Now

it's well safe there

Submitted by antarchi on July 3, 2011 - 11:55

On 9th June the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC) reported that "[a]t least 70 Iraqi refugees have been rounded up in the UK over the last few weeks", in preparation for deportation.

... As of 21st June, it seems that there will be 72 people on the flight... it is clear that the UK's government's insistence on undertaking deportations to Iraq flies in the face of advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which states that:

"Iraqi asylum applicants originating from Iraq's governates of Baghdad, Dyala, Ninewa and Sala-al-Din, as well as from Kirkuk province, should continue to benefit from international protection… Our position reflects the volatile security situation and the still high level of prevailing violence, security incidents, and human rights violations taking place in this part of Iraq."

"The UK government is aware of UNCHR's recommendations but does not share our assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Those due to be deported on the 21st June will all be transported to Baghdad. Individuals who have spoken with some of the detainees have stated that some of them are under the impression that they will subsequently have to make their own way to their onward destinations. This directly contravenes the UKBA's stated policy of "mak[ing] arrangements for those who require onward travel to their home towns, and this includes those travelling to the Kurdistan Region." [6] A number of those due facing deportation have reportedly said they do not know how they will get home; furthermore, several of those people being deported come from those very areas to which the UNCHR has advised people should not be returned.

— Statewatch

UK deportations to Iraq contravene UN advice

the definition of a quagmire

Submitted by antarchi on June 4, 2011 - 14:18

"The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one, in terms of what we'd have to do when we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strikes me as the classic definition of a quagmire."

Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense in 1991

— Dick Cheney

Quoted in Killing Hope

an absurd conspiracy theory

Submitted by antarchi on May 1, 2011 - 17:29

Quotes taken from Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Tony Blair, 6 February 2003:

"Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP:

"Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

BP, 12 March 2003:

"We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003:

"It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding:

"We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

was it legal?

Submitted by antarchi on April 30, 2011 - 11:55

INTERNATIONAL BODIES


International Commission of Jurists

The denounced the attack as an illegal invasion of Iraq which amounts to a war of aggression. Sixteen senior teachers of international law from the United Kingdom and France wrote a statement stating that “[o]n the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq…. Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law.” 31 Canadian law professors said that US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,” and 43 Australian legal experts said that the initiation of a war against Iraq by the self-styled ‘coalition of the willing’ would be a fundamental violation of international law and said that the United States doctrine or pre-emptive self defence contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II - the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes.

International Court of Justice

"The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signalled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack... A war waged without a clear mandate by the Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Upon its adoption, France, Russia and China, three permanent members of the Security Council, issued a declaration indicating that the Resolution excludes such authority. The bottom line is that nine members of the Security Council, including the five permanent members, need to actively approve the use of force - such support is blatantly lacking."

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

According to the ICJ, such “a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” The commission emphasises that Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force.

Syndicate content