"it is necessary to create the conditions ..."

[TahitiNut]

"... it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

That's it in a nutshell. On July 21, 2002, nearly eight months before the illegal invasion of Iraq, the British government baldly states that there was NO legal justification for the invasion and that such justification needed to be created.

create - author, concoct, construct, dream up, fabricate, forge, invent, manufacture, originate

No justification existed. None. No "imminent" threat. Nothing.

It was a fraud ... a war crime ... a crime against humanity!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

2. That really tells you all you need to know, doesn't it?

"it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."


How many have died for this necessity to fabricate these conditions?

[DrDebug]

3. Did you see the Horizon video

It is in my signature and it is definitely worth the download. It's an amazing documentary comparable to MoveOn documentary.

It specifically said that the intelligence was fixed around the policy. They went to extreme length to find intelligence to justify the existence of the WMDs. There were 6 sources but most of them were highly unreliable including Saddam resistence groups and the intelligence was a thin and unproven.

There is no justification for the war. Download and watch the documentary, it's brilliant.

[Career Prole]

4. You said it, Mr. Nut.

That is a damning statement, and it can't be spun like they've tried spinning the word "fixed".
:thumbsup:

[Kerrytravelers]

27. Fixed. It depends on what the defenition of the word "fixed" is.

I just love silly wordplay.

[OneBlueSky]

5. this disclosure DEMANDS an impeachment inquiry! . . .

the Democrats have to scream it from the rooftops, and the Republicans damn well better get in line . . . Bush fucked us, cost 1700 American lives, countless devastating injuries, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, and complete and utter devastation of the country (inluding DU contamination and destruction of ancient historical sites) . . . and the whole thing was a set-up, a complete fabrication right from the start . . . and here's the proof! . . .

[TahitiNut]

7. Please read the subthread at ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1541405&mesg_id=1541472

I'd ask that you read my post #99 in particular and consider my reasoning regarding the oft-stated claim that "no way in hell" will Congress impeach them. Such a failure to act could possibly result in enormous international repercussions, the severity of which we may never have seen.

[OneBlueSky]

8. I agree completely . . . that's why I said . . .

that the Republicans damn well better get in line . . .

[The Traveler]

6. For all to who took that oath

to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this kind of crap presents a serious problem.

:nuke: :grr:

[OneBlueSky]

9. I just faxed a copy of the entire article to the Managing Editor . . .

of my local (Gannett) paper . . . on an "Urgent" cover sheet, with the notation "THIS MAY WELL BE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT STORY OF THE YEAR!" . . . I'm hoping that the fact that it comes from the London Sunday Times will lend sufficiet credibility that they'll do something significant with it . . . too late for tomorrow's paper, but I'll be watching Monday's . . .

[LunaC]

10. Sounds familiar

"It is important to shape circumstances..........."- PNAC Statement of Principles

[CJCRANE]

13. It's all a form of magical thinking...

If reality doesn't fit their preconceived notions then they just rewrite the evidence to try and make it true:

Global Warming
WMD
Mission Accomplished
Evolution
Social Security
etc

The trouble is, (for example) if I rewrite my resume to say I'm an astronaut, that doesn't make it true, no matter how much I want to believe it...

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Tahiti Nut, was this all for OIL, in your opinion?

Or pure unadulterated evil power-mongering?

[TahitiNut]

17. That's probably it but an oversimplification, imho.

Clearly, the most evident objective would be control over and access to petrochemicals (oil and gas). That would not only include Iraq's resources, but all the petrochemical resources in the Middle East nations whose unification and cooperation, either as a cartel or political entity, has been opposed by the US and other western nations. (Quite frankly, if the Middle East weren't a critical region for petrochemicals then I believe 'Israel' would be a small collection of towns in Palestine. "Destabilization" has been the strategy of the industrialized west for decades.)

The US does not (and has not) truly believe in "free markets" - they/we believe in markets under the control of a consortium of global corporations and their investment banks, not 'nations' nor the people of those nations. When the US military is seen as a security department of global corporatism, and one realized that the US military alone consumes a minimum of 250 million barrels of oil annually (more than many nations), the strategic importance of petroleum is even better seen.

So, it's not just Iraq's oil -- it's oil anywhere. By blatantly violating international law and invading and occupying Iraq, the corporatist regime in control of the US government has served notice on all petroleum exporting countries that nothing will stop the US in asserting total global control. At this point, the biggest "fly in the petrolatum rub" is a Sino-Russian collaboration in opposition to a western corporatist hegemony in Eurasia. The deliberate migration of heavy industry to these countries portrays an increased 'Finlandization' of interests in these countries by factions of global corporatism.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Thanks...I knew I could count on you for a good explanation. n/t

[LightningFlash]

12. It was him.....

Dick Cheney: "I will make it legal..."

They will sell their weapons.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[NMMNG]

14. Makes me want to puke

To think people believe * is a moral man.

GAH!

Your post has been nominated.

[Dawgs]

15. Can the families of military dead sue Bush and government because...

of this quote. I know this might be a stupid question, but I couldn't imagine how pissed I would be if I knew Bush did this. Also, just imagine how mad you would be if the press refused to cover it up because they were covering for this administration.

[TahitiNut]

19. Well, a person can sue anyone for anything.

The question is whether they can win. I can't imagine any such suit ever prevailing at this point. Wait six years.

[Dawgs]

16. Can the families of military dead sue Bush and government because...

of this quote. I know this might be a stupid question, but I couldn't imagine how pissed I would be if I knew Bush did this. Also, just imagine how mad you would be if the press refused to cover it up because they were covering for this administration.

[spanone]

18. Traitors...all of them are traitors.

[KlatooBNikto]

20. It is necessary to create the conditions for the American people to

believe that a long War on Terrorism is needed.

Dick, you go ahead and plan for the WTC Towers collapse and I will see you after my vacation in Crawford.

[Pobeka]

21. I respectfully disagree and agree.

I think the thrust of that statement was they recognized the US could screw this up so badly before launching a war that Britain could not legally participate. This really appears to just be a bad choice of words. That's a little different than saying they were going to outright manipulate events to create a justification for war.

BUT, having said that, then you *have* to read points 13, 14:
--
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
--

Here they *are* talking unequivocally in 13) about the fact that the inspectors could not possibly know the WMD status until July 2003. And in 14) they clearly are talking about a way to force Saddam into a war which could be justified (legally I assume) by the international community by January 2003.

Just for fun, here's point 19:
--
Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
--

I added the emphasis there.

[TahitiNut]

29. Here's the deal on UNMOVIC ...

The UN weapons inspections were seen as a two-edged sword by those whose objective was invasion/occupation.

Edge #1: If Saddam Hussein were to reject/refuse the latest iteration of weapons inspection (to prove the negative, i.e. there were no WMDs), that refusal could provide the leverage to legally rationalize invasion/occupation under the aegis of the UNSC. This is the 'edge' favoring the invasion/occupation.

Edge #2: If Saddam Hussein wasn't "wrong-footed" and accepted the latest iteration of weapons inspection (to prove the negative, i.e. there were no WMDs), then it'd take a minimum of 9 months (gestation) before UNMOVIC was able to reasonably assure the UNSC that Saddam did indeed have no WMD capability. This is the 'edge' that would preclude invasion/occupation.

Therefore, when it was clear that "Edge #2" was the operative effect, the US/UK collaboration was forced to act before the UNMOVIC reported and permanently precluded invasion/occupation under the fabricated pretense the Iraq possessed WMD and was an "imminent threat." That's why the invasion/occupation was initiated in March.

That this was a conscious fraud on the part of the US/UK cabal is confirmed by "big lie #2536" (that Saddam threw out the inspectors) that was repeeated over and over and over by the blathering sycophants and Mighty Wurlitzer. Saddam never 'threw out' the inspection teams, despite mighty and repeated efforts to provoke him into doing so.

[Pobeka]

32. Yep, and the equivalent language to "create legal conditions" in 14)

"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject ...".

If you are doing everything to avoid a war, why are you contemplating methods to force Saddam into a "legal" war?

Again, like the rest of DSM, this is strong evidence that war was not the last resort, but one of the first activities they desired.

[kentuck]

35. And that is when they started talking about "mushroom clouds"...

They couldn't wait on the inspectors....it might be too late...

[TahitiNut]

41. Yep. That's "the preparation of domestic opinion."

Or what does DimSon call it? "catapulting the propaganda"? The Reich loaded their Mighty Wurlitzer with 45rpm LIES. The 2002 Erection Season saw more ass-kissing and sunshine up the butt than a century of pigmy proctologists' conventions.

[kentuck]

42. Yep..

Well said !

[kentuck]

22. These were the "supposed" conditions for British involvement :

Do you think they were met?
============================================
<snip>
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

[Pobeka]

23. I wonder what they felt the cost/benefit of point 19 was at startup of war

They clearly saw the protracted nation building exercise in the aftermath. Did they think the oil was worth it, or some improvement of middle east democracy that might follow? Heck if I know.

[kentuck]

24. They had a much more realistic view than Bush and the neo-cons...

so why did they follow Bush?
===============================
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

[TahitiNut]

25. At least three of five were missing.

In particular, there was no "justification/legal base." Again, 'regime change' is NOT a legal casus belli. Every other concocted rationale has been conclusively shown to be fabricated.

[kentuck]

28. You are correct, 'Nut...

"creating the conditions" is in fact, creating deceptions that are not real, to appear to be something they are not, to start a war.

[G_j]

26. nominated for it's eloquent simplicity n/t

[cthrumatrix]

30. good question for a "press conference".... and watch shrubby destruct

[TahitiNut]

36. It's a fool's errand to seek the 'self destruction' of Smirk.

It's like trying to turn shit into shit. If it's not already obvious to everyone that it's shit, no further efforts at alchemy make sense.

I have absolutely no interest in making the Chimperor "cry Uncle!" I refuse to accept even the smallest part of any notion that he's his own judge ... any more than Charles Manson is his own judge. At this point, his strait-jacketed life imprisonment along with his enablers and puppeteers is the sole acceptable and civilized goal.

[spanone]

31. Sounds like seven words that could sink a ship.

If there was any justice in this country....I would support a World Tribunal that looked into this. I'd love to see Bush* and Ayatolla Cheney do time...real time.

[Just Me]

33. They INTENTIONALLY defrauded their own people.

:cry: They exploited our lives and our wealth and our strength.

If that isn't a breach of their oath of office, what the fuck is? :grr:

If that isn't a crime, what the fuck is? :grr:

The freakin' "media" is complicit in the commission of this horrible crime. I have firmly turned OFF that propaganda/infotainment machine.

[Zorbuddha]

34. It couldn't be more clear.

The reluctance to see what is hiding in plain sight shows the power of propaganda and the effectiveness of brainwashing.

Is America going to wake up from this nightmare? If not, it will never again be respected in the world. Our collective future hangs in the balance of how we square the books on this.

[Jade Fox]

37. Yes. Clearly they knew exactly what they were doing!

If this DSM thing flies, that will be the sentence that brings down the House
of Bushco.

[kentuck]

38. How were they going to "create the conditions" ??

Totally aboveboard, I am sure??

[rucky]

39. It's a good thing for them they don't believe in the ICC

or Santa Clause, for that matter...

they've been some baaaaad boys.

[TahitiNut]

43. Criminals often claim the court has no jurisdiction.

They even continue to claim it from prison. The Nazi's did. Funny thing is: the guards don't give a shit.

It's interesting, from a purely logical perspective, such a stance has absolutely nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. It's irrelevant.