Iraq Inquiry

  bremner 16:23 15 Jun 2009
Locked

click here

Why could the inquiry not have been held in public with the sensitive parts held in camera?

It is clear Gordon Brown just does not believe in transparent government however many times he says he does..

  johndrew 17:11 15 Jun 2009

`Why could the inquiry not have been held in public with the sensitive parts held in camera?`

I think there are certain members of Government who consider all parts sensitive - perhaps especially those that relate to the manner in which the decisions was reached and on what evidence.

Also, perhaps the International Court at the Hague holds some Ministers (and ex-Ministers) in a hypnotic trance they may be prosecuted if there are less than `clean` documents which breach International Law to be revealed. But then the documents would have gone the way of certain expense claims; wouldn`t they???

  GANDALF <|:-)> 17:39 15 Jun 2009

I feel confident that the inquiry will discover the hiding place of all the weapons of mass destruction that the Government used as the basis for entering into a war. I await the results.

G

  Forum Editor 18:11 15 Jun 2009

you'll realise why an inquiry like this shouldn't be a public one - read fourm member's response.

  al's left peg 18:39 15 Jun 2009

I think we should have an inquiry into why we are sending young soldiers to Afghanistan to be little more than target practise for the taliban. I am getting quite annoyed at the fact that we seem to be losing at least one young soldier a day, for what?

I am normally not like this and on the whole support military action if it is warranted. For the life of me though, I can't understand what we are doing there.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:51 15 Jun 2009

The Russians had 300,000 troops trying to sort out Afghanistan (they were not all rough conscripts as the Daily Mail used to trumpet). They had little success, so I assume that we must have more than that number there. ;-)

G

  laurie53 20:09 15 Jun 2009

The reason we are sending young soldiers into Afghanistan is because the UN, of which we are fully paid up signatories, decided that the country needed UN assistance. I think the decision was virtually unanimous.

By lumping it into a thread about a unilateral occupation of dubious legality you detract from both issues.

  Bingalau 20:22 15 Jun 2009

click here

We are there as part of a UN force and we are not the only nation losing our young men. whether we should be there is another matter.

  Bingalau 20:26 15 Jun 2009

The reason our casualties are so high is because our troops are in one of the more dangerous areas. They are also taking on the more fanatical of the opposition.

  caccy 20:41 15 Jun 2009

Iraq inquiry.
Why will it take a year?
Here is my inquiry into it.
1) Oil.
2) This was to be Blair's "Falklands war"
QED.

  Forum Editor 20:50 15 Jun 2009

Precisely.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

Awful clip art from 1994 is being tweeted every hour by a bot

iPhone X vs Samsung Galaxy Note 8

Les meilleurs navigateurs internet 2017