Chilcot Report

[LordRahl2]

Odd way to discredit. It was a investigation/Public inquiry/review over a period of several years on the information at the time, the people, and so forth costing millions with a lot of people involved. You talk as if the report consisted of a man sitting down and deciding "the report will say this". Confusing it for the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights I think.

Its not an odd way to do anything. Its a really simple question. It is irrelivant how long it took to write or how much it cost.

 

So again "why does the report reach that conclusion"? How do they support their claim? Do you not understand the question?

Edited July 8, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Rozalia]

Its not an odd way to do anything. Its a really simple question. It is irrelivant how long it took to write or how much it cost.

 

So again "why does the report reach that conclusion"? How do they support their claim? Do you not understand the question?

 

I answered that already. It investigated/reviewed documents relating to the matter, meetings that had occurred, and interviewed the great many people linked to the matter. Is your claim the documents were faulty or the people interviewed liars? I don't exactly see where you're going with this. Such talk can be used to dismiss any report in essence. 

 

To answer one point, that being the "threat"

 

 

310. The UK assessment of Iraq’s capabilities set out in Section 4 of the Report shows:

• The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their delivery

systems, particularly ballistic missiles, was regarded as a major threat. But Iran,

North Korea and Libya were of greater concern than Iraq in terms of the risk of

nuclear and missile proliferation.

• JIC Assessments, reflected in the September 2002 dossier, had consistently

taken the view that, if sanctions were removed or became ineffective, it would

take Iraq at least five years following the end of sanctions to produce enough

fissile material for a weapon. On 7 March, the IAEA had reported to the Security

Council that there was no indication that Iraq had resumed its nuclear activities.

• The September dossier stated that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon within

one to two years if it obtained fissile material and other essential components 

Executive Summary

43

from a foreign supplier. There was no evidence that Iraq had tried to acquire

fissile material and other components or – were it able to do so – that it had the

technical capabilities to turn these materials into a usable weapon.

• JIC Assessments had identified the possible stocks of chemical and biological

weapons which would largely have been for short‑range, battlefield use by the

Iraqi armed forces. The JIC had also judged in the September dossier that Iraq

was producing chemical and biological agents and that there were development

programmes for longer‑range missiles capable of delivering them.

• Iraq’s proscribed Al Samoud 2 missiles were being destroyed. 

 

312. Saddam Hussein’s regime had the potential to proliferate material and know‑how,

to terrorist groups, but it was not judged likely to do so.

 

313. On 28 November 2001, the JIC assessed that:

• Saddam Hussein had “refused to permit any Al Qaida presence in Iraqâ€.

• Evidence of contact between Iraq and Usama Bin Laden (UBL) was

“fragmentary and uncorroboratedâ€; including that Iraq had been in contact

with Al Qaida for exploratory discussions on toxic materials in late 1988.

• “With common enemies ... there was clearly scope for collaboration.â€

• There was “no evidence that these contacts led to practical co‑operation;

we judge it unlikely ... There is no evidence UBL’s organisation has ever

had a presence in Iraq.â€

• Practical co‑operation between Iraq and Al Qaida was “unlikely because

of mutual mistrustâ€.

• There was “no credible evidence of covert transfers of WMD‑related technology

and expertise to terrorist groupsâ€.145

314. On 29 January 2003, the JIC assessed that, despite the presence of terrorists in

Iraq “with links to Al Qaidaâ€, there was “no intelligence of current co‑operation between

Iraq and Al Qaidaâ€.146

315. On 10 February 2003, the JIC judged that Al Qaida would “not carry out attacks

under Iraqi directionâ€.147

 

I'm not going to post the whole report here obviously... it's a long report. 

 

Additionally from your initial statements you seem to not really have any knowledge on the contents as you weren't aware it discredited your view so... why haven't you had a look yet, at least at the cliff notes so to speak? If you haven't then why do you continue to argue I have to wonder. I mean this thread is called the Chilcot Report and thats what the subject I'm talking on is so... 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Actually....with NATO moving toward disbanding I would argue that thwy do not.

With Brexit, NATO straining, and conflicting signals from Germany about confronting Russia, I think its in England's interests to be very close to the US, and its in the US's interests to do what it needs to do to keep that relationship strong.

 

Not that they could see all that in 2002, but it wasn't unthinkable that the EU project could have trouble.  The UK needs either the US or the EU.  It doesn't need both.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Aisha Greyjoy

[LordRahl2]

I answered that already. It investigated/reviewed documents relating to the matter, meetings that had occurred, and interviewed the great many people linked to the matter. Is your claim the documents were faulty or the people interviewed liars? I don't exactly see where you're going with this. Such talk can be used to dismiss any report in essence. 

 

To answer one point, that being the "threat"

 

 

I'm not going to post the whole report here obviously... it's a long report. 

 

Additionally from your initial statements you seem to not really have any knowledge on the contents as you weren't aware it discredited your view so... why haven't you had a look yet, at least at the cliff notes so to speak? If you haven't then why do you continue to argue I have to wonder. I mean this thread is called the Chilcot Report and thats what the subject I'm talking on is so... 

 

I was excited for a second when I saw this post.  In it you had provided evidence from the report to support something in a reply to me.  Of course, the evidence presented was unrelated to what we were debating.  What this does show me is that you are aware of what I am looking for. 

 

So what you are telling me is that the report which you place much credence in (and yes I skimmed it since you seem to care) offers zero evidence to refute my point.  Are you admitting that a report that took as you said years to write, looked at countless documents and pieces of evidence, interviewed countless people, and cost millions of pounds contains not a single shred of evidence to support you?  It does not even offer analysis beyond "the report addresses that and says that the claim that if Britain wasn't America's poodle then they'd lose "influence" (quotes considering America then regularly ignored Britain anyway, as that is what you do with poodles) was incorrect"?  In 145 pages it could not find the space to refute an obvious counterpoint?  Incredible.

 

Maybe that was confusing.  What I am looking for is a fact to support your viewpoint that was uncovered in all those: documents relating to the matter, meetings that had occurred, and interviewed the great many people linked to the matter.  So just find those facts in the report and paste them here.  I doubt you will be successful but maybe I missed something.

 

Bottom line: there is zero evidence to support your view (that I have found anyway).

 

Now the lack of evidence is not itself evidence although it is very strongly suggestive.  What would I expect to happen if my analysis was correct?  I would expect to find the Heads of State corresponding and the State that really wanted to protect the alliance would say something like: "I will be with you, whatever".  The concerned State would then support its partner in the military action for as long as required with enough force to demonstrate that it valued the alliance.  Guess what?  Your precious report contains those facts and they support my analysis.

 

 

With Brexit, NATO straining, and conflicting signals from Germany about confronting Russia, I think its in England's interests to be very close to the US, and its in the US's interests to do what it needs to do to keep that relationship strong.

 

Not that they could see all that in 2002, but it wasn't unthinkable that the EU project could have trouble.  The UK needs either the US or the EU.  It doesn't need both.

 

That is interesting.  If I was London I would have been suspicious of relying to much on the EU at any time in the past.  That there were flaws, or at least potential flaws, with the EU in 2002 would have been the safer bet.  The EU at the time, and today, had no military to speak of, no real foreign policy, and its domestic policy was questionable even then.  The US has and is extremely likely to maintain a large military, has a foreign policy (even if it blunders about from time to time), and is very interested in trade.  I am not sure that the EU could have substituted at any time for the security that Britain needs.

[Rozalia]

I was excited for a second when I saw this post.  In it you had provided evidence from the report to support something in a reply to me.  Of course, the evidence presented was unrelated to what we were debating.  What this does show me is that you are aware of what I am looking for. 

 

So what you are telling me is that the report which you place much credence in (and yes I skimmed it since you seem to care) offers zero evidence to refute my point.  Are you admitting that a report that took as you said years to write, looked at countless documents and pieces of evidence, interviewed countless people, and cost millions of pounds contains not a single shred of evidence to support you?  It does not even offer analysis beyond "the report addresses that and says that the claim that if Britain wasn't America's poodle then they'd lose "influence" (quotes considering America then regularly ignored Britain anyway, as that is what you do with poodles) was incorrect"?  In 145 pages it could not find the space to refute an obvious counterpoint?  Incredible.

 

Maybe that was confusing.  What I am looking for is a fact to support your viewpoint that was uncovered in all those: documents relating to the matter, meetings that had occurred, and interviewed the great many people linked to the matter.  So just find those facts in the report and paste them here.  I doubt you will be successful but maybe I missed something.

 

Bottom line: there is zero evidence to support your view (that I have found anyway).

 

Now the lack of evidence is not itself evidence although it is very strongly suggestive.  What would I expect to happen if my analysis was correct?  I would expect to find the Heads of State corresponding and the State that really wanted to protect the alliance would say something like: "I will be with you, whatever".  The concerned State would then support its partner in the military action for as long as required with enough force to demonstrate that it valued the alliance.  Guess what?  Your precious report contains those facts and they support my analysis.

 

 

 

That is interesting.  If I was London I would have been suspicious of relying to much on the EU at any time in the past.  That there were flaws, or at least potential flaws, with the EU in 2002 would have been the safer bet.  The EU at the time, and today, had no military to speak of, no real foreign policy, and its domestic policy was questionable even then.  The US has and is extremely likely to maintain a large military, has a foreign policy (even if it blunders about from time to time), and is very interested in trade.  I am not sure that the EU could have substituted at any time for the security that Britain needs.

 

You're making a connection off nothing and then mocking, as usual for you even if you will often then state you did no such thing. You've asked for a lot of things, for what specifically I didn't know, and when apparently everything is incorrect then it's impossible to, so I went for one of them which was the "threat" posed that you keep stating made the choice so clear cut. What you're asking now more directly is elsewhere obviously. Me deciding to list some parts for one specific thing does not mean the report does not address the others. 

 

375. The Government was right to weigh the possible consequences for the wider

alliance with the US very carefully, as previous Governments have done. A policy

of direct opposition to the US would have done serious short‑term damage to the

relationship, but it is questionable whether it would have broken the partnership.

376. Over the past seven decades, the UK and US have adopted differing, and

sometimes conflicting, positions on major issues, for example Suez, the Vietnam War, the

Falklands, Grenada, Bosnia, the Arab/Israel dispute and, at times, Northern Ireland. Those

differences did not fundamentally call into question the practice of close co-operation,

to mutual advantage, on the overall relationship, including defence and intelligence.

377. The opposition of Germany and France to US policy in 2002 to 2003 does not

appear to have had a lasting impact on the relationships of those countries with the

US, despite the bitterness at the time.

378. However, a decision not to oppose does not have to be translated into unqualified

support. Throughout the post‑Second World War period (and, notably, during the

wartime alliance), the UK’s relationship with the US and the commonality of interests

therein have proved strong enough to bear the weight of different approaches to

international problems and not infrequent disagreements.

379. Had the UK stood by its differing position on Iraq – which was not an opposed

position, but one in which the UK had identified conditions seen as vital by the UK

Government – the Inquiry does not consider that this would have led to a fundamental

or lasting change in the UK’s relationship with the US.

380. This is a matter of judgement, and one on which Mr Blair, bearing the responsibility

of leadership, took a different view.

[LordRahl2]

See now?  Was that so hard that it took two pages of round and round?  Now we can actually have a debate!

[Rozalia]

See now?  Was that so hard that it took two pages of round and round?  Now we can actually have a debate!

 

If you were clear on the specifics it would have gone a lot quicker mate. 

Edited July 9, 2016 by Rozalia

[LordRahl2]

ummmmm, when I asked you like 5 times for facts and evidence mate?

[Clarke]

Wow, for once I agree with Rozalia in one of these threads

[LordRahl2]

Anyway, not much there.  The only support to their argument is below which is not very strong:

"Over the past seven decades, the UK and US have adopted differing, and

sometimes conflicting, positions on major issues, for example Suez, the Vietnam War, the

Falklands, Grenada, Bosnia, the Arab/Israel dispute and, at times, Northern Ireland. Those

differences did not fundamentally call into question the practice of close co-operation,

to mutual advantage, on the overall relationship, including defence and intelligence."

 

Lets look at all of them shall we and determine the level of interest and place it in context. 

 

Suez:

At the time of the Suez crisis Great Britain had not yet identified its changed status in relation to the United States.  But anyway I am entirely unsure why the authors included it.  The event clearly defined that the United States - British relationship was NOT irreplaceable to the Washington.  The Suez DID result in modified security for the UK (and intelligence fwiw). So when they list that they are actually arguing AGAINST their viewpoint.  Well done?

 

Maybe you would ask how they were impacted?  Well it can be seen in UK lack of support in their next example-

the Vietnam War:

The UK did not support the US in this endeavor (to some extent influenced by Suez).  Despite the buddy-buddy personal relationship between Nixon and Heath(?) relations deteriorated.  Your favorite phrase "special relationship" actually went away and was replaced with "natural relationship".  So yeah, yet another example of how conflicting positions actually impacted the overall relationship, including defense and intelligence.  (Defense by the way is spelled with an "s" redcoats.)

 

Falklands:

I am unsure what the authors are saying?  There was some initial attempt to mediate by Washington but Washington decided to support London in this endevour (see I can spell in your language if I want to).  So what are they talking about - Washington had no interest whatsoever in the Falklands instead she supported London because London was all in behind the ramp up against Moscow.  If Britain had been lukewarm about that confrontation it is probable that Washington would have, at the very least, denied the logistical support that London required.  So...yet an example of how London supporting Washington actually strengthens the alliance.

 

Grenada:

Unsure what their point here is?  This was not vital to either but more of interest to the US.  The US certainly did not need any support for this operation.

 

Bosnia:

Again unclear what they are on about.  Britain and the US participated in Deliberate Force.  Why this would have impacted the alliance is not clear.

 

Ireland:

Third in a row that is unclear.  The US did not participate in the pacification activities in N. Ireland - did London ask for support?  I do not believe so.

 

So lets review---

Three of there examples historically demonstrate that Britain has to nurture the alliance structure with Washington in order to guarantee her security.  These examples actually do call into "question the practice of close co-operation, to mutual advantage, on the overall relationship, including defene and intelligence."

 

////////////

 

As to the France and Germany bit, that is super easy to refute: Washington almost immediately lowered its commitment to the defense of central Europe removing large numbers of forces stationed there.  How the report missed this is a mystery.  Maybe they did not connect the dots?  Berlin certainly connected them which is why she began/continued pursuing a congenial relationship with Moscow.

 

All yours friend.

[Rozalia]

ummmmm, when I asked you like 5 times for facts and evidence mate?

 

Doesn't matter if you don't ask on what. I outlined a number of things, 3 I believe, and there was no way to know on which as you never specified. 

 

Anyway, not much there.  The only support to their argument is below which is not very strong:

"Over the past seven decades, the UK and US have adopted differing, and

sometimes conflicting, positions on major issues, for example Suez, the Vietnam War, the

Falklands, Grenada, Bosnia, the Arab/Israel dispute and, at times, Northern Ireland. Those

differences did not fundamentally call into question the practice of close co-operation,

to mutual advantage, on the overall relationship, including defence and intelligence."

 

Lets look at all of them shall we and determine the level of interest and place it in context. 

 

Suez:

At the time of the Suez crisis Great Britain had not yet identified its changed status in relation to the United States.  But anyway I am entirely unsure why the authors included it.  The event clearly defined that the United States - British relationship was NOT irreplaceable to the Washington.  The Suez DID result in modified security for the UK (and intelligence fwiw). So when they list that they are actually arguing AGAINST their viewpoint.  Well done?

 

Maybe you would ask how they were impacted?  Well it can be seen in UK lack of support in their next example-

the Vietnam War:

The UK did not support the US in this endeavor (to some extent influenced by Suez).  Despite the buddy-buddy personal relationship between Nixon and Heath(?) relations deteriorated.  Your favorite phrase "special relationship" actually went away and was replaced with "natural relationship".  So yeah, yet another example of how conflicting positions actually impacted the overall relationship, including defense and intelligence.  (Defense by the way is spelled with an "s" redcoats.)

 

Falklands:

I am unsure what the authors are saying?  There was some initial attempt to mediate by Washington but Washington decided to support London in this endevour (see I can spell in your language if I want to).  So what are they talking about - Washington had no interest whatsoever in the Falklands instead she supported London because London was all in behind the ramp up against Moscow.  If Britain had been lukewarm about that confrontation it is probable that Washington would have, at the very least, denied the logistical support that London required.  So...yet an example of how London supporting Washington actually strengthens the alliance.

 

Grenada:

Unsure what their point here is?  This was not vital to either but more of interest to the US.  The US certainly did not need any support for this operation.

 

Bosnia:

Again unclear what they are on about.  Britain and the US participated in Deliberate Force.  Why this would have impacted the alliance is not clear.

 

Ireland:

Third in a row that is unclear.  The US did not participate in the pacification activities in N. Ireland - did London ask for support?  I do not believe so.

 

So lets review---

Three of there examples historically demonstrate that Britain has to nurture the alliance structure with Washington in order to guarantee her security.  These examples actually do call into "question the practice of close co-operation, to mutual advantage, on the overall relationship, including defene and intelligence."

 

////////////

 

As to the France and Germany bit, that is super easy to refute: Washington almost immediately lowered its commitment to the defense of central Europe removing large numbers of forces stationed there.  How the report missed this is a mystery.  Maybe they did not connect the dots?  Berlin certainly connected them which is why she began/continued pursuing a congenial relationship with Moscow.

 

All yours friend.

 

Not sure why the spelling differences are being pointed out. 

 

What did Vietnam result in exactly? You admit to "deteriorating relationship" but what does that really amount to. You didn't fully support me, I'm now disappointed... *soon gets over it*. Where was the massive blow that amounted to something? 

 

There are variable levels of disagreement, you seem to keep trying to boil them to the same level.

 

Going by Grenada I have to question how you're linking things. Stating "The US certainly did not need any support for this operation" implies a completely different situation to what it was. Grenada was a matter of America doing something very much against Britain's interests as Britain would never have allowed that and America did it regardless even when directly asked not to. This conflict created an issue... a temporary issue.

 

None of the finer details on the events are mentioned but in regards to Ireland I assume it would be America allowing it's citizens to openly finance the IRA, a terrorist organisation against Britain. 

 

And how is it now in regards to France and Germany?

 

It seems the main thrust of your argument is that things were seen as disagreeable and certain things happened so it totally was a danger to the long term relationship. In reality all these things, many of which heavier than simply refusing to assist America directly in Iraq resulted in short term negative relations that normalised and things went on. America did not deem the disagreement as reason to break the relationship. Britain did not take the at times betrayals (perhaps too heavy a word) to mean the end. It was testy for a short while... and that would be it, which is the point the report makes.

 

Importantly it goes by all the information at the time and the people involved, that was the view at the time (and is the view of most I would say today still). Blair knew of this and bulldozed his way into making it happen which runs counter to what you've said about a person not being able to influence things in that way. Things were weighed, Iraq was unnecessary to the nation (and as it unfolded that was confirmed without question) but Blair did it anyway.

[LordRahl2]

Doesn't matter if you don't ask on what. I outlined a number of things, 3 I believe, and there was no way to know on which as you never specified. 

 

 

Not sure why the spelling differences are being pointed out. 

 

What did Vietnam result in exactly? You admit to "deteriorating relationship" but what does that really amount to. You didn't fully support me, I'm now disappointed... *soon gets over it*. Where was the massive blow that amounted to something? 

 

There are variable levels of disagreement, you seem to keep trying to boil them to the same level.

 

Going by Grenada I have to question how you're linking things. Stating "The US certainly did not need any support for this operation" implies a completely different situation to what it was. Grenada was a matter of America doing something very much against Britain's interests as Britain would never have allowed that and America did it regardless even when directly asked not to. This conflict created an issue... a temporary issue.

 

None of the finer details on the events are mentioned but in regards to Ireland I assume it would be America allowing it's citizens to openly finance the IRA, a terrorist organisation against Britain. 

 

And how is it now in regards to France and Germany?

 

It seems the main thrust of your argument is that things were seen as disagreeable and certain things happened so it totally was a danger to the long term relationship. In reality all these things, many of which heavier than simply refusing to assist America directly in Iraq resulted in short term negative relations that normalised and things went on. America did not deem the disagreement as reason to break the relationship. Britain did not take the at times betrayals (perhaps too heavy a word) to mean the end. It was testy for a short while... and that would be it, which is the point the report makes.

 

Importantly it goes by all the information at the time and the people involved, that was the view at the time (and is the view of most I would say today still). Blair knew of this and bulldozed his way into making it happen which runs counter to what you've said about a person not being able to influence things in that way. Things were weighed, Iraq was unnecessary to the nation (and as it unfolded that was confirmed without question) but Blair did it anyway.

Spelling

Because I enjoy banter,  But whatever.

 

Vietnam, re-read what I said.  The alliance had degraded due to previous events (which repudiates the very point the report was trying to make).  What did it result in?  A further deterioration of the alliance as I said - the 70s were a very low point in that regard.  It returned to a higher level only after Britain was supporting Washington again - which also repudiates the report's thesis.

 

"There are variable levels of disagreement, you seem to keep trying to boil them to the same level."  Say what?  There were various levels of support over time.

 

Granada was not much of a thing really nor did it result in a significant change, even a temporary one.  Basically insignificant - a null data point.

 

"None of the finer details on the events are mentioned" - I know, it would have been tough to fit an extra page or two into such a short document =), say I could write up around 150 pages for a couple million pounds.  Can you bring that up with your government?

Ireland:

So what were the authors trying to prove in this case?

 

"And how is it now in regards to France and Germany?" -Degraded from where it was, obviously.  The troops returning to Europe are specifically not returning to Germany.

 

So the "long term relationship" is not a static thing as I have shown.  There really is no "normal" I guess you could say.  It can be strong or weak or non-existent depending on how the States interact based on their relationships.  Just because it is strong now does not mean it will be strong tomorrow (as many of the examples the report uses prove).  So "long term" is not some pre-ordaned state.  Rather it can obviously be weakened or strengthened.  Given that Britain has shed much of her native power London must look to defend her core national interests through alliances.  She does not have an option in this so her choices were very constrained.

 

The authors of the report apparently did not consider that they were in fact arguing against their thesis.  Definitionally events that had an impact on the alliance structure can be said to have had an impact (positive and negative).

 

"Importantly it goes by all the information at the time and the people involved, that was the view at the time (and is the view of most I would say today still). Blair knew of this and bulldozed his way into making it happen which runs counter to what you've said about a person not being able to influence things in that way. Things were weighed, Iraq was unnecessary to the nation (and as it unfolded that was confirmed without question) but Blair did it anyway."

-Go ahead and show where the report supposedly says that.  What I read in the report is that the entire London regime understood that the alliance with Washington was critical and was willing to support it.  I would have said forced to support it but there you go.  "Blair" could have been removed easily if he had been going against the actual interests of Britain.  He was not so he was not.  I know you do not like the man for whatever reason - I don't care about him because I choose not to give him super hypnotic powers or something.  In fact he acted precisely in accordance with rational actor theory.  That might make him unpopular.

 

I believe I understand where you and the authors have gone astray in there thinking.  You believe there is actually some "special relationship" that makes a strong alliance between London and Washington a "normal" thing.  There is not.  The alliance has to be maintained and nurtured.  The junior partner must do things that are unrelated to their core interests prima facia in order to maintain the alliance which IS vital to their core interests.  This isn't just true in this case but in all such power structures.  It is grating for the smaller State though.  Sorry I guess.

[Rozalia]

Spelling

Because I enjoy banter,  But whatever.

 

Vietnam, re-read what I said.  The alliance had degraded due to previous events (which repudiates the very point the report was trying to make).  What did it result in?  A further deterioration of the alliance as I said - the 70s were a very low point in that regard.  It returned to a higher level only after Britain was supporting Washington again - which also repudiates the report's thesis.

 

"There are variable levels of disagreement, you seem to keep trying to boil them to the same level."  Say what?  There were various levels of support over time.

 

Granada was not much of a thing really nor did it result in a significant change, even a temporary one.  Basically insignificant - a null data point.

 

"None of the finer details on the events are mentioned" - I know, it would have been tough to fit an extra page or two into such a short document =), say I could write up around 150 pages for a couple million pounds.  Can you bring that up with your government?

Ireland:

So what were the authors trying to prove in this case?

 

"And how is it now in regards to France and Germany?" -Degraded from where it was, obviously.  The troops returning to Europe are specifically not returning to Germany.

 

So the "long term relationship" is not a static thing as I have shown.  There really is no "normal" I guess you could say.  It can be strong or weak or non-existent depending on how the States interact based on their relationships.  Just because it is strong now does not mean it will be strong tomorrow (as many of the examples the report uses prove).  So "long term" is not some pre-ordaned state.  Rather it can obviously be weakened or strengthened.  Given that Britain has shed much of her native power London must look to defend her core national interests through alliances.  She does not have an option in this so her choices were very constrained.

 

The authors of the report apparently did not consider that they were in fact arguing against their thesis.  Definitionally events that had an impact on the alliance structure can be said to have had an impact (positive and negative).

 

"Importantly it goes by all the information at the time and the people involved, that was the view at the time (and is the view of most I would say today still). Blair knew of this and bulldozed his way into making it happen which runs counter to what you've said about a person not being able to influence things in that way. Things were weighed, Iraq was unnecessary to the nation (and as it unfolded that was confirmed without question) but Blair did it anyway."

-Go ahead and show where the report supposedly says that.  What I read in the report is that the entire London regime understood that the alliance with Washington was critical and was willing to support it.  I would have said forced to support it but there you go.  "Blair" could have been removed easily if he had been going against the actual interests of Britain.  He was not so he was not.  I know you do not like the man for whatever reason - I don't care about him because I choose not to give him super hypnotic powers or something.  In fact he acted precisely in accordance with rational actor theory.  That might make him unpopular.

 

I believe I understand where you and the authors have gone astray in there thinking.  You believe there is actually some "special relationship" that makes a strong alliance between London and Washington a "normal" thing.  There is not.  The alliance has to be maintained and nurtured.  The junior partner must do things that are unrelated to their core interests prima facia in order to maintain the alliance which IS vital to their core interests.  This isn't just true in this case but in all such power structures.  It is grating for the smaller State though.  Sorry I guess.

 

Vietnam, an assumption on your part. Where is the evidence of this claim of yours?

 

A more serious betrayal of trust then refusing Iraq could ever be is a "null data point".

 

The report had no reason to go into history on the matter, it's known well enough all those events resulted in varying levels of damage which were short term. You're on the other hand maintaining that no, they would have been real serious if later Britain didn't start cosying up again, all because your world view that you believe you've got all figured out demands it.

 

Prove a relation between the two please. Also last I checked there are still very much American troops in Germany. much less than the period of thr 1950s to the end of the millennium of course but that isn't due to "damaged relations", thats because neither East Germany or the Soviet Union exists and America has largely downsized it's presence. In fact from what I found:

 

 

Germany's large loss of troops came very much before the Iraq war, but of course this doesn't cover the years after 2003 but... I can't find much on the numbers for 2004 onward. I find talk of reductions based on Iraq/Afghanistan but thats based off money issues and a continuing of the downsizing that has been happening for some time. I see no relation between Germany's lack of fervor for Iraq and the reduction so you'll have to point it out.

 

You're going off on your armchair again. Iraq was irrelevant to Britain, not a long term relations issue though you think otherwise yes, and Britain does not require America for any of the "minor" incidents that could (and haven't) occurred. When French interests were threatened in Libya/Mali they didn't require America to do much and it'd be the same were it Britain.

 

 

380. This is a matter of judgement, and one on which Mr Blair, bearing the responsibility

of leadership, took a different view.

 

The information at the time was what the report states, there was no large fear. Blair in leadership decided to go in the opposite direction to the information available and went in, or bulldozed as I put it. He wasn't removed for numerous reasons, some being the full support of the media (print but even more the televised media), he'd stacked his party with his acolytes via parachuting and such, he had sidelined, expelled, or called mad/dinosaurs those who called him out, didn't allow his cabinent to discuss the matter and took the choice on his own, and had a opposition party that not only was ridiclously weak but was just as agressive on such matters anyway. He's also a good speaker and had 9/11 to help him out... No hypnotic powers were neccessary no. Ironically you call him a "rational actor" even though he did exactly as a "rogue actor" would do, which is to go very against the best interests the information has pointed to. 

 

Completely incorrect, I don't believe in the "special relationship" and despise the lackey status Blair brought about for the nation. However I do not believe a simple, "Sorry, we'll provide training, medical help, or something but won't send troops" would result in America cutting Britain off completely and forever. They'd privately show some displeasure... and move on. 

[LordRahl2]

So i am on mobile and will get back to your whole post. Let me ask a question or two in the meantime:

Do States have intrests?

Do you think there is some natural level that alliances or diplomacy in general "hovers" at and that relations return to that level naturally?

[Rozalia]

So i am on mobile and will get back to your whole post. Let me ask a question or two in the meantime:

Do States have intrests?

Do you think there is some natural level that alliances or diplomacy in general "hovers" at and that relations return to that level naturally?

 

They have interests yes, you've simply misjudged things on this. 

To a degree yes though depending on the seriousness of the incident it can lower long term. Also for all the talk you've had of downplaying the effect of a leader, having for example a leader who is anti-X can damage heavily relations until that leader is obviously replaced by someone who isn't.

[LordRahl2]

Vietnam, an assumption on your part. Where is the evidence of this claim of yours?

 

Evidence of what?  That the early 70s were a nadir for modern relations between Washington and London?

I mean its commonly accepted.  But here you go:

'The Politics of the Anglo-American Economic Special Relationship', by Alan J. Dobson - Just read the parts on the 70s.

Dobson is widely regarded in this particular nitch field.

 

 

 

A more serious betrayal of trust then refusing Iraq could ever be is a "null data point".

 

Sure I will bite.  Grenada was a huge deal.  So if we accept that then what happened?  The junior partner sucked it up because they did not want to damage an alliance that was crucial to them.  Soooo, that would support my hypothesis.

 

 

Vietnam, an assumption on your part. Where is the evidence of this claim of yours?

 

Prove a relation between the two please. Also last I checked there are still very much American troops in Germany. much less than the period of thr 1950s to the end of the millennium of course but that isn't due to "damaged relations", thats because neither East Germany or the Soviet Union exists and America has largely downsized it's presence. In fact from what I found:

 

 

Germany's large loss of troops came very much before the Iraq war, but of course this doesn't cover the years after 2003 but... I can't find much on the numbers for 2004 onward. I find talk of reductions based on Iraq/Afghanistan but thats based off money issues and a continuing of the downsizing that has been happening for some time. I see no relation between Germany's lack of fervor for Iraq and the reduction so you'll have to point it out.

 

Instead of "prove" how about I provide evidence?  I like graphs and charts because they can show a lot in a small space.  However, as you note yours stops in 2003 which is precisely the time we actually need data on.  So here you go - first link on my google search but let me know if you need more:

http://www.dw.com/en/us-confirms-troop-reduction-in-germany/a-1237566

Date 16.06.2004

And yes this actually happened.  No, not a money thing.  Redeploying troops costs quite a bit of money (mostly in MILCON).  Those forces were deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan as well.  When the global Hegemon pulls forces out of a country that is a geopolitical statement pure and simple.  There lots of ways that folks talk about why they are doing such things without being explicit but there you go.

 

 

 

You're going off on your armchair again. Iraq was irrelevant to Britain, not a long term relations issue though you think otherwise yes, and Britain does not require America for any of the "minor" incidents that could (and haven't) occurred. When French interests were threatened in Libya/Mali they didn't require America to do much and it'd be the same were it Britain.

 

The information at the time was what the report states, there was no large fear. Blair in leadership decided to go in the opposite direction to the information available and went in, or bulldozed as I put it. He wasn't removed for numerous reasons, some being the full support of the media (print but even more the televised media), he'd stacked his party with his acolytes via parachuting and such, he had sidelined, expelled, or called mad/dinosaurs those who called him out, didn't allow his cabinent to discuss the matter and took the choice on his own, and had a opposition party that not only was ridiclously weak but was just as agressive on such matters anyway. He's also a good speaker and had 9/11 to help him out... No hypnotic powers were neccessary no. Ironically you call him a "rational actor" even though he did exactly as a "rogue actor" would do, which is to go very against the best interests the information has pointed to.

 

Completely incorrect, I don't believe in the "special relationship" and despise the lackey status Blair brought about for the nation. However I do not believe a simple, "Sorry, we'll provide training, medical help, or something but won't send troops" would result in America cutting Britain off completely and forever. They'd privately show some displeasure... and move on.

 

Armchair amused me.  Oh, for someone who goes on and on about tone you sure do not always use the most pleasant one.  Would you like me to be more of a dick?  I can curse at you if it would make you feel more at home but that is very un-British.

 

Anyway.  Iraq was not a vital interest for Britain in 2003.  We have been over this.  I agree.  I am unsure what you are replying to here.  That being said - the alliance with Washington is absolutely vital to London (which is precisely why London behaved as it did).  British participation in Iraq was purely about the necessity of maintaining this alliance which is vital to London.  Actually, the report is full of evidence of how the regime viewed the necessity of supporting Washington.  London did not do so because Iraq was a threat, it did so because it had to maintain the alliance with the US.  And that is why you are having trouble and thinking of a rational action as a rouge one - which it clearly is not.

 

I doubt it would have broken the alliance if they had not gone all in.  One decision rarely changes something like that.  But as I have shown, using the reports evidence funnily enough, that such decisions do have an impact.  I find it odd that I have to argue this as it is basically universally agreed upon.  "Water is wet" sorta statement.

 

They have interests yes, you've simply misjudged things on this. 

To a degree yes though depending on the seriousness of the incident it can lower long term. Also for all the talk you've had of downplaying the effect of a leader, having for example a leader who is anti-X can damage heavily relations until that leader is obviously replaced by someone who isn't.

 

I am misjudging Britain's core interests?  Go on and explain what Britain's core interests are.

And secondly no.  There are no magic levels of any alliance.  Nations can share interests and this is the case here.  London and Washington desire a balance of power on the continent although it is much more vital for London.  London also desires freedom of movement on the sea lanes although this is more vital to Washington.  These types of shared interests do make alliances more likely - they do not guarantee their maintenance.

[Rozalia]

Evidence of what?  That the early 70s were a nadir for modern relations between Washington and London?

I mean its commonly accepted.  But here you go:

'The Politics of the Anglo-American Economic Special Relationship', by Alan J. Dobson - Just read the parts on the 70s.

Dobson is widely regarded in this particular nitch field.

 

 

 

Sure I will bite.  Grenada was a huge deal.  So if we accept that then what happened?  The junior partner sucked it up because they did not want to damage an alliance that was crucial to them.  Soooo, that would support my hypothesis.

 

 

 

Instead of "prove" how about I provide evidence?  I like graphs and charts because they can show a lot in a small space.  However, as you note yours stops in 2003 which is precisely the time we actually need data on.  So here you go - first link on my google search but let me know if you need more:

http://www.dw.com/en/us-confirms-troop-reduction-in-germany/a-1237566

Date 16.06.2004

And yes this actually happened.  No, not a money thing.  Redeploying troops costs quite a bit of money (mostly in MILCON).  Those forces were deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan as well.  When the global Hegemon pulls forces out of a country that is a geopolitical statement pure and simple.  There lots of ways that folks talk about why they are doing such things without being explicit but there you go.

 

 

 

Armchair amused me.  Oh, for someone who goes on and on about tone you sure do not always use the most pleasant one.  Would you like me to be more of a dick?  I can curse at you if it would make you feel more at home but that is very un-British.

 

Anyway.  Iraq was not a vital interest for Britain in 2003.  We have been over this.  I agree.  I am unsure what you are replying to here.  That being said - the alliance with Washington is absolutely vital to London (which is precisely why London behaved as it did).  British participation in Iraq was purely about the necessity of maintaining this alliance which is vital to London.  Actually, the report is full of evidence of how the regime viewed the necessity of supporting Washington.  London did not do so because Iraq was a threat, it did so because it had to maintain the alliance with the US.  And that is why you are having trouble and thinking of a rational action as a rouge one - which it clearly is not.

 

I doubt it would have broken the alliance if they had not gone all in.  One decision rarely changes something like that.  But as I have shown, using the reports evidence funnily enough, that such decisions do have an impact.  I find it odd that I have to argue this as it is basically universally agreed upon.  "Water is wet" sorta statement.

 

 

I am misjudging Britain's core interests?  Go on and explain what Britain's core interests are.

And secondly no.  There are no magic levels of any alliance.  Nations can share interests and this is the case here.  London and Washington desire a balance of power on the continent although it is much more vital for London.  London also desires freedom of movement on the sea lanes although this is more vital to Washington.  These types of shared interests do make alliances more likely - they do not guarantee their maintenance.

 

Widely regarded? The Chilcot report is "widely regarded" also in Britain and you dismissed it pretty much. Anyway you didn't not answer the question, what actually did that result in beyond the short term diplomatic hit?

 

Incorrect, it would support mine. That being that even such a thing was not enough for long term damage. The Iraq affair's possible damage being minuscule by comparison would as that did, result in short term damage.

 

As I said, I could only find information on reductions due to money reasons, not that it never happened. Now what you have to do is actually prove that the reduction was due to Germany's diplomatic "incident". Timing is not enough of a connection especially when if America had some sense they'd not have a single soldier in Germany. Their expenses increased as they were fighting a war and moved some troops about, reductions that are simple inevitable as America isn't going to maintain a static amount in Germany forever. 

 

What I meant was quite simply you overcomplicate everything because you believe all things boil down to the truth you think you have worked out. 

 

Again, the report stated that the information at the time judged not joining Iraq to be a non-issue in regards to the alliance. Blair, the leader, judged differently (he had already committed after all) and had the country go in. In essence you keep maintaining that the facts of the matter were the opposite of what they were and Blair thus made the "rational" choice as you put it. I've already provided the notes on the matter but yet you still continue to argue off your own personal opinion instead of the facts.

 

Where did I say it causes no impact? My whole point, and the point of the report is that possible damage is temporary and minor stuff. 

 

Britain desires to maintain the alliance yes, but not to the slavish desire you perceive it to be, though now that it's clear you're ignoring facts to go instead with what you personally believed to be the case I suppose that isn't quite accurate as you really think it'd be some major blow. 

 

I disagree, there are "neutral" states in an alliance, it won't simply slip into the negatives (outright opposing for example) just because time passes and country X wonders what country Y did for them lately. Beyond that I do believe your view on the matter is outdated also, it's historically been the case, but with the joining of the EU and the constant weakening of Britain the "keeping the continent in check" thing becomes a bit of a joke as Britain's power on such an entity was anemic at best. Now that it will be leaving perhaps Britain will rearm itself some more and seek some of that rebalancing of power but we'll see. 

[LordRahl2]

Widely regarded? The Chilcot report is "widely regarded" also in Britain and you dismissed it pretty much. Anyway you didn't not answer the question, what actually did that result in beyond the short term diplomatic hit?

 

Incorrect, it would support mine. That being that even such a thing was not enough for long term damage. The Iraq affair's possible damage being minuscule by comparison would as that did, result in short term damage.

 

As I said, I could only find information on reductions due to money reasons, not that it never happened. Now what you have to do is actually prove that the reduction was due to Germany's diplomatic "incident". Timing is not enough of a connection especially when if America had some sense they'd not have a single soldier in Germany. Their expenses increased as they were fighting a war and moved some troops about, reductions that are simple inevitable as America isn't going to maintain a static amount in Germany forever. 

 

What I meant was quite simply you overcomplicate everything because you believe all things boil down to the truth you think you have worked out. 

 

Again, the report stated that the information at the time judged not joining Iraq to be a non-issue in regards to the alliance. Blair, the leader, judged differently (he had already committed after all) and had the country go in. In essence you keep maintaining that the facts of the matter were the opposite of what they were and Blair thus made the "rational" choice as you put it. I've already provided the notes on the matter but yet you still continue to argue off your own personal opinion instead of the facts.

 

Where did I say it causes no impact? My whole point, and the point of the report is that possible damage is temporary and minor stuff. 

 

Britain desires to maintain the alliance yes, but not to the slavish desire you perceive it to be, though now that it's clear you're ignoring facts to go instead with what you personally believed to be the case I suppose that isn't quite accurate as you really think it'd be some major blow. 

 

I disagree, there are "neutral" states in an alliance, it won't simply slip into the negatives (outright opposing for example) just because time passes and country X wonders what country Y did for them lately. Beyond that I do believe your view on the matter is outdated also, it's historically been the case, but with the joining of the EU and the constant weakening of Britain the "keeping the continent in check" thing becomes a bit of a joke as Britain's power on such an entity was anemic at best. Now that it will be leaving perhaps Britain will rearm itself some more and seek some of that rebalancing of power but we'll see. 

 

I actually like the report to be honest.  Very nice timeline of events.  It does not actually support your viewpoint very much and it has a gaping hole in its logic which I am currently driving a bus through. 

 

Incorrect.  If Granada was a huge deal for one side (London) then London would do something about it unless there was a compelling reason not to.  Obviously there is such a compelling reason and that is to ensure that it remains allied to Washington.  Enough of a reason to ignore such a thing or participate in an invasion with its ally.  Basic logic.

 

I provided the evidence of what happened.  My proposition is that Germany stopped supporting the US foreign policy.  Almost immediately there were large troop reductions in Germany.  I say the two are linked.  So, "prove" to me that they are not.  "Timing is not enough of a connection" is not a valid argument because there is a clear easy to follow chain of events that make sense prima facia.  The onus is on you to show why such a clear linkage does not work.  Again, it was MORE expensive to relocate troops out of Germany at least in the short to medium run which is how the budgetary process works.  Like many of your arguments here you have an Occam's razor problem.  I am providing low assumption theories and yours are far more complex.  Occam's is not a proof but it is suggestive.

 

So I have not worked out a "truth".  I do defend my positions.  If you think someone around here is fixated on a viewpoint maybe buy a mirror?

 

"Again, the report stated that the information at the time judged not joining Iraq to be a non-issue in regards to the alliance."

Again, the report is wrong about that - although I think you are stretching what the report actually said.  I have discredited the "notes", actually its a supposition with supporting facts that do not support the supposition, you mention (see page 2 - I broke down each incident).  Or are you talking about another piece?

 

"damage is temporary and minor stuff"

Not to London, obviously.

 

London has a fixed set of vital interests and at least two of the top four require an alliance with Washington.  So no, not minor nor temporary but vital and long lasting as I have laid out.  You have argued against my classification of Vietnam and Granada only.  Apparently, expert opinion does not do it for you?  You could show me where you disagree with Dobson - that would be a fine counter argument.  I have provided an example with the authors of the report.

And I have never bothered to classify the size of "the blow".  However, the risk was enough to move a regime to act.

 

Outdated?  Its the same interest(s).  I can speculate on the future and I may do so.  However, we know what has occurred.  Britain still acts on its interests as it did while it was in the EU.  I agree it has limited capacity.  London also agrees.  Hence they maintain a strong alliance with another power and are willing to go to war to keep it strong.  I know this because it happened (more than once recently actually).

[Rozalia]

Didn't initially reply due to Euro 2016 final fun, getting back to it.

 

I actually like the report to be honest.  Very nice timeline of events.  It does not actually support your viewpoint very much and it has a gaping hole in its logic which I am currently driving a bus through. 

 

Incorrect.  If Granada was a huge deal for one side (London) then London would do something about it unless there was a compelling reason not to.  Obviously there is such a compelling reason and that is to ensure that it remains allied to Washington.  Enough of a reason to ignore such a thing or participate in an invasion with its ally.  Basic logic.

 

I provided the evidence of what happened.  My proposition is that Germany stopped supporting the US foreign policy.  Almost immediately there were large troop reductions in Germany.  I say the two are linked.  So, "prove" to me that they are not.  "Timing is not enough of a connection" is not a valid argument because there is a clear easy to follow chain of events that make sense prima facia.  The onus is on you to show why such a clear linkage does not work.  Again, it was MORE expensive to relocate troops out of Germany at least in the short to medium run which is how the budgetary process works.  Like many of your arguments here you have an Occam's razor problem.  I am providing low assumption theories and yours are far more complex.  Occam's is not a proof but it is suggestive.

 

So I have not worked out a "truth".  I do defend my positions.  If you think someone around here is fixated on a viewpoint maybe buy a mirror?

 

"Again, the report stated that the information at the time judged not joining Iraq to be a non-issue in regards to the alliance."

Again, the report is wrong about that - although I think you are stretching what the report actually said.  I have discredited the "notes", actually its a supposition with supporting facts that do not support the supposition, you mention (see page 2 - I broke down each incident).  Or are you talking about another piece?

 

"damage is temporary and minor stuff"

Not to London, obviously.

 

London has a fixed set of vital interests and at least two of the top four require an alliance with Washington.  So no, not minor nor temporary but vital and long lasting as I have laid out.  You have argued against my classification of Vietnam and Granada only.  Apparently, expert opinion does not do it for you?  You could show me where you disagree with Dobson - that would be a fine counter argument.  I have provided an example with the authors of the report.

And I have never bothered to classify the size of "the blow".  However, the risk was enough to move a regime to act.

 

Outdated?  Its the same interest(s).  I can speculate on the future and I may do so.  However, we know what has occurred.  Britain still acts on its interests as it did while it was in the EU.  I agree it has limited capacity.  London also agrees.  Hence they maintain a strong alliance with another power and are willing to go to war to keep it strong.  I know this because it happened (more than once recently actually).

 

You're not. You're running off your own parameters which most people don't run off and twisting things to fit your world view which you simply cannot allow to falter as it brings things you've said in the past and will in future into question.

 

Your pushing of this "state actors" business means you're putting the states down as a continuous entity when in reality they aren't, in regards to being country X yes, but not in regards to leadership. Those events mattered zero to the lapdog that was Blair so your talk that if it was so important "London" wouldn't help is incorrect. States are not people, they are run by people, ever changing people.

 

This is absolute tripe. You've made a claim, the burden of evidence is on you and not me. So show your evidence the two are related please, otherwise it is as you would say, a "conspiracy theory". Occam's razor doesn't come into it, but even if it did I'd be in no obligation to provide you that benefit of the doubt as you have never provided me it nor anyone else for that matter. 

 

A lot of talk puffing yourself up when you've done no such thing. You're very indirect and faff about a lot using language that is vague and pretentious so if you did any such discrediting you'll have to clearly lay it out. My own language is crude but it is at the very least direct. As for deeming the report incorrect, you'll have to again provide evidence of the fact. Your world view that it's all "London" and "Washington" doesn't cut it, something concrete please. 

 

You have not given me the favour of actually addressing what I have provided (countless times) so why should I spend my time looking up something you have deemed I should, something you haven't even provided beyond a name? You'd dismiss whatever I'd say as "not how the world works" anyway. 

 

In short you want to constrict me to debate rules which are reasonable enough, but you're not willing to play by them yourself. As such this will go nowhere and I see no point in playing such a game.