No, it wouldn’t and most of the reason it wouldn’t was that almost every government and the UN thought that Saddam had WMD.

You sure about that? Really sure?
My belief, even after all this time, is that Bush strong-armed the UN into believing that Hans Blix was not playing for the team despite Saddam – eventually! – giving in to every search request, which came up negative.

I make no apology for quoting Wiki:

In March 2003 the United States government announced that “diplomacy has failed” and that it would proceed with a “coalition of the willing” to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the US insisted it possessed…

…Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the “eighteenth resolution” and others called the “second resolution.” This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast ‘no’ votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”…

…Report of Hans Blix on February 14
UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix, on 14 February 2003, presented a report to the Security Council. Blix gave an update of the situation in Iraq, and he stated that the Iraqis were now more proactive in their cooperation. He also rebutted some of the arguments proposed by Powell. Blix questioned the interpretations of the satellite images put forward by Powell, and stated that alternate interpretations of the satellite images were credible. He also stated that the Iraqis have in fact never received early warning of the inspectors visiting any sites (an allegation made by Powell during his presentation). International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei also said that he did not believe the Iraqis have a nuclear weapons program, unlike what Powell had claimed.

This report of February 14 and the protests of February 16 appear to have created reluctance in some of the members of the Security Council over the proposed war on Iraq. A second resolution was being drafted with the intention that it would find Iraq in “material breach” and the “serious consequences” of Resolution 1441 should be implemented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

More a coalition of the coerced, not of the willing, thanks to the US’s arm twisting tactics.

This, of course, is why the UN voted for the invasion.

Um, no they didn’t. Really. They didn’t.

Look at the UN members sitting on the Security Council at the time:

I make that four from fifteen, with the rest either totally against but happy to continue the inspections or happy to invade with UN backing and continued inspections or had not yet made up their minds but still wanted inspections.
That is nowhere near the majority of nine required by UN requirements.

Remember Colin Powell? (The one who pronounced his name differently to every other Colin in the world! Thats Coh-lyn Powell, a bit like bowling with a strong ‘n’ and no ‘g’, the pretentious git)
In 2004 and 2005 he admitted he had given inaccurate information to the UN in the run up to the invasion:

I feel terrible … [giving the speech] … It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now. Sep 8, 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

(As an aside, in 1968 he was charged with investigating claims about the My Lai massacre before it became widely publicised; apparently the Vietnamese people and the US Army had an excellent relationship which was a fact and refuted those terrible rumours. Then the letters got noticed, and when the pictures were published the backlash started against the military…)

And then there was the memo leak from GCHQ about the NSA hacking phones and emails of UN diplomats opposing the invasion which became a court case under the Official Secrets Act that, when Katherine Gun announced she would plead not guilty on the grounds that she was trying to prevent an illegal war, the prosecution pulled out without giving any evidence…

I, a Labour voter, was against the invasion and was pretty p!ssed off that a foot injury prevented me from going on the march. I thought it was wrong and I still think it was wrong.

Yeah, thought I didn’t see you there…;o)

Thank you for reminding us that a large majority here and at the UN and in many other countries too, were in favour. I suppose Blair is there as a scapegoat to salve the consciouses of some of that majority. A reaction I find both ludicrous and hysterical.

But they didn’t, Charlie. If only you did some research instead of going with your heart you wouldn’t be making such, ahem, ludicrous and hysterical claims.

Happy summer…?

It’s that time of year again!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229410[/ATTACH]

You say that now, but I spy fingerprints on your monitor…;o)

You for coffee…;o)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229381[/ATTACH]

Always used to get the reply ‘no, you fer coffee!‘

…let Kurds, Sunnis and Shias live at peace in separate nation states…

You going to tell ISIS to take their foot off the accelerator now, just when they’ve got going?

Let Blair do it. In person. Under the glare of his brightly false, artificial grin and fake tan maybe they’ll know they are beaten and throw in the towel.

Nobody will ever surrender again? Maybe, but at the moment the problem is that nobody wants to fight ISIS either; the equivalent of three, fully-equipped, Coalition-trained Iraqi divisions just stripped-off their uniforms and ran for their lives leaving every piece of equipment and all their ammunition for ISIS.

Yep, just like South Vietnam. Notice the similarity – both countries supported and supplied by the US, who upped and left, then stuff happens and (just like a row of dominoes) the whole lots starts toppling over one after another.
Did we leave too early, or was there just not the interest in their own future for the military to defend their regime? Is the military up to the task – I mean does it have the support structure in place, not just to keep the front line supplied but to support the troops: the offensive capability (to me, anyway) appears to be some what lacking, some light attack/training aircraft (which may or may not have an attack capability) and some attack helicopters (Mil-24 variants, doubling as transports, and apparently Mil-28’s, although these may not have been ordered due to corruption in the process). Aircraft with offensive capability are on order or being delivered (F16s, for example) but that is about it. Take a look through the inventory for the army and you can see that the arms manufacturers must have been offering personal incentives to the buyers because there is all sorts of different armoured fighting vehicles from nine different nationalities (including Brazil, Pakistan, and South Africa, as well as the expected suspects!) and a vast range of small arms (from 16 different nations, although most are Eastern European). Can you imagine trying to maintain spares and ammunition for all those various weapons?

The ISIS campaign is one of pure terror. It would be possible to bomb their supply-lines, if they had any, but ISIS fighters can just take whatever water, food, fuel and ammunition they need from local sources and they would ‘execute’ anybody who stands in the way; as it is the will of (their) god!

…And pick up a new weapon from the site of a battle that never took place…?

Anyway, how do you stop crates of ammunition being moved in a school-bus full of orphans with a drone-strike? You can’t; not unless you accept killing lots of innocent civilians too. The result would be international condemnation and the risk of ‘retaliation’ with suicide-bombings on British streets.

Wimp! Think of all those wedding celebrations that were hit by drone strikes… The fear of hitting innocents never deterred the US from going for it, and ignoring any condemnation!

The only way to stop ISIS is, up-close and personal, with ground-troops and I don’t see anybody wanting that job except the untrained volunteer militia from the other side of the sectarian divide.

Then they win.

Maybe ‘saint’ Tony will have a word with them, put them right, give them a third way.

For what reason would Saudi Arabia back ISIS?

I suppose, if I were cynical, I would say it had something to do with the supply and therefore, the price, of oil. I do not know if there is any ideological connection between ISIS and any backers that they may have in Saudi Arabia but can this much suffering just be about money!

Iraq’s mainly Shia-led government suspects Saudi’s Sunni rulers of involvement in ISIS operations. In a statement Iraq’s leaders said: “We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that – which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites.” Riyadh has denied the accusations.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-attacks-iraq-accuses-saudi-arabia-supporting-genocide-1453101

The Saudis were heavily involved with backing the Syrian opposition (as I said above), and since the Syrians now appear to be giving them a spanking might they be trying for a different homeland? I don’t know, but the Iraqis believe that the Saudis are involved and we all know how many Saudis took part in the 11/9 airliner attacks (ok, not figuratively, but I looked it up: 15 out of 19)