Chomsky: Iraq Invasion ‘Major Crime’ Designed to Control Middle East Oil

are you stupid, if that were true Obama would have exposed him, get edudated on the subject.

3 months, 1 week ago by bobby on Wordpress

The BBC article below implies that although the Iraq war was of questionable “legitimacy,” whether it was illegal could only be confirmed by the UN or a suit in the International Court of Justice.

I think it would be very helpful if non-alligned nations–which, if there were enough of them, could not be affected by US and UK reprisals–were to bring a lawsuit in the ICJ to have that Court declare the Bush doctrine of preemption and the invasion of Iraq illegal under international law.

Iraq war ‘legitimacy’ questioned

The Iraq war was of “questionable legitimacy” even though it is unlikely to be proved illegal, a former senior diplomat has said.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK’s ambassador to the UN in 2003, said the invasion did not have the backing of most UN members or the UK public.

But he said he believed the US and UK had “established” its legality and that it had never been challenged in court.

The inquiry is looking into the background to the 2003 invasion.

Inquiry members, headed by Sir John Chilcot, are initially concentrating on UK-US relations in the run-up to war and the UK’s assessment of Iraq’s military threat.

On its fourth day of public hearings, the inquiry examined failed efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis through the United Nations.

Legality

Sir Jeremy, the UK’s permanent representative to the UN between 1997 and 2003, was centre stage in UK-led efforts to negotiate a second UN resolution on Iraq in early 2003, seen by many countries as necessary to directly authorise military action.

But Tony Blair told the House of Commons the French had said they would veto a second resolution and it never went to a Security Council vote.

It is also known that other security council members would not back the resolution, leading critics to claim the subsequent invasion was illegal.

“ If you do something internationally that the majority of UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable, you are taking a risk in my view ”

Sir Jeremy Greenstock

Sir Jeremy said he believed existing UN resolutions provided “sufficient legal cover” for future action but only if Iraq was found to be in material breach of its disarmament obligations.

Asked about the legality of the war, he said there were different opinions and that a “final and conclusive” verdict was never likely to be made.

But he added: “If you do something internationally that the majority of UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable, you are taking a risk in my view.”

“I regarded our participation in the military action against Iraq in March 2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of a great majority of member states or even perhaps of a majority of people inside the UK.

“There was a failure to establish legitimacy although I think we successfully established legality in the UN….to the degree, at least, that we were never challenged in the UN or International Court of Justice for those actions.”

‘Grounds for war’

Sir Jeremy also said he believed war may “possibly” have been averted if the weapons inspectors had been given more time in early 2003.

INQUIRY TIMELINE

November-December: Former top civil servants, spy chiefs, diplomats and military commanders to give evidence

January-February 2010: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and other politicians expected to appear before the panel

March 2010: Inquiry expected to adjourn ahead of the general election campaign

July-August 2010: Inquiry expected to resume

Report set to be published in late 2010 or early 2011

However, he said he still felt that Iraq had been concealing some illegal materials or programmes: “I still believe there is something there but it is a question of what that something is.”

Sir Jeremy said Iraq’s representative at the UN told him in September 2002 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but the UK government was not in a position to ascertain whether this was true.

He said UK policy was driven by the belief that Iraq had WMD and any talk from the US of other motivations for war, such as regime change, were “unhelpful”.

Throughout the process the UK government believed dealing with Iraq was in the national interest, he said, but felt this should be done through “collective action” and on the basis of UN authorisation.

He said he did not “recall” being consulted about an alleged change in the UK’s approach to Iraq in April 2002, the point when critics of the war say that Mr Blair signed up to military action.

But, by early 2003, it was clear the UK had given a “commitment” that should the US go to war, the UK would fight alongside it.

Second resolution

UN Security Council resolution 1441, agreed in November 2002, gave Saddam Hussein a “final opportunity” to declare his weapons stockpile and co-operate with inspectors or face serious consequences.

WITNESSES ON FRIDAY

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Permanent Representative to the UN 1997-2003

Asked about the UK’s objective in seeking a further UN resolution, Sir Jeremy said one of the reasons was to try and obtain “the safest possible legal grounds for use of force should that be necessary”.

Although the US felt it did not need a further resolution to justify military action it realised that the UK, as its main ally, would benefit from this, explained the former ambassador.

The failure to do this was damaging in terms of public perceptions of the reasons for going to war, he added.

“What we were left with by the failure of diplomacy was the US set of reasons for going to war with Iraq not the British ones.”

Reacting to Sir Jeremy’s comments, the Lib Dems said he had been put in an “impossible situation” by Tony Blair and the inquiry needed to thoroughly examine questions about the war’s legality.

The SNP said the government’s case for war was being undermined “with every evidence session”.

The government has always insisted it acted in good faith over Iraq on the basis on the intelligence available.

The Iraq inquiry, set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown in July, is due to report by the end of 2010.

He and Mr Blair are expected to be among future witnesses along with former senior advisers and military figures.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8382194.stm

Published: 2009/11/27 17:49:33 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Print Sponsor

Advertisement ... See all content Hide content

3 months, 3 weeks ago by Joan M in Brooklyn on Wordpress

It is a matter of public record from CIA whistle blowers that the hijackers were brought into the country to carry out the task. Government involvement is no longer a theory but stone cold fact – every day that now passes without an investigation into these new facts is a crime.

4 months, 1 week ago by audas on Wordpress

I understand what you are saying that we share these qualities with these countries that are failed states but we did not always. In order to get there, we had to intervene in foreign countries and become like them increasingly we are sharing these qualities especially with the Bush administration. That is my point I am trying to make. In the process it is ruining our country any which way you can imagine. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by kewlduderules on Reddit

Your comments about his books are interesting, because I just finished Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance and Failed States not long before that. His books are notoriously and meticulously documented and supported by evidence. And I saw nothing that suggest that he "often repeats himself using different language."

4 months, 2 weeks ago by liberal_libertarian on Reddit

>he suggested that because of our mischevious deeds in foreign countries that lead to failed states, we will become one due to the amount of resources we use up propping up these other failed states.

That is *definitely* not what he wrote. The point of that book is to shed light on the fact that the US *is* a failed state and it's hypocritical to attack/economically strangle/etc. other states for having the same qualities that America has. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by liberal_libertarian on Reddit

I find it odd that Chomsky can agree that the US would criminally manipulate its way into a war that kills anywhere from 500K-1mil people, displaces 2million, uses torture, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, etc., but it is beyond the pale that our same gov’t would stage terror to further fuel their ambitions. I don’t want to believe we stage terror attacks, and thought it was blowback when it happened, but in the following 8 yrs. there is too much that just doesn’t add up concerning. It is plainly obvious the official story is bogus. That being said, Chomsky, Zinn, Goodman and the like won’t allow the subject to be breached. Don’t quite understand why? ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Cbob on Wordpress

Mr. Chomsky, peel this crime spree back a little further and it will take you to 9/11 “ouch”. Time is on our side once the world comes to terms with the fact that Saudi Arabia oil reserves are currently over stated by 50% then it all makes senses. The issue now is that the United States is a fascist country yes by your on assessment in this article Mr. Chomsky. The United States of America integrated it’s military to benefit the oil corporations game over welcome to fascisms. This is where we part paths Mr. Chomsky is that you fail to make the connections with the United States government involvement in 9/11. Obama is no fool he knows to say what ever it takes don’t rock the boat and leave office a very rich man just another Clinton Democrat Inc. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Jesse Hemingway on Wordpress

Chomsky is always such a reliable idiot.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by amaxen on Reddit

What books of his have you read?

4 months, 2 weeks ago by liberal_libertarian on Reddit

I think the Geto Boys already covered that.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by LuvKrahft on Reddit

Chomsky also has less judgment and moral clarity than a broke crackwhore. Chomsky is a bozo ... there is nothing worthing seeing there, keep moving ...

4 months, 2 weeks ago by JohnLocke on Reddit

Wow....It's almost as if the United States has a financial interest in protecting/securing oil reserves in the Middle East.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Jalisciense on Reddit

Yeah, fuck them commies in the ass! Thanks for saving me trouble of coming up with a thoughtful and nuanced response to Chomksy's position. This is so true *and* didn't require even a tiny bit of thought! RobbM, we can only hope that the rest of Reddit will ever reach the lofty standard of political discourse set by this post.

Cretin.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by L_dopa on Reddit

Oh look, the Chomsky haters are out in force today.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by Ocin on Reddit

Chomsky is often a giant disappointment when it comes to reaching conclusions. I think of him as the "accountant of human rights." Meaning, he is very good at adding up the number of people killed by the US via terrorism, war, etc.

However, just as an accountant can only tell you what you've done, and is useless for offering advice for going forward, Chomsky often comes up with the wrong answer . As a Zionist, he's unable to note that Israel is the major beneficiary of the war.

The oil companies, on the other hand, are getting the short end of the stick. In fact, American oil companies have been frozen out of oil contracts in Iraq. Chinese companies are getting the work. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by sardinski on Reddit

citation?

Meanwhile:

"T. Boone Pickens on Iraq: 'We leave there with the Chinese getting the oil'

WASHINGTON — A leading energy developer said the United States has been excluded from Iraq's revived energy market.

T. Boone Pickens told Congress that U.S. companies were losing opportunities in the Iraqi crude oil and natural gas sectors to competitors from China and Europe.

The senior executive said the United States could lose all influence in the Iraqi oil sector after the military withdrawal in 2011."

source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_oil0831_10_23.asp... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by sardinski on Reddit

Chomsky is most certainly not a Zionist. As fun as it is for Reddit to link everything to a vast Jewish conspiracy it's not very accurate.

4 months, 2 weeks ago by bombtrack on Reddit

"No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept....[ Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession." [source] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200506--.htm)

"They cannot be expected to accept that, just as Mexico does not grant the US the 'right to exist' on half of Mexico's territory, gained by conquest." [source](http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200309--.htm)

It's very difficult for me to see how anyone could think that Chomsky was a Zionist. ... See all content Hide content

4 months, 2 weeks ago by iconoklast on Reddit

If the United States declares war, it will probably involve the deployment of a significant portion of our nuclear arsenal.

I, for one, am glad these "wars" are "illegal".

4 months, 2 weeks ago by bakergo on Reddit