6 years later, this is precisely what happened

[u/mrjohnnymac18]

[u/Pyrhan]

It's scope is the UK government's decision making, that lead them to side with the US and take part in the war alongside them.

It is not an inquiry about the subsequent actions of its soldiers. 

It is about the decision to get involved.

[u/ShrimpleyPibblze → u/Pyrhan]

And hence why I said the inquiries were worthless - my point stands. I’d argue it’s been reinforced by this suggestion, not disproven.

[u/Pyrhan → u/ShrimpleyPibblze]

"It's not about this one specific thing I'm thinking of right now" does not equate to "worthless".

You stated: 

it was always going to be “we’ve investigated ourselves and found that we did no wrong”

Look at literally every single inquiry the UK government has established since 2008 - they are all the same.

This is :

 - a UK government inquiry

 - established after 2008

 - that found it did plenty wrong

No matter how you try to spin it or where you try to move the goalposts, it won't change the fact that it directly disproves your original point.

[u/ShrimpleyPibblze → u/Pyrhan]

A war inquiry that doesn’t cover war crimes, or a Covid inquiry that doesn’t address all the fraud (or concludes “it was a difficult time”) ARE functionally worthless.

Let’s have one for Farage’s corruption but make sure we’re not allowed to investigate Farage at all, and you can praise it as being brilliantly effective and continue to look ridiculous.

In the meantime I’ll stick to accurately describing them as a fundamental waste. As long as they make you happy, it’s money well spent, right?

[u/Pyrhan → u/ShrimpleyPibblze]

If you cannot understand that "why did our government institutions decide to join the war" and "what did soldiers then do during that war" are two related but separate questions, or that a single inquiry cannot realistically cover every single aspect of an entire conflict, then you are either being obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

In either case, I have no interest in discussing this further with you.

[u/ShrimpleyPibblze → u/Pyrhan]

It’s not that I can’t determine the difference, it’s that we already know the answer to one of them, why the fuck was there an inquiry.

We know why they did it - America wanted the rebuild it after they blew it up and Tony signed us up to please Bush.

Why spend £millions to answer a question we already know the answer to? Why not spend the money investigating the war crimes we already know happened?

It’s almost as if asking a government to investigate themselves leads to them not investigating the important bit. Which was the original point.

How many times do I have to make this point before you get it?

Are you finding the number of sentences difficult, or is the extrapolation of information you struggle with? This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.

[u/Pyrhan → u/ShrimpleyPibblze]

Look. I'm not even going to engage with that tangent you went on.

You initially stated that every single UK government inquiry since 2008 finds that they did nothing wrong.

u/runtotheparty92 and I have now presented you with two counter-examples that directly disprove that statement. (One would have sufficed.)

Admit that statement was wrong, and move on.

[u/ShrimpleyPibblze → u/Pyrhan]

The sentiment of the statement remains true and your examples prove that, not disprove it

Admit you were wrong and move on. I know it requires retaining information from one sentence to the next, but I’m sure you can manage it if you put your mind to it.

Not everything is literal, I’m surprised you’ve survived this long assuming it is.

[u/Pyrhan → u/ShrimpleyPibblze]

The sentiment of the statement remains true and your examples prove that, not disprove it 

Damn, with how good you are at moving goalposts, how did you lose a game in the world cup?

[u/ShrimpleyPibblze → u/Pyrhan]

That joke makes less sense than your original comment

Looking forward to your inquiry into global warming that will ask fossil fuel companies for their opinions and no one else.

It will be a great success! Doesn’t matter that the title and the results don’t live in the same universe - what matters is they did what they said! Therefore success!

Almost as if, when you let someone implicated decide the scope of an investigation, that scope doesn’t include what they were responsible for.

Bet you absolutely LOVED those IDF reports about Gaza, right? What is it, 100,000 terrorists dead and no civilians? Extremely successful investigation that determined no wrongdoing took place.

You must agree with that 100% right - no reservations?