The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Long post, probably wont read it but it’s been burning me all day so here goes – may have to split it over 2 posts?
So today sees the publication of the Butler report into Iraq, WMD and all the supporting characters we’ve come to know and love since Blair & Bush tried to convince us of the need to attack Iraq.
And the results?
It reads like the debates that raged here in the months before the invasion, with the benefit of filtering out the (now proven) idiocy of pro-war screamers.
We had The Hutton enquiry, widely derided at the time by most of the press and any member of the public with the ability to think for themselves instead of being told what they know. A whitewash.
And after the publication of Hutton’s fellatio to this government, Blair was in Parliament crowing and strutting like a WWF Wrestler making his ring-entrance.
Markedly different to today, where a much more subdued and non-arrogant Prime Minister “accepted the findings” with an almost magnanimous air. Well that’s very nice of you Tony, well done for admitting what we all knew months before you took Britain to war.
There was no grinning, no jokes with performing seals behind him waving their papers around.
So what did Butler’s report tell us?
Nothing new, nothing that hadn’t been said by “commies” and “leftist Saddam lovers” for over 18months now.
Nothing that Robin Cook & Claire Short didn’t say (whatever your opinion on them personally, they were the few that actually had the balls to speak out).
Nothing that people not brainwashed into swallowing the official version of events hasn’t known since The UK & The USA almost splintered the UN and caused rifts in Europe.
The most important & relevant point?
There are not, nor have been since the last “war” in 1991 any sort of identifiable WMD whatsoever in Iraq, nor are there/were there the capabilities of producing WMD, nor are there/were there the ability to launch WMD at anybody whatsoever.
Did you read that correctly?
Read it again. Go read the Butler report for yourself if you’re having difficulties coming to terms with that…go on, I’ll wait.
Ok, that’s sunk in now so I’ll continue –
No WMD currently, nor has there been for over a decade.
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Zilch. Zero.
Which is what Hans Blix was saying before Bush decided he wasn’t interested and told Blair to think the same.
Which is what the intelligence gathered was saying.
Which is what the recently deceased Dr Kelly was saying before he killed himself over this whole fiasco.
Which is what, for whatever the hell it’s worth, I was saying here since December of 2002.
But that’s odd, because I recall with absolute clarity somebody calling himself Tony Blair thumping on and on and on about the “evil” of Hussein’s WMD.
And I recall Blair addressing the nation on BBC1 telling us that there was “a clear and present threat, a very real danger to the United Kingdom from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we cannot allow this, especially in light of the actions of September 11th 2001”
Don’t get confused and offer the pitiful “but…but…regime change” excuse.
Why not? Because Blair repeatedly said in Parliament and televised discussions that regime change was not the goal.
The reason we invaded Iraq was because Hussein presented a “real and present threat to the United Kingdom” from these WMD.
That was the only reason proffered so take your after-the-fact excuses and blow them out your ass.
You don’t need to be in MI6 or an expert on the technical specifications of long-range tactical nuclear missiles, you just need common sense with this whole WMD rubbish.
The discussions here threw up the logical, layman’s explanation and reason for the non-existence of WMD, remember them? Chiefly from smoking Commies like myself, Light, Unknown Kernel and others.
“If he had WMD, why hasn’t he used them since 1991?”
“Gassing the Kurds! Gassing the Kurds in Hallabjah! He’s evil”
“No, that was 1988 with toxins supplied by the UK courtesy of Pains Wessex, with our full consent and subsequent increasing of IMF credit to his regime”
“He’s hidden them in the sand!”
“Ok, so if that’s the case and you realise you are about to be invaded and removed from power by the very people that installed you in the 1st place, why not use these invisible weapons as a last-ditch ‘up yours’ gesture?”
“That would be suicide”
“And having bristling soldiers from the UK & USA trying to ‘get’you isn’t?”
“Commie”
You need to strip away the countless opinions from tools like David Shaylor, who helps neither side in this issue and just remember back to the basic, simple facts and explanations offered in the build-up to this (still potentially illegal) invasion of a country that has never once in the history of civilisation acted aggressively towards The West unless being invaded.
The issue of whether Saddam Hussein is an “evil tyrant” isn’t the question, both sides have accepted that – it’s just another diversion from the point of reasons for invading.
Colin Powell offering satellite photographs of “chemical weapons plants” to the UN Security council – now proven to be categorically not chemical weapon plants.
The intelligence dossier presented to the same council and waved about like Moses when he tumbled down the mountain and gave us 10 rules to live by – cribbed from an 11year old thesis on the internet from a University student.
Blair’s constant televised assurances that we were under threat from these WMD.
Blair telling in the televised address that we could be hit by weapons that could be readied in 45mins – now proven to be both false in time and the actual existence of these mega-deathbomb weapons.
There are countless other examples of, according to the Butler report, dangerously ill-researched opinions from outdated sources (no CIA ground-intelligence since 1998) offered up as fact, designed to make us implode with fear and hatred of Johnny-Arab and want to kill them. Although this still continues with various “Dirty immigrant darkies!” stories in The Daily Mein Kampf to make you loathe and fear anybody not white and Christian.
And before the invasion, we were suddenly under-siege from bloody thirsty Muslim Terrorist Villains trying to wipe us out and live in your house.
TANKS AT HEATHROW! – for what? They arrested one man from Algiers with an imitation hand-grenade. And this wasn’t because a tank rolled into the 747 and made him disarm and wet himself, it was previously gathered intelligence and a quiet leading away by men in suits with wires coming from their ears.
RICIN DEATH PLOT - well, fertiliser was found and they looked suspicious in their beards and shifty eyes. Yet various papers (Mail charging ahead) had massive skull & crossbone 72-point headline “RICIN DEATH FEAR” stories.
PRACTICE RESCUE DRILL IN LONDON – central London shut-off whilst various emergency services rehearsed dealing with a major terrorist incident. Fine, I’m all for readiness and whatnot, but c’mon folks the timing stank worse than a week-dead dog in a hot car. “We must invade Iraq” “Er, why? They haven’t done anything” “Look at the potential deathfeardangerkill in London!” “CHRIST! Let’s get them now Blair!!!”
Yet, oddly, these near-catastrophes suddenly ceased with the outbreak of “war” in Iraq.
Now, I’m not Tom Clancy or a major tactician, but surely the chances of an attack increase when you invade and start killing their homeland, no?
“Ah you cynical Commie, it’s not Hussein, it’s Al-Queda”
Really? Ohhhhh yes, I do remember Bush and Blair talking about his links with Al-Queda and terrorist training camps being found in Iraq.
Ah, except the Butler report repeated what was said here before the “war” – namely that Hussein & Al-Queda loathed each other and had no history of any civil contact or co-operation. Training Camps being found, this is a reason for invasion then? A pre-emptive strike? Well in that case, we’d best invade Germany where the 6 Saudis who flew the hijacked planes into the WTC lived and took University courses in aviation.
And we’d best invade Florida, where the same 6 Saudis took flying lessons.
And, just to be sure we route out all Al-Queda training, we should probably “shock and awe” Harrogate where they discovered caches of weapons underneath a Mosque (remember that little story for 2 days pre-invasion?)
So no links to Al-Queda. No WMD. No history of aggression towards the West.
Explain again why we invaded Iraq?
“Regime Change”
Nope sorry, Blair continually stated that was not a goal before the invasion. He said it in Parliament, he said it in public and he said it on television when Paxman led a public question-time with Blair (when a wag called him “The Right Honourable Member for Texas North”).
It’s being bandied around now as some sort of after-the-fact reason for invading, but that wasn’t why we did.
And the Butler report calls the intelligence offered “at the outer limits”.
So why did we invade? I’m confused here I’ll admit.
Because the same things in this report were voiced by a million people in the single biggest protest march since records began in this country (with minimal arrests), the same things were voiced on radio panels, television panels, internet forums, emails and conversations the world over.
But hey, we removed Hussein so all’s well now isn’t it? We achieved our goal of bringing peace and comfort to the millions of Iraqis who suffered under his regime.
Well, apart from still being barely any basic facilities in places like Mosul & Baghdad.
Apart from there now being an Al-Queda presence where before there was none (as stated in the Butler report as well as by lefties like me).
Apart from Halliburton (with vice-president Dick Cheny being a CEO) being awarded a billion dollar “reconstruction” contracts, whilst Iraq companies are ceilinged by $50,000 contract limits (go look it up, I’m not making this up)
Apart from the torture and possible murder of people being held in jails by American troops (way to win hearts and minds guys! Won’t be seeing a Bruckheimer/Scott film about that one I suspect)
Regime Chance – yeah right. But we managed it perfectly well in (here he goes again with that nugget) 1953 when we ousted The Shah, and did it with little bloodshed and the loss of thousands of Iraqi civilians and countless Allied soldiers.
Thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. Scores of UK & US troops dead. Constant bombings. Terrorist groups where before there were none.
CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy resign shortly after (and in no way connected at all to) the Senate Committee findings of the US Intelligence Community’s actions (I think, may need to check that one and edit later if not true, recall reading it a day or so ago)
Dr David Kelly killed himself.
Alistair Campbell writes his memoirs.
Tony Blair “vindicated by this report”
Vindicated? But I guess when you exist in a world where you can invade another country on false, sloppily researched intelligence then you can exist in a world where you are vindicated in dragging several countries into a sham war that solved nothing and allowed marginalised terrorist-groups to coalesce into a serious and credible threat.
slow clapping
I said it on the eve of the “Shock and Awe” campaign and I stand by it – I am ashamed to have that shark-smiling fraud as a Prime Minister, and where there justice in this world then Blair would travel to the UN and gut himself with a sharpened St George’s Flag & pole.
So today sees the publication of the Butler report into Iraq, WMD and all the supporting characters we’ve come to know and love since Blair & Bush tried to convince us of the need to attack Iraq.
And the results?
It reads like the debates that raged here in the months before the invasion, with the benefit of filtering out the (now proven) idiocy of pro-war screamers.
We had The Hutton enquiry, widely derided at the time by most of the press and any member of the public with the ability to think for themselves instead of being told what they know. A whitewash.
And after the publication of Hutton’s fellatio to this government, Blair was in Parliament crowing and strutting like a WWF Wrestler making his ring-entrance.
Markedly different to today, where a much more subdued and non-arrogant Prime Minister “accepted the findings” with an almost magnanimous air. Well that’s very nice of you Tony, well done for admitting what we all knew months before you took Britain to war.
There was no grinning, no jokes with performing seals behind him waving their papers around.
So what did Butler’s report tell us?
Nothing new, nothing that hadn’t been said by “commies” and “leftist Saddam lovers” for over 18months now.
Nothing that Robin Cook & Claire Short didn’t say (whatever your opinion on them personally, they were the few that actually had the balls to speak out).
Nothing that people not brainwashed into swallowing the official version of events hasn’t known since The UK & The USA almost splintered the UN and caused rifts in Europe.
The most important & relevant point?
There are not, nor have been since the last “war” in 1991 any sort of identifiable WMD whatsoever in Iraq, nor are there/were there the capabilities of producing WMD, nor are there/were there the ability to launch WMD at anybody whatsoever.
Did you read that correctly?
Read it again. Go read the Butler report for yourself if you’re having difficulties coming to terms with that…go on, I’ll wait.
Ok, that’s sunk in now so I’ll continue –
No WMD currently, nor has there been for over a decade.
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Zilch. Zero.
Which is what Hans Blix was saying before Bush decided he wasn’t interested and told Blair to think the same.
Which is what the intelligence gathered was saying.
Which is what the recently deceased Dr Kelly was saying before he killed himself over this whole fiasco.
Which is what, for whatever the hell it’s worth, I was saying here since December of 2002.
But that’s odd, because I recall with absolute clarity somebody calling himself Tony Blair thumping on and on and on about the “evil” of Hussein’s WMD.
And I recall Blair addressing the nation on BBC1 telling us that there was “a clear and present threat, a very real danger to the United Kingdom from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we cannot allow this, especially in light of the actions of September 11th 2001”
Don’t get confused and offer the pitiful “but…but…regime change” excuse.
Why not? Because Blair repeatedly said in Parliament and televised discussions that regime change was not the goal.
The reason we invaded Iraq was because Hussein presented a “real and present threat to the United Kingdom” from these WMD.
That was the only reason proffered so take your after-the-fact excuses and blow them out your ass.
You don’t need to be in MI6 or an expert on the technical specifications of long-range tactical nuclear missiles, you just need common sense with this whole WMD rubbish.
The discussions here threw up the logical, layman’s explanation and reason for the non-existence of WMD, remember them? Chiefly from smoking Commies like myself, Light, Unknown Kernel and others.
“If he had WMD, why hasn’t he used them since 1991?”
“Gassing the Kurds! Gassing the Kurds in Hallabjah! He’s evil”
“No, that was 1988 with toxins supplied by the UK courtesy of Pains Wessex, with our full consent and subsequent increasing of IMF credit to his regime”
“He’s hidden them in the sand!”
“Ok, so if that’s the case and you realise you are about to be invaded and removed from power by the very people that installed you in the 1st place, why not use these invisible weapons as a last-ditch ‘up yours’ gesture?”
“That would be suicide”
“And having bristling soldiers from the UK & USA trying to ‘get’you isn’t?”
“Commie”
You need to strip away the countless opinions from tools like David Shaylor, who helps neither side in this issue and just remember back to the basic, simple facts and explanations offered in the build-up to this (still potentially illegal) invasion of a country that has never once in the history of civilisation acted aggressively towards The West unless being invaded.
The issue of whether Saddam Hussein is an “evil tyrant” isn’t the question, both sides have accepted that – it’s just another diversion from the point of reasons for invading.
Colin Powell offering satellite photographs of “chemical weapons plants” to the UN Security council – now proven to be categorically not chemical weapon plants.
The intelligence dossier presented to the same council and waved about like Moses when he tumbled down the mountain and gave us 10 rules to live by – cribbed from an 11year old thesis on the internet from a University student.
Blair’s constant televised assurances that we were under threat from these WMD.
Blair telling in the televised address that we could be hit by weapons that could be readied in 45mins – now proven to be both false in time and the actual existence of these mega-deathbomb weapons.
There are countless other examples of, according to the Butler report, dangerously ill-researched opinions from outdated sources (no CIA ground-intelligence since 1998) offered up as fact, designed to make us implode with fear and hatred of Johnny-Arab and want to kill them. Although this still continues with various “Dirty immigrant darkies!” stories in The Daily Mein Kampf to make you loathe and fear anybody not white and Christian.
And before the invasion, we were suddenly under-siege from bloody thirsty Muslim Terrorist Villains trying to wipe us out and live in your house.
TANKS AT HEATHROW! – for what? They arrested one man from Algiers with an imitation hand-grenade. And this wasn’t because a tank rolled into the 747 and made him disarm and wet himself, it was previously gathered intelligence and a quiet leading away by men in suits with wires coming from their ears.
RICIN DEATH PLOT - well, fertiliser was found and they looked suspicious in their beards and shifty eyes. Yet various papers (Mail charging ahead) had massive skull & crossbone 72-point headline “RICIN DEATH FEAR” stories.
PRACTICE RESCUE DRILL IN LONDON – central London shut-off whilst various emergency services rehearsed dealing with a major terrorist incident. Fine, I’m all for readiness and whatnot, but c’mon folks the timing stank worse than a week-dead dog in a hot car. “We must invade Iraq” “Er, why? They haven’t done anything” “Look at the potential deathfeardangerkill in London!” “CHRIST! Let’s get them now Blair!!!”
Yet, oddly, these near-catastrophes suddenly ceased with the outbreak of “war” in Iraq.
Now, I’m not Tom Clancy or a major tactician, but surely the chances of an attack increase when you invade and start killing their homeland, no?
“Ah you cynical Commie, it’s not Hussein, it’s Al-Queda”
Really? Ohhhhh yes, I do remember Bush and Blair talking about his links with Al-Queda and terrorist training camps being found in Iraq.
Ah, except the Butler report repeated what was said here before the “war” – namely that Hussein & Al-Queda loathed each other and had no history of any civil contact or co-operation. Training Camps being found, this is a reason for invasion then? A pre-emptive strike? Well in that case, we’d best invade Germany where the 6 Saudis who flew the hijacked planes into the WTC lived and took University courses in aviation.
And we’d best invade Florida, where the same 6 Saudis took flying lessons.
And, just to be sure we route out all Al-Queda training, we should probably “shock and awe” Harrogate where they discovered caches of weapons underneath a Mosque (remember that little story for 2 days pre-invasion?)
So no links to Al-Queda. No WMD. No history of aggression towards the West.
Explain again why we invaded Iraq?
“Regime Change”
Nope sorry, Blair continually stated that was not a goal before the invasion. He said it in Parliament, he said it in public and he said it on television when Paxman led a public question-time with Blair (when a wag called him “The Right Honourable Member for Texas North”).
It’s being bandied around now as some sort of after-the-fact reason for invading, but that wasn’t why we did.
And the Butler report calls the intelligence offered “at the outer limits”.
So why did we invade? I’m confused here I’ll admit.
Because the same things in this report were voiced by a million people in the single biggest protest march since records began in this country (with minimal arrests), the same things were voiced on radio panels, television panels, internet forums, emails and conversations the world over.
But hey, we removed Hussein so all’s well now isn’t it? We achieved our goal of bringing peace and comfort to the millions of Iraqis who suffered under his regime.
Well, apart from still being barely any basic facilities in places like Mosul & Baghdad.
Apart from there now being an Al-Queda presence where before there was none (as stated in the Butler report as well as by lefties like me).
Apart from Halliburton (with vice-president Dick Cheny being a CEO) being awarded a billion dollar “reconstruction” contracts, whilst Iraq companies are ceilinged by $50,000 contract limits (go look it up, I’m not making this up)
Apart from the torture and possible murder of people being held in jails by American troops (way to win hearts and minds guys! Won’t be seeing a Bruckheimer/Scott film about that one I suspect)
Regime Chance – yeah right. But we managed it perfectly well in (here he goes again with that nugget) 1953 when we ousted The Shah, and did it with little bloodshed and the loss of thousands of Iraqi civilians and countless Allied soldiers.
Thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. Scores of UK & US troops dead. Constant bombings. Terrorist groups where before there were none.
CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy resign shortly after (and in no way connected at all to) the Senate Committee findings of the US Intelligence Community’s actions (I think, may need to check that one and edit later if not true, recall reading it a day or so ago)
Dr David Kelly killed himself.
Alistair Campbell writes his memoirs.
Tony Blair “vindicated by this report”
Vindicated? But I guess when you exist in a world where you can invade another country on false, sloppily researched intelligence then you can exist in a world where you are vindicated in dragging several countries into a sham war that solved nothing and allowed marginalised terrorist-groups to coalesce into a serious and credible threat.
slow clapping
I said it on the eve of the “Shock and Awe” campaign and I stand by it – I am ashamed to have that shark-smiling fraud as a Prime Minister, and where there justice in this world then Blair would travel to the UN and gut himself with a sharpened St George’s Flag & pole.
Page:
lalakersrule wrote:
> Still can't accept the oil argument totally. I mean instead of
> spending billions on the war and having their own troops killed, the
> war pushing oil prices up, Blair and Bush getting hammered back home
> and losing votes left, right and centre surely they could have just
> bought the oil instead.
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1264765,00.html[/URL]
Why buy the oil when you can simply steal $1 billion from the country you've just invaded?
> Still can't accept the oil argument totally. I mean instead of
> spending billions on the war and having their own troops killed, the
> war pushing oil prices up, Blair and Bush getting hammered back home
> and losing votes left, right and centre surely they could have just
> bought the oil instead.
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1264765,00.html[/URL]
Why buy the oil when you can simply steal $1 billion from the country you've just invaded?
I can imagine a major credit card companies' campaign based around the threat of terrorism: "go on, why worry about what you spend today, for tomorrow your face may be melting off as a chemical agent destroys your skin cells".
Better issue a statement warning the country not to open windows then.
TERRORIST DEATH WINDOWS!!!
TERRORIST DEATH WINDOWS!!!
I will add, however, that localised deployment of chemical or biological agents would/could mean that people would be forced to remain indoors for prolonged periods of time and then some tinned food would be a good idea.
Your Honour wrote:
> Felt I had to point this out though
> [URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13160682,00.html[/URL]
So let me get this right. Let's say we are subjected to a terrorist attack at one of London's train stations. Massive casulties and justified outrage would probably ensue but why on earth would people need to stockpile food? It's not like we'd be invaded. Perhaps the Government is trying to induce some Cold War-esque paranoia.
Anything of the magnitude that would have a UK wide effect is unlikely to occur, as our intelligence is far too sophisticated to allow...oh crap.
Stockpile!!
> Felt I had to point this out though
> [URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13160682,00.html[/URL]
So let me get this right. Let's say we are subjected to a terrorist attack at one of London's train stations. Massive casulties and justified outrage would probably ensue but why on earth would people need to stockpile food? It's not like we'd be invaded. Perhaps the Government is trying to induce some Cold War-esque paranoia.
Anything of the magnitude that would have a UK wide effect is unlikely to occur, as our intelligence is far too sophisticated to allow...oh crap.
Stockpile!!
Oh I'd say that's exactly indicative of the kind of crap that closed-eye, mouth-open tools like Skarra will react to and scream "Al Queda!!!!" as they dig an Anderson Shelter in the back garden, looking over their shoulder in case a Muslim knocks on their door and asks for a cup of sugar.
Sugar they will turn into a DEATHMURDERKILLBOMB!!!!! and blow up the world.
Relax citizens, your government is protecting you. All is well, continue to discuss Big Brother and Eastenders, don't examine The Butler Report and ask questions.
Sugar they will turn into a DEATHMURDERKILLBOMB!!!!! and blow up the world.
Relax citizens, your government is protecting you. All is well, continue to discuss Big Brother and Eastenders, don't examine The Butler Report and ask questions.
Read the main post before the weekend but not many of the replies.
Felt I had to point this out though [URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13160682,00.html[/URL]
I agree with Goaty about the whole fear thing, and maybe this is just another ploy to get people worried and thinking about something else.
Felt I had to point this out though [URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13160682,00.html[/URL]
I agree with Goaty about the whole fear thing, and maybe this is just another ploy to get people worried and thinking about something else.
Still can't accept the oil argument totally. I mean instead of spending billions on the war and having their own troops killed, the war pushing oil prices up, Blair and Bush getting hammered back home and losing votes left, right and centre surely they could have just bought the oil instead. The argument of Dubya finishing off daddy's work makes more sense to me. (But saying that Bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer and probably under-estimated the cost)
But then the US weren't the only ones before the war to have a vested interest in the oil in Iraq
But then the US weren't the only ones before the war to have a vested interest in the oil in Iraq
"Go on then, what possible reasons were there for invading then, if not honorable ones. Oil? No. For months after the war, oil production was 1/5 that of before the war. And as of a few weeks ago, the Iraqis were so pi$$ed at the high oil prices, that the US has been subsidising the cost, it now costs the US about 5 cents a gallon on average. Thats a lot of $ in a week. So if it was about oil, wouldn't they be trying to pump/sell more? Also, wouldn't they protect the pipe lines better. Sure, they do protect them better that other things, but if its so important to them, why do they let about 3 pipelines per day get ruptured???"
With regard to oil - I thought the argument was that the US wants control of as much oil as possible before it all runs out - and therefore wants a friendly administration in Iraq, seeing as it has (I think) 1/3 of the worlds oil reserves.
With regard to oil - I thought the argument was that the US wants control of as much oil as possible before it all runs out - and therefore wants a friendly administration in Iraq, seeing as it has (I think) 1/3 of the worlds oil reserves.
Yep, just makes you feel defeated. Millions protetsed, everyone knows they are lying through their teeth but little can be done and it's quite sad.
Read the Tony Benn Diaries and it's such a disgrace what happened to the Labour Party since early 90's... where Cook and Short were just as much to blame and I hope they both know that now.
Read the Tony Benn Diaries and it's such a disgrace what happened to the Labour Party since early 90's... where Cook and Short were just as much to blame and I hope they both know that now.
Page: