Viewing Thread:
"Long post about Iraq - You've been warned"

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.

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.

Nicely summed up.

If anything, and at the minimum, this stupid war has finally got me interested in the world and what goes on. And I don't mean sitting biting my nails and trying to understand why they use small fonts for headlines in the Guardian, but taking an interest in what the hell is going on in the world, and hopefully gathering enough evidence to be able to come to a credible position on the matter.

Maybe it was just good timing for me, but it's really began to wake me up to the fact that there are an awfully large amount of people with a scary amount power on their hands. It's incredibly daunting to think, however, of people at the top in Esso, etc, the ones that profit from war itself, and how much say they really have. Stereotypically, I would imagine it wouldn't be too daring to say that we as people are terrified of an invisible enemy. More like fear of fear itself, but with fear having a long beard and beady eyes, and a desire to kill your children. I guess I'm more terrified of the fat businessman.

The day I see Blair and Bush trialed for war crimes would be a great day, but would never happen. It is my hopefully supported belief that they have both sent human beings to their death, and are responsible in part for the deaths of far too many innocents, for a war with little meaning and cannot be truly justified. But hey, this is just a forum and I'm only just finding my ground anyway.

Well said Goatboy. In all honesty, there's not one part of that I'd want to argue with.

I hope that this is the beginning of the end for Mr Blair, but looking into the shadows behind him, I cannot see anyone worthy of taking his place. This worries me greatly as Blair's government could be around for another five years, simply because the people don't see anyone else strong enough to vote for. (Then there's the problem of getting them to the polling stations.)

At the moment Blair knows he's on dodgy ground, and so does Mr Bush, but if they're both still in power this time next year, who will be next?

If we can attack a country that had no links to Al-Quieda (I've spelt that wrong, haven't I?) and no evidence of WOMD in the last ten years, is any country really safe? This 'War on Terror' will go on, and I worry for the next set of victims.

Good post, Goatboy. I didn't follow the debates in here before the war, but I can well imagine some of the pro-war comments.

And I'd always wondered how you spell "bupkis".

Tony Blair vindicated by the report?

Vindicated by the fact that he's been shown up for being wrong and STILL no one does anything about it? :-D



By the by, I've not gotten your 4 opinions on this lot yet ( [URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=105139&forumid=423[/URL] ).

Early days, but they seem to me to have the enthusiam and values of a fresh, yet to be corrupted, political movement.
Ofcourse, if you read the replies to my topic, not everyone sees them that way. :-)

Goatboy wrote:
> 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.

So because people listened to what every inteligence agency in the Western World(including France and Germany), they(including myself) were brain washed?

> 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?

I have posted several times sigments of reports, including ones from the UN, stating that Saddam had numerous production facilities more that capable of producing WMD post 1991. And don't forget that the UN agreed that he hadn't fully disarmed after 1991, as shown by them acepting that he'd all but ignored resolution 691.

> 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.

Prove it. Go on, i dare you. As somebody else stated, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. How can you be 100% sure that WMD wern't moved or hidden(as Iraq's got one big a$$ desert), or moved.

> Which is what Hans Blix was saying before Bush decided he wasn’t
> interested and told Blair to think the same.

But didn't the security council also say that Iraq wasn't being honest??? As shown in resolution 1441?

> Which is what the intelligence gathered was saying.

Some. Some was saying that, but if you were a leader of a nation, being told, on the one hand, he's got WMD, and on the other the hasn't got WMD, which could you afford to ignore.

> 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”

Prove he wasn't a threat. Go on. Prove there were no terrorist cells working in Iraq. Show me the UN report saying that there are no terrorists in Iraq.

> 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.

As i've said a few times many months ago, that was the legal reason. It was because of people going on about, oh, if its about regime change, what about other regimes?

> 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?”

Same reason he didn't use them during the 1st Gulf War against co-alition troops. $hit scared of what would happen.

> “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?”

He lasted almost a year without using them after the fall of the capital. Prove to me that he may have thought he'd live longer if he used WMD than if he didn't.

> “That would be suicide”
> “And having bristling soldiers from the UK & USA trying to
> ‘get’you isn’t?”
> “Commie”

They'd be around anyway, but more likely to have shoot to kill orders than, try and take him alive. Don't forget his first words when he was captured, '...i'm willing to negotiate'.

> 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.

He just didn't specify that he was refering to battle-field 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.

Ok, prove to me that the purpose of these was anything other that honest. I mean proof, like a sworn After David of somebody on the inside. Don't just say, oh, but the timing, hard proof please.

> 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?

Maybe, unless you think their is a chance of WMD being created in that country and used against you. Look at it from Blairs point of view.
'Hey, Tony, Iraq may be able to sell WMD to Bin Ladens mates'
'Well, we can't just ignore that can we?'

> “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.

So were we wrong going into Afganistan, and we should put troops on the streets of every place were terrorists are then(including every major city in the US, UK, France, ect.......), you'd be happy with that???

> 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?)

Thats just over simplyfying the whole thing. Theres a difference between taking out a whole regime, and a few guys in a house.

> 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”).

But Blair's 'such a liar'. Why would he be telling the truth about that???

> 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.

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???

> 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.

And the other parts, like Basra? Oh, and don't forget that poll of Iraqis. 70% do prefer Iraq now to under Saddam, thats despite the insurgence attacks.

> 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)

Spoils of war. Its basic human capitalist nature. If your mate has a company after a contract you have, you sell it to him don't you? Its capitalism in its worst form.

> 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)

Don't forget the 130,000 other troops not doing that.

> 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.

Yep, but the regime change in Germany cost, what, a fair share of 55 million. And don't forget, in 1953, avery second Iraqi didn't have an AK47.

> 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

What?!?!? And they wern't a serious and credible threat on 9/11, or in Bali? All well before Iraq!

> 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.

Just remember, forget about the reasons for the war just for one moment. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power. Thats a fact, don't try and say it isn't because it is. And who are we to ignore 70% of Iraqis and say their no better, or their worse off now???

Blair and Bush should be up in the Hague for warcrimes.

Skarre wrote:
stuff

Prove it? That's your response? Well, although I'm not sure about Goatboy's busy schedule, I'm pretty sure he doesn't have time to go and root about on his hands and knees in the Iraqi desert. They kind of have in-depth reports for proving this kind of thing (kind of like that wacky Butler report). Every piece of 'intelligence' I've seen purporting to be a 'missile silo' or a 'chemical weapons unit' or somesuch? Lies. Not 'flawed intelligence', just plain lies. If they had such a 'smoking gun', then what the hell happened to it? Not got around to digging it up yet?

Prove it? I think it's pretty much already been proven.

Skarra wrote:
.
>
> So because people listened to what every inteligence agency in the
> Western World(including France and Germany), they(including myself)
> were brain washed?

Umm...so how come France and Germany's governments both said that there was no need for a war, and if they were in possession of the same intelligence as the US and UK, why weren't they screaming for a war? How come they didn't seem to think that the non-existent WMD were a clear and present danger, and could perhaps strike within 45 minutes?

>
> I have posted several times sigments of reports, including ones from
> the UN, stating that Saddam had numerous production facilities more
> that capable of producing WMD post 1991. And don't forget that the UN
> agreed that he hadn't fully disarmed after 1991, as shown by them
> acepting that he'd all but ignored resolution 691.

Okay; the UN resolution. If you're so attached to the UN, how come you're not condemning the US and UK for ignoring them in starting this ugly little land grab in the first place? Or is that one all to be blamed on France for having the nerve to suggest we shouldn't go to war based on sh!tbone christawful intelligence that has clearly been influenced by the fact (and you can look this one up if you don't believe me) that the US government had already stated that it intended to go to war with Iraq?
UN Reports? Would these be the reports of the weapons inspectors that were totally dismissed by the US and UK? And being as how all the intelligence has now been conclusively discredited, why are you still clinging to these reports? Like Goatboy says:

"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."

The other reports you're referring to; would these be the reports fed to US and UK intelligence by that nice Mr Chalabi, a man so unreliable and untrustworthy that even the CIA had said on numerous occasions that he had his own agenda and was not to be trusted? And bearing in mind neither the US or UK had any actual spies (I HATE when they call them 'resources') in Iraq since about 1988, just how much faith should one place in what is essentially hearsay and chinese whispers?


>
> Some. Some was saying that, but if you were a leader of a nation,
> being told, on the one hand, he's got WMD, and on the other the
> hasn't got WMD, which could you afford to ignore.

What an absolutely pile. At the very same time that this was going on, North Korea was practically screaming that it had WMD and was going to use them against South Korea. Are you seriously telling me that this scenario (a rogue nation who have never had their country scoured by UN Weapons Inspectors, with WMD and who are willing to use them) is less worthy of attention than Iraq, a rogue nation who have had weapons inspectors in (but who weren't allowed to finish their job due to Dubya and Blair wanting their little war to kick off on time), who had absolutely no WMD and the only intel saying they might (not did; might. Care to discuss how many other rogue nations MIGHT have WMD? Are we going to be invading them any time soon?) was secondhand intel. Not one piece of firsthand intelligence, not ONE.

Can I ask you; you say we 'can't afford to ignore the possibility...'. How come you're ignoring the possibility that this war is a sham?


>
> Prove he wasn't a threat. Go on. Prove there were no terrorist cells
> working in Iraq. Show me the UN report saying that there are no
> terrorists in Iraq.

You prove he was. After all, you're the one supporting the government who went to war. I rather think it'd be up to you to prove that there was a threat.

As for the "no terrorists"...well, you're doing your best to big up the failed and flawed intel, all of which stated that there was no connection between Al-Quaida and Iraq. Not one piece of it has said there was any link. I'll repeat that; NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE was available at the time that stated that Al-Quaida were active in Iraq. I'll ask you (and I'd say the onus is on you to provide; after all, we went to war over this), provide the UN report saying that there are terrorists in Iraq.

So if you're so determined to accept the various discredited reports for the justifications for the land grab, why are you so reluctant to accept them when they detract from the paper-thin reasons for invasion?


> 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?”
>
> Same reason he didn't use them during the 1st Gulf War against
> co-alition troops. $hit scared of what would happen.

Huh?!?! So hang on; the troops are coming in and, unlike the Gulf War, there is no reason for them to stop. Their stated aim is to topple Saddam. They ain't gonna stop. And when he's captured, he'll face the death penalty.

And you're saying "He's too scared to use them"?

Come ON Skarra, that makes no sense using either logic or wishful thinking. This is the man who used a scorched earth policy in Kuwait. And you seriously think that he'd be "too scared" to use WMD if he had them, when he has literally nothing else to lose?


> “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?”
>
> He lasted almost a year without using them after the fall of the
> capital. Prove to me that he may have thought he'd live longer if he
> used WMD than if he didn't.

Skarra, you're talking utter nonsense, and you're sounding like a spoilt child. "Prove it to me"? Grow up; if you're going to continue to insist, in the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence, and when all of the circumstantial evidence is against you, that Saddam thought he'd survive longer with no use of WMD, when he's already committed lord knows how many atrocities with western backing (i notice you're not actually acknowledging that point), then I've pretty much lost all respect for you on this issue. Listen to your argument; it's based entirely on unsupported opinion that not one expert to the best of my knowledge has backed up. And your fallback position? "If there are no documents explicitly stating otherwise, then I'll carry on believing Tony". You do realise, don't you, that if we were to use your logic then we can exonerate Hitler for responsibility for the final solution? After all, there are no documents pertaining to the Holocaust carrying his signature.

In a court of Law too, it is rare for a crime to have conclusive evidence such as the like you're demandind. So it would be decided on the circumstantial evidence. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think all the circumstantial evidence still points to Saddam having WMD and being a threat?



> They'd be around anyway, but more likely to have shoot to kill orders
> than, try and take him alive. Don't forget his first words when he
> was captured, '...i'm willing to negotiate'.

And? I'd be amazed if his first words weren't "Please don't kill me, I'll suck your dick for free if you don't shoot me!". And maybe it's just me, but wasn't Saddam the one who was sending out tapes exhorting people to wipe out the American and British occupiers? Hm, yeah, he REALLY wants to make a good deal for himself.

How do you do this Skarra? How do you keep yourself deliberately blind to the mountain of evidence that states that this war was built on lies?


> Yet, oddly, these near-catastrophes suddenly ceased with the
> outbreak
> of “war” in Iraq.
>
> Ok, prove to me that the purpose of these was anything other that
> honest. I mean proof, like a sworn After David of somebody on the
> inside. Don't just say, oh, but the timing, hard proof please.

Jesus Christ...you literally won't believe it unless there is a signed document from Mr Blair saying "We was wrong" will you? Here's a thing Skarra; every single one of the arguments used before the war has been discredited, okay? Every. Single. One. There is and was no hard proof for the war, so why are you so keen on defending it? You sound like a Labour Evangelist the way you're ignoring evidence. I'll make you a deal; if you can give us any hard proof whatsoever that there are or were WMD in Iraq, proof enough to justify a war, then I'll be all ears. However, as the Butler report has just discredited all the 'proof' that was used, I rather think you won't.



>
> Maybe, unless you think their is a chance of WMD being created in
> that country and used against you. Look at it from Blairs point of
> view.
> 'Hey, Tony, Iraq may be able to sell WMD to Bin Ladens mates'
> 'Well, we can't just ignore that can we?'

Right, so maybe we should now invade every nation that can sell WMD to Al-Quaida? Or perhaps we should invade America seeing as it was the CIA who trained the Afghani mujahadeen, many of whom ended up in Al-Quida?

Are you honestly trying to say that a "maybe" (and a "maybe" that could be applied to Russia, Iran, Saudi, Indonesia, the Phillipines, and judging by our track record on arming Saddam, Europe and the US) is enough to start a war that seems to benefit no-one bar an extremely rich minority?


> So were we wrong going into Afganistan, and we should put troops on
> the streets of every place were terrorists are then(including every
> major city in the US, UK, France, ect.......), you'd be happy with
> that???

And was Goatboy talking about Afghanistan? No. So it's not really a good thing to bring up then, is it? After all, Afghanistan had Al-Quida training camps (unlike Iraq), and had people there who had planned 9/11 (unlike Iraq). Not sure what your point is about "troops on the streets". To be honest, it sounds like you're just annoyed and want to say something. Certainly it bears no relevance to the actual point.


>
> 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?)
>
> Thats just over simplyfying the whole thing. Theres a difference
> between taking out a whole regime, and a few guys in a house.

Really? Since we're talking about simplifying things, maybe you can explain how America got to use 9/11 as a justification for Iraq? Seems to me that the whole War on Terror got simplified into a War on Iraq.

Actually, more to the point, you've got a good nerve talking about oversimplification. Aren't you the chap who has claimed that the reason Saddam didn't use the WMD (which haven't been found after a year and even Tony is conceding may not even exist) was because "he was too scared"? Aren't you the man who responds to each and every accusation (supported with evidence) that this war was a resource grab with "show me documentary proof", when there are classified documents from as far back as WWII that are not declassifed as they are considered to be potentially embarrassing diplomatically?

>
> 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”).
>
> But Blair's 'such a liar'. Why would he be telling the truth about
> that???

And now you're getting desperate. If you think Blair tells the truth (and clearly you do), then regime change was not the reason, WMD were, and as that reason is proven to be utterly wrong then Blair is a p!ss poor leader. If he lies, well then he's been caught out in a lie and has no business leading this country. Either way, this mess looks bad for Blair, wouldn't you agree?


>
> 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???

Didn't you read the Haliburton contract of several billion? Haliburton having Cheney on the board? Oil? Yup; you're talking about the events of a year. The US will now get to control Iraqi oil for...well, the US military presence in Japan has lasted since the end of WWII. How long d'you think this one will? If they guarantee cheaper oil for 50 years, d'you think a little outlay at the beginning will count? Why do they let 3 pipelines a day get ruptured? Because they're inept. And because the terrorists doing it actually have a cause to die for. Whereas the poor b*****d troops don't.


> And the other parts, like Basra? Oh, and don't forget that poll of
> Iraqis. 70% do prefer Iraq now to under Saddam, thats despite the
> insurgence attacks.

And who conducted that poll? Don't get me wrong; Saddam was an evil SOB and I'm glad he's no longer leader of Iraq. And there is a long way to go yet in the reconstruction of Iraq. But one year on, don't you find it a little odd that the money for reconstruction that Paul Bremner had to allocate seems to have achieved not much? And funny how he banned any audit of how that money was spent, isn't it?

>
> Spoils of war. Its basic human capitalist nature. If your mate has a
> company after a contract you have, you sell it to him don't you? Its
> capitalism in its worst form.

Spoils of war?! Hang on; what Goatboy, myself, and numerous others are saying is that this war only happened BECAUSE of the spoils. And now you're shrugging off the fact that Iraq companies are being denied any opportunities in their own country, not to mention the backslapping and corruption that got this war started in the first place?

I really don't understand you Skarra; you fight like a demon to defend the non-existant reasons for war and demand incontrovertable proof for any reasons opposing. Then when you're given that proof you just say "Yeah, it's not very nice but it was bound to happen".

>
> 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)
>
> Don't forget the 130,000 other troops not doing that.

Ah well, that makes it alright then...

>
> 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.
>
> Yep, but the regime change in Germany cost, what, a fair share of 55
> million. And don't forget, in 1953, avery second Iraqi didn't have an
> AK47.

Erm...except the regime in Germany was Hitler who was (unlike Saddam) a genuine threat. There is a world of difference between paying for a just and justifiable war, and paying in blood for a few rich Americans and Brits to get even richer.

Second point; how in the hell do you know what the circumstances were around the 1953 regime change?

> 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
>
> What?!?!? And they wern't a serious and credible threat on 9/11, or
> in Bali? All well before Iraq!

Tell me, in clear and simple terms, how many atrocities Al-Quaida committed before Dubya launched his War on Terror. Then tell me how many are being committed afterwards. It's all on the White House's official website if you want to look. I'll give you a clue; the world isn't a safer place.

>
> 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.
>
> Just remember, forget about the reasons for the war just for one
> moment. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power. Thats a
> fact, don't try and say it isn't because it is. And who are we to
> ignore 70% of Iraqis and say their no better, or their worse off
> now???

And now you're back to the already thoroughly discredited, after-the-fact argument; regime change. Something not mentioned at all by either the US and the UK. I'm not ignoring the fact that Saddam would still be in power. I am however waiting to the US and UK to take down the tyrants in Burma, Uzbekhistan, North Korea, Zimbabwe...what's that? None of those countries have oil? Oh.

You're clinging to that 70% statistic like a drowning man clings to driftwood. I'm seriously disappointed by your arguments, and very much surprised at how willing you are to remain blinkered to facts and tow the party line. When I first started debating with you I thought you were someone who debated using the facts. Now it seems you've just picked your side and you look at the facts appropriate to it. Nothing in your whole post here actually detracts from the many arguments against this land grab; the best you can do is say "Okay; show documentary proof signed by Tony and Dubya, preferably with the words "Mu ha ha ha! We'll make millions I tells ya, millions!"". I hardly need point out again how unrealistic and pathetic that is. And your only retorts? The self same after-the-fact argument that Goatboy takes the time in this post to blow into tiny pieces. Clearly I've been wrong about you.

Regarding North Korea, i'm not sure on the times here but when they were kicking off hadn't the Iraq war already been started? Now i'm no military leader but isn't it easier to fight one war at a time rather than two? The American government is barely able to conduct one war without major mistakes let alone two.

But then again Dubya's daddy didn't have unfinished business with the North Koreans so they can make whatever nuclear weapons they like i guess.


Also your point about the French and Germans being (rightly) against the war. Isn't a tad hypocritical from these countries to spend months criticising the American and British governments for waging this war yet as soon as the talk of contracts is talked about they were right there at the front of the queue with their hands out. Strange how their concern for the Iraqi people suddenly get thrown out the window as soon as the almighty dollar gets talked about.