The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Skarra wrote:
>
> How should i know. All i do know is that their intelligence was
> pointing at WMD too. Maybe the fact that they were getting richer
> from Saddam in power had something to do with it.
Whilst of course, the US (being the biggest buyers of Iraqi oil up to and including the start of the land grab) weren't profiting at all, oh nononononono...
Is that it? Is that your argument? "How should I know" followed by a vague attempt to make the two nations mentioned seem like evil traitors profiting from misery whilst conveniently ignoring that we and the US do exactly the same?
Regardless, you've pretty much ruined your own point about how "All intel pointed at Iraq maybe having WMD so we HAD to do something". Most nations in the world didn't think so. And they weren't profiting from Saddam any more than the UK and US.
>
> Because the UN is useless. It really is. Look at Kosovo, the UN
> didn't want to intervene there either, thats why i don't care who
> they criticise.
Ah, right; so having started off trying to use UN reports to give a veneer of legitmacy to your argument that Tony is pure and sweet and good, you're now saying they're useless. Which is odd, as you also just tried to say that the breach of the UN resolution was reason enough. Yet now you claim you don't care. Okay, that's cool; just means that you've pretty much destroyed your whole initial argument, based as it was on trying to emphasise the UN resolution and their own intel.
>
> UN Reports? Would these be the reports of the weapons inspectors
> that
> were totally dismissed by the US and UK?
>
> The UN ignored them aswell. Old Hansy boy said Iraq had disarmed, but
> then 1441 sais 'we don't believe hime'.
Now who's oversimplifying?
The UN said that there was cause to believe Saddam wasn't telling the whole truth, and further inspections were needed to verify that he was. That's a world away from the UN saying "We don't believe him, lets go to war". And it's rather dishonest of you to imply that the UN had similar views to the US and UK when
A - It didn't, and the US and UK flouted the UN
B - You've just (rather petulantly in my opinion) said that the UN is worthless.
>
> Because everybody is saying Blair lied and was wrong. Yet 5 seperate
> investigations, includiing 3 Parliamentry, not by the Government, by
> Parliament, have shown no evidence to say he lied. The intel may have
> been wrong, but could Blair risk ignoring it??? Of course not.
Ah yes; all investigations which have clearly stated that their remit is NOT to comment on how the government used the intel? Is that what you mean? Mm, funny how they don't criticise the government when they've already made clear that the governmental actions are beyond the scope of their investigation, isn't it? That's more dishonesty on your part for trying to claim that the government is cleared, when the government hasn't even been investigated yet.
As for the "Could Blair risk ignoring it" cack that you continue to cling to; I ask again, how come every other nation in the world felt they could risk ignoring it? And what about the huge number of other nations ran by tinpot dictators that are developing WMD? What about North Korea? Why are you repeatedly blinding yourself to all the evidence that points to this war being a resources grab to benefit a few? How can you simply ignore the fact that all the reasons given before the war have been shown to be lies?
>
> Because everything the Government used, the JIC signed off on. If it
> wasn't right, they should have said so, rather than, 'oh, yeah, i
> suppose you can put that in there'.
Ah yes; the caveats that were removed before it's publication. And lets not forget, at the time of the report the US and UK governments had already made it clear what iraq's eventual fate would be. I wonder whether or not the report provided was more to do with telling them what they wanted to hear? In which case, it's not just our government who are worthless.
>
> 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.
>
> There's a difference though. N. Korea havn't invaded another country
> for a good long while now. Plus, they havn't actually used their WMD,
> wheras Saddam has. N. Korea has been contained for 50 years, with few
> problems. Iraq hadn't, and needed to be.
No, they're just still officially at war, and why would a nation at war want to use WMD? Oh...
Saddam used his WMD? What, the mustard gas we sold him? Guess what? So has Ethiopia. And Eritrea. And possibly Sudan. Those three nations are destabilising that region of Africa. How come we're not doing anything about them?
Granted, Iraq has invaded another country recently. Oh...so have Ethiopia and Eritrea. Yet nothing happens there. Why could that be I wonder?
You're also ignoring the point about the intel being secondhand, and there being a number of other nations with aggressive histories who "might" be developing WMD, not to mention the ones who ARE developing them.
Have you noticed Skarra that each of the arguments you're using fall apart when applied to the rest of the world. The only justification for applying them to Iraq and nowhere else would be that Iraq is a special case. Now what makes it special apart from it's oil?
>
> 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?
>
> I'm not, their just alternative stand point. If i believed i was
> threatened(as Blair felt, and had been told, Britain was) i'd do what
> ever it took to ensure my survival. Had you been in Blairs place, and
> been told Iraq had WMD, as Blair was, could you really have ignored
> it, and just said, 'its ok, i'm sure it will go away somehow'. Of
> course you couldn't.
Threatened? Iraq was a threat to us then eh?
What a complete and utter crock of old mans pants. If you believe that Skarra, then you're far more blindly accepting than I gave you credit for. All the lies we were told about this 'threat' have been thoroughly discredited. Yet you're still saying "We were told by Tony that he was dangerous". This is despite the fact that the only place Saddam ever destabilised was the Middle East (and this land grab has already done that as well as he ever managed...). Had I been in Blairs place, I'd be getting reports all the time about nations having WMD, or developing them. Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan....and yet, we're not invading them. If you honestly think we should have someone who is (judging by what you're saying) so nervous and timid that he'll authorise an invasion on the basis of chinese whispers...well, I'm gonna disagree with you, because we'll always be at war.
But we're not always at war, are we? Only with Iraq...so he can't be so timid as to be terrified at a simple report saying a nation MIGHT have WMD. So there must have been more to the decision to invade, right?
> Why? Common sense/ history dictates Saddam was a threat. You prove
> otherwise. Can you? Ok, don't prove he wasn;t a threat. Just ask
> yourself. 'Am i 100% sure he wasn't a threat?' For me, the SAM sites
> firing on patrol aircraft before the war tells me that he was just a
> bit of a threat. And thats just one small thing.
Am I 100% sure he wasn't a threat? No, of course not. However, I'm 99.9% certain that whatever threat he posed was no greater than the threat currently posed by the destabilising of the entire middle east at the behest of a chimp and a grinning liar.
SAM missile sites firing? Would you care to discuss the incidences of North Korean troops opening fire at their South Korean counterparts, as well as the rhetoric they use about destroying their neighbours? Are you 100% sure THEY'RE not a threat? If so, why? And if not, then why aren't we invading them?
> 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.
>
> I can't. I guess it wasn't true then. If the UN didn't know about it,
> it musn't have been happening then.
Heheheh. Most enjoyable watching you get annoyed at losing part of an argument. And you accept it so gracefully too.
You're trying to have it all ways Skarra; when the evidence supports your spoonfed view, you're all for it. When it doesn't, then the UN are rubbish and so is anyone else who disagrees. I hate to say this, because you're generally better informed than this, but you're travelling down the bitter road of Belldandy on this one.
And it's not just the UN is it? No reports provided by the US or UK said there were links between Iraq and Al-Quaida, did they?
So anyway; you've previously hinted that you think there were Al-Quaida cells in Iraq. You've provided no proof, and only been able to muster a fairly poor amount of sarcasm as an attempt to rebutt the evidence that no, there were none. Call me pedantic, but I'd say that means you simply have not proof and don't want to admit that another plank in Tony's series of lies and half truths has been knocked out.
>
> I'm defending Blair, thats why. How's it his fault he was told Iraq
> has WMD? He had to act, and i know i, and probably you, would have
> done the same.
Don't presume that I think the same way as you. No, I wouldn't have acted in the same way as Blair because, as I've made clear throughout (and as you keep ignoring), there are so many countries with dodgy leaders who are developing WMD and under your logic, you seem to think that we should declare war on them all. Would I send people to die in an unpopular war on the basis of hearsay? No. Would you? If so, where would you stop? Which nations wouldn't you invade?
You're defending Blair; fine. But you're doing it blindly, and you're deliberately trying to ignore the evidence that goes against him, and frankly that just makes you seem foolish because you're only debating half the facts. If you actually acknowledge all the facts and still defend him...well, I'll still disagree with you, but I'll have a damn site more respect for you for at least defending him properly.
> He was in 1991, why not now? In 1991, he wasn't sure if the troops
> were coming for him, they were all the way up to Karbala at points.
> Imagine a fight, two on one. What does the one do, just start
> swinging away, knowning it wouldn't make the smallest bit of
> difference, or leg it and stand a chance of just hiding until
> something permanent can happen?
Yes, he wasn't sure the troops were coming for him yet he still used the most devastating weapon at his disposal; scorched earth. In this instance, he DID know they were coming for him. Yet no WMD were used. Only conventional weapons. And no WMD have yet been found. And all the intel that said he had some has been utterly discredited.
Do you think the scorched earth of 91 made any more than the smallest difference? No? But he did that. Funny; you seem to invest Saddam with full powers of common sense and reasoning when you want him to act in a way that backs up your defence of Blair. The rest of the time, you want to show him as a ravening monster who wants to use WMD against the whole world. Show some consistency Skarra cos this is something else that fatally weakens you're argument.
> I was just trying to get across that the war, from Blairs
> perspective, was right.
> And as for me asking for proof, how can you, for many, many months,
> be using conjecture(as theres no proof) to support your point, and
> not allow me to do the same. That Intel may be wrong, but at the
> time, it was very, very plausible. Only Blix said Iraq didn't have
> WMD, even the UN security council didn't accept that, and yet you
> wern't backing up all the inteligence agency experts then(from France
> and Germany too), even though the overwhelming majority, all said
> Iraq had WMD. I'll say it again, how can Blair have ever ignored
> this????????????? HE COULDNT!!!
And I'm trying to get across the point that you're being incredibly selective in what you acknowledge in order to preserve your opinion of Blair.
Your point about proof is nonsensical; you say that we use conjecture so why can't you do the same? Well, at no point has anyone said you can't. However, in addition to that you're demanding full documentary proof of whatever the anti-war group say. That's hardly conjecture, is it?
The intel was plausible? How come millions across the world said "This is lies and b******t".
How could Blair ignore it? Well, seeing as he clearly ignores the intel on North Korea, Ethiopea, Eritrea, etc I'd say that he can ignore it quite easily. What's more, your repeating of the dishonest misrepresentation about the UN Security councils opinon on Blix's report (which I've dealt with earlier), coupled with your repeated, almost talismanic, insistence that Blair couldn't ignore it whilst you continue to either ignore the points about other nations being just as much of a threat, or produce spurious reasons for them not being a threat, or giving nothing more than a sarcastic aside in the hope that I'll drop the point, indicates to me that you're far more interested in your opinion being right than you are interested in finding out whether or not we were sent to war by a liar and a chimp-like madman.
>
> At the time, yes. But ain't hindsight great? I bet it makes Clinton
> all warm and fuzzy, knowing that thanks to him ignoring a potential
> threat, 3000 died on 9/11. Blair couldn't take the same chance.
Sorry, what? Clinton set up a task force to deal with Al-Quaida. Dubya then canned it. How does this make 9/11 Clintons fault? Also, as there are absolutely NO LINKS AT ALL BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QUAIDA (I'm repeating that because, your rather poor attempt to wither the subject with sarcasm aside, you keep repeating the assertion even though there is not one shred of proof, not even any supported conjecture, to back it up) Jesus, do you just blindly accept what Dubya and Blair say?
Ain't hindsight great? Well yes, it is. But that doesn't really address why, if he was clearly such a threat, millions of people felt the war was happening for no other reason than a resources grab. Lest you try and say "Ah, but they didn't have access to the info the government did", then why did 2 senior members of government resign as well?
>
> 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.
>
> So he's a coward? What did you expect?
Well, I'm showing that your point about how his first words were "I'll negoiate", how that was proof that he wouldn't use WMD, and your wilful ignorance of Saddams repeated statements to rise up and kill the occupiers, is absolute nonsense. In fact, by acknowledging his cowardice, you're sorta doing my job for me; if he's such a coward why didn't he fire off his WMD?
>
> 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?
>
> LIES FROM WHO????????????? I ask you, prove he lied. No, no,
> prove somebody lied. I've got 5 investigations saying he didn't, you
> show me one saying he did. And if the intel was wrong, thats oh so
> different from a lie.
Yeah, you asked for documentary proof showing that he lied. Bearing in mind that, to date, not one investigation into the war has been allowed to investigate the governments handling of the intel, what you're asking for is impossible, isn't it? Those investigations didn't look at the government and how they reacted, and I repeat my accusation that you're being incredibly dishonest in trying to imply that they did.
As for the lies, well I refer you to the earlier point that almost all of the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Blair handled the situation ineptly at best, and lied about it at worst. You've still not properly answered that beyond saying "Show me proof" (which, as I've explained, is unreasonable of you bearing in mind the sort of proof you want) or "The investigations....show the government didn't lie" (which, as I've also said, is dishonest of you).
>
> 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.
>
> Before the war, there was more than enough evidence to justify the
> war. If its not true, its MI6's fault! I'll say it again, all the
> stuff Blair was hearing from MI6, the CIA etc.. was pointing to WMD.
> How, in the name of Zeus's but-hole, could you have expected him to
> ignore it???
Because, like I've repeatedly said and like you've repeatedly ignore, there are numerous other nations who may be or are developing WMD and we do precisely nothing about them. What marked Iraq out as such a special case that we HAD to do something?
And I'd like to ask you again; if you expected him not to ignore it, why is he ignoring the other nations with WMD?
MI6 and the intelligence services certainly deserve censure. But as there have been no investigations into the governments handling of the land grab, how can you sit there and demand documentary proof of their dishonesty/ineptitude when the only such documents that will exist (if any; I don't totally discount the possibility that Blair DID act for the right reasons, but whilst all the cirsumstantial evidence says he did not, I doubt it) are classified and will remain so for at least 50 years?
As a further point, do you think this landgrab would have went ahead if it was just the UK involved? If not, why not?
>
> 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?
>
> Jesus, don't you get it? Governments support who they see as the
> lesser of two evils. At the time, the US were more concerned with
> Russia than pesants in mountains.
> And yes, we should neutralise threats, by what ever means possible.
> If i had my way, we would sort out N. Korea, and Mugabe(sp?), and
> others, by whatever means possible.
Ahh, so now we're going from the moral high ground of "We had to remove Saddam, he's a monster and Iraqi's are better off" to "Well, it's okay for some people to suffer just so long as we're gaining a strategic benefit from it".
You hypocrite Skarra. You've spent an age saying that you believed removing Saddam was a good enough reason. And you know what? I believed that you believed it. Your sneering comment about peasants in mountains rather gives away that you don't regard the Iraqi's (or any of the other little brown men that the west war upon with depressing regularity) as worth much of a damn. This probably seems rather trite, but I'm incredibly disillusioned with you. I thought you were someone who had beliefs, and it seems you're just another pragmatist who will believe what he is told.
To stick with your point though; if the US thought the mujahadeen were the lesser of two evils...well, that's backfired. They were wrong. BADLY wrong, and they showed that they didn't really think much beyond "Lets annoy USSR". Why, in the absence of so much evidence, are you so determined that they and the UK are right this time?
>
> 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?
>
> In certain circumstances and context, yes. There were a lot of major
> maybes about Iraqs WMD capability, some that we just cound't be
> ignored, and had to be acted upon.
Okay; what circumstances and context? What are these unique circumstances that made Iraq such a threat when other nations with WMD are not?
> 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.
>
> Sometimes i just talk to make sounds.
Heh. Okay, that made me laugh. Even so, you're just trying to deflect from the point; what exactly are you trying to say with your comments about "troops on the streets"?
>
> 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.
>
> In America, yes, it was.
And as America are the main driving force behind this whole land grab, how come you're willing to blindly accept their oversimplifications (as espoused by Blair) whilst roundly condemning any simplification that suggests that Blair and Dubya acted out of anything other than pure motives? We've done little more than follow America's lead. If their motives are grossly oversimplified, can't you accept that maybe the justifications Blair gave are equally worthless?
>
> To the Blair haters, who see anything bad in Government as Blairs
> personal fault.
> Again, prove he lied. He may have been wrong, but he was just going
> on what numerous intel agencies told him.
Okay; you're staying desperate. Prove he lied? I've already addressed why the stanard of proof you're desperate to enforce is simply unrealistic. And I'll repeat; if he blindly accepts intel on such a contentious issue then he's an appallingly weak willed leader (remember the millions who thought the war was unjustified? you would have thought he'd maybe take that into account when he looked at the evidence based on hearsay, wouldn't you?).
I mean, is that all this is to you? "I believed Blair, ergo I must continue to believe him and try and prove him right". You seem to view anyone who despises that grinning charlatan as nothing more than "the enemy", and you're not making any effort whatsoever to understand what drives people to dislike him because of the war. You're just trying to write off any and all anti-war arguments as stemming from a cabal of evil Blair haters. And I'm afraid that's not the case. In fact, to steal one of your arguments, you're oversimplifying the issue greatly.
> 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?
>
> Why hasn't it achieved much?
First of all, here is another poll which states the majority of Iraqi's want the coalition gone;
[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm[/URL]
I'm not saying this poll is any more of less correct than the one you cite. I AM claiming however that I've shown proof of it. I'll ask again; who conducted that poll?
Now; why hasn't it achieved much? Well, because vast swathes of Iraq are still without power, the number of Iraqi's who have actually benefitted from the money awarded for reconstruction contracts (ie. been paid to do any reconstruction work) seems to be minimal, and it's now tainted with accusations of corruption among the US administrators up to and including Bremner himself. Not to mention the popular uprising in Tikrit (and I say popular because this one seems to have been instigated by Shi'a Iraqis, not Saddam-supporting Sunnis, or foreign insurgents), which shows thatm although reconstruction work is starting, the Iraqis don't want the American or UK troops there whilst it does.
>
> 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?
>
> Al right, i'll re-phraes. Benefits of victory.
Rephrase it if you like; doesn't change that the we're saying the war happened BECAUSE of the benefits, and now you're shrugging off the fact that Iraqi 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?
Tell me; how is that any better than "spoils of war"?
>
> 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".
>
> I see little proof, besides the absence of proof. There are still
> thousands of bodies un-accounted for in Bosnia and Kosovo, did that
> mean they never died? No.
Well, as it happens there is a well supported theory that states the figures for deaths in Bosnia and Kosovo were overstated in order to get public and UN backing for the intervention, but I digress...
That pretty much says it all about your opinion on this; "I see no proof". You don't see any signed documents in other words. Yet at the same time, you're willing to defend to the point of parody the reasons for going to war, despite the fact that not a single one of them has any proof.
I repeat; you're a hypocrite. Moreover, you're a zealot. You're demanding proof from everyone opposing you whilst offering none up of your own, if for no other reason than anything that was offered as proof has been roundly discredited.
>
> Second point; how in the hell do you know what the circumstances
> were
> around the 1953 regime change?
>
> 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.
>
> The, what, 1993 WTC bombings, and the big one of 9/11. It may not be
> safer, but i'm sure those 3000 souls who died on 9/11 don't think it
> could be much more damgerous.
>
Right; I said BEFORE the war on terror. Being as how 9/11 was the trigger for that, it's rather disingenous of you to try and pass that off, no? Especially when it's now been shown that, had Dubya not binned the anti Al-Quaida initiative set up by Clinton, then perhaps it would never have happened.
Anyway, even allowing for that, that's 2. Since then, there has been Bali, the attempts of Richard Reid (the shoebomber), the constant bombings in Iraq, bombings in Turkey, the bomb in Madrid, and so many terror alerts that I've lost count.
I repeat; compare how many atrocities and bombs are Al-Quaida's doing now to how many they were responsible for prior to Dubya and Blairs land grab. Doesn't it seem that there are a lot more now than there were then?
> I have to go... I'll finish later.
I look forward to it. My apologies for any offense I'm causing to you, but I do stand by what I'm saying.
>
> How should i know. All i do know is that their intelligence was
> pointing at WMD too. Maybe the fact that they were getting richer
> from Saddam in power had something to do with it.
Whilst of course, the US (being the biggest buyers of Iraqi oil up to and including the start of the land grab) weren't profiting at all, oh nononononono...
Is that it? Is that your argument? "How should I know" followed by a vague attempt to make the two nations mentioned seem like evil traitors profiting from misery whilst conveniently ignoring that we and the US do exactly the same?
Regardless, you've pretty much ruined your own point about how "All intel pointed at Iraq maybe having WMD so we HAD to do something". Most nations in the world didn't think so. And they weren't profiting from Saddam any more than the UK and US.
>
> Because the UN is useless. It really is. Look at Kosovo, the UN
> didn't want to intervene there either, thats why i don't care who
> they criticise.
Ah, right; so having started off trying to use UN reports to give a veneer of legitmacy to your argument that Tony is pure and sweet and good, you're now saying they're useless. Which is odd, as you also just tried to say that the breach of the UN resolution was reason enough. Yet now you claim you don't care. Okay, that's cool; just means that you've pretty much destroyed your whole initial argument, based as it was on trying to emphasise the UN resolution and their own intel.
>
> UN Reports? Would these be the reports of the weapons inspectors
> that
> were totally dismissed by the US and UK?
>
> The UN ignored them aswell. Old Hansy boy said Iraq had disarmed, but
> then 1441 sais 'we don't believe hime'.
Now who's oversimplifying?
The UN said that there was cause to believe Saddam wasn't telling the whole truth, and further inspections were needed to verify that he was. That's a world away from the UN saying "We don't believe him, lets go to war". And it's rather dishonest of you to imply that the UN had similar views to the US and UK when
A - It didn't, and the US and UK flouted the UN
B - You've just (rather petulantly in my opinion) said that the UN is worthless.
>
> Because everybody is saying Blair lied and was wrong. Yet 5 seperate
> investigations, includiing 3 Parliamentry, not by the Government, by
> Parliament, have shown no evidence to say he lied. The intel may have
> been wrong, but could Blair risk ignoring it??? Of course not.
Ah yes; all investigations which have clearly stated that their remit is NOT to comment on how the government used the intel? Is that what you mean? Mm, funny how they don't criticise the government when they've already made clear that the governmental actions are beyond the scope of their investigation, isn't it? That's more dishonesty on your part for trying to claim that the government is cleared, when the government hasn't even been investigated yet.
As for the "Could Blair risk ignoring it" cack that you continue to cling to; I ask again, how come every other nation in the world felt they could risk ignoring it? And what about the huge number of other nations ran by tinpot dictators that are developing WMD? What about North Korea? Why are you repeatedly blinding yourself to all the evidence that points to this war being a resources grab to benefit a few? How can you simply ignore the fact that all the reasons given before the war have been shown to be lies?
>
> Because everything the Government used, the JIC signed off on. If it
> wasn't right, they should have said so, rather than, 'oh, yeah, i
> suppose you can put that in there'.
Ah yes; the caveats that were removed before it's publication. And lets not forget, at the time of the report the US and UK governments had already made it clear what iraq's eventual fate would be. I wonder whether or not the report provided was more to do with telling them what they wanted to hear? In which case, it's not just our government who are worthless.
>
> 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.
>
> There's a difference though. N. Korea havn't invaded another country
> for a good long while now. Plus, they havn't actually used their WMD,
> wheras Saddam has. N. Korea has been contained for 50 years, with few
> problems. Iraq hadn't, and needed to be.
No, they're just still officially at war, and why would a nation at war want to use WMD? Oh...
Saddam used his WMD? What, the mustard gas we sold him? Guess what? So has Ethiopia. And Eritrea. And possibly Sudan. Those three nations are destabilising that region of Africa. How come we're not doing anything about them?
Granted, Iraq has invaded another country recently. Oh...so have Ethiopia and Eritrea. Yet nothing happens there. Why could that be I wonder?
You're also ignoring the point about the intel being secondhand, and there being a number of other nations with aggressive histories who "might" be developing WMD, not to mention the ones who ARE developing them.
Have you noticed Skarra that each of the arguments you're using fall apart when applied to the rest of the world. The only justification for applying them to Iraq and nowhere else would be that Iraq is a special case. Now what makes it special apart from it's oil?
>
> 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?
>
> I'm not, their just alternative stand point. If i believed i was
> threatened(as Blair felt, and had been told, Britain was) i'd do what
> ever it took to ensure my survival. Had you been in Blairs place, and
> been told Iraq had WMD, as Blair was, could you really have ignored
> it, and just said, 'its ok, i'm sure it will go away somehow'. Of
> course you couldn't.
Threatened? Iraq was a threat to us then eh?
What a complete and utter crock of old mans pants. If you believe that Skarra, then you're far more blindly accepting than I gave you credit for. All the lies we were told about this 'threat' have been thoroughly discredited. Yet you're still saying "We were told by Tony that he was dangerous". This is despite the fact that the only place Saddam ever destabilised was the Middle East (and this land grab has already done that as well as he ever managed...). Had I been in Blairs place, I'd be getting reports all the time about nations having WMD, or developing them. Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan....and yet, we're not invading them. If you honestly think we should have someone who is (judging by what you're saying) so nervous and timid that he'll authorise an invasion on the basis of chinese whispers...well, I'm gonna disagree with you, because we'll always be at war.
But we're not always at war, are we? Only with Iraq...so he can't be so timid as to be terrified at a simple report saying a nation MIGHT have WMD. So there must have been more to the decision to invade, right?
> Why? Common sense/ history dictates Saddam was a threat. You prove
> otherwise. Can you? Ok, don't prove he wasn;t a threat. Just ask
> yourself. 'Am i 100% sure he wasn't a threat?' For me, the SAM sites
> firing on patrol aircraft before the war tells me that he was just a
> bit of a threat. And thats just one small thing.
Am I 100% sure he wasn't a threat? No, of course not. However, I'm 99.9% certain that whatever threat he posed was no greater than the threat currently posed by the destabilising of the entire middle east at the behest of a chimp and a grinning liar.
SAM missile sites firing? Would you care to discuss the incidences of North Korean troops opening fire at their South Korean counterparts, as well as the rhetoric they use about destroying their neighbours? Are you 100% sure THEY'RE not a threat? If so, why? And if not, then why aren't we invading them?
> 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.
>
> I can't. I guess it wasn't true then. If the UN didn't know about it,
> it musn't have been happening then.
Heheheh. Most enjoyable watching you get annoyed at losing part of an argument. And you accept it so gracefully too.
You're trying to have it all ways Skarra; when the evidence supports your spoonfed view, you're all for it. When it doesn't, then the UN are rubbish and so is anyone else who disagrees. I hate to say this, because you're generally better informed than this, but you're travelling down the bitter road of Belldandy on this one.
And it's not just the UN is it? No reports provided by the US or UK said there were links between Iraq and Al-Quaida, did they?
So anyway; you've previously hinted that you think there were Al-Quaida cells in Iraq. You've provided no proof, and only been able to muster a fairly poor amount of sarcasm as an attempt to rebutt the evidence that no, there were none. Call me pedantic, but I'd say that means you simply have not proof and don't want to admit that another plank in Tony's series of lies and half truths has been knocked out.
>
> I'm defending Blair, thats why. How's it his fault he was told Iraq
> has WMD? He had to act, and i know i, and probably you, would have
> done the same.
Don't presume that I think the same way as you. No, I wouldn't have acted in the same way as Blair because, as I've made clear throughout (and as you keep ignoring), there are so many countries with dodgy leaders who are developing WMD and under your logic, you seem to think that we should declare war on them all. Would I send people to die in an unpopular war on the basis of hearsay? No. Would you? If so, where would you stop? Which nations wouldn't you invade?
You're defending Blair; fine. But you're doing it blindly, and you're deliberately trying to ignore the evidence that goes against him, and frankly that just makes you seem foolish because you're only debating half the facts. If you actually acknowledge all the facts and still defend him...well, I'll still disagree with you, but I'll have a damn site more respect for you for at least defending him properly.
> He was in 1991, why not now? In 1991, he wasn't sure if the troops
> were coming for him, they were all the way up to Karbala at points.
> Imagine a fight, two on one. What does the one do, just start
> swinging away, knowning it wouldn't make the smallest bit of
> difference, or leg it and stand a chance of just hiding until
> something permanent can happen?
Yes, he wasn't sure the troops were coming for him yet he still used the most devastating weapon at his disposal; scorched earth. In this instance, he DID know they were coming for him. Yet no WMD were used. Only conventional weapons. And no WMD have yet been found. And all the intel that said he had some has been utterly discredited.
Do you think the scorched earth of 91 made any more than the smallest difference? No? But he did that. Funny; you seem to invest Saddam with full powers of common sense and reasoning when you want him to act in a way that backs up your defence of Blair. The rest of the time, you want to show him as a ravening monster who wants to use WMD against the whole world. Show some consistency Skarra cos this is something else that fatally weakens you're argument.
> I was just trying to get across that the war, from Blairs
> perspective, was right.
> And as for me asking for proof, how can you, for many, many months,
> be using conjecture(as theres no proof) to support your point, and
> not allow me to do the same. That Intel may be wrong, but at the
> time, it was very, very plausible. Only Blix said Iraq didn't have
> WMD, even the UN security council didn't accept that, and yet you
> wern't backing up all the inteligence agency experts then(from France
> and Germany too), even though the overwhelming majority, all said
> Iraq had WMD. I'll say it again, how can Blair have ever ignored
> this????????????? HE COULDNT!!!
And I'm trying to get across the point that you're being incredibly selective in what you acknowledge in order to preserve your opinion of Blair.
Your point about proof is nonsensical; you say that we use conjecture so why can't you do the same? Well, at no point has anyone said you can't. However, in addition to that you're demanding full documentary proof of whatever the anti-war group say. That's hardly conjecture, is it?
The intel was plausible? How come millions across the world said "This is lies and b******t".
How could Blair ignore it? Well, seeing as he clearly ignores the intel on North Korea, Ethiopea, Eritrea, etc I'd say that he can ignore it quite easily. What's more, your repeating of the dishonest misrepresentation about the UN Security councils opinon on Blix's report (which I've dealt with earlier), coupled with your repeated, almost talismanic, insistence that Blair couldn't ignore it whilst you continue to either ignore the points about other nations being just as much of a threat, or produce spurious reasons for them not being a threat, or giving nothing more than a sarcastic aside in the hope that I'll drop the point, indicates to me that you're far more interested in your opinion being right than you are interested in finding out whether or not we were sent to war by a liar and a chimp-like madman.
>
> At the time, yes. But ain't hindsight great? I bet it makes Clinton
> all warm and fuzzy, knowing that thanks to him ignoring a potential
> threat, 3000 died on 9/11. Blair couldn't take the same chance.
Sorry, what? Clinton set up a task force to deal with Al-Quaida. Dubya then canned it. How does this make 9/11 Clintons fault? Also, as there are absolutely NO LINKS AT ALL BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QUAIDA (I'm repeating that because, your rather poor attempt to wither the subject with sarcasm aside, you keep repeating the assertion even though there is not one shred of proof, not even any supported conjecture, to back it up) Jesus, do you just blindly accept what Dubya and Blair say?
Ain't hindsight great? Well yes, it is. But that doesn't really address why, if he was clearly such a threat, millions of people felt the war was happening for no other reason than a resources grab. Lest you try and say "Ah, but they didn't have access to the info the government did", then why did 2 senior members of government resign as well?
>
> 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.
>
> So he's a coward? What did you expect?
Well, I'm showing that your point about how his first words were "I'll negoiate", how that was proof that he wouldn't use WMD, and your wilful ignorance of Saddams repeated statements to rise up and kill the occupiers, is absolute nonsense. In fact, by acknowledging his cowardice, you're sorta doing my job for me; if he's such a coward why didn't he fire off his WMD?
>
> 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?
>
> LIES FROM WHO????????????? I ask you, prove he lied. No, no,
> prove somebody lied. I've got 5 investigations saying he didn't, you
> show me one saying he did. And if the intel was wrong, thats oh so
> different from a lie.
Yeah, you asked for documentary proof showing that he lied. Bearing in mind that, to date, not one investigation into the war has been allowed to investigate the governments handling of the intel, what you're asking for is impossible, isn't it? Those investigations didn't look at the government and how they reacted, and I repeat my accusation that you're being incredibly dishonest in trying to imply that they did.
As for the lies, well I refer you to the earlier point that almost all of the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Blair handled the situation ineptly at best, and lied about it at worst. You've still not properly answered that beyond saying "Show me proof" (which, as I've explained, is unreasonable of you bearing in mind the sort of proof you want) or "The investigations....show the government didn't lie" (which, as I've also said, is dishonest of you).
>
> 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.
>
> Before the war, there was more than enough evidence to justify the
> war. If its not true, its MI6's fault! I'll say it again, all the
> stuff Blair was hearing from MI6, the CIA etc.. was pointing to WMD.
> How, in the name of Zeus's but-hole, could you have expected him to
> ignore it???
Because, like I've repeatedly said and like you've repeatedly ignore, there are numerous other nations who may be or are developing WMD and we do precisely nothing about them. What marked Iraq out as such a special case that we HAD to do something?
And I'd like to ask you again; if you expected him not to ignore it, why is he ignoring the other nations with WMD?
MI6 and the intelligence services certainly deserve censure. But as there have been no investigations into the governments handling of the land grab, how can you sit there and demand documentary proof of their dishonesty/ineptitude when the only such documents that will exist (if any; I don't totally discount the possibility that Blair DID act for the right reasons, but whilst all the cirsumstantial evidence says he did not, I doubt it) are classified and will remain so for at least 50 years?
As a further point, do you think this landgrab would have went ahead if it was just the UK involved? If not, why not?
>
> 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?
>
> Jesus, don't you get it? Governments support who they see as the
> lesser of two evils. At the time, the US were more concerned with
> Russia than pesants in mountains.
> And yes, we should neutralise threats, by what ever means possible.
> If i had my way, we would sort out N. Korea, and Mugabe(sp?), and
> others, by whatever means possible.
Ahh, so now we're going from the moral high ground of "We had to remove Saddam, he's a monster and Iraqi's are better off" to "Well, it's okay for some people to suffer just so long as we're gaining a strategic benefit from it".
You hypocrite Skarra. You've spent an age saying that you believed removing Saddam was a good enough reason. And you know what? I believed that you believed it. Your sneering comment about peasants in mountains rather gives away that you don't regard the Iraqi's (or any of the other little brown men that the west war upon with depressing regularity) as worth much of a damn. This probably seems rather trite, but I'm incredibly disillusioned with you. I thought you were someone who had beliefs, and it seems you're just another pragmatist who will believe what he is told.
To stick with your point though; if the US thought the mujahadeen were the lesser of two evils...well, that's backfired. They were wrong. BADLY wrong, and they showed that they didn't really think much beyond "Lets annoy USSR". Why, in the absence of so much evidence, are you so determined that they and the UK are right this time?
>
> 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?
>
> In certain circumstances and context, yes. There were a lot of major
> maybes about Iraqs WMD capability, some that we just cound't be
> ignored, and had to be acted upon.
Okay; what circumstances and context? What are these unique circumstances that made Iraq such a threat when other nations with WMD are not?
> 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.
>
> Sometimes i just talk to make sounds.
Heh. Okay, that made me laugh. Even so, you're just trying to deflect from the point; what exactly are you trying to say with your comments about "troops on the streets"?
>
> 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.
>
> In America, yes, it was.
And as America are the main driving force behind this whole land grab, how come you're willing to blindly accept their oversimplifications (as espoused by Blair) whilst roundly condemning any simplification that suggests that Blair and Dubya acted out of anything other than pure motives? We've done little more than follow America's lead. If their motives are grossly oversimplified, can't you accept that maybe the justifications Blair gave are equally worthless?
>
> To the Blair haters, who see anything bad in Government as Blairs
> personal fault.
> Again, prove he lied. He may have been wrong, but he was just going
> on what numerous intel agencies told him.
Okay; you're staying desperate. Prove he lied? I've already addressed why the stanard of proof you're desperate to enforce is simply unrealistic. And I'll repeat; if he blindly accepts intel on such a contentious issue then he's an appallingly weak willed leader (remember the millions who thought the war was unjustified? you would have thought he'd maybe take that into account when he looked at the evidence based on hearsay, wouldn't you?).
I mean, is that all this is to you? "I believed Blair, ergo I must continue to believe him and try and prove him right". You seem to view anyone who despises that grinning charlatan as nothing more than "the enemy", and you're not making any effort whatsoever to understand what drives people to dislike him because of the war. You're just trying to write off any and all anti-war arguments as stemming from a cabal of evil Blair haters. And I'm afraid that's not the case. In fact, to steal one of your arguments, you're oversimplifying the issue greatly.
> 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?
>
> Why hasn't it achieved much?
First of all, here is another poll which states the majority of Iraqi's want the coalition gone;
[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm[/URL]
I'm not saying this poll is any more of less correct than the one you cite. I AM claiming however that I've shown proof of it. I'll ask again; who conducted that poll?
Now; why hasn't it achieved much? Well, because vast swathes of Iraq are still without power, the number of Iraqi's who have actually benefitted from the money awarded for reconstruction contracts (ie. been paid to do any reconstruction work) seems to be minimal, and it's now tainted with accusations of corruption among the US administrators up to and including Bremner himself. Not to mention the popular uprising in Tikrit (and I say popular because this one seems to have been instigated by Shi'a Iraqis, not Saddam-supporting Sunnis, or foreign insurgents), which shows thatm although reconstruction work is starting, the Iraqis don't want the American or UK troops there whilst it does.
>
> 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?
>
> Al right, i'll re-phraes. Benefits of victory.
Rephrase it if you like; doesn't change that the we're saying the war happened BECAUSE of the benefits, and now you're shrugging off the fact that Iraqi 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?
Tell me; how is that any better than "spoils of war"?
>
> 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".
>
> I see little proof, besides the absence of proof. There are still
> thousands of bodies un-accounted for in Bosnia and Kosovo, did that
> mean they never died? No.
Well, as it happens there is a well supported theory that states the figures for deaths in Bosnia and Kosovo were overstated in order to get public and UN backing for the intervention, but I digress...
That pretty much says it all about your opinion on this; "I see no proof". You don't see any signed documents in other words. Yet at the same time, you're willing to defend to the point of parody the reasons for going to war, despite the fact that not a single one of them has any proof.
I repeat; you're a hypocrite. Moreover, you're a zealot. You're demanding proof from everyone opposing you whilst offering none up of your own, if for no other reason than anything that was offered as proof has been roundly discredited.
>
> Second point; how in the hell do you know what the circumstances
> were
> around the 1953 regime change?
>
> 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.
>
> The, what, 1993 WTC bombings, and the big one of 9/11. It may not be
> safer, but i'm sure those 3000 souls who died on 9/11 don't think it
> could be much more damgerous.
>
Right; I said BEFORE the war on terror. Being as how 9/11 was the trigger for that, it's rather disingenous of you to try and pass that off, no? Especially when it's now been shown that, had Dubya not binned the anti Al-Quaida initiative set up by Clinton, then perhaps it would never have happened.
Anyway, even allowing for that, that's 2. Since then, there has been Bali, the attempts of Richard Reid (the shoebomber), the constant bombings in Iraq, bombings in Turkey, the bomb in Madrid, and so many terror alerts that I've lost count.
I repeat; compare how many atrocities and bombs are Al-Quaida's doing now to how many they were responsible for prior to Dubya and Blairs land grab. Doesn't it seem that there are a lot more now than there were then?
> I have to go... I'll finish later.
I look forward to it. My apologies for any offense I'm causing to you, but I do stand by what I'm saying.
Light wrote:
> 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?
How should i know. All i do know is that their intelligence was pointing at WMD too. Maybe the fact that they were getting richer from Saddam in power had something to do with it.
> 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?
Because the UN is useless. It really is. Look at Kosovo, the UN didn't want to intervene there either, thats why i don't care who they criticise.
> UN Reports? Would these be the reports of the weapons inspectors that
> were totally dismissed by the US and UK?
The UN ignored them aswell. Old Hansy boy said Iraq had disarmed, but then 1441 sais 'we don't believe hime'.
> 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."
Because everybody is saying Blair lied and was wrong. Yet 5 seperate investigations, includiing 3 Parliamentry, not by the Government, by Parliament, have shown no evidence to say he lied. The intel may have been wrong, but could Blair risk ignoring it??? Of course not.
> 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?
Because everything the Government used, the JIC signed off on. If it wasn't right, they should have said so, rather than, 'oh, yeah, i suppose you can put that in there'.
> 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.
There's a difference though. N. Korea havn't invaded another country for a good long while now. Plus, they havn't actually used their WMD, wheras Saddam has. N. Korea has been contained for 50 years, with few problems. Iraq hadn't, and needed to be.
> 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?
I'm not, their just alternative stand point. If i believed i was threatened(as Blair felt, and had been told, Britain was) i'd do what ever it took to ensure my survival. Had you been in Blairs place, and been told Iraq had WMD, as Blair was, could you really have ignored it, and just said, 'its ok, i'm sure it will go away somehow'. Of course you couldn't.
> 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.
Why? Common sense/ history dictates Saddam was a threat. You prove otherwise. Can you? Ok, don't prove he wasn;t a threat. Just ask yourself. 'Am i 100% sure he wasn't a threat?' For me, the SAM sites firing on patrol aircraft before the war tells me that he was just a bit of a threat. And thats just one small thing.
> 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.
I can't. I guess it wasn't true then. If the UN didn't know about it, it musn't have been happening then.
> 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?
I'm defending Blair, thats why. How's it his fault he was told Iraq has WMD? He had to act, and i know i, and probably you, would have done the same.
> 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?
He was in 1991, why not now? In 1991, he wasn't sure if the troops were coming for him, they were all the way up to Karbala at points.
Imagine a fight, two on one. What does the one do, just start swinging away, knowning it wouldn't make the smallest bit of difference, or leg it and stand a chance of just hiding until something permanent can happen?
> 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.
I was just trying to get across that the war, from Blairs perspective, was right.
And as for me asking for proof, how can you, for many, many months, be using conjecture(as theres no proof) to support your point, and not allow me to do the same. That Intel may be wrong, but at the time, it was very, very plausible. Only Blix said Iraq didn't have WMD, even the UN security council didn't accept that, and yet you wern't backing up all the inteligence agency experts then(from France and Germany too), even though the overwhelming majority, all said Iraq had WMD. I'll say it again, how can Blair have ever ignored this????????????? HE COULDNT!!!
> 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?
At the time, yes. But ain't hindsight great? I bet it makes Clinton all warm and fuzzy, knowing that thanks to him ignoring a potential threat, 3000 died on 9/11. Blair couldn't take the same chance.
> 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.
So he's a coward? What did you expect?
> 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?
LIES FROM WHO????????????? I ask you, prove he lied. No, no, prove somebody lied. I've got 5 investigations saying he didn't, you show me one saying he did. And if the intel was wrong, thats oh so different from a lie.
> 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.
Before the war, there was more than enough evidence to justify the war. If its not true, its MI6's fault! I'll say it again, all the stuff Blair was hearing from MI6, the CIA etc.. was pointing to WMD. How, in the name of Zeus's but-hole, could you have expected him to ignore it???
> 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?
Jesus, don't you get it? Governments support who they see as the lesser of two evils. At the time, the US were more concerned with Russia than pesants in mountains.
And yes, we should neutralise threats, by what ever means possible. If i had my way, we would sort out N. Korea, and Mugabe(sp?), and others, by whatever means possible.
> 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?
In certain circumstances and context, yes. There were a lot of major maybes about Iraqs WMD capability, some that we just cound't be ignored, and had to be acted upon.
> 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.
Sometimes i just talk to make sounds.
> 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.
In America, yes, it was.
> 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?
To the Blair haters, who see anything bad in Government as Blairs personal fault.
Again, prove he lied. He may have been wrong, but he was just going on what numerous intel agencies told him.
> 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?
Why hasn't it achieved much?
> 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?
Al right, i'll re-phraes. Benefits of victory.
> 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".
I see little proof, besides the absence of proof. There are still thousands of bodies un-accounted for in Bosnia and Kosovo, did that mean they never died? No.
> Second point; how in the hell do you know what the circumstances were
> around the 1953 regime change?
> 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.
The, what, 1993 WTC bombings, and the big one of 9/11. It may not be safer, but i'm sure those 3000 souls who died on 9/11 don't think it could be much more damgerous.
I have to go... I'll finish later.
> 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?
How should i know. All i do know is that their intelligence was pointing at WMD too. Maybe the fact that they were getting richer from Saddam in power had something to do with it.
> 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?
Because the UN is useless. It really is. Look at Kosovo, the UN didn't want to intervene there either, thats why i don't care who they criticise.
> UN Reports? Would these be the reports of the weapons inspectors that
> were totally dismissed by the US and UK?
The UN ignored them aswell. Old Hansy boy said Iraq had disarmed, but then 1441 sais 'we don't believe hime'.
> 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."
Because everybody is saying Blair lied and was wrong. Yet 5 seperate investigations, includiing 3 Parliamentry, not by the Government, by Parliament, have shown no evidence to say he lied. The intel may have been wrong, but could Blair risk ignoring it??? Of course not.
> 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?
Because everything the Government used, the JIC signed off on. If it wasn't right, they should have said so, rather than, 'oh, yeah, i suppose you can put that in there'.
> 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.
There's a difference though. N. Korea havn't invaded another country for a good long while now. Plus, they havn't actually used their WMD, wheras Saddam has. N. Korea has been contained for 50 years, with few problems. Iraq hadn't, and needed to be.
> 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?
I'm not, their just alternative stand point. If i believed i was threatened(as Blair felt, and had been told, Britain was) i'd do what ever it took to ensure my survival. Had you been in Blairs place, and been told Iraq had WMD, as Blair was, could you really have ignored it, and just said, 'its ok, i'm sure it will go away somehow'. Of course you couldn't.
> 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.
Why? Common sense/ history dictates Saddam was a threat. You prove otherwise. Can you? Ok, don't prove he wasn;t a threat. Just ask yourself. 'Am i 100% sure he wasn't a threat?' For me, the SAM sites firing on patrol aircraft before the war tells me that he was just a bit of a threat. And thats just one small thing.
> 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.
I can't. I guess it wasn't true then. If the UN didn't know about it, it musn't have been happening then.
> 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?
I'm defending Blair, thats why. How's it his fault he was told Iraq has WMD? He had to act, and i know i, and probably you, would have done the same.
> 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?
He was in 1991, why not now? In 1991, he wasn't sure if the troops were coming for him, they were all the way up to Karbala at points.
Imagine a fight, two on one. What does the one do, just start swinging away, knowning it wouldn't make the smallest bit of difference, or leg it and stand a chance of just hiding until something permanent can happen?
> 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.
I was just trying to get across that the war, from Blairs perspective, was right.
And as for me asking for proof, how can you, for many, many months, be using conjecture(as theres no proof) to support your point, and not allow me to do the same. That Intel may be wrong, but at the time, it was very, very plausible. Only Blix said Iraq didn't have WMD, even the UN security council didn't accept that, and yet you wern't backing up all the inteligence agency experts then(from France and Germany too), even though the overwhelming majority, all said Iraq had WMD. I'll say it again, how can Blair have ever ignored this????????????? HE COULDNT!!!
> 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?
At the time, yes. But ain't hindsight great? I bet it makes Clinton all warm and fuzzy, knowing that thanks to him ignoring a potential threat, 3000 died on 9/11. Blair couldn't take the same chance.
> 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.
So he's a coward? What did you expect?
> 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?
LIES FROM WHO????????????? I ask you, prove he lied. No, no, prove somebody lied. I've got 5 investigations saying he didn't, you show me one saying he did. And if the intel was wrong, thats oh so different from a lie.
> 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.
Before the war, there was more than enough evidence to justify the war. If its not true, its MI6's fault! I'll say it again, all the stuff Blair was hearing from MI6, the CIA etc.. was pointing to WMD. How, in the name of Zeus's but-hole, could you have expected him to ignore it???
> 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?
Jesus, don't you get it? Governments support who they see as the lesser of two evils. At the time, the US were more concerned with Russia than pesants in mountains.
And yes, we should neutralise threats, by what ever means possible. If i had my way, we would sort out N. Korea, and Mugabe(sp?), and others, by whatever means possible.
> 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?
In certain circumstances and context, yes. There were a lot of major maybes about Iraqs WMD capability, some that we just cound't be ignored, and had to be acted upon.
> 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.
Sometimes i just talk to make sounds.
> 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.
In America, yes, it was.
> 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?
To the Blair haters, who see anything bad in Government as Blairs personal fault.
Again, prove he lied. He may have been wrong, but he was just going on what numerous intel agencies told him.
> 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?
Why hasn't it achieved much?
> 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?
Al right, i'll re-phraes. Benefits of victory.
> 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".
I see little proof, besides the absence of proof. There are still thousands of bodies un-accounted for in Bosnia and Kosovo, did that mean they never died? No.
> Second point; how in the hell do you know what the circumstances were
> around the 1953 regime change?
> 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.
The, what, 1993 WTC bombings, and the big one of 9/11. It may not be safer, but i'm sure those 3000 souls who died on 9/11 don't think it could be much more damgerous.
I have to go... I'll finish later.
I agree with Goaty's post, and even more so with Light's.
There is, however, one thing I'd like to add.
Pre-war, Blair stated that but for the WMDs, he would be content for Saddam to remain in power.
When that a**clown cries 'and if you had your way Saddam would still be in power', or he hides behind 'Iraq's a better place...', just remember that according to his own statements, if he'd known the truth about the WMDs, he would have left Saddam in power.
Little. B*tch-faced. Hypocrite.
The way the sneering b****** smears those accusations around, when (assuming he was genuinely incompetent enough to believe his stretched, distorted 'intelligence') he didn't give a toss about whether Iraq was a safer place or whoever the hell was in power, man, the things I could do with a box-cutter.
My personal opinion has for the most part been, and remains, that this could have been a just war, if it had really been conducted for the right reasons and in the right way.
Carpet-bombing civilians (in numbers that dwarfed 9/11), to make sure 'our boys' were slightly safer showed the true value 'we' placed on the lives of the average innocent Iraqi.
F***ing everyone over for rebuilding contracts handed to US companies (and note that the future Iraqi democratic government will not be 'allowed' to escape the oil contracts given to Haliburton by the US for, I think, 25 years. Coalition occupation > democratic government), restricting non-coalition bidding for contracts.
If Iraqi interests were the priority then the contracts would have gone to the best bidders regardless of coalition 'interests', bidding for the biggest oil contracts would not have been restricted to a select group of US companies (with political ties), and the key individuals in the US government wouldn't be making fortunes from the contracts.
And a democratically elected Iraqi government would have genuine control over its own oil reserves.
Balls to that, the conduct of the coalition shows exactly who was the biggest priority throughout this sordid affair.
There is, however, one thing I'd like to add.
Pre-war, Blair stated that but for the WMDs, he would be content for Saddam to remain in power.
When that a**clown cries 'and if you had your way Saddam would still be in power', or he hides behind 'Iraq's a better place...', just remember that according to his own statements, if he'd known the truth about the WMDs, he would have left Saddam in power.
Little. B*tch-faced. Hypocrite.
The way the sneering b****** smears those accusations around, when (assuming he was genuinely incompetent enough to believe his stretched, distorted 'intelligence') he didn't give a toss about whether Iraq was a safer place or whoever the hell was in power, man, the things I could do with a box-cutter.
My personal opinion has for the most part been, and remains, that this could have been a just war, if it had really been conducted for the right reasons and in the right way.
Carpet-bombing civilians (in numbers that dwarfed 9/11), to make sure 'our boys' were slightly safer showed the true value 'we' placed on the lives of the average innocent Iraqi.
F***ing everyone over for rebuilding contracts handed to US companies (and note that the future Iraqi democratic government will not be 'allowed' to escape the oil contracts given to Haliburton by the US for, I think, 25 years. Coalition occupation > democratic government), restricting non-coalition bidding for contracts.
If Iraqi interests were the priority then the contracts would have gone to the best bidders regardless of coalition 'interests', bidding for the biggest oil contracts would not have been restricted to a select group of US companies (with political ties), and the key individuals in the US government wouldn't be making fortunes from the contracts.
And a democratically elected Iraqi government would have genuine control over its own oil reserves.
Balls to that, the conduct of the coalition shows exactly who was the biggest priority throughout this sordid affair.
Goatboy wrote:
> I am ashamed to have that shark-smiling fraud as a Prime Minister
Couldn't agree more.
The Butler Report sums up everything I detest about politics:
The public was sold on a war using intelligence that was either shaky and stripped of any caveats or downright false; knowingly or not, it was all presented as gospel truth.
Blair claims the report exonerates him of telling lies, but I say that he lied by ommission. If a blind man standing by the side of the road asked me if there were any cars coming, I could say 'no', watch him step off the pavement and be mown down by a bus, and still claim that I told no lies - but most people would hold me a teensy little bit responsible for his death.
But Blair won't take responsibility for starting a war on false grounds, or at least he won't take the consequences of doing so.
Bizaare. Either the man is incompetent or he is a liar - both of which would seem to make him unfit for office. I don't want him running my country.
So all that is left is to kick him out at the ballot box. But thanks to the first-past-the-post system I can't even do that. I live in a Labour-Tory marginal, currently held by a Labour MP. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see the spineless, Blair-fellating grinbag flung out on his ear - but he would be replaced by a Tory, and the Tories cheered this war more enthusiastically than anyone. If the Conservatives had had the chance to romp around the desert with Dubya then their lies would have been just as big. My choice is Tony or...worse. Of course I can vote for the greens or the socialists (and I probably will) but nothing will come of it. Nothing. Not a single MP will change their behaviour. The whole BS political cycle will just spin round again.
> I am ashamed to have that shark-smiling fraud as a Prime Minister
Couldn't agree more.
The Butler Report sums up everything I detest about politics:
The public was sold on a war using intelligence that was either shaky and stripped of any caveats or downright false; knowingly or not, it was all presented as gospel truth.
Blair claims the report exonerates him of telling lies, but I say that he lied by ommission. If a blind man standing by the side of the road asked me if there were any cars coming, I could say 'no', watch him step off the pavement and be mown down by a bus, and still claim that I told no lies - but most people would hold me a teensy little bit responsible for his death.
But Blair won't take responsibility for starting a war on false grounds, or at least he won't take the consequences of doing so.
Bizaare. Either the man is incompetent or he is a liar - both of which would seem to make him unfit for office. I don't want him running my country.
So all that is left is to kick him out at the ballot box. But thanks to the first-past-the-post system I can't even do that. I live in a Labour-Tory marginal, currently held by a Labour MP. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see the spineless, Blair-fellating grinbag flung out on his ear - but he would be replaced by a Tory, and the Tories cheered this war more enthusiastically than anyone. If the Conservatives had had the chance to romp around the desert with Dubya then their lies would have been just as big. My choice is Tony or...worse. Of course I can vote for the greens or the socialists (and I probably will) but nothing will come of it. Nothing. Not a single MP will change their behaviour. The whole BS political cycle will just spin round again.
I think Blair has admitted he shouldn't be in power by nearly resigning recently. He's incompetant and as the Council elections have shown, has lost all faith from the British people (let me just add, the ones who voted his party into power and who are partly to blame for the war in doing so).
Although I am glad Saddam isn't in power, I do agree that the war shouldn't have happened the way it did. Military action should have been taken for honest reasons, and not for Britain and America's self profiteering, or looting of a countries resources.
And most importantly, there should have been a referendum into whether or not Britain should have had any involvement at all in the 'military crisis' in Iraq. There was no immediate threat from Saddam, and Saddam himself was suprised that America went ahead with action. The people didn't want a war. Therefore there shouldn't have been one.
Although I am glad Saddam isn't in power, I do agree that the war shouldn't have happened the way it did. Military action should have been taken for honest reasons, and not for Britain and America's self profiteering, or looting of a countries resources.
And most importantly, there should have been a referendum into whether or not Britain should have had any involvement at all in the 'military crisis' in Iraq. There was no immediate threat from Saddam, and Saddam himself was suprised that America went ahead with action. The people didn't want a war. Therefore there shouldn't have been one.
Light wrote:
> Nah, the whole NK thing had been building up for the previous 6 or 7
> years. There was plenty of time to intervene there before they openly
> admitted to possessing nukes. So why wasn't there an intervention
> there, but there was one in Iraq?
Ah ok, didn't think the North Korean leader woke up one day and thought i'll go and try to annoy Bush and get my country blown up to smithereens :-D
> Nah, the whole NK thing had been building up for the previous 6 or 7
> years. There was plenty of time to intervene there before they openly
> admitted to possessing nukes. So why wasn't there an intervention
> there, but there was one in Iraq?
Ah ok, didn't think the North Korean leader woke up one day and thought i'll go and try to annoy Bush and get my country blown up to smithereens :-D
lalakersrule wrote:
> 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.
Nah, the whole NK thing had been building up for the previous 6 or 7 years. There was plenty of time to intervene there before they openly admitted to possessing nukes. So why wasn't there an intervention there, but there was one in Iraq?
>
> 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.
Heh. That, and there isn't much oil in NK. Or much in the way of reconstruction contracts to be handed out, as China would almost certainly have a thing or two to say.
>
>
> 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.
Hell, it's hypocritical of France to criticise war when they assisted the genocide in Rwanda! There aren't any good guys or bad guys in international diplomacy. I've made the point before, but I'll repeat it;
International Diplomacy is like sex; it can be nice and gentle, with wining and dining thus ensuring both parties enjoy it. Or it can be hard, rough, and vicious, up the tradesmans with no vaseline. A bully ramming where one side gets what it wants.
In either case, one side is trying to screw another.
Mind you, I should point out that initially Dubya wanted to stop any countries not directly involved in the war from getting ANY contracts.
> 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.
Nah, the whole NK thing had been building up for the previous 6 or 7 years. There was plenty of time to intervene there before they openly admitted to possessing nukes. So why wasn't there an intervention there, but there was one in Iraq?
>
> 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.
Heh. That, and there isn't much oil in NK. Or much in the way of reconstruction contracts to be handed out, as China would almost certainly have a thing or two to say.
>
>
> 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.
Hell, it's hypocritical of France to criticise war when they assisted the genocide in Rwanda! There aren't any good guys or bad guys in international diplomacy. I've made the point before, but I'll repeat it;
International Diplomacy is like sex; it can be nice and gentle, with wining and dining thus ensuring both parties enjoy it. Or it can be hard, rough, and vicious, up the tradesmans with no vaseline. A bully ramming where one side gets what it wants.
In either case, one side is trying to screw another.
Mind you, I should point out that initially Dubya wanted to stop any countries not directly involved in the war from getting ANY contracts.
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.
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.
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.
.
>
> 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.
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.
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.
Page: