Viewing Thread:
"There you go."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm

Halliburton contract awarded without bidding expands to cover "pumping and distribution of oil". Originally awarded to cap and control oil field fires.

Sleight of hand, a few mirrors, one airlifted Iraqi kid with no arms and voila.
US troops open fire on crowd killing several, rising anti-US feeling from Iraqi civilians still without basic facilities and what happens?
"Look, we released some people from Camp X-Ray. We care about brown people"
You released people after a year and a half without charge.
*slow clap*

Hussein remains at large. Said they wouldn't kill him before the invasion.
Bin Laden remains at large.

You'll forgive my cynicism at hearing that Halliburton are now able to pump and distribute the oil. I'm sure it's all about liberating those poor civilians.

We should give them some better weapons and training then, just in case...

Yes, good idea. Maybe we should let them keep one or two WOMDs just in case. I'm sure they'll promise not to use them unless it's an emergency.



Is it just me, or does anyone else look at WOMD and think of WOMAD? I can see the headlines now - "US Marines Find WOMAD In Iraq, Controlled Explosion Carried Out".

It almost sounds a bit like WOMACK too. Imagine:

"US troops uncover Womack and Womack hiding in an Iraqi cave; smooth harmonies enjoyed by all, war ended."

I thought of WOMAC WOMAC too, but it was a weak link.

I see W.O.P.R and I would rather play a nice game of chess

Goatboy wrote:
> And "Russia and France also want the UN to follow procedures -
> opposed by Washington - which would require UN arms inspectors to
> declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction before sanctions are
> removed."
>
> So Russia and France suggest that Iraq is officially declared free of
> WOMD before sanctions are repealed.
> And Washington opposes.
> But...I thought the whole point of invading Iraq was to remove these
> WOMD?
>
> I'm confused.

But, to make it even more perplexing, France, Russia et al have all publically said prior to this that they believe there are no WMDs anyway, so why do they suddenly require proof of something they have decided already ?

Hmm.....maybe it's Iraq's $4 billion IOU to Russia.....

Ahhh, remember those salad days when Tony Blair stated as a matter of fact that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction that could be deployed within 45 minutes? Yet now we're in the grubby position of having to scour the country for materials that 'may have been used to create WOMD'.

You'd think that someone so desperate to find WOMD would actually allow the UN inspectors back in to do it, wouldn't you?

Oh, and here's a thing; haven't we been saying that France and Russia are equally as corrupt in their reasons for wanting to avoid war? Yet now there seems to be some sweet idea that anyone anti-war must be pro-France and Russia. Bizarre...

Yes, Blair did state that, but how are we to know the weapons were not subsequently hidden after that, especially as the UN inspectors increased in number, and in terms of equipment available to them, after that statement. Or, and this is theoretical at this point, what if the weapons have gone walkies....if Syria can fail to notice trucks of money, and known Iraqi's, then what else ? Or, those units which had them could have disappeared into the fog of war and have gone rogue with them.

This is pure conjecture, but entirely possible.

I still believe we will find Iraq's illegal WMD's.

I believe it would be a lot easier to try and find our own...

We don't actually need to;

a)We've never used them illegally, as in decided we really didn't like some people and gassed them

b)We don't deny having them, and we have a proper command and control system in place for their use, in other words we don't just tell a major he can fire at will.

c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.

d)None of our biological or chemical stocks are weaponised, and we cannot get rid of all our stocks because to do so means creating counter agents would be impossible. Yes, we can weaponise them but we just don't have the delivery systems for the use of them anyway.

e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no provacation.

Even if you extend the thought to America there is very little not known about their WMD's, primarily consisting of a mix of long range missiles launched from land, sea and air, and bombers, with the B2 Stealth Bomber and the F117 designated as the primary offensive force in any such use.

The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about anyone then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much is fact. They're threatening war if sanctions are imposed by the UN, but if they did that they face a UN coalition, possibly with China and Russia abstaining at worst, and they may find there is a real big difference to saying you can use nuclear weapons, and actually using them. Repositioned B2's are now in place the area in such a way that they can be airborne and away well before any strike on their base. Does N.Korea fancy it's chances against an aircraft no one has ever shot down ? Whatsmore it's feasable that the F22 Raptor has been deployed also, meaning any such B2 force would be near guaranteed to make it's way intact to the country.

Interesting times....