The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2978286.stm
Amongst the noise about The Euro and David Beckham, this little story has all but slipped under the water.
Anyone think that I'm being too cynical in suggesting the sudden surge of interest in pointless news at a time when Blair is facing the strongest criticism from his own party, the opposition and those that opposed the war in the 1st place?
Nah, couldn't be that.
Amongst the noise about The Euro and David Beckham, this little story has all but slipped under the water.
Anyone think that I'm being too cynical in suggesting the sudden surge of interest in pointless news at a time when Blair is facing the strongest criticism from his own party, the opposition and those that opposed the war in the 1st place?
Nah, couldn't be that.
Wait til he wheels on Jade. Then you know WWIII is round the corner.
sometimes I'm embarrassed to be british
I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It's not the first time for information to be sneaked through like this (sept. 11).
But it still leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
On the information itself.. well, I don't think I need to say anything really.
It's not the first time for information to be sneaked through like this (sept. 11).
But it still leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
On the information itself.. well, I don't think I need to say anything really.
What makes me laugh in an angry manner is Bush/Blair's insistence that "We will find WOMD, no matter how long it takes"
Yet they weren't prepared to let the UN teams "as long as it takes" to find out positive or negative (except all reports were negative).
It seems that whenever things get too hot for governments, some mindless news takes over and buries it.
Ah well
Yet they weren't prepared to let the UN teams "as long as it takes" to find out positive or negative (except all reports were negative).
It seems that whenever things get too hot for governments, some mindless news takes over and buries it.
Ah well
Perhaps it's an indication as to how easily diverted most of the public and media are...
A big fuss over the supposed announcement yesterday, only for Brown to say essentially the same as was said in 1997.
Believe it or not, I think it really must be run down as to whom is responsible for the intelligence indicating WMD in Iraq, and the degree to which they knew them to be false.
I think at this point it's likely that there are no WMD's in Iraq, possibly they are gone or destroyed prior to invasion. The fact remains that reports still said, even as the allied forces crossed the border, there are weapons in Iraq.
I see four possibilities;
1) Government ministers forced the changes to intelligence to jazz it up and hope to gain public support, hoping that in the aftermath weapons would be found, and they did so at the direction of Number 10, but not necessarily Blair.
2) The reports were changed at Blair's direct instruction to provide enough justification to launch a war. Then it comes down to motive, I don't it can be ruled out that it's easier to make the public agree on attacking someone who you make them believe threatens them and their way of life, than it is to dislodge a maniac, and then rebuild the country over many long years.
3) The security services themselves changed the reports, knowing the likelihood of war anyway, giving them a way to discredit the government they may feel ignores them in favour of the American agencies. They may also feel the UK is losing what power it has by increasing alliances with America, and this could be a way of deterring that, and ultimately finishing the current government come next election time. Alternatively elements with the services may be responsible for them.
4) False intelligence was purposely fed to those who gathered it by others.
Whatever the reason, we ended up sending in troops with false intelligence information. That is inexcusable and it should be a major priority to find out how it happened and prevent it again.
On another note, Hans Blix in an interview with the Guardian, reported on CNN Website, refers to Washington as "B£stards" and generally makes angry noises. However he seems to also criticise all the council for pressuring the inspection teams, not just the USA and UK.
A big fuss over the supposed announcement yesterday, only for Brown to say essentially the same as was said in 1997.
Believe it or not, I think it really must be run down as to whom is responsible for the intelligence indicating WMD in Iraq, and the degree to which they knew them to be false.
I think at this point it's likely that there are no WMD's in Iraq, possibly they are gone or destroyed prior to invasion. The fact remains that reports still said, even as the allied forces crossed the border, there are weapons in Iraq.
I see four possibilities;
1) Government ministers forced the changes to intelligence to jazz it up and hope to gain public support, hoping that in the aftermath weapons would be found, and they did so at the direction of Number 10, but not necessarily Blair.
2) The reports were changed at Blair's direct instruction to provide enough justification to launch a war. Then it comes down to motive, I don't it can be ruled out that it's easier to make the public agree on attacking someone who you make them believe threatens them and their way of life, than it is to dislodge a maniac, and then rebuild the country over many long years.
3) The security services themselves changed the reports, knowing the likelihood of war anyway, giving them a way to discredit the government they may feel ignores them in favour of the American agencies. They may also feel the UK is losing what power it has by increasing alliances with America, and this could be a way of deterring that, and ultimately finishing the current government come next election time. Alternatively elements with the services may be responsible for them.
4) False intelligence was purposely fed to those who gathered it by others.
Whatever the reason, we ended up sending in troops with false intelligence information. That is inexcusable and it should be a major priority to find out how it happened and prevent it again.
On another note, Hans Blix in an interview with the Guardian, reported on CNN Website, refers to Washington as "B£stards" and generally makes angry noises. However he seems to also criticise all the council for pressuring the inspection teams, not just the USA and UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2978286.stm
Amongst the noise about The Euro and David Beckham, this little story has all but slipped under the water.
Anyone think that I'm being too cynical in suggesting the sudden surge of interest in pointless news at a time when Blair is facing the strongest criticism from his own party, the opposition and those that opposed the war in the 1st place?
Nah, couldn't be that.
Amongst the noise about The Euro and David Beckham, this little story has all but slipped under the water.
Anyone think that I'm being too cynical in suggesting the sudden surge of interest in pointless news at a time when Blair is facing the strongest criticism from his own party, the opposition and those that opposed the war in the 1st place?
Nah, couldn't be that.