The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/ 06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
Now why would anyone want to hide something like that, eh ?
Now why would anyone want to hide something like that, eh ?
Page:
Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other. The only thing between them would possibly be Hussein turning a blind eye towards training camps, but he wouldn't fund them. Too busy building palaces for that...
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> There has not been a link between terrorism and Iraq, at least not one
> that we know of. I know that the government lied about going to war,
> but they lie all day every day. Invading Iraq, even if the
> justification was not up to scratch, was worth it.
A note on the terrorism/Iraq thing - Jack Straw and the Foreign Affairs Comittee went over that this morning, don't know if transcripts are up on the news sites yet, but anyway, Straw pointed to definite links, said t hat no one in the UN Security Council or the committee itself had challenged them, and no one in the FAC at that time went any further, apart from one guy who said they'd been told Al Queda was linked to Iraq, to which Straw asked him to say when this had been said, and again there was no evidence of it being said other than in the media.
> There has not been a link between terrorism and Iraq, at least not one
> that we know of. I know that the government lied about going to war,
> but they lie all day every day. Invading Iraq, even if the
> justification was not up to scratch, was worth it.
A note on the terrorism/Iraq thing - Jack Straw and the Foreign Affairs Comittee went over that this morning, don't know if transcripts are up on the news sites yet, but anyway, Straw pointed to definite links, said t hat no one in the UN Security Council or the committee itself had challenged them, and no one in the FAC at that time went any further, apart from one guy who said they'd been told Al Queda was linked to Iraq, to which Straw asked him to say when this had been said, and again there was no evidence of it being said other than in the media.
Couple of points. Pinochet WAS of help during the Falklands. We can't put a number on how many lives were saved but some certainly were. By the time he came here he was an old frail man. There would have been no point in jailing him.
Also, despite what public opinion of the British security services is they are better than they are given credit for. An acquaintance of mine is with them, he joined from the SBS. They do avoid publicity and do a very good job. At any given time there are lots of threats that we don't hear about that are dealt with. They make our country a safer place.
On the other hand the US agencies are attention seeking. Sure they don't air their secrets but they are always after attention. That is because the more they do the more money they get.
There has not been a link between terrorism and Iraq, at least not one that we know of. I know that the government lied about going to war, but they lie all day every day. Invading Iraq, even if the justification was not up to scratch, was worth it.
Also, despite what public opinion of the British security services is they are better than they are given credit for. An acquaintance of mine is with them, he joined from the SBS. They do avoid publicity and do a very good job. At any given time there are lots of threats that we don't hear about that are dealt with. They make our country a safer place.
On the other hand the US agencies are attention seeking. Sure they don't air their secrets but they are always after attention. That is because the more they do the more money they get.
There has not been a link between terrorism and Iraq, at least not one that we know of. I know that the government lied about going to war, but they lie all day every day. Invading Iraq, even if the justification was not up to scratch, was worth it.
Goatboy wrote:
> My problems have been with the lies, deceptions, deliberate
> scaremongering and bald-faced ignorance in treating the public like
> chattal and whipping them into a frenzy so they were in favour of
> war.
> The methods used, the lies offered as reasons, the Prime Minister
> going on national television to tell us why we should invade, yet
> refusing to give evidence and instead sending Alistair Campbell, a
> non-elected advisor - a bloody spin doctor - as his scapegoat.
>
> Not arguing against invasion, arguing against lies, damn lies and
> statistics used to justify the invasion of another country and removal
> of power through violence.
I can see your point, honestly, but in today's political climate the only way any politician will convince a public to go to war is by making it so that that public is the ones at risk if no action is taken. How many will support a war to bring about regime change in a country far away whom most will never ever see ? Won't happen. It's for that same reason that we cannot intervene elsewhere in the world, the public generally won't go for it unless they think something will change their lives if we don't.
> But you dont understand that, just as you dont understand that
> anti-war doesn't mean pacifist, that anti-Blair doesn't mean
> pro-Saddam.
Want to know why I see anti-war as pacifism ? Lack of alternatives. If someone, anyone, could have come up with a plan to remove Saddam, which didn't involve conflict, then I'd be just as happy because at the end of the day, at least I'd hope, we all want the same thing - a finer world for everyone. During the anti-war demo's, every single spokeperson that was interviewed was asked some variation of "how would you suggest the situation be resolved ?", and not one that I saw gave a credible answer, or in most cases even a relevant answer. I only support war's such as that in Iraq when it is clear there is no credible alternative to it.
> *slams head on desk*
> What's the point? After your "I was wait for it" and
> "Changing my life" posts, you give it 3 days and return to
> your same old dodging, non-answering, evasive sneering Belldandy
> self.
With respect, you already know about the "I was wait for it" and you've done a similar one yourself, and the "Changing my life" one did not imply what kind of stance I would take in the future. All I can say is that in every post, from when I said this the first time, I will always post what I honestly believe in.
> You ARE New Labour.
So, you lambast me for saying your anti-war stance is pacifism, then do exactly the same by saying that my support for this and a few other government policies makes me New Labour ? Isn't that rather contradictory ? Honestly, never voted for Tony, I went for the other guy, and will do come next elections, but I am glad that when the situation demanded it that Tony Blair met it full on, and did what I consider to be the right thing.
> My problems have been with the lies, deceptions, deliberate
> scaremongering and bald-faced ignorance in treating the public like
> chattal and whipping them into a frenzy so they were in favour of
> war.
> The methods used, the lies offered as reasons, the Prime Minister
> going on national television to tell us why we should invade, yet
> refusing to give evidence and instead sending Alistair Campbell, a
> non-elected advisor - a bloody spin doctor - as his scapegoat.
>
> Not arguing against invasion, arguing against lies, damn lies and
> statistics used to justify the invasion of another country and removal
> of power through violence.
I can see your point, honestly, but in today's political climate the only way any politician will convince a public to go to war is by making it so that that public is the ones at risk if no action is taken. How many will support a war to bring about regime change in a country far away whom most will never ever see ? Won't happen. It's for that same reason that we cannot intervene elsewhere in the world, the public generally won't go for it unless they think something will change their lives if we don't.
> But you dont understand that, just as you dont understand that
> anti-war doesn't mean pacifist, that anti-Blair doesn't mean
> pro-Saddam.
Want to know why I see anti-war as pacifism ? Lack of alternatives. If someone, anyone, could have come up with a plan to remove Saddam, which didn't involve conflict, then I'd be just as happy because at the end of the day, at least I'd hope, we all want the same thing - a finer world for everyone. During the anti-war demo's, every single spokeperson that was interviewed was asked some variation of "how would you suggest the situation be resolved ?", and not one that I saw gave a credible answer, or in most cases even a relevant answer. I only support war's such as that in Iraq when it is clear there is no credible alternative to it.
> *slams head on desk*
> What's the point? After your "I was wait for it" and
> "Changing my life" posts, you give it 3 days and return to
> your same old dodging, non-answering, evasive sneering Belldandy
> self.
With respect, you already know about the "I was wait for it" and you've done a similar one yourself, and the "Changing my life" one did not imply what kind of stance I would take in the future. All I can say is that in every post, from when I said this the first time, I will always post what I honestly believe in.
> You ARE New Labour.
So, you lambast me for saying your anti-war stance is pacifism, then do exactly the same by saying that my support for this and a few other government policies makes me New Labour ? Isn't that rather contradictory ? Honestly, never voted for Tony, I went for the other guy, and will do come next elections, but I am glad that when the situation demanded it that Tony Blair met it full on, and did what I consider to be the right thing.
Goatboy wrote:
> I am saying, using your logic, if we see fit to go after Hussein for
> murdering and brutally oppressing his own people then we must pursue
> Mugabe for doing exactly the same thing. Many African leaders see no
> problem with him (?), yet the international community has shunned
> him.
You mean like France ? Make no mistake, if it was left to me then we'd, as in the USA, UK and anyone else who wanted to join, would intervene in Zimbabwe, Liberia, in fact anywhere that tyrants and dictators oppress and murder, no matter who originally put them into power.
In Mugabe's case the OAU (Orgnisation of African Unity), South Africa and Nigeria have either supported or said nothing against Mugabe at all, along with the leaders of Kenya, Nambibia, Tanzania. Of these, South Africa and Nigeria are the most problematic, because under Commonwealth treaties it is these two who could have implemented certain sanctions against Mugabe, they didn't, and won't.
> And....hang on a moment, I've just read your response concerning
> Pinochet
> Are you actually, seriously suggesting that he was a good man? Or that
> we can excuse his murderous, brutal dictatorship because of his
> "help" in the Falklands?????
> What help was this exactly?
I'm not saying he was a good man, he wasn't, but the fact remains that, as our forces sailed to the Falklands, he informed our government that the Argentinians had acquired exocet and super etendard missiles. These are devastating anti-ship/submarine weapons. His own intelligence service further located them to their airbase storage facility on southern coast. If we had not known of them then our ships would have been massacred. Then, unprompted, Pinochet made it clear that should any UK forces somehow turn up at the Argentine/Chile border then he'd make sure that they would be safely returned to us. On Monday 17th, near a chilean village, the burnt out wreck of a Sea King was found, it's three crew turned up in England a week later. Years after the war, it came to light that, acting on the information, a Sea King had flown a special mission to plant Special Forces to take out the anti-shipping batteries, and then, having safely delivered those forces and been low on fuel, ran for the Chilean border.
So he helped save potentially thousands of our services lives, and in that respect we owed him, hence we rendered help to him when he needed it.
> And, as Blank points out, I'm not going to get drawn into a quote war
> with you.
> Why?
> Halofan.
> Why?
> Pinochet "we owed him something"
> Why?
> Mugabe "African leaders dont have a problem"
>
> Mate, you really, really, honestly can't see why you're a laughing
> stock can you?
Er, mate, as I've detailed above in my answers, the points I've raised are backed by very real evidence.
In the case of the centrifuge, the fact still remains that it was there, and not accounted for until after the regime was gone. Doesn't matter if it was from 1991, I read that, the fact remains that at some point Iraq acquired components such as it, and did so in secret, and the UN Weapons Inspectors found no trace despite 12 years of work. It may not breach IEAE rules, but it was still not found until the person who had hidden it told the CIA. If that can be hidden, whose to say smaller items such as vials etc cannot also be hidden ?
> I am saying, using your logic, if we see fit to go after Hussein for
> murdering and brutally oppressing his own people then we must pursue
> Mugabe for doing exactly the same thing. Many African leaders see no
> problem with him (?), yet the international community has shunned
> him.
You mean like France ? Make no mistake, if it was left to me then we'd, as in the USA, UK and anyone else who wanted to join, would intervene in Zimbabwe, Liberia, in fact anywhere that tyrants and dictators oppress and murder, no matter who originally put them into power.
In Mugabe's case the OAU (Orgnisation of African Unity), South Africa and Nigeria have either supported or said nothing against Mugabe at all, along with the leaders of Kenya, Nambibia, Tanzania. Of these, South Africa and Nigeria are the most problematic, because under Commonwealth treaties it is these two who could have implemented certain sanctions against Mugabe, they didn't, and won't.
> And....hang on a moment, I've just read your response concerning
> Pinochet
> Are you actually, seriously suggesting that he was a good man? Or that
> we can excuse his murderous, brutal dictatorship because of his
> "help" in the Falklands?????
> What help was this exactly?
I'm not saying he was a good man, he wasn't, but the fact remains that, as our forces sailed to the Falklands, he informed our government that the Argentinians had acquired exocet and super etendard missiles. These are devastating anti-ship/submarine weapons. His own intelligence service further located them to their airbase storage facility on southern coast. If we had not known of them then our ships would have been massacred. Then, unprompted, Pinochet made it clear that should any UK forces somehow turn up at the Argentine/Chile border then he'd make sure that they would be safely returned to us. On Monday 17th, near a chilean village, the burnt out wreck of a Sea King was found, it's three crew turned up in England a week later. Years after the war, it came to light that, acting on the information, a Sea King had flown a special mission to plant Special Forces to take out the anti-shipping batteries, and then, having safely delivered those forces and been low on fuel, ran for the Chilean border.
So he helped save potentially thousands of our services lives, and in that respect we owed him, hence we rendered help to him when he needed it.
> And, as Blank points out, I'm not going to get drawn into a quote war
> with you.
> Why?
> Halofan.
> Why?
> Pinochet "we owed him something"
> Why?
> Mugabe "African leaders dont have a problem"
>
> Mate, you really, really, honestly can't see why you're a laughing
> stock can you?
Er, mate, as I've detailed above in my answers, the points I've raised are backed by very real evidence.
In the case of the centrifuge, the fact still remains that it was there, and not accounted for until after the regime was gone. Doesn't matter if it was from 1991, I read that, the fact remains that at some point Iraq acquired components such as it, and did so in secret, and the UN Weapons Inspectors found no trace despite 12 years of work. It may not breach IEAE rules, but it was still not found until the person who had hidden it told the CIA. If that can be hidden, whose to say smaller items such as vials etc cannot also be hidden ?
Goatboy wrote:
> "Unfortunately many African leaders see no problem with him, so
> are you suggesting we get rid of him, yet you argue that there should
> have been no intervention in Iraq ?"
--
One final point Bell:
I have never, at any point, said there should have been no intervention in Iraq except for 1 post where, after another fruitless 2 days arguing with you, I said "balls to it, let him get on with ti"
My problems have been with the lies, deceptions, deliberate scaremongering and bald-faced ignorance in treating the public like chattal and whipping them into a frenzy so they were in favour of war.
The methods used, the lies offered as reasons, the Prime Minister going on national television to tell us why we should invade, yet refusing to give evidence and instead sending Alistair Campbell, a non-elected advisor - a bloody spin doctor - as his scapegoat.
Not arguing against invasion, arguing against lies, damn lies and statistics used to justify the invasion of another country and removal of power through violence.
But you dont understand that, just as you dont understand that anti-war doesn't mean pacifist, that anti-Blair doesn't mean pro-Saddam.
*slams head on desk*
What's the point? After your "I was wait for it" and "Changing my life" posts, you give it 3 days and return to your same old dodging, non-answering, evasive sneering Belldandy self.
You ARE New Labour.
> "Unfortunately many African leaders see no problem with him, so
> are you suggesting we get rid of him, yet you argue that there should
> have been no intervention in Iraq ?"
--
One final point Bell:
I have never, at any point, said there should have been no intervention in Iraq except for 1 post where, after another fruitless 2 days arguing with you, I said "balls to it, let him get on with ti"
My problems have been with the lies, deceptions, deliberate scaremongering and bald-faced ignorance in treating the public like chattal and whipping them into a frenzy so they were in favour of war.
The methods used, the lies offered as reasons, the Prime Minister going on national television to tell us why we should invade, yet refusing to give evidence and instead sending Alistair Campbell, a non-elected advisor - a bloody spin doctor - as his scapegoat.
Not arguing against invasion, arguing against lies, damn lies and statistics used to justify the invasion of another country and removal of power through violence.
But you dont understand that, just as you dont understand that anti-war doesn't mean pacifist, that anti-Blair doesn't mean pro-Saddam.
*slams head on desk*
What's the point? After your "I was wait for it" and "Changing my life" posts, you give it 3 days and return to your same old dodging, non-answering, evasive sneering Belldandy self.
You ARE New Labour.
Ok, fair enough, I havent read the FAC stuff yet so I'll go do so.
As for Mugabe, you're saying because some African leaders (which ones??) are not objecting, then there's no problem?
You are genuinely saying that because a few other 3rd world leaders (who?) dont mind, then that's ok?
"Unfortunately many African leaders see no problem with him, so are you suggesting we get rid of him, yet you argue that there should have been no intervention in Iraq ?"
I am saying, using your logic, if we see fit to go after Hussein for murdering and brutally oppressing his own people then we must pursue Mugabe for doing exactly the same thing. Many African leaders see no problem with him (?), yet the international community has shunned him.
He is no different, except Bush decided that Hussein was a threat and an immediate danger to the world. Which is wasn't, isn't and never had been.
A domestic despot, yes.
And....hang on a moment, I've just read your response concerning Pinochet
Are you actually, seriously suggesting that he was a good man? Or that we can excuse his murderous, brutal dictatorship because of his "help" in the Falklands?????
What help was this exactly?
I'm sorry, but that is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have read, even from you Bell.
"Pinochet helped us so we owed him something"
?????
*waves hand*
There's no talking with you, you have ignored all my comments before Blank concerning your false statements about centrifuges proving Iraq had a nuclear programme they were pursuing.
And instead pick up on points that you feel you can argue, instead of putting your hands up and saying "Fair enough" about your original link.
To be honest, I dont think you read that original story properly, because it counter-argued pretty much all of your points concerning nuclear programmes, the threat level of Iraq and the seriousness of them being any kind of world-player-level threat.
And, as Blank points out, I'm not going to get drawn into a quote war with you.
Why?
Halofan.
Why?
Pinochet "we owed him something"
Why?
Mugabe "African leaders dont have a problem"
Mate, you really, really, honestly can't see why you're a laughing stock can you?
As for Mugabe, you're saying because some African leaders (which ones??) are not objecting, then there's no problem?
You are genuinely saying that because a few other 3rd world leaders (who?) dont mind, then that's ok?
"Unfortunately many African leaders see no problem with him, so are you suggesting we get rid of him, yet you argue that there should have been no intervention in Iraq ?"
I am saying, using your logic, if we see fit to go after Hussein for murdering and brutally oppressing his own people then we must pursue Mugabe for doing exactly the same thing. Many African leaders see no problem with him (?), yet the international community has shunned him.
He is no different, except Bush decided that Hussein was a threat and an immediate danger to the world. Which is wasn't, isn't and never had been.
A domestic despot, yes.
And....hang on a moment, I've just read your response concerning Pinochet
Are you actually, seriously suggesting that he was a good man? Or that we can excuse his murderous, brutal dictatorship because of his "help" in the Falklands?????
What help was this exactly?
I'm sorry, but that is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have read, even from you Bell.
"Pinochet helped us so we owed him something"
?????
*waves hand*
There's no talking with you, you have ignored all my comments before Blank concerning your false statements about centrifuges proving Iraq had a nuclear programme they were pursuing.
And instead pick up on points that you feel you can argue, instead of putting your hands up and saying "Fair enough" about your original link.
To be honest, I dont think you read that original story properly, because it counter-argued pretty much all of your points concerning nuclear programmes, the threat level of Iraq and the seriousness of them being any kind of world-player-level threat.
And, as Blank points out, I'm not going to get drawn into a quote war with you.
Why?
Halofan.
Why?
Pinochet "we owed him something"
Why?
Mugabe "African leaders dont have a problem"
Mate, you really, really, honestly can't see why you're a laughing stock can you?
Goatboy wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> >by and large, the UK's
> security services are somewhat more subtle than in the US, and are
> adept at avoiding the press.
> ---
>
> This is the sort of thing that makes people snigger at you
> Bell...where is your proof? Where are examples of them being
> "adept at avoiding the press"?
Fair comment, though I'd immediately point ot David Shayler's writings and MI6 by Stephen Dorril, but anyway, consider this. When was the last time you heard of MI5 or MI6 involved in something, or an operation of theirs ? Sure, the break in last year at an Irish police station was thought to be them, but no evidence. IN the absence of evidence of their activiteis, and remember that MI5 are responsible for protecting the country from threats, then one can only conclude that they do so in secret, away from the press.
Both 5 and 6 have massive budgets, yet on the surface we hear nothing of what this goes on, it has to go somewhere.
I'd have thought you, Goatboy, would know about the ease in which the media can be prevented from publishing stories of a certain type by the services and government, things such as the D Notice and the ones never heard of.
By contrast the CIA is almost seeking news attention, but the Brit's don't.
> Practical Magic wrote:
> >by and large, the UK's
> security services are somewhat more subtle than in the US, and are
> adept at avoiding the press.
> ---
>
> This is the sort of thing that makes people snigger at you
> Bell...where is your proof? Where are examples of them being
> "adept at avoiding the press"?
Fair comment, though I'd immediately point ot David Shayler's writings and MI6 by Stephen Dorril, but anyway, consider this. When was the last time you heard of MI5 or MI6 involved in something, or an operation of theirs ? Sure, the break in last year at an Irish police station was thought to be them, but no evidence. IN the absence of evidence of their activiteis, and remember that MI5 are responsible for protecting the country from threats, then one can only conclude that they do so in secret, away from the press.
Both 5 and 6 have massive budgets, yet on the surface we hear nothing of what this goes on, it has to go somewhere.
I'd have thought you, Goatboy, would know about the ease in which the media can be prevented from publishing stories of a certain type by the services and government, things such as the D Notice and the ones never heard of.
By contrast the CIA is almost seeking news attention, but the Brit's don't.
Goatboy wrote:
> >Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ?
>
> There never were any before. At all. At any point. Ricin? Algiers.
> Gunman at Heathrow arrested by tanks? Grenada.
> In fact Bell, as well you know, Iraq has never been behind any
> terrorist activity in any nation at all, let alone the UK.
1) This mornings Public FAC televised meeting contradicts that, Jack Straw clearly said that Iraq was linked to Palestinian groups and others, and not one person in the room contradicated him. A member of the FAC then said that the government had claimed links to Al Queda, to which Straw replied asking for evidence of this - the member of the FAC could provide none.
2) As even Blank pointed out, there have been terrorist attacks.
> I think you're getting confused here Bell. Bali bombing? Al-Queda
> possible, hardline Muslim extremist definitely. No link to Iraq, as
> Iraq has zero links to Al-Queda. The "war on terror" is a
> misnomer as far as Iraq is concerned, because the charges of terrorism
> cannot be intelligently levelled at Iraq. Dictatorship? Sure.
> Oppression? Without question. Hideous abuse of civilians?
> Absolutely.
See above about Iraq and terrorism, and the war I refer to is the War On Terror, not Iraq.
> Because, once again, Iraq has not at any point been responsible for
> any acts of aggression towards any Western country.
> In fact, despite being invaded in 1991, continual bombing campaigns
> for the past decade, sanctions and the latest
> removal-through-violence, Hussein has shown remarkable restraint in
> hostile actions towards The West - namely no aggression at all until
> he is attacked.
'Cause why bother when you cna kill people in your own country eh ? :) Onvce again this argument that because we have dealings with other bad people in the past we should not act against any. Pinochet, as you well know, helped us at considerable risk in the Falklands, and we had to pay him back somehow for that. Mugabe ? Unfortunately many African leaders see no problem with him, so are you suggesting we get rid of him, yet you argue that there should have been no intervention in Iraq ? Is this not a case of damned if we do, damned if we don't, with you ?
> I don't like Hussein for one single second and I am glad he has been
> removed, but you cannot link him to terrorism. That is lazy thinking
> and you know better.
> And whilst I am happy that he has been removed (at least for now), I
> do not agree with the deceptions used to topple a once-friendly
> dictator that is solely in power because of our assistance.
Again, the somewhat hostile FAC and the government of this country all agree on Iraq's terrorist links, and not one member of the security council has countenanced that fact, the only argument has been about links to Al Queda, not terrorism in general, and there is definite proof of the once existence in the north of Iraq of Iraqi terrorist training camps which Saddam did nothing against despite there seeming opposition to him.
In conclusion, the FAC and Straw, and the UN Security Council all agree that Iraq had terrorist links, yet you don't. No offence but I'm siding with them.
> >Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the UK since Iraq ?
>
> There never were any before. At all. At any point. Ricin? Algiers.
> Gunman at Heathrow arrested by tanks? Grenada.
> In fact Bell, as well you know, Iraq has never been behind any
> terrorist activity in any nation at all, let alone the UK.
1) This mornings Public FAC televised meeting contradicts that, Jack Straw clearly said that Iraq was linked to Palestinian groups and others, and not one person in the room contradicated him. A member of the FAC then said that the government had claimed links to Al Queda, to which Straw replied asking for evidence of this - the member of the FAC could provide none.
2) As even Blank pointed out, there have been terrorist attacks.
> I think you're getting confused here Bell. Bali bombing? Al-Queda
> possible, hardline Muslim extremist definitely. No link to Iraq, as
> Iraq has zero links to Al-Queda. The "war on terror" is a
> misnomer as far as Iraq is concerned, because the charges of terrorism
> cannot be intelligently levelled at Iraq. Dictatorship? Sure.
> Oppression? Without question. Hideous abuse of civilians?
> Absolutely.
See above about Iraq and terrorism, and the war I refer to is the War On Terror, not Iraq.
> Because, once again, Iraq has not at any point been responsible for
> any acts of aggression towards any Western country.
> In fact, despite being invaded in 1991, continual bombing campaigns
> for the past decade, sanctions and the latest
> removal-through-violence, Hussein has shown remarkable restraint in
> hostile actions towards The West - namely no aggression at all until
> he is attacked.
'Cause why bother when you cna kill people in your own country eh ? :) Onvce again this argument that because we have dealings with other bad people in the past we should not act against any. Pinochet, as you well know, helped us at considerable risk in the Falklands, and we had to pay him back somehow for that. Mugabe ? Unfortunately many African leaders see no problem with him, so are you suggesting we get rid of him, yet you argue that there should have been no intervention in Iraq ? Is this not a case of damned if we do, damned if we don't, with you ?
> I don't like Hussein for one single second and I am glad he has been
> removed, but you cannot link him to terrorism. That is lazy thinking
> and you know better.
> And whilst I am happy that he has been removed (at least for now), I
> do not agree with the deceptions used to topple a once-friendly
> dictator that is solely in power because of our assistance.
Again, the somewhat hostile FAC and the government of this country all agree on Iraq's terrorist links, and not one member of the security council has countenanced that fact, the only argument has been about links to Al Queda, not terrorism in general, and there is definite proof of the once existence in the north of Iraq of Iraqi terrorist training camps which Saddam did nothing against despite there seeming opposition to him.
In conclusion, the FAC and Straw, and the UN Security Council all agree that Iraq had terrorist links, yet you don't. No offence but I'm siding with them.
Hidden snipers. Hehe hur hur. I'd forgotten about that.
Page: