The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, while MPs bicker over whether Iraq really could have launched WMDs in 45 minutes, I have another question:
Before the war, 'we' had a problem with Iraq possessing WMDs not for fear that Iraq would use them, but because they may get into terrorist hands.
This is correct, yes?
So surely it's irrelivent how quickly Iraq could stage an attack, because there was no chance that they would.
I didn't feel entirely sure on this issue at first, I wasn't sure that there was no threat from Iraq itself.
Then I remember, a few months ago, when the government were religiously dropping Iraq and Al Quaeda into the same sentances, trying to forge a connection between the two.
Back then the issue was that Iraq's weapons could reach terrorists, purley because even the government admitted that there was
*No Threat Directly From Iraq*
It seems they're winning, the pro-war lobby have succeeded in making everyone believe there was a threat terrorists could use Iraq's WMDs, without producing any evidence at all.
Now they've succeeded in making everyone believe Iraq did pose a direct threat, whether acting within the hour or week.
Not only did they never produce evidence for this, they've even admitted it to be false.
I dispare. No matter how I look at it, 'we' (too) are the bad guys.
Before the war, 'we' had a problem with Iraq possessing WMDs not for fear that Iraq would use them, but because they may get into terrorist hands.
This is correct, yes?
So surely it's irrelivent how quickly Iraq could stage an attack, because there was no chance that they would.
I didn't feel entirely sure on this issue at first, I wasn't sure that there was no threat from Iraq itself.
Then I remember, a few months ago, when the government were religiously dropping Iraq and Al Quaeda into the same sentances, trying to forge a connection between the two.
Back then the issue was that Iraq's weapons could reach terrorists, purley because even the government admitted that there was
*No Threat Directly From Iraq*
It seems they're winning, the pro-war lobby have succeeded in making everyone believe there was a threat terrorists could use Iraq's WMDs, without producing any evidence at all.
Now they've succeeded in making everyone believe Iraq did pose a direct threat, whether acting within the hour or week.
Not only did they never produce evidence for this, they've even admitted it to be false.
I dispare. No matter how I look at it, 'we' (too) are the bad guys.
Iraq fell into this criteria but did not have any intention or capability to launch an attack on us.
Dr Duck has a point. The WOMD threat was/is the fact that any country who has a stockpile of nefarious substances and is prepared to sell them/give them to others, without any regard for their useage, creates a security issue.
Saddam that's not very smart. :D
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I really don't care anymore. Im just glad that some evil was taken out
> of the world.
I'm still here, though.
> I really don't care anymore. Im just glad that some evil was taken out
> of the world.
I'm still here, though.
The MP's might have access to intelligence information we don't.
'Might'.
'Might'.
I really don't care anymore. Im just glad that some evil was taken out of the world.
So, while MPs bicker over whether Iraq really could have launched WMDs in 45 minutes, I have another question:
Before the war, 'we' had a problem with Iraq possessing WMDs not for fear that Iraq would use them, but because they may get into terrorist hands.
This is correct, yes?
So surely it's irrelivent how quickly Iraq could stage an attack, because there was no chance that they would.
I didn't feel entirely sure on this issue at first, I wasn't sure that there was no threat from Iraq itself.
Then I remember, a few months ago, when the government were religiously dropping Iraq and Al Quaeda into the same sentances, trying to forge a connection between the two.
Back then the issue was that Iraq's weapons could reach terrorists, purley because even the government admitted that there was
*No Threat Directly From Iraq*
It seems they're winning, the pro-war lobby have succeeded in making everyone believe there was a threat terrorists could use Iraq's WMDs, without producing any evidence at all.
Now they've succeeded in making everyone believe Iraq did pose a direct threat, whether acting within the hour or week.
Not only did they never produce evidence for this, they've even admitted it to be false.
I dispare. No matter how I look at it, 'we' (too) are the bad guys.
Before the war, 'we' had a problem with Iraq possessing WMDs not for fear that Iraq would use them, but because they may get into terrorist hands.
This is correct, yes?
So surely it's irrelivent how quickly Iraq could stage an attack, because there was no chance that they would.
I didn't feel entirely sure on this issue at first, I wasn't sure that there was no threat from Iraq itself.
Then I remember, a few months ago, when the government were religiously dropping Iraq and Al Quaeda into the same sentances, trying to forge a connection between the two.
Back then the issue was that Iraq's weapons could reach terrorists, purley because even the government admitted that there was
*No Threat Directly From Iraq*
It seems they're winning, the pro-war lobby have succeeded in making everyone believe there was a threat terrorists could use Iraq's WMDs, without producing any evidence at all.
Now they've succeeded in making everyone believe Iraq did pose a direct threat, whether acting within the hour or week.
Not only did they never produce evidence for this, they've even admitted it to be false.
I dispare. No matter how I look at it, 'we' (too) are the bad guys.