WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

• 

  konceptual99

  Yes. And we and the Americans gave them and the means of production to him. Saddam was an evil, evil man and needed to be sorted. But the claims that he had a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction capable of causing harm to the UK within a 45 min timeframe was a completely fabricated premise on which to initiate a war that has cost 100s of thousands of lives as well as destabilised an entire sub continent just to play lapdog to George Bush as he went on his gung-ho tank wank.

  Blair didn't have to do it in the way that he did.

  When you listen to the speeches of people like Tony Benn and Robin Cook you understand the moral spinelessness of those MPs who went along with a vote to wage war.
• 

  Simon

  "Spy who said Iraq was making chemical weapons 'made it all up after watching a Nicolas Cage movie'"

  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spy-who-said-iraq-making-8363375
• 

  The Rebel

  Basically the report told us what many already knew, which in a nutshell Blair decided to go to war and wouldn't be swayed or stopped to think. Anyway I am glad I am no longer a conspiracy theorist for having suggested what the Chilcot Report stated.

  Therefore my final thought on the matter, in my opinion Blair is incapable of introspection or self- examination.

  The Rebel.
• 

  KateWild

  Baker, Malc,

  The 1988 attack of chemical weapons in Iraq. Is not evidence that in 2003 Saddam had chemical weapons to use in the UK and US.

  Chilcot reported that nothing was found after troops invaded in 2003.

  Kate xx
• 

  talesin

  David Kay: WMDs That Never Were, A War That Ever Was

  
  

  In 2004, almost a year after the start of the Iraq War, David Kay resigned his post as the United States' chief weapons inspector in Iraq. Kay said his group had found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons before the U.S.-led invasion. His findings were at odds with assertions from the Bush administration at the time. Host Liane Hansen talks with Kay about the conflict in Iraq since then.

  http://www.npr.org/2011/05/29/136765601/david-kay-wmds-that-never-were-a-war-that-ever-was
  
• 

  The Rebel

  Slim I got some great advice by P.M from Cofty on my " Anne Frank" O.P, which I hope he doesn't object to my posting here " Chooce your battles wisely. You are at risk of being misrepresented" ( I wish he had sent that advice 6 months earlier on my " Did Man Land on the Moon O.P" it would have saved me a lot of time and stress :-)

  You see I interpreted Coftys, advice to mean that whilst I like a good debate, if I personally don't have the ability to articulate my argument and defend my viewpoint on a sensitive subject, I no longer start the O.P. And that's why only after the Chilcot Report did I post my above comment. Now I feel I am fully justified in saying Blairs truth turned out to be false, and let's hope the outcome leads to Blair being tried for war crimes.

  The Rebel.
• 

  slimboyfat

  That's a coincidence Cofty game me some great advice by PM too. He said to me: "fuck off". I still remember the exact phrase to this day.

  They say Balir should be tried for mismanagement rather than war crimes now. Whatever. If it ends up behind bars we could live with the false terminology.
• 

  The Rebel

  Slim well maybe Coftys reply to you wasn't in the Quuens English, however he may have had a point :-) . Personally I wish I could debate " Coftys" logic.

  Anyway I think you and Cofty should have all your debated posts bound in a leather skin book. They create interesting perspectives, and are actually quite entertaining. The only rule I would suggest, all comments in the " Queens English" " Nuff said"

  The Rebel.

  p.s Slim I appreciate your comments, they have helped me to not think in black & white and are often in my opinion very courageous.
• 

  stan livedeath

  Baker, Malc,

  The 1988 attack of chemical weapons in Iraq. Is not evidence that in 2003 Saddam had chemical weapons to use in the UK and US.

  Chilcot reported that nothing was found after troops invaded in 2003.

  Kate xx

  but--facts;

  Saddam did use weapons of mass destruction--chemicals

  Saddam did launch ballistic missiles against Israel

  ok--his rockets had a limited range at the time---and could not have reached the uk----but they certainly could hit Israel--with satan knows what payload on board. and Israel has a reputation of hitting back hard. easy to see one huge middle east conflict costing millions of lives.
• 

  Simon

  A nation having weapons which they use when attacked is no evidence or justification for attacking them in the first place.

  Nations are not allowed to invade without a legitimate reason and it's clear now that the reasons were contrived and the evidence sherry picked to give a misleading representation of the situation. Should Blaire be allowed to walk away from that completely? If so, they what of other aggressors in future? He absolutely should be tried and have to answer and that should be some form of punishment at the very least - he should't be allowed to give press conferences saying "I still think I was right". He should be forced to accept that he was wrong and his man-crush led to thousands of lives lost, millions suffering and now the rise of ISIS as people warned.

  Slim: please don't start with BS that some topic from 10+ years ago has been removed as some conspiracy - I have far better things to do. It's more likely that you have forgotten what or when you posted something, posted it with a different account or have simply imagined you posted something or posted it on someone else's topic etc...