http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5375064.stm

I wonder what those of us who were shouting so loudly that foreign policy has no bearing on the threat of terrorism will say in response to the news item linked to above? Seems fairly self evident to me really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5375064.stm

I wonder what those of us who were shouting so loudly that foreign policy has no bearing on the threat of terrorism will say in response to the news item linked to above? Seems fairly self evident to me really.

But it does not follow that the terrorists are somehow justified in their responses to US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. I am not saying that you believe that they are, but this argument is central to apologias for 7/7 and other outrages. It is a deeply flawed argument, because it lets the terrorists off the moral hook and enables them to put forward a rationale allowing them to avoid direct responsibility for their actions.

But it does not follow that the terrorists are somehow justified in their responses to US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. I am not saying that you believe that they are, but this argument is central to apologias for 7/7 and other outrages. It is a deeply flawed arguement, because it lets the terrorists off the moral hook and enables them to put forward a rationale allowing them to avoid direct responsibility for their actions.

Indeed it doesn't follow that the terrorists are justified in their actions LordC - and you're right in taking the view that I don't believe this to be the case. I do believe however, that we wouldn't be seeing the same degree of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq.

Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?
France tried this by objecting to recent operations - but it's still on the AQ hit list.

France are now a legitimate target for the radicals as they are seen as weak...

Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?
France tried this by objecting to recent operations - but it's still on the AQ hit list.

It might be on the hit list but I don't recall any recent terrorist outrages on French soil. I think that it's perfectly possible to indicate dissaproval of countries that support terrorism through other means than military intervention.

It might be on the hit list but I don't recall any recent terrorist outrages on French soil. I think that it's perfectly possible to indicate dissaproval of countries that support terrorism through other means than military intervention.
Yes. Perhaps we could send them a strongly worded letter asking them to stop funding terrorism and permitting training camps to be established on their soil.

That should do the trick. Or will it? For goodness' sake, we're dealing with people whose cultures, thanks to their nasty primitive religion, have stagnated for 500 years.

You can't negotiate with mindless imbeciles - but you can vaporise them.

I do believe however, that we wouldn't be seeing the same degree of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq.
I agree, Halibut. The "war on terror" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are few domestic repercussions for the USA which has a relatively small (and integrated) Muslim population. For Britain, with its large Pakistani population, or other European countries with their Moroccan/Algerian populations, there is significant domestic fall-out, however.

I agree, Halibut. The "war on terror" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are few domestic repercussions for the USA which has a relatively small (and integrated) Muslim population. For Britain, with its large Pakistani population, or other European countries with their Moroccan/Algerian populations, there is significant domestic fall-out, however.Which we should address, severely.

Also, as a principle, countries have to think seriously how they react to terrorism or threats of terrorism.

If a country determines its foreign policy on whether it might or might not cause acts of terrorism, then effectively, the terrorists are, to a great extent deciding what that policy is. Is that what we want?

If, in the future, there's a conflict or near-war between a Muslim and a non-Muslim country, regardless of the rights or wrongs on each side, do we have to support the Muslim country, simply because we are frightened of terrorism?

If that's the case, then we may as well not bother doing anything internationally in case it causes the U.K.problems. The Lion turned into a mouse!

I noticed that when the Americans were bombing the Serbs, principally because they were butchering Muslims in the Balkans, the Muslims, world-wide, seemed quite happy with that.I guess we'll just have to be very careful what countries we help from now on, if any.

I think if you look at the reasons why NATO got involved in the Balkans was to stop the war from spreading into Europe, as there was a threat that Turkey may get involved.

Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?
France tried this by objecting to recent operations - but it's still on the AQ hit list.


Iraq never supported terrorism. Even the US, with it's multi-billion dollar intelligence machine, has been unable to provide any proof of links between Saddam and Islamic radicals.

Originally Posted by Bartfarst
Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?
France tried this by objecting to recent operations - but it's still on the AQ hit list.
Iraq never supported terrorism. Even the US, with it's multi-billion dollar intelligence machine, has been unable to provide any proof of links between Saddam and Islamic radicals.
Whatever - your point is irrelevant.
The point here is that France chose not to support the western coalition, but that has not avoided France as being targeted as another country of infidels who, as viewed by the supported of fundamentalist Islam, should be annihilated. They don't just hate people who are trying to help rebuild Iraq, they hate all non-Muslims.

Originally Posted by Bartfarst


Whatever - your point is irrelevant.
The point here is that France chose not to support the western coalition, but that has not avoided France as being targeted as another country of infidels who, as viewed by the supported of fundamentalist Islam, should be annihilated. They don't just hate people who are trying to help rebuild Iraq, they hate all non-Muslims.

So it's irrelevant to the terrorism debate, that a country which produced no terrorists until we invaded it, now has the highest number of terrorists in the World?

Yes. Perhaps we could send them a strongly worded letter asking them to stop funding terrorism and permitting training camps to be established on their soil.

That should do the trick. Or will it? For goodness' sake, we're dealing with people whose cultures, thanks to their nasty primitive religion, have stagnated for 500 years.

You can't negotiate with mindless imbeciles - but you can vaporise them.

Christians have Adams and Paisley so that must mean that all christians are ranting idiots with a love of bombing each other.

OK there are a whole bunch of muslims that are just as bad but most of the ones I have met are just the same as most run of the mill christians.
They just want to live a life with no bugger bombing them.
In this case that Idiot Bush supported by his lapdog Blair did this to Iraq where most had nothing to do with Sadam and no one had anything to do with torrorism.
All of the muslims I know are against terrorism and murder and see the terrorists as bad muslims.

I suspect you just don't like pakis and want to have a dig at them.
I wonder if you are unemployed or have a crap job you are unhappy in. Maybe you have penal erectile difunction and need to take your anger out on someone.

FFS man put your brain in gear.

So it's irrelevant to the terrorism debate, that a country which produced no terrorists until we invaded it, now has the highest number of terrorists in the World?
Woefully inaccurate information which must have been plucked from the void between somebody's ears.

Woefully inaccurate information which must have been plucked from the void between somebody's ears.

OK, I'll rephrase for those who need to keep shouting about how thick everybody else is, possibly as some kind of smoke screen for their own mental inadequacies.

Iraq produced very few terrorists until we invaded it, now it produces several thousand times more of them. Do you get the gist of what I'm saying now?

OK, I'll rephrase for those who need to keep shouting about how thick everybody else is, possibly as some kind of smoke screen for their own mental inadequacies.

Iraq produced very few terrorists until we invaded it, now it produces several thousand times more of them. Do you get the gist of what I'm saying now?
Okay, we've just made a big step forward here.

So none now equals very few, and

The highest number in the world now equals thousands.


We've established, based on your own statements, that you exaggerate and pluck figures from the air - so it's pointless continuing a discussion.

Okay, we've just made a big step forward here.

So none now equals very few, and

The highest number in the world now equals thousands.


We've established, based on your own statements, that you exaggerate and pluck figures from the air - so it's pointless continuing a discussion.


So tell us Bartfarst, which country has more Jihadists than Iraq. Belgium?

By the way, I didn't say there were thousands of terrorists in Iraq. I said there were thousands of times more than before we invaded. It's quite a different thing, as most ten year olds could tell you.

So tell us Bartfarst, which country has more Jihadists than Iraq. Belgium?

By the way, I didn't say there were thousands of terrorists in Iraq. I said there were thousands of times more than before we invaded. It's quite a different thing, as most ten year olds could tell you.
I'm sure that those same ten-year-olds can also tell you that a thousand times none is still none, if you really want to take this down the road of playing pedantic.

All of the muslims I know are against terrorism and murder and see the terrorists as bad muslims. .Sadly I’ve met a good few, mostly educated professionals, who have tried to explain to me that there will be Jihad in this country, when their numbers are enough o take over, and that we will become part of the world run by the global Islamic state. They’re on cloud cuckoo land, obviously, but they believe it – and that’s the problem.I suspect you just don't like pakis and want to have a dig at them. .Yes, quite right – at least the ones that are in the wrong country. That said, I’ve worked with the Pakistani army, and found them to be a highly professional and charming bunch of people. Not quite the same as the chip-on-shoulder peple we have over here.I wonder if you are unemployed or have a crap job you are unhappy in. Maybe you have penal erectile difunction and need to take your anger out on someone..Sorry to disappoint you – great job, love it, and hung like a cast iron donkey.

Okay, we've just made a big step forward here.

So none now equals very few, and

The highest number in the world now equals thousands.


We've established, based on your own statements, that you exaggerate and pluck figures from the air - so it's pointless continuing a discussion.

So you can see a point in continuing the disscussion now.

''I'm sure that those same ten-year-olds can also tell you that a thousand times none is still none, if you really want to take this down the road of playing pedantic''.

Pedantic: . overly concerned with minute details or formalisms . (Dictionary.com.)

I'm sure your attempt to deny that there is far more terrorism in Iraq - since and because of the invasion - by trying to reduce the whole argument to the fact I said 'None' instead of 'very few' would fit very squarely into this discription of the word pedantic.

I'm sure your attempt to deny that there is far more terrorism in Iraq - since and because of the invasion - .I have not attempted to deny that in any way at all. I merely challenged your ridiculous claims, including that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion
by trying to reduce the whole argument to the fact I said 'None' instead of 'very few' would fit very squarely into this discription of the word pedantic.
Yes - THAT'S THE IDEA. Lord help this poor creature to see.

I have not attempted to deny that in any way at all. I merely challenged your ridiculous claims, including that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion

Yes - THAT'S THE IDEA. Lord help this poor creature to see.

What were the other ridiculous claims? That was the only thing I got wrong, and I did actually think of changing it to 'very few' before I posted, but I presumed nobody would be so petty as to ignore the point of the argument to make four posts about one single solitary incorrect word, which did not alter ther truth of what I was actually saying. And you call me Pedantic. I'll let you have the last word, because you will do anyway, even though you don't seem to have anything relevant to add to the disscussion.

By the way, I'm glad you agree there's more terrorism in Iraq because of the invasion.

Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?

Given that the worlds greatest terrorists are Bush and Blair do you support action against them ?

The US trained and armed half of the middle east and them attacked them because of it. The so called War on Terror is a war for oil. Obviously attacking a relatively defenseless country for their oil would gain even less support than the current war, so the US decided to arm them first to give them some form of justification.

Iraq was invaded supposedly for their possession of weopons of mass destruction yet their supposed arsenal doesnt compare to that of the UK and US.

Iran is next on the list for researching nuclear power which potentially could be converted to nuclear weapons yet the US and UK have both nuclear power and weaponry.

Seems a bit of a case of do as we say not as we do. What would the reaction be if Russia, China and other world powers got together and tried Bush and Blair for their war crimes, bombed Trident, killed a few thousand UK and US civilians . . .

Given that the worlds greatest terrorists are Bush and Blair do you support action against them ?

The US trained and armed half of the middle east and them attacked them because of it. The so called War on Terror is a war for oil. Obviously attacking a relatively defenseless country for their oil would gain even less support than the current war, so the US decided to arm them first to give them some form of justification.
Iraq was invaded supposedly for their possession of weopons of mass destruction yet their supposed arsenal doesnt compare to that of the UK and US.
Iran is next on the list for researching nuclear power which potentially could be converted to nuclear weapons yet the US and UK have both nuclear power and weaponry.
Seems a bit of a case of do as we say not as we do. What would the reaction be if Russia, China and other world powers got together and tried Bush and Blair for their war crimes, bombed Trident, killed a few thousand UK and US civilians . . .After a few years at senior school you will develop a better understanding of the world.
Until then I would recommend the following adage:
'Better to remain quiet and let people assume you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt'.

Rather than insult hurling because your uninformed biased opinions conflict with the facts I have presented would you like to offer a valid counter argument ?

FACT: The US and UK invaded Iraq on the basis of suspected possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction
FACT: The US and UK openly produce and possess such weaponry.

FACT: The UK and US are claiming Iran should not be allowed to conduct research or production of nuclear power on the basis that it could easily be converted for nuclear weaponry
FACT: The UK and US have both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

FACT: Both of the above points are blatent contradictory examples of the US and UK saying "Do as we say not as we do"

Do you dispute any of the above FACTS ?

And with regards to the senior school comment - I am university educated.

Rather than insult hurling because your uninformed biased opinions conflict with the facts I have presented would you like to offer a valid counter argument ? .I’d be delighted to.
FACT: The US and UK invaded Iraq on the basis of suspected possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction.That was part of the reason sold to the public, but the legalisation of the action was Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions.
FACT: The US and UK openly produce and possess such weaponry. .Your ‘fact’ is wrong I that we do not produce any of the weaponry that the Iraqis had. We do not openly produce or possess the chemical or biological weapons that the Iraqis had. We may have a nuclear capability but that’s a very different thing.
FACT: The UK and US are claiming Iran should not be allowed to conduct research or production of nuclear power on the basis that it could easily be converted for nuclear weaponry
FACT: The UK and US have both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. .Fact perhaps, but meaningless. What is relevant is that the UK and US are responsible nations with stable governments, not feudal third world clusters of tribes run by religious fanatics who actually WOULD press the button if somebody insulted Allah or happened to be Jewish. Are you so blindly anti-Western-establishment that you think these people should be free to develop nuclear capability?
FACT: Both of the above points are blatent contradictory examples of the US and UK saying "Do as we say not as we do"
Do you dispute any of the above FACTS ? .Please see above.
When you were a child, and your parents had driving licenses, should they have allowed you to drive if that’s what you wanted at the age of 10? It’s the same with the emerging nations – they are not ready to self-govern at a national level, let alone possess that kind of power.
And with regards to the senior school comment - I am university educated.Then show it.

Indeed it doesn't follow that the terrorists are justified in their actions LordC - and you're right in taking the view that I don't believe this to be the case. I do believe however, that we wouldn't be seeing the same degree of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq.


Halibut is well known for his support of terrorists,anything that undermines the British way is ok by him.
Sorry if that is personal as I dont normally go in for that but its the way you come across.

I’ve worked with the Pakistani army, and found them to be a highly professional and charming bunch of people
Interesting piece in the Sunday Times - 'The phoney war on terror' by Christina Lamb, querying which side Pakistan is really on:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2372050,00.html

So whenever Musharraf has come under pressure from Washington, he has banned jihadi groups and watched them reform under new names. Or he has agreed to regulate madrasahs, the Islamist schools, then done nothing.

In almost five years since the fall of the Taliban in Kabul, not a single Taliban leader or commander has been arrested in Pakistan. Yet they operate openly from there, particularly around the town of Quetta, long known as Taliban Central.

You can't negotiate with mindless imbeciles - but you can vaporise them.

that'll be you as vapour then, eh?

They don't just hate people who are trying to help rebuild

i hope you're not counting the "coalition"'s devastation of the country as "rebuilding"

i'd rotflmao if it was anywhere near funny

Halibut is well known for his support of terrorists,anything that undermines the British way is ok by him.
Sorry if that is personal as I dont normally go in for that but its the way you come across.

if the british way is your way then count me out

seig heil royjames

i bet u see yourself as pure english?

lol

there's no such thing

Rather than insult hurling because your uninformed biased opinions conflict with the facts I have presented would you like to offer a valid counter argument ?

FACT: The US and UK invaded Iraq on the basis of suspected possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction
FACT: The US and UK openly produce and possess such weaponry.

FACT: The UK and US are claiming Iran should not be allowed to conduct research or production of nuclear power on the basis that it could easily be converted for nuclear weaponry
FACT: The UK and US have both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

FACT: Both of the above points are blatent contradictory examples of the US and UK saying "Do as we say not as we do"

Do you dispute any of the above FACTS ?

And with regards to the senior school comment - I am university educated.

here's another fact - the usa is the only country to have use nuclear weapons in an act of war

and they have got the cheek to tell other countries not to have them?

UK and US are responsible nations with stable governments, not feudal third world clusters of tribes run by religious fanatics who actually WOULD press the button if somebody insulted Allah or happened to be Jewish.

sorry to break this to ya, but the usa is run by a bunch of religious fanatics who have pressed the button before and who love to interfere with other people's business

I’d be delighted to.
That was part of the reason sold to the public, but the legalisation of the action was Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions.

FACT: Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force.

FACT: The federal government of the United States is known to possess three types of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. The U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in combat. The U.S. arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is among the largest in the world, along with Russia's, depending on the definition.

COMMENT: Given that the US has one of the largest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction in the world and is the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons in combat, should they also be disarmed by force ?


Your ‘fact’ is wrong I that we do not produce any of the weaponry that the Iraqis had. We do not openly produce or possess the chemical or biological weapons that the Iraqis had. We may have a nuclear capability but that’s a very different thing.

The US and UK manufacture and possess both chemical and biological weaponry.

During WW1 the US produced 1400 metric tonnes of Phosgene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene) and 175 tonnes of Mustard Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas). After the war the U.S. continued to stockpile chemical weapons, eventually exceeding 30,000 tons of material. The U.S. also investigated a wide range of possible nonlethal, psychobehavioral chemical incapacitating agents to include psychedelic indoles such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25) and marijuana derivatives, certain tranquilizers like ketamine or fentanyl, as well as several glycolate anticholinergics. One of the anticholinergic compounds, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, was assigned the NATO code BZ and was weaponized at the beginning of the 1960s for possible battlefield use. The primary chemical weapon storage facilities in the U.S. are Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon, Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado, Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana, Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky, Anniston Chemical Activity in Alabama, Pine Bluff Chemical Activity in Arkansas and Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah. The largest facility is Deseret.

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, located in Fort Detrick, Maryland, produces small quantities of biological agents, for use in biological weapons defense research. According to the U.S. government, this research is performed in full accordance with the BWC.

Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and Clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development

With regards to the UKs weapon production we need look no further than Trident, Britain's nuclear weapon system. It consists of four nuclear-armed submarines, one of which is on operational patrol at all times. Each Trident submarine carries 48 nuclear warheads, each of which can be sent to a different target. Each warhead has an explosive power of up to 100 kilotons, the equivalent of 100,000 tons of conventional high explosive and 8 times the power of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, killing an estimated 140,000 people.

Fact perhaps, but meaningless. What is relevant is that the UK and US are responsible nations with stable governments, not feudal third world clusters of tribes run by religious fanatics who actually WOULD press the button if somebody insulted Allah or happened to be Jewish. Are you so blindly anti-Western-establishment that you think these people should be free to develop nuclear capability?

The UK and US being responsible nations with stable governments is questionable, especially given the fact that over 50,000 people marched through the streets of Manchester yesterday in protest against Tony Blairs leadership and the war he has lead the UK into without consultation of support of the vast majority of the UK public. With regards to who actually would "push the button" I would refer back to the point that the U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in combat in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

Please see above.
When you were a child, and your parents had driving licenses, should they have allowed you to drive if that’s what you wanted at the age of 10? It’s the same with the emerging nations – they are not ready to self-govern at a national level, let alone possess that kind of power.

I am not arguing in favour of the production of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq or any other country. I am pointing out that the US and UK are killing thousands of civilians on the basis that Iraq may or could be producing such weapons when they themselves are the worlds largest manufacturers of such weapons. I do not agree with war, killing or innocent civilians or weapon production by any country Iraq included.

Then show it.

See above.

Interesting piece in the Sunday Times - 'The phoney war on terror' by Christina Lamb, querying which side Pakistan is really on:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2372050,00.html

"Is the general trying to tell us something?"

The general is already very lucky to be alive and he's unlikely to die peacefully in his bed. When his luck runs out is when the balloon goes up.

"Is the general trying to tell us something?"

The general is already very lucky to be alive and he's unlikely to die peacefully in his bed. When his luck runs out is when the balloon goes up.
His subservience was won over by threats of being bombed back to the stone age made by Richard Armitage. The treaties he has signed recently with tribal leaders was an agreement by those people not to allow Taliban activity in their controlled areas, and not to forget that taliban aren't at war with Pakistan and yet Pakistan has been fighting American's proxy war and getting their soldiers killed for no gain. It seems the general has seen the same light as the British government saw in talking to the IRA and made their peace.
It requires many years of training and intellectual and personal abillity and character to become a top general of any professional army and Musharaf is at the very top, so compare that to a not so bright Bush then you see on a personal level this guy can runs rings round the like of Bush and Blair, so expect a few surprises from this foxy character, he knows what he is doing if he survives the terrorists.

Yes. Perhaps we could send them a strongly worded letter asking them to stop funding terrorism and permitting training camps to be established on their soil.

That should do the trick. Or will it? For goodness' sake, we're dealing with people whose cultures, thanks to their nasty primitive religion, have stagnated for 500 years.

You can't negotiate with mindless imbeciles - but you can vaporise them.

I couldn't agree more Bartfarst!!

I'm sure that those same ten-year-olds can also tell you that a thousand times none is still none, if you really want to take this down the road of playing pedantic.


Nice one Bartfarst. I'm with you all the way on this one...although I think everyone else has different views.:thumbsup:

His subservience was won over by threats of being bombed back to the stone age made by Richard Armitage. The treaties he has signed recently with tribal leaders was an agreement by those people not to allow Taliban activity in their controlled areas, and not to forget that taliban aren't at war with Pakistan and yet Pakistan has been fighting American's proxy war and getting their soldiers killed for no gain. It seems the general has seen the same light as the British government saw in talking to the IRA and made their peace.
It requires many years of training and intellectual and personal abillity and character to become a top general of any professional army and Musharaf is at the very top, so compare that to a not so bright Bush then you see on a personal level this guy can runs rings round the like of Bush and Blair, so expect a few surprises from this foxy character, he knows what he is doing if he survives the terrorists.

Its also worth noting that Musharaf was the General behind the Kargil "dispute" with India. I recollect an interview with a BBC journalist. He first questioned the journalist as to whether it was a good idea to be toting an automatic whilst having the interview. The journalist in his own diplomatic terms suggested it wouldn't be a great idea and the General nodded in agreement.

However, when the camera's started to roll, the General pulled out his automatic and started to play with it for the cameras.

'Better to remain quiet and let people assume you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt'.

Pity you've never practiced your own advice :D

It requires many years of training and intellectual and personal abillity and character to become a top general of any professional army and Musharaf is at the very top, so compare that to a not so bright Bush then you see on a personal level this guy can runs rings round the like of Bush and Blair, so expect a few surprises from this foxy character, he knows what he is doing if he survives the terrorists.

It's true he has done an outstanding job in keeping the lid on things in Pakistan, in spite of the slights and double-dealing of the US, but when and however he goes the pot will boil over.

The result will be chaos and chaos armed with nuclear weapons.

It's true he has done an outstanding job in keeping the lid on things in Pakistan, in spite of the slights and double-dealing of the US, but when and however he goes the pot will boil over.

The result will be chaos and chaos armed with nuclear weapons.
The biggest problem Pakistan has is common to most develloping countries, and that is corruption. Who ever and however the next strong man takes over you can be sure he or she will run firstly with cap in hand and sell his/her soul to the masters in Washington, because that is the only way they will remain in power. The nuclear weapons issue is not so much to worry about as long as there are greedy politicians they can and will be bought to submission.
The Pakistan politics is a far cry from the hate of the west perpetuated by the Shah of Iran's subservience to America. Then you could see the revolution taking shape in Iran, but no such worry of a revolution yet in Pakistan.

A report by the US intelligence services - of which some excerpts have been declassified - has concluded that the Iraq war has "helped recruit supporters for the global jihadist movement".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5382762.stm

From the report:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

Its amazing how these "experts" come to these conclusions years after the general populace have, isnt it?

Its amazing how these "experts" come to these conclusions years after the general populace have, isnt it?

Probably because they are led by idiots (Blair) who believe "passionately" and that somehow makes it true.

Those people who saw this before the experts should be rewarded with extra votes in the next elections. :D

Conversely, those who fell for the nonsense should be stripped of theirs!

Probably because they are led by idiots (Blair) who believe "passionately" and that somehow makes it true.

Those people who saw this before the experts should be rewarded with extra votes in the next elections. :D

Conversely, those who fell for the nonsense should be stripped of theirs!
All i can say is they earn every penny of their huge salaries!


God i love sarcasm! :D

DANGER.

Pouring petrol on a fire MAY make it worse.
Experts are looking into this and expect to produce a report in 3 to 4 years.

were in a no win situation, if we stood by and did nothing, they'd build nuclear bombs and threaten the world. when we do something were in the wrong, and there still building the bombs.

notradamus stated the 3rd world war would start with blazing fires in the middle east. if you think back to the 1st gulf war and the fires that were lit from the oil fields, time is ticking away and we will eventually have a 3rd world war a HOLY WAR

were in a no win situation, if we stood by and did nothing, they'd build nuclear bombs and threaten the world. when we do something were in the wrong, and there still building the bombs.

notradamus stated the 3rd world war would start with blazing fires in the middle east. if you think back to the 1st gulf war and the fires that were lit from the oil fields, time is ticking away and we will eventually have a 3rd world war a HOLY WAR

Have you not learned anything in the last several years ?
They didn't have the facilities to build nuclear bombs...

Your greencard is winging its way to you in the post. :rolleyes:

Have you not learned anything in the last several years ?
They didn't have the facilities to build nuclear bombs...
:

Actually we know for a fact that they had weapons of mass destruction because we have all seen this on the TV. We also know that they had medium range rockets because they fired them at our soldiers. We also know that they had a nuclear program. What we don't know is how many of these were destroyed because they wouldn't cooperate with the inspectors. I think everyone forgets that we know they had these weapons and facilities for a fact, because we witnessed it, it was just many years before the last Iraq war so we don't know what they did in between. Because they were a defeated country they were supposed to cooperate with the winning side and allow inspectors to see anything they liked, but they didn't.

It is obvious that terrorist organisations will attempt to show virtually anything the west does as some form of attack on Islam. This is how they convince young men and women to become human bombs. I even remember them condeming vaccination programmes because they said that the vaccine was harmful to Isalmic children of certain races. The fact is that they will use any excuse to turn people against the west and this was just a big, obvious excuse.

Have you not learned anything in the last several years ?
They didn't have the facilities to build nuclear bombs...

What an Iran dont have the facilities to build 1:loopy:

i was on about the middle east area

Have you not learned anything in the last several years ?
They didn't have the facilities to build nuclear bombs...

What an Iran dont have the facilities to build 1:loopy:

i was on about the middle east area

No, they don't.

No, they don't.


o yes they do, do u not read newspapers or watch tv

Actually we know for a fact that they had weapons of mass destruction because we have all seen this on the TV. We also know that they had medium range rockets because they fired them at our soldiers. We also know that they had a nuclear program. What we don't know is how many of these were destroyed because they wouldn't cooperate with the inspectors. I think everyone forgets that we know they had these weapons and facilities for a fact, because we witnessed it, it was just many years before the last Iraq war so we don't know what they did in between. Because they were a defeated country they were supposed to cooperate with the winning side and allow inspectors to see anything they liked, but they didn't.

It is obvious that terrorist organisations will attempt to show virtually anything the west does as some form of attack on Islam. This is how they convince young men and women to become human bombs. I even remember them condeming vaccination programmes because they said that the vaccine was harmful to Isalmic children of certain races. The fact is that they will use any excuse to turn people against the west and this was just a big, obvious excuse.

Ken,

Your lack of rational reasoning is rather worrying.

Actually we know for a fact that they had weapons of mass destruction because we have all seen this on the TV

What we know for a fact is that NONE were found. Perhaps you could argue that they HAD some in the past, but certainly by the time we invaded, there were NONE. The same applies to the nuclear program which was dismantled back in the mid 90's.

Perhaps you also think its a FACT that the world is FLAT ?

Because they were a defeated country they were supposed to cooperate with the winning side and allow inspectors to see anything they liked, but they didn't.

Lets put ourselves in the shoes of Iraq, and if we temporarily forget the Saddam issue. Here's a country that at the behest of ourselves started an 8 year war with its neighbour Iran.

You then find yourself in a situation where you have been stripped of your weapons and are under sanctions. Would you let your neighbour become aware that you are defenceless, or would you put up a pretence of having weapons ?

Any numbskull could see what was going on :loopy:

Have you not learned anything in the last several years ?
They didn't have the facilities to build nuclear bombs...

What an Iran dont have the facilities to build 1:loopy:

i was on about the middle east area


I can see why the Blades are facing certain relegation :D

Firstly, Iran is not Iraq (there may be only a letter's difference in the name, but evidently enough to confuse you)

Secondly, Iran does not have the facilities to build nuclear bombs.

2-0 (and not in your favour).

o yes they do, do u not read newspapers or watch tv

Oh no they don't!

Iran does not have the capability to produce a nuclear bomb. If you do a bit of research further than what the tabloids tell you, and whatever newsbite Sky feeds you, you would realise this yourself.

They once said that Pakistan was incapable of building a nuke and the powers that be were terrified of the idea of them having these weapons, stating that theyd detonate them at the first opportunity so they demanded that Pakistan stopped all work on power stations.
They built many, many nukes...
Has anything changed in the world because of that?

Ok, Im aware that they arent the war-mad, terroristic muslims like the Iraqis and Iranians are-- or at least the powers that be tell us they are, but once upon a time, the Pakistanis were war mad terrorists. Werent they?
The Americans soon moderated their attitude towards Pakistan once they had a few nukers under their belts and I think theyre scared of having to treat Iranians like humans if and when they ever get nukes.

A report by the US intelligence services - of which some excerpts have been declassified - has concluded that the Iraq war has "helped recruit supporters for the global jihadist movement".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5382762.stm

From the report:

You see - it IS worth all the billions that are spent on intelligence agencies here and in the US. :rolleyes:

Nothing gets past these guys, eh?

(Except maybe, 19 suicide bombers)

What we know for a fact is that NONE were found. Perhaps you could argue that they HAD some in the past, but certainly by the time we invaded, there were NONE. The same applies to the nuclear program which was dismantled back in the mid 90's.

Perhaps you also think its a FACT that the world is FLAT ?

:

It is true that none have yet been found. However, this misses the point that they certainly did exist. We know they existed because they used them on their own people. What we don't know, for certain, is what happened to them. The reason we don't know is that they didn't cooperate with the inspectors as they were obliged to. Had they done so, there would have been no justification for the war, although regime change is a good enough reason for me.

Iran is almost certainly developing nuclear weapons. They denied, and then admitted, that they had active enrichment facilities - Ahmadinejad has by now openly said that he's going to continue with this (despite having been offered a light-water reactor, which could only be used for civilian purposes). Then there were A.Q.Khan's revelations that he had supplied nuclear plans and equipment to Iran.

See pages 13-15 of the recent Chatham House report on Iran, available here (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/).

And with regards to the senior school comment - I am university educated.

Unfortunately, it is probably within the last 20 years or so, and it shows. And given the number of university professors who claim 911 was an inside job, we really have to be very worried about what students have been taught over the last 20 or 25 years.

And while you're at it, perhaps you should read this (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1337) Melanie Phillips article, or if you can stomach it, this (http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=648) from David Warren. It might do wonders for your education.

The UK and US being responsible nations with stable governments is questionable, especially given the fact that over 50,000 people marched through the streets of Manchester yesterday in protest against Tony Blairs leadership and the war he has lead the UK into without consultation of support of the vast majority of the UK public. With regards to who actually would "push the button" I would refer back to the point that the U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in combat in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
.

Yes in a WORLD WIDE WAR that had been ongoing for 5-6 years and the choice was not to drop nuclear bombs or not do it. It was to drop them or launch a ground invasion in which potentially many more lives would be lost on both sides (and yes people currently debate the exact numbers that would die in a ground invasion but in the heat of a world war they had a choice between two bad things and someone had to make a judgement call and go with it).

It is absurd to compare this to some modern unstable dictatorship using nuclear weapons in modern warfare (or indeed to suggest the ww2 incident implies the uk/.usa would use full on nuclear weapons in any of their modern wars they get involved in). Touch wood a threat on the scale of WW2 will never happen again. In case you didnt notice I hear the germans and japs would have happily added our countries to their evil empires if we had not defeated them.

Then there were A.Q.Khan's revelations that he had supplied nuclear plans and equipment to Iran.

Quite. So why isn't Pakistan part of the "arc of terror"?

Unfortunately, it is probably within the last 20 years or so, and it shows. And given the number of university professors who claim 911 was an inside job, we really have to be very worried about what students have been taught over the last 20 or 25 years.

And while you're at it, perhaps you should read this (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1337) Melanie Phillips article, or if you can stomach it, this (http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=648) from David Warren. It might do wonders for your education.

LOL Is this the same melanie phillips who still claims that global warming is a myth ? She looked a right prat last week in an interview.

Yes in a WORLD WIDE WAR that had been ongoing for 5-6 years and the choice was not to drop nuclear bombs or not do it. It was to drop them or launch a ground invasion in which potentially many more lives would be lost on both sides (and yes people currently debate the exact numbers that would die in a ground invasion but in the heat of a world war they had a choice between two bad things and someone had to make a judgement call and go with it).

It is absurd to compare this to some modern unstable dictatorship using nuclear weapons in modern warfare (or indeed to suggest the ww2 incident implies the uk/.usa would use full on nuclear weapons in any of their modern wars they get involved in). Touch wood a threat on the scale of WW2 will never happen again. In case you didnt notice I hear the germans and japs would have happily added our countries to their evil empires if we had not defeated them.
Somehow, I think Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a parallel universe where she would be reading about a US invasion of Japan which cost the lives of over a million US troops and five million Japanese citizens and soldiers in 1946 and 1947, than live in this one where the dropping of two atom bombs killed around 130,000 people (fewer than in the fire raid on Dresden in February 1945) and promptly ended the war. And Agent Lesbos owes her existence to the bravery of far better people who lived 60 years ago than what exist today.

LOL Is this the same melanie phillips who still claims that global warming is a myth ? She looked a right prat last week in an interview.
And only 30 years ago, people were claiming the world was cooling down.

It is true that none have yet been found. However, this misses the point that they certainly did exist. We know they existed because they used them on their own people. What we don't know, for certain, is what happened to them. The reason we don't know is that they didn't cooperate with the inspectors as they were obliged to. Had they done so, there would have been no justification for the war, although regime change is a good enough reason for me.


Na, YOU miss the point. No one disputes that they existed in the PAST. We know because WE supplied them!

When we went to war however, anyone with half a brain could see through the BS that was being put out. It wasn't a case that the evidence was poor or weak, it was infact cooked up. (Dont you remember the dodgy dossier ????? a Phd student's theses which was over a decade out of date).

If you honestly believed at the time of invasion, that Iraq had WMD's and that was the reason we were invading then I'm afraid you're beyond help.

We know because WE supplied them!
You might have, but I didn't.

And only 30 years ago, people were claiming the world was cooling down.

Do you and your preferred writers like to stick with the science of 30 years ago or the science of today ?

Probably the former as your signature implies you still believe in a lease agreement from several thousand years ago and one where there were no witnesses :loopy:

You might have, but I didn't.

Hands up, its a fair cop.

Unfortunately, it is probably within the last 20 years or so, and it shows. And given the number of university professors who claim 911 was an inside job, we really have to be very worried about what students have been taught over the last 20 or 25 years.

And while you're at it, perhaps you should read this (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1337) Melanie Phillips article, or if you can stomach it, this (http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=648) from David Warren. It might do wonders for your education.


Good old melanie phillips

The result [of melanie phillips] is an ugly climate in Britain of irrationality and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defence of the free world.

Now I've read that little rant, I need a shower and a good scrubbing. Yuck.

why isn't Pakistan part of the "arc of terror"?
Probably playing a double game. And probably will be if the Islamists ever get their hands on Musharraf. And (as far as I can tell) there are plenty of realists in Pakistan, as well as a lot of Islamists.

Do you and your preferred writers like to stick with the science of 30 years ago or the science of today ?

Probably the former as your signature implies you still believe in a lease agreement from several thousand years ago and one where there were no witnesses :loopy:
I suppose you drop into the category of folks who worry about the things you shouldn't be worrying about, and neglect those things we should worry about. Who knows, 30 years from now, we might see another change of mind on global warming. In the 1980s, we were being warned that minerals would run out, and that there would be oil shortages by the 1990s (the oil shortage date has now been put back to 2032). At the end of the day, the biggest gathering threat to us all is the prospect of Iranian nukes, and the itchy fingers that just might be hovering over the button.

And only 30 years ago, people were claiming the world was cooling down.

Were they? Which people. Where?

Even 30 years ago...
Although there was a cooling trend then (1973), it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend was not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood

I remember the science community raving that we were headed for another ice age.

the biggest gathering threat to us all is the prospect of Iranian nukes, and the itchy fingers that just might be hovering over the button.

why ? If Iran did develop them how would it affect Britain ?

I remember the science community raving that we were headed for another ice age.

Again, I think the memory is of the loudmouth pseudoscientists and doom mongers, not "the scientific communuity".

Again, I think the memory is of the loudmouth pseudoscientists and doom mongers, not "the scientific communuity".
Nooo there were several progs on tv and lots of books about it in the early 70s, I think that the great Erich von Daniken even wrote a paper on the subject, stating that ancient astronauts were trying to cool down the planet for their own ends.
Now tell me that the mighty Von Daniken was a crank! I dare ya! :D

...although regime change is a good enough reason for me.
Ken, please answer me...

In 30 years time when China is the new world superpower will it be OK for them to invade the UK in order to impose regime change?

I remember the science community raving that we were headed for another ice age.
Have a look here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) for an explanation of where this idea came from, i.e. media hype/misinterpretation/misunderstanding of science that was recognised as being uncertain at the time, and in any case didn't say what the journalists thought it did.

Na, YOU miss the point. No one disputes that they existed in the PAST. We know because WE supplied them!

When we went to war however, anyone with half a brain could see through the BS that was being put out. It wasn't a case that the evidence was poor or weak, it was infact cooked up. (Dont you remember the dodgy dossier ????? a Phd student's theses which was over a decade out of date).

If you honestly believed at the time of invasion, that Iraq had WMD's and that was the reason we were invading then I'm afraid you're beyond help.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this :(

It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the WMD threat was an excuse cobbled together to frighten the British into supporting the invasion of Iraq - a move which had already been decided on and was a foregone conclusion.

But the government knew the public would not support such a move unless there was a perception that Iraq posed a potential massive threat to this country. The British public are usually well-meaning and intentioned, but unfortunately can be somewhat gullible.

StarSparkle

Have a look here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) for an explanation of where this idea came from, i.e. media hype/misinterpretation/misunderstanding of science that was recognised as being uncertain at the time, and in any case didn't say what the journalists thought it did.
The link doesnt work. I DO distinctly remember a lot of scientific proof in the 70s though, all stating that the world was cooling dramatically. The pics of the thames being infested by skaters was shown on tv a lot and its the first instance where i learned that the river used to freeze.
The heat wave of 76 seemed to put paid to it all though because after that, people started the first talks about global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Ken, please answer me...

In 30 years time when China is the new world superpower will it be OK for them to invade the UK in order to impose regime change?

It would have been fine for us to invade Germany in 1936 and impose regime change. We didn't and it cost millions of lives. Where there is an oppressive regime which can be changed then the democratic powers should make that change if they can. In this case they could and they did. However, there was rather more to it than that, in this case the Iraqis had lost of war which started when they invaded a sovereign nation to steal its oil. We then won that war but Iraq failed to keep up with the requirements of the international community. So, there were two two good reasons for the invasion which we should remember the overwhelming majority of Iraqis supported. The terrorists currently fighting our forces in Iraq are very often foreign extremists using this as an excuse to engage in murder and gangsterism.

The link doesnt work.
Should do now :thumbsup:

[I wish the include-URL feature didn't put http:// in there automatically]

It is true that none have yet been found. However, this misses the point that they certainly did exist. We know they existed because they used them on their own people. What we don't know, for certain, is what happened to them. The reason we don't know is that they didn't cooperate with the inspectors as they were obliged to. Had they done so, there would have been no justification for the war, although regime change is a good enough reason for me.

People seem to forget really easily, and I guess that how they got away with it. The arms inspectors were in Iraq before the war. He was cooperating; they had to come out when we rushed in to war. Bush made them come out with the build up of arms in the area. If you remember they asked for three more months, which they were denied by Bush and Blair. If they have had those three months Bush would have had no reason to invade, no pretext.

It’s all their in the time line.

Anybody who thinks we are safer now and 7/7 was not about Iraq is quiet clearly insane. And it's a whole lot of money and life to spend, for a net result of less than zero.

Iraq will be three seperate states, a far more complex problem to deal with. Closer ties to Iran. Iran more radical. Pakistan pulling away form the west, making peace with Waristan. If this is a good result, i would hate to see a bad result.

People seem to forget really easily, and I guess that how they got away with it. The arms inspectors were in Iraq before the war. He was cooperating; they had to come out when we rushed in to war. Bush made them come out with the build up of arms in the area. If you remember they asked for three more months, which they were denied by Bush and Blair. If they have had those three months Bush would have had no reason to invade, no pretext.
.

That isn't a fair representation of what happened. They might well have been in Iraq but the Iraqis wouldn't show them what they asked to see. The weapons inspectors kept saying they could get the Iraqis to agree if only they had a bit more time, but they had already had years to do this and had failed. The aftermath of the war may have been a shambles, but the war was entirely justified on any number or moral grounds.

I suppose you drop into the category of folks who worry about the things you shouldn't be worrying about, and neglect those things we should worry about. Who knows, 30 years from now, we might see another change of mind on global warming. In the 1980s, we were being warned that minerals would run out, and that there would be oil shortages by the 1990s (the oil shortage date has now been put back to 2032). At the end of the day, the biggest gathering threat to us all is the prospect of Iranian nukes, and the itchy fingers that just might be hovering over the button.

No Firecracker, you clearly dont understand what Global warming is all about, and following the science (and general rational) used by Madame Phillips, its no bloody wonder!

Global warming doesn't necessarily mean that the temperature will necessarily go up everywhere. It means we will have sudden changes in the weather system, different places will be affected in different ways.

Some regions will have more rain, others less and others drought.

The UK "could" be impacted with a mini ice age due to the gulf stream switching off. As the Ice sheets melt, the salinity of the oceans changes etc etc.

Finally, have you not noticed the change in your own lifetime ?
no snow in winter, flash floods, mini hurricanes ?

Perhaps your version of Barnsley is a kibbutz in the West Bank ?!

That isn't a fair representation of what happened. They might well have been in Iraq but the Iraqis wouldn't show them what they asked to see. The weapons inspectors kept saying they could get the Iraqis to agree if only they had a bit more time, but they had already had years to do this and had failed. The aftermath of the war may have been a shambles, but the war was entirely justified on any number or moral grounds.


okay how about this for a fair representation.

Of all of the sites that the US claimed housed WMD's, the inspectors found none at those they gained access. Oh and the US wouldn't release the names of all the sites to the inspectors in the first place.

(abit like going to the police and claiming a crime has occurred, and then refusing to say where!) :loopy:

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this :(

It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the WMD threat was an excuse cobbled together to frighten the British into supporting the invasion of Iraq - a move which had already been decided on and was a foregone conclusion.

But the government knew the public would not support such a move unless there was a perception that Iraq posed a potential massive threat to this country. The British public are usually well-meaning and intentioned, but unfortunately can be somewhat gullible.

StarSparkle

I'm afraid KenH is somewhat like the Americans who STILL believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

So much for reason, evidence and rational....

It would have been fine for us to invade Germany in 1936 and impose regime change. We didn't and it cost millions of lives.

Agreed, there was a genuine threat. Self defence, even in the form of a pre-emptive strike, is permitted under international law.


Where there is an oppressive regime which can be changed then the democratic powers should make that change if they can.

I take it by "democratic powers" you mean the UN security council and not the democratic powers of the US and UK? In the case of Iraq the democratic powers i.e. most of the world, were not in agreement that there was justifcation for invasion.


However, there was rather more to it than that, in this case the Iraqis had lost of war which started when they invaded a sovereign nation to steal its oil. We then won that war but Iraq failed to keep up with the requirements of the international community.

The fact that Iraq invaded a sovereign country was justification for the first war but not the second.

We now know that Iraq did keep up with the requirements of the internation community by getting rid of its WMD's and nuclear programme. OK, there was still some work to do to prove it but the UN inspectors said they were pretty sure they had and only needed another couple of months to prove it beyond doubt.

The US and UK tried to get the "democratic powers" (the UN security council) to endorse invasion but failed. Therefore there is no justifcation for the war.


So, there were two two good reasons for the invasion which we should remember the overwhelming majority of Iraqis supported.

Where is the evidence that the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis supported the invasion? There must be hardly a family in Iraq that hasn't lost a loved one as a result of this invasion. I find it hard to believe the majority support it.


The terrorists currently fighting our forces in Iraq are very often foreign extremists using this as an excuse to engage in murder and gangsterism.
Some are but most will be Iraqis. Going back to my original scenario, if the British people took up arms to expel an invading superpower would that make them "terrorists"? If people came from other countries to help us would that make them "extremists using this as an excuse to engage in murder and gangsterism"? I think not - have a little think about you double standards.

The link doesnt work. I DO distinctly remember a lot of scientific proof in the 70s though, all stating that the world was cooling dramatically. The pics of the thames being infested by skaters was shown on tv a lot and its the first instance where i learned that the river used to freeze.
The heat wave of 76 seemed to put paid to it all though because after that, people started the first talks about global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Look it up in wikipedia...it has alot of explanation which I recall shows how it was not the same as the current situation regarding global warming (though as I read it ages ago I cant remember what it said now)

That isn't a fair representation of what happened. They might well have been in Iraq but the Iraqis wouldn't show them what they asked to see. The weapons inspectors kept saying they could get the Iraqis to agree if only they had a bit more time, but they had already had years to do this and had failed. The aftermath of the war may have been a shambles, but the war was entirely justified on any number or moral grounds.

Thats not true. The inspectors themselves said Iraq was co-operating at the time and they only needed 3 more months to complete their survey.

Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC). The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq


U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors

The Bush administration tussled with inspectors before the Iraq war and maintains a hostile relationship with the IAEA, whose director, Mohamed ElBaradei, the United States is trying to replace this year. The administration also wants to shut down a U.N. inspection regime led by Hans Blix that was set up to investigate biological, chemical and missile programs in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21854-2005Apr2.html


This is the actual speach by the arms inspectors just prior to when they were pulled out by Bush.


There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to us by resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate. I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

And thats how they got away with it, people forgot the time line.

Your quote says


There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.



This must mean that they repaired or "newly errected" buildings in sites that were suspicious. They then say that there was no satelite evidence, which means they can't have gone and looked at the bits that you can't see from up in the sky. It seems that this quote proves my point that they hadn't, and couldn't, properly investigate these sites.

Your quote says



This must mean that they repaired or "newly errected" buildings in sites that were suspicious. They then say that there was no satelite evidence, which means they can't have gone and looked at the bits that you can't see from up in the sky. It seems that this quote proves my point that they hadn't, and couldn't, properly investigate these sites.

Kan these people were on the ground at the time. You cannot take a quote and read things in to it. Read the entire report. It doesn't prove you point at all. In fact it shows your burden of proof to be very, very slim.
The suspision was from the US, those satellite images Powel sold to the UN? They were wrong, and thats what the inspectors were saying.

The fact remains, they asked for 3 more months and said that there were so signes at all of weapons or programs and they were right.

The fact is if they had three more months, there would have completred their report and their would have been no justifcation for war. Which is why we rushed to war. You have to take evidence like the downingstreet memo in to account as well, the decision to attack was made months before. You were sold a lie.

I'm afraid KenH is somewhat like the Americans who STILL believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

So much for reason, evidence and rational....

I have no idea if Iraq was involved in 9/11 but it never occurred to me that they were. I am aware that the US government used words like "terror" and talked about 911 when talking about Iraq so that their people would make that link for themselves in order to justify the war on a fiction. Our government choose to justify the war by cobbling together a dodgy dosier about WMD. All this still doesn't mean that, in my view, it is a good idea for western democradies to change regimes that terrorise their own people, particularly when they have previously been beaten in a war and are not meeting their obligations.

Your quote says



This must mean that they repaired or "newly errected" buildings in sites that were suspicious. They then say that there was no satelite evidence, which means they can't have gone and looked at the bits that you can't see from up in the sky. It seems that this quote proves my point that they hadn't, and couldn't, properly investigate these sites.

That's not what it says at all. It says that sites which had been identified as newly erected or repaired by satelite imaging were found to not have any indication of nuclear activities... It's quite clear??? Mentions nothing about not being able to investigate anything not visible from 'the sky'?

That's not what it says at all. It says that sites which had been identified as newly erected or repaired by satelite imaging were found to not have any indication of nuclear activities... It's quite clear??? Mentions nothing about not being able to investigate anything not visible from 'the sky'?

It also only talks about nuclear weapons, but we know they had chemical weapons and missiles.

That's not what it says at all. It says that sites which had been identified as newly erected or repaired by satelite imaging were found to not have any indication of nuclear activities... It's quite clear??? Mentions nothing about not being able to investigate anything not visible from 'the sky'?

One thing i have learnt in life is people never want to admit when they were fooled. Thats why most people never report being conned to the police. The people who supported the war, will never allow themselves to admit the truth.

It also only talks about nuclear weapons, but we know they had chemical weapons and missiles.

Where are they then? We have 140,000 troops over ther and they still havn't found them.

We allways get the "threat to the world" statement about Iraq, Iran or any other country screamed by the Americans, so why didn't for example India or China or even Russians invade Iraq? Surely they are closer and potentially within reach of the Iraqi weapons. China is just interested in aquiring oil as the Americans but seems happy to buy it than steal it, or maybe they wern't bothered because they live in a different world.

We allways get the "threat to the world" statement about Iraq, Iran or any other country screamed by the Americans, so why didn't for example India or China or even Russians invade Iraq? Surely they are closer and potentially within reach of the Iraqi weapons. China is just interested in aquiring oil as the Americans but seems happy to buy it than steal it, or maybe they wern't bothered because they live in a different world.

Exactly, in reality after 9/11 we should have attacked Packistan and Saudi Arabia. But we couldn't.

I'm just simply amazed that some people still actually believe Iraq was manufacturing WMD's!!!

It also only talks about nuclear weapons, but we know they had chemical weapons and missiles.
They would have been better off invading our local Indian take-away, they probably have more chemical weapons than Iraq, don't half give you the runs, and as for shock an owe well rather not go into details lol

All this still doesn't mean that...it is a good idea for western democracies to change regimes that terrorise their own people...

So in your view it is not idea, is that what you are saying?

The fact is he wasn't, his existing stocks (that we gave him) were not being maintained so they had degraded and were not usable. He had no nuclear program, no mobile chemical labs and as the history revisionists are trying to do, they whole world did not beleive he had them and the people most qualified to make that assertion (the arms inspectors who had spent years on the ground) said there were no signs at all.

And then they were pulled out by Bush, no made to leave as some people beleive.

If they could not fool enough people to invade based on WMD, they had back up plans, to disguise a US plane in UN colours and prevoke Iraq to fire on it. This is all laid out in official UK goverment documents that have never been disputed by Blair. Luckily for them they fooled enough British and American people so they did not have to do this and it seems that are still fooling them.

The fact is he wasn't, his existing stocks (that we gave him) were not being maintained so they had degraded and were not usable. He had no nuclear program, no mobile chemical labs and as the history revisionists are trying to do, they whole world did not beleive he had them and the people most qualified to make that assertion (the arms inspectors who had spent years on the ground) said there were no signs at all.

And then they were pulled out by Bush, no made to leave as some people beleive.

If they could not fool enough people to invade based on WMD, they had back up plans, to disguise a US plane in UN colours and prevoke Iraq to fire on it. This is all laid out in official UK goverment documents that have never been disputed by Blair. Luckily for them they fooled enough British and American people so they did not have to do this and it seems that are still fooling them.

It's amazing how ready people are to believe what's fed to them simply because it becomes from an 'official' source. A massive precentage of American troops still believe they are fighting in Iraq to avenge 9/11. As probably alot of civillians, American and British, do too, I suppose.
How people can get away with such lies, and not to be held account for them once they become public, I don't know.

Where are they then? We have 140,000 troops over ther and they still havn't found them.

Those evil Saddamists have created mobile, stealth bunkers which move along underneath the Earth's crust. Cowlin Powell has a video which unfortunately we can be shown as it would compromise the security of our agents. (unless ofcourse the agents disagree with GW, inwhich case we'll leak their names to the press!)

Where are they then? We have 140,000 troops over ther and they still havn't found them.

We might still find them yet, and we may find them yet. It may also be that they simply destroyed them. The fact is that they did exist because they used them on their own people and on Iran. The only issue is whether they STILL exist.

Those evil Saddamists have created mobile, stealth bunkers which move along underneath the Earth's crust. Cowlin Powell has a video which unfortunately we can be shown as it would compromise the security of our agents. (unless ofcourse the agents disagree with GW, inwhich case we'll leak their names to the press!)


Ha remember Saddam had vast underground labs, some the size of cities! We have these mock ups of mobile weapons labs, and he is trying to buy yellow cake (that he already has access to) from Africa. All BS. And Bush knew it, it's since come out (again official goverment documents) that his own intellegence service had told him the claims were false.

Infact if you look at the yellow cake document they are clearly fake, as the CIA knew before Powel went to the UN.

They are here, just look at the letter headed paper (second image down) the government logo is HAND DRAWN. This was the entire basis for the claims he had a nuclear program.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4166.htm

We might still find them yet, and we may find them yet. It may also be that they simply destroyed them. The fact is that they did exist because they used them on their own people and on Iran. The only issue is whether they STILL exist.

You keep telling yourself that. The US goverment has disbanded the unit set up to find them.

He used them agains the Kurds over 10 years prior to the war.

It's amazing how ready people are to believe what's fed to them simply because it becomes from an 'official' source. A massive precentage of American troops still believe they are fighting in Iraq to avenge 9/11. As probably alot of civillians, American and British, do too, I suppose.
How people can get away with such lies, and not to be held account for them once they become public, I don't know.

The people who tell the lies hold the power, simple as that :(

StarSparkle

They are here, just look at the letter headed paper (second image down) the government logo is HAND DRAWN. This was the entire basis for the claims he had a nuclear program.


Good God - governments hold us all in complete contempt, don't they? :(

StarSparkle

Good God - governments hold us all in complete contempt, don't they? :(

StarSparkle

We let them.

While there are no ramifications to these acts they will continue. While they can keep a percentage of the population beleiving there are WMD or the weapons inspectors were thrown out by Saddam then they can continue.

They also though that the document would not get released it was released by the Italians. How many news shows have covered it? Probably only Channel 4 news or Newsnight. More people get their news from difference places, and therfore do not know about this. I would say only a few percent of the people in the UK even know about the downing street memo or this.

This from an aid to Bush in 2002.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&en=890a96189e162076&ei=5090

President Bush;

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Joseph Goebbels;

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

I'm just simply amazed that some people still actually believe Iraq was manufacturing WMD's!!!
Be amazed - they were. they had a stockpile of bought-in chemical shells and were working on their own biological programme - most of the labs were mobile in artics, with quite advanced centrifuge setups.
Just before the invasion 2 ships left Basrah which almost certainly had the 'evidence' on board. They were suspected to have been scuttled in the Gulf.

Link please. Even the US admitted those trucks never existed.

Link please. Even the US admitted those trucks never existed."Link please".

Of course, if it's on the internet, it's the truth - that's what perpetuates the conspiracy theorists anyway. Why are muppets so obsessed with the sodding internet and links?

I got that information from work; it's what I do, and I can't post links. I know - unlike the armchair expert brigade..

Ok so its hearsay. Fair enough. Of course you know better than the CIA.

Ok so its hearsay. Fair enough. Of course you know better than the CIA.'Hearsay'. Yes, whatever you say.
Obviously, you are fully privy to the CIA's inner sanctums, can I assume? Or have you learned what you think you know from the newspapers, tv and nutty internet sites? Ah, yes, the latter.
I get my information from my career - in uniform, working at the time in a rather priviledged position with access to a lot of information, but that counts for nothing does it? :D

Seriously Bartfest those trucks never existed, the CIA have said this publicly. So if British intelligence services believe they exist we are in worse shape than I thought! Maybe we should start a letter writing campaign to or MP's if you are telling us our service are still working of intellegence that has been shown to be false for years now. Even Powel the man who sold this idea to the UN has said that information was false.

No nutty web sites, just the CIA and a panel of experts from the US and UK who went to Iraq. The original evidence that they existed came from one man, a man code named called Curveball. All the information he gave since turned out not to be true.

It's a shame your assertion cannot be verified and very convenient for you.

Seriously Bartfest those trucks never existed, the CIA have said this publicly. So if British intelligence services believe they exist we are in worse shape than I thought! Maybe we should start a letter writing campaign to or MP's if you are telling us our service are still working of intellegence that has been shown to be false for years now. Even Powel the man who sold this idea to the UN has said that information was false.

No nutty web sites, just the CIA and a panel of experts from the US and UK who went to Iraq. The original evidence that they existed came from one man, a man code named called Curveball. All the information he gave since turned out not to be true.

It's a shame your assertion cannot be verified and very convenient for you.
I could turn it back to you and say 'post links', but to be honest I find all the link stuff very tiring, because most websites are no more convincing than an opinion on this forum - any plum can set up a website.
Do you think the CIA openly post everything they know?

This is what Powel said in 2003. So the original US based intelligence on these trucks, that came from one man (curveball) who the German intelligence who had been dealing with him said was not to be trusted, was false. We wouldn't even be talking about these trucks unless the CIA had brought them up, and the UK intelligence who had no other evidence on them at the time of war, now think they exist when the CIA don't and think they never existed?

That’s a very, serious claim Bartfest. A claim that paints our intelligence services as being incompetent, this is something everybody should worry about.


Speaking to reporters on a flight home from Europe, Mr. Powell said he had sought to highlight the laboratory charge in his presentation to the United Nations in February 2003 because it was especially "dramatic." But he said he included it only after studying four sources that were used to compile the intelligence.

"I looked at the four elements that they gave me for that one, and they stood behind them," he said of his intelligence briefers. "Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory

He went on to say;

Powell continued: “At the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

Current and former U.S. officials, including David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, have said that most of the evidence came from an Iraqi defector code-named “Curveball.”

According to newspaper accounts, U.S. officials didn't know the defector's name until after the war, when they learned that he was a brother of one of the top aides of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was an important advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The Los Angeles Times reported in March that the most of the information about the supposed mobile laboratories was passed to the CIA by the German Intelligence Service (BND).

Kay has said that Curveball was a "downright swindler," and charged that the case suggested "a lack of due diligence and care" by U.S. officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997766/

You are not telling me we (British intellegence) are still listening to a man who the cheif US weapons inspector for Iraq called a "swindler"?

But even before Powel made the speech that part of the intellegence was crossed out by the CIA.

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn on the television and there it was, again."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html

"mentally unstable and a liar", our people cannot be taking this mans claims seriously after the intellegence communities of America, Germany, Itally and France never excepted it?

I get my information from my career - in uniform, working at the time in a rather priviledged position with access to a lot of information, but that counts for nothing does it? :D

And you use the information you get through supposedly 'priviledged' military channels to big yourself up on a public forum. Highly likely. Do you actually have any security clearance for access to information above canteen gossip.

It's also a big coincidence that your priviledged information is the same line Bush and Blair have been trying to sell for the last three years. Not really that priviledged. And if it is, you shouldn't be posting it on the internet.

And you use the information you get through supposedly 'priviledged' military channels to big yourself up on a public forum. Highly likely. Do you actually have any security clearance for access to information above canteen gossip.

It's also a big coincidence that your priviledged information is the same line Bush and Blair have been trying to sell for the last three years. Not really that priviledged. And if it is, you shouldn't be posting it on the internet.

Whoah!

Don't have a go at Bartfarst or him and his highly specialised chums he's plays golf with at Hallam will be round to sort you out.

Whoah!

Don't have a go at Bartfarst or him and his highly specialised chums he's plays golf with at Hallam will be round to sort you out.

I prefer to think of it as stating the obvious than having a go.

And you use the information you get through supposedly 'priviledged' military channels to big yourself up on a public forum. Highly likely. Do you actually have any security clearance for access to information above canteen gossip.

It's also a big coincidence that your priviledged information is the same line Bush and Blair have been trying to sell for the last three years. Not really that priviledged. And if it is, you shouldn't be posting it on the internet.

The problem that bartfast has is, that nearly every other day a senior officer or dept in the Military establishment is coming out with reports which totally contradict both his and the Govt's version of events.

The Iraq war has acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for extremists in the Muslim world, according to a paper prepared for a Ministry of Defence thinktank, which also said the British government sent troops into Afghanistan "with its eyes closed".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1882713,00.html

Somehow, I think Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a parallel universe where she would be reading about a US invasion of Japan which cost the lives of over a million US troops and five million Japanese citizens and soldiers in 1946 and 1947, than live in this one where the dropping of two atom bombs killed around 130,000 people (fewer than in the fire raid on Dresden in February 1945) and promptly ended the war. And Agent Lesbos owes her existence to the bravery of far better people who lived 60 years ago than what exist today.

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world where the government actually listened to the views of the country they supposedly represent. Somewhere in the region of 57,000 people took to the streets of Manchester on saturday 23rd september in protest against the war in Iraq wanting the troop brought home; Labour Party Conference response - "Its not up for discussion".

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world where the government did not have double standards - attacking countries for doing (on a much smaller scale) what the UK and US have been openly doing for years.

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world where we are not fighting wars for oil when climate change is already such a major issue - but investing more into renewable energy than illegal warfare.

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world without borders where people were equal regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.



Heather
"An Eye for An Eye and The Whole World Will Be Blind"

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world where the government actually listened to the views of the country they supposedly represent. Somewhere in the region of 57,000 people took to the streets of Manchester on saturday 23rd september in protest against the war in Iraq wanting the troop brought home; Labour Party Conference response - "Its not up for discussion".

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world where the government did not have double standards - attacking countries for doing (on a much smaller scale) what the UK and US have been openly doing for years.

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world where we are not fighting wars for oil when climate change is already such a major issue - but investing more into renewable energy than illegal warfare.

Agent Lesbos would rather be living in a world without borders where people were equal regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.



Heather
"An Eye for An Eye and The Whole World Will Be Blind"

Halibut would rather be living in Agent Lesbos's world too. Sounds pretty damned good to me.....

Halibut would rather be living in Agent Lesbos's world too. Sounds pretty damned good to me.....
And living in Agent Lesbos's world would have meant being conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940, or at best a return to the 'duck and cover' era of a new Cold War sometime around 2010 if Iran gets its nuclear wish, courtesy of the gullibility and masochism of those who cheer on the terrorists and who gathered in Manchester, and goes on to hold the West to ransom, squandering the 'land fit for heroes' dream that our grandfathers fought for over 60 years ago.

Now that certainly doesn't sound good to me.

And living in Agent Lesbos's world would have meant being conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940, or at best a return to the 'duck and cover' era of a new Cold War sometime around 2010 if Iran gets its nuclear wish, courtesy of the gullibility and masochism of those who cheer on the terrorists and who gathered in Manchester, and goes on to hold the West to ransom, squandering the 'land fit for heroes' dream that our grandfathers fought for over 60 years ago.

Now that certainly doesn't sound good to me.


A couple of points . . .

We can't change the past events ie World War II (In Agent Lesbos' World this event would never have taken place either). However we can make a difference to future events.

The UK and US between them have killed more people in warfare in the past 60 years than the rest of the world combined. They also hold the largest stockpiles of WMDs and nuclear weoponry. Can you not see how this is causing antiwestern feelings and encouraging other parts of the world to invest in their defenses ?

I am fully opposed to all forms of warfare and weapon production, whether it is by Iran or the worlds worst offenders, the UK and US.

The US has trained and armed half of the middle east, then a couple of years later used this as an excuse in thier war for oil to attack them.

I am against all forms of terrorism, whether this be Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, IRA or Bush and Blair.

And living in Agent Lesbos's world would have meant being conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940, or at best a return to the 'duck and cover' era of a new Cold War sometime around 2010 if Iran gets its nuclear wish, courtesy of the gullibility and masochism of those who cheer on the terrorists and who gathered in Manchester, and goes on to hold the West to ransom, squandering the 'land fit for heroes' dream that our grandfathers fought for over 60 years ago.

Now that certainly doesn't sound good to me.
People fighting for dreams does seem hight of gullibility rather than protesting against a real and apparent danger facing our country. It is likely that the world will be held to ransome by China way before Iran can get a look in but since they already have newkillar wepons Bush an co prefer not to be so agressive towards them. Also following the North Korean example is spurring the Iranians to go for the nuclear option, and can you blame them?

Perhaps we will just have to let the NPT slip away quietly, as no-one held up their end of the bargain anyway; and tip-toe carefully into a new world where wars of acquisition and wars by proxy are no longer such a juicy prospect.

Israel has the bomb, Iran will have it by 2012, You can then look forward to a proliferation of nuclear technology in the middle east, as everyone tools up to defend their last remaining barrels of oil and/or 'poot' the unbelievers out of existence.

We'd better all learn to get along. And get some more chairs for the UNSC.

You can't negotiate with mindless imbeciles - but you can vaporise them.

that's u up the creek then eh?

And living in Agent Lesbos's world would have meant being conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940, or at best a return to the 'duck and cover' era of a new Cold War sometime around 2010 if Iran gets its nuclear wish, courtesy of the gullibility and masochism of those who cheer on the terrorists and who gathered in Manchester, and goes on to hold the West to ransom, squandering the 'land fit for heroes' dream that our grandfathers fought for over 60 years ago.

Now that certainly doesn't sound good to me.


Now if your adopted country didn't have nukes, no one else in the middle east would be trying to get them either now would they ?

You cant have a nuclear free zone (minus Israel).

Funny how every threat to Israel is a threat to the west.

Seems the cabinet was divided like the country when it came to the Iraq war.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13546044,00.html

Stll nothing suprises me with this lot.;)

Seems the cabinet was divided like the country when it came to the Iraq war.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13546044,00.html

Stll nothing suprises me with this lot.;)

Unlike fascists, people in a democracy like to debate and argue. People do not bow down to the will of one leader. It is healthy that members of the cabinet were fighting policy issues from different perspectives...it's called deomcracy:thumbsup: