I like many of my friends in the forces believe that the war we have undertaken in Iraq was unjustified and was started to give vise president Blair a good feeling that he had power and backing from the only one super power in the world.

His actions have caused the deaths of a number of our comrades without justification or so much as a thankyou to the bereved that have lost family or relatives in the Gulf.
Should this man not be brought up on war crimes as he has publically admitted that he was wrong about the 45 min'wmd threat but went to war for the glory!

I still cannot get my head around the fact that you say the BNP were against the war.

I very much doubt Mr Blair feels good about ANY soldier lost in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3696300.stm

DerekH - political pointscoring is quite pathetic. Your assumption about why Blair went to war is questionable to say the least, and just because he doesn't go on TV every ten minutes saying how grateful he is doesn't mean to say he's not.

I agree with the war in Iraq. Blair has his faults but I doubt that not caring about the deaths of the soliders is one of them. He shoulders a responsibility that few of us will ever have - sending men and women to their possible deaths. He has to deal with his conscience and, given his beliefs, ultimately his God.

When people are brave enough and care enough about their country to join up, they know the possibility of their death or maiming is there - that's what the job entails. They're not their to make policy - that's what happens in military dictatorships.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
DerekH - political pointscoring is quite pathetic. Your assumption about why Blair went to war is questionable to say the least, and just because he doesn't go on TV every ten minutes saying how grateful he is doesn't mean to say he's not.

I agree with the war in Iraq. Blair has his faults but I doubt that not caring about the deaths of the soliders is one of them. He shoulders a responsibility that few of us will ever have - sending men and women to their possible deaths. He has to deal with his conscience and, given his beliefs, ultimately his God.

When people are brave enough and care enough about their country to join up, they know the possibility of their death or maiming is there - that's what the job entails. They're not their to make policy - that's what happens in military dictatorships.

Joe

Actually I am not looking for any political points the views I give on here are my own view and not politically motivated.
I have nothing to gain nor do i want to gain anything from putting my views forward.

As far as Blair sending soldiers in to war for his own selfish reasons.......... there was no legal reason to go to war in the first place!
You state that you agree with the war in Iraq, The attacking of a sovereign country to depose their leader is nothing more than bullying.
If we were justified in doing it, Why are we not doing the same in Zimbabwe?
(could it be that there is nothing of value that can be taken from there?

Originally posted by carcrash
I still cannot get my head around the fact that you say the BNP were against the war.
Who's talking about the BNP???? I have not mentioned anything relating to the BNP in this thread!

Derek H

I agree with what happened over there, I seriously don`t think Mr Blair did it for his own sense of power he has but do you know.

My son`s served over there, and one was bullied but guess what not by iraq people but his own and Tony Blair had nothing to do with it. It was not Mr Blairs actions that caused me to loose a big part of my son.

Originally posted by DerekH
...give vise president Blair a good feeling that he had power and backing from the only one super power in the world.

:hihi: 'good feeling' ?! I think it's more to do with maintaining an alliance which has caused many previous prime ministers to also bend over backward and become unpopular with British public.

It's possible that Tony Blair could have ignored this alliance and refused to join the USA... but by doing so he might have jeopardised our security in the long term - we never know when we might need the Americans to come and save us again. There are even theories that we can afford to scale back our own military as we have the world's largest army to cover our backs ;)

It's all about the bigger picture, like it or not.

(BTW, I fully expect DerekH to ignore this post).

I do not believe that any world leader enjoys seeing it's troops killed in action,but that is what war is all about,injustice & so on ,but do people join the forces to go around the world just to see the nice countrys.War is a terrible thing no matter the reasons,but it happens,try telling all the forces in the 2nd WW that it was a waste of time,Saddam has been removed from terrorising his own people & other countrys he did not like.He is an evil dicatator & good riddance to him.

Originally posted by DerekH
Actually I am not looking for any political points the views I give on here are my own view and not politically motivated.
I have nothing to gain nor do i want to gain anything from putting my views forward.

As far as Blair sending soldiers in to war for his own selfish reasons.......... there was no legal reason to go to war in the first place!
You state that you agree with the war in Iraq, The attacking of a sovereign country to depose their leader is nothing more than bullying.
If we were justified in doing it, Why are we not doing the same in Zimbabwe?
(could it be that there is nothing of value that can be taken from there?

Actually, I feel that the West should be intervening in Zimbabwe, not necessarily militarily. The structures that Europe, the US and the USSR imposed on many parts of the world are now collapsing and we do have some responsibility to sort it out.

And yes, Iraq has got oil. The quicker we get off of our 'oil habit' the better. But let's be realistic; have you stopped using oil based materials / fuels in protest against the war in Iraq, if you believe it's purely because of oil?

From the early days of Saddam's regime in the late 1970s he was responsible for the murder of political opponents, mass murder of Kurds in the North and South of his country, the invasion of Kuwait, starting the Iran / Iraq war in Sept. 1980 (although Saddam claimed provocation), war crimes in both of these wars, use of CBW against his own people, and so on.

After Desert Storm he repeatedly refused to cooperate with UN inspectors for 10 years - his lying and bluster led to the events of 2003. If he hadn't got the WMD or the wherewithall to make them, why lie? Why not just let the inspectors in from day one? Even the US and USSR allowed inspection teams in to their nuclear weapons facilities and CBW facilities over the years. The war and it's aftermath are either the result of a game of bluff from Saddam gone horribly wrong, or, if he did have the weapons and had concealed them, a justifiable attempt to stop them being used again.

Joe

Originally posted by Geoff
:hihi: 'good feeling' ?! I think it's more to do with maintaining an alliance which has caused many previous prime ministers to also bend over backward and become unpopular with British public.

It's possible that Tony Blair could have ignored this alliance and refused to join the USA... but by doing so he might have jeopardised our security in the long term - we never know when we might need the Americans to come and save us again. There are even theories that we can afford to scale back our own military as we have the world's largest army to cover our backs ;)

It's all about the bigger picture, like it or not.

(BTW, I fully expect DerekH to ignore this post).

I agree with your way of thinking but it still comes down to starting a war without reason.
I am sure that if the bombing starts here in retaliation for our aggression that views will be different untill then all i can say is that I don't agree with the way we went to war for the reasons that Sadam posed a threat to the UK.

The loss of life in Iraq since the so called liberation is higher than if we would have left well alone and the body count is rising on a daily basis.

Our troops are here to protect British interests where our security is threatened not to play second fiddle to the US.

Going into Iraq has created a worse scenario than if we would have left Sadam in charge and the worlds security is now at risk more so now than before.

I do realise that we are in Iraq now at the request of the current Iraqi government that was incedently hand picked by the Americans.
For how long? Who knows!
I will make one statement though and that is a lot more lives will be lost and Iraq will never be free of violence as there are too many factions involved.
Sadam at least solved the problem by useing an iron fist approach to keep them all in line.
You may say he was a tyrant and murderer but then so is Mugabe, Idi Amin and others that..BTW England put into power!

Originally posted by DerekH
Our troops are here to protect British interests where our security is threatened not to play second fiddle to the US.

I agree that our troops should be used to protect our interests but not necessarily here in Britain. Ever since we have had a standing army our troops have been available for use by successive governments to protect our interests and in the main these have been economic and commercial interests. It would be nice to think that they are there solely to protect us from attack but they are paid for by taxes and as such are very useful in ensuring the economic well being of this country.

It may not be very patriotic or popular to say this but if Germany and her allies had not been threatening to dominate world trade perhaps we would not have had 2 world wars.

There is no 'good reason' to start or particpate in ANY war. There is always a group somewhere who will find the negative side to any 'good reason' put forward that is what is called persception.

I am sure many of us here could cite the second world war as a having a 'good reason' to particpate in it....but on this very forum we had a person from Germany who outright slammed the allied attacks on Germany. I have to say I shamelessly slammed him back :blush: before i became a mod I may add :D

You cannot please everybody - war kills people it is a simple case of weighing the pros and cons and making the best possible decision you can at the time with the information you have.

I have always supported action on Saddam's arse and still do.

Moon

Well said MM Totally agree & Saddam is in the best place Jail.

Hang on....

The USA won't allow UN Nuke Inspectors in to inspect their WMD though.

What's that all about then??

The US has an organistion that supports inspections by other countries and organistions under the various treaties the US is a signatory to :

http://www.dtra.mil/toolbox/directorates/osi/index.cfm

but yes, they also excercise the various rights they have under treaties not to allow chemical samples to be tested outside the US and similar 'get outs'.

I'm not saying the US is right in this respect - various groups have said that the US shoots itself in the foot by refusing to go along with these inspections - but the bottom line is that the UN had bought resolutions against Iraq which, had they been complied with early enough, would have certainly shot the ground from under any reasons to invade.

But Saddam decided to enter a ******* contest with the US - never a good move.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
But Saddam decided to enter a ******* contest with the US - never a good move.

Joe

A bit like Isreal and the UN then. ;-)

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Actually, I feel that the West should be intervening in Zimbabwe, not necessarily militarily. The structures that Europe, the US and the USSR imposed on many parts of the world are now collapsing and we do have some responsibility to sort it out.

And yes, Iraq has got oil. The quicker we get off of our 'oil habit' the better. But let's be realistic; have you stopped using oil based materials / fuels in protest against the war in Iraq, if you believe it's purely because of oil?

From the early days of Saddam's regime in the late 1970s he was responsible for the murder of political opponents, mass murder of Kurds in the North and South of his country, the invasion of Kuwait, starting the Iran / Iraq war in Sept. 1980 (although Saddam claimed provocation), war crimes in both of these wars, use of CBW against his own people, and so on.

After Desert Storm he repeatedly refused to cooperate with UN inspectors for 10 years - his lying and bluster led to the events of 2003. If he hadn't got the WMD or the wherewithall to make them, why lie? Why not just let the inspectors in from day one? Even the US and USSR allowed inspection teams in to their nuclear weapons facilities and CBW facilities over the years. The war and it's aftermath are either the result of a game of bluff from Saddam gone horribly wrong, or, if he did have the weapons and had concealed them, a justifiable attempt to stop them being used again.

Joe



Good point, Well put!!!!!!!

Originally posted by sccsux
A bit like Isreal and the UN then. ;-)

Again, Israel should go along with the UN resolutions - as should the surronding nations who've over the years refused to admit the right of Israel to exist as a nation.

I can understand the Palestinian people's position - but also would suggest that their position might be better served by their Government's clamping down on groups like Hamas.

Joe

Originally posted by carcrash
I still cannot get my head around the fact that you say the BNP were against the war.

I still can’t get my head around the fact the Nazi’s in the BNP thought they could try and take part in the Feb 15th march (as open BNP members) and not end up needing a police escort out of the area, which they did.


Funny that a BNP candidate hasn’t chosen to put forward the official BNP party policy on the war in Iraq ,ie that it is all paedophile/Jewish conspiracy.

Honestly I'm not making this up, their was an official news posting on the BNP website a month ago claiming we only went to war to protect Peter Mandelson and some Freemasons from being exposed as international paedophiles.

This kind of stuff would be funny if it wasn't for someone standing for election in Sheffield representing such disgustingly anti-Semitic views.

Originally posted by sccsux

The USA won't allow UN Nuke Inspectors in to inspect their WMD though.





Could you provide a source for this claim.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I still can’t get my head around the fact the Nazi’s in the BNP thought they could try and take part in the Feb 15th march (as open BNP members) and not end up needing a police escort out of the area, which they did.


Funny that a BNP candidate hasn’t chosen to put forward the official BNP party policy on the war in Iraq ,ie that it is all paedophile/Jewish conspiracy.

Honestly I'm not making this up, their was an official news posting on the BNP website a month ago claiming we only went to war to protect Peter Mandelson and some Freemasons from being exposed as international paedophiles.

This kind of stuff would be funny if it wasn't for someone standing for election in Sheffield representing such disgustingly anti-Semitic views.

Again...Disco Cat. Your comments regarding the BNP have no place in this thread.
I would ask "are you somehow having a dig at me on a personal basis?'
If so please could you rather put these types of comments in pm instead of threads that have nothing to do with the BNP.

I cannot comment on your statements made as in all honesty I have not read what you are stating maybe on the website or anywhere else.
I would think that your comments are not that accurate though as anyone making a statement like you have mentioned should be on Saturday night live as a comedian.

As far as you state "someone standing in sheffield representing these views"I beg to differ as I stand for the party and have my own views.
No one pulls my strings and I do not practice antisemitism or racialism in any way shape or form.
It would be better that you judge a person by their individuality and not as a collective.
In closing on this subject.. if you have read the thread relating to the BNP you will find my comments and views are not written or sanctioned by the BNP.

Now can we get back on track!

If as a BNP candidate you post topics which are political attacks upon other political parties it is clear your motivation is solely to bolster you and your parties position.

As long as you are posting such politically opportunists comments such as this i will continue to criticize the BNP for being the hate filled harbour for racism and anti-Semitism that it is.

The BNP is anti war, but they are anti war for very different reasons and very sinister reasons. I just want to make sure that the truth about your ‘parties’ anti war stance is known and how steeped in ignorance and anti-Semitism it is. I’m sorry if that is a hindrance to you trying to pick up some protest votes.

Originally posted by DerekH

As far as you state "someone standing in sheffield representing these views"I beg to differ as I stand for the party and have my own views.
No one pulls my strings and I do not practice antisemitism or racialism in any way shape or form.
It would be better that you judge a person by their individuality and not as a collective.




In this political system if you stand for a party you stand for that parties views. If you want me and others on this forum to judge you as an individual, stand as an independent. But until then we will be forced to associate you with the scum that makes up the BNP

This is the price you will have to pay for all that publicity and canvassing support, I hope it's worth it.

Its quite ironic that most people in this thread are glad that Saddam, a man who denied political freedom, has been jailed... and then in the same breath villify the thread starter for his views.

I am a member of the Anti Nazi League, however I have the capacity to understand that people who think differently do not have to be persecuted or threatened with violence. As much as I loathe the BNP, they do have a right to speak as we do after all, live in a democracy (supposedly...).

As for the war, I was originally for it and have now reversed my views, we should get the hell out. The first Gulf War should have been finished, but Bush senior was scared that Iraq without Saddam would become a radical Shi'ite enclave...something that I I think Bush junior is also worried about.

Would people who want to see our troops withdrawn from Iraq have more faith in their role in that region if Kerry was commander in chief not Bush?

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Would people who want to see our troops withdrawn from Iraq have more faith in their role in that region if Kerry was commander in chief not Bush?

Personally - yes I would.

I am really really hoping Kerry gets in but unfortunately I think the American people will think "better the devil we know" :(

I'm not so sure they will, after all kerry ****** on Bush in the first debate and that was meant to be Bushes strongest of the three. Can't wait to see how bad Bush will come out on the debates around issues he has poor ratings on.

Also I've just seen that Naders polling has dropped to only 1%, its now the lowest it has been and looks set to drop even further, can't really imagine Bush benefiting from this loss of support.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
In this political system if you stand for a party you stand for that parties views. If you want me and others on this forum to judge you as an individual, stand as an independent. But until then we will be forced to associate you with the scum that makes up the BNP

This is the price you will have to pay for all that publicity and canvassing support, I hope it's worth it.
May I say that When I posted this thread it was not for any political reasoning.....I posted it as a personal opinion and have not in anyway condemed a political party nor have I slagged anyone. I have put forward a question and an opinion!
Which doesnt say much for your comments!.......As I don't know you I would never resort to calling you scum or anything else that is derogotive.

If the mods and people in the Sheffield Forum think that I am useing the forum as a political soap box then I would ask that they Ban me forthwith....However I think that the only political thread that I did join in was the BNP thread itself.

Personally I used to enjoy coming in the forum but with the slagging that goes on and better than thou attitudes with general know it alls that frequent here it has become a much less enjoyable place to frequent on the web.

I think that it must be nice to be judgemental about others whilst preaching tollerance and understanding........A little hypocritical when it suits them that do it!

Originally posted by Xtro
Its quite ironic that most people in this thread are glad that Saddam, a man who denied political freedom, has been jailed... and then in the same breath villify the thread starter for his views.

I am a member of the Anti Nazi League, however I have the capacity to understand that people who think differently do not have to be persecuted or threatened with violence. As much as I loathe the BNP, they do have a right to speak as we do after all, live in a democracy (supposedly...).

As for the war, I was originally for it and have now reversed my views, we should get the hell out. The first Gulf War should have been finished, but Bush senior was scared that Iraq without Saddam would become a radical Shi'ite enclave...something that I I think Bush junior is also worried about.


I thank you for your comments! and agree with you totally.


PLEASE CAN THE MODS CLOSE THIS THREAD FOR GOOD AS I DO NOT WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF STARTING THREADS FOR A POLITICAL MOTIVE!

I have tried to be a participant in here without any political agenda's but it seems everytime I say something or start a thread it always ends up with slinging mud.

Cheers for a great time whilst I have been on here.......I am retiring and quitting the forum.
Maybe some of you can rest in peace knowing that someone with a different disposition regarding opinions will not be on here to spoil your threads with anything different!

Originally posted by DerekH


I posted it as a personal opinion and have not in anyway condemed a political party nor have I slagged anyone.




As I don't know you I would never resort to calling you scum or anything else that is derogotive.





Your original post was an attack upon Tony Blair specifically, his motivations for the war and his compassion to the soldiers killed.

The idea that you can make such claims about Blair and not effect the credibility or standing of the Labour party in any way is absurd.

The point of my comment was not to refer to you as scum, far from it.

My point is that by choosing to join a party of race haters you have chosen to associate yourself with those sort of people.

No matter what sort of an individual you may be, (I have never seen you post a racist comment), or how good your motivations are, by joining the BNP you have inherited an association with a vanguard of people that can quite fairly i believe be labelled as scum.

I hope you can see that my comment wasn’t an attack on you as an individual.

Originally posted by Xtro
Personally - yes I would.

I am really really hoping Kerry gets in but unfortunately I think the American people will think "better the devil we know" :(

So this time it is "chimp or gimp" as opposed to last time - "bore and gush".

The bulk of the soldiers in Iraq are US servicemen and women. Here are some interesting letters they have written to Michael Moore which he has reproduced in a book
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So this time it is "chimp or gimp" as opposed to last time - "bore and gush".

The bulk of the soldiers in Iraq are US servicemen and women. Here are some interesting letters they have written to Michael Moore which he has reproduced in a book
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

My problem with that analogy is that given the choice most people would go for a chimp over a gimp, esp if the chimp in question had a preference for funky hats and tea parties. I think the, anyone but Bush, line seems to be a lot of people choice although not Ralph Nader of course.

Moorewatch.com is desperately trying to get a publisher for their book of untouched soldiers letters of support for Bush. be very interesting to see what effect if any this book will have. I think what's more significant is Moores decision not to put 9/11 up for a best documentary Oscar so that he can show it on TV before the elections

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
My problem with that analogy is that given the choice most people would go for a chimp over a gimp, esp if the chimp in question had a preference for funky hats and tea parties. I think the, anyone but Bush, line seems to be a lot of people choice although not Ralph Nader of course.

Moorewatch.com is desperately trying to get a publisher for their book of untouched soldiers letters of support for Bush. be very interesting to see what effect if any this book will have. I think what's more significant is Moores decision not to put 9/11 up for a best documentary Oscar so that he can show it on TV before the elections

I suppose the point of it is (not being an analogy an' all) is that its not much of a choice, chimp or gimp...

Apologies to all you primates out there for besmirching the term 'chimp'.

Originally posted by DerekH

Cheers for a great time whilst I have been on here.......I am retiring and quitting the forum.


I think this is sad. Why is it that if you do not knuckle down and 'creep in' with the majority, you are made to feel like a leper and driven away from the forum. DerekH is not the first this has happened to. If everyone is driven away, leaving those with the same opinions then what is the point of a forum?

I am saying this because I have never seen any racist comments from Derek H either. I didn't even know he was BNP until others mentioned it. In a totallly unrelated thread it was another forum member who tried to incite a racist argument by endeavouring to turn the thread into a racist free for all. To his credit, DerekH was not intimidated by this and, like me, attempted to keep the thread on topic, despite the rantings of the individual in question.

I am not an expert, by any means, on BNP (I don't even know if we have such a thing in Devon), but someone, claiming to be non-racist, attempting to incite a racist argument in a non-relevant thread, is just as bad in my opinion. I think I have said this before (and I make no apologies this time), if I, with my background, do not feel the need to cry 'racist' at every opportunity, then why do others? The whole thing has become so ridiculous that one idiot even called me racist. (I will relay this to my son's in-laws next time I visit the Gambia).

At least DerekH has never called me a thief.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

The idea that you can make such claims about Blair and not effect the credibility or standing of the Labour party in any way is absurd.



Why aren't you allowed to say anything about Tony Blair and the Labour party? I don't understand this at all.

Originally posted by Killian
Why aren't you allowed to say anything about Tony Blair and the Labour party? I don't understand this at all.

I think the point being made was that a few posts further up DerekH was claiming that he wasn't slagging off any political party or any politician... which appears to be untrue.

Originally posted by Patchy
I think the point being made was that a few posts further up DerekH was claiming that he wasn't slagging off any political party or any politician... which appears to be untrue.
It wasnt slagging off! Read the first post...........and second.....If it slagging off then I must be on another planet!
To state an opinion regarding someones actions is not slagging them off...To stand and call them scum etc' That is slagging.
And I stated political party not politician

Derek mate dont let these fools on here stop you from makeing your views known.
We know who those are that can't accept any other views other that theirs and trust me they have zero credibility on here.
As for the post this war was an illegal war according to koffi annan and ifthats good enough for him then its good enoiugh for ke.
Dont let these lefties drive you out mate.

Originally posted by royjames
Derek mate dont let these fools on here stop you from makeing your views known.
We know who those are that can't accept any other views other that theirs and trust me they have zero credibility on here.
As for the post this war was an illegal war according to koffi annan and ifthats good enough for him then its good enoiugh for ke.
Dont let these lefties drive you out mate.
I saw Donald Rumpsfeld on TV this morning stating that there was no evidence for the US to go to WAR!!!!!!
He seems to have changed his tune as another statement was broadcast this morning as to when he stated that there was substantiated evidence that Sadam had WMD's!

So! in the end Blair and Bush fabricated the reasons for going to war for their own political agenda! Then both countries blame it all on the intelligence services.
Oh! not forgetting the BBC!

Originally posted by DerekH
If the mods and people in the Sheffield Forum think that I am useing the forum as a political soap box then I would ask that they Ban me forthwith....However I think that the only political thread that I did join in was the BNP thread itself. For the record, I think both this thread and the Israel thread are valid questions; I really don't see what the BNP has to do with this discussion, and it is certainly news to me that you were a candidate. Also, last time I looked, membership of a political party was not grounds to ban anyone, and unless people report posts that exceed the terms and conds of the site, I'm not going to ban you either.


I think you might have titled it this thread a little better though:

"Did Blair commit british forces to war for an ego rush?"

"Did Blair lie through his teeth when citing the justification for the war as being disarmament?"

"Did Blair shamelessly parade speculation as fact when his most recent justification for war fell flat on its face?"

So, forummers - Did our Soldiers have to die to make Blair feel good?

Well If I answer that honestly - no. They could have stayed at home and Blair could have felt good about that. But he chose to commit and that was his decision - now all he has to do is live with it. A luxury he no doubt appreciates.

Blair has made a wrong decision on this war and I hope he pays the price at the next election.
I will always trust the judgement of koffi annan over blair or bush anytime.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
For the record, I think both this thread and the Israel thread are valid questions;

although I think you might have titled it a little less melodramatically than you did maybe

"Did Blair commit british forces to war for an ego rush?"

"Did Blair lie through his teeth when citing the justification for the war as being disarmament?"

"Did Blair shamelessly parade speculation as fact when his most recent justification for war fell flat on its face?"

I really don't see what the BNP has to do with this discussion, and it is certainly news to me that you were a candidate.

So, forummers - Did our Soldiers have to die to make Blair feel good?

Well If I answer that honestly - no. They could have stayed at home and Blair could have felt good about that. But he chose to commit and that was his decision - now all he has to do is live with it.
It was one of those days when I was lost for descriptive words lol.

Not only will he live with the lies and deciet....he will have to live with the knowledge that the lives that have been wasted and those that are still in a war zone have given the ultimate sacrifice for this country by engaging in a war without foundation.

Fact! attacks on our forces in iraq have doubled from 40 a day to 80 a day. this was stated on BBC news.
As the war was a victory 12 months ago....Why is it that Vietnam comes to mind everytime I see the papers or watch the news?

Why does every one seem to belive there are no WMD in the Middle East ? just because they haven't been found , dosen't mean there isn't any ! of course there is !!!

Our only hope is Bush & Blair together, the only better team we could have had is Reagan & Thatcher.

Well generally speaking there are plenty of WMD in the middle east (israel, iran, egypt), its just that Iraq appears to have destroyed her reserves and arsenals in compliance with 92 resolutions and the terms of the ceasefire.

So the reason that I don't believe there are any meaningful amounts of WMD, especially strategic WMD, in Iraq, is because despite years of interrupted expections, nearly 15 years of millimetric wave radar and photographic spy satellite observation and more than 12 months of intensive investigation by the Iraq Survey Group (the group charged with finding WMD after the conflict) - not one 'smoking gun' item has been found. Which is what Hans Blix said as he fled Iraq in the face of the impending invasion.

So I'll believe it when I, and the world's media, sees it. Until then it's an unfounded rumour used to justify a war of aggression. It also seems that Rumsfeld can't make up his mind whether there was justification for the war, like its not important anymore, Blair originally said it was about disarmament - obviously untrue - either he is astoundingly gullible (hardly anyone else believed the US administration on this claim), deceitful or stupid. I know he's not stupid, so that leaves deceitful or more gullible than his electorate. Neither of which is a quality I prize in a leader.

Incidentally, Steve Bells latest book "the Apes of Wrath" is out now - I would recommend!

For a good investigation into the "special relationship" watch John Pilger on TV tonight - all about Diego Garcia.

Not the first time.

I think the award for having the ****tyest end of the stick must go to Jack Straw today.

He’s in Iraq trying to put spin on the ISG report about Saddams lack of WMD while Tony gets to enjoy some photo opps in Africa with Bono and other do gooders. Poor jack didn’t even get a special mention during Tonys big speech the other day.

My favourite soundbite so far comes from the deputy prime minister of Iraq explaining that the reason we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction isn’t because their aren’t any but because Saddam was the weapon they were talking about:

Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3719522.stm

Originally posted by poppins
Why does every one seem to belive there are no WMD in the Middle East ? just because they haven't been found , dosen't mean there isn't any ! of course there is !!!

Our only hope is Bush & Blair together, the only better team we could have had is Reagan & Thatcher.

Do you mind if i ask why you are so sure of WMD existence?

the only weapons of wmd are in the hands of the Israelis,And I dont see anyone going after them.
oops I forgot they are protected by the united states so thsts all right then.
Get real Blair lied about wmd and thats all there is to it.

Originally posted by royjames
the only weapons of wmd are in the hands of the Israelis,And I dont see anyone going after them.
oops I forgot they are protected by the united states so thsts all right then.
Get real Blair lied about wmd and thats all there is to it.
I see that the iraqi president has made a statement that there were WMd in Iraq!......It was Sadam himself that was the WMD.
Makes you think what the world is coming to.......

Todays Papers give the results that people have been waiting for.

We went to war without justification.


T. Blair has stated that the world is a safer place since Sadam was taken out of the picture.

On the contrary, the world is on high alert since the war began and still is!


I think it's time to pull our soldiers out of Iraq and let Sadam go back!
Seems strange to me that they are taking a long time to gather information together for his trial after deposing him for the crimes he has alledged to have committed.

When he was president we didn't have all the civil unrest in iraq!
They were too scared of the law that was imposed!