Well the Iraq Survay Group has reported and found that there are no WMD stockpiles hidden out there (not a desperately huge surprise!). However our great and glorious leader has stated that because there were scientitsts and research facilities in Iraq it showed that Sadam was in breach of UN resolutions and so the invasion was justified - is it just me or is he clutching at straws???

Well,

The survey group also said that there were plans afoot to develop the weapons.

The question also has to be asked - if there were no weapons, then why didn't Saddam say 'OK, I've nothing to hide, some in and have a look'. Instead he chose to bluff his way through the better part of a decade, playing brinksmanship games.

If there were no wepaons, why were there stockpiles of clothing to defend against CBW attacks? It would be obvious to the Iraqi military that the US wouldn't need to use chemical weapons.

Chemical warfare has always been part of Iraqi military doctrine - the Iran/Iraq war and Hallabjah for example, so there is a precedent for the use of such weapons by Saddam's forces.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
If there were no wepaons, why were there stockpiles of clothing to defend against CBW attacks? It would be obvious to the Iraqi military that the US wouldn't need to use chemical weapons.

Surely any army would issue the relevant protective clothing, in the eventuality that the enemy utilised these sorts of weapons? There's no sense in pretending that America would never fight dirty, if needed.

Evidently, Saddam's brinkmanship was all about getting the Iraqi people, and the Arab world, on his side in a fight against the great enemy, the US of A. His tactics were pretty successful, I'd say. Bush's mob fancied a fight too, and smelt the profits that could be made from such a venture - guess if was always going to end messily.

But to pretend it was somehow about WMD - sorry, common sense argues against such a conclusion.

Originally posted by evildrneil
However our great and glorious leader has stated that invasion was justified - is it just me or is he clutching at straws???
That'd be that smarmy Jack? ;)
... defending the indefensible

Originally posted by Greenback
US of A.

R.S.E.S.

:rant: There is no question that the Bush administration wanted blood after 9/11 which is a whole other can of worms that History will teach us

The War was wrong and is not over, it is however being likened to that of the Vietnam f*** *p, a total mess-the soldiers are doing their jobs minus 1000 +- dead ones

A budget of 200 billion dollars (most of which is now spent) to find something that was known to never be there; think about it, I`m not saying Iraq was Utopian but...

The American system is an oppressive evil, tyranical, hypocritical, despotic one that has it`s hand up our a***s and tries to get a foot on everyone else :rant:

Check out "Noam Chomsky" or "Air America Radio" or "Private Eye" to see how nice we really are Damnit!!

I'm very aware of how nasty we in the West are - and I would have been happier had we not gone to war under the banner of 'WMD' but under the banner of 'taking care of unfinished business'.

The 1991 war was never properly finished and left a total mess in it's wake. We then allowed Saddam to vent his spleen at the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. Tying the whole thing to 9/11 was equally daft.

As for the dishing out of CBW protection - they're bitches to even move in in the desert, let alone fight in. The last time that the US used chemical weapons (if you want to call them that) was probably Agent Orange in Viet Nam - despite it's nasty side effects it was a defoliant. The UK last used gas, I believe, in the 1930s in counter-insurgency operations. I may be wrong here.

The firepower and airpower of the Coalition forces was going to be significantly superior to what the Iraqis could muster, so the idea of us also using CBW is not really on. Out own forces would have been seriously hampered as we're not used to fighting 'live battles' in a CBW environment - the Iraqis are. The Iraqi forces have also used CBW in combat and 'cleansing' operations, whereas it's something that we're signed up to not do except in retaliation.

The stockpiling of suits by the Iraqis would seem to indicate that they thought that there would be some CBW agents around; if we're not going to use them first, who is?

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Well,

The survey group also said that there were plans afoot to develop the weapons.

The question also has to be asked - if there were no weapons, then why didn't Saddam say 'OK, I've nothing to hide, some in and have a look'. Instead he chose to bluff his way through the better part of a decade, playing brinksmanship games.

If there were no wepaons, why were there stockpiles of clothing to defend against CBW attacks? It would be obvious to the Iraqi military that the US wouldn't need to use chemical weapons.

Chemical warfare has always been part of Iraqi military doctrine - the Iran/Iraq war and Hallabjah for example, so there is a precedent for the use of such weapons by Saddam's forces.

Joe

The reason nobody would say 'come in and have a look' is because there is no timetable for when they would go. basically its a means of spying on your country for as long as they like. If he didnt have the chems, that doesnt mean he has to provide access all areas to other sensitive issues, maybe even a conventional weapons plan.

Hmm, but having the suits surely doesnt mean they had the intention? The suits could have been from past chemical plans, they tend not to throw everything away there. The suits can be used for other chemical researches aswell (bearing in mind they do have a large oil industry).

Saying they have the suits so there must be something more sinister is like saying Fred over the road has got some fertiliser in his shed, maybe he is going to make a dirty bomb.

Their was an interesting point made on this last night by an ex UN weapons inspector, he’s the famous one who spoke out against the war but his name escapes me.

He basically said that the only places Saddam stopped inspectors from going were areas like his palaces. This could have been because he was hiding large stockpiles of missiles or it could have been that he had correctly worked out that the CIA had infiltrated the UN inspectors with agents to spy on the regime. The US has always had regime change as its motivation and it only used inspections as a way of gaining greater intelligence on the nature and workings of Saddams regime through using spies as inspectors.

With regard to our troops wearing protective suits I read an article in Private Eye i think with said the main reason the British army have such items of kit is for retrieving casualties from tanks etc they have shelled something to do with the effects of depleted Uranium shells that the army use.

I also remember that the news stories about our troops having to sit around in these big bulky suits also came out at the same time as the news stories of Iraq firing Scud Missiles into Kuwait. The scud missiles were propaganda myths, perhaps all those pictures of troops in suits were as well.

Originally posted by JoePritchard


The stockpiling of suits by the Iraqis would seem to indicate that they thought that there would be some CBW agents around; if we're not going to use them first, who is?

Joe

We thought Saddam was going to use WMD on our troops and he didn’t, why shouldn’t his army have made the assumption that the US were going to use WMD on Iraq troops but that assumption proved to be wrong also.

Maybe the Iraq army were just being extra cautious especially considering the US army had revealed they had granted permission for ‘mini nukes’ to be used in the conflict.

Originally posted by JoePritchard


As for the dishing out of CBW protection - they're bitches to even move in in the desert, let alone fight in. The last time that the US used chemical weapons (if you want to call them that) was probably Agent Orange in Viet Nam - despite it's nasty side effects it was a defoliant. The UK last used gas, I believe, in the 1930s in counter-insurgency operations. I may be wrong here.


Joe

What about "depleted uranium" being used by the American Military on the tips of shells, armour and also in turrets?

check this out!! (http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm)

Depleted Uranium can be seen as a chemical and biological weapon. The widespread incidence of uncommon cancers and rare birth defects in the Basra area after the Gulf War will be magnified 10 fold over the next decade as the effects of its use in the invasion come to fruition.
Can anyone justify it's use and say that the people using it shouldn't be charged as war criminals?
At one time we sent powdered milk abroad to malnourished children and babies now we give them leukeamia and two heads.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Depleted Uranium can be seen as a chemical and biological weapon. The widespread incidence of uncommon cancers and rare birth defects in the Basra area after the Gulf War will be magnified 10 fold over the next decade as the effects of its use in the invasion come to fruition.
Can anyone justify it's use and say that the people using it shouldn't be charged as war criminals?
At one time we sent powdered milk abroad to malnourished children and babies now we give them leukeamia and two heads.
The useage of depleated uranium in the first gulf war helped to create the Gulf War Syndrome.
There could be arguments about the cocktail of drugs that were administered just in case biological weapons were to be used by Iraq but the number of shells used that were of uranium content have proved more lethal to our own troops than that of the Iraqi's none existant biological arsenal.

Well at last the truth cometh out,and is anyone REALLY suprised ?
I dont know how Bush and Blair can sleep at night after this,as for sadam he was simply bluffing he had the weapons in order to keep the Iranians guessing and so stop any thoughts the might have had for the invasion of Iraq.
Hans Blix was right all along.

Originally posted by royjames
Well at last the truth cometh out,and is anyone REALLY suprised ?
I dont know how Bush and Blair can sleep at night after this,as for sadam he was simply bluffing he had the weapons in order to keep the Iranians guessing and so stop any thoughts the might have had for the invasion of Iraq.
Hans Blix was right all along.

But if Saddam was "bluffing he had the weapons" then that was going back on the conditions that pressed the pause button on the gulf war in the early nineties.

In my opinion, the fact that he kept on playing games with the UN ever since the "end" of the first gulf war and he kept throwing the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq is in itself a good enough reason to resume the war and get rid of him.

The agreement that ended the first gulf war was that he would get rid of his WMD, and allow the UN to send in inspectors to make sure he had got rid of them .... which he then refused to do for over 10 years.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

He basically said that the only places Saddam stopped inspectors from going were areas like his palaces. This could have been because he was hiding large stockpiles of missiles or it could have been that he had correctly worked out that the CIA had infiltrated the UN inspectors with agents to spy on the regime. The US has always had regime change as its motivation and it only used inspections as a way of gaining greater intelligence on the nature and workings of Saddams regime through using spies as inspectors.


FOR PATCHY

Oil is worth more than human life I am afraid, not saying I like that truth but...

Originally posted by Patchy
But if Saddam was "bluffing he had the weapons" then that was going back on the conditions that pressed the pause button on the gulf war in the early nineties.

In my opinion, the fact that he kept on playing games with the UN ever since the "end" of the first gulf war and he kept throwing the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq is in itself a good enough reason to resume the war and get rid of him.

The agreement that ended the first gulf war was that he would get rid of his WMD, and allow the UN to send in inspectors to make sure he had got rid of them .... which he then refused to do for over 10 years.

Not sure that Saddam was ever "bluffing", ambigious and difficult yes, but we don`t even hear half of the truth about what really goes on.

:confused:

Originally posted by Patchy
But if Saddam was "bluffing he had the weapons" then that was going back on the conditions that pressed the pause button on the gulf war in the early nineties.

In my opinion, the fact that he kept on playing games with the UN ever since the "end" of the first gulf war and he kept throwing the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq is in itself a good enough reason to resume the war and get rid of him.

The agreement that ended the first gulf war was that he would get rid of his WMD, and allow the UN to send in inspectors to make sure he had got rid of them .... which he then refused to do for over 10 years.

One of the contributing factors to the UN weapons inspectors withdrawing from Iraq (they were never actually thrown out) was that the US had infiltrated the inspection team with spies - a charge they later admitted to.

So Blair won't apologize for the Iraq invasion? Why? Would doing so be tantamount to admitting that women and children died for f*** all? That Brits got well and truly splattered in the action? I mean, the action born as a result of a sick, delusional liar's fantasy? Fine you say, but we don't live in a perfect world. No but when its YOUR husband, wife or kids that die for NOTHING it's a different matter. Blair should be brought before a war crimes tribunal and given his just dues. He's responsible for the deaths of more than Saddam ever tried. All the crap about Saddam now having had the INTENTION to use WMD but not the capability is rhetoric coming from the mouth of an idiot. China has the intention and also the world's largest stockpile of strategic/intercontinental nukes including the NEUTRON BOMB. So why isn't Blair noising off about China? They do after all have the UK in the sights of their warheads. Or Russia? Israel? The reason is that he can't because he'd annihilate the population of the UK as a result, should he threaten them. Iraq was the only country that could have been invaded with anything worth stealing. Blair represents an oil mad thieving schizophrenic, who has managed to bluff his way around the British public. GET RID OF HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!! CALLASSA FOREVER. WWW.CALLASSA.COM

Bush is much worse than Blair though.
If Kerry gets into power it will be interesting to see what Blair does.
He should apologise for the war though, how many thousands of people protested that it was morally wrong and politically illegal to go to war and he went ahead anyway and people died for an unecessary war.

Originally posted by Callassa
Blair should be brought before a war crimes tribunal and given his just dues. He's responsible for the deaths of more than Saddam ever tried.

I think there is a major differenence between the two here. Have a think about it, and see if you can tell me what it is?

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I think there is a major differenence between the two here. Have a think about it, and see if you can tell me what it is?

:lol: :hihi:

Yep!!! Throw Mr. A.B.liar to the lions,and Mr G.****** Bush,(sorry,I missspelt that,ahem.) too. Before they invaded Iraq it was obvious that they didn`t even have EVIDENCE NOR INTELLIGENCE of WMD. If so,the yanks would have plastered satellite surveillance pictures of them throughtout the world`s media networks. If they have the ability to detect the whereabouts of one terrorist driving his car in a remote part of the world and blow him to bits,then surely they could easily see that there were no WMD. The thing that frightens me now is that the so called Western leaders are making shapes at Iran about their nuclear capability. It isn`t up to Bush and Bliar who can have nuclear capabilities whether for peaceful purposes such as energy or not. Add the fact that Iran is now surrounded by U.S. forces in Iraq AND Afghanistan and the world is a very dangerous place.

Why stop at bashing Blair when other british prime ministers have just as much blood on their hands. Take Margaret Thatcher and the Belgrano.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Why stop at bashing Blair when other british prime ministers have just as much blood on their hands. Take Margaret Thatcher and the Belgrano.
A fair point on the Belgrano but Argentina had invaded British territory. Britain has invaded a sovereign state for given reasons which are a pack of lies.

Threads merged. This topic has been discussed in many existing threads...

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Why stop at bashing Blair when other British prime ministers have just as much blood on their hands. Take Margaret Thatcher and the Belgrano.

I can't agree. The sinking of the Belgrano was justified IMO. It's debatable whether it was in or out of the exclusion zone but it could always have turned around and sailed back.

She was a capital ship with a colossal punch and had been placed on the board by the Argentinian government to influence events. Had the Argentinian navy been successful in sinking Conquerer, there was not much to stop her causing havoc in the main fleet. I admit, lot's of "ifs", but you don't fight wars to be fair.

However, Thatcher did mis-lead parliament regarding the sinking or the Belgrano.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I can't agree. The sinking of the Belgrano was justified IMO. It's debatable whether it was in or out of the exclusion zone but it could always have turned around and sailed back.

That's the whole point . It HAD turned round and it was sailing away from the exclusion zone and was still some good distance outside when it did turn.
The idea that a WW11 battleship posed a threat to a state of the art nuclear sub is ridiculous.

People should remember that at the time the Belgrano was sunk, Argentina thought it had settled on a face-saving peace deal with the UK. The US and Peru who were acting as arbitrators also thought the deal was done. No lives had been lost at this stage but the sinking of the Belgrano with the subsequent drowning of hundreds of sailors scuppered the deal.
Thatcher didn't want an Argie withdrawal she needed to defeat them in battle to secure her political future (Her "cuts" were being blamed for the invasion after "The Endurance" was to be stood down) The sinking of the Belgrano was cowardly, against the rules of engagement and purely to save Thatcher's political neck.
The mysterious disappearance of the "Conqueror's" log book which recorded all the details of the sinking is another story, excelpt to say that an attempt to fit up a junior officer for this failed miserably.

Now they are saying large amounts of biological weapons ingredients have vanished from Iraq. Large precision weapons making equipment has apparently been moved and we don't know where. If we knew they were there in the first place why didn't we do something about it? Lies lies lies im sick of lies.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
That's the whole point . It HAD turned round and it was sailing away from the exclusion zone and was still some good distance outside when it did turn.
The idea that a WW11 battleship posed a threat to a state of the art nuclear sub is ridiculous.

People should remember that at the time the Belgrano was sunk, Argentina thought it had settled on a face-saving peace deal with the UK. The US and Peru who were acting as arbitrators also thought the deal was done. No lives had been lost at this stage but the sinking of the Belgrano with the subsequent drowning of hundreds of sailors scuppered the deal.
Thatcher didn't want an Argie withdrawal she needed to defeat them in battle to secure her political future (Her "cuts" were being blamed for the invasion after "The Endurance" was to be stood down) The sinking of the Belgrano was cowardly, against the rules of engagement and purely to save Thatcher's political neck.
The mysterious disappearance of the "Conqueror's" log book which recorded all the details of the sinking is another story, excelpt to say that an attempt to fit up a junior officer for this failed miserably.

I refer you to the book "The battle of the Falklands".

The De Mayo Admiral Anaya's pride and joy, his "personal" flagship left port on around 28/29 March. At the time of the Belgrano sinking the ship was steaming north of our carrier group. HMS Conqueror was despatched to locate the Belgrano and HMS Splendid was despatched to locate and shadow the De Mayo.

The De Mayo, incidently was the ship involved in the invasion of South Georgia, putting ashore the 'marines' so that the islands could be taken.

The Belgrano was steaming away from our carrier group, only after she had been sighted and did an about turn as she was alone and faced with overwhelming odds. HMS Conqueror located the Belgrano and sank her. Some say within, some say out of, the exclusion zone. The book referred to says that the only people 100% sure of where she was are the officers and crew of HMS Conqueror and the officers and crew of the Belgrano. Six of one and half-dozen of the other in this case.

As above, right or wrong, she was still a threat to our mission and had to be taken out. Personally I think she left the exclusion zone to return when HMS Conqueror had left, if she was going to, the area. As it was HMS Conqueror didn't give the Belgrano chance to return, thus increasing the chance of victory for ourselves.

With regard to the Argentina withdrawel on the day the Belgrano was sunk I again refer you to the book which proves this to be a lie.