Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Blair Really Really Believed Saddam Had Wmd

Recommended Posts

Its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

In the Political World, where one wants to make changes go your way, really believing is very similar to really wanting it to be so and finding evidence, no matter how trivial, to make the evidence fit your reality.

We see all the time the flimsiest of cases, indeed we see cases that have no ground in realworld practicality being made, with the excuse later when failure arrives that they really beleived in what they were saying...at the end of long Parliaments, whole parties crack up with their fake cases as even a slug in the gutter can understand the case is just BS.

Sadly, these lying freaks of nature get voted out, then get some grace and favour job somewhere else in public life and having got away with their "beliefs", carry on as normal.

End up as an unelected EU Commissioner for example...or EU Peace envoy to the ME....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, something was going on to the subjects' left when the article's lead picture was taken. Laughter is hardly contained.

I think that might be my son, taking the pi$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He became Catholic. He might believe anything! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

This would be a good place to start:

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Link to text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

Bear in mind that Mr Cook served as foreign secretary for 4 years and as such would have been as well informed in this area as anyone in the government, for Bliar to take an opposing view is at a minimum reckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a good place to start:

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Link to text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

Bear in mind that Mr Cook served as foreign secretary for 4 years and as such would have been as well informed in this area as anyone in the government, for Bliar to take an opposing view is at a minimum reckless.

Indeed.

We are saving the face of Britain....well, thats their excuse...when in reality, Britain could be proud to show we prosecute killers in our midst, whatever rank they have acheived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what he supposedly believed, I thought it was up to him to prove without doubt that Saddam had wmd?

Actually, it was up to the security services to get the proof.

Policy, made by Blair, was supported by the "proof". The article says the report will say the "proof" was indeed "sexed up" to support a Policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite liked Robin Cook. He's dead posh for a socialist. Tony Blair's vision might have been affected by money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam did have chemical WMDs and he used them against the Iranians and also the Kurds at Halabja.

The question really should be "Did Sassam still have WMDs" in 2001?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam did have chemical WMDs and he used them against the Iranians and also the Kurds at Halabja.

The question really should be "Did Sassam still have WMDs" in 2001?

That's when he was regional henchman for western powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam had chemical weapons...?

Well yeah Tony, sure he did.

Maybe a bottle of Domestos under the sink - and some Cillit Bang in the presidential shit-house..?

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam did have chemical WMDs and he used them against the Iranians and also the Kurds at Halabja.

The question really should be "Did Sassam still have WMDs" in 2001?

That was in 1988, pretty much all of the evidence relating to WMD pre-dated the first Gulf war.

The important thing to understand is that the materials used in the production of chemical and biological weapons (CBW) all have a limited shelf life, it was pretty obvious to anyone who bothered to spend 45 minutes googling (Iraq WMD) that the CBW if they ever existed, would've decayed to the point of being unusable sludge by 2003 (presumably pretty toxic sludge but not really a weapon).

Essentially the evidence for CBW (not WMD, another important point) was a series of unanswered questions dating back to 1991, but the reason the questions were unanswered is that everything got blown up in 1991 so it genuinely wasn't known what happened to the various materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam did have chemical WMDs and he used them against the Iranians and also the Kurds at Halabja.

The question really should be "Did Sassam still have WMDs" in 2001?

Wasnt it Saddam had the ability to launch an attack on Europe.

Afet gulf war 1, Saddam had fck all of fckall.

Hopefully Blair and team will end up at ICC.

If not, hopefully squaddies and iraquis can sue the c.nt for every pound he and his c.nting family have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminded me of an Indy article from some years back (mentioned here).

Anyone know if an old Indy story can be dug up?

Indy was good on ME - Robert Fisk and all.

Now its like a tinpot Mirror who's adengine locks my tablet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should make a program and call it "The Blair Rich Project".

or a programme about Cherie Blair called "The Scary Bitch Project"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminded me of an Indy article from some years back (mentioned here).

Anyone know if an old Indy story can be dug up?

Is this it?

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith

Friday 15 December 2006

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   95 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.