Iraq

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

So that this area does not fall into disuse –

and I suspect Rog is lurking somewhere,

 

Some very basic thoughts about the cowardly Bush. Sorry about the broadbrush treatment..,.

 

For that matter where is Lovely Obscure/Manx Trev?

 

Bush, losing popularity after failing to catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan, rolls out the plan to invade Iraq.

 

He knew Iraq had no airforce, he KNEW they had no weapons of mass destruction. They were a soft touch. (So did British Intelligence and MOD)

 

He virtually ignored the United Nations, and twisted the last resolution to fit his aims instead of waiting for the Arms Inspectors to finally report.

 

When he failed to get a new proper authorising resolution from the UN, he went ahead anyway, as planned over 18 months earlier

 

For 2004 re-election, he killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent people.

 

Then because of NO planning, except greed in keeping all reconstruction to the USA, it all went wrong. They became occupiers, invaders, instead of liberators within days because of basic mistakes.

 

NOW they have turned to United Nations for a new resolution, NOW they have turned to NATO for support, and now the handover has taken place – mark my words –

 

There will be a rapid reduction in USA troops, a washing of hands of the new administration when they collapse, as they surely will – blame heaped on the Iraqi people for failing to grasp ‘democracy’

 

And a rapid exit with tail between their legs….

 

Just a small example, listen to Hugh Sykes on From Our Own Correspondent:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from..._correspondent/

[Trinity 23]

There's been alot of things going on while Bush has been in charge that just are damn right mental! After watching Fahrenheit 9/11 I now realise that you don't have to be a wild a wacky conspiracy theorist to realise that the whole few years of him ruling the US, Bush and his cronies have changed and shaped the world in ways we could never have forseen... Nothing this man does, or does not do, surprises me...

 

Bring on the Elections, be interesting to see what the next chapter brings....

[Rog]

Lurking? Me? Never been known!

 

But looking at what you (Dave TCB) write re Iraq I would contest the assertion that Bush ‘KNEW’ that there were no weapons of mass destruction in fact I strongly believe that these do exist but are now tucked away in the Bekar Valley or under tons of sand.

 

As regards the UN – an organisation that is so well beyond its sell-by date that is stinks not only from some of the members but also by its total loss of credibility – why on earth should the US have sought approval from it anyway? To my mind the worst thing that Bleah ever did was to even raise the question of a UN resolution – he should have simply supported the US and kept well out of the politics.

 

(In any case Bleah is no politician anyway. He is an archetypal weasel with no principles of his own and the innate cunning of a time-share tout in place of true ability. I utterly detest the man, and everything that he does, and his awful family, especially The Westminster Gargoyle that he wed. To me Bleah is a prime example of Homo Council-domicilus.)

 

The point raised re the UN arms inspectors. Don’t forget their title and commission was above all else ‘inspectors’. They were NOT detectives, they were NOT tasked to seek out what was being hidden, they were sent to inspect and report.

At every stage saddam put obstacles in their way. He could so easily have co-operated with them and there would at a stroke have been no sanctions, no conflict, in short a direct path to normality. But no. He did not.

Now IF there were actual WMD’s, and I do believe that there both were and are still, or if I was simply saddam playing the ‘You know I’ve got ‘em, I know I’ve got ‘em – you don’t need to see them to be scared of them’ game who can say, but the effect is the same. The suspicion that he possessed such a capability is in itself sufficient to give him massive power and influence in the region and by God he was certainly using it to destabilise the political scene.

 

My thoughts on him presenting a road block to progress in Israel remains the same. Another good reason to take him out. There was a probability that with the removal of a key supporter of the terrorist of hammas and other filth progress could be made in the establishing of a palestinian state. There was no way that such a state would or could be considered let alone possible whilst saddam was sitting ready to ‘come to the assistance’ of the palestinians following some contrived blow-up.

 

Tens of thousands of ‘innocents’ killed? Where? Other than by saddam of course but let’s not think about that eh? US reconstruction? Why not? The US paid the price to free the world of a bit of human excrement – why should the US hand off opportunities to those who would not help – especially the French – now there ARE a cowardly and Chauvinistic mob – the very word Chauvinism comes from the actions of a Frenchman in the past.

 

The people of Iraq were either suppressed by or supported saddam. They have been liberated and the world has been cleansed of a particularly nasty piece of filth and a very dangerous regime. What happens now is up to them. They have the option, they are not the responsibility of the US or anyone else, they should be left to get on with it providing that ‘it’ doesn’t prove to be another cancerous tumour on the population of the world.

 

If I had been Bush I would have not left the region but instead would have simply occupied the whole damned lot and Abu Graib would have seemed to have been a kindergarten. Weapons of mass destruction? – I would have given the whole nest of vipers a few of my own to chew on. The hard way.

 

What took place in Iraq is 100% down to the antics of saddam and his acolytes and other assorted followers. He and they created the environment whereby the only sensible option was cauterisation. His actions were what put his troops and people in harms way, he carries the can for the war against Iraq.

 

Bush has done the world a great service and I for one am grateful that he and the US have done what they have done. Let’s hope it sends a message to other bits of filth and let’s also hope that in a similar situation the same would be done again – but harder.

 

If there’s one thing that I have learned over the years it is this. Never take a knife to a knife fight. Take a damn big gun.

 

And as for giving that ‘Fahrenheit’ film any credibility – I simply fail to believe that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can fail to see that it is simply the twisting of events to achieve a particular impression with the aim of achieving high box office receipts. That and to pander to the left wing idiots and the huge population of paranoid conspiracy believers in the US and beyond. If there is even a need for the proof of the size of this group just look at the popularity of US TV shows based on fictional mysterious Government bodies doing secret things to the detriment of Joe Public – and which so many Joe Public’s believe to be true.

[the mo beats experience]

not sure, what i am sure of is that clinton wouldn't have done it that way.

i don't really know what answers he would have come up with, nor do i know what should have been done.

iraq, however, wasn't the objective, saddam was, nothing to gain from killing thousands of innocent people. but saddam needed to be taken from power, as did his extreme supporters, and the regime he had set up. for the sake of his own people, and i believe, the sake of world peace.

when they were at the height of war with iraq, they found weapons that saddam was not supposed to have, this has been overlooked somewhat. ok, they were empty missiles, but they were ready to go, and you can't sit there and say he wouldn't have used them, and he wouldn't have filled them with some kind of chemicals. the guys got form!

like i said, i don't know what the answers are, but i do agree, something had to be done before it was too late, however, whats next is what bothers me. who's next on the axis of evil, now THAT is scary.

 

they should take off, nuke the entire middle east from orbit (its the only way to be sure), then get a massive hoover, get rid of the dust, turf the place, and make it a holiday destination!

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

I only raised the topic so that the International News would not be deleted by the 'Moderators' as being redundant or unused.

 

It's just the same old arguments over and over, and I can smugly say "I told you so" from my comments in February 2003 that it would all end in tears.

 

But to reply to a few points - at least 13,000 'civilians' have died so far, mostly at the hands of American troops and in the initial war....

 

And hundreds, maybe thousands more have died in recent months with the 'revolt' against occupation and democratisation

 

If the United Nations are so redundant and unnecessary, why were the US so desperate last month to get the new resolution before the Handover?

 

And there were no weapons of mass destruction. I KNEW that. The Ministry of Defence and MI6 KNEW that. The CIA KNEW that. That is why the majority of British troops did not have chemical suits and proper protection against chemical and biological weapons - the Government knew there was no threat from them.

 

That is why there was a comprehensive briefing to many journalists from the MOD and Security Services, (not just Doctor Kelly) that the dossiers were wrong, that Campbell and Blair were exaggerating the threat, which did not exist and that war was being undertaken on a false premise. Why did Elizabeth Wilmshurst resign? Why won't the Attorney General release the arguments for going to war?

 

There was one page 'for' or legally justifying the war, and about fifteen more valid pages arguing that the war was illegal. Exit Elizabeth, but gagged.

 

And Rog, you little lurker, if you are or were in the line of work you sometimes hint at, you will KNOW that there were no *viable weapons of mass destruction.

 

(*The very words used by Robin Cook in the debate before the war - that is Robin Cook, then a Cabinet Minister and Privy Councillor, party to all security information, and also Foreign Secretary for many years, with full access to the information)

 

"There are no viable weapons of mass destruction" R. Cook.

 

Now denigrate him because he is an ugly xxxxxxx.....

[Guest Rox]

Can I take the xxxx out of his voice while we're at it?

 

There have been many times over the last few months when Dave's words have come back to me. I totally agree with everything you've posted today and before.

 

It's a damn disgrace and one that makes me ashamed to be human.

[When Skies Are Grey]

Of the course the US know he has got weapons of mass destruction...all they have to do is look at their receipts!!

[purrrrrrrrrrry]

Of the course the US know he has got weapons of mass destruction...all they have to do is look at their receipts!!

My thoughts too!

 

not sure, what i am sure of is that clinton wouldn't have done it that way.

 

Hey Mo, maybe we'll all find out on Monday when he gets interviewed by Richard and Judy

 

(Anyone else been laughing uncontrollably since hearing that??!)

 

 

Hey Rog, good to see you back fella, although I must say I am very disappointed that you haven't yet replied to what I thought was a very valid question on Manx Chat

[the mo beats experience]

what?

 

saddam is to be interviewed by richard and judy?

[purrrrrrrrrrry]

what?

 

saddam is to be interviewed by richard and judy?

BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

For more general amusement (with apologies to those who've seen it before) do a "I'm feeling lucky" google on "miserable failure"

 

/back on thread

[Rog]

In reply to the post by Dave TCB (who on most other issues I have a lot of agreement with ---)

But to reply to a few points - at least 13,000 'civilians' have died so far, mostly at the hands of American troops and in the initial war....

And hundreds, maybe thousands more have died in recent months with the 'revolt' against occupation and democratisation

Firstly, how do you know they were civilians? Is a soldier who puts civilian clothes on before shooting at someone a civilian? There’s a very great deal of firm evidence that this is what was taking place. Is a civilian who shoots at a soldier still a civilian? Of course not, he becomes at least an irregular combatant. . In any case the blame for the deaths of those genuine civilians who died as a result of outrages by insurgents, frequently trouble makers from OUTSIDE of Iraq, can not be blamed on the US.

 

And there were no weapons of mass destruction. I KNEW that. The Ministry of Defence and MI6 KNEW that. The CIA KNEW that. That is why the majority of British troops did not have chemical suits and proper protection against chemical and biological weapons - the Government knew there was no threat from them.

 

How did you know? I certainly didn’t and STILL don’t. Even though I despise Bleah and his cronies I do not for a single moment believe that they knew that there were no horror weapons. I really do believe that Bleah honestly does believe that these weapons exist. No NBC protection for our troops? Simple though inexcusable incompetence on behalf on the MOD and testicles should roll because of it.

 

And how about the 1.7 metric tonnes of enriched uranium found in Iraq and now safely removed to the US. Going to be used to make luminous dials for watches by the Iraqi’s maybe?

 

And the war in my opinion was certainly NOT illegal.

 

War is NEVER illegal. War is what follows when all legal options have been exhausted and a vital issue remains. At best war is justifiable, righteous, necessary, or essential for the greater good. Legality is a dimension that simply doesn’t come into it. Actions taken by warring parties are another matter altogether but war as such? ‘Legal War’, just like ‘Illegal War’ is an oxymoron.

 

Military actions such as that which expelled the Iraqi’s from Kuwait, in which there was massive support from most nations, maybe and usually are referred to as War but in reality are police actions in which open military conflict is involved.

 

True war is between NATIONS or between allied nations such as the case of WW1, WW2. The war against Iraq was such a conflict as these hence it was a genuine war so the very idea that there should be a need for some form of legality is preposterous and another nice bit of spin by those who hate the US and who see Socialism as some thing that we should all seek to engage in.

 

And as for Robin Cook, that nasty immoral little creep wouldn’t be able to understand the first principles of diplomatic or political life let alone international relations if he tried for a thousand years. His idea of political life is based on sleeze, his understanding of international realities is naïve to say the least, and he is an altogether disgusting example of socialist man at it’s worst. A self opinionated conceited little fool who if he really had brains would be dangerous. Someone cast in the same mould as the hiorrific Clair (caught) Short.

 

But at the end of the day, saddam is out of power, a nasty and dangerous destabilising trouble making tribe (for that is what most of Arab politics is based upon) is emasculated, the inhumanity and total absence of civilised behaviour by so many who follow islam has been shown to the world, the blatant lie that islam is a ‘religion of peace’ exposed, and the French have shown up for what they are. Where’s the problems with that?

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Briefish reply - Just glad to see the International News is alive again....

 

The amount of 'outside' influence on the insurrection is greatly exaggerated by the Coalition, as confirmed by the new Iraq ambassador in Britain this morning.

 

The fact is that the 'locals' (well financed by the remnants of the Ba'thists) are angry about the occupation, and they are causing 99% of the problems.

 

1.7 tonnes of enriched uranium? Where's the link to that? If that was true, and connected with WMD, Blair and Bush would be shouting it from the rooftops. Instead, before the Select Committee this week, Blair admitted nothing had been found and was unlikely to be.

 

If the war is not illegal, why won't Blair allow the written judgement of the Attorney General to be published for us all to see? Simple test - if it was legal, that judgement would again be shouted from the rooftops...

 

Sometimes war is legal - totally justified and legal to oust Saddam when he invaded Kuwait - his invasion of a sovereign nation was without just cause and illegal.

 

 

The CIA and Security Services are going to get all the blame in the next couple of weeks as the reports come in from both sides of the Atlantic.

 

The fact is that instead of intelligence affecting and shaping policy,

 

 

The Policy (invade Iraq, decided in October 2001) was used to affect and shape the very basic and sketchy intelligence.

 

Anyone in that field knows that is exactly the wrong way to approach matters.

 

CIA, MOD and MI6 have been briefing against this for months before the war started, knowing the intelligence did not justify the reasons for war.

 

I reluctantly agree about Blair by the way, from having great hopes from him for a new socialism, he has turned into a mealy mouthed weakling, unable to see through the corruption of Bush and his string pullers (avoided the cliche of puppet - nearly) and unable to tell or face the truth for fear of losing face.

[Lucy]

War is what follows when all legal options have been exhausted and a vital issue remains.

I beg to differ. War is what happens when a bunch of twats decide to play "my Dad is bigger than your Dad". I will never understand why people want to kill each other. It's one of the main reasons I try and avoid the news and papers as best I can but I still know more about Bush, Blair and Iraq than I do about the Island's (so called) politics.

[purrrrrrrrrrry]

War is NEVER illegal. War is what follows when all legal options have been exhausted and a vital issue remains.

Exhausted? But they weren't...

 

Vital issue = oil? (Even the yanks are waking up to that one!)

 

At best war is justifiable, righteous, necessary, or essential for the greater good.

 

The sad thing is you actually believe that - and TBH I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

 

true winning is accepting not resisting, victory is found in the wisdom to stop fighting and to begin engaging.

[the mo beats experience]

ok miss purrrrry, if all legal options were not exhausted, what do you propose should have been done?

 

after refusing access to arms experts, killing tens of thousands of his OWN people meaning if he'd do it to them, what would he be prepared to do to us. what options, bearing in mind the massive massive threat to world peace that has reared its ugly head since 9/11, these are savages, they don't give a flying fart about their own people, never mind bush, blair, me, you or ya cats