thebees Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Its all a bit "Do as I say, not as I do". America is allowed to have 'nukes' but Iraq isn't (I know 'on paper' why). The reality of that, isn't fair. No one should be allowed WoMD. A friend pointed out the lack of US action in Rwanda and Bethlehem, but they dont have any oil so it makes 'sense'. The leaders think we dont know how dirty their good intentions are but I'm sure their reasons are well meaning. It is, after all, people like Mr Saddam who are bad, but when the world is as huge as it is, who has the right to judge who is good and who is bad? Michael Jackson?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 The Butler enquiry reports in a couple of days. It will be interesting to see if they spoke to Elizabeth Wilmshurst. I have been banging on about her since March 2003. She was employed in the Foreign Office in a senior legal capacity and was party to the documents presented as to the legality of the war. The Attorney General announced that pending war was 'legal' - despite the mass of argument being against it. Ms Wilmshurst resigned, I think on the day the war started, in protest, knowing that the advice was contrary to the legal opinion given, and she stated that the war was not legal. Could be one of the killer blows against Blair, if she was interviewed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I don't care really, if america wants the worlds oil they can have it, if it means making the world a safer place for my offspring and their subsequent offspring. i don't believe the intention is to "control the worlds oil" though, there is a clear and present danger to mankind, and i fully believe that the yanks are wanting to stamp it out. i wasn't dissing you miss purrrrrrrrrrry, by the way. i don't think there is an answer to this problem, bush is not the reason this is happening, he is trying to deal with it. these people do not want diplomacy, they want us dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Unfortunately your other link does not work It matters not one jot that the uranium that was shipped out from Iraq was known about since 1992 or whenever. The fact remains that there was a substantial quantity of enriched uranium that is now in safe hands. As regards the link relating to the export of materials and Horror Weapons by Iraq, try this link which does work http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html As regards the use of the isotopes and WMD, don't ignore that the dispersal of highly active isotopes by a conventional explosive will kill just as effectivly as most other things. I am still utterly convinced that the WMD do exist and are in the Bekaa Valley. What is more I am not alone in this opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I am still utterly convinced that the WMD do exist and are in the Bekaa Valley. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As opposed to the Negev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Rog - The details of the Uranium DOES MATTER "ONE JOT". You used it to "prove" that Saddam had WMD and therefore the war was justified. You can't use it's existance one minute to justify the war and then dismiss it the next minute when you find out that is is irrelevent. That Uranium was irrelevent to your argument about WMD and it was under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency and was effectively under lock and key. It was NOT a WMD and it was NOT being hidden so therefore was NOT in breach of UN resolutions so IS IRRELEVENT to this illegal war and any discussions on WMD. I'll reply on your other issue when I've had time to digest it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Rog - I've now read your other link and within the article is a link to the actual UNMOVIC report. If you actually read the whole of the UNMOVIC report you will find that the article posted on World Tribune cheery picks the itmes that pushes it's point of view. From my reading of the report it appears that missiles were scrapped in Iraq, either by Saddams people befroe US Action or possibly by looters after US actions and then sold to scrap yards. The Tribune report trys to imply that whole missiles were surreptiiuosly shipped out of Iraq whereas the UNMOVIC report highlights that fact that parts of missiles have been found in scrap-yards. Also note the triubune comments on dual use components/equipment - there is mention of this in the report but it states that there is no evidnece that the qeuipment was used for anything more than they were purported to have been bought for. In my opinion (but not in yours) there is no smoking gun here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Two points --- Firstly a smoking gun is a weapon that has been used. Thank God that the US led coalition forces at least too that weapon out of the hands of a mad man at least temporarily. Secondly, if the weapons were to be in the Negrev then at least they would be adding to whatever might be there at present that is helping to stabilise the region and maintain World peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ean Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 bush is not the reason this is happening, he is trying to deal with it. these people do not want diplomacy, they want us dead. Ahh but bush's actions now will be the reason this will still be happening in 30 years time. Bombing the xxxx out of them is not going to make them go away, it's just breeding a new generation full of hatred for the west....and that means the world is not going to be a safer place for your offspring. And anyway why do you think that iraqi's attacked the USA, it was a militant group not a whole country. Saddam Hussein had no plans to attack the west, it's already been shown that he did not have wmd's (sorry but intelligence reports have said they had no knowledge of them before the war and trying to get rid of them would have been noticed by US and British intelligence in the preceeding months when war was inevitable.) The war fought on our behalf was unjust and you seem to believe that it was done in your best interest and your children's best interest. It was not! Iraq should have been handed over to the Iraqi's well before it was but the USA (and to a lesser part Britain) took advantage by giving the contracts to rebuild iraq to British and American businesses. The whole situation was going to be difficult to handle but it has been made so much worse by Britain and America's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Well Rog your use of semantics continues to amaze me. The term "Smoking Gun" was used all along, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. The way that the politicians and media used it was that any WMD that would have been found would have constituted a "Smoking Gun". We all know that Saddam had not used any weapons in the last 10+ years. And the ones of us with our eyes and minds open also knew the Saddam had NO WMD. We were lied to by our glorious leaders to attack a country that was only a risk to it's own citizens. If that is a case for war then I can think of a lot of UK/US allies/trading partners that should also be attacked. Saddam was NO threat to the UK or the US. He didn't even have the capabilities to hit your favourite country, Isreal, anymore as his Scud missiles were dismantled at the end of the first Gulf war. There's actually no point me trying to carry on this discussion because whatever information i post to refute your assertations you will not believe them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 sorry ean, i wasn't refering to saddam for attacking the west, just that he was a threat, as is OBL, this was going on long before bush came into power, i don't see why he's taking the brunt of the blame. this whole situation is because of the separation of palestine isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverback Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I've just spent an hour reading & re-reading the following article. At first it seemed to be the usual 'hysteria', but after some thought it began to make sense. The article is long,(http://globalspecops.com/vieweyestorm.html) Maybe Rog could read it and give his views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purrrrrrrrrrry Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 The Senate Committee official pdf reports are available from:http://intelligence.senate.gov/ Direct links: Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq Conclusions (Excerpted From Full Report) The conclusions will probably be enough reading for most people (except maybe Rog - hey, only teasing fella! ) Plenty in there about your uranium too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I've just spent an hour reading & re-reading the following article. At first it seemed to be the usual 'hysteria', but after some thought it began to make sense. The article is long,(http://globalspecops.com/vieweyestorm.html)Maybe Rog could read it and give his views. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I’ve just read the article that this link points to. I only wish that I had the ability to write such an article as it encapsulates precisely just what in my opinion is taking place in the world. This article should be compulsory reading in every home in the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I've also now read that article and found the viewpoint of the author interesting and deserving of more thought. I can't say that I agree with all of it but a lot of his views do make sense. I'll also never come round to your way of thinking Rog but I do understand where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.