Backtracking

In March, I listened to my government convince the nation and its party that there would be "absolutely no doubt" that WMDs would be found, basing the whole war's raison d'etre on the fact that the government had inside information that they wished we could all see. I listened to Tony Blair indeed, stand in front of the nation, saying "you have got to trust me, weapons of mass destruction will be found. We have the proof".

Today, I read this:

Quote:

---

Britain back-tracked on the contentious issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction yesterday when the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was forced to concede that hard evidence might never be uncovered.
He said it was "not crucially important" to find them, because the evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing was overwhelming.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956262,00.html

"Not crucially important"? Do I look stupid? Any tough question asked of the government pre-war was answered with a statement based on the existance of WMD. No argument.

Saddam is a murderous dictator (sickeningly proven yesterday). But there are handfuls of murderous dicators around the world. The important issue that set him apart from his fellow despots was that he was a tyrant with the ability to threaten the Western world with WMDs at a moment's notice. Is it not the case that now WMDs are "not crucially important", he is just another one of the World's evil dictators?


If there was no proof of WMDs at all (as pointed out by Mr Straw), I don't see why dimplomacy should have been discarded so quickly, and brute force used so willingly.

If Saddam was the main focus of war, where is the proof that he has been killed? (I believe, and hope, he is buried under that Bahgdadi Restaurant - but who knows...)

The financial gains generated from this war look very suspicious. The links between ABB construction and several leaders of the Coalition think-tank look suspicious. Are all you pro-war lobbyists out there really quite comfortable about this questionably amoral boost to the economy?

Has the Coalition taken its eye off the ball somewhat - Al Quaeda just annialated more Coalition civilians in one day in Riyad than Saddam did since 1993.

Open debate I can accept. Being lied to I cannot...

Quote:

---

Has the Coalition taken its eye off the ball somewhat - Al Quaeda just annialated more Coalition civilians in one day in Riyad than Saddam did since 1993.

---

1993 :confused: The war was in 1991.

I think Saddam got up to nasties after the way, killing off those who supported the US in an attempt to over-throw the government. ;)

I do seriously doubt that there was never any WMD in the country. It may have been shunted across the border into Syria? :confused:

Either way, I think I will only pass judgement on the whole Iraq thing once we have seen how the "Middle East Road Map" or whatever it was called goes.


And umm... unless I was mistaken, there was only 24 people killed in the SA thing? Maybe I missed something, but I seriously doubt that Saddam hasn't killed anyone in that time. :)

I seen on the news yesterday that Iraqs nuclear plants are being looted. So there is actually more chance of terrorists getting their hands on radioactive materials since the coalition forces occupied Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DeadEyes
I seen on the news yesterday that Iraqs nuclear plants are being looted. So there is actually more chance of terrorists getting their hands on radioactive materials since the coalition forces occupied Iraq.

---

Well, we're all about bringing a new era of opportunity to the region.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I do seriously doubt that there was never any WMD in the country. It may have been shunted across the border into Syria? :confused:

Either way, I think I will only pass judgement on the whole Iraq thing once we have seen how the "Middle East Road Map" or whatever it was called goes.

---

"Seriously doubt" is not a solid enough reason to go to war. I hear what you are saying, but you must agree, a politician could never justify going to war based on speculation.

Quote:

---

And umm... unless I was mistaken, there was only 24 people killed in the SA thing? Maybe I missed something, but I seriously doubt that Saddam hasn't killed anyone in that time. :)

---

I'm tlaking threats against Western civilians, the resaon we went to war. If you want to get into semantics, then how many Western civilians has Sadam killed since the early 90s?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
1993 :confused: The war was in 1991.

---

I picked an arbitary date, an approximation of when Desert Stomr finally settled. C'mon cut me a break here, is this all you can pick out from my post?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DeadEyes
I seen on the news yesterday that Iraqs nuclear plants are being looted. So there is actually more chance of terrorists getting their hands on radioactive materials since the coalition forces occupied Iraq.

---

And it means these sites were not protected by the US army? Oops, I meant the "coalition" forces ;)

What's that 'roadmap' somebody mentioned above? Where's it being put into practice?

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
And it means these sites were not protected by the US army? Oops, I meant the "coalition" forces ;)

What's that 'roadmap' somebody mentioned above? Where's it being put into practice?

.

---

It would be naive to expect the Coalition forces to be able to protect every site that was bomed during the war, even the nuclear sites. At the end of the day, there are terrorist around this area, and they will take advantage if possible. One test for the coalition force is to try and restrict this to a minimum.

But this is off topic now - I have not mentioned the US in this thread, and so I declare this thread a "US bashing" free zone...

Alright, I was right to change the phrase to the "coalition forces" ;)

Still the roadmap question is pretty important. I heard Powell claim on TV that the Iraqi oil production should be solely within America's control (the original report I heard doesn't use the "coalition" term) for at least one whole year. Plus there are newspaper reports that only the US soldiers in Iraq are safe. Garner has left Iraq and has been replaced by Bremmer. What does all this signify? That maybe there's no roadmap :(

The followup article on Clare Short's resignation also highlights the lack of any sizeable conventional weapons cache with which Iraqis could hope to fight a war, forget the WMDs. And this despite inspecting hundreds (600-odd as per the news) sites.

.

Clare Short should have gone with Robin Cook her position was untenable(sp?) after her will I won't I resign crap.
The roadmap refers to Israel and Palestine, hopefully it won't be another Oslo but I doubt it.
Garner's removal is I think to make Iraq's governance lool like a civilian one.

Did anyone see Bremner Bird on channel 4?
I didn't know the CIA had hired Saddam to kill the last Iraqi leader.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DeadEyes
Clare Short should have gone with Robin Cook her position was untenable(sp?) after her will I won't I resign crap.
The roadmap refers to Israel and Palestine, hopefully it won't be another Oslo but I doubt it.
Garner's removal is I think to make Iraq's governance lool like a civilian one.

Did anyone see Bremner Bird on channel 4?
I didn't know the CIA had hired Saddam to kill the last Iraqi leader.

---

Yeah I watched it - the stuff those 3 come out with is sooo damning, so eye-opening. It's good entertainment (if a little biased).

I have a lot of admiration for Clare Short, and I think she was shafted by the government after her "I will resign" speech. She quite obviously had been promised something by Blair, enough to betray her promise of resigning. Of all the people in government, the one that does what she says is Clare Short...

Quote:

---

In March, I listened to my government convince the nation and its party that there would be "absolutely no doubt" that WMDs would be found, basing the whole war's raison d'etre on the fact that the government had inside information that they wished we could all see. I listened to Tony Blair indeed, stand in front of the nation, saying "you have got to trust me, weapons of mass destruction will be found. We have the proof".

---

After the Gulf War Saddam admitted to having WMD. The whole world knew this. During the time after the war Saddam provided NO PROOF to the destruction of these materials that he himself admitted to having. This in and of itself is proof because if he wanted to hold off the tides of war all he would have to so is provide evidence to the fact that the WMD he ADMITTED to have and the whole world knew he had were destroyed.

Since the current wars end I have seen proof of chemicals used in making WMD dumped into the Tigris River. I have seen the mobile Weapons Labs described in Powel’s address to the UN. I have seen the trace elements of WMD found in terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq.

Somewhere in Iraq there is WMD’s buried. For if this is not the case then we must assume one of the following.
1) Shortly before the war Saddam ordered all evidence of WMD programs and all material used in WMD production to be destroyed to cover up such programs from the world.
2) Saddam had such material shipped out of the country to neighboring countries such as Syria.
3) Saddam gave such material to 3rd parties such as terrorist organizations.

Quote:

---

"Not crucially important"? Do I look stupid? Any tough question asked of the government pre-war was answered with a statement based on the existance of WMD. No argument.

---

I don’t know if you look stupid I have never seen you :)
However I do know if you somehow believe that Iraq was not in possession nor was it trying to cover up the existence of the production of WMD then I believe the shoe fits…

Quote:

---

Saddam is a murderous dictator (sickeningly proven yesterday). But there are handfuls of murderous dicators around the world. The important issue that set him apart from his fellow despots was that he was a tyrant with the ability to threaten the Western world with WMDs at a moment's notice. Is it not the case that now WMDs are "not crucially important", he is just another one of the World's evil dictators?

---

Remember those little things called UN resolutions? Remember all those words in those resolutions that stated that Saddam was in material breech? Also remember those words that stated that “serious consequences” would be taken if Saddam didn’t provide proof of the destruction of the WMD he admitted to having and the whole world knew he had? The ENTIRE Security Council signed off on Resolution 1441 stating those words as I have said above. That means the whole WORLD knew Saddam was in material breech of the conditions of the cease-fire called in 1991. Material breech with no action from Saddam = Serious Consequences. Which means full justification from the UN to do what coalition forces just did in Iraq.

That is the important issue here. Read the UN resolutions passed against Iraq if you don’t believe me. In those resolutions they state the Saddam had to provide the proof of the destruction of the WMD he admitted to having! They also state that as of late last year Saddam was still in material breech of the cease-fire reached in 1991. This was signed by EVERYONE in the Security Council. Essentially the WHOLE WORLD agreed that Saddam had to prove he destroyed his WMD and that he was still in material breech of the cease fire reached in 1991.

Try to look beyond the rhetoric of the day and look into the facts surrounding this war.

Quote:

---

If there was no proof of WMDs at all (as pointed out by Mr Straw), I don't see why dimplomacy should have been discarded so quickly, and brute force used so willingly.

---

Read above. Also you don’t think the 12 years prior to this war was enough time for Saddam to come clean? Perhaps we should have given him another 12?

Quote:

---

If Saddam was the main focus of war, where is the proof that he has been killed? (I believe, and hope, he is buried under that Bahgdadi Restaurant - but who knows...)

---

You just said WMD was the main focus of the war, not Saddam. Could it be that there was more than 1 reason to go into Iraq? Find/Destroy WMD, Remove Saddam, free the Iraqi people. Sounds like 3 good reasons to me. Unless of course you think otherwise?

Quote:

---

The financial gains generated from this war look very suspicious. The links between ABB construction and several leaders of the Coalition think-tank look suspicious. Are all you pro-war lobbyists out there really quite comfortable about this questionably amoral boost to the economy?

---

What about the financial gains before the war took place? One of the most vocal opponents to this war in the British Parliament looks to be bought off by Saddam. The French looked to be paid off in lucrative and lopsided oil deals, a French politician is proven to have been skimming money off the Oil for Food program, lining his pockets while children starved in Iraq. The Russian government also looks to be paid off in oil deals. This suspicious to you too?

Not to mention Germany, France, and Russia all providing weapons and logistical support to Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War in violation of UN Resolutions and sanctions. Suspicious? I would think so.

Quote:

---

Has the Coalition taken its eye off the ball somewhat - Al Quaeda just annialated more Coalition civilians in one day in Riyad than Saddam did since 1993.

---

Did you believe the war on terrorism to be finished? You didn’t think there would ever be another terrorist attack on coalition interests around the world?

Quote:

---

Open debate I can accept. Being lied to I cannot...

---

Find new media sources then. Because its obvious that they are the ones that lied to you.

X

hang one, that story has been published in every major newpaper in the UK?!? I'm being lied to? That's some conspiracy!

You're losing it Xanith. There are more holes in these issues than Swiss cheese. The best thing? There's a chance you may have wiped out Saddam - this is great news. But the politics and dealing behind it are begining to smell a little. Half of your points above have been duly noted (well, those where you don't accuse me of being a fool!), half just speculation.

But my point has yet to be accepted: Our foreign minister has stated, on national radio, that it is not crucial to find WMDs. We were told, on national TV, that this was the main reason for war. we were lied to. Are you suggesting that the TV and radio broadcasts are fakes? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
hang one, that story has been published in every major newpaper in the UK?!? I'm being lied to? That's some conspiracy!

You're losing it Xanith. There are more holes in these issues than Swiss cheese. The best thing? There's a chance you may have wiped out Saddam - this is great news. But the politics and dealing behind it are begining to smell a little. Half of your points above have been duly noted (well, those where you don't accuse me of being a fool!), half just speculation.

But my point has yet to be accepted: Our foreign minister has stated, on national radio, that it is not crucial to find WMDs. We were told, on national TV, that this was the main reason for war. we were lied to. Are you suggesting that the TV and radio broadcasts are fakes? :confused:

---

No I don’t believe them to be fakes. But what context were those remarks made in? What was the entire text of his speech? Also the Guardian is nothing but a far left wing publication for which I have a hard time putting any kind of faith in its reporting at all. Much like the BBC.

Could it be he meant that freeing the Iraqi people in light of recent mass graves that were uncovered be enough reason for the war, and that finding WMD doesn’t mean much because we already knew he had them and what he did with them shortly before the war (destroying them or burring them deep in the desert never to be found) doesn’t matter?

Truth be told we already have found the mobile Weapons Labs. We already know of WMD material dumped in the Tigris River. We already know of trace elements of WMD found in terrorist camps in the north. Proof for all of the people save die hard skeptics who want to roll around in a barrel of anthrax to be convinced.

X

*sigh*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

Funnily enough, not reported in NYTimes nor Washington post.

and Xanith, before you go on another ludicrous tirade about any press article that may contradict your views being left wing, the Telegraph is a notorious right wing newspaper...

...or have they been brainwashed too??

So I state again: Why were we lied too?

Gaffer

Quote:

---

So I state again: Why were we lied too?

---

I don't think that's necessarilly a fair conclusion; they have found several mobile biochemical weapons factories demonstrating that they had the means (and therefore the inclination) to build WMD's.

Also, "liberated" Iraqui scientists have claimed that WMD's were systematically destryed immediately before war broke out (when they realised war was imminent.

The point is, Iraq may well have had WMD's before the war, but if they've destroyed them all before the coalition forces could get their hands on them, why should we still expect to find some?

Well I find it hard to believe they could destroy thousands of tons of illegal weaponry in the space of a few months without any massive traces of that having occured!

Plenderj

Quote:

---

Well I find it hard to believe they could destroy thousands of tons of illegal weaponry in the space of a few months without any massive traces of that having occured!

---

Perhaps, but then such "traces" would be a lot harder to find than the weapons themselves, yes?

And it raises the question, how many WMD's actually need to be found to appease the critics? 1? 10? 100? 1000?...

Do they have to have enough to have posed a significant threat to it's neighbours (however you might evaulate that) or is it sufficient to find merely one prohibited weapon?

Or do we need to find any? If they had the intention to build them (the presense of mobile factories suggests this), does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Gaffer

I don't think that's necessarilly a fair conclusion; they have found several mobile biochemical weapons factories demonstrating that they had the means (and therefore the inclination) to build WMD's.

Also, "liberated" Iraqui scientists have claimed that WMD's were systematically destryed immediately before war broke out (when they realised war was imminent.

The point is, Iraq may well have had WMD's before the war, but if they've destroyed them all before the coalition forces could get their hands on them, why should we still expect to find some?

---

Let's spin it again (because it's easy too, as demonstrated by our governments). If we are allowed to take evidence from the Iraqis (be it scientists or politians), lets cast our minds back to the statment realeased by one of Sadam's spokesmen:

'One tends to think war is coming no matter what we do. We insulated ourselves that war is never coming. We must do everything in our power not to give them an excuse'

So perhaps they destroyed the weapons to avoid war? He claims he destroyed 8,500 tonnes after the last Gulf war in 1991. Are the mobile biochemical units from post 91 Gulf war? OK, I agree, this is Saddam's claims, and therefore could be seen as being spurious. But when did you ever truly believe what Tony Blair ever had to say?

I'll be the first to eat my own words if conclusive evidence is found - as a natural born sceptic, I am used to it. But you've got to agree, as a relatively impartial observer, this all smells a bit fishy...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Or do we need to find any? If they had the intention to build them (the presense of mobile factories suggests this), does it matter?

---

This is the key question. In fact, the only question that matters IMO.

Is pre-emptive justice valid justice?

Gaffer

Quote:

---

But when did you ever truly believe what Tony Blair ever had to say?

I'll be the first to eat my own words if conclusive evidence is found - as a natural born sceptic, I am used to it. But you've got to agree, as a relatively impartial observer, this all smells a bit fishy...

---

But if you would never believe what Tony Blair says (and I presume the same applies to George Bush), why would you ever believe that any such evidence they presented wasn't fabricated?

There is probably no such thing as conclusive evidence that will convince all the skeptics. Personally, I would have prefered it if the UN inspectors has led the investigation to find WMD's and it does smell a bit fishy that they haven't allowed them to do just that.

But it seems to me that most people have their mind made up one way or the other and will simply not believe any evidence to the contrary (or the lack of).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Well I find it hard to believe they could destroy thousands of tons of illegal weaponry in the space of a few months without any massive traces of that having occured!

---

You should have taken a sip out of the Tirgris River if you think there was not a trace of them having destroyed or an attempt to cover up their chemical weapons programme.

Also if they did destroy what Saddam addmitted to having after the Gulf War why didn't they present proof to the UN inspectors to avoid war? Does that make any sense to you why they wouldn't?

X

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

---

Well I guess that answers that question. Guess Powel was right in his presentation to the UN. Gaffer can now eat his words and know he wasnt lied too. I bet you feel better no?

X

Preliminary results indicate the presence of sodium azide and urea, which do not support Iraqi claims that the trailer was for hydrogen production," says the report, which was prepared by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency


Sodium Azide is used in airbags in cars, and urea is simple a nitrogen based molecule used a lot in fertilizer.
Both are toxic to humans - but so are most industrial chemicals.

I don't see the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Well I guess that answers that question. Guess Powel was right in his presentation to the UN. Gaffer can now eat his words and know he wasnt lied too. I bet you feel better no?

X

---

I read the first line and I see non-conclusiveness! "U.S. experts are confident...".

"The equipment in the trailers had been thoroughly cleaned to remove any traces of the materials used, according to the report"

!!! C'mon Xanith, this kind of evidence would be thrown out of any court. You cannot base the reason for going to war on the fact that there has been a mobile weapons facility found in Iraq, without traces of any harmful substance, and had a "spraying device".

As I have said before, I will eat my words with a big dose of humble pie when I see definiative evidence that my country was within 45 minutes of having biological or any life-threatening material dumped on me. I would even have supported the attack on Iraq in that situation. But I just cannot understand how anyone cannot have the slightest inkling of doubt after Rumsfeld's amazing statement yesterday...

(I haven't even managed to get onto the other issues of the day yet - Afghanistan is ****ed, Coalition war crimes, Mugabe runing amok...)

This looks like a classic example of "You're guilty until you prove you're not" to me. The US suspected Iraq had WMD's, so they had the UN send inspectors there. As you all know, they didn't find anything. Apparently the US found that enough reason to declare war on Iraq to prove the opposite. They didn't find anything as well...

Conclusion? It's perfectly clear that the WMD's were moved out of Iraq before the inspectors came... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but right now I think Iraq has given more valid arguments in favor of its side of the conflict than the US have...

The problem with my arguement here is this:

1. Politicians have lied consistently since the dawn of democracy. It was the same in WWII - Churchill lied throughout - just as it has happened with the recent Iraq conflict, and will happen in the future. It is immiterial if the war is justified or not.

2. It seems that 2mio people walking the streets of London in protest, and a split majority of the population voting against the war is not enough for our governments to change their mind. Democracy is only the choice of the people subject to the politicians discretion. again, this has always been the case.

3. No-one takes liberal views seriously becasue libertarianism never makes it to government. Indeed, some find it elitist...

We can argue till we're blue in the face about this and other maljustices - the Xanith's and Arc's of this world will unfortunatley get their own way. No because they are right, fair and just - it is because that's the way it goes...

//It seems that 2mio people walking the streets of London in protest, and a split majority of the population voting against the war is not enough for our governments to change their mind. Democracy is only the choice of the people subject to the politicians discretion. again, this has always been the case.

You know, if the people of the UK really wanted a pacifist, insular government, candidates would appear and they'd get voted into Parliament. Unless the current administration is assassinating them or something... ;)

//No-one takes liberal views seriously becasue libertarianism never makes it to government...

I hate to be terribly nitpicky, but a liberal is vastly different from libertarian (at least in American politics, maybe the term has a different meaning in the UK).

//We can argue till we're blue in the face about this and other maljustices - the Xanith's and Arc's of this world will unfortunatley get their own way. No because they are right, fair and just - it is because that's the way it goes...

No, it's because their candidates get enough votes to win the day. That can change. The unfortunate part is that despite 2 million protestors here or there, pacifists are a minority. People like war, it's a spectator sport.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Preliminary results indicate the presence of sodium azide and urea, which do not support Iraqi claims that the trailer was for hydrogen production," says the report, which was prepared by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency


Sodium Azide is used in airbags in cars, and urea is simple a nitrogen based molecule used a lot in fertilizer.
Both are toxic to humans - but so are most industrial chemicals.

I don't see the problem.

---

Try to use a little thing called logic here. Take the following and try to put everything together.

1) These trailers were brought up in Powel’s speech before the UN and were found to be identical to how they were described in this speech.
2) The trailers were found hidden in Northern Iraq and were camouflaged in a military scheme.
3) The trailers were scrubbed clean with some cleaning agent.
4) The trailers were only capable of producing several pounds (about 4) a month of material based on the equipment inside the vehicles.
5) It has been stated that there is no other logical use for the trailers except the production of WMD.

Now given these 5 facts what do you make of the trailers? You think they are for making fertilizer or some other industrial material? Does it make any logical sense that anyone would make a trailer like this to make industrial material or fertilizer and find the need to camouflage it so it can’t be seen? Does it make any sense that these trailers would be hidden so no one could find them if they were indeed for just making fertilizer? Does it make any sense that someone would take the time to clean the entire trailer if there was nothing to hide and it was indeed for legitimate use? Does it make any sense to produce fertilizer in such small quantities as to not be any use?

So you believe the Iraqi’s were making their 4 pounds of fertilizer a month and riding around the country in their camouflaged vehicle because you know everyone wants to find this amazing fertilizer and they had to hide it. You believe the resemblance to the vehicles mentioned in Powel’s speech to be nothing but circumstantial and coincidental and can’t possible be true because after all an American said it. You feel that the whole trailer was cleaned with a caustic agent because Iraqi’s are a clean people and like to clean the floors and insides of their mobile, camouflaged, hidden, fertilizer factories that can produce a whopping 4 pounds a month!

There is no other logical explanation for these trailers. They are indeed Mobile Weapons Labs and just the fact that they were not destroyed show that Iraq was continuing their program of making WMD in direct violation of UN resolutions and the Gulf War cease-fire. Good old Hanz Blix even stated that the Iraqi’s did not account for these trailers. It is crystal clear that Iraq was producing WMD and the current war against Iraq was totally legal and totally justifiable on every scale. I bet you all feel better about this now knowing that fact.

X

They could be producing explosives. Nothing wrong with that.
Anyway, irrespective of what they were up to - there's no evidence that they were actually doing anything wrong.

All heresay and conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
They could be producing explosives. Nothing wrong with that.
Anyway, irrespective of what they were up to - there's no evidence that they were actually doing anything wrong.

All heresay and conjecture.

---

If the gloves don't fit you must acquit! :rolleyes:

X

//They could be producing explosives. Nothing wrong with that.

Are you serious? You're the dictator of an established government with a hundred palaces, and you produce your explosive in short runs, in relatively tiny quantities, in the backs of trucks? Do you seriously believe that? Why would you have that idea?

//Anyway, irrespective of what they were up to - there's no evidence that they were actually doing anything wrong.

The language of the various UN resolutions on the subject of Iraq's proscribed weapons programs have always made it very clear, it was always up to IRAQ to prove its OWN innocence, not the converse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
I picked an arbitary date, an approximation of when Desert Stomr finally settled. C'mon cut me a break here, is this all you can pick out from my post?

---

:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
Are you serious? You're the dictator of an established government with a hundred palaces, and you produce your explosive in short runs, in relatively tiny quantities, in the backs of trucks? Do you seriously believe that? Why would you have that idea?



The language of the various UN resolutions on the subject of Iraq's proscribed weapons programs have always made it very clear, it was always up to IRAQ to prove its OWN innocence, not the converse.

---

1) You still have absolutely no proof to the contrary though.

2) Yes back to this fact again. But its interesting how nobody lifted a finger in over ten years, then after September 11th - Bush goes on the warpath to appease the American people and Iraq happened.

Quote:

---

Yes back to this fact again. But its interesting how nobody lifted a finger in over ten years, then after September 11th - Bush goes on the warpath to appease the American people and Iraq happened.

---

I have a feeling that the next war will be in America. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//It seems that 2mio people walking the streets of London in protest, and a split majority of the population voting against the war is not enough for our governments to change their mind. Democracy is only the choice of the people subject to the politicians discretion. again, this has always been the case.

You know, if the people of the UK really wanted a pacifist, insular government, candidates would appear and they'd get voted into Parliament. Unless the current administration is assassinating them or something... ;)

//No-one takes liberal views seriously becasue libertarianism never makes it to government...

I hate to be terribly nitpicky, but a liberal is vastly different from libertarian (at least in American politics, maybe the term has a different meaning in the UK).

//We can argue till we're blue in the face about this and other maljustices - the Xanith's and Arc's of this world will unfortunatley get their own way. No because they are right, fair and just - it is because that's the way it goes...

No, it's because their candidates get enough votes to win the day. That can change. The unfortunate part is that despite 2 million protestors here or there, pacifists are a minority. People like war, it's a spectator sport.

---

1. We don't want a pacifist, we want democracy and the truth. The Candidates you talk about did and have been elected to parliament, and indeed they revolted against Blair in one of the biigest revolts in parliament's long history. Those who voted for Blair's approach to Iraq did so based on his facts gleened from intelligence information. Information that is not being questioned.

It is a serious offence to mislead the house...

2. Speed typo - deal with the semantics if you wish.. :p

3. Hmm, not really.. well, yes in a way, in that you start a car in the morning, but that isn't necessarily the cause of a car crash 5 hours later (pardon the loose comparison...)

//1) You still have absolutely no proof to the contrary though.

Well I suppose if you don't follow the "reasonable man" standard that many legal systems emply, you could do some mental contortions and come to believe that there are legitimate situations in which you would need to produce a couple of pounds of explosive in a mobile chemical lab built into the back of a truck. But see #2, Iraq has always had the responsibility to prove its own innocence according to the language of the various UN resolutions on the subject.

//2) Yes back to this fact again. But its interesting how nobody lifted a finger in over ten years, then after September 11th - Bush goes on the warpath to appease the American people and Iraq happened.

And what is your point? More's the pity it wasn't done back in 1991.

// 1. We don't want a pacifist, we want democracy and the truth. The Candidates you talk about did and have been elected to parliament, and indeed they revolted against Blair in one of the biigest revolts in parliament's long history. Those who voted for Blair's approach to Iraq did so based on his facts gleened from intelligence information. Information that is not being questioned.

// It is a serious offence to mislead the house...

1 - I had thought that the great majority of the reason for the anti-war protests in the UK recently was because the protestors were against the war, period, not so much because of any misleading of Parliament (stipulated). The speakers on the subject that I remember hearing at the time seemed to hold that stance also. Were they wrong, was I misled, or do I misremember? I admit I don't have as good a grip on UK politics as I'm sure you do.

//2. Speed typo - deal with the semantics if you wish..

No worries...

//3. Hmm, not really.. well, yes in a way, in that you start a car in the morning, but that isn't necessarily the cause of a car crash 5 hours later (pardon the loose comparison...)

If you're apathetic about an issue, you can't hope to change it. Easy for me to say, but seriously you ought to write your representative(s) and get people who agree with your point of view to do the same. And if your representative doesn't really represent you then vote for somebody else, and get others to do the same.

Of course you an also abstain from voting so no matter what happens, you have the right to say, "Well it ain't my fault!" ;)