BBC taking the world for a ride ;-)

[honeybee]

But this BBC is Bush and Blair Corporation

After hearing all those lies from both these governments, trying to shift the focus from WMDs to Saddam's rule and now the 'prism of 9/11' I just feel plain sick there exist such cold-blooded and shameless liars like these two.

Btw, the real BBC is doing a splendid job, and they should keep it up, needless to say the British government looks pathetic trying to shift the focus of the enquiry from their own guilt to the BBC.

.

[BodwadUK]

HELLO HB

Long time no see


You might actually find an independant commision found the BBC to be in a very bad position. The accusations they made were not true and were opinion not fact. Maybe the governments did lie but the BBC has no evidence. They are just speculating and broadcasting it to people as though it is fact.
A type of indoctination in many ways. The BBC has not really responded very well either even when an independant body found them to be wrong.

i must say all news is disturbing these days but you must sink to a new level if newspapers try and tell people about their own ideas instead of facts.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
...You might actually find an independant commision found the BBC to be in a very bad position. The accusations they made were not true and were opinion not fact. ...

You know HB isn't going to take this at face value without any evidence to back this claim up!

[Xanith]

Didn't the Queen order the investigation of the BBC? I had heard of this was due to their fraudulent and misleading reporting during the latest war against Iraq. It's hard to find much information to this story does anyone have any links to one?

X

[OrdinaryGuy]

I don't believe any government lied here. There was probably intelligence but it got exaggerated a little bit. nothing more

[KayJay]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
I don't believe any government lied here. There was probably intelligence but it got exaggerated a little bit. nothing more

LMAO!

Its now no longer "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but "Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme"

Its now no longer "We know for a fact" but "We knew what the facts would be, if we do not....."

Its now no longer "Clear and Present Danger" but "A Very Strong Possibility"

Its now no longer "A Direct Threat" but a "A Marked Tendency Towards a Direct Threat"

Looks like its now no longer the New World, but a Brave New World .

[Xanith]

Originally posted by KayJay
LMAO!



Its now no longer "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but "Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme"

Last I heard the evidence was still being gathered on this.

Its now no longer "We know for a fact" but "We knew what the facts would be, if we do not....."

Well because Saddam himself admitted to having them and they are still unaccounted for I think its safe to say that it is a fact he had WMD's.

Its now no longer "Clear and Present Danger" but "A Very Strong Possibility"

I don’t know about you but I never trusted Saddam. It's quite obvious the things he was capable of. Didn't you see the mass graves and the torture chambers? Not to mention being responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people. If that isn’t a clear and present danger I don’t know what is.

Its now no longer "A Direct Threat" but a "A Marked Tendency Towards a Direct Threat"

Well I think the Kurds, Shiites, Iran, Israel, and surrounding nations would consider Saddam's Iraq to be a direct threat. I suppose you missed that too

Looks like its now no longer the New World, but a Brave New World .

uhhh huh whatever.

X

[KayJay]

Xanith. Lets not start all over again. We've been throught it pretty thoroughly. You are wrong and I am right. Lets leave it at that

My post was in response to Bart stating that there were no lies. Yes, there were lies.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by NotLKH
You know HB isn't going to take this at face value without any evidence to back this claim up!

The fact is both the Bush and Blair camps, and people like you who think your governments can't do anything wrong, are pretty pissed off at BBC because it exposed the lies of your respective governments.

BBC has also explained how a 'real and present danger' has now been converted into 'programmes' and 'products' and admissions by both governments that the WMDs would never be found. And only after the governments were sure the WMDs would never be found, have they started talking about the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

Rumsfeld's argument of a different prism after 9/11 for Iraq is plain stupid. I wonder why anyone should even listen to such crap, specially when White House has failed to turn up a shred of credible evidence for the accused Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.

The answers given by Bush, Blair and company, to the press and to the committees clearly show they don't want to answer the fundamental questions and are only trying to divert attention to other less important issues. Campbell's accusation of the BBC lying is a fine example of his mastery of spin. The real issue is whether the government lied or not, not the BBC. And the BBC has pretty much made it clear it was only voicing doubts of a senior intelligence official and not their own.

And both governments, at least the British, are trying to prevent an independent public enquiry into the whole scandal. The British government has even refused to let the committee to question the heads of the intelligence departments, citing the convenient security and political reasons which can help them cover their murderous acts.

Tommy Franks' admission that the US forces may have to stay in Iraq for possibly as long as four years, the desperation and unrest of the occupying forces in Iraq ... Everything proves it was a wrong and unjust move.

Also I fail to understand how claims made on a 12-year old thesis can still be 'accurate and true' today. If facts have to change, then I could call Bush wise.

.

[OrdinaryGuy]

honeybee, what else do you do besides sleep, eat and attack america?

[BodwadUK]

Still making that nuke???


I have nothing against the BBC. I just think they are out of line to accuse the government of lying when they also have no evidence to support their claim. They were irresponsible to say it to so many people who trust them to come up with reliable information

[Maven]

I read BBC like I do a comic book, thier both fiction.

[Wally Pipp]

so is apparently your spelling ability.

[Xanith]

Yeah I think the BBC has pretty much ruined their reputation as a fair and reliable news source. They should really have stuck to telling it like it is instead of trying to push forth a political agenda.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Still making that nuke???


I have nothing against the BBC. I just think they are out of line to accuse the government of lying when they also have no evidence to support their claim. They were irresponsible to say it to so many people who trust them to come up with reliable information

Either you are missing the point or you are ignoring the point that the BBC didn't accuse the British government. They simply published the suspicions of one of their contacts.

As for giving proof, the world has yet to see any credible shred of evidence about the existence of WMDs. Bush and Blair may have forgotten (quite conveniently) that they both used the WMDs to great effect into creating a feeling of insecurity in their respective people. It's high time the world saw some proof of it.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah I think the BBC has pretty much ruined their reputation as a fair and reliable news source. They should really have stuck to telling it like it is instead of trying to push forth a political agenda.

X

On the contrary, the BBC has managed to ruin the reputation of the pro-war camps (read: the B and B governments) by exposing the series of lies they put forth in order to take over the Iraqi oil.

I wonder why Bush visited the African nations when he had said they didn't picture in America's foreign policy. Maybe the realization that the Iraqi oil won't be enough?

.

[honeybee]

See for yourself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3064441.stm

Where the Bush camp has retracted its statements about the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the British government says it had intelligence which was not shared with the US. May we know why?

Some interesting text:

Was the original memorandum not found to be a forgery?
Yes. This was the memorandum which came to the CIA and which launched the Wilson mission in 2002. In March this year the head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN that "these documents are in fact not authentic." The documents were faxes apparently exchanged between Iraq and Niger - but it turned out, for example, that they carried the alleged signatures of people not in the Niger Government at the time. Why they were not found to be forgeries earlier is not known.

Did this not shake British confidence?
Apparently not. Britain is standing by its report from the unnamed foreign intelligence service. Mr Straw has told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that the British knew nothing about the memorandum and that the first Britain knew about the forgery was when it was reported in the press.

And the part about holding back such vital information from each other. It's either plain funny or plain evil.

.

[honeybee]

And there's more to the word-twisting : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3063013.stm

US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has defended a controversial claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, saying it was substantiated by several sources.

Nonetheless, she echoed President Bush's spokesman in saying that the allegation should not have been included in the president's State of the Union address in January.

In that speech, Mr Bush said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

Ms Rice said: "The statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British Government did say that.

"Not only was the statement accurate, there were statements of this kind in the National Intelligence Estimate" - a reference to a classified document compiled by US agencies.

However, she stood by the position that it was a mistake to use it in the State of the Union address.

"We have a higher standard for presidential speeches than raw intelligence," Ms Rice said.

A more specific reference to Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium had been removed from an earlier speech at the CIA's request, she added.

I think only an idiot can understand what she is saying, because quite frankly she is making absurd and contradicting comments, which is not expected of an international diplomat.

It looks like with both the B's pants on fire, each is trying to push the blame onto the other. Quite an interesting game this is

.

[honeybee]

And if you still want to believe the WMD claims, here's another one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3063361.stm

Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true.
...

.

[Xanith]

The original source for this intelligence was the French. Somehow it’s all starting to make some sense. It's no wonder why they are so quiet lately

X

[BodwadUK]

Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true.

They are not shown to be conclusively False either!!!!!

No government would place a source of information in such a dangerous situation. What if it an african state that has told the British this information. Shall we just tell everyone and watch those who APPARANTLY have been supplying Uranium to pile on top of them!!!!!

They simply published the suspicions of one of their contacts

The BBC needs to publish facts that it can prove, i thought they were facts and it turns out they are speculation and suspicions. Its ruined my trust in the 'Reliable Source' that the BBC were.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by BodwadUK

The BBC needs to publish facts that it can prove, i thought they were facts and it turns out they are speculation and suspicions. Its ruined my trust in the 'Reliable Source' that the BBC were.

I think you can lump the BBC in with the New York Times as being a place where lying and publishing skewed and slanted reports have become the norm. Its no wonder the BBC is being investigated and the New York Times had to publish another apology today for yet another totally inaccurate story.

X

[R Sole]

Father & Son conversation

All the answers we've been looking for!!!!

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll
find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use
in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein
was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another
country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate
gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China
is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are
sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other
hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some
laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become
capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam
Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is
our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he
helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi
Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive
rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off
people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off
people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars
back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing
opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban
would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off
for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off
people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy
that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not
comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet
fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her
eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are
our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were
from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very
bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French
fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked
the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can
profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war
is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him
what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because
George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
They are not shown to be conclusively False either!!!!!

That means they are merely suspicions and not facts

Originally posted by BodwadUK No government would place a source of information in such a dangerous situation. What if it an african state that has told the British this information. Shall we just tell everyone and watch those who APPARANTLY have been supplying Uranium to pile on top of them!!!!!

Yet you expect BBC to reveal its source?? Surely if the claims made by the US and the UK about the WMDs in Iraq were true, there would have been some proof of it by now, other than the so called 'intelligence reports'? The IAEA has already said the documents regarding the sale of uranium are 'forged'. It's interesting there's no explanation by the British government about this remark, or the result that there simply isn't any case for the Uranium sale allegation.

Originally posted by BodwadUK The BBC needs to publish facts that it can prove, i thought they were facts and it turns out they are speculation and suspicions. Its ruined my trust in the 'Reliable Source' that the BBC were.

And yet, the British and the US governments can get away with uncorroborated accusations and claims, without having the responsibility to prove them either before the war or after the war?? I wonder what happened to your sense of justice. So far, from the verbal somersaults and backtracking and buck-passing going on with and within the governments of the US and UK, it's only clear that these two governments haven't told the world the truth. That means BBC's report does contain more than an iota of truth.

Consider one example: Rumsfeld tried to make the 'prism after 9/11' the justification of the Iraq war, when they haven't been able to prove any damn thing about any links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And so the 'fears' that the WMDs may already have fallen into the hands of the terrorists are nothing more than another shot in the dark. When they couldn't prove Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld saying things changed after 9/11 is nothing but stupid. It's time the governments started backing their claims with solid evidence.

Consider another example: Regarding the uranium sale matter, if the statement made by Bush was 'factually correct' (whatever that means to you) there's no reason the US government should apologize for it. The apology over inclusion of this statement in the presidential speech and the way this statement was used indeed casts doubts over the motives behind the war as claimed by these governments. Why didn't Bush reveal that a US senator had found these allegations to be false a year back? Why didn't the CIA seek clarifications from the British governments before they included this claim in the presidential speech? And why didn't the UK government share their intelligence with the US, when they were the so called 'coalition' ? The fact probably is that Tenet is being made a scapegoat for the fiasco, because there never was any truth in the uranium sale allegation, and it was just another deliberately misinterpreted piece of false evidence for bolstering up the case for war.

RSole, that's a very fitting example you have posted

.

[BodwadUK]

I agree that the governments should start presenting more of their findings. Especially those that caused many high up people to support this action.

Here in the Uk there both Conservative and Labour parties agreed in most ways to this action. i dont think i have ever heard of that happening before . My point is they must know something we dont because they certainly dont get on!!!

Anyone see Dead Ringers last night????


The documents that are allegibly false are only the ones passed over not those that the UK government curently hold secret

[Maven]

Originally posted by honeybee
That means they are merely suspicions and not facts


Yet you expect BBC to reveal its source?? Surely if the claims made by the US and the UK about the WMDs in Iraq were true, there would have been some proof of it by now, other than the so called 'intelligence reports'? The IAEA has already said the documents regarding the sale of uranium are 'forged'. It's interesting there's no explanation by the British government about this remark, or the result that there simply isn't any case for the Uranium sale allegation.


And yet, the British and the US governments can get away with uncorroborated accusations and claims, without having the responsibility to prove them either before the war or after the war?? I wonder what happened to your sense of justice. So far, from the verbal somersaults and backtracking and buck-passing going on with and within the governments of the US and UK, it's only clear that these two governments haven't told the world the truth. That means BBC's report does contain more than an iota of truth.

Consider one example: Rumsfeld tried to make the 'prism after 9/11' the justification of the Iraq war, when they haven't been able to prove any damn thing about any links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And so the 'fears' that the WMDs may already have fallen into the hands of the terrorists are nothing more than another shot in the dark. When they couldn't prove Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld saying things changed after 9/11 is nothing but stupid. It's time the governments started backing their claims with solid evidence.

Consider another example: Regarding the uranium sale matter, if the statement made by Bush was 'factually correct' (whatever that means to you) there's no reason the US government should apologize for it. The apology over inclusion of this statement in the presidential speech and the way this statement was used indeed casts doubts over the motives behind the war as claimed by these governments. Why didn't Bush reveal that a US senator had found these allegations to be false a year back? Why didn't the CIA seek clarifications from the British governments before they included this claim in the presidential speech? And why didn't the UK government share their intelligence with the US, when they were the so called 'coalition' ? The fact probably is that Tenet is being made a scapegoat for the fiasco, because there never was any truth in the uranium sale allegation, and it was just another deliberately misinterpreted piece of false evidence for bolstering up the case for war.

RSole, that's a very fitting example you have posted

.

They found some nuclear supplies in a scientists gardan not too long ago. He said saddam had given him orders to keep it there until the UN lifted sanctions. This would allow him to restart his nuclear program where he left off.

Do you think inspectors are just going to stumble across something like that?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Maven
They found some nuclear supplies in a scientists gardan not too long ago. He said saddam had given him orders to keep it there until the UN lifted sanctions. This would allow him to restart his nuclear program where he left off.

Do you think inspectors are just going to stumble across something like that?

This burial is supposed to have happened in 1991 And as of now, it's only the US and the UK governments which are making claims about this burial being related to the alleged nuclear weapons programme. Even ordinarily such claims would have to have the verification and approval of a neutral party (the UN or the IAEA in this case), and especially so in this condition when both the governments are facing charges of over-inflating, forging and conjuring up evidence.

.

[BodwadUK]

WOAH HB last i heard it was over exagerating (How the hell do you spell that???? ) evidence not forging or making it up.

Their sources were said to be forges. Shows how much you seem to be able to read into the news.

Yet you expect BBC to reveal its source??

I bloody pay tax for them to keep running so i beleive i have the right to the truth. And there evidence

[Wally Pipp]

HB is possibly hinting to the situation in which the Coalition "sold" us a war for different reasons than they are telling us now (re. Blair's address to the House of Commons, Bush's State of the Union Address, Colin Powell's presentation of evidence before the UN Security Council).

They told us a vastly different story then to what they are telling now. That's the whole controversy. Then it was told to us that Hussein could unleash horrible weapons within minutes where and whenever he wishes, now they tell us he sought to build these weapons but may not have them. There's a discrepancy that undermines their whole case.
And nothing short of a stockpile of WMD's will silence the critics and do away the suspicions.

That's what I think is the crux of his view on the matter.

[BodwadUK]

If they had evidence to suspect the weapons could be fired in minutes then they werent going to let it go!!!! Yes we havent found any weapons of mass destruction but what if the evidence they had was true??? Should we just let Saddam blow us up first and then attack???

A main focus was put on his ability to fire these weapons in minutes i agree but the other reasons we are hearing today were stated then. They are not new, they are just coming more evident because of the critics

nothing short of a stockpile of WMD's will silence the critics and do away the suspicions.

It wont!!! They will just claim the US or UK governments put them there. You can never please anyone especially a paranoid sceptic!!!!!

[Wally Pipp]

Oh right, I have a nuclear weapon in my garage aimed at Westminster. Are you going to invade my home just in case it's true ?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Oh right, I have a nuclear weapon in my garage aimed at Westminster. Are you going to invade my home just in case it's true ?

I would think a hundred times before making such a statement, even in jest, Wally, if I were anywhere within a 1000 miles radius of the US or the UK.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
It wont!!! They will just claim the US or UK governments put them there. You can never please anyone especially a paranoid sceptic!!!!!

OK, what you say could be one possibility. But very interestingly, you are missing the fact that there have been NO WMD STOCKPILES found. If they had indeed been found, there would have been theories about their origin, but when they have not been found, there's only one credible theory and that's they never existed. Even if we were to believe the so-far-unsubstantiated theory that Saddam was pursuing the WMD 'programme', it undermines the basic foundation for the Iraq war of an 'immediate' threat. The UN inspectors, if given the time and aid, could have eliminated any such programmes in a much more humanitarian and peaceful manner. I would say the US didn't cooperate with the UN inspections (by not sharing all its intelligence, trying to block the extension of the inspections) just because it wanted nothing short of war.

Blair has now said there could be different approaches to tackle the threat posed by Saddam. Why was he claiming a pre-emptive military action would be the only solution then? He and his advisers were quick to label the anti-war people anti-nationals (maybe wimps is the word).

Straw said the Iraq war was as justified today as it was when the Houses decided in favour of the war. How ironically true he is, when the Iraq war is as unjustified today as it was before it started.

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Oh right, I have a nuclear weapon in my garage aimed at Westminster. Are you going to invade my home just in case it's true ?

The Iraqi's had an active nuclear program dating back into the early 1980's thanks to the French. You been importing any nuclear reactors from France lately? Your analogy is borderline ridiculous...hovering on inane.

X

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
WOAH HB last i heard it was over exagerating (How the hell do you spell that???? ) evidence not forging or making it up.

Their sources were said to be forges. Shows how much you seem to be able to read into the news.



I bloody pay tax for them to keep running so i beleive i have the right to the truth. And there evidence

Actually it was all types of swindling: over-exaggeration (did you learn your English from Dubya?? ), forging and lying/making it up. I would say they have created such a fine web of lies, they can't talk themselves out of it now, because one side backs up a claim which the other side has disputed.

Blair is to be awarded some US honour, I read on BBC. I would think never before in the history of the world a more stupid moment has ever occurred. If that guy had any self-esteem he would reject that honour, step down and accept he was wrong/misled.

Just read for a change what the US soldiers have to say : "Hey shoot me so I can go home".

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
The Iraqi's had an active nuclear program dating back into the early 1980's thanks to the French. You been importing any nuclear reactors from France lately? Your analogy is borderline ridiculous...hovering on inane.

X

Just pass the news on to the CIA, and they will find evidence Wally got the nuke directly from Saddam, via an underground network

At least this war should teach your governments and your people not to poke their noses into other nations' affairs so you can fill up your coffers. I can't understand how two irresponsible fools can sacrifice hundreds of their own just for the sake of their petty political and financial gains. The US and the UK won't be able to afford this war, both financially and militarily. The US economy needs something more solid than Iraqi oil to be back on track, and it seems the rebuilding of Iraq is on top of rebuilding of the US economy in Dubya's agenda.

.

[honeybee]

I also don't understand what is the reason for denying an independent public enquiry on the Iraq war by the British government. The only possible reason at this stage seems to be covering up their lies. Going by the reports of the parliamentary committees, it seems these committees were set up just to provide an opportunity to Blair and his aides to throw mud on someone else and divert the attention once again.

Funny, Straw says a public enquiry could run into millions of pounds of expenditure and at least two years of enquiries while an intelligence committee would do it fast and cheap. Dunno if he understands the difference between a public enquiry and an intelligence committee enquiry. Looks like the British government thinks the Iraq war is just another of those small irregularities one has to incur in the daily running of the country.

.

[Wally Pipp]

Originally posted by Xanith
The Iraqi's had an active nuclear program dating back into the early 1980's thanks to the French. You been importing any nuclear reactors from France lately? Your analogy is borderline ridiculous...hovering on inane.

X

They also had an active chemical and biological weaponry program running in the 80's thanks to their friends in the US and UK who sold them the damn stuff. How quickly we forget ...

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
They also had an active chemical and biological weaponry program running in the 80's thanks to their friends in the US and UK who sold them the damn stuff. How quickly we forget ...

The US contribution was minuscule at best (around 5 million), the UK's contribution just as small (few hundred million). The real masters behind Iraq's weapons program's came from the Russians (multi-billion with technical experts and training), followed by the Chinese (multi-billion with technical experts and training), French (Well over 1 billion with technical experts), and then the Germans (close to a billion). How quickly everyone forgets the real facts...

X

[Wally Pipp]

*shakes head in disbelief*

no matter how minuscule, your country sold him the stuff. Do you think you can justify it by calling it minuscule ? The sale went on until '92 even after we all know what he did with it ...