As Iraq Winds Down, Time for some Ridiculous WMD Quotes

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

Jimbeaux said:

frosted said:

To me personally , it doesn't matter that saddam didn't have WMD s because we all know he would have done everything in his power to Get his hands on some just to piss the west off ( a bit like Iran )

On a different note, I was listening to James obrien on lbc today and he put things in perspective in one sentence . Why didn't the Muslims community extremised when saddam was killing they're brothers , or when muhaddamesgiad kills people bythe thousands ?

Excellent question. Don't expect an answer though; for certain not a straight one.

I guess your translation software is better than mine Jim

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 1st September 13:54

That is a redneck requirement.

[Marf]

Darn tootin!

[collateral]

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

Jimbeaux said:

...Why not spend your energy beating on the current idiot in the Whitehouse instead...

What does that make Palin?

What? I thought we were discussing those in charge, past and present.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 1st September 15:36

Well apparently it's a stale topic.

If Obama's an idiot, what do you think of Momma Grizzly?

[Victor McDade]

frosted said:

To me personally , it doesn't matter that saddam didn't have WMD s because we all know he would have done everything in his power to Get his hands on some just to piss the west off ( a bit like Iran )

On a different note, I was listening to James obrien on lbc today and he put things in perspective in one sentence . Why didn't the Muslims community extremised when saddam was killing they're brothers , or when muhaddamesgiad kills people bythe thousands ?

Great, so now we should start bombing the hell out of nations not because of what they've done, but on the basis of what they may do. And no proof is needed. As long as we just 'all know'. Sounds like a plan.

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 20:36

[Mattygooner]

Victor McDade said:

frosted said:

To me personally , it doesn't matter that saddam didn't have WMD s because we all know he would have done everything in his power to Get his hands on some just to piss the west off ( a bit like Iran )

On a different note, I was listening to James obrien on lbc today and he put things in perspective in one sentence . Why didn't the Muslims community extremised when saddam was killing they're brothers , or when muhaddamesgiad kills people bythe thousands ?

Great, so now we should start bombing the hell out of nations not because of what they've done, but on the basis of what they may do. And no proof is needed. As long as we just 'all know'. Sounds like a plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_at...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Perhaps learn from history?

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 20:36

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

That is one slow stutter Jim me old mucker

Hmmm. That was odd; I deleted. Pistonheads by IPhone. Maybe I pocket submitted.

[Jimbeaux]

collateral said:

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

Jimbeaux said:

...Why not spend your energy beating on the current idiot in the Whitehouse instead...

What does that make Palin?

What? I thought we were discussing those in charge, past and present.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 1st September 15:36

Well apparently it's a stale topic.

If Obama's an idiot, what do you think of Momma Grizzly?

An irrelevant topic as she is not a public official

[rudecherub]

if the current theories regarding multiple divergent realities are true, then somewhere there is a forum talking about evil and duplicitous the Allies were to turn on Stalin, whose Russian forces had fought bravely up and until 1945, and rearming the defeated Germans against the Soviets was a terrible thing to do.

I mean Stalin hadn't developed the bomb, the gulags had only killed part of the 20 million of his own citizens at this point, and the world didn't live on the brink of Nuclear war for 50 years. The Iron curtain didn't drop over Eastern Europe and the war went on until 1948 when it could have ended in 46.

Thing is we don't know what would have happened for sure if Saddam had been left in power, and we are never going to know.

[Victor McDade]

Mattygooner said:

Victor McDade said:

frosted said:

To me personally , it doesn't matter that saddam didn't have WMD s because we all know he would have done everything in his power to Get his hands on some just to piss the west off ( a bit like Iran )

On a different note, I was listening to James obrien on lbc today and he put things in perspective in one sentence . Why didn't the Muslims community extremised when saddam was killing they're brothers , or when muhaddamesgiad kills people bythe thousands ?

Great, so now we should start bombing the hell out of nations not because of what they've done, but on the basis of what they may do. And no proof is needed. As long as we just 'all know'. Sounds like a plan.

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 20:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Perhaps learn from history?

Yes he was a murdering scum bag when it came to his own people but there still no evidence he was a threat to us. If we were to send the British armed forces into every nation that kills its own then we may as well relocate to Africa and the Middle East. Playing world policeman is not our role.

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 21:19

[rudecherub]

Victor McDade said:

Yes he was a murdering scum bag when it came to his own people but there still no evidence he was a threat to us. If we were to send the British armed forces into every nation that kills its own then we may as well relocate to Africa and the Middle East. Playing world policeman is not our role.

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 21:19

But those African countries aren't selling their oil in euros.

[Mattygooner]

Victor McDade said:

Mattygooner said:

Victor McDade said:

frosted said:

To me personally , it doesn't matter that saddam didn't have WMD s because we all know he would have done everything in his power to Get his hands on some just to piss the west off ( a bit like Iran )

On a different note, I was listening to James obrien on lbc today and he put things in perspective in one sentence . Why didn't the Muslims community extremised when saddam was killing they're brothers , or when muhaddamesgiad kills people bythe thousands ?

Great, so now we should start bombing the hell out of nations not because of what they've done, but on the basis of what they may do. And no proof is needed. As long as we just 'all know'. Sounds like a plan.

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 20:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Perhaps learn from history?

Yes he was a murdering scum bag when it came to his own people but there still no evidence he was a threat to us. If we were to send the British armed forces into every nation that kills its own then we may as well relocate to Africa and the Middle East. Playing world policeman is not our role.

Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 1st September 21:19

Yes but Africa and the dictators there do not have the funds and know how to develop bio and chemical weapons as well as Nuclear arms and most have not openly declared thst they will wipe other countries off the face of the earth.

If he was prepared to use chemical weapons on his own people, you think he would think twice about using it on anyone else?

When i say, learn from history, it points more towards learning from past periods when mental genocidal fk heads were left to their own devices with money, weapons do do what they like. It's why we had to intervene with Milosavljeviæ and even more so with Saddam as he had money.

[neilr]

Surely the point is that our nations were taken to war by their respective leaders on a lie. Forget the arguments about legality and oil, we were told that the Iraqis had WMD, had failed to destroy all stockpiles from GW1 and were activley trying to aquire new ones. Added to which we (at least in Britain) had our PrimeMinister at the time telling the house that they could be made ready to launch in as little as 45 minutes.

MILLIONS of people marched on the streets in Britain alone, but our democratically elected government ignored its people wishes. A march a fraction of the size (and admittedly a riot) about poll tax brought down Thatcher as well as making the government repeal the poll tax.

These were ALL LIES. No ifs no buts, the whole thing was a pack of lies. For this if nothing else the Bush and Bliar administrations and their higher echelons should be vilified by decent people and dealt with by international law.

No tin foil hats required in this instance.

[collateral]

Mattygooner said:

If he was prepared to use chemical weapons on his own people, you think he would think twice about using it on anyone else?

He didn't have any.

[Mattygooner]

collateral said:

Mattygooner said:

If he was prepared to use chemical weapons on his own people, you think he would think twice about using it on anyone else?

He didn't have any.

So what was Halabja? Not Mustard gas or Hydrogen Cyanide?

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/Butler%20Re...

Have a read through, P96 onwards intellignece reports on Iraq's Bio and Chemical Weapons.

[rudecherub]

neilr said:

Surely the point is that our nations were taken to war by their respective leaders on a lie. Forget the arguments about legality and oil, we were told that the Iraqis had WMD, had failed to destroy all stockpiles from GW1 and were activley trying to aquire new ones. Added to which we (at least in Britain) had our PrimeMinister at the time telling the house that they could be made ready to launch in as little as 45 minutes.

MILLIONS of people marched on the streets in Britain alone, but our democratically elected government ignored its people wishes. A march a fraction of the size (and admittedly a riot) about poll tax brought down Thatcher as well as making the government repeal the poll tax.

These were ALL LIES. No ifs no buts, the whole thing was a pack of lies. For this if nothing else the Bush and Bliar administrations and their higher echelons should be vilified by decent people and dealt with by international law.

No tin foil hats required in this instance.

A lie demands said leaders knew that Saddam did not have WMD's. They all believed he had, in fact Saddam made sure they did, and more importantly his own people, his neighbours and the wider Arab Street, believed he had them.
The French and the Russians for crying out loud even believed he had WMD's, but for political reasons ie constraining US power and influence in the region they didn't want a military solution.

The truth is Saddam played a double game, getting rid of his WMD's so he could win over the UN and escape sanctions, while pretending to have them to appear strong, and he had to appear strong to remain in power.

I won't defend Blair, who had to convince his own party hence the wild claims Labour made.
But you don't do your own cause any good by falling into the self same trap and overstating your case.

Yes they were no WMD's found, but there were WMD's before hand, and they were used, Saddam continued to pretend he had them to threaten cajole and bully, and had sanctions been lifted it is naive to think he would not have quickly reacquired them.

[Jimbeaux]

neilr said:

Surely the point is that our nations were taken to war by their respective leaders on a lie. Forget the arguments about legality and oil, we were told that the Iraqis had WMD, had failed to destroy all stockpiles from GW1 and were activley trying to aquire new ones. Added to which we (at least in Britain) had our PrimeMinister at the time telling the house that they could be made ready to launch in as little as 45 minutes.

MILLIONS of people marched on the streets in Britain alone, but our democratically elected government ignored its people wishes. A march a fraction of the size (and admittedly a riot) about poll tax brought down Thatcher as well as making the government repeal the poll tax.

These were ALL LIES. No ifs no buts, the whole thing was a pack of lies. For this if nothing else the Bush and Bliar administrations and their higher echelons should be vilified by decent people and dealt with by international law.

No tin foil hats required in this instance.

"international law" that is almost as laughable as a nasty letter from
The U.N.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 1st September 23:58

[neilr]

rudecherub said:

A lie demands said leaders knew that Saddam did not have WMD's. They all believed he had, in fact Saddam made sure they did, and more importantly his own people, his neighbours and the wider Arab Street, believed he had them.
The French and the Russians for crying out loud even believed he had WMD's, but for political reasons ie constraining US power and influence in the region they didn't want a military solution.

The truth is Saddam played a double game, getting rid of his WMD's so he could win over the UN and escape sanctions, while pretending to have them to appear strong, and he had to appear strong to remain in power.

I won't defend Blair, who had to convince his own party hence the wild claims Labour made.
But you don't do your own cause any good by falling into the self same trap and overstating your case.

Yes they were no WMD's found, but there were

Its debatable that they thought they believes they had WMD though isnt it. Blairs impassioned speech about being made launch ready in 45 minutes was fantasy though and he knew it, on that basis alone we were taken to war on a pack of lies. To be honest i dont think thats overstating my case really.

Jimbeaux said:

"international law" that is almost as laughable as a nasty letter from
The U.N.

Jimbeaux, you and I have disagreed over this many times, however, regardless of how you see international law, and how effective it may or may not be (I dont altogether dissagree on that point) it is still international law, we're not discussing whether it's effective or not here.

It's illegal to steal a car, regardless of how stupid or ridiculous one thinks such a law is or even how effectve it is (lets face it cars are stolen all day and night long), stealing a car is still illegal. By the same principal... etc etc.

BTW, international law is ok when it deals with people such as, oh, i don't know, Hitler et al, Slobodan Milosevic etc isn't it.


(Edited so it makes som kind of sense)

Edited by neilr on Thursday 2nd September 00:21

[rudecherub]

neilr said:

rudecherub said:

A lie demands said leaders knew that Saddam did not have WMD's. They all believed he had, in fact Saddam made sure they did, and more importantly his own people, his neighbours and the wider Arab Street, believed he had them.
The French and the Russians for crying out loud even believed he had WMD's, but for political reasons ie constraining US power and influence in the region they didn't want a military solution.

The truth is Saddam played a double game, getting rid of his WMD's so he could win over the UN and escape sanctions, while pretending to have them to appear strong, and he had to appear strong to remain in power.

I won't defend Blair, who had to convince his own party hence the wild claims Labour made.
But you don't do your own cause any good by falling into the self same trap and overstating your case.

Yes they were no WMD's found, but there were

[quote=Jimbeaux
"international law" that is almost as laughable as a nasty letter from
The U.N.

Jimbeaux, you and I have disagreed over this many times, however, regardless of how you see international law, and how effective it may or may not be (I dont altogether dissagree on that point) it is still international law, we're not discussing whether it's effective or not here.

It's illegal to steal a car, regardless of how stupid or ridiculous one thinks such a law is or even how effectve it is (lets face it cars are stolen all day and night long), stealing a car is still illegal. By the same principal... etc etc.

BTW, international law is ok when it deals with people such as, oh, i don't know, Hitler et al, Slobodan Milosevic etc isn't it.

Not sure who you are quoting, addressing but Saddam was in breech of UN Security Council resolutions and therefore international Law.
There are differing opinions regarding that, but that's the nature of the beast.

I don't think it matters either way - since the winners make the rules and get to write history, but that's the way it was.

edit, re above

No it's not debatable in as far as we can be sure of any government, as the French and the Russians confirmed, along with mostly everyone else, especially the regional powers, the belief before the War that Saddam still had WMD's.

They believed Saddam had them, because Saddam wanted them too.

It's overstating your case to say we went to war based on the 45 minute claim speech.

Say Blair and co hadn't sexed up the dossiar, what then? Had the Labour party divided and a greater number voted against war, Blair would not have been defeated because the Conservatives supported the enforcement of UN resolutions - he had the votes in the commons, just not his own party.

Edited by rudecherub on Thursday 2nd September 00:33

[Mattygooner]

neilr said:

rudecherub said:

A lie demands said leaders knew that Saddam did not have WMD's. They all believed he had, in fact Saddam made sure they did, and more importantly his own people, his neighbours and the wider Arab Street, believed he had them.
The French and the Russians for crying out loud even believed he had WMD's, but for political reasons ie constraining US power and influence in the region they didn't want a military solution.

The truth is Saddam played a double game, getting rid of his WMD's so he could win over the UN and escape sanctions, while pretending to have them to appear strong, and he had to appear strong to remain in power.

I won't defend Blair, who had to convince his own party hence the wild claims Labour made.
But you don't do your own cause any good by falling into the self same trap and overstating your case.

Yes they were no WMD's found, but there were

Its debatable that they thought they believes they had WMD though isnt it. Blairs impassioned speech about being made launch ready in 45 minutes was fantasy though and he knew it, on that basis alone we were taken to war on a pack of lies. To be honest i dont think thats overstating my case really.

Jimbeaux said:

"international law" that is almost as laughable as a nasty letter from
The U.N.

Jimbeaux, you and I have disagreed over this many times, however, regardless of how you see international law, and how effective it may or may not be (I dont altogether dissagree on that point) it is still international law, we're not discussing whether it's effective or not here.

It's illegal to steal a car, regardless of how stupid or ridiculous one thinks such a law is or even how effectve it is (lets face it cars are stolen all day and night long), stealing a car is still illegal. By the same principal... etc etc.

BTW, international law is ok when it deals with people such as, oh, i don't know, Hitler et al, Slobodan Milosevic etc isn't it.


(Edited so it makes som kind of sense)

Edited by neilr on Thursday 2nd September 00:21

REad the dossier, it was believed through the intelligence that he had the capabilities to launch them within 45 minutes with a range of 645k i believe.

[collateral]

Mattygooner said:

collateral said:

Mattygooner said:

If he was prepared to use chemical weapons on his own people, you think he would think twice about using it on anyone else?

He didn't have any.

So what was Halabja? Not Mustard gas or Hydrogen Cyanide?

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/Butler%20Re...

Have a read through, P96 onwards intellignece reports on Iraq's Bio and Chemical Weapons.

Chemical weapons were used in 1988. afaik no one in this thread has denied that. The discussion is about the decision to invade (because of non-existent weapons) 15 years later.

I had a skim of what you suggested. As far as I can tell the gist of it seems to be 'we were completely and utterly wrong but it's not our fault'.

Edited by collateral on Thursday 2nd September 01:51