Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Inspectors Conclude No WMD in Iraq


Guest Lottie

Recommended Posts

Most likely. But The Sun will still support him, and you just know that 60% of people are so ignorant of politics they'll base who they vote for by who The Sun tell them too in the article underneeth the topless Page 3 girl come election day 

Not Thta I would eeevvvveeer read The Sun myself tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Talon

    14

  • Celumnaz

    3

  • zephyr

    3

  • bathory

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest Lottie
But The Sun will still support him, and you just know that 60% of people are so ignorant of politics they'll base who they vote for by who The Sun tell them too in the article underneeth the topless Page 3 girl come election day

The sad thing about this is that its true! laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man is threatening people with a 'gun' in his coat pocket. No one has seen the gun but everyone believes he has one.

Actually Iraq always denied having them.

I never even heard the word 'insurgent' before the main stream Media started calling Terrorists insurgents!

You might not have heard of it, but everyone else had, trust me its a real word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy fails in the fact that in the real case, 5000 people FELT the use of these weapons in Halabja! The "Police" got there way too late!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the ISG needs to make it clear what possibly happened to the WMDs. We know they *were* there at one point. Were they destroyed by SH right after he kicked the inspectors out? Could he have destroyed them right before the war? Could he have shipped them to another country, or could they have been hidden in Iraq. THe report says they arent hidden in Iraq I think, but what could have happened to them, THATs what I want to know.

296481[/snapback]

Yep, he had them, he used them, he played games with inspectors. If he didn't have them, let the karking inspectors document it like that other country did... ummmm.... I forget which atm... and we probably wouldn't have been at this point. And I've seen those pictures of the planes they're finding buried in sand dunes in the desert, I remember that guy that had those documents and such buried in his backyard garden, I don't really care what those pointy-hats say. He had em, he used em, never documented they were gone. Either moved or hid them or dismantled to be put together later, or Saddam really thought he had them and his people were lying to him out of fear of him. Maybe 100 years from now someone's going to be digging for a building project and find them.

Just because we've never seen a species doesn't mean it doesn't exsit like that leech the other day, just means we haven't stumbled across it. Guys who hid it may very well be buried with it, or have been killed since. Or they're in Syria or something.

What are these complainers trying to say going into Iraq was wrong? Would they rather Saddam have the power he would have accumulated to date with his crooked deals, killing and torturing his people still, pursuing his plans we know he had to make weapons against sanctions, have the terrorists going into Iraq have time to plan attacks elsewhere around the world, have all of the one's we've captured and killed still be alive and planning somewhere?

If I'm walking along the sidewalk and a baby falls into my hands from the 3rd story window of the building I'm passing, should I be a hero for saving the baby or maligned because I just happened to accidentally do something good even though I just wanted to walk down the street and my walking privileges should be taken away? I know, it's NOT the same scenerio, but I can't hear any "good job"'s through all the hatred for doing a good thing.

Am I wrong or too short sided or...?

He did have them, he did use them, world intelligence said he had them... was it wrong? Wouldn't he have been impeached if the intelligence agenceies said it was true and he Didn't go in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blair facing Iraq apology calls

Opposition parties are demanding Tony Blair make a special statement to MPs apologising for the way he presented intelligence about Iraq's weapons.

The calls follow the withdrawal of the claim Saddam Hussein could use the weapons at 45 minutes' notice.

Tory Gary Streeter said No 10 had failed to say the intelligence it received was full of caveats.

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said Mr Blair was increasing the risks for UK troops by failing to apologise fully.

Moral case?

Mr Kennedy said the prime minister had personally presented the government's controversial weapons dossier to the Commons and so should make a special statement to Parliament on Wednesday.

He argued that Mr Blair's "moral argument" that the world was better without Saddam did not stand up as the prime minister had said before the war the Iraqi leader could stay in power if he met UN resolutions.

"If we cannot apologise for the fact we are wrong we're actually placing our forces and all our other civilians who are working to rebuild Iraq in that much more of a difficult position," Mr Kennedy told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Mr Streeter, a Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was guilty of "stripping out" caveats from intelligence ahead of presenting it to the public.

"He did not behave as a British prime minister should," he argued, claiming the situation in Iraq would be "far less grave" had there been proper planning for post-war reconstruction.

Mr Streeter urged "a full apology - not an apology for the intelligence but an apology for the way that the intelligence was conveyed by the government to the country".

'Distraction'

Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said the arguments over the war should now be left to historians

"The real challenge is to ensure that the new Iraq emerges which is not a threat to its neighbours and which is accepted by its people," he said.

"We distract ourselves from that real challenge by going back over the past."

Cabinet Office Minister Lord Falconer on Wednesday insisted Mr Blair had made it clear he was "very sorry" about the intelligence mistakes.

The comments come the day after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told MPs the 45 minute claim had been officially withdrawn by MI6.

The claim was at the heart of an unprecedented row between the BBC and the government which led to the death of David Kelly and the Hutton inquiry.

But Mr Straw - and Mr Blair in his speech to the Labour conference - insisted that "even with hindsight" knowing that Saddam had not had weapons of mass destruction, the war had been right.

Mr Straw said there was evidence Iraq was trying to restart weapons programmes.

Intelligence sharing

He told MPs: "The Butler committee concluded that the validity of the line of reporting which included the 45-minute intelligence had come into question."

He said "the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service has written to the Intelligence and Security Committee formally withdrawing" it.

A report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded last week that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction by the mid-1990s.

The foreign secretary insisted intelligence shared with MPs was an accurate reflection of the views held by the Joint Intelligence Committee at that time.

It had also been widely shared by foreign intelligence agencies and by then UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Newly released documents show one Foreign Office official noting that in a draft of part of the dossier Dr Blix had liked the section on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons which he did not believe exaggerated the facts.

45 minutes

The official withdrawal of some of the intelligence is the first time the House of Commons has been told the claim that Saddam could use WMD within 45 minutes of an order being given was now officially discredited.

The claim was a key element in the government's dossier on Iraq's weapons published in September 2002.

It became the focus of controversy after the BBC Today programme's Andrew Gilligan reported claims, in May 2003, that the government "probably knew" it was wrong before putting it in the dossier.

Those claims were vehemently denied by Downing Street and led to the naming Mr Gilligan's source, Dr Kelly, who later committed suicide.

The Butler inquiry into intelligence on Iraq's weapons in July said MI6 had said the claim "has come into question".

He said it should have had caveats attached to it in the dossier but stressed there was no deliberate distortion by the government.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_p...ics/3738542.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UN 'should have led Iraq' action

The insurgency in Iraq would be a lesser problem if there had been a second UN resolution before military action, Peter Mandelson has said.

"International legitimacy... counts for a very great deal in international affairs," the incoming EU commissioner told a political gathering in Hungary.

The international community had to find ways "of proceeding with greater transparency," in the future, he said.

He also called for "new mechanisms" for creating an "international consensus."

Addressing the Progressive Governance Conference in the Hungarian capital Budapest he said: "What a difference that second resolution would have made.

'Pre-emptive action'

"The insurgency in Iraq today would be a lesser problem had a second UN resolution been agreed before the invasion and if the UN had been in the driving seat from the start and throughout the conflict. "

Mr Mandelson also cautioned that the doctrine of pre-emptive action cannot be applied scientifically - especially when intelligence can neither be certain or precise.

BBC correspondent Guto Harri said the comments could be seen as a message to Tony Blair and George Bush that this really is a lesson for them.

But he also suggested it may be seen as a way of assisting Mr Blair in his apology for some of the intelligence used to justify the war being wrong.

Mr Mandelson is seen as a usually loyal ally of the prime minister and engineered Labour's 1997 general election campaign.

'Team player'

Mr Mandelson, who has twice resigned from cabinet jobs, was nominated by Tony Blair for the European job in a surprise move in July.

He takes up the post as EU trade commissioner next month.

Although his appointment still depends on a vote of the full European Parliament later this month on whether to accept the new commission en-masse.

Last week he told the European Parliament's trade committee he would be a "dedicated team player" in looking after European trade interests.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_p...ics/3740890.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UN 'should have led Iraq' action

Yeah, if they weren't on the take and so corrupt, maybe they would have. But they were, and they didn't and wouldn't because they were in bed with Saddam.

"International legitimacy... counts for a very great deal in international affairs," the incoming EU commissioner told a political gathering in Hungary.

Not that they really want us as part of the international communtiy, but how can we trust a community bribed by a dictator against us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.