Re: Why no more anti-war posts?

He doesn't have it in him! Explains much about his posts. In the states he'd be from the "Other side of the tracks". Probably trailer trash!

Reply to
C.O.Jones
Loading thread data ...

The pic and reports were on the News in a variety of forms. Probably magazines too but I didn't see those. Of course, this was back when the press was pro attack. And Slick Willie was in the oral office.

And if you think you were lied to, just what did Saddam use on Iran's army, the Kurds and who knows who else? Just where did those mass graves we've found come from?

And if this is all a scam by the US! Why haven't we simply planted WMD > >

Reply to
C.O.Jones

No one denies that he did have them... at onetime. The problem arose when Bush and Blair decided to override the weapon inspectors judgement that they had been disposed of. Turned out the weapons inspectors, out there on the ground, were right ! Don't forget that what he used against Iran was with the full knowledge and co-operation of the West at that time.

This did surprise me I admit. I can only assume that.. we don't have anything primitive enough to plant out there and that could be attributed to him..or.. even Bush and Blair have fought shy of being caught out doing that. Don't forget it isn't only the U.S that has spy satellites and covert operatives on the ground.

Reg

Reply to
reg

Somewhat more coherently than Dubya, for a start...:-)

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

How little you know...:-)

>
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

And chose insteasd to rely on teh word of someone with a big axe to grind who hadn't been there, or had feld in a hurry, for some time.

You can always choose what to believe, it doesn't make it the truth.

It would be a hard job faking WMD. Missiles would have to be constructed

- no mean task as Saddam found out - and flown overt there. Chances are someone would talk.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Sobered up I see!

Reply to
C.O.Jones

This "judgment" you speak of was pure conjecture. There was no evidence to support such a claim. Granted, it's hard to prove something is no longer in existence. But in this case there were no records either. Odd considering the Iraqi habit of record keeping! They document just about everything! Except of course, the destruction of their WMD!

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Not a problem! Saddam already had the missiles. All that would be required were some warheads. Simple really!

Reply to
C.O.Jones

WRONG, again D.H.!

Reply to
Six_O'Clock_High

Sadly he did not. He destroyed them under supervision, and they were not really a threat to anyine except Israel maybe.

>
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Sadly you are once again clueless. Not all were destroyed and new ones were built and more being developed. I've seen pictures of quite a few missiles taken in this last conflict. How do I know they're genuine? Friends of mine were standing with the missiles.

You really should get off the sauce and read a broader range of journalism!

Saddam had delivery systems with the range to reach our troops

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Wrong. I was fishing that day and a guy further along the lake came and told me what he had just heard on the news on his radio. Shortly after he came and told me about the second impact. We were absolutely shocked, it was hard to believe it was happening it seemed more like some War of the Worlds type spoof.... not reality. Even after watching the T.V news it didn't seem real.... this sort of thing doesn't happen outside of Hollywood... or didn't.

It was right to go after Al Qaeda and its leader... no argument or hangups there.

I (and many others over here) did *not* think the arguments by Bush and Blair, in favour of invading Iraq, had any credibility.

All the indications are that we were lied to on the *main* reason for going in.... WMD don't appear to exist, the weapons inspectors reckon they were destroyed around 10 years ago.

There would have been very little opposition over here if we were originally supposed to be going in on humanitarian grounds. Unfortunately humanitarian reasons seemed to get into the discussion about the time Bush and Blair were meeting opposition as a result of not getting U.N mandate.

My objection is to Bush and Blair deciding to have a war that the rest of the world deemed extremely unwise. Of course these two know better than the rest of the world ? Strange then that 85% of the population no longer trust Blair !!!

There was never any doubt about the military outcome.

The real problems are going to be with us for a very long time to come though.

Meanwhile and most importantly, whilst disporting ourselves in Iraq, the real cause of 9-11 is still out there and is still functioning.

Reg

Reply to
reg

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.