Iraq has no WMD

Someone inform Sherlock.

 

So he must have said they were there in the first place then? Or not?

So why didnt Saddam ever say there were none then? Why did he keep up the charade and threaten the West with WMD?

 

Have they checked behind the sofa or in the shed yet? Things always turn up when you least expect to find them, and often the last place you look. The last place anyone would think of looking for Iraqs weapons of mass destruction would be in the USA armoury, and I bet if they looked they would find nukes and stuff. Problem solved and war justified!

 

There's another place beginning with "S" they haven't checked either

 

Syria?

 

Southend-On-Sea?

 

Scotland!!

Bloody knew it.

 

Stoke on Trent. They are currently disguised as Shell petrol station attendant perfumery.

 

Cheeky **** :/

 

Man, swear filter queers :\

 

You know why that is...because once you've found them you stop looking

 

Well you wouldn't look for something, find it, and keep on fucking looking!

Ah Lee Evans!

 

TBH did you ever actually believe they had any ?


Im just glad sadam has gone !

 

Question has to asked, Where are they now ? They know he had them, They were cateloged and checked after the kuwait war, You don't just put a match to them and watch them burn away.

 

Actually the majority of them that were catalogued and checked after the first Gulf War were destroyed by the inspectors way back circa 1993. The question is what's happened to the few that we know weren't destroyed by the inspectors, and what's happened to the WMDs that he's alleged to have created since the 1990's that we haven't catalogued. And what Kay is saying is that he didn't make any more in the first place. That still leaves a bit of a shortfall but it is looking like Saddam's WMDs stockpile was greatly exaggerated. But of course, it doesn't matter that the case for war was faulty because - hey - Saddam is no longer in power and will met justice. Hmm, who can't admit they were wrong then...

 

Prehaps saddam used teh moodoo to hide them in a neighbouring country. After all during the war there were rumours he'd fled to siria

 

It wasn't a proper war, with all its conotations, more like a heated argument. With guns

Anyway, he was a cnut, needed removing and that really should've been the case for war. And who honestly trusted him when he said "I have no WMD's"? Anyway, one down, many more to go.

But I doubt they'll get sorted out like Saddam did because the lefty anti everything crew have no stomach for what it takes to achieve world peace.

 

I think the only problem is that if some people start a war just because they don't like another world leader that does kind of set an example for others to follow.
Admittedly Saddam was a complete bastard but most leaders out in the middle-east are, it's just the way the countries out there have always been run.

If George Bush now decides that Tony Blair is a 'cnut', does that give him a right to then bombard us and install a new government?

I'm glad he's gone but still worry about possible future repurcussions(sic?) and possible conflicts based on the reasons the US & UK attacked Iraq.

 

Well, not always. Personally I don't care about WMD, the end justifies the means IMO.

 

I wish he bloody would. He could then install Staz as president. He seeme to be one of the few amongst you who has a clue.

 

If only you were also one of those who had a clue eh?

 

Is that so you can see his breasts bounce around on public TV?

 

Well seeing as I agree with him, that must mean if Staz has a clue I have a clue aswell! In future make sure the old brain is engaged before putting the mouth into gear eh?

Panda, erm, well. Yes.

 

Poor argument. I know that Einstein had a clue about the theory of relativity and brain surgeons have clues how to operate inside peoples heads. However, this doesn't necessarily mean I have a clue about it.
Just because you recognise someone knows something doesn't mean that you do. And all he stated was an opinion which is totally out of line how international politics work, which is roughly how we invaded Iraq, totally against all rules that we helped set in place.

I'm all in support of the result and glad that Saddam is out of power and agree in the long run it's a good thing, but we may be inviting other countries in the future to ignore anything that NATO say and just do as they please - ie. attack another country without seemingly valid or proven reasons but just because they don't particularly like the current leader.

 

Yes, but if they do that, the US just goes to war with them. Win situation all round for the US tbh.

 

It's called a "pre-emptive strike", and nowday's it's political suicide to do it, as Bush and Blair will find to their cost. Most people prefer conflicts to happen and lots of people to die before collective action is taken against it, even when the signs are so obviously there, it seems like we have to just let it all happen.

America has learned that going to war is still a costly exercise, in financial terms, in political terms and in human lives. The UN has learned that there is only so much crap that countries like america can take before they start acting unilaterally. I doubt we'll see much more of this kind of thing, unless of course countries continue to act like Iraq did.

Saddam was the biggest bully of the lot with the biggest stick, taking him down so easily will hopefully bring all the others to heel, already Libya has rolled over and asked for it's tummy to be tickled.

Perhaps if the UN has been a bit more effective in acting against what was so obviously a rogue state we'd have never have reached this mess, it's aim is to promote dialogue between states, but as yet it has no solution to what to do when dialogue fails.

Iraq did not resort to dialogue when it attacked Iran and Kuwait, neither was it an indication of dialogue when they chucked out the UN inspectors, and the UN had no solution but endless sanctions that killed ordinary Iraqis, and endless ultimatums that, given time, would be overturned and forgotten about.

 

That's a pretty poor example. How do you know Einstein had a clue about Relativity if you know nothing about the subject itself? All you are relying on is whoever told you that Einstein has a clue. He could have been flat out wrong for all you know (in fact some parts of the Theory of Relativity have recently come into question).


Anyway, I've had enough of the pacifist p.o.v on the Iraq war tbh. You can witter on about "illegal war" "no WMD" yadda yadda yadda until you're blue in the face. The Iraq situation boils down like this.

1) Saddam is a bad man, the last person you really want running a country.

2) Intelligence reports led the west to believe Saddam also had some very bad guns.

3) Ergo, perfect opportunity to get rid of a bad man.

4) West lays the smack down on Iraq, Saddam leaves power.

5) The bad guns didn't turn up. So what? Unless the US and UK KNEW that the weapons weren't there, I fail to see how that wasn't a good reason to go to war. They may have based a decision on bad intel, but seriously, if you have the US and UK intelligence communtities telling you the weapons are there, and a bunch of wet liberal lefties marching with banners saying "War is teh bad"...who would you believe?

At the end of the day I fail to see how this war is any different to the many other wars that have occured over the ages tbh. Most wars seem to stem from one leader not liking another (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc). It's hardly a new concept. Just because the Allies decided they didn't like Hitler so decided to in effect start World War 2, doesn't mean Jacques Chirac is going to decide he doesn't like Berlusconi then bomb the fuck out of Italy does it?