Cleopatra Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Well the news is breaking confirming what many of us knew at the time, that Iraq had no WMD, the supposed reason why the poodle blair and his master bush invaded Iraq. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the reason for the Iraq invasion changed more than once at the time. Now it has been stated that blair and his cronies john Scarlett and Alistair Campbell colluded to produce documents that were a mass of lies to offer evidence as to why britain and america should invade Iraq. In actual fact it soon became evident that Iraq did not posses WMD and the forces should have withdrawn at that time but blair had already promised his master, before the subject of WMD arose that he would support him in invading Iraq. So, blair, scarlett and campbell all knew before hand that Iraq did not posses WMD but lied, saying that the country did have them to justify invading it. 179 british service men died with many more injured yet the lying ba*****ds, blair scarlett and campbell are still free to go about their lives as they normally do. Is it not clear to the powers that be that the three have a strong case to answer for and should be hauled (screaming if necessary) before the courts to face justice for their murderous lies and actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 No surprises there then Cleo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Cleo, it was always about the oil, which they got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Can't disagree Cleo, hence my topic in the Question Section ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I believe there was a programme on BBC on Monday ,something to do with spies, about this. I didn't see it but it should be on iplayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Actually the US has been steadily decreasing the amount of oil it imports over the last 10 years, including Iraq: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS1&f=M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Yes they have Ap, but they still depend on the Middle East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I suspect the joint decision to invade was made at Camp David, 11 months before the actual invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Kije... the yanks are very canny when it comes to oil.... the chances are they have more than enough at home to fulfil their needs but prefer to import at the moment. When the world supply starts to run out, they won't be the ones caught short because they will open up their own fields for their own consumption.... That's my theory anyways!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 So if the Iraq war was illegal the Yanks & their allies are liable for all sorts of compensation for interested Iraqi parties. Maybe even a case should be brought in the Hague . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Well at least there has been one dodgy regime we didn't sell arms too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 If your refering to Saddam; he was supplied with chemical weapons by the West, when fighting the war with Iran and later used them on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs - but that was when he was a compliant client. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Well at least there has been one dodgy regime we didn't sell arms to. Back in the 80's the British army developed a brand new camouflage material for dry and dusty places called 4 colour Desert DPM, it was very good indeed, state of the art. Then, because we weren't going to fight in a desert environment ever again, they made just a few thousand uniforms from it and put them into storage. In 1991 they needed desert uniforms fast for GW1 and went looking for them. No sign, they'd been sold off abroad since they'd never be needed. To Iraq. So we didn't sell 'em arms. Just our sleeves... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 A report now says that since the war there has been a large increase in babies with birth defects & cancer & is questioning what the people of Iraq were exposed to during & after the war....is it from ordnance that has been used to bombard Iraq or the result of what has been unearthed in the destruction ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 my brother in law was in Iraq for the first gulf war. Before his unit were deployed to Kuwait prior to the land invasion they were stationed at Saighton near Chester and were all injected with a huge cocktail of drugs to fight various diseases and potential threats.... not long after he returned my sister in law got pregnant and gave birth to my niece; Natasha who was massively handicapped... despite best efforts she died when she was just a few years old.... My brother in law has had many other "mental" issues since returning from Iraq, and has always blamed the drugs they were given and a few of his fellow soldiers that went out with him had similar issues; kids with handicaps etc... "Gulf war syndrome" they called it and yes it does exist..... just that admitting it would cost too much in compensation these days! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 my brother in law was in Iraq for the first gulf war. Before his unit were deployed to Kuwait prior to the land invasion they were stationed at Saighton near Chester and were all injected with a huge cocktail of drugs to fight various diseases and potential threats.... not long after he returned my sister in law got pregnant and gave birth to my niece; Natasha who was massively handicapped... despite best efforts she died when she was just a few years old.... My brother in law has had many other "mental" issues since returning from Iraq, and has always blamed the drugs they were given and a few of his fellow soldiers that went out with him had similar issues; kids with handicaps etc... "Gulf war syndrome" they called it and yes it does exist..... just that admitting it would cost too much in compensation these days! That's terrible Baz - your family has my full sympathy. The compensation culture has gone too far but if anyone deserves substantial financial recompense I would say it sounds as if they do. Not that any amount of money can make up for such a tragedy - admitting the fault would, I imagine, be more important but the money would underline the fact that your relatives have suffered, there was fault and it is acknowledged that that is the case. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Like the early Atomic Test guinea pigs; the Gov will stall until they're old men and just a few left, before conceding anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 I wouldn't fancy telling the survivors of Halabja that Sadaam never had WMDs! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack He had them, he had multiple types of them, he was trying to get more and deadlier ones, and he had demonstrated a willingness to use them - both on his enemies and his own population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Think I mentioned Saddam using Western supplied stocks of chemical agents, which were used on the Kurdish seperatist, in the same way the British RAF did, in the 1920s, but hardly deliverable over such distances and in such quantities as the pre-war deception hype suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Saddam was producing his own nerve gases, and we're now training teams of Iraqi specialists to decontaminate the production sites. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19076872 He also had the ability to deliver them over long distances. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm The only reason he didn't load his Scuds with his nerve gases was that he knew the Israelis would have retaliated by turning him, his family - and most of Baghdad - into a sheet of radioactive glass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Baz Sorry been away for a few days, As to your theory, I think it is about right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Strange Inky, the UN weapons inspectors found nothing, either before or after the war ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Yes they did. The Canadian military amongst others found stockpiles of mustard gas shells, nerve agents, and the production facilities for both. What Hans Blix and his bumblers didn't find was concrete evidence of nuclear WMD's - despite them knowing for a fact that Sadaam had spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the years immediately before the war buying high speed centrifuges and other equipment designed solely for the refining of weapons grade Uranium. The Left wing press simply ignore the chemical WMD's which WERE found and focus on the nuclear WMD's which remained hidden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Well clearly Saddam didn't use them, nor had the means to threaten us with them. Seems the depleted uranium that was thrown around the battlefield, damaging our service personel, was from our own weapons systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 He must have had the means, as he used them on the Kurds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.