Reply to: British general urges Tony Blair impeachement

[Dundeegeorge]

executed! executed!

He will be executed.

What kind of barbarians are running that country? Why won't he be fined and then given a community service order? Oh, that's shocking.
What those ******* barbarians need is democracy.

Ermm, no that's not right, is it?

[AlfredJPruffock]

He will be executed.

At least he will be given a democractic execution and probably make a few bob by selling the converage rights to CNN.

Before democracy you would have not be given a trial and then hung, with democracy you will be given a trial, then hung.

[Lucifer Box]

He will be executed.

[Jabberwocky]

I think the posts here give us all the facts, evidence and proof we need that Saddam is a bad, bad man. He really should get a severe telling off for all the trouble he has caused. What a fibber!

[EternalOptimist]

I mentioned this before the conflict, clearly the US was absolutely certain Iraq did not have WMDs, for no millitary general would have deployed 100s of thousands of troops sited in readiness to invade a county which could have in turn used WMDs to destroy those troops,period.

sorry Alf

mustard gas in WWI
the germans had nerve gas in WWII.
the allies had nerve gas in WWII
Sadaam had nerve gas in the first gulf war

etc etc

Your argument does not stand up to the facts. Armies HAVE been deployed in the face of these weapons

[Captain Jack]

The guy with the big weapon is always right.

I can vouch for that.

[BlasterBates]

There's a huge flaw in these arguments as if its all about right and wrong.

..well its all about having bigger weapons than the other guy.

The guy with the big weapon is always right.

[AlfredJPruffock]

"WASHINGTON, April 2005 - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."

This is well known and reported all over the internet media.And if you bothered to read those two assertions carefully, you will realise that the first is supposition, and the second meaningless. Neither is the slightest evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction or any components thereof in Iraq.

On the contrary, the final ISG report 30 September 2004 actually says, and I quote: "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 (when the coallition invaded) and had no production since 1991." They could not rule out future intent, but neither could they do that for any other nation on Earth.

On the subject of Syria, the addendum March 2005 Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq concludes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place".In fact there have been four separate inquiries into different aspects of the Iraq war, including the Butler report into intelligence failings and the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.

But there has yet to be an inquiry focusing on the way the government's decision to join a US-led invasion was made, which is the most serious, and what this is all about.

The notion that Iraq would have shipped out his non existant WMDs to Syria, without a shred of proof to support this is risible.

If Iraq had them , then the whole point of having them is to USE them when the security of the State is threatened.

I mentioned this before the conflict, clearly the US was absolutely certain Iraq did not have WMDs, for no millitary general would have deployed 100s of thousands of troops sited in readiness to invade a county which could have in turn used WMDs to destroy those troops,period.

[AtW]

Actually...the only reason they couldnt find anything was because Saddam wouldnt let them any where near the sites they wanted to check!

He allowed them to visit any place - the only thing he objected was visiting his own palaces without warning, just how exactly Saddam was supposed to hide manufacturing of nukes in his palaces is still the mistery, IMO this demand was a deliberate insult to make him either agree and be humiliated or deny and get accused of hiding WMD.

The important thing is facts - no WMDs were found, so clearly they did not exist.

[ratewhore]

I find it interesting Sir Michael Rose states in the article that he wouldnt lead troops into a war he believed was wrong.

I'm not sure when he was a serving officer he had the ability to make that decision. The armed forces serve wherever they are told to by the government of the day whether or not they agree with the aims and objectives.

Overall though, I agree with his statements.

[wendigo100]

Slippery as an eel, that Tony Blair.

John Scarlet, the MI6 bloke who helped Blair concoct the "case for war", was thereafter promoted to head of services, so he'll keep schtum.

[expat]

DA in "maybe I am not always right" mode

Bloody hell dodgy, is that mode allowed here?

[stackpole]

Actually...the only reason they couldnt find anything was because Saddam wouldnt let them any where near the sites they wanted to check!

"WASHINGTON, April 2005 - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."

This is well known and reported all over the internet media.

Also, if you would bother yourself to read the reports issued by the ISG you will see that in both reports, regardless of what the anti-war goons will have you believe, the ISG clearly stated that 1. a state sponsored blackmarket in WMD material was about to take root, and 2. that the removal of WMD material to Syria could not be ruled out.

And if you bothered to read those two assertions carefully, you will realise that the first is supposition, and the second meaningless. Neither is the slightest evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction or any components thereof in Iraq.

On the contrary, the final ISG report 30 September 2004 actually says, and I quote: "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 (when the coallition invaded) and had no production since 1991." They could not rule out future intent, but neither could they do that for any other nation on Earth.

On the subject of Syria, the addendum March 2005 Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq concludes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place".

I also find interesting is that there have already been 6 or 7 public hearings in to Iraq and none of them have said the Government has done anything wrong.

In fact there have been four separate inquiries into different aspects of the Iraq war, including the Butler report into intelligence failings and the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.

But there has yet to be an inquiry focusing on the way the government's decision to join a US-led invasion was made, which is the most serious, and what this is all about.

[Mailman]

The people nearest to the truth are the weapons inspectors. They know what the evidence was. If I recall correctly, they said they couldn't find anything.

Actually...the only reason they couldnt find anything was because Saddam wouldnt let them any where near the sites they wanted to check!

Also, if you would bother yourself to read the reports issued by the ISG you will see that in both reports, regardless of what the anti-war goons will have you believe, the ISG clearly stated that 1. a state sponsored blackmarket in WMD material was about to take root, and 2. that the removal of WMD material to Syria could not be ruled out.

I also find interesting is that there have already been 6 or 7 public hearings in to Iraq and none of them have said the Government has done anything wrong.

What really makes me laugh are the goons who keep on calling for hearings and the like because eventually they will get what they want. Its all about the numbers! If you have 100 hearings you are eventually going to get one to go your way arent you!

Mailman

[Fungus]

The USA was extremely reluctant to take part in this war - they considered it Europe's problem and I remember vividly that it took big deal of work from Europe and non-Republican US president to actually agree to it - and notice how fast US forces left. Now why is that different in Iraq?

The real problem Dodgy is with your communist mindset - you act just like scumbag communists that I observed at the time of living in USSR.

I heard that Clinton was bounced into acting by Blair announcing to the world that they were going to do something. Apparently Clinton was furious. I agree with what they did and is an example of going to war for a just cause IMO. Though I loathe Blair, I do think that on this occasion what he did was admirable.

There is no doubt that a large part of the reason for the Iraq war was to ensure stability of the Middle East due to its strategic importance.

Unfortunately Blair is Teflen coated and by having numerous enquiries with anrrow remits, he has avoided a proper investigation.

Fungus