WMD Issue Still causing Trouble For Blair(And it keeps on just getting worse)

"If the British people see fit to take Mr. Blair out of office as a result of this, my guess is that the American public will see Britain in the same way it today sees the French"

Well to be honest they are quite welcome to if they want but Mr Blair told us it was WMD that we were after. Saddam may have been a mass murderer but where are the other war plans. The speeches on conquering the plans for invasion? Will the both lovely and world saving Mr Bush be off to Zimbabwe next? I think not.

It has obviously been politically and economically conveinent to say it was WMD. So many evil B*stard dictators are still around with no chance of being taken out yet Saddam and Iraq were chosen for reasons P and E.

We have been sold a war that was fought for reasons other than we been told. We (being the British) have been sold a lie. It matters not that Saddam was an evil mother fcuk, our system has been abused to prosecute something which it was not. Political machinations of this kind may happen daily but this was a very public affiar and we deserve and demand answers.

I hope they do find WMD because this is the reason we are told we went to war. Nothing would make me happier (well apart from the comforts of a fine woman and some nice wine).

I doubt the Americans are gonna get too pissed at the brits about anything. Theres more and more people now asking about the WMD issue, even tho the majority ignorance pervades. Eventually, the reality of the US economy cant be ignored forever, and Bush will go out like daddy. they will forget about Iraq and such.

As far as 210,000 it is well documented have posted on this issue in the past and feel more then free to search at this site or on the Internet.

You all sound so well trained and so prepared to buy into the irrelevance of this matter, The US attacked a country which to this day it claim's to have WMD it was one country out of 4 its President called the axis of evil.

The US attacks the country and to date finds no weapons a very important peace of evidence needed for it to continue its military campaign, one which for lack of a better word is in its conception.

To assume the US is lying is to state they had no real intention of continuing the campaign and not only that the US government wanted to destroy its own credibility in respect to dealing with this problem.

If this is what happened goes well beyond being stupid but a form of political suicide.

Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer but no one talked about it not so much as a word came out until after the war. What does it take to cover up the deaths by torture of so many people to an extent that even today we are all standing around doing nothing about it.

No protest, no televised discussions, no hearings, in fact nothing as a result of this matter presented as an issue which was the result of 10 years of consistent behavior, by a regime which was under close scrutiny (a microscope).

In and of itself given the temperament (in general) as presented in the media with respect to the Arab world this is a stark contrast. What would cause these people not to fight back? Why would they not resist in mass?

In any country which are represented in this board what would be the reaction if the same conditions existed in any of them (what would be your reaction). And what kind of threat would made by your respective governments make you change your minds?

Are the Iraqis that much different from us?

My impression is the someone other than the US or Britain is what is making possible the difficulty of finding WMD is Iraq. And the reason that makes sense is to stop the US from what it was doing dealing with countries who support terrorism.

If Saddam Hussein did not in fact have WMD and that was clear, given the way Iraqi's are reacting today he and those who protected him would have been torn to shreds.

I submit that in no way was it clear and that the issues with respect to finding those weapons, are the result of what Saddam Hussein did with them.




[Edited on 4-6-2003 by Toltec]

Toltec, Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer that we supported and funded. His chemical weapons cache came from us, that he used to gas Kurds with 10 years ago.

You seem to forget just how badly we hurt iraqi military capabilities during the first Gulf War. We really smoked them. Saddam used up most of his Scuds during that time. He had a few left over tho. I know this because when I was in Saudi bck in 95, we still had Air Force Satelite Data that gave us Scud alerts whenever a Scud was being moved. During my six months there, we had a total of two real Scud alerts. That was it.

What happened to his leftover Scuds? Thye more than likely got trashed. The chemical weapons? he used em up, and anything left has expired and is probably not even worth cleaning bathtubs with.

I have seen the lists with respect to who helped Saddam Hussein, missing from that list was the function of over 80 German companies which supported his military goals.

Scuds is but one way to deliver chemical weapons

As you state you are in the military and as well familiar with the Iraqi people.

Why do you think these people did not fight Saddam Hussein despite what he was doing?

What I am saying is that a credible threat beyond conventional weapons probably did exist in order for them not to react.

If the intelligence was clear that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons but the fact was he is a mass murderer then why did the US not go into Iraq under the issue of him being a mass murderer?

The issue of how much of Saddam Hussein's had with respect to what he used against the Kurds and Iranians was discussed some time ago in this board.

While I respect your opinion sir with all due respect, the fact the US took this route means either he did have chemical weapons

Or the impression was the backing to go into Iraq would have been much less had they cited evidence he was a mass murderer.

Again there is absolutely no reason to believe that Saddam actions against the Iraqi people was not known to the UN. The consideration that such a death toll or that the issue of such extreme human rights violations was not relatable goes beyond common sense. Why was this matter not presented along with the information reported to the UN?

If it had been what would have been your reaction?

To state that the leader of a nation in possession of WMD purposefully exhausted them during one conflict bespeaks of conclusion that he would never need any more.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf many world powers supported Saddam Hussein and with exception of the Germans we have read about exactly in what way.

Given the size of the list it is probably not prudent to conclude that after the Kurds, Iran/Iran war and GW1 Saddam had nothing.

This site has several post in respect to the matter of the list I have mentioned.



[Edited on 4-6-2003 by Toltec]

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by Toltec]

Originally posted by Toltec
Why do you think these people Saddam Hussein did not fight Saddam Hussein despite what he was doing?

Why would Saddam want to fight himself?

TE thank you for pointing out the error had actually a very long day at work

I am happy to see that you find the fact I decided to stay up a full our and one half past the time for me to go to bed so amusing.

The reality is the only reason I did was to prepare these responses.

It would perhaps been more appropriate for you to simply inform me of my mistake but then again that kind of behavior is probably something your not used to.

The correction has been made keep in mind that in the future I will be more than happy to return the favor

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by Toltec]

I watched Prime Ministers Questions today and Blair really does appear to be on the ropes.

I'll post a link to the report at the bottom.I just wanted to ask the Brits on the board if they think that the opposition might call a vote of no confidence.
About 50 labour backbenchers may vote with the opposition parties if there was a vote.I don't know what the maths are,I'll have to check.
Calling for a vote of no confidence is the next logical step if an Independent public inquiry is not granted.
Also non Brits should let us know what they think.
Blair really is under quite alot of pressure.
With my track record,I'm sure you'll all understand if I don't make a prediction.


news.bbc.co.uk...

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by John bull 1]

I think they may have updated that article, because this is the 4th paragraph now...

"A Liberal Democrat motion, backed by the Tories, calling for an independent judicial inquiry, was defeated by 301 votes to 203 - on government majority of 98.

The vote, which saw 11 Labour MPs rebel, came at the end of a debate about the Iraq intelligence - with Mr Blair earlier rejecting the inquiry calls. "

I doubt there's any real chance of the Labour party standing up to Blair. The majority of the Labour MPs will lose their cushy jobs if they go against Blair and they know it.

Isn't democracy great?

Thanks Dom,I missed that.
So the magic number is 61 labour rebels unless there were abstentions ofcourse.

Scuds is but one way to deliver chemical weapons

True. But the onlyone he had that was capable of delivering them large distances.

Why do you think these people did not fight Saddam Hussein despite what he was doing?

His own people? Hes a dictator. No one fought against Hitler except outside his borders. No one fought Stalin. People seldom revolt against dictators despite thier brutality unless they get outside help.

What I am saying is that a credible threat beyond conventional weapons probably did exist in order for them not to react

If you mean the Iraqi people, then no. A ruthless dildo of a man in charge will keep them in line. Pay the right people, and they will support him.

If you mean why the Arab world didnt fight him its because they are so ill organized and busy squabbling over petty garbage they were in no position. Besides, the Arabs dont care about the Iraqis anymore than say the US does. They simply use the plight of other Arabs for thier own propoganda purposes and to jsutify thier own actions. They simply denounced him as a godless socialist.

If the intelligence was clear that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons but the fact was he is a mass murderer then why did the US not go into Iraq under the issue of him being a mass murderer?

Simple. Invading because he was a mass murderer wouldnt have garnered the paranoia and support that WMD would. They spoon fed the public on fears that he had this evil cache of weapons that could be used against the US. Thus, full public support. And thus, a hope at winning the world support as well. Problem was, the Un wanted to go about it thier own way.

While I respect your opinion sir with all due respect, the fact the US took this route means either he did have chemical weapons

No, I disagree. There are other coutnries less stable than Iraq that have even nastier weapons. India, Pakistan, ect. We went in for two reasons: oil and Israel.

Again there is absolutely no reason to believe that Saddam actions against the Iraqi people was not known to the UN. The consideration that such a death toll or that the issue of such extreme human rights violations was not relatable goes beyond common sense. Why was this matter not presented along with the information reported to the UN?

The Un knew all about Saddams past activities. It is no secret that the Un is a slow, ineffective, and inept institution. This I do not debate. In the media, Saddams record was presented quite a bit, about the evil tortures and such, more so than the WMD was. The ineptitude of the UN aside, Saddam is just one of many brutal dictators in the world. No secret there.

If it had been what would have been your reaction?

The same. reardless how they try to do the paint job on thier evidence, the facts remain: Saddam was less serious a threat than other entities like North Korea. And do I feel that simply because Saddam is a bad guy, it justifies sending hundreds of thousands of troops over to that desert hellhole to play out vietnam 3? Sorry. Like I said, Im tired of being the worlds policeman.

To state that the leader of a nation in possession of WMD purposefully exhausted them during one conflict bespeaks of conclusion that he would never need any more.

Its more along the lines, could he have made anymore? Unlikely. The sanctions crippled Iraq badly. Even with poil for food, he could not have got the gear needed to make them. We were watching him for 12 years. We were spying on him. He knew this, Saddam is no moron. His production capabilities were smashed during the gulf war. Something the public dont realize is just how badly we hurt Iraq in the 1st conflict.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf many world powers supported Saddam Hussein and with exception of the Germans we have read about exactly in what way

They sure did. I believe AG Chemie was caught red handed during the gulf war selling Saddam some nasty stuff. I certainly dont defend the Germans, French, and Russians on thier opposition. They were doign what was in thier best interests too. They had money to make off Saddam.

Given the size of the list it is probably not prudent to conclude that after the Kurds, Iran/Iran war and GW1 Saddam had nothing

He didnt have enough to justify our invasion on the grounds of premeptive defensive first strike. Whatever he had left over either got lost through poor tracking, expired, or was stolen.

Just to mention our administrators have requested that the format you applied in your most recent post Skadi_the_Evil_Elf not be used having said that lets continue...

www.geocities.com...

Methodologies for delivering chemical weapons are numerous and while missiles can arrive at a target
within seconds alternatives are not to be considered obsolete. STEE my impression is as stated in a prior post (in this thread) that the attack upon Iraq was part of a campaign, its purpose to deal not just with that country.

Therefore that in actuality there were no WMD and our leaderships were taking this action, knowing this to be a fact meant the were purposefully undermining there own position. As a result the inteligence could not have been wrong but rather was undermined hence the cause of the current situation.

With respect to the matter of Hitler keep in mind that Auschwitz was not in Germany and alternatively with regards to Stalin, Siberia is not a part of Europe.

These leaders were very meticulous and only after those leaders fell was any information realized as to there acts. Also they did not have UN inspectors running around there country whose responsibility is (amongst others) was to Acertain their real status of a country and report that status to the world


I am not saying the UN is inept or slow but rather they acted to suppress (consciously and with no regard for human life) the acts committed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I have argued from this point repeatedly at this site.

Saddam is more than just your average dictator but despite this, he was presented in this fashion until the war began producing bodies. Even a recent report offered up by Amnesty International (posted in this site by me) states that yes they had heard about the missing but could not investigate because of Saddam Hussein.

This despite the UN was in that country for a substantial portion of the decade after GW1. People were being tortured and killed, buried in mass graves and the response is International Human right groups could not investigate despite the fact they knew there was a problem?

How is that possible?

Recent inteligence (as well posted at this site) does indicate that while North Korea has made substantial threats those threats are not based upon actual weapons. With Japan making clear that it has a first strike capability and with Russia and China stating emphatically that North must disarm presents that the diplomatic route is the best bet (today). It however clear this same response was not forthcoming in respect to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein got away with killing 210,000 people while under the scrutiny of a UN inspection, however one wants to think as to the real function of the teams present. Looking into Human rights violations would have also been that agency responsibility while it was there especially given the fact that reasonable doubt was evident. Skadi_the_Evil_Elf beyond the fact that practically every country in the free world had a hand in assisting Iraq weapons development (while under Saddam Hussein). Is the issue of the illegal sales coming out of the Russian Republic a country, which, has admitted that during its transition from the Soviet Union, cannot account for all its WMD.

Yes I know there were spies in Iraq and I understand what you are saying.

Stolen, sold or even for the sake of world peace, returned to the country where it was originally made is amongst the answers I feel are most realistic. As far as your conclusion on the amounts while I am certain you have a credible source I am concerned about the idea of what for all intent and purpose is the entire Military Industrial Complex, of the country of Germany. Also, as far as what I know of the Russian Mafia who became very wealthy, very quickly over those years (early to middle 90s). Saddam Hussein was actually more than just a good customer.

What are your thoughts?

The point is that the British Government justified the war against Iraq by telling the British public and members of Parliament that Iraq was an Imminent threat to our national security.

This claim has not been substantiated.

You may feel that the war was justified for other reasons but that is not the point.

The British government are obliged to show that the claims they made were based purely on balanced intelligence imformation and not selective to justify a political position.

If the latter proves to be the case,regardless of how many might feel about Saddams fall,Blair will justifiably be accused of misleading Parliament.

Before the war opinion polls consistently showed that around 70% of the British public were against war with Iraq without a further UN resolution.
However,we elect representatives to sit in parliament and judge issues on our behalf.If our elected representatives were misled by the government,and were therefor unable to judge the issues before them,then the Prime Minister must resign along with any other ministers(Straw,Hoon,Reid)who misled Parliament.

The issue is no longer if the war was justified.Alternative justifications for war will not deflect this issue.
This is a question of Parliamentary integrety and of democratic accountability.These issues underpin our democracy and that is why the stakes are so high.

"I am not saying the UN is inept or slow but rather they acted to suppress (consciously and with no regard for human life) the acts committed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I have argued from this point repeatedly at this site. "

Yep, and people have repeatedly told you that this argument is a total non-starter. How many times do you have to be told that the UN inspectors were WEAPONS inspectors. Plenty of other organisations have reported on the human rights abuses inside Iraq, including organisations associated with the UN.

And while we're on human rights abuses. Do you have anything to say about the 500K people killed by Suharto when he took power in Indonesia after being backed up by the US? The 2-3M dead in Asia from US bombings? The 60K dead in East Timor due to a US(and UK) backed regime? The disappeared in South America? The peasant farmers in Columbia? The tortured in Haiti, Nicaragua, the dead in Panama?

Are you telling me that although the US has had a total disregard for humanitarian principles in the past, you want me to believe that this time, in Iraq, the war was completely justified based on only humanitarian reasons? Don't you see the hypocrisy of this?

Good point Dom.The UN were reporting human rights abuses in Iraq while the US were supplying the weapons to Saddam to carry them out.

Toltecs high moral standpoint might be more effective if the foreign policy of his country was more consistent.
Even today his government supplies weapons to countries which are used to abuse human rights.

Toltec you are standing far too close.You can not see the wood for the trees.

In Toltecs defense, he has made some pretty good points. The UN is pretty................shady.

Toltec, thanks for the correction on my, format, I was unaware of this.

As for the Weapons, it is very possible for Saddam to have procured some WMD from the Red Fellas. Hell, they were gonna sell some south American drug Lord a nuclear sub, why not a loony Dictator some anthrax?

The real issue is, the amount, and were they a imminent threat to the US? No. Smuggling all that anthrax into the US via terrorists, or any chemical, would be pretty difficult. Also, the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam was weak as hell. It is well known Muslim extremists were almost as hateful towards Saddam as they were the west. Saddam built his regime partially on religious supression, even tho he used Islam as sort of a platform after the Gulf war. Most religious fanatics despised and denounced him as a godless socialist, because his regime was Arab nationaist, not islamic fundie. Big difference, really. So the chances of dealings between the two was slim, both prefering to stand away. The Arab world only rallied around Iraq and saddam because they shared a common enemy, and to oppose the US led invasion.

So, Iraq was less a threat to us than alot of other entities around.

Of course, the UN didnt say much about the human rights violations. They sent in weapons inspectors, as Dom pointed out. The UN is so damn Buerocratic. If they send in Weapons inspectors, the only thing they will look at is weapons. U could have babies hanging from meat hooks, and they would make no note of it. Thats the UN.

Regardless, I agree the UN is suspect. They cant ever be trusted, and even UN shady ops in this is not out fo the question.

North Korea is a good point. They run thier mouths, until japan opens thiers. they remeber too well what the Japanese are capable of.

The forest for the trees is easy while the US may be a really big tree the responsibility of the forest is that of the UN. That was the purpose for making the UN for funding it, arming it and supplying it with troops.

Dom you did not read my post correctly let me reiterate UN inspectors were in Iraq, Amnesty international reports they are aware of an immense amount of people reported missing but cannot take action because of Saddam Hussein.

Stop for a minute what is such a bad idea about sending inspectors to assess the humanitarian issue?

Why not send inspectors to assess the humanitarian issue?

The issue did exist with respect to Saddam Hussein I mean he had just used chemical weapons against the Kurds a few years back.

Gentlemen please realize that there is more to this than simply a misunderstanding.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf as I understand it once a nuclear weapon has been detonated and analysis of its residue can determine where it was actually made, furthermore the same is applicable to chemical as well as biological weapons as well.

Based upon this matter if a WMD of Russian design were to be launched from Iraq an investigation into what was left of the weapons would conclude it came from Russia.

Al-Quaeda most recent response in respect to terrorist acts was retaliation with respect to what had been done to Iraq.

Al-Quaeda may have disliked Saddam government but would site, that due to the extent of the threats made most recently (which included many Moslems countries and there leaderships) Iraq was a country they had very specific interests in.

However, they perceived the ultimate goal of these interests...

It still meant they were supportive of the Iraqi regime (A matter which could after interpretation of inteligence, be understood as an innate collusion between Iraq and Al-Quaeda forces)

I am certain there were babies hanging on meat hooks its just that they were not outdoors. There is a clinical database with respect to what happened to the Kurds.

It was well known around the world that a Shiite uprising had occured after GW1 and that Saddam had punished them for it. But despite the fact that the last time he had punished a culture inside his boarders it was with chemical weapons. The UN made no real or substantive effort to Acertain the punishment he evoked with respect to the Shiites and other who had reacted to him having lost GW1.

In my opinion those lives are as much the responsibility of Saddam Hussein as they are that of the UN.

The truth is had the UN done what it was supposed to do we would have gone back in, but the UN did not want that.

They did not want it then and they did not want it now.

What are your thoughts?

this thing is actually funny to me. because those that trust our respective governments are now falling back on the alternative arguments instead of facing the truth that the WMD was tied to all those reasons. He's a madman that kills his own people with WMD. He's supporting terrorism and he could give them WMD. He's hiding WMD...all the same thing.

Our president along with Tony Blair in address after address press conference after press conference asserted the Saddam was hiding WMD and that these WMD were a threat to the sercurity of the world. That he had connections to terrorist and that he supported terrorism and one of his WMD could make it to the US in a suitcase.

This hole thing is funny. It's like the--"What did he know, when did he know it...oh never mind." Tom Daschel pulled after 9-11. We spend a butt load of tax dollars to impeach Clinton for lying under oath about sex but Bush, Dick, Colin, and Rummy can lie to send our young folk to die and we say, "oh but that wasn't the only reason we did it...WMD was just the reason everyone could agree on."

If you aren't laughing at this then you need to have a couple a drinks and think about it again. Who is really in control of what you believe? How much of this are you willing to accept?

Saphronia feel free to laugh as much as you want amid the silence and the very definition of evil.

The United States of America is a country its leaders are responsible for maintaining security over the land accepted as within its boarders.

The UN's basis for existence, its fundamental purpose was to act as a means to secure that what Germany did would never happen again. In a way its really sad in many way's, as your conclusion offers very little in respect to conscience


This "Pelican brief" presents that the facts point otherwise that the weapons are hidden or have
been disseminated (perhaps to its creators).

210,000 people are dead and died right under the noses of the agency ultimately responsible for
there lives (The UN).

Despite the primary cause of there existence. Our first effort to form a system whose function originally was/is to form a system, which would not allow such an act, failed. And in all probability did so because of greed and a desire for power.

The United States of America is not the United Nations; it is not responsible for the issues you (and others) seem to think is.

In the end what is actually inappropriate is any conclusion which claims otherwise.

There is no reason for the UN to have not sent experts into Iraq whose function was to assess the issue of Humanitarian matters after GW1.

The word ignorance is perhaps a word which does not cover all the bases naivet� makes more sense.

Tolley--your position is clearly documented. Your stance has always been about the human rights abuses of Saddam but our governments weren't. They clearly stated that they knew with no doubt that Saddam was developing and hiding WMD programs and banned weapons...they had list of chemicals that were not accounted for they had maps of sites where they swore that weapons were being made. if this isn't true then they are liars and have committed a crime against the people of not only iraq but their own countries. The funny part is that folk will excuse anything...the president is not allowed to lie about something as important as war no matter his reasons. but that's all perception you may think his lies are justified and in that case i will laugh at you...one of those deep belly oh my god i'm going to die kinda laughs.

bottom line, there should be consequences but there won't be.