It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain could possibly reduce Nuclear Fleet

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Ooooh, DW..tempting a flaming there.. hehe... The Rafale isn't that bad! I would imagine it would be shot down in a second...

Is it made in france? Its a bucket of bolts lol.




If you Scots insist on being independant, then you'll be on your own. Personally, I think whichever way they should be allowed to bomb Glasgow. It might help the area
The RAF should join in!

Well acording to the metro, its ENGLAND that wants to break free from us, but frankly I dont like losing a buffer between us and the smelly french


As for glasgow, I keep putting the request to tony but he just wont return my calls or letters
Personally I say carpet bombing is the ideal method but mabye just erect a 20 foot wall around glasgow and fife....plenty of job opertunities there!




posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Hmm French attack at the weekend - RAF pilots recalled from their house parties, polo matches etc just in time to see the French 3rd wave disappearing over the horizon - yes I think they could, unless the French AF value 'le weekend' as highly as the RAF
.

You know the joke about the RAF not liking to fly on Wednesdays as it buggers up 2 weekends?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Hmm French attack at the weekend - RAF pilots recalled from their house parties, polo matches etc just in time to see the French 3rd wave disappearing over the horizon - yes I think they could, unless the French AF value 'le weekend' as highly as the RAF
.

You know the joke about the RAF not liking to fly on Wednesdays as it buggers up 2 weekends?


Going wayyyyy off topic here, but I had to chime in!.

On all the official bummff you get from the RAF (I am considering applying) it says that unless your on Operational Tours, it's a 9-5 job!

So if the French attack at 1730, chances are everyone is at home eating their cottage pies


Reminds me of the old comin Axterix. In one, where the Romans invade Britian, the romans kept getting beaten. That was until the General in charge noticed they like to stop fighting at 5 pm for some warm beer, as well as take a mid-afternoon break for tea and biscuits.

The Romans conquered Britian the next day as they attacked during High-tea. The Brits didn't want to fight as their bisuits would go soggy if they left them out...



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Soggy Biscuits..............ugh!

Disgusting!

Building a wall around Glasgow that is.

The only good thing about Glasgow, is the road that goes one hundred and ninetysix miles to RAF Macrihanish via Anderson Cross.

I know, I used to regularly do that journey by coach and horses in the late 60s early 70s.

They even delivered the post and food that way.

Jesus! Can you imagine stopping every 2 miles so that some old Scottie could get last week's papers and chewin tabachy?


And it aint pretty - especially if you've been on the Heavy the night before!



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   
WHY?

Why do I have to hear that once again Blair has betrayed my country only 10 minutes after I began using this forum, which I have never seen before?

Blair is a traitor. I served my country for 25 years, and as it turns out, to no avail. He'll make sure Britain is perilously weak.

He should be executed for treason, but unfortunately, 8 years ago, he abolished the death penalty and the treason laws, so that should be undone.

They (Bliar's regime) claim that if GB disarms, so will every other country that signed the NPT. But they're lying:

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

See how they all care about the NPT?



[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I want the UK to continue to have a nuclear capability. Remember it is not just a submarine based weapons system the UK has. We also have air based weapons systems.

Having 3 submarines or 4, is more about scheduling. The plan with 4, was one at sea, one of its way and 2 in dock. There were many service life extension programs so frequently one was in for SLEP.

I am sure cost is any issue. We having to spend billions of GBP in support of the US aims for the Middel East may have impacted the UK's ability to spend as much as we would like on the UK military.

And of course, The US will have influenced the UK decision. As if we would have the balls to make such an important decision without the OK from Uncle Sam!!!!



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Hey AntiBlair,

I am not a big fan of Tony Blair but I am NOT confident that a Tory leader would have done anything different.

We have little choice in who we elect. They are all shades of the same colour and once elected, there is little accountability. And the lies they tell to get votes!!!

Not sure how to solve the problem. People keep saying, if you do not like it, then change it.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
You're right, but at least David Cameron NEVER said he'd reduce our nuclear arsenal. And while Bliar didn't want to declare that he supports our nuclear deterrent, David Cameron did, as did Liam Fox.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Sorry guys, but you've got the wrong perspective on this whole thing.

It is the Chancellor, Gordon Brown who holds the purse strings and it is he who forced that total dickhead Mike Jackson to swing the Treasury axe against the MOD.

But I hate this government with a passion and have never made any secret of that fact because:

a. Tony Blair and his puppets in business and poilitics have, led this once great country, down the path to military mediocraty and political hatred;

b. Tony Blair has, by openly supporting and by going to war with that very nice Mr Bush, made us [the UK] out to be murdering, barbaric and warmongering crusading infidels in the eyes of the Muslim world;

c. By going to war against Saddam, we have destabilized an already fragile Middle east, with no thought to the future of Iraq and the region;

d. We are now about to embark upon another great crusade in alliance with the Great Satan, but this time we will probably be taking on the Iranians and if we do so, then we take on the whole of the Muslim nations throughout the world;

e. Mr Blair has made, each and every one of us who lives in this country, a legitimate target for Muslim fundamentalists.

I also hate nuclear weapons with a passion. However I am too much of a realist to know that we, too, need a nuclear deterrent.

What I object to most strongly, is the vast sums of money this government is intending to spend on a weapon system that hopefully will never be used.

In my opinion, we should rearm with nuclear capable cruise missiles. At £100,000 a shot, they are much cheaper than ICBMs and we could have more of them, although I fail to see how having more of these weapons of mass destruction can benefit us.

c. By going to war on an outright lie, Blair and Co



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
It is the Chancellor, Gordon Brown who forced that total dickhead Mike Jackson to swing the Treasury axe against the MOD.


You're right - and Bliar wants such a person to be the next Prime Minister!!!!!!!!!



a. Tony Blair and his puppets in business and poilitics have, led this once great country, down the path to military mediocraty and political hatred;

You are right, as our military expenditures are the lowest (as a percentage of our GDP) since 1930.



b. Tony Blair has, by openly supporting and by going to war with that very nice Mr Bush

Wrong. He was right to invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein has started two wars against other countries. One against Iran, which costed the lives of 1 million people. The second against Kuwait - he killed 10 thousand Kuwaiti citizens. He also launched missiles against 2 other countries (SA and Israel) and slaughtered 300,000 of his own citizens.

For the first time, such a murderous dictator has been arrested, tried and convicted. Hitler, Stalin, Khruschev, Breznyev, Andropov, Chernienko, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Deng Xiaoping and Kim Il Sung were never arrested.



What I object to most strongly, is the vast sums of money this government is intending to spend on a weapon system that hopefully will never be used.

Wrong, it will surely be used, because even if we don't use it voluntarily, we will be forced to do so after NK, Russia, Pakistan or Iran attacks us.



In my opinion, we should rearm with nuclear capable cruise missiles. At £100,000 a shot, they are much cheaper than ICBMs

Yes, they are indeed cheap, but allow me to inform you that we do not have any ICBMs, just SLBMs and bombers.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   


You're right - and Bliar wants such a person to be the next Prime Minister!!!!!!!!!


Do not worry. Cameron will win in 2009. Gordon Brown is a boring Scotsman. He won't stand a chance at the polls.



You are right, as our military expenditures are the lowest (as a percentage of our GDP) since 1930.


In real terms, we spend more money than we have done since during the Cold War, but our economy has also grown a vast amount. This would distort % GDP figures.




Wrong. He was right to invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein has started two wars against other countries. One against Iran, which costed the lives of 1 million people. The second against Kuwait - he killed 10 thousand Kuwaiti citizens. He also launched missiles against 2 other countries (SA and Israel) and slaughtered 300,000 of his own citizens.


Er.... Iraq attacked Iran on the behest of the Western Powers and were backed by the US and the UK during that war.

Kuwait - He got the green light from the US ambassador before he invaded. There were good reasons for the invasion, namely that Juwait was once part of Iraq and the Kuwaitis were slant drilling into Iraqi Oil Fields and were ignoring his requests to stop.

The last two points happened during the GW1, so are mute. The reasons he launched missiles were strategic and we would (and have) done the same in the past.

Thats War, folks!



Wrong, it will surely be used, because even if we don't use it voluntarily, we will be forced to do so after NK, Russia, Pakistan or Iran attacks us.


Ok.... Someone is a little paranoid... Apart from Russia, no one has the capability to attack us.



Yes, they are indeed cheap, but allow me to inform you that we do not have any ICBMs, just SLBMs and bombers.


Thats being a little pedantic. A Trident is quite capable of going from one continent to another, ergo, it is Intercontinental. The fact it is launched from a Sub is a rather mute point.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Do not worry. Cameron will win in 2009.

I know, but I just wanted to tell other people why Blair is so bad.



we spend more money than we have done since during the Cold War figures.

This is irrelevant, the relevant number is the expenditure AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. By that measure our expenditure is smaller (2.1% of GDP at present), and you need to realise that Blair has been CUTTING military spending - the Army has been reduced by 8,000 people (although it currently numbers WAY too few soldiers), the Navy (my service) by 10,000 and the Air Force by 16,000. Oh well, if you don't believe me - a former sailor - read this: www.conservatives.com...



Kuwait - He got the green light from the US ambassador

But not from us.



The last two points happened during the GW1, so are mute. The reasons he launched missiles were strategic and we would (and have) done the same in the past.

The Israelis were drilling oil from Iraq?





Ok.... Someone is a little paranoid... Apart from Russia, no one has the capability to attack us.

I'm not a paranoid, but a realist. Iran and France already have missiles capable of reaching us.




Thats being a little pedantic. A Trident is quite capable of going from one continent to another, ergo, it is Intercontinental. The fact it is launched from a Sub is a rather mute point.

I know that, you don't have to lecture me. However, all the militaries of the world use strict terms, and they refer only to land-based ICBMs as intercontinental ballistic missiles. Our SLBMs are sub-launched, so a sub can, but doesn't have to, sail close to the enemy's territory to nuke him.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   


This is irrelevant, the relevant number is the expenditure AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. By that measure our expenditure is smaller (2.1% of GDP at present), and you need to realise that Blair has been CUTTING military spending - the Army has been reduced by 8,000 people (although it currently numbers WAY too few soldiers), the Navy (my service) by 10,000 and the Air Force by 16,000. Oh well, if you don't believe me - a former sailor - read this:


I am aware of the force reductions and the fact we are undermanned now, not hitting our recruitment targets. Missing recruiting targets is not a money problem, although the treasury is sticking it's nose in far too much. But then, doesn't the treasury do this regardless who is "in charge"? It's the career civil servants you want to sort out mate, not the fly-by-night politicians...

(incidentally, I come from a military family, with many former or serving members in all 3 branches and I am thinking of joining the RAF myself)



But not from us.


So? Why would they want to?

They got double crossed by the Yanks in GW1.



The Israelis were drilling oil from Iraq?


Er, no. Re read what I posted:


posted by stumason
Kuwait - He got the green light from the US ambassador before he invaded. There were good reasons for the invasion, namely that Juwait was once part of Iraq and the Kuwaitis were slant drilling into Iraqi Oil Fields and were ignoring his requests to stop.




I'm not a paranoid, but a realist. Iran and France already have missiles capable of reaching us.


Iran does not. Not sure why your now worried about the French....



I know that, you don't have to lecture me. However, all the militaries of the world use strict terms, and they refer only to land-based ICBMs as intercontinental ballistic missiles. Our SLBMs are sub-launched, so a sub can, but doesn't have to, sail close to the enemy's territory to nuke him.


You were the one lecturing, chap. I was pointing out there is no need to be pedantic. To the layman, a missile is a missile. Whilst you, I and others may now the difference between an SLBM and an ICBM, others may not or care not to make the distinction, as it is rather academic in a discussion like this.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Wrong. He was right to invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein has started two wars against other countries. One against Iran, which costed the lives of 1 million people. The second against Kuwait - he killed 10 thousand Kuwaiti citizens. He also launched missiles against 2 other countries (SA and Israel) and slaughtered 300,000 of his own citizens.


REALLY? Are you sure of your facts? Because Stu M [thanx Stu M] and I heartily disagree with you.

As I have said time and time again, we supported Iran but trained Iraq's SF and gave Iran Milan and other ATGW whilst the US broadly supported Iraq but trained Iran's SF and supplied Stinger SAMs.

Oh the tangled web we weave.

I also said in reply to an earlier post on the Gulf War, that Kuwait was Iraq's prize for winning the Iran-Iraq war and, even after the US had given Saddam all but carte blanche hours before the invasion, once Iraqi forces crossed the border, the US threw up it's hands and declared what an evil man this Saddam was.

Result...............................? Gulf War 1.

Then we had the never ending story of the alleged WMD's that Saddam and the Coalition air forces destroyed.

In went the inspecters who, IMO, were never given enough time to thoroughly complete their tasking, and America decided [yet again] that they [us] would invade Iraq AGAIN, whilst all the time saying they would wait for the weapon inspection teams findings and a second UN Security Council Resolution [that never came] before taking the decision to invade - all this will they [and we] built up our forces along the borders - just in case.

No my friends, we were going to invade to back up the US, just so we could shoulder the blame for helping to create the myth that Saddam had WMDs and were ready to use them in 45 minutes.

For this, Blair should be arrested and thrown in prison without collecting his peerage [unless he gives me £50,000], Hoon the Loon should be arrested for presiding over the worst equipped armed forces ever and Brown should be arrested because he is a Scott and like most of my Jock friends, his purse strings are so tightly bound, that we cannot afford the bombs and bullets needed to carry on the fight.

Mr Prescott should be arrested just for being a fat useless twat - BTW, I too am fat, but unlike Prescott, I am far from useless!



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
But then, doesn't the treasury do this regardless who is "in charge"?

Did the Conservatives EVER cut military expenditures during a war? Remember, we are now fighting a war against AQ in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must be ready to fight the Argentines again (as they still claim the Falklands - they promised not to attack, but they can tell those stories to Brown, not me).




They got double crossed by the Yanks in GW1.

And us, too. We were the only country, apart from America and France, to send more than just a few soldiers to the ME.



Er, no. Re read what I posted

When I reminded you that he fired missiles at Israel, you said:



The last two points happened during the GW1, so are mute. The reasons he launched missiles were strategic and we would (and have) done the same in the past.





Iran does not.

Wrong. Linky: www.globalsecurity.org...

Not that I'd be afraid to sail to the ME again just like I did 15 years ago when Iran didn't have S-6 missiles.



You were the one lecturing, chap. I was pointing out there is no need to be pedantic. To the layman, a missile is a missile. Whilst you, I and others may now the difference between an SLBM and an ICBM, others may not or care not to make the distinction, as it is rather academic in a discussion like this.

OK.



REALLY? Are you sure of your facts?

You don't remember? How old are you?



Because Stu M and I disagree with you.

The reason for why you disagree is simple - he never joined the military. Don't know about you. I was there 15 years ago, though I was a sailor at that time. I knew that Saddam Hussein mustn't be allowed to launch missiles at anyone he wishes.

Regarding WMDs - did you know how did he kill 5000 Kurds? With poison gas. No, he didn't order a firing squad to shoot them, he gassed them.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
Did the Conservatives EVER cut military expenditures during a war? Remember, we are now fighting a war against AQ in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must be ready to fight the Argentines again (as they still claim the Falklands - they promised not to attack, but they can tell those stories to Brown, not me).


The Conservatives only had 1 "proper" war and that was seriously compromised by defence cuts prior to the Falklands. They were even thhinking of selling off two of the Inviceable Class to Australia or somewhere and having only 1 ASW "carrier" for the Navy.

If you like, I can go into great detail how the Conservatives almost cost is the Falklands. It was only due to the bravery of the men and women that we won at all.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician


They got double crossed by the Yanks in GW1.

And us, too. We were the only country, apart from America and France, to send more than just a few soldiers to the ME.


There were actually huge contingents from dozens of countries, but hey ho...


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician


Er, no. Re read what I posted:

Will be dealt with later.


I wait with anticipation.....


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician


Iran does not.

Wrong. Linky: www.globalsecurity.org...

Not that I'd be afraid to sail to the ME again just like I did 15 years ago when Iran didn't have S-6 missiles.


I'll say it again, just to be clear. IRAN DOES NOT HAVE ICBM'S.

If you look at your won link, the only two that could threaten us are the S-5 and S-6. They have none even built yet. In fact, the S-5 project was halted for several years and only restarted in 2004. The S-6 project is even more behind. It is based on the Taepondong-2, which doesn't even work and is yet to be successfully tested by the NK's.

Best estimates for Iranian ICBM's are 2015.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
The reason for why you disagree is simple - he never joined the military.


So, because I never joined, mu opinion is to be ignored? I would actually hazard that anyone who did join should have less of an opinion. After all, all that training and conditioning they put you through... Be the Best! Huh!

See, I can be an arsehole too. So shut up with the sniping and address the points.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
Don't know about you. I was there 15 years ago, though I was a sailor at that time. I knew that Saddam Hussein mustn't be allowed to launch missiles at anyone he wishes.


The missiles launched at Israel were a strategic attempt to bring them into the war AFTER the war started. He wanted to destabalise the coalition. The ones launched at SA were to target coalition troops building up there. It's not as if he just woke up one sunny morning and thought,

"I know, I'll lob some SCUDs about for no reason... Should be a larf!!"


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
Regarding WMDs - did you know how did he kill 5000 Kurds? With poison gas. No, he didn't order a firing squad to shoot them, he gassed them.


Yeah, with gas we sold them. All of the WMD's we claimed he sold them. Thats how we "knew" he had them.. We still had the receipts!!!

And it's not as if we have never gassed anyone. In fact, we were gassing Iraqi's and Kurds for fun in the 1930's.



[edit on 26/12/06 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

The Conservatives only had 1 "proper" war and that was seriously compromised by defence cuts prior to the Falklands. They were even thhinking of selling off two of the Inviceable Class to Australia or somewhere and having only 1 ASW "carrier" for the Navy.

If you like, I can go into great detail how the Conservatives almost cost is the Falklands. It was only due to the bravery of the men and women that we won at all.

Young man, read the messages I write carefully. I asked you if the Conservatives ever cut our defence budget DURING a war, not PRIOR to war. The Conservatives never did, and after the war began, they mobilised a fleet of 100 ships, and after the war ended, they built an airforce base on one of the islands. Right now, we are fighting a war against AQ and must be ready to fight the Argentines, and yet now, DURING a war, the Labour Party is weakening our military.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician

There were actually huge contingents from dozens of countries, but hey

... but hey, no one apart from America sent as many soldiers to the ME as we did.





I'll say it again, just to be clear. IRAN DOES NOT HAVE ICBM'S.

If you look at your won link, the only two that could threaten us are the S-5 and S-6.

And they are the missiles I was talking about, and Iran DOES have them. Even European FMs know that (and try to make Iran give up its missiles and nukes), only you don't.



So, because I never joined


I didn't say that. You are free to say how do you think. You are not, however, entitled to claim you know better than someone who joined the Navy before you were born and fought a war against Saddam. And as I said, if you don't believe me, read the relevant websites.



The missiles launched at Israel were a strategic attempt to bring them into the war AFTER the war started.

Yes, and therefore you have now confirmed that SADDAM was the provoker who unjustifiably attacked Israel.



Yeah, with gas we sold them.

Wrong, it was France and Germany who sold him WMDs. Which is why they didn't want to allow America to attack Iraq.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
So, AntiBliarPolitician, you managed to do 25 years service. I commend you.

However, that's not very long when you consider I can give you at least another 12 years on top of that. But Hey! Who's counting.

Life must be very boring on board ship which goes in some ways to explain why you have such a vivid imagination.

I suppose you agree with our illegal invasion of a nation state just because we don't like the chap in charge.

Pity we can't invade Zimbabwe but I forgot, that idiot don't have any oil, does he?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Actually, I don't regret joining the Navy. When I joined it 29 years ago, I was a 24-year-old youngster. When I discharged from the Navy 25 years later, I was a mature, disciplined man. The military changed me. It made me a better man.

And I wasn't bored - but hey, no one who fought GW1 would say he was.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   


Young man, read the messages I write carefully. I asked you if the Conservatives ever cut our defence budget DURING a war, not PRIOR to war. The Conservatives never did, and after the war began, they mobilised a fleet of 100 ships, and after the war ended, they built an airforce base on one of the islands. Right now, we are fighting a war against AQ and must be ready to fight the Argentines, and yet now, DURING a war, the Labour Party is weakening our military.


Semantics. The Conservatives actually brought in some of the biggest defence cuts ever seen, so don't paint them as a Pro-MoD party, as they are not. The fleet they sent to the Falklands was not up to the task. We lacked CIWS and a decent Carrier. We had to un-mothball the Hermes in order to be able to mount the invasion and the vast majority of the ships sent there were verging on obsolete.



And they are the missiles I was talking about, and Iran DOES have them. Even European FMs know that (and try to make Iran give up its missiles and nukes), only you don't


No, they don't. If they did, they would have to test them. They have not tested them. The NK's attempted a Taepondong-2 test earlier this year and it failed.



I didn't say that. You are free to say how do you think. You are not, however, entitled to claim you know better than someone who joined the Navy before you were born and fought a war against Saddam. And as I said, if you don't believe me, read the relevant websites.


I am actually. I am well within my rights to question whomsoever I please and correct them when wrong. Be it Peasant Dave or the Queen. Don't patronise me just because you spent 25 years of your life bobbing around at sea.

Exactly what did you do in the Navy that gives you such an insight? Were you a Captain? And Admiral maybe? Where you even an Officer?

I doubt it. My bet is Chief Petty Officer at best, maybe in Marine Engineering, unless you had some noggins upstairs, in which case you'd be doing Weapons or Comms. Noen of which qualifies you any more than me in History, Politics or anything else un-Navy, technology specific arguments.

Also, bear in mind, that I have access to over 2 man-centuries worth of military experience from members of my own family. From a serving RAF Wing Commander, to various Army sergeants, to some Navy personnel, all willing and able to give me whatever info I please. I am more likely to believe them than an old sailor with a grudge.



Yes, and therefore you have now confirmed that SADDAM was the provoker who unjustifiably attacked Israel.


What? He attacked them after the war started for very good strategic reasons. I am not condoning, just saying I understand the logic. Lest we forget that we have been more than happy to bomb other countries when it suits us, no?



Wrong, it was France and Germany who sold him WMDs. Which is why they didn't want to allow America to attack Iraq.


Ahh, toeing the party line. Good show, chap.

What about the vast amounts of weaponry sold? What about the US selling chemical and biological pre-cursors to irag in the 1980's?

Or was that those nasty French posing as Yanks? If you like, I'll dig up some photo's of the erstwhile Mr Rumsfeld shaking his hand when the deal was done...

Anyway, were where these WMD's that we went to war over?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join