IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6759|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
· UK warned US that chaos would follow tyrant's fall
· Evidence repudiates claims in run-up to war

Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday December 16, 2006
The Guardian


The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests and warned the US that toppling him would lead to "chaos", according to a Foreign Office diplomat closely involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.

His evidence, in which he says the government privately assessed that Iraq possessed no significant quantity of weapons of mass destruction, has been published on the Commons foreign affairs committee website. Mr Ross gave evidence to the group last month but some MPs had been reluctant to have it published.

Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.

"At no time did [the government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK," he told the Butler committee. "On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained ... At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

Mr Ross continued: "There was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material. Aerial or satellite surveillance was unable to get under the roofs of Iraqi facilities. We therefore had to rely on inherently unreliable human sources."

He added: "Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approximately 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection with any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD."

Mr Ross said he repeatedly questioned FO and Ministry of Defence officials about their threat assessments of Iraq. He said: "None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light." Referring to the government's weapons adviser who later committed suicide, he added: "I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated".

He said colleagues in other UN delegations told him the UK sold security council resolution 1441 - later used to help justify the invasion - "explicitly on the grounds that it did not represent authorisation for war".

Mr Ross, who was responsible at the UK's UN mission for sanctions as well as weapons inspections, said he and his FO colleagues repeatedly attempted to get the UK and US to act more vigorously on the breaches.

Mr Ross resigned from the FO in 2004.

Sir John Major, the former prime minister, backed calls for an independent inquiry into the causes and conduct of the war. It should include "new information that is becoming available", he told Radio 4's Today.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6759|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Our leaders should be tried in Baghdad

By Vicki Woods
Saturday December 16, 2006
Daily Telegraph

Sir John Major popped up yesterday on the Today programme to give Tony Blair some unsolicited advice about the Iraq Study Group's report. He soothed away John Humphrys's more excitable bleats and just-a-minutes, he stuck to his points and he made them well.

Two points: first, he thinks it's high time the Prime Minister made a statement about the way forward in Iraq. There are British troops there who would love to know what they're supposed to be doing, and the PM has had plenty of time to think of something to tell them. Second, and rather bogglingly to my mind, he called for an inquiry into the causes of the Iraq invasion.

Humphrys sounded as amazed as I felt: I had to fan myself down. Major does elder-statesman mode rather well: it suits him. He modestly mentioned that he'd had rather a good war himself, back in the day.

Before Iraq, Tony Blair always seemed to enjoy his wars. Up until this last year, he always looked rather fabulously boyish doing his military thing. Though the "Messiah in Basra" photo-ops were squirmingly actorish, they were flattering: the loose white shirt, the wind-whipped hair, the blue eyes blazing with belief, passion and commitment.

And whenever Blair was standing shoulder-to-shoulder with George W. Bush, he displayed as much soldierly swagger as his Big Cool Friend did. The President doesn't make me laugh much (not deliberately, I mean), but his famous comic turn for the White House press corps was pretty funny: "Some people say I have a swagger. In Texas, they call that 'walking'." Not swaggering now. Staggering, both of them, under a coup de vieux.

When they stood at their lecterns in Washington to make their best fist of the Iraq Study Group's report, Tony looked like King George VI in his last painful months of life and George looked like a care-home patient using someone else's teeth. Having to digest such damning remarks as "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating" clearly didn't make them feel younger than springtime.

Blair called the Baker-Hamilton report "helpful", which was an odd adjective, since both men parked it almost the moment they walked stiffly off the podiums. Tony flew home to help the police with their inquiries (no doubt an ageing process). Now he has to work out what to say about Carne Ross's accusation that the British Government "knew", really did know, that there were no WMD in Iraq.

George went to the Pentagon for day-long meetings about how to spin the Baker-Hamilton report. When he came out, he had a little train of solemn old men with him: the Chiefs of Staff, the senior Pentagon policy wonks, Cheney, Rummy.

Rummy? How odd, in British eyes, to see Donald Rumsfeld still standing beside the Commander-in-Chief. When Tony Blair sacks his Defence Secretary, the bloke reels out five minutes later for his very last drive in the chauffeured car. In America, you get until January for the changeover.

Odder, to British ears, was Bush's line about what he'd been doing with this high-up bunch of seniors. They had had, he said, a "very candid and fruitful discussion about how to secure this country and how to win a war that, uh, that, uh, we now find ourselves in". Find ourselves in? Doesn't he hear what comes out of his mouth?

The little train of suits and uniforms flanking him stood solemn and unblinking. These men have spent nearly four years running the war that the president now finds himself in, and still they serve. It's amazing. Back in 2002, an old boy called George McGovern said: "I'm getting sick and tired of old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." He was talking about Cheney and Rummy. How weird actually to watch the old men who dream up wars for young men to die in still dreaming.

Some of the men dying (and/or killing) in the blood-soaked hell that they have "found themselves in" over the last four years are very young indeed. I've read a lot of Iraqi blogs written (mainly) by the sort of young men who are enthusiastic early adopters of new technology across the Western world. Well-educated, English-speaking Sunnis: I started with the now-famous Salam Pax and found more, week by week. Their papas were no doubt card-carrying Ba'athists; the sons and daughters downloaded Metallica tracks and liked American movies. Some were pro-invasion.

Nabil's blog began, in stuttering English, in late 2003. His first post said: "I am Nabil from Baghdad, Iraq. I am 16 years old. A student in the 5th grade in the high school. My favorite sport games are wrestling and football/soccer. also I am a video games player I play PC games like Empire Earth it is the best game, and Medal of Honor and my favorite football team is Manchester United." Nabil is at university now. Or rather, not. The academic year 2006-7 is not going well in Baghdad.

His latest post translates the flowery Arabic of the posters in his street: "Again we repeat our advice for the students from the sunni sect, to avoid going to their Universities and institutes and colleges, for this year, and we know that the avoidance of going for studying is a painful fact, but getting our professors and students killed is much more painful, thats why we are working to clean these institutions from the death squads. And who Alerted is excused… who alerted is excused… who alerted is excused."

It's a death warrant, signed by the Ansar al-Sunna Group. Nabil is (rightly) as afraid of them as his Shia friends are. Those two blood-soaked old warmongers, Bush and Blair, should both be impeached. Try 'em in Baghdad, I say.

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-12-16 04:41:05)

d3v1ldr1v3r13
Satan's disciple on Earth.
+160|6702|Hell's prison
The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests.
I am sorry, since when did British interests, and Brits never BELIEVEING he was a threat, dictate how the US took care of a problem in the middle east, all I know him as is a Genocidal maniac who needed to be removed for the interests of the middle east, Im sorry, I like the people of Britian, but I could give a rats ass about British interests when I see pictures of children needlessly being gassed, executed and raped by his "army", The United States has no regrets toppling him.

Edit. and yes I am quite aware the Brits are helping the US over there, Ive met them and a large majority of them are more highly motivated than many US troops.  Thanks to the US, and all European troops helping us.

Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-12-16 04:54:06)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6572

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests.
I am sorry, since when did British interests, and Brits never BELIEVEING he was a threat, dictate how the US took care of a problem in the middle east, all I know him as is a Genocidal maniac who needed to be removed for the interests of the middle east, Im sorry, I like the people of Britian, but I could give a rats ass about British interests when I see pictures of children needlessly being gassed, executed and raped by his "army", The United States has no regrets toppling him.
https://www.wumingfoundation.com/images/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank
U.S. > Iran
+497|6595|Florida

CameronPoe wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests.
I am sorry, since when did British interests, and Brits never BELIEVEING he was a threat, dictate how the US took care of a problem in the middle east, all I know him as is a Genocidal maniac who needed to be removed for the interests of the middle east, Im sorry, I like the people of Britian, but I could give a rats ass about British interests when I see pictures of children needlessly being gassed, executed and raped by his "army", The United States has no regrets toppling him.
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/images/ … saddam.jpg
That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6485
Interesting articles but there was obvious slant so some stuff might not be completely truthful. And why is this news many people knew from the begining Iraq had no WMDs and Saddom  didn't deal with terrorists.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6572

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:


I am sorry, since when did British interests, and Brits never BELIEVEING he was a threat, dictate how the US took care of a problem in the middle east, all I know him as is a Genocidal maniac who needed to be removed for the interests of the middle east, Im sorry, I like the people of Britian, but I could give a rats ass about British interests when I see pictures of children needlessly being gassed, executed and raped by his "army", The United States has no regrets toppling him.
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/images/ … saddam.jpg
That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy.
rocksrhot
Member
+8|6416
It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy


Completely agree with the above statement, Like the US administration never new how the man thought??? Please, they new what type of a character he was from day 1. If they didn't, that would be just as bad, due 2 a lack of research before commencing dealings.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6759|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Tony Blair justified the illegal action in Iraq to Parliament & the people of the UK,  because he stated that Saddam posed a serious threat and Attack was "imminent" unless swift action was taken.
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6719|New York

IG-Calibre wrote:

· UK warned US that chaos would follow tyrant's fall
· Evidence repudiates claims in run-up to war

Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday December 16, 2006
The Guardian


The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests and warned the US that toppling him would lead to "chaos", according to a Foreign Office diplomat closely involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.

His evidence, in which he says the government privately assessed that Iraq possessed no significant quantity of weapons of mass destruction, has been published on the Commons foreign affairs committee website. Mr Ross gave evidence to the group last month but some MPs had been reluctant to have it published.

Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.

"At no time did [the government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK," he told the Butler committee. "On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained ... At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

Mr Ross continued: "There was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material. Aerial or satellite surveillance was unable to get under the roofs of Iraqi facilities. We therefore had to rely on inherently unreliable human sources."

He added: "Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approximately 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection with any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD."

Mr Ross said he repeatedly questioned FO and Ministry of Defence officials about their threat assessments of Iraq. He said: "None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light." Referring to the government's weapons adviser who later committed suicide, he added: "I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated".

He said colleagues in other UN delegations told him the UK sold security council resolution 1441 - later used to help justify the invasion - "explicitly on the grounds that it did not represent authorisation for war".

Mr Ross, who was responsible at the UK's UN mission for sanctions as well as weapons inspections, said he and his FO colleagues repeatedly attempted to get the UK and US to act more vigorously on the breaches.

Mr Ross resigned from the FO in 2004.

Sir John Major, the former prime minister, backed calls for an independent inquiry into the causes and conduct of the war. It should include "new information that is becoming available", he told Radio 4's Today.
Im sorry but i find this hard to believe when the 9/11 comission found that faulty forign Intel(also provided by the UK) showed Saddam as an iminent threat and that he did infact have WMD's. So ill just take this post with a grain of salt.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6759|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Im sorry but i find this hard to believe when the 9/11 comission found that faulty forign Intel(also provided by the UK) showed Saddam as an iminent threat and that he did infact have WMD's. So ill just take this post with a grain of salt.
Yeah that "faulty Forign Intel" is very interesting are you familiar with the  David Kelly mentioned in the article? So yes you can take them with a pinch of salt if you like but the above is the opinion of Britain's former First Secretary at the United Nations at the time I think he should know what the situation and position of the British Government was at the time.

Main article from the Telegraph

Downing Street brushed aside calls from Sir John Major for a full inquiry into the Iraq war after a former British diplomat revealed that the Government had not believed that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to the UK.

   
Sir John Major called for an independent inquiry


Sir John backed an investigation after the publication of evidence submitted to the Butler inquiry into Iraq by Carne Ross, Britain's former First Secretary at the United Nations.

Mr Ross's damning three-page testimony raises fresh questions about Tony Blair's justification for the war and states that there had been "no intelligence evidence" that Saddam had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. He added that British officials had repeatedly warned the US that the dictator's overthrow would trigger "chaos".

Mr Ross gave his evidence to Lord Butler's inquiry in June 2004, but sources said he had never published it because the Foreign Office had suggested to him that it would breach the Official Secrets Act.

His submission was released this week after the Commons foreign affairs select committee secured assurances that he would not be prosecuted. In his evidence, Mr Ross - who was based at the UN for between December 1997 and June 2002 - makes clear that the consensus was that the threat posed by Saddam had been contained.

"During my posting, at no time did [the Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among officials that any threat had been effectively contained," he said.

While he left New York in June 2002, he said former colleagues had told him that there had been no new evidence to change that judgment in the months before the war. "What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he said. "Many of the UN inspectors … would tell me they believed Iraq had no significant material … there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or nuclear material."

Mr Ross added that Saddam's ability to launch WMD was also "very limited" and his army and air force had both been emasculated. He said he had never heard any discussion about links between Iraq and terrorist organisations.

He added that British diplomats repeatedly warned their American counterparts about the problems that would be unleashed if Saddam was toppled. "We would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that regime change was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse," he said.

Mr Ross also voiced dismay at the failure rigorously to enforce the sanctions, which many had hoped would have allowed the international community to contain Saddam without military action.

"Co-ordinated and sustained action to prevent illegal exports and target Saddam's illegal monies would have consumed a tiny proportion of the effort and resource of the war," he said.

As Westminster absorbed his comments, Sir John urged the Government to hold a comprehensive inquiry into the war, as well as making a statement in Parliament on the report published in Washington by the Iraq Study Group.

"I would like an independent inquiry that would actually examine all the information dispassionately, including the new information that is becoming available," he told Today on Radio 4.

However, his call for an inquiry were sidestepped by the Prime Minister's spokesman. Speaking in Brussels, he said: "We have had four inquiries into these matters. All four have had full access to all the information they required and all came to the conclusions that have been published."

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-12-16 07:18:10)

jarhedch
Member
+12|6687|Aberdeen, Uk, SF Bay Area 1st

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

es/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg[/url]
That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
more along the lines of what we did in WW2, in having the russian army bleed teh german army dry to bring it down to size, we gave Iraq arms to keep Iran and Iraq busy so the region would be untroubled by 2 trouble makers. it wasn't we liked iraq more, we just wanted them to keep each other busy.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy.
Where is the pic of Carter opening the door for the Taliban in Afghanistan?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6572

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy.
Where is the pic of Carter opening the door for the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Did I say anything about Carter being as white as snow? If that was the case then he's just as much of a cunt as Rumsfeld. The fact of the matter is he played a part in US crimes in Nicaragua anyway - so he is a cunt.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-16 10:52:10)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6707|Tampa Bay Florida
lol, okay, it's official now

this war if f*cked up.  I don't care what you believe.  If you believed in getting rid of Saddam, okay.  But why didn't we send enough troops in the first place, and why are we still there, protecting a corrupt, helpless government that is actually taking actions against what Bush was saying they'd do in the first place.  As if having elections will end a thousand year struggle between Shiite and Sunni radicals.

/fail, Mr. President.  And Mr. British Prime Minister too.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-12-16 10:56:08)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6668|USA

Spearhead wrote:

lol, okay, it's official now

this war if f*cked up.  I don't care what you believe.  If you believed in getting rid of Saddam, okay.  But why didn't we send enough troops in the first place, and why are we still there, protecting a corrupt, helpless government that is actually taking actions against what Bush was saying they'd do in the first place.  As if having elections will end a thousand year struggle between Shiite and Sunni radicals.

/fail, Mr. President.  And Mr. British Prime Minister too.
No matter how you want to dress them, they are all still just animals, and not worth dying for. Time to leave the ME and let them ALL kill one another as they wish, the sooner the better and good riddance. Side note, kill each other as much as you wish, fuck with anyone out side of their region and I endorse sending the whole area to their fuckin 72 virgins and their martyrdom..I am so fed up with that region. They don't put an ounce of value on human life, least of all their own. Time has hopelessly passed them by.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6617|132 and Bush

It's Monday morning quarterbacking. Approaching a troop withdrawal lets come out and say we didn't actually think it was a good idea.

Aside from the "Foreign Office diplomats" involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
This what we were told.

So I guess the question is why would the public think otherwise.

Britain Monday issued fresh warning to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm peacefully or be disarmed by force with or without a second United Nations resolution.

The warning came as the British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted the world had to send a message that trade in chemical and biological weapons would not be tolerated.

"Saddam Hussein must disarm and if he does not, his weapons will be taken by force," Blair said in his monthly press briefing at Downing Street, his official residence.

"I am quite sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there is evidence to prove it," he said.


Blair said those weapons posed a "direct threat to British national security."


"If threats of such weapons is not tackled, then one day a rogue nation will use them or they will fall into the hands of international terrorists," Blair said.

He said conflict was not inevitable, but disarmament was.

Stating the British Government believed "passionately" that Iraq must be stripped of its weapons of mass destruction, Blair said, "It is only a matter of time... before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together."


Blair: Saddam is a threat that needs to be dealt with     

Blair, speaking at a press conference in his constituency in Sedgefield, Durham, said: "Saddam is a real and unique threat to his region and the rest of the world that needs to be dealt with."

He said Saddam was continuing his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction in defiance of U.N. resolutions, adding that how that threat should be dealt with had yet to be decided -- but that the issue did have to be addressed.



Saddam Hussein was "without any question" still trying to develop Iraq's chemical, biological and potential nuclear capability. To allow him to do so without any hindrance would be "irresponsible".


Blair: "I do believe that the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime is real, I believe that it is in the UK's national interest that this is addressed, just as dealing with the terrorists after September 11 was in our national interest even though the actual terrorist act took place thousands of miles away on the streets of New York, not in London.

"This isn't just an issue for the U.S., it is an issue for Britain, it is an issue for the wider world. America shouldn't have to face this issue alone, we should face it together."


But while we are at it lets makes sure the American Democrats voice is still heard prior to an invasion.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-16 18:56:53)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6663

Kmarion wrote:

It's Monday morning quarterbacking. Approaching a troop withdrawal lets come out and say we didn't actually think it was a good idea.

Aside from the "Foreign Office diplomats" involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
This what we were told.

So I guess the question is why would the public think otherwise.

Britain Monday issued fresh warning to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm peacefully or be disarmed by force with or without a second United Nations resolution.

The warning came as the British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted the world had to send a message that trade in chemical and biological weapons would not be tolerated.

"Saddam Hussein must disarm and if he does not, his weapons will be taken by force," Blair said in his monthly press briefing at Downing Street, his official residence.

"I am quite sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there is evidence to prove it," he said.


Blair said those weapons posed a "direct threat to British national security."


"If threats of such weapons is not tackled, then one day a rogue nation will use them or they will fall into the hands of international terrorists," Blair said.

He said conflict was not inevitable, but disarmament was.
[color=yellow]
Stating the British Government believed "passionately" that Iraq must be stripped of its weapons of mass destruction, Blair said, "It is only a matter of time... before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together."


Blair: Saddam is a threat that needs to be dealt with     

Blair, speaking at a press conference in his constituency in Sedgefield, Durham, said: "Saddam is a real and unique threat to his region and the rest of the world that needs to be dealt with."

He said Saddam was continuing his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction in defiance of U.N. resolutions, adding that how that threat should be dealt with had yet to be decided -- but that the issue did have to be addressed.



Saddam Hussein was "without any question" still trying to develop Iraq's chemical, biological and potential nuclear capability. To allow him to do so without any hindrance would be "irresponsible".


Blair: "I do believe that the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime is real, I believe that it is in the UK's national interest that this is addressed, just as dealing with the terrorists after September 11 was in our national interest even though the actual terrorist act took place thousands of miles away on the streets of New York, not in London.

"This isn't just an issue for the U.S., it is an issue for Britain, it is an issue for the wider world. America shouldn't have to face this issue alone, we should face it together."


But while we are at it lets makes sure the American Democrats voice is still heard prior to an invasion.

Thread over.
MajorHoulahan_MASH
Member
+31|6739

CameronPoe wrote:

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy.
+1 for Cameron Poe

Thread reopened.
CoronadoSEAL
pics or it didn't happen
+207|6535|USA
hindsight is always 20/20
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6663

MajorHoulahan_MASH wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

That was taken during the Iraq-Iran war era.  Of course we were his friend then, because we didnt like Iran and we attempted to help Iraq win that war.  Things change.  You cant take a pic that is 20 years old and say "Hey look at this".
It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy.
+1 for Cameron Poe

Thread reopened.
You do realize that CameronPoe's post was completely negated by Kmarion's, right? That was the reason for the "thread over". Yet you try to be clever and say "thread reopened"? You've only succeeded in looking like a dumbass.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-16 23:35:58)

A-Unit64
King Medic......
+23|6858
I don't like to read......
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6422|North Carolina

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests.
I am sorry, since when did British interests, and Brits never BELIEVEING he was a threat, dictate how the US took care of a problem in the middle east, all I know him as is a Genocidal maniac who needed to be removed for the interests of the middle east, Im sorry, I like the people of Britian, but I could give a rats ass about British interests when I see pictures of children needlessly being gassed, executed and raped by his "army", The United States has no regrets toppling him.

Edit. and yes I am quite aware the Brits are helping the US over there, Ive met them and a large majority of them are more highly motivated than many US troops.  Thanks to the US, and all European troops helping us.
Did you feel this way when we supported Saddam?  We didn't seem to care about what Saddam was doing to his own people until he stopped serving our political interests.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the War with Iraq was about morals.  History has already shown that to be bullshit.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6572

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

MajorHoulahan_MASH wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


It demonstrates a lack of morals and principles and a shocking level of hypocrisy.
+1 for Cameron Poe

Thread reopened.
You do realize that CameronPoe's post was completely negated by Kmarion's, right? That was the reason for the "thread over". Yet you try to be clever and say "thread reopened"? You've only succeeded in looking like a dumbass.
I never really addressed anything in the OP if you'd care to have read my posts.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6668|USA

Turquoise wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests.
I am sorry, since when did British interests, and Brits never BELIEVEING he was a threat, dictate how the US took care of a problem in the middle east, all I know him as is a Genocidal maniac who needed to be removed for the interests of the middle east, Im sorry, I like the people of Britian, but I could give a rats ass about British interests when I see pictures of children needlessly being gassed, executed and raped by his "army", The United States has no regrets toppling him.

Edit. and yes I am quite aware the Brits are helping the US over there, Ive met them and a large majority of them are more highly motivated than many US troops.  Thanks to the US, and all European troops helping us.
Did you feel this way when we supported Saddam?  We didn't seem to care about what Saddam was doing to his own people until he stopped serving our political interests.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the War with Iraq was about morals.  History has already shown that to be bullshit.
Ahhhhhhhh to live in a country where they serve EVERYONE ELSE'S "political interests" except their own citizens interests....................What might be the name of this magical country? Fantasyland perhaps? What is wrong with the US looking out for itself if every other country does it as well? Is the problem that, we do it better??

The thoughts that the US is interested in protecting US interests is sickening, wouldn't you agree? By the way, check your quality of life, and your freedoms at the door, I wouldn't want you to be accused of hypocrisy by enjoying your health wealth and security at the expense of the poor ME peace loving victims.

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-17 03:46:11)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard