If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iraqi WMDs latest: Guess what the 'mobile labs' were for
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
The last thread of "evidence" used by our warmongering, lying governments to prove the case for Iraqi WMDs has been exposed as yet another load of bollocks.
In the last few days, and in view that everything else has turned out to be a tale of porkies worthy of Pinocchio, our great leaders in Britain and the US have been saying that they still stand by their claims that Saddam had a full arsenal of WMDs. And they said that although nothing had been found and "perhaps never will" :rolleyes: , they reminded us about the two mobile labs found that were being used for biological warfare.
Yesterday it was revealed what those labs were for...
balloons.
Yep, that's right. Artillery balloons are used to measure speed winds to help with calculations for artillery firing. The "labs" were simply helium containers, and the helium was used to inflate the balloons and send them high into the sky.
Worst of all, it turns out that us, the British, SOLD THEM those trucks in 1987. The very same trucks that Blair and Bush have been holding to desperately as "proof" that Saddam had WMDs.
Full story here
How many more times will Blair be allow to lie to parliament and the public before he's made to resign???
In the last few days, and in view that everything else has turned out to be a tale of porkies worthy of Pinocchio, our great leaders in Britain and the US have been saying that they still stand by their claims that Saddam had a full arsenal of WMDs. And they said that although nothing had been found and "perhaps never will" :rolleyes: , they reminded us about the two mobile labs found that were being used for biological warfare.
Yesterday it was revealed what those labs were for...
balloons.
Yep, that's right. Artillery balloons are used to measure speed winds to help with calculations for artillery firing. The "labs" were simply helium containers, and the helium was used to inflate the balloons and send them high into the sky.
Worst of all, it turns out that us, the British, SOLD THEM those trucks in 1987. The very same trucks that Blair and Bush have been holding to desperately as "proof" that Saddam had WMDs.
Full story here
How many more times will Blair be allow to lie to parliament and the public before he's made to resign???
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I see yesterday that Blunkett was trying to bluff his way out by using the old 'everything is fine and dandy because we got rid of an evil tyrant' routine, pathetic.............
Problem is who would take up office instead.
Im only hoping that the propaganda parade that seems to still delude my countrymen will come to a screeching halt with a full-scale investigation that turns the White House upside down and exposes the depth of the betrayal Bush and his corrupt cadre have perpetrated against the public trust.
I think a firing squad for treason is just about what these scumbags deserve.
Even the most hardened Iraq war cynic wouldn't have believd that if they were told it 4 months ago...........
Regardless of whether you choose to ignorantly dismiss it, the UN and its charter were signed and ratified by those calling themselves member nations. That charter expressly forbids the unprovoked attack of one nation against another.
In the attempt to circumvent this stricture, which all UN member nations have agreed to, defacto, by ratifying the UN charter, the US/UK had to show that there was a credible and imminent threat to we ourselves by Iraq. This they did, if you'd bother to review the train of events leading to the invasion, by adamantly insisting that they had proof positive to that fact.
These proofs have subsequently and systematically been revealed as frauds, and thus the invasion itself was crime of global magnitude. One, I might add, which has only inspired those other heinous dictatorships which the US/UK continue to wholeheartedly finance and support (without any comment on their evil acts against their own) to simply use the excuse of "feeling threatened" to now give themselves the carte blanche to attack their neighbours and label political opponents "terrorists", so that they might imprison, torture and execute them with impunity.
That you so easily excuse political corruption from our governments only demonstrates how easily their efforts to propagandise and confuse the issue in the minds of the unquestioning masses have been up till now.
If you, however, care about the credibility of your leaders and your nation, as I do mine, you'd be well advised to start holding your government to greater account than you obviously seem concerned to do.
Thats Saddam killed his own was never in doubt, not even by we critics of the invasion. But those of us who opposed this action also recognise that the greater number of those mass graves are the direct result of:
1. The Iran/Iraq war - which the US/UK directly pushed Saddam to wage on our behalf (supplying him with horrible chemical and biological weapons, delivery systems, and the technical know-how to make them as deadly as possible) and turned a blind eye tosince he was our good little puppet.
2. The uprising following the first Gulf War which Bush Sr. encouraged the Iraqis to conduct under the pretense that we would back them up only to abandon them (as the UK did to Czechoslovakia in WWII).
So If you want to point fingers for those mass graves, youve got plenty to point at in Westminster, Whitehall and Washington before you ever get to Baghdad.
I have little doubt if the UK became the victim of your way of thinking from some foreign power in the future, youd be the first to run screaming for help from the very UN you and those like you want to dismiss because you refuse to comprehend that our governments were in the wrong from start to finish!
Gotta love international law then. Isn't it great the way it protects mass murdering tyrants...
That is just lovely and I am sure you are proud of yourself then. You knew that he was killing innocent people with impunity but was happy to let it continue because he posed "no threat" to you directly.
I knew that George Bush was sick, but man that's a tough stance for you to try and defend.
Indeed, why blame the perpetrators of the crimes when you can use the US/UK Govts as scapegoats. You know that "following orders" was no defence for the Nazis and yet in this case you are happy for the Iraqi Govt to use that excuse - even though they themselves haven't - as justification for mass murder.
The Iran/Iraq War wasn;t prosecuted on our behalf at all. That we were happy for it to continue isn't something I would dispute, but I think you'll find it had more to do with Saddam's territorial agenda.
BTW The selling of the Czechs down the river was an act of appeasement. You really cannot argue that the uprising against Saddam is even close.
Been sunning myself in Spain for the past couple of weeks.
It's even improved my mood somewhat, although you wouldn't have gathered that from my response to Clandestine I know.
That said, the fact that I haven't spat feathers at many of the other threads is a good indicator...
Damn right I did. You have to admire that "manana" attitude, I could just go a siesta about now too...
The point here MoK is not whether the world is a better place without Saddam (which it is) but the false pretensions we have been taken into war under, the respect for international law and institutions, the ulterior (or should I say only) motives for Dubya and Blair and the double standards shown to the point of supreme hypocrisy.
There is in fact no end of countries where human right abuses have or are being committed as we speak. Yet whether we like it or not, no international or national law provides for unilateral intervention without UN consent for the purpose of regime change. I haven't heard any warmonger or apologist campaign for armed intervention in a thousand and one places where torture and killings take place. Unless of course the country in question happens to be in a strategically important position or has lots of black viscous stuff under its soil.
According to the mad Texan and his poodle the whole point of the Iraq war was to remove the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. No attempt was made to pass a UN resolution authorising the use of force because people were being tortured and killed- simply because the US and British governments couldn't give a flying toss about the welfare of the Iraqis. Although once the WMDs and links to terrorism arguments were universally laughed off the Allies were quick to embrace the human rights card.
That people continue to justify the war because "at least Saddam was removed" is exasperating in the extreme. It also gives the Axis of Idiots licence to invade and occupy countries at will. Just mention that the country has scores of WMDs (not to worry if it isn't true, we let them off the hook once so why not again) or that the country is an evil empire of suffering and torturing, and bingo! Out goes Iran, Syria etc etc.
I am yet to hear once cries for intervention to remove the brutal regimes of Burma (not strategic interest), Saudi Arabia (allies and buyers of American military hardware), Israel (no comment), China (scared shitless) and countless others.
But no matter, let Washington pick its next victim and I'm sure someone will be quick to point out all the positive things to come out of yet another war of aggression and regime change imposed by the New Empire.
El Campello - just outside Alicante.
About 30 miles from Benidorm which was nice because I could just make it out on the horizon. Am pleased to say that it stayed there too. Sometimes I'd rather not associate with Brits. Call me a snob, but I am embarrassed by some of my compatriots abroad.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand:
So they lied to you, what's new in that? At least you can do something about it at the next election.
As you say, the world is a better place without the likes of Saddam. So lets be grateful for that, shall we?
What, and you are happy with such a scenario?
Personally I think international law should be stacked against tyrants like Saddam, rather than something which they can hide behind. As I have said before we (as a culture) are far more voacl about the way our own Govts let us down that we are about the abuses of other nations.
Now I know that people in glasshouses should throw stones etc but I find it hard to accept that the regimes under which we are governed a worse than those of people like Pol Pot, Saddam, Mugabe etc. It would be nice to think that the French, US et al could be as vocal and active in getting to grips with these countries as they are at getting at each others throats.
You will from me. Tough to do and I would want political pressure first...
Still planning to go later in the year though. Never been there but been in other parts of Alicante. Nice beaches and weather.
Anyways. Perhaps there should be provision and agreement for intervention wherever human right abuses are being perpetrated. The problem now is that there isn't and the instigators of the war don't seem pre-occupied in the least in bring about such legislation.
No one can turn the clock back but we must ensure such an incident is never allowed again. We must hold our governments to account as the American public must hold theirs. Otherwise further abuses and wars of conquest are just round the corner.
Another worrying prospect is that other than having got rid of Saddam things are not exactly well. In fact there are much worse for most of the population. The chances of a democratic government in Iraq are as tenuous as ever, with the Americans holding to total control of the country and making clear they will stay for as long as they please (after a Washington-approved puppet regime is firmly in place- Islamic or pro-Saddam parties need not apply, even if it is what much of the population actually wants).
Contrary to assurances that the UN would be administering the oil the US has assumed control of that as well, and one by one every single fear of those who spoke against the invasion seem to be materialising. After the war water is still not flowing but the oil is, which gives a good insight about Bush's priorities in the region. Up to 1,000,000 cluster bombs, DU shells and other ammunition lie scattered on the land and the whole place has become a lawless looter's paradise where artifacts of extreme historical importance (or radioactive materials for that matter) have been taken.
So even those who are satisfied that Saddam is gone must ask many hard questions to our corrupt governments and ensure such a thing is never repeated.
Really nice beach there and my kids will tell you that they do great Ice Creams too. Have to admit that some of the restaurants/bars were frequented during my stay. Even tried the chooclate/doughnut breakfast thing. Try to do a few of the local things wherever I go.
What I liked most though was the relaxed nature. None of this 100mph holiday experience you get on a package deal. We stayed at a friends Villa and so pleased ourselves. Oh, if only I had the money...
Indeed and I thought that this is what the UN was supposed to be for. Following WW2, it was supposed o keep people like Saddam in check, to stop mass murder and genocide on such a scale. But it seems to fail on every occasions.
Not only with Pol Pot and Rwanda but also, it could be argued, with many of the US actions over the past 50 years...
I don't think that we can. Admitedly we can hold our Govt to account, but do you seriously think that will stop such abuses again?
To be fair to the US I think the best comparison here would be post war Germany. To expect a democratic regime to be in place just a few weeks after the war was and is unrealistic. It will take time and we need to accept that.
Again, be fair. There is a cost to the reparations and the best way to do this is for the sale of Irai oil and for the proceeds to be used.
I don't hear you simulataneously arguing about the heinous subsequent exploitation of foreign workers in sweatshops set up by our multinationals in order to multiply their profits regardless of the conditions they impose on the indigenous work force (of our "liberated" or otherwise dependent neighbouring nations).
Please, if you simply refuse to accept that our own govts continue to support numerous brutal vicious and despotic regimes that willingly bow to our corporate demands, at least have the decency to say so. But don't try to spit shine a rotten apple as our leaders are desperately trying to do in the case of their fraud over Iraq.
The point is just Iraq, was the intervention justified though of course there are very important issues concerning the behaviour of our govts, I don't like being lied to........
I am in full agreement with you that discussions of how bad a man Saddam was are merely "trying to spit shine a rotten apple" to sell to the public now that their long running attempts to make a legitimate case for the necesssity of invasion on the legal (and UN Charter-sanctioned) basis of immediate threat have all been shown to have been a lie and a fraud.
I simply raised the point of how we ourselves, via our ever gluttonous multinational profiteering, also exploit and consign people to dire conditions to demonstrate how little those who talk of other people evils are even aware or concerned about our own in all their pontification.
Could we be hearing the sound of the Bush camp's political death knell? God I hope so!!
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/VIPS_Fiasco.htm
Perhaps this is because we haven't ever discussed that issue
Are you seriously suggesting that we should condemn the US and UK for not doing anything about those heinous acts, rather than condemn the Govt who actually commit the acts?
What ever happened to responsibility?
My refusal to focus on, what you claim is, the "real issue" is because I don't see my Govt lying to me as the real issue. They do it on a daily basis and have done since the very first Govt. The real issue for me, is why you think it acceptable to commit henious acts, but not to turn a blind eye to them? and why the UN protects such Govts on a regular basis...
Aren't you falling into the trap you have just critiscised?
The UN does not protect those that does bad things, it may fail to act to stop them but as you point out this is different....
Also the logic applied to individual nations must surely be the same logic as applied to the UN as the UN cannot force nations to act it is simply a medium through which nations can act..........
The UN is where international law is developed, so by having laws which protect the guilty they fail.
That they then also fail to act just compounds the problem.
The same ones which the anti-Iraq War protesters suggest that the UK and US broke...
What would you suggest otherwise?