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.
Options
WMD's
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Apologies for the source, but no-one else in the world is running this story (surprisingly). I know you all love Fox News really.:p
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Document on Adobe Acrobat:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Change anything? Why's no-one else running this story?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Document on Adobe Acrobat:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Change anything? Why's no-one else running this story?
0
Comments
Rather puts a few canisters of mustard gas into the shade methinks.........
"We have come across some empty rusting shells that had been buried in the desert for many, many years as a form of disposal and that have residue of chemical weapons. The the shells were unusable and the Iraqis wouldn't or couldn't have used them as a weapon and simply put them away for good, but let's use them as an excuse for a WMD find because we don't like to have been found out by the entire world as lying cunts".
I would imagine that 90% of the people on this forum will totally disagree with trident, being leftys and all that. But I for one agree with it. Britain needs its nuclear deterrent, especially since pakistan, Iran, N.korea and co. are looking to develop, and who knows who else will have them in 20 years. I dont agree with nuclear weapons, but at the moment theres lots of them, and in an uncertain world Britain needs the protection, no one would launch a nuclear strike against us becuase of the responce, and if you think our other nuclear allies like the French and US will react for us, think again, because they would undoubtly also recieve a strike for it. There is only a small group of nations who have nuclear weapons, Britain is a major world power and needs the nukes to go with it to stay in that group.
Oh, how little you know the leftie members of this board. Most of them fully agree with Nukes as long as it Iran and North Korea who have them
If a country deems having nukes is pointless or too expensive, then it's up to them of course.
If someone asks me whether Britain needs to continue having a nuclear deterrent, then I would say not in my opinion. Though I understand the argument that you never know what threats might arise in the future.
If Britain must have a nuclear deterrent, at least I wish it would acquire one that doesn't depend on another nation for its upkeep and storage. At present, incredibly, UK missiles have to be maintained and repaired by the Americans in US territory. Britain can't even store its own missiles (other than the ones it carries on the 4 submarines), being kept in US soil as they are.
Presumably the greatest ally and friend of America can't even be trusted to have a little technological know-how.
With friends like these...
Actually the missles are only serviced by the US, and the warheads are British. Their stored in HMNB Clyde in scotland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HMNB_Clyde.jpg
killing millions of people in one huge explosion that is going to irrepairable damage a massive area and effect the millions that the radiation spreads to!
eg sheep in the lake district are radioactive because of the chernobyl disaster
if we need nuclear weapons for some of the dodgy american futuristic film plots with meteors etc (eg armageddon etc) then no one country should have control over them
unilateral disarmament has to start somewhere, why not us?
You should read the previous posts. The reason we need them isnt so we can kill millions, but as a deterrent. Any country that launches a nuclear strike against us would have a full retalitary strike against them. Therefore, they wont attack us, because they would destroy themselves aswell. When the time comes for nuclear disarment then we can get rid of them aswell as everyone else, but while their are rogue states developing long range missles and nukes, we need them for our protection; not as a sword, but as a shield.
you can have conventional weapons as a deterent? but they cant kill enough people so are they not big enough for you?
there are always alternatives, why not use hackers to mess with another governments computer systems so they cant do anything (dont really know just waffling but still)
exactly that deterent got used!
That has nothing to do with trident at all. What the americans did was wrong, they built them for the specific purpose to use, when non were around.
- They have found production facilities for basic chemical warfare (Hardly the promised WMD's, they were used to make:)
- Cheical SCUD warheads (Hardly big WMD's, we knew they had these and were allowed).
- Chemical FROG warheads (Same as above).
So. Bad weapons, no WMD's.
no wmd's have been found ...some rust has been found from a long gone weapons prog that we helped sadman to build and keep ...which he told us he had ditched.
twenty five squillion quid for new bullets!
how come thay can never find the money for dentists ...
Spain and Italy are not world powers and dont really get involved in world politics. Britain is a major world power and we have an active role in world affairs, not to mention we're a permanent member of the UN and NATO security council and need them to stay there. Were a target they're not.
exactly the money could be used so much more wisely
cancellation of third world debt
hospitals
schools
raise in public sector workers wages (yes please, i work in a library)
governmant grant to train companies
subsidising train fares
building renewable engerys sources, not nuclear!
i ask cos the only way i can interpret your reply os ...if we have nukes we are a target!
Britain would need its own satellite system to run a system like trident. That would cost serious £.
because dentistry is socialised
Morrocan, your not making any sense. Who said they're loosing out? its a good that they dont need nuclear weapons. Britain has alot of enemies and has troops deployed all over the world, we therefore need a nuclear deterrent to protect ourselves. Italy and Spain do not. In 50 years who knows how many rouge states will have aquired nukes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/
They found big nasty weapons we knew he had anyway that don't fit under the WMD banner.
The WMD's we sold him and the few he made himself he provided video evidence of their destruction.
That's the be all and end all of the story anyway. The poor sod even gave away his MiG-29's to Iran near the end of Gulf War 1 rather than have them destroyed by the US...
So for Gulf War 2... the airforce just burried their planes rather than have the destroyed. Even the Mighty MiG-25's that scored the first air-ti-air kill in Gulf War 1.
Sad story tbh.
prosperous countries who don't have nukes and don't invade other countries aren't targets.
by us invading other countries and having nukes ...we are a target.
wheres the sense in that?
being a world military power ...doesn't seem to be benefitting us at all.
Yes...I said that.
Where did I say there was sense in it? All I said is that we need nukes becuase we invade other countries and get involved, we have always done that and we always will. Therefore we need them, i'm not condoning it, but we need them.