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
Where are all the WMDs then?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
News out that not a single gram of chemical or biological agent, not the smallest trace of banned weapons, have been found in 10 sites searched by Special Operation Allied troops. The 10 sites were high on the list of suspect sites and the Pentagon was very confident of finding weapons or evidence of them at some of the sites at least.
Story.
The news couldn't come at a worse time for Tony Blair, as he's starting a tour of the Middle East to convince Arab nations he and Master Bush were right to invade Iraq. It is also confirmation- if anyone needed any- that the Allies were being, er economical with the truth when they reported finding a "massive chemical weapons factory" a week ago.
So... what if no weapons are found?
What if the main argument used by the US and Britain to illegally invade Iraq proves to be a lot of hot air? Can we expect the UN to impose sanctions? Will the two great leaders apologise to the world- with the humblest of all apologies going to France and of course the people of Iraq?
Or will they lie like they have lied about a good number of things during the last 12 days alone and maintain there were weapons? Can anyone really say "I don't believe the US would ever think of planting biological spores or a few litres of VX gas on Iraq"?
There is still a good chance that weapons will be found. Even that Saddam will have them primed for use. But the sad fact is if no weapons are found it won't really matter to the US. Once the invasion is over they will have achieved their objective and won't care, knowing that there is little anyone can- or is willing to- do about it.
Story.
The news couldn't come at a worse time for Tony Blair, as he's starting a tour of the Middle East to convince Arab nations he and Master Bush were right to invade Iraq. It is also confirmation- if anyone needed any- that the Allies were being, er economical with the truth when they reported finding a "massive chemical weapons factory" a week ago.
So... what if no weapons are found?
What if the main argument used by the US and Britain to illegally invade Iraq proves to be a lot of hot air? Can we expect the UN to impose sanctions? Will the two great leaders apologise to the world- with the humblest of all apologies going to France and of course the people of Iraq?
Or will they lie like they have lied about a good number of things during the last 12 days alone and maintain there were weapons? Can anyone really say "I don't believe the US would ever think of planting biological spores or a few litres of VX gas on Iraq"?
There is still a good chance that weapons will be found. Even that Saddam will have them primed for use. But the sad fact is if no weapons are found it won't really matter to the US. Once the invasion is over they will have achieved their objective and won't care, knowing that there is little anyone can- or is willing to- do about it.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
when they don't find any that belong to saddam, i wouldn't be suprise if they do plant a bit of this here, and some of that there, just to "prove" to the world that america was right.
but if for some reason, they don't plant any bio or chem weapons, do you really think that the only superpower on earth would allow a group of seemingly inferior nations impose any sanctions?
america would probably just drop out of the UN and declare that they are to be undisputed.
Notwithstanding that. we only have so many soldiers and we cant fight hit and run retals ad infinitum.
All told, the sooner my countrymen wake up and not only throw Bush out but have him and his cronies investigated thoroughly for their long running corruption the sooner America can return to behaving like a worthwhile global neighbour instead of a neo-imperialist brute.
I don't know that I believe in the war....but I believe Saddam has all of that stuff. He built a huge warehouse and put a lake over it. They had it in time lapsed satellite shots.
Meantime: oil derricks spewing blood...that's what the peace protesters put within sight of Bush today. And I was only about 2 hours from where he spoke. That would have been a good school trip...I mean to see the oil derricks spewing blood...not Bush's speech.
this has been made public and still the american people "believe" their government to be honest!
As i said elsewhere, No regime in the world has as effective a spin machine as Washington. Its so good people are convinced that they have a true image of whats going on sitting in their LayZboy recliner in some cookie cutter suburb in Indiana. Heck, I was as convinced as pnj that all news was objective and accurate when i was pnj's age, but get away from it for long enough and you are able to see things we are doing in the world that most folks undoubtedly never get to hear about unless they bother to search the internet.
Dirty tricks perpetuated by US government agencies since WW2... sub-question... is it in in fact unfair to criticise a formerly great nation for trampling on it's much touted reputation for integrity for monetary gain, is it better to sell out or fade away?
To put it more bluntly, who thinks bio/chemical agents will have to provided, regardless of the ethics, if that's what it takes to save the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam?
If real bio/chems were found in possession of Iraq the US and the UK would see their case vindicated. But unless it was proven that the banned agents were weapon-graded and primed for use against a foreign nation I would still see this war as illegal. The inspections were far from over and the diplomatic options far from extinguished.
"We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that," he said.
So they could be anywhere apart from the places they were expected to be....:crazyeyes
"... all the places where our troops currently are operating, we just haven't had time to break off and unpack our supply from the convoys so we can stage our breathtaking "find" ".
And you will never get agreement on whether the inspectors were far from over. Clearly, as the Blix document stated, even at the late stage and with all the pressure being applied by the US Saddam wasn't co-operating fully. I don't know what it would have taken for Blix to declare that he could do no more...
But they need to find the WMDs to try to amend the catastrophic diplomatic shambles they got themselves into.
You seriously saying that if they did not find any WMD which is clear evidence that our leaders claims of vast stockpiles was bollocks then everything would be OK because our leaders didn't believe Saddam?
As has been mentioned before it is a logical flaw to ask them to prove they don't have soemthing, it is bonkers.........
or are you arguing form a purely legal point of view, i am sure you realise this is not necessarily a sufficient case.........
late stage? 2 months?
It's a legal perspective. That is all that is required. Politics is subjective - had we got a Liberal Govt then support for the war would have differed. Had we tried this in 1998, support would have differed - oh hang on, we did and it was.
Perhaps it's also worth considering who originally developed the US Govt's position on regime change in Iraq. Just to start us off, I'll point out that it wasn't GWB.
Morally the removal of a dictator is a pretty good cause.
Late stage: Since 1991.
Dunno about you, but my calender has 12 months in each year
Or is the opinion of a few good enough?
a)we are told that the only reason the diplomatic process is worth trying is if we put concerted pressure on Saddam, keep an army ready to strike etc..
b) we are told we have been waiting for 12 years, was the above situation what was happening for all those 12 years?
i see a flaw in your argument........:p
Aladdin: The WMD might be in Syria for safe keeping
Clandestine: Diplomacy is the way....but the UN doesn't work.
- They still have them, and are hiding them.
- They don't have them, because they destroyed them
- They don't have them, because they sold them
- They don't have them, because they used them
If 1, then we would be justified attacking them, end of story. If 2, why didn't they just say so, and if they don't have any paper evidence, why don't they at least give us interviews with those involved in their destruction immediatly. If 3 or 4, then isn't that even more scary?5. They destroyed most of it (it's believed up to 90% of its former stock was destroyed by 1998) but decided to keep the last few reserves as a last line of defence should the US decided to invade Iraq. Which is well what might have happened.
We will threaten to invade you if you don't hand over all your weapons.......
On the other hand we are also going to invade you becasue you opress your people....
So Iraqis aren't allowed weapons but are threatended by invasion anyway so why would they give up the weapons which then give the coalition the pretext to invade.....
Bonkers.........
(You could skip to here)
indicating the presence of chemical or biological weapons was found, according to Sadler.
I knew you were going to say that. I think Saddam was allowing them to operate up there. He had his people in the cities in Northern Iraq. You know that. We're fight him for some city that is the center for oil now.
Supposedly the thinking is that if Saddam had WMD he would use them agressively.
Now we are invading him he has not even used them defensively.
The main reason for this war is bollocks, I hope people remembee that when it comes to the next general election.............
postponed ...indefinately. and still pnj's flag will be fluttering cos he'll understand why his great leaders have had to make such a sacrifice.