US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484237.stm

In this context it would be interesting to recall discussion in British parliament 2 years ago.

http://www.publications.parliament....vo030318/debtext/30318-12.htm#30318-12_spnew2

Mr. Kennedy:

In relation to consistency, however, let us remind ourselves about the position of the Conservative party, for instance, on weapons of mass destruction. After Saddam Hussein used such weapons in 1988, the Conservative Government continued to sell arms to Iraq. They provided him with anthrax and other chemical weapons, and they approved the construction of dual-use factories in Iraq.
 
#2
And your point is what exactly? Besides you should look a little closer to home if you want inconsistency and conspiracies to brighten up your life. Fcuking commies were masters of subterfuge, conspiracy and deceiving the people.

You’re really starting to be an annoying little sh1t stirring scrote.
 
#3
Ord_Sgt said:
And your point is what exactly? Besides you should look a little closer to home if you want inconsistency and conspiracies to brighten up your life. Fcuking commies were masters of subterfuge, conspiracy and deceiving the people.

You’re really starting to be an annoying little sh1t stirring scrote.
Dear Sergeant!

Thank you for your kind and polite replay.

As to my point then I would like to attract your attention to words of highly esteemed mr.Kennedy. They are clear enough and I rather agree with his vision of morality of Conservative party. Probably you disgree. It is your right, it is a freedom of opinions, freedom of speach.

Btw, my post is within boundaries of freedom of speech. So it would be more natural for you to say something like this: 'I absolutely disagree with you but respect your right to express you point of view'.

I hope that we have common understanding there.

Regards!
 
#4
Sergey, i think the point is that the tory govt supplied him with some WMD's because he was the lesser of two evils (iraq and iran) and was a better option than letting the raving mullahs next door take over one of the most oil rich countries in the region.

On top of that, we were not the only ones who were arming him, and were actually one of the first to stop arming him. Names that spring to mind are USA, UK, France, USSR (then russia upto and after GW1), china, North Korea etc etc.

Lets just agree that it was a completely stupid decision (in the long term at least) and learn from it.

A_S
 
#7
Hackle, it's early, and i cant tell if your taking the urine or asking serious question :?

please let me finish my brew before asking any probing questions :D
 
#8
I'm sure people can counterpoint some of Sergeys comments without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I believe Sergeys approach in some cases , is deliberately designed to provoke a bite, to get a discussion started on a topic.

I can see he is rather a good 'Fisherman' .
 
#9
PartTimePongo said:
I'm sure people can counterpoint some of Sergeys comments without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I believe Sergeys approach in some cases , is deliberately designed to provoke a bite, to get a discussion started on a topic.

I can see he is rather a good 'Fisherman' .
Thank you, PTP. Hence the reason I never reply to the knob.
 
#10
Agent_Smith said:
Hackle, it's early, and i cant tell if your taking the urine or asking serious question :?

please let me finish my brew before asking any probing questions :D
No irony intended A_S! Just that I couldn't remember any allegations about the British Government supplying weapons of mass destruction to Saddam.

Aware of the Matrix Churchill case. BTW, Iraq's battlefield weapons were mainly of Soviet/Warsaw Pact and Chinese manufacture.

rgds
 
#11
Agent_Smith said:
Sergey, i think the point is that the tory govt supplied him with some WMD's because he was the lesser of two evils (iraq and iran) and was a better option than letting the raving mullahs next door take over one of the most oil rich countries in the region.

On top of that, we were not the only ones who were arming him, and were actually one of the first to stop arming him. Names that spring to mind are USA, UK, France, USSR (then russia upto and after GW1), china, North Korea etc etc.

Lets just agree that it was a completely stupid decision (in the long term at least) and learn from it.

A_S
Very reasonable remark. Agreed.
 
#12
PartTimePongo said:
I'm sure people can counterpoint some of Sergeys comments without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I believe Sergeys approach in some cases , is deliberately designed to provoke a bite, to get a discussion started on a topic.

I can see he is rather a good 'Fisherman' .
Yes, some angles were sharpened deliberately. If circumstances are fishy then namely fisherman (not a hunter) is required.
 

Latest Threads

Top