Wht the U.S.A. went into Iraq.

#1
8) Saw a interview with Hans Blik the who was the U.N. nuclear chief inspector. He made a firm comment that the reason for the Iraq invasion was 1 That the U.S. needed to move its forces out of Saudi a Religious country with the problems that the presence of their forces caused and violence that was increasing in Saudi because of the religious problems in the number one Muslim holy land.2 So they decided to take over Iraq a Secular country, and turn it into a democracy that would start democracy in the middle east. The rest is history, he stated that the U.S. were fully in the picture that there were no W.M.D.s in Iraq, seems Colin Powell was a fall guy his big show in the U.N.must have been his present downfall. So now i can see why all this happened, did say much abut oil .Anyone got some serious comments of the subject, it has killed British Armed Forces by being there and was sanctioned by T bloody big Liar Blair,and his gang of weasels. :x
 
#2
what no wmd's? well this is the first i've heard of it
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#3
node said:
8) Saw a interview with Hans Blik the who was the U.N. nuclear chief inspector. He made a firm comment that the reason for the Iraq invasion was 1 That the U.S. needed to move its forces out of Saudi a Religious country with the problems that the presence of their forces caused and violence that was increasing in Saudi because of the religious problems in the number one Muslim holy land.2 So they decided to take over Iraq a Secular country, and turn it into a democracy that would start democracy in the middle east. The rest is history, he stated that the U.S. were fully in the picture that there were no W.M.D.s in Iraq, seems Colin Powell was a fall guy his big show in the U.N.must have been his present downfall. So now i can see why all this happened, did say much abut oil .Anyone got some serious comments of the subject, it has killed British Armed Forces by being there and was sanctioned by T bloody big Liar Blair,and his gang of weasels. :x
How many years has it taken for you to work this out?
 
#5
node said:
8) Saw a interview with Hans Blik the who was the U.N. nuclear chief inspector. He made a firm comment that the reason for the Iraq invasion was 1 That the U.S. needed to move its forces out of Saudi a Religious country with the problems that the presence of their forces caused and violence that was increasing in Saudi because of the religious problems in the number one Muslim holy land.2 So they decided to take over Iraq a Secular country, and turn it into a democracy that would start democracy in the middle east. The rest is history, he stated that the U.S. were fully in the picture that there were no W.M.D.s in Iraq, seems Colin Powell was a fall guy his big show in the U.N.must have been his present downfall. So now i can see why all this happened, did say much abut oil .Anyone got some serious comments of the subject, it has killed British Armed Forces by being there and was sanctioned by T bloody big Liar Blair,and his gang of weasels. :x
This of course is the same man who stood up in the UN and said his team needed much more time to confirm there were no WMDs in Iraq, he was either lying then or lying now. Does no one take into account the man is pissed off because GWB lost him his job, a nice cushy UN job with loads of cash, loads of expenses, and a solid gold pension.
 
#6
Would you like to link to evidence of him saying any of that? He was interviewed by David Frost, the video is available here, and said something rather different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

He said that the reason he believed that both the US and UK went to war was because their leaders honestly believed that there were WMD's. He thinks they got it wrong because they relied too much on intelligence from Iraqi dissidents, but he also accepts that they had few good intelligence sources.

He also says that he did not know whether there were any WMD's, his report never stated that there were none, only that he ha found no evidence of any in the short time which his inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. You should note that he was in charge earlier when the Iraqi's managed to hide their nuclear programme from him, so he isn't stupid enough to imagine a lack of evidence meant the absence of weapons.

I have seen what Blix said twisted frequently on websites, but the video does not lie.
 
#7
I can't believe that Powell didn't know that there were no wmd in Iraq, and that he sincerely believed the high-school speech that he did at the UN, complete with cardboard pictures and test-tube samples.
 
#8
mr.fawlty said:
I can't believe that Powell didn't know that there were no wmd in Iraq, and that he sincerely believed the high-school speech that he did at the UN, complete with cardboard pictures and test-tube samples.
To be honest, I don’t think there was ever any debate on WMD in general, as we have evidence of the use of WMD by the baathist regime, both against the kurds and the Iranians and 1980's war stocks of nerve agent in localities around Iraq.

So WMD in Iraq? they were there!! (remember WMD covers more catagories than just nukes)

The debate that has been lost through time was not the veracity of WMD in Iraq, but the existence of specific nature’s i.e. long range deployable within 45 mins, current generation and development of WMD etc.

As was mentioned above by another poster, Hans Blix has stated that the sources were Iraqi Dissident's and that very few in hindsight were good.

(I’m now playing devils advocate) Is it possible that the claims were sexed up at source? i.e. for the dissidents own ends (overthrow of saddam 3rd time lucky etc)


Not that i am a Bliar supporter, but i do think the WMD debate has somewhat lost direction since Dr David Kelly took his last walk in the countryside.
 
#9
drain_sniffer said:
Oh No, Hans Brixs
All together now:

Ronrey, ever so ronrey..
 
#10
GwaiLo said:
Would you like to link to evidence of him saying any of that? He was interviewed by David Frost, the video is available here, and said something rather different. :lol: :lol: YES IT WAS SHOWN ON DATELINE AN AUSTRALIAN TV PROGRAM ON SBS channel on WENS 7/11/07 at 830 pm eastern time OK? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

He said that the reason he believed that both the US and UK went to war was because their leaders honestly believed that there were WMD's. He thinks they got it wrong because they relied too much on intelligence from Iraqi dissidents, but he also accepts that they had few good intelligence sources.

He also says that he did not know whether there were any WMD's, his report never stated that there were none, only that he ha found no evidence of any in the short time which his inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. You should note that he was in charge earlier when the Iraqi's managed to hide their nuclear programme from him, so he isn't stupid enough to imagine a lack of evidence meant the absence of weapons.

I have seen what Blix said twisted frequently on websites, but the video does not lie.
 
#11
Of course the Iraqis had WMDs. For a start they had used them on the Kurds in their owns country. Why would we assume that they would reduce their capability at any point?

It is also a fact that we were given a full course of anthrax inoculations amongst others, at no small expense, and spent a inordinate amount of time on the run up doing what was then called NBC training in full IPE with soldiers dropping like flies with heat injuries. Wrong time to degrade the capability of your deployed forces, unless you think it will have real returns when the combat starts and you really do think the other side will start throwing buckets of sunshine and other chemical and biological nasties your way.

Far too easy for people who spent the whole time safe in their armchairs to say "There were no WMDs so you have no right to be there".
 
#12
We obviously knew that they had them in their possession at one point... after all, lets remember who gave them said weapons in the first place...
 
#13
Funny, I also remember in the early '90s, Hans Blix complaining of Iraqi dishonesty and intransigence while he attempted to accomplish his mission. The Iraqis were in violation of the cease-fire provisions practically before the ink was dry on the agreement.

Frankly, we should have spanked Saddam's arsse again in 1993.
 
#14
GwaiLo said:
Would you like to link to evidence of him saying any of that? He was interviewed by David Frost, the video is available here, and said something rather different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

He said that the reason he believed that both the US and UK went to war was because their leaders honestly believed that there were WMD's. He thinks they got it wrong because they relied too much on intelligence from Iraqi dissidents, but he also accepts that they had few good intelligence sources.

He also says that he did not know whether there were any WMD's, his report never stated that there were none, only that he ha found no evidence of any in the short time which his inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. You should note that he was in charge earlier when the Iraqi's managed to hide their nuclear programme from him, so he isn't stupid enough to imagine a lack of evidence meant the absence of weapons.

I have seen what Blix said twisted frequently on websites, but the video does not lie.
I was basing my comments on the reports of his presentations to the UN rather than his post invasion speaches and interviews when the tone of his comments certainly changed as he moved from centre stage to the sidelines. He certainly seemed quite happy to keep plugging the WMD line when it kept him in a well paid UN job.

Personally I have a real suspicion that Saddam conned every one. Yes he did get rid of the bulk of his stuff in way or another, but it helped his local prestige if it appeared that he hadn't, so he kept up the act until it was too late. Like so many dictators before him he thought he could always control events and despite the evidence of GW1 still believed that until the rope tightened around his neck
 
#16
hans brix? didnt he die in team america? your breakin my bawls hans brix,

but to be honest no WMD's no shit?

the only WMD was sadam and was he really worse than any other despot in the world? we're too far down the road now and have seen too many repatraition ceremonies to care about the U ARSSE OF A's motivations, we the UK military have to finish the job we started, (even though all those in power at the time have had the freedom to step aside )
 
#17
Hairy-Sporran said:
hans brix? didnt he die in team america? your breakin my bawls hans brix,

but to be honest no WMD's no s***?

the only WMD was sadam and was he really worse than any other despot in the world? we're too far down the road now and have seen too many repatraition ceremonies to care about the U ARSSE OF A's motivations, we the UK military have to finish the job we started, (even though all those in power at the time have had the freedom to step aside )
As said previously there was no evidence of the specific natures stated in the case for war, that is however a far cry from saying that there is no WMD. In fact there is compelling evidence to suggest very strongly that there are and have been chemical weapons in Iraq (which I again state are also weapons of mass destruction).

Point of reference Kurdish villagers wiped out by nerve agent.
Point of reference Iran / Iraq Nerve agent attack on the Iranians

I also read one other poster stating knowingly "that he knows where the Baathists got them", well I tend not to believe what I see in the papers, but what I see with my eyes, and that very much contradicts the media and anti war claims.

I don’t know much about arms deals and the mechanics therefore can only say that Katusha is not a weapon I trained on in the British Army.
 
#18
Here is what can be stated as indisputable fact:

---Saddam did have chem weapons, and there is a large amount of evidence in the public domain of his use of those weapons against foreign and domestic enemies.

---Under the terms of the Cease Fire, Saddam agreed to destroy his WMD stockpiles, and agreed to international inspection teams to verify destruction of said stockpiles.

---Saddam failed to provide adequate, complete, and verifiable documentation of destruction of his WMD per the terms of the ceasefire.

---Hans Brix, along with other members of the UN verification team, were on TV constantly in the '90s complaining to the UN, Congress, and anyone who would listen about the Iraqis playing shell games with them, preventing access to facilities for inspection, moving items out of facilities to be inspected out the back gate while the team was held up at the front, and various other games that should have gotten Saddam a JDAM up his sternpipe.

---Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and a veritable throng of Democratic lawmakers on this side of the pond (and I would presume a goodly number of MPs on your side) all agreed that Saddam was still in the WMD business, based on the intelligence they were gathering over the decade of the '90s.

---Both the Clinton and Blair governments felt that this evidence was compelling enough to undertake military campaigns to force Saddam to play ball under the terms of the cease fire agreement.

---The bombing campaigns undertaken by Clinton and Blair failed to force Saddam to comply by the terms of the cease fire agreement.

Okay class, so what do you do with a power which continually violates the terms of a ceasefire agreement which it signed, when your limited bombing campaigns fail to induce cooperation?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
L Army Reserve 7
P The Training Wing 46
mac912 The Training Wing 1

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top