PDA

View Full Version : WWIII Prediction



Nonnie
09-03-2015, 02:51 PM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?

Perianne
09-03-2015, 02:57 PM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?

Not only will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics, so will British and American liberals.

jimnyc
09-03-2015, 03:30 PM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?

If it ever happens, it would be against radical islam / terrorism / ISIS. I wouldn't blame Bush or Blair, I would blame the radicals/terrorists/ISIS.

I honestly don't think Russian would publicly do so. Maybe some feeding of weapons here and there though. By the time something like this would ever happen, I would like to think that by then Russia would see that they eventually want them dead too, unless they convert to Islam, as I believe less than 10% of their population is Muslim.

Nonnie
09-03-2015, 04:06 PM
War on Terrorism
Further information: List of wars and battles involving ISIL

Some claim that the “War on Terrorism” is World War III, with the September 11 attacks having been the 'Pearl Harbor' that dragged the United States into a terrorism fight. The World War 3 remains in the realm of fiction for most of the civilian populations of the world.

On 1 February 2015, Iraq's Prime Minister declared that the War on ISIL was effectively "World War III", due to ISIL's declaration of a Worldwide Caliphate, its aims to conquer the world, and its success in spreading the conflict to multiple countries outside of the Levant region. Speaking of ISIL's destruction of pre-Islamic sites in the region, Syria's head of antiquities, Maamoun Abdul Karim, stated that "this is the entire world's battle."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III

Abbey
09-03-2015, 05:05 PM
Some might say we are experiencing the beginnings of our own WWIII here in America. Racial tensions are growing very quickly.

As for the West v the Middle East, Jim said it right: I place the blame squarely on Islamist terrorists. And I'd add blame for the silence of the rest of the "peaceful" Muslims.

gabosaurus
09-03-2015, 06:02 PM
And I'd add blame for the silence of the rest of the "peaceful" Muslims.

"The peaceful Muslims have spoons and forks. The radical Muslims have guns and bombs. Who wins that argument?"

"The Western powers believe peaceful Muslims should dictate to the radicals. Yet the West continues to aid the radicals with purchases of oil and the export of technology. Who is more at fault?"

Christie Brinkley
09-03-2015, 06:20 PM
There are so many flash points which could start it...

Christie Brinkley
09-03-2015, 06:22 PM
Not only will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics, so will British and American liberals.
The Russians are fighting alongside Assad in Syria to help defend the Syrian government against islamic fanatics that the west and other middle eastern countries funded and called 'rebels' when in reality they were muslims radicals a lot who are from Saudi Arabia.

Abbey
09-03-2015, 06:28 PM
"The peaceful Muslims have spoons and forks. The radical Muslims have guns and bombs. Who wins that argument?"

"The Western powers believe peaceful Muslims should dictate to the radicals. Yet the West continues to aid the radicals with purchases of oil and the export of technology. Who is more at fault?"


The US and other countries have shown ourselves to be willing to help them. But they need to speak up.

Christie Brinkley
09-03-2015, 06:31 PM
The US and other countries have shown ourselves to be willing to help them. But they need to speak up.
When the US armed the 'rebels' who were basically different groups of radical jihadis most have now defected to ISIS. America is among the countries who fueled the fires and we are looking at the results.

Black Diamond
09-03-2015, 06:32 PM
The Russians are fighting alongside Assad in Syria to help defend the Syrian government against islamic fanatics that the west and other middle eastern countries funded and called 'rebels' when in reality they were muslims radicals a lot who are from Saudi Arabia.

No. They are fighting alongside Assad to maintain their hegemony over the European natural gas market.

Abbey
09-03-2015, 06:35 PM
Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?

jimnyc
09-03-2015, 06:37 PM
I'm a radical now. Everyone has screwed up fighting ISIS and allowed them to grow too large now. I would nuke the fuckers. Yep, I already know the consequences, and I would still go forward with that plan. Right now all anyone is doing is picking off a few here and there, while they are growing daily, and killing more and more. Ok, and if not nuking, create more and annihilate them with MOAB's and other massive bombs. Destroy tons of them at a time, and scare the shit out of the others.

Black Diamond
09-03-2015, 06:37 PM
Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?

Well if Obama *armed* those terrorists....

Christie Brinkley
09-03-2015, 06:38 PM
Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?
When you stand close to a bees nest you might get stung but if you shake the bees nest you will be stung 100 times. Radical islam was already eating up the region but countries are using it to take down their enemies by inflaming tensions/providing weapons and support. When America is guilty it is guilty. Saudi Arabia funded the terrorists as well, so did Turkey to fight the kurds.

Black Diamond
09-03-2015, 06:39 PM
I'm a radical now. Everyone has screwed up fighting ISIS and allowed them to grow too large now. I would nuke the fuckers. Yep, I already know the consequences, and I would still go forward with that plan. Right now all anyone is doing is picking off a few here and there, while they are growing daily, and killing more and more. Ok, and if not nuking, create more and annihilate them with MOAB's and other massive bombs. Destroy tons of them at a time, and scare the shit out of the others.

Many of them are concentrated in one area of Iraq, yes?

Christie Brinkley
09-03-2015, 06:40 PM
No. They are fighting alongside Assad to maintain their hegemony over the European natural gas market.
In economic terms yes. They are also doing it for security as the south of Russia is often hit by terrorist attacks and Assad seems the only force truly committed to fighting ISIS. Russia also wants ISIS gone because the west does not want them gone.

jimnyc
09-03-2015, 06:43 PM
Many of them are concentrated in one area of Iraq, yes?

Yep. And some in Syria. They need to lure them into Iraq with some pork and then *BOOM*

Black Diamond
09-03-2015, 06:51 PM
Well if Obama *armed* those terrorists....

I saw on the news today that ISIS has several billion dollars worth of American equipment in their possession. Weapons, hum v's, etc.

Christie Brinkley
09-03-2015, 06:58 PM
I saw on the news today that ISIS has several billion dollars worth of American equipment in their possession. Weapons, hum v's, etc.
Warehouses in Iraq packed to the brim with American vehicles and weapons that ISIS managed to take in a matter of days.

Black Diamond
09-03-2015, 07:07 PM
Warehouses in Iraq packed to the brim with American vehicles and weapons that ISIS managed to take in a matter of days.

I firmly believe that Obama's hasty withdrawal from Iraq will not go unpunished.

Perianne
09-03-2015, 07:56 PM
Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?

....



http://notquiteahandful.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pulling-hair-out-women-large.jpg

Abbey
09-03-2015, 09:14 PM
....



http://notquiteahandful.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pulling-hair-out-women-large.jpg

Yes?

NightTrain
09-03-2015, 10:40 PM
The USA is not responsible for radical islam nor terrorism.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't see every single nation around the globe being attacked by muslim terrorists.

Every free society - and even those not free - are targeted because they're not muslims. Women and children of every other religion and nationality butchered deliberately and indiscriminately as the animals scream 'Allah Ackbar'.

There are bloody wars looming on the horizon for everyone the world over. The flood of immigrants to Europe is going to be the biggest mistake made since Chamberlain appeased Hitler and I'm certain that within a decade there will be European cities reduced to war zones as the flood of muslims establishes their Sharia and begin beheading civilians with gusto.

It's not an anomaly that every middle eastern islamic country is in chaos or barely maintaining order. They stand for utter and complete annihilation of any group of people not subscribing to their particular view of islam - even other muslims. More muslims are killed by other muslims than anyone else, by a long shot, and the muzzies on the losing side of the slaughter are fleeing by the millions.

When they become established in their new host countries, they're going to look around and set up another Muslim Utopia like the one they escaped from.

Only this time, there's lots of very tolerant and unarmed infidels all around. It will be gruesome, because now they're in the vulnerable underbelly of Western cities and the house-by-house fighting that will take place to correct the situation will be horrific. Whole cities will be warzones.

You can't reason with islam, you can only fight it or join it. There's no middle ground.

Britain is fortunate in that it's an island, and we are in better shape due to oceans separating us... but it's going to have to be fought. The muslims won't have it any other way.

gabosaurus
09-03-2015, 11:55 PM
Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?

The US carries a major part of the blame for the rise of terrorism.
Our invasion of Iraq and failure to stabilize the region created a vacuum in the power structure. Which lead to rise in conflicting sources of terrorism.
The Bush administration KNEW who was funding terrorism and who openly condoned the 9-11 attacks. It was Saudi Arabia. Yet they openly absolved the Saudis of blame and used Iraq as the scapegoat. It's like knowing that your big brother stole your money, but you beat up your little brother instead.


I would nuke the fuckers. Yep, I already know the consequences, and I would still go forward with that plan

I totally agree with you. Let's nuke the Middle East and destroy everyone there. Including Israel. Would solve the entire problem, would it not?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-04-2015, 12:34 AM
Warehouses in Iraq packed to the brim with American vehicles and weapons that ISIS managed to take in a matter of days.
Deliberately left for them to get--thank obama, it was no accident.
He puts up a front while supposedly fighting ISIS-- while he actually helps them every way he can..
Our military could have demolished them long ago if allowed to do so!
Bambastard would not allow it--we should be asking why and impeaching him too.-Tyr

Abbey
09-04-2015, 01:20 AM
The US carries a major part of the blame for the rise of terrorism.
Our invasion of Iraq and failure to stabilize the region created a vacuum in the power structure. Which lead to rise in conflicting sources of terrorism.
The Bush administration KNEW who was funding terrorism and who openly condoned the 9-11 attacks. It was Saudi Arabia. Yet they openly absolved the Saudis of blame and used Iraq as the scapegoat. It's like knowing that your big brother stole your money, but you beat up your little brother instead.


I totally agree with you. Let's nuke the Middle East and destroy everyone there. Including Israel. Would solve the entire problem, would it not?

I know it is quite fashionable among the left to try to blame the USA for all the ills of the world, including terrorism. But to do that, you have to ignore the fact that there were many terrorist attacks long before we invaded Iraq. Including especially 9-11. Beirut, etc. In fact, if you were going to cite a US policy that gave us these particular enemies, it is our alliance with Israel, not the invasion of Iraq.

As far as Iraq goes, it is ironically Obama's cut and run policy that created the significant vacuum there.

I think this desire to blame our country for the evil perpetrated by others, is a sad state of affairs.

Abbey
09-04-2015, 01:25 AM
Re: the OP question, I always have this feeling that North Korea will be behind the ignition of another major world war.

Perianne
09-04-2015, 04:05 AM
Perhaps WWIII will be the final war and mankind will eradicate himself.

fj1200
09-04-2015, 10:11 PM
If it ever happens, it would be against radical islam / terrorism / ISIS. I wouldn't blame Bush or Blair, I would blame the radicals/terrorists/ISIS.

Nah, world wars do not last three weeks. Besides, what would we be fighting over?

Gunny
09-05-2015, 12:44 AM
Nah, world wars do not last three weeks. Besides, what would we be fighting over?

Survival.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 02:12 AM
Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?

In my opinion, Bush and Blair are to blame, they lied in order to invade Iraq. I suppose if the US and the UK had been invaded and pounded with bombs, we too would be a tad unhappy, but it's no excuse for the terrorist nut jobs.

Blanket bombing the Middle East wouldn't be 100% effective because they're probably many thousands of these nut cases throughout the planet.

Black Diamond
09-05-2015, 03:35 AM
In my opinion, Bush and Blair are to blame, they lied in order to invade Iraq. I suppose if the US and the UK had been invaded and pounded with bombs, we too would be a tad unhappy, but it's no excuse for the terrorist nut jobs.

Blanket bombing the Middle East wouldn't be 100% effective because they're probably many thousands of these nut cases throughout the planet.
Do you have proof Bush and Blair lied?

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 04:16 AM
Do you have proof Bush and Blair lied?

Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.

The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.

On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.

In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.

Noir
09-05-2015, 07:00 AM
Quite a lot of questions raised there, for example -


In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law.

If you believe they committed war crimes, why do you want them tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law, rather than at the Hague, under international law?

Gunny
09-05-2015, 07:35 AM
Quite a lot of questions raised there, for example -



If you believe they committed war crimes, why do you want them tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law, rather than at the Hague, under international law?

I think we should try them in Texas under Texas law.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 08:49 AM
Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.

The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.

On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.

In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.

First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.

Hello to a fellow Brit, Nonnie, and I hope you're enjoying your time here - and that the folks are treating you well !

- So. On the Chilcot Inquiry, tell me, Nonnie - aren't we still waiting for its findings to be published ? In fact, its failure to publish after such a delay has been a recent news item in the British press ! Chilcot's answer was that he was still waiting for the final submissions before he could publish, and we still don't have a date for that. You refer to 'secret' testimony. Yet, no findings from the Inquiry are in the public domain.

I believe Bush and Blair acted in good faith, dealing with a threat they genuinely believed existed. After all, a part of the problem with Saddam was that he had terrorist friends, and wasn't above reaching accommodations with them (consider his sheltering of Zarqawi, or his bankrolling of Hamas). Also consider that, as Saddam refused to give any data on his claim of not having WMD's (and he DID have some, as Santorum revealed, back in 2006) .. the Iraq invasion became ultimately necessary.

Nonnie, the case you're trying to make is more typical of one which our own Left would happily make (and have).

The US does NOT fund terrorism, or terrorist groups, it holds no responsibility at all for the current terrorist levels we see in the world. The nearest it ever came to being a 'terrorist sponsor' was in supporting the Mujahiddeen, this BEFORE Al Qaeda was ever created. Since the Mujahiddeen was a freedom-fighting group, one fighting a Soviet takeover of Afghanistan, it couldn't be categorised 'terrorist'.

There is one way which, in future, it may be possible to accuse America of funding terrorism. I refer, of course, to the shabby deal Obama has managed with Iran, and most particularly America's lifting of sanctions. Doing that will allow Iran to do a lot more to sponsor terrorism, and it's already well known for its activities in that regard !! Obama, in fiscally aiding Iran, therefore holds indirect responsibility for Iran's future aiding of terrorism.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 08:59 AM
Quite a lot of questions raised there, for example -



If you believe they committed war crimes, why do you want them tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law, rather than at the Hague, under international law?

Under the EU, they would probably receive a years sentence, out after 6 months for good behaviour. With Iraq, the punishment would be more meaningful and fit for purpose.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 09:10 AM
First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.

Hello to a fellow Brit, Nonnie, and I hope you're enjoying your time here - and that the folks are treating you well !

- So. On the Chilcot Inquiry, tell me, Nonnie - aren't we still waiting for its findings to be published ? In fact, its failure to publish after such a delay has been a recent news item in the British press ! Chilcot's answer was that he was still waiting for the final submissions before he could publish, and we still don't have a date for that. You refer to 'secret' testimony. Yet, no findings from the Inquiry are in the public domain.

I believe Bush and Blair acted in good faith, dealing with a threat they genuinely believed existed. After all, a part of the problem with Saddam was that he had terrorist friends, and wasn't above reaching accommodations with them (consider his sheltering of Zarqawi, or his bankrolling of Hamas). Also consider that, as Saddam refused to give any data on his claim of not having WMD's (and he DID have some, as Santorum revealed, back in 2006) .. the Iraq invasion became ultimately necessary.

Nonnie, the case you're trying to make is more typical of one which our own Left would happily make (and have).

The US does NOT fund terrorism, or terrorist groups, it holds no responsibility at all for the current terrorist levels we see in the world. The nearest it ever came to being a 'terrorist sponsor' was in supporting the Mujahiddeen, this BEFORE Al Qaeda was ever created. Since the Mujahiddeen was a freedom-fighting group, one fighting a Soviet takeover of Afghanistan, it couldn't be categorised 'terrorist'.

There is one way which, in future, it may be possible to accuse America of funding terrorism. I refer, of course, to the shabby deal Obama has managed with Iran, and most particularly America's lifting of sanctions. Doing that will allow Iran to do a lot more to sponsor terrorism, and it's already well known for its activities in that regard !! Obama, in fiscally aiding Iran, therefore holds indirect responsibility for Iran's future aiding of terrorism.

Hi Drummond, good to see/hear from you. The guys here are chalk and cheese to DF, so it's a pleasant forum to be on.

My knowledge is just what's gleamed from the Independent and Guardian.

Also, I can't stand Blair, he's a slime ball so I have my fingers crossed it turns out that the allegations of being a war monger in the press comes to fruition.

But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 09:14 AM
Under the EU, they would probably receive a years sentence, out after 6 months for good behaviour. With Iraq, the punishment would be more meaningful and fit for purpose.

Bush and Blair were both fighting a War on Terror, and on those grounds alone, Saddam was a legitimate target. On the issue of WMD's, not just Britain and America were convinced he had some, but so was the wider world .. including the UN, by the way.

Saddam may have agreed to inspections (but only then after much mucking-around, and a toughly-worded Resolution, the basis for which determined their Inspection Team's remit to act) ... but those inspections were very limited in what they could achieve. Even Blix admitted that all his people could do was verify that WMD's had been destroyed at sites they were taken to. The QUANTITY destroyed couldn't be verified, nor could the starting-point of the numbers NEEDING to be confirmed as destroyed.

So, no. The Iraq invasion was the only logical and reasonable course of action.

You don't call Churchill a 'war criminal' for fighting Nazis. Nor should you call leaders fighting a War on Terror 'war criminals'. Both commitments, and the actions taken in their name, were equally meritorious.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 09:34 AM
Bush and Blair were both fighting a War on Terror, and on those grounds alone, Saddam was a legitimate target. On the issue of WMD's, not just Britain and America were convinced he had some, but so was the wider world .. including the UN, by the way.

Saddam may have agreed to inspections (but only then after much mucking-around, and a toughly-worded Resolution, the basis for which determined their Inspection Team's remit to act) ... but those inspections were very limited in what they could achieve. Even Blix admitted that all his people could do was verify that WMD's had been destroyed at sites they were taken to. The QUANTITY destroyed couldn't be verified, nor could the starting-point of the numbers NEEDING to be confirmed as destroyed.

So, no. The Iraq invasion was the only logical and reasonable course of action.

You don't call Churchill a 'war criminal' for fighting Nazis. Nor should you call leaders fighting a War on Terror 'war criminals'. Both commitments, and the actions taken in their name, were equally meritorious.

Blair and Churchill, it's not possible to liken two polar opposites. Also, are you seriously claiming the circumstances of Iraq and the world wars as having the same circumstances?

Drummond
09-05-2015, 09:44 AM
Hi Drummond, good to see/hear from you. The guys here are chalk and cheese to DF, so it's a pleasant forum to be on.

I'll agree, even with one reservation I'll not go into. Yes, it's a pleasant environment, there are some very good people here.


My knowledge is just what's gleamed from the Independent and Guardian.

Well, exactly ! The Guardian is a Leftie rag (upmarket in Leftie terms, but unashamedly Leftie nonetheless). The Independent is as 'independent' as their consistently anti- War on Terror position, allows them to be, I suppose. They've been opposed to action taken in its name for a very long time.


Also, I can't stand Blair, he's a slime ball so I have my fingers crossed it turns out that the allegations of being a war monger in the press comes to fruition.

The loudest of those allegations will come from the Left, who won't forgive Blair for siding with their 'great enemy', Bush. And Blair is no more a 'warmonger' than Churchill was, or Margaret Thatcher was, in defending the Falkland Islanders from Argentinian aggression. Terrorism is something that both defended against, and I suggest that they had that right.


But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.

One group, the Mujahiddeen, was later re-formed as Al Qaeda, with different aims, a different agenda. The Mujahiddeen existed to resist Soviet tyranny. Al Qaeda's purpose was far removed from that. One was a freedom-fighting group. The other, which America NEVER funded, was a terrorist group.

Besides: if a country funds a country which it's allied to, then this ally later reneges on that, then sides with the enemy ... do you hold the finding-power responsible for funding AN ENEMY, when at no time during that funding, were they one ? Do you hold them responsible for a lack of clairvoyance capability ?

Drummond
09-05-2015, 09:56 AM
Blair and Churchill, it's not possible to liken two polar opposites. Also, are you seriously claiming the circumstances of Iraq and the world wars as having the same circumstances?

Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 10:20 AM
The loudest of those allegations will come from the Left, who won't forgive Blair for siding with their 'great enemy', Bush. And Blair is no more a 'warmonger' than Churchill was, or Margaret Thatcher was, in defending the Falkland Islanders from Argentinian aggression. Terrorism is something that both defended against, and I suggest that they had that right.

You'll probably find The Argentinians had invaded the Falklands, so we had to take action and Hitler started invading Europe. If we had to apply the same situation as Bush/Blair with Iraq to the two former examples, then we would have bombed Argentina and Germany before they kicked off !!



One group, the Mujahiddeen, was later re-formed as Al Qaeda, with different aims, a different agenda. The Mujahiddeen existed to resist Soviet tyranny. Al Qaeda's purpose was far removed from that. One was a freedom-fighting group. The other, which America NEVER funded, was a terrorist group

it's bit them in the butt !!



Besides: if a country funds a country which it's allied to, then this ally later reneges on that, then sides with the enemy ... do you hold the finding-power responsible for funding AN ENEMY, when at no time during that funding, were they one ? Do you hold them responsible for a lack of clairvoyance capability ?


I believe in two things, keep ourselves to ourselves by keeping our noses out of the affairs of other nations and multiply defence spending 10 fold.
History provides evidence why this should be the case.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 10:26 AM
Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!

Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.

tailfins
09-05-2015, 10:31 AM
First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.

Here's my take, Drummond if you are interested. It often pays not to care. As you know, I CAN'T care in the sense you know of the word. The best I can do, is read a list of things that people do when they care and do them. For me, courtesy is hard work. Don't give people that hard work when they don't deserve it. The difference between me and Adam Lanza is that my dad took me to court with him (as a cop) twice a month and conditioned me to ask "Is it legal?" before each and every action. Don't so much as pour a bowl of cereal before asking yourself "Is it legal?" My mom took me to church every Sunday which resulted in asking "Will doing it incur God's anger?" in addition to "Is it legal?" You owe less than courteous people the minimum consideration required by law, nothing more. There's no limit to how low I will go if needed. See the cage as an example. Perhaps you should try doing the same. In consideration to Jim, I avoid posting things that impede new members joining the board or might result in the banner ad company cancelling this board's account, but that's as far as my inhibition goes. Anyone willing to go lower than I do isn't even showing that minimal consideration for DP.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 10:43 AM
You'll probably find The Argentinians had invaded the Falklands, so we had to take action and Hitler started invading Europe. If we had to apply the same situation as Bush/Blair with Iraq to the two former examples, then we would have bombed Argentina and Germany before they kicked off !!

The point of origin of the War on Terror was 9/11. Terrorist scum had already 'kicked off' with that.

Saddam and his regime was a legitimate target in the follow-up 'War on Terror'. Additionally, Saddam had 'kicked off', repeatedly, by his repeated refusals to cooperate with the UN. The Iraq invasion followed from Saddam's previous behaviour ... as well as the UN's inability to reach any useful outcome in pursuance of its own Resolution. The basis for invasion itself came from that same Resolution.


it's bit them in the butt !!

.. at LEFTIE insistence that 'they' incur consequences for defending their countries' interests ... yes. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, Bush hasn't incurred them. Bush is not answerable to the Chilcot Inquiry, nor has he been in any way prosecuted for doing his Presidential duty !!!


I believe in two things, keep ourselves to ourselves by keeping our noses out of the affairs of other nations and multiply defence spending 10 fold. History provides evidence why this should be the case.

So, if another 9/11 was visited upon America, we should do nothing to show them support ? REALLY ?

What you're advocating for Britain is a bunker mentality, in the hope that the world's ills will never be visited upon us. That terrorists will be 'kind enough' to always leave us alone.

Three points: one, such an approach means we will lack a degree of control over our own destiny, since it'd mean we couldn't exert any influence or power over those, abroad, wishing us harm. Two, terrorists, in targeting us, need only succeed once, whereas a bunker-mentality defence needs to ALWAYS succeed. Three .. 9/11 was nothing that America had earned .. it was attacked without provocation. So, in your scenario, could we be, in the UK, without preceding pre-emptive prevention being so much as a possibility.

So if history teaches us anything, it's (1) always be ultra-vigilant, and (2) do what you MUST to fight and defeat an enemy, before they defeat YOU.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 10:50 AM
The point of origin of the War on Terror was 9/11. Terrorist scum had already 'kicked off' with that.

Saddam and his regime was a legitimate target in the follow-up 'War on Terror'. Additionally, Saddam had 'kicked off', repeatedly, by his repeated refusals to cooperate with the UN. The Iraq invasion followed from Saddam's previous behaviour ... as well as the UN's inability to reach any useful outcome in pursuance of its own Resolution. The basis for invasion itself came from that same Resolution.



.. at LEFTIE insistence that 'they' incur consequences for defending their countries' interests ... yes. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, Bush hasn't incurred them. Bush is not answerable to the Chilcot Inquiry, nor has he been in any way prosecuted for doing his Presidential duty !!!



So, if another 9/11 was visited upon America, we should do nothing to show them support ? REALLY ?

What you're advocating for Britain is a bunker mentality, in the hope that the world's ills will never be visited upon us. That terrorists will be 'kind enough' to always leave us alone.

Three points: one, such an approach means we will lack a degree of control over our own destiny, since it'd mean we couldn't exert any influence or power over those, abroad, wishing us harm. Two, terrorists, in targeting us, need only succeed once, whereas a bunker-mentality defence needs to ALWAYS succeed. Three .. 9/11 was nothing that America had earned .. it was attacked without provocation. So, in your scenario, could we be, in the UK, without preceding pre-emptive prevention being so much as a possibility.

So if history teaches us anything, it's (1) always be ultra-vigilant, and (2) do what you MUST to fight and defeat an enemy, before they defeat YOU.

Sorry, I can't debate these hypothetical beliefs and views that I'm supposed to have. When it's the poster and not the argument under question, it just detracts from the issue. The DF has taught me to steer clear, so I'll leave it here.

gabosaurus
09-05-2015, 11:21 AM
The point of origin of the War on Terror was 9/11. Terrorist scum had already 'kicked off' with that.

Saddam and his regime was a legitimate target in the follow-up 'War on Terror'. Additionally, Saddam had 'kicked off', repeatedly, by his repeated refusals to cooperate with the UN. The Iraq invasion followed from Saddam's previous behaviour ... as well as the UN's inability to reach any useful outcome in pursuance of its own Resolution. The basis for invasion itself came from that same Resolution.


First of all, welcome back Drummond. Stay firm and don't allow idiots and rapscallions to drive you away.

That having been said, the "UN sanctions" were a straw man for Bush's plan to get rid of Saddam. Which he was planning before he took office.
If Bush wanted to REALLY avenge the 9-11 attacks, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Saudis were issued a blanket pardon in exchange for their oil fortune, which the Bushies had a deep stake in. In return, the Saudis have continued to fund terrorism and continue to this day. Knowing the U.S. government will always turn a blind eye.

The "War on Terror" was bogus from the beginning. Bush always knew bin-Laden was hiding in Pakistan. But eliminating him would remove the evil Boogeyman in the Closet that symbolized was the WOT was about. It was all about bin-Laden killing your pets and raping your daughters.

Gunny
09-05-2015, 11:36 AM
Under the EU, they would probably receive a years sentence, out after 6 months for good behaviour. With Iraq, the punishment would be more meaningful and fit for purpose.

We got the death penalty with an express lane for dirtbags. :laugh:

NightTrain
09-05-2015, 12:07 PM
Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.

I am unfamiliar with the British Chilcot inquiry... but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Ghaddafi was a very bad man. Reagan bombed the snot out of him back in the '80s over being behind the bombing of a civilian airliner, remember? After that incident, Ghadaffi scaled back his blatant terrorist activities in a big way.

It also sent a message to other like-minded dictators that engaging in State-sponsored terrorism was an unwise move, because we know where you live and have the means to reach you and blow your house up.

So the next course of action for any industrious dictator with terrorism on his mind was the notion of 'plausible deniability' of terrorism via proxies. The palestinians work cheap and don't have much going on other than blowing themselves and Israelis up, so they're a favorite resource - just help fan the flames of religious hate and presto! Instant volunteers. Even better if it's a suicide mission, because it's hard to interrogate dead fanatics.

Saddam knew this, and it was why he was paying the families of terrorist suicide bombers $25,000 on completion of their mission. That's supporting terrorism by any definition.


The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.

On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.

But there were WMDs found. Lots of them. They're still cropping up to this day.

Remember how the UN inspectors would show up at a facility and were refused entrance while convoys of trucks were hauling loads out of the back? The UN team stood there watching them all leave, then when the last truck left, they were allowed to enter and do their inspection. That happened a lot.

How many UN resolutions can be defied like Saddam did before it's viewed as a useless body? The League of Nations failed because there wasn't any teeth. A stern wagging of the accusatory finger doesn't prevent a ruthless dictator from doing anything.

Beyond that, everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons because he openly used them multiple times before against his enemy-of-the-moment. Sure, he said he didn't have any, but history said he did.

Bush and Blair (and a great many other world leaders, btw) did the right thing. I'm still bewildered by anyone saying there wasn't any WMDs because they were there and some of them found. Fortunately, there is a shelf life associated with such weapons and soon they'll be as dangerous as baby food in comparison to their original strength, but nevertheless it had to be done.


In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.

They didn't lie, and the intel was valid. Iraq has no jurisdiction whatsoever on an American President or a British PM... that's like saying Japan should have been allowed to try Truman after we beat them in WWII. I don't get that line of logic.

The ramifications we're seeing right now is the result of an incredibly incompetent US President who abandoned Iraq and failed to act in other neighborhood situations as they developed. The head in the sand approach while hoping for the best didn't really pan out. Obama left a vacuum and ISIS filled it.

Yes, there are other world leaders that should have stepped up and started fixing things, but that didn't happen either. To be honest, we Americans aren't very confident of European leaders these days to courageously do what needs to be done. In other words, if something needs to be done, it's going to be the USA leading the way and doing the brunt of the dirty work and financing the lion's share of the operation.

We don't want our Soldiers getting killed, and we don't want to have to be the ones killing the bad guys. We don't want to spend hundreds of billions doing it. It gets the USA criticized roundly from the very people we're trying to protect. It's a thankless job.

We'd love to wash our hands of the international problems that crop up because of Very Bad Men doing Very Bad Things, but if you look around the world right now you'll see the result of that approach.

This is a map of where WMDs were found in Iraq :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7643&stc=1


Here's a few links regarding the WMDs that supposedly were never there :

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793452/u-s-troops-did-chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-kept-secret-discovery-5-000-warheads-shells-saddam-hussein-s-abandoned-weapons-program-hushed-soldiers-injured.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm

Here's some in Baghdad being produced in 2013 that were intended for use in Britain : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/al-qaeda-chemical-weapons-factory-1927158

From 3 weeks ago, Germany reported ISIS used WMDs - possibly from Syria, which is where many convoys of trucks were observed heading from Iraq prior to the invasion : http://www.thelocal.de/20150813/german-army-reports-chemical-attack-in-iraq


There's a lot more links you can google up. There were definitely WMDs present and being actively hidden.

fj1200
09-05-2015, 02:03 PM
Survival.

They don't threaten our survival.


But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.

That is not correct.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 02:13 PM
Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.

As you wish, although they do say that prevention is better than cure. If, as you say, 'The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine' .. then that surely argues for my case, not yours ? Why not hit them long before they act, before, in fact, they can act ?

The instability in the world is caused by those PLANNING for it, not those who 'dare' to REACT to it.

If you object to countries going in to sort a supposed threat or problem, then it follows that you thought it right for the US to not take pre-emptive action against the various terrorist training camps the Taliban permitted in Afghanistan ? In which case, you'd have what America did have, on 11th September 2001 ... terrorist camps able to plan, train for, then execute, their attacks on that very day against the US. NOT taking pre-emptive action, indeed, being complacent, did its bit to allow the Twin Towers atrocity.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 02:21 PM
I am unfamiliar with the British Chilcot inquiry... but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Ghaddafi was a very bad man. Reagan bombed the snot out of him back in the '80s over being behind the bombing of a civilian airliner, remember? After that incident, Ghadaffi scaled back his blatant terrorist activities in a big way.

It also sent a message to other like-minded dictators that engaging in State-sponsored terrorism was an unwise move, because we know where you live and have the means to reach you and blow your house up.

So the next course of action for any industrious dictator with terrorism on his mind was the notion of 'plausible deniability' of terrorism via proxies. The palestinians work cheap and don't have much going on other than blowing themselves and Israelis up, so they're a favorite resource - just help fan the flames of religious hate and presto! Instant volunteers. Even better if it's a suicide mission, because it's hard to interrogate dead fanatics.

Saddam knew this, and it was why he was paying the families of terrorist suicide bombers $25,000 on completion of their mission. That's supporting terrorism by any definition.



But there were WMDs found. Lots of them. They're still cropping up to this day.

Remember how the UN inspectors would show up at a facility and were refused entrance while convoys of trucks were hauling loads out of the back? The UN team stood there watching them all leave, then when the last truck left, they were allowed to enter and do their inspection. That happened a lot.

How many UN resolutions can be defied like Saddam did before it's viewed as a useless body? The League of Nations failed because there wasn't any teeth. A stern wagging of the accusatory finger doesn't prevent a ruthless dictator from doing anything.

Beyond that, everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons because he openly used them multiple times before against his enemy-of-the-moment. Sure, he said he didn't have any, but history said he did.

Bush and Blair (and a great many other world leaders, btw) did the right thing. I'm still bewildered by anyone saying there wasn't any WMDs because they were there and some of them found. Fortunately, there is a shelf life associated with such weapons and soon they'll be as dangerous as baby food in comparison to their original strength, but nevertheless it had to be done.



They didn't lie, and the intel was valid. Iraq has no jurisdiction whatsoever on an American President or a British PM... that's like saying Japan should have been allowed to try Truman after we beat them in WWII. I don't get that line of logic.

The ramifications we're seeing right now is the result of an incredibly incompetent US President who abandoned Iraq and failed to act in other neighborhood situations as they developed. The head in the sand approach while hoping for the best didn't really pan out. Obama left a vacuum and ISIS filled it.

Yes, there are other world leaders that should have stepped up and started fixing things, but that didn't happen either. To be honest, we Americans aren't very confident of European leaders these days to courageously do what needs to be done. In other words, if something needs to be done, it's going to be the USA leading the way and doing the brunt of the dirty work and financing the lion's share of the operation.

We don't want our Soldiers getting killed, and we don't want to have to be the ones killing the bad guys. We don't want to spend hundreds of billions doing it. It gets the USA criticized roundly from the very people we're trying to protect. It's a thankless job.

We'd love to wash our hands of the international problems that crop up because of Very Bad Men doing Very Bad Things, but if you look around the world right now you'll see the result of that approach.

This is a map of where WMDs were found in Iraq :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7643&stc=1


Here's a few links regarding the WMDs that supposedly were never there :

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793452/u-s-troops-did-chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-kept-secret-discovery-5-000-warheads-shells-saddam-hussein-s-abandoned-weapons-program-hushed-soldiers-injured.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm

Here's some in Baghdad being produced in 2013 that were intended for use in Britain : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/al-qaeda-chemical-weapons-factory-1927158

From 3 weeks ago, Germany reported ISIS used WMDs - possibly from Syria, which is where many convoys of trucks were observed heading from Iraq prior to the invasion : http://www.thelocal.de/20150813/german-army-reports-chemical-attack-in-iraq


There's a lot more links you can google up. There were definitely WMDs present and being actively hidden.

The belief that no WMD's were ever found, NightTrain, is something that nearly every Brit buys into. Santorum's press conference in 2006 on that matter received no coverage at all over here. I only know about it myself because I had access to Fox News broadcasts at that time. Probably very few Brits would ever, now, believe that any were found.

Note that the Daily Mail report is dated around eight years after that Press conference.

jimnyc
09-05-2015, 02:33 PM
Bush and Blair did not lie, IMO, and no one has ever really proven otherwise. They reported based on the international communities intelligence, the intelligence that was eerily similar around the world. The intelligence didn't pan out perfectly, but that doesn't mean these folks lied to us. Here in the USA, we have national security committee, comprised of both republicans and democrats. At the time, it was lead by democrats. They too saw the intelligence first hand and also voted based on what they saw. Blaming folks AFTER the fact is easy to do. But given the raw intel, the majority here in the US, and the international community, almost all saw the same and responded the same.

And there were enough WMD weapons found to kill hundreds of thousands, or more, depending on who used it and their expertise. The non-weaponized chemicals that were accounted for in1998, and mysteriously disappeared up inspectors return in 2001, have still never been accounted for. And these weren't just a few chemicals, but TONS of chemicals. Once weaponized they have a shorter shelf life, but much of it would have lasted a long, long time in the manner in which it was stored. Saddam REFUSED to account for their disappearance, and even inspectors called it out as a material breach, right up until the invasion. But I suppose that's just to be forgotten.

Nope, they could have killed millions. Saddam played a cat and mouse game with weapons that were ALREADY BAGGED AND TAGGED AND ACCOUNTED FOR and then went missing. If he complied, end of story. But KNOWING they were there, and knowing they could potentially kill millions, the international community wanted them destroyed. Saddam thought otherwise. We went in to hopefully find what he did with them and to ensure he didn't get to use them. I would imagine a shitload of it was hidden in various locations (hence NT's map showing such), and as feared from the beginning, much of it went to Syria.

Some will now say that ISIS has a lot of these weapons. Some will say that it's the fault of the US that they have them, because of the invasion. I say its the fault of Iraq and their community that failed to give them to inspectors, those that hid them from inspectors, and those that laughed and refused to work along with the international community.

NightTrain
09-05-2015, 02:49 PM
The belief that no WMD's were ever found, NightTrain, is something that nearly every Brit buys into. Santorum's press conference in 2006 on that matter received no coverage at all over here. I only know about it myself because I had access to Fox News broadcasts at that time. Probably very few Brits would ever, now, believe that any were found.

Note that the Daily Mail report is dated around eight years after that Press conference.


I'm really at a loss to understand why there aren't any objective or right-leaning news organizations over there. Free enterprise should strongly suggest that there is a need for another source of news that doesn't have that counter-clockwise spin to it. Fox completely dominates the ratings of its' competitors by a large margin. MSNBC has extremely poor performance and they cater to the typical moonbat. CNN isn't as far left, but they're still on that side of the spectrum and they get destroyed in the ratings against Fox as well.

America can't be that different from our European cousins... there has to be a sizable conservative base of the population whose needs aren't being met? Surely there's a lot of money to be made, but for some reason that eludes me that endeavor hasn't materialized.

I actually like the BBC for it's entertainment value and visit it frequently. Sometimes they're way ahead of American media on events, sometimes behind... but they do delve much more deeply into a story than American media typically do. I simply dismiss the political bias out of hand and sometimes they uncover things that our media fails to report, deliberate or not.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 03:17 PM
I'm really at a loss to understand why there aren't any objective or right-leaning news organizations over there. Free enterprise should strongly suggest that there is a need for another source of news that doesn't have that counter-clockwise spin to it. Fox completely dominates the ratings of its' competitors by a large margin. MSNBC has extremely poor performance and they cater to the typical moonbat. CNN isn't as far left, but they're still on that side of the spectrum and they get destroyed in the ratings against Fox as well.

America can't be that different from our European cousins... there has to be a sizable conservative base of the population whose needs aren't being met? Surely there's a lot of money to be made, but for some reason that eludes me that endeavor hasn't materialized.

I actually like the BBC for it's entertainment value and visit it frequently. Sometimes they're way ahead of American media on events, sometimes behind... but they do delve much more deeply into a story than American media typically do. I simply dismiss the political bias out of hand and sometimes they uncover things that our media fails to report, deliberate or not.

It might be relative .. though I'd argue that the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, all qualify as 'right' leaning. The BBC is broadly Leftie, plays at even-handedness, but pushes Left-wing sensibilities nonetheless, for all they're worth.

Bear in mind that the BBC has a very long-standing 'good' reputation, that broadcasting, here, began ALL broadcasting here, and is considered the British yardstick from which everything else here is measured. That they're assured of stability as a broadcaster, thanks to the legal insistence they be paid from our license fee (to refuse to pay, if you watch ANY television, is a criminal offence) no doubt enshrines their position of 'official respect'.

The BBC has been giving saturation coverage to the ongoing migrant crisis affecting much of Europe. Their coverage centres on the 'plight' of these refugees, and little if any consideration to anything else. It's unrelenting stuff, with reporters placed in areas where they arrive, going into enormous detail about how arduous their experiences have been. All of that will heighten sympathy for them, leaving no room for alternative views. Consequently, from this 'fair' reporting, even politicians have to consider themselves under pressure to do what the media pushes for, and so ... they HAVE been. Cameron's relented, is going to allow many thousands more to arrive here than he'd been arguing for previously.

This in turn strengthens the Leftie case for saying we need to be more lax on these things. No doubt that opinion will take hold.

NightTrain, I'm now sharing my time with a British forum. On that forum, I issued a challenge, just yesterday. I said .. to you Left-wingers here, I want to know if any of you will set any upper limit to the number of immigrants the UK should ever take within our territory.

No Leftie responded with any admission that they'd ever apply ANY limits. Just the one responded, and repeatedly. That response was to post a link to an 'e-petition' which demanded the Government take in more immigrants.

This is all that our Left are willing to think on the matter, and they get leadership from outfits like the BBC. Literally .. NO limits AT ALL to immigration, so far as the Left's concerned.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 03:45 PM
Here's my take, Drummond if you are interested. It often pays not to care. As you know, I CAN'T care in the sense you know of the word. The best I can do, is read a list of things that people do when they care and do them. For me, courtesy is hard work. Don't give people that hard work when they don't deserve it. The difference between me and Adam Lanza is that my dad took me to court with him (as a cop) twice a month and conditioned me to ask "Is it legal?" before each and every action. Don't so much as pour a bowl of cereal before asking yourself "Is it legal?" My mom took me to church every Sunday which resulted in asking "Will doing it incur God's anger?" in addition to "Is it legal?" You owe less than courteous people the minimum consideration required by law, nothing more. There's no limit to how low I will go if needed. See the cage as an example. Perhaps you should try doing the same. In consideration to Jim, I avoid posting things that impede new members joining the board or might result in the banner ad company cancelling this board's account, but that's as far as my inhibition goes. Anyone willing to go lower than I do isn't even showing that minimal consideration for DP.

It's tempting to answer this, but actually I'll refrain from doing so. Thanks for your commenting - if I reciprocated as I feel like doing, I'd be opening up a rather old can of worms.

I'd actually hate to have to consign a greater proportion of my posting to the Cage than is absolutely called for, so in that sense I resist the suggestion. That said -- we do agree on one point. If I'm convinced that my 'debating opponent' will go 'low' in his or her posting, then I, too, will stoop to some very low posting myself, and will therefore consign that stuff to the Cage.

- If I must, that is -- if such a need exists. And if it does, that reflects on my opposition, not me.

Anyone wanting to fight me should understand that I will never back down, ever, if I see myself to be in the right.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 03:56 PM
First of all, welcome back Drummond. Stay firm and don't allow idiots and rapscallions to drive you away.

Thank you. I'll do what my conscience, and my sense of fair play, tells me is appropriate.


That having been said, the "UN sanctions" were a straw man for Bush's plan to get rid of Saddam. Which he was planning before he took office.

Isn't this Leftie conspiracy-theory stuff ? I thought that GW Bush wanted a Presidency that veered AWAY from foreign policy considerations, but that 9/11 forced him to think again ?


If Bush wanted to REALLY avenge the 9-11 attacks, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Saudis were issued a blanket pardon in exchange for their oil fortune, which the Bushies had a deep stake in. In return, the Saudis have continued to fund terrorism and continue to this day. Knowing the U.S. government will always turn a blind eye.

Firstly, are you saying that Al Qaeda terrorist camps should have been left alone ?

Secondly, Saudi Arabia was and is officially an ally of the US, and contributes a lot of its oil. You'd have preferred Bush to jeopardise America's oil imports ? What damage do you think that would've caused ?


The "War on Terror" was bogus from the beginning. Bush always knew bin-Laden was hiding in Pakistan. But eliminating him would remove the evil Boogeyman in the Closet that symbolized was the WOT was about. It was all about bin-Laden killing your pets and raping your daughters.

This is just a load of rubbish. The War on Terror was caused by a very real attack on America. Yes, that attack really happened ! Bush and your Government had every right to respond to it, and respond, they did .. and .. APPROPRIATELY. And bin Laden was only in Pakistan after the bombing of Afghanistan. In case you've forgotten, Bush gave the Taliban two weeks to hand bin Laden over. The attack on Afghanistan commenced WHEN THEY REFUSED TO.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 05:28 PM
I fail to see how stirring up the hornets nest is classed as, "Prevention is better than cure" because that has really been the result.

Nonnie
09-05-2015, 05:34 PM
I am unfamiliar with the British Chilcot inquiry...



Hi NightTrain, this is the link to the official Iraq Inquiry.

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

Drummond
09-05-2015, 06:30 PM
I fail to see how stirring up the hornets nest is classed as, "Prevention is better than cure" because that has really been the result.

If a 'prevention is better than cure' approach had been applied pre-9/11, this is what could've happened ...

Intelligence spots terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Investigations are carried out, the nature of the threat posed is assessed.

The Taliban are approached, given the instruction 'Clean this up, or, expect us to act'. This would've been legitimate and reasonable, since the Taliban themselves are a form of terrorist, not legitimate Government.

Refusal would've sparked off the necessary remedial action.

Results:

1. A brewing terrorist threat would've been eliminated, quickly and effectively, and BEFORE any possibility of a '9/11' could've been enacted.

2. The Taliban gets to learn, early on, not to mess with superior forces.

3. The legitimate Afghan Government gets a lesson on responsible conduct. They want to avoid further such incursions .. fine, then they act like responsible world leaders SHOULD, and take responsibility for those doing wrong in their country. They work to eliminate the terrorist threat, THEMSELVES.

4. The world at large gets to likewise understand that terrorism has no future, not from a force, and a nation, that has the power and a determination to stamp it out.

None of this is 'stirring up a hornets nest', since the hornets nest would be destroyed, rather than 'stirred up'. However ... delay too long, and other hornets nests get created (as has actually happened).

In an ideal world, of course, none of this would ever happen. Sad to say, though, that being soft on terrorist transgressors only empowers them. The antidote is implacably-applied force which is effective in dealing with them.

.. job done !

Drummond
09-05-2015, 06:43 PM
Hi NightTrain, this is the link to the official Iraq Inquiry.

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

NightTrain, this may give you a better insight into why exactly the Chilcot Inquiry was ever brought into being.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/chilcot-inquiry/63414/iraq-inquiry-soldiers-families-may-sue-chilcot-over-report


The Chilcot report will condemn senior political, military and intelligence officials, as well as Tony Blair, for Britain's military role in the Iraq war, a source has revealed.

The long-awaited report will apportion blame for the decision to go to war "well beyond Blair" and his inner circle of advisers at Downing Street, The Guardian reports.

Although the former PM is expected to bear the brunt of the criticism, blame will be extended further than previously thought.

Figures are likely to include the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, chairman of the joint intelligence committee Sir John Scarlett, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Clare Short, former International Development Secretary.

Senior officials in the Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office and Cabinet Office are also likely to face criticism once the six-year-long investigation finally concludes.

"One source said it would suit the former prime minister to see a wide range of targets blamed when it is published," the newspaper reports.

The inquiry has been plagued by countless delays and the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq are considering taking legal action against Sir John Chilcot unless a deadline for its publication is set.

Meanwhile, David Cameron has been warned not to push forward with a Commons vote on military action against Islamic State in Syria until Chilcot has published his report, The Times says.

I think this says it all.

Gunny
09-05-2015, 07:37 PM
Bush and Blair did not lie, IMO, and no one has ever really proven otherwise. They reported based on the international communities intelligence, the intelligence that was eerily similar around the world. The intelligence didn't pan out perfectly, but that doesn't mean these folks lied to us. Here in the USA, we have national security committee, comprised of both republicans and democrats. At the time, it was lead by democrats. They too saw the intelligence first hand and also voted based on what they saw. Blaming folks AFTER the fact is easy to do. But given the raw intel, the majority here in the US, and the international community, almost all saw the same and responded the same.

And there were enough WMD weapons found to kill hundreds of thousands, or more, depending on who used it and their expertise. The non-weaponized chemicals that were accounted for in1998, and mysteriously disappeared up inspectors return in 2001, have still never been accounted for. And these weren't just a few chemicals, but TONS of chemicals. Once weaponized they have a shorter shelf life, but much of it would have lasted a long, long time in the manner in which it was stored. Saddam REFUSED to account for their disappearance, and even inspectors called it out as a material breach, right up until the invasion. But I suppose that's just to be forgotten.

Nope, they could have killed millions. Saddam played a cat and mouse game with weapons that were ALREADY BAGGED AND TAGGED AND ACCOUNTED FOR and then went missing. If he complied, end of story. But KNOWING they were there, and knowing they could potentially kill millions, the international community wanted them destroyed. Saddam thought otherwise. We went in to hopefully find what he did with them and to ensure he didn't get to use them. I would imagine a shitload of it was hidden in various locations (hence NT's map showing such), and as feared from the beginning, much of it went to Syria.

Some will now say that ISIS has a lot of these weapons. Some will say that it's the fault of the US that they have them, because of the invasion. I say its the fault of Iraq and their community that failed to give them to inspectors, those that hid them from inspectors, and those that laughed and refused to work along with the international community.

I'm going to say this and I ain't picking on any one person in particular. Taking out Saddam was one of the dumbest moves strategically we ever made. He was the wedge between the Sunni and Shia. Now there's a vaccum in the ME where each is trying to win. Add a gutless sack of shit for a President to the mix and we have ISIS.

I don't know that anyone lied, but I think they should have bought a map.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-05-2015, 07:48 PM
If a 'prevention is better than cure' approach had been applied pre-9/11, this is what could've happened ...

Intelligence spots terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Investigations are carried out, the nature of the threat posed is assessed.

The Taliban are approached, given the instruction 'Clean this up, or, expect us to act'. This would've been legitimate and reasonable, since the Taliban themselves are a form of terrorist, not legitimate Government.

Refusal would've sparked off the necessary remedial action.

Results:

1. A brewing terrorist threat would've been eliminated, quickly and effectively, and BEFORE any possibility of a '9/11' could've been enacted.

2. The Taliban gets to learn, early on, not to mess with superior forces.

3. The legitimate Afghan Government gets a lesson on responsible conduct. They want to avoid further such incursions .. fine, then they act like responsible world leaders SHOULD, and take responsibility for those doing wrong in their country. They work to eliminate the terrorist threat, THEMSELVES.

4. The world at large gets to likewise understand that terrorism has no future, not from a force, and a nation, that has the power and a determination to stamp it out.

None of this is 'stirring up a hornets nest', since the hornets nest would be destroyed, rather than 'stirred up'. However ... delay too long, and other hornets nests get created (as has actually happened).

In an ideal world, of course, none of this would ever happen. Sad to say, though, that being soft on terrorist transgressors only empowers them. The antidote is implacably-applied force which is effective in dealing with them.

.. job done !
We have hornets nests here and their sting is wickedly bad--as such they represent a constant danger to ourselves and even more so to our kids.
How do we handle that?
Answer- We destroy then before calamity strikes.
Simply ignoring the threat invites it to strike at its own good time.

Which is always a bad way to go IMHO.

An ounce of prevention tis' worth a pound of cure!!-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-05-2015, 07:55 PM
I'm going to say this and I ain't picking on any one person in particular. Taking out Saddam was one of the dumbest moves strategically we ever made. He was the wedge between the Sunni and Shia. Now there's a vaccum in the ME where each is trying to win. Add a gutless sack of shit for a President to the mix and we have ISIS.

I don't know that anyone lied, but I think they should have bought a map.

Yes it created a huge vacuum in the M.E. One that has been exploited by the usual suspects there, the muslim terrorists/Iran/ISIS /ETC...
However, Saddam had to be dealt with--how else to do it is a massive debate on hypotheticals IMHO.

Now looking back with hindsight we may think-the cure was far worse than the disease but most of that is because of how the muslim in the White House has handled it all IMHO.-TYR

jimnyc
09-05-2015, 08:15 PM
I'm going to say this and I ain't picking on any one person in particular. Taking out Saddam was one of the dumbest moves strategically we ever made. He was the wedge between the Sunni and Shia. Now there's a vaccum in the ME where each is trying to win. Add a gutless sack of shit for a President to the mix and we have ISIS.

I don't know that anyone lied, but I think they should have bought a map.

Strategy for Iraq with their leader in position - and the existence of WMD's and that leader hiding them and ignoring sanctions and agreements - <----- 2 totally different issues here.

And quite frankly, a dictator who gets comfortable with killing his own people and threats with WMD's, they shouldn't get a free pass simply because taking them out would be a hardship. If you're TOO good of a criminal we then leave you in place? I agree with what you're saying, I know it caused mass mayhem, but somehow, someway, the mass murdering scumbag needed to go, or preferably die.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 08:23 PM
We have hornets nests here and their sting is wickedly bad--as such they represent a constant danger to ourselves and even more so to our kids.
How do we handle that?
Answer- We destroy then before calamity strikes.
Simply ignoring the threat invites it to strike at its own good time.

Which is always a bad way to go IMHO.

An ounce of prevention tis' worth a pound of cure!!-Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

... and the longer we wait, the greater the opportunity the enemy has to plan and then act.

The Left will hide behind legalities, behind anything that will cause dithering and delay.

gabosaurus
09-05-2015, 09:08 PM
I'm going to say this and I ain't picking on any one person in particular. Taking out Saddam was one of the dumbest moves strategically we ever made. He was the wedge between the Sunni and Shia. Now there's a vaccum in the ME where each is trying to win. Add a gutless sack of shit for a President to the mix and we have ISIS.

I don't know that anyone lied, but I think they should have bought a map.

Whatever his faults were, Saddam was a secular leader who had no ties to religious extremists. Muslim sects were equally persecuted.
Invading Iraq with no exit strategy was a move only a clueless bunch of idiots could come up with. Bush then left the whole mess in Obama's lap. Obama had no clue how to deal with it either.
Muslim extremists are not all assimilated into one groups. There are dozens of them. Even ISIS fights among itself.
The invasion of Iraq fully opened the terrorist Pandora's Box. I doubt the lid will ever be successfully closed.

Drummond
09-05-2015, 10:28 PM
Whatever his faults were, Saddam was a secular leader who had no ties to religious extremists. Muslim sects were equally persecuted.
Invading Iraq with no exit strategy was a move only a clueless bunch of idiots could come up with. Bush then left the whole mess in Obama's lap. Obama had no clue how to deal with it either.
Muslim extremists are not all assimilated into one groups. There are dozens of them. Even ISIS fights among itself.
The invasion of Iraq fully opened the terrorist Pandora's Box. I doubt the lid will ever be successfully closed.

The 'exit strategy' was obvious. Leave Iraq, only when the terrorist threat had been eliminated, OR, local forces were totally capable of seeing to that for themselves.

Obama had his own exit strategy, though, which he implemented just as soon as he could. It was ...

1. Disregard the actual readiness of Iraqi forces to deal with terrorists. Instead -

2. Announce, YEARS in advance, as publicly as possible (so no terrorist could miss the announcement ?) exactly when troops would leave.

3. Again, with no regard to local forces' capability to cope, NONETHELESS, troops were withdrawn according to TERRORIST expectations.

With exit strategies like that, Gabby, who needs enemies ? Even so, we have one, one which took full advantage. They're called ISIS.

Jeff
09-06-2015, 01:34 AM
The 'exit strategy' was obvious. Leave Iraq, only when the terrorist threat had been eliminated, OR, local forces were totally capable of seeing to that for themselves.

Obama had his own exit strategy, though, which he implemented just as soon as he could. It was ...

1. Disregard the actual readiness of Iraqi forces to deal with terrorists. Instead -

2. Announce, YEARS in advance, as publicly as possible (so no terrorist could miss the announcement ?) exactly when troops would leave.

3. Again, with no regard to local forces' capability to cope, NONETHELESS, troops were withdrawn according to TERRORIST expectations.

With exit strategies like that, Gabby, who needs enemies ? Even so, we have one, one which took full advantage. They're called ISIS.

Bingo, and then came along two idiots that had a D after their names, one said she would have to troops home in a month after taking office and Obozo said he would be a little more realistic, he would take 3 months ( yea that was his first response, then it went longer and longer ) but we all knew this war would be a long drawn out process, only the liberals thought it a good idea to get out quickly.

Gunny
09-06-2015, 01:36 AM
They don't threaten our survival.



That is not correct.

Yeah. Just unless you're one the unlucky few they target. As long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

Gunny
09-06-2015, 01:44 AM
Bingo, and then came along two idiots that had a D after their names, one said she would have to troops home in a month after taking office and Obozo said he would be a little more realistic, he would take 3 months ( yea that was his first response, then it went longer and longer ) but we all knew this war would be a long drawn out process, only the liberals thought it a good idea to get out quickly.

Look at what I nice mess had. The left sent 10 years doffing Bush for declaring victory over a campaign; yet, their asshole in chief declared a war over that produced ISIS.

Well, got his "legacy" for him ... dumbest President EVER. Taylor lasted only 9 weeks in office and he was better.

Gunny
09-06-2015, 01:49 AM
Look at what I nice mess had. The left sent 10 years doffing Bush for declaring victory over a campaign; yet, their asshole in chief declared a war over that produced ISIS.

Well, got his "legacy" for him ... dumbest President EVER. Taylor lasted only 9 weeks in office and he was better.

This whole spell check crap is getting on my nerves. It corrects shit into something stupid when I don't want it corrected.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 02:54 AM
Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors in because he wanted to implant in the Iranians that he had a WMD so Iran wouldn't invade. If he let weapon inspectors in then the cat would be out of the bag and Iran would invade.

NO WMD were ever found in Iraq. Not one. If anyone, for whatever reason, believes that WMD were found, please post a link.

Bush said,

"But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country."

And now we all live in peace???

Black Diamond
09-06-2015, 03:10 AM
Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors in because he wanted to implant in the Iranians that he had a WMD so Iran wouldn't invade. If he let weapon inspectors in then the cat would be out of the bag and Iran would invade.

NO WMD were ever found in Iraq. Not one. If anyone, for whatever reason, believes that WMD were found, please post a link.

Bush said,

"But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country."

And now we all live in peace???

I am a cop. I know you have a meth lab in your basement. I will be over to your house in two months and prove you have a meth lab in your basement. I will let you know the exact date I will be over to your house. I fully expect to find meth in your house.

Black Diamond
09-06-2015, 03:16 AM
And I love how the left doesn't blame Obama at all for the current state of Iraq. As if pulling hundreds of thousands of troops out had no effect. ISIS controls parts of the country we fought for with life and limb, thanks to Obama. One hell of an affirmative action curve the left is using.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 06:16 AM
I am a cop. I know you have a meth lab in your basement. I will be over to your house in two months and prove you have a meth lab in your basement. I will let you know the exact date I will be over to your house. I fully expect to find meth in your house.

You're more than welcome to, I don't have a basement.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 06:20 AM
And I love how the left doesn't blame Obama at all for the current state of Iraq. As if pulling hundreds of thousands of troops out had no effect. ISIS controls parts of the country we fought for with life and limb, thanks to Obama. One hell of an affirmative action curve the left is using.

I'm unaware of anything positive that Obama has achieved. He appears to be the usual, "Fine words butter no parsnips" type of guys, but I can only go by the news on this side of the world.

NightTrain
09-06-2015, 07:46 AM
Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors in because he wanted to implant in the Iranians that he had a WMD so Iran wouldn't invade. If he let weapon inspectors in then the cat would be out of the bag and Iran would invade.

The Iranians were fully aware that he had them. That's because Saddam had already used them against them during their war.


NO WMD were ever found in Iraq. Not one. If anyone, for whatever reason, believes that WMD were found, please post a link.



Emmm...

Nonnie, did you read my post to you? I gave you a map where they were found and diverse, reputable links as well.

Look back in this thread and read up. There are thousands of news articles reporting on the WMDs found in Iraq, I only gave you the barest tip of the iceberg.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 08:09 AM
The Iranians were fully aware that he had them. That's because Saddam had already used them against them during their war.




Emmm...

Nonnie, did you read my post to you? I gave you a map where they were found and diverse, reputable links as well.

Look back in this thread and read up. There are thousands of news articles reporting on the WMDs found in Iraq, I only gave you the barest tip of the iceberg.

Yes, I did read it, I have charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate at home but does it mean I have a bomb (gunpowder). Iraq had 1.77t of enriched plutonium. No one found any nuclear bombs.

Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

So if no official body found any WMD, then the map of Iraq you posted simply has chickenpox and no more.

Drummond
09-06-2015, 08:59 AM
It's as I said, isn't it, folks ? The British are totally resistant to any suggestion that WMD's were in Iraq after all, and that some had been found. This is because, certainly in the UK, the news blackout on this was total.


Yes, I did read it, I have charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate at home but does it mean I have a bomb (gunpowder). Iraq had 1.77t of enriched plutonium. No one found any nuclear bombs.

Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

So if no official body found any WMD, then the map of Iraq you posted simply has chickenpox and no more.

OK, Nonnie, here are links you'll refuse to believe. The last one, of a 2-page declassification of a wider Intelligence document, I can assure you has been in existence, accessable from the Internet, ever since 2006. I know this because that's when I first saw this myself. It's definitely bona fide, and an American Senator, in late June, 2006, held a press conference to disseminate the news to the world.

The news agencies represented in that conference decided, nearly universally, NOT to proceed with that story.

The news blackout in the US wasn't total. In the UK, it was (after all, in 2006, the Left governed us, as they did throughout that period). Nonetheless, since the Internet is 'world wide', sadly for the censors, this material remains accessable. So -- here it is.

http://www.mrc.org/press-releases/more-500-wmd-found-iraq-2003


Since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 there have been thousands of news stories declaring as fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. A typical media example comes from CBSs Ed Bradley, who said on 60 Minutes April 26, no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq.

However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.

This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

To date, some of the top media have refused to report this story. They include:

CBS Evening News
CBS The Early Show
ABC World News Tonight
ABC Good Morning America
ABC Nightline
NBC Today
Los Angeles Times
USA Today


To date, some of the top media that have downplayed or dismissed the findings include:

CNN: Quoted Democrat Jane Harman, nothing new here, and weapons inspector Charles Duelfer that the ordinance did not constitute an ongoing WMD program.
NBC Nightly News: One senators new claim that weapons of mass destruction have been found.
MSNBC Countdown: They are WMD: weapons of minor discomfort.
New York Times: headline, For Diehards, Search for Saddam Hussein's Unconventional Weapons Isn't Over
Washington Post: Democrats criticize claim on Iraqi arms.
Associated Press: probably are so old they couldnt be used as designed
Knight Ridder Newspapers: no new evidence
Ironically, the one news agency that reported the facts and quoted from the declassified report was the French Agence France-Press. It noted that the weapons could be sold on the black market and use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

Experts agree that the WMD discussed in the report are older weapons, not new ones generated in the late 1990s, but they do nonetheless constitute WMD. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found. Therefore, no one can now honestly claim there were no WMD in Iraq and the media must correct the record.

From the date of the Press Conference itself ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-found-in-iraq.html


The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

And now, the declassified pages which Santorum released (which I first viewed, years ago ..) ..

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/iraqwmd.pdf

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-06-2015, 09:07 AM
Yeah. Just unless you're one the unlucky few they target. As long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

Well, to be fair, the leftists , dems , muslim terrorists and other assorted trash all have their shills spouting crap all over the Internet.
Hallmark trait with such shills is its not to be worried about if it has not happened to THEM!!!-Tyr

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 09:44 AM
Sadly, I believe blogs and opinions are not evidence.

The Chilcot report will put to rest the propaganda from both sides of the table.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 09:46 AM
Pressure cooker bombs are classed as WMD !!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-06-2015, 10:45 AM
Pressure cooker bombs are classed as WMD !!

Place them strategically within the civilian masses and loaded with high explosives and in some sense they are......:thumb:-Tyr

NightTrain
09-06-2015, 11:50 AM
Yes, I did read it, I have charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate at home but does it mean I have a bomb (gunpowder). Iraq had 1.77t of enriched plutonium. No one found any nuclear bombs.

While they did have uranium, I'm relatively sure Saddam never had plutonium... that's weapons-grade material and a big no-no.

We can thank Israel for Iraq's lack of nuclear potential... of course they'd still have materials but no way to make use of it.

Remember when the French thought it would be a good idea to build Saddam nuke facilities? Israel didn't think it was a good idea and removed it with F-15s and F-16s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm



Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

So if no official body found any WMD, then the map of Iraq you posted simply has chickenpox and no more.

By definition, Chemical Weapons are considered a WMD.

We found over 5,000 of them in Iraq, and a large percentage that went elsewhere - Syria - and undoubtedly many more hidden that were never found. It's hard to locate things buried out in the desert.

Many of our troops who handled the Chemical Weapons were injured from them and were treated for it.

It is common knowledge that there were WMDs present, we removed what we found and it's all documented. I'm puzzled as to how you can read the links I provided you along with the map and still say there weren't any there. But that's your choice if you refuse to accept well documented facts, of course.

If you read the StratFor link I gave you, you'll see what Saddam's game plan was. He did shut down his WMD programs, but failed to give up his stockpiles while the hapless UN inspectors chased them all over the country like some kind of slapstick comedy. He intended to wait out the sanctions, believing them to last no more than 3 years, and then resume when things cooled down. He grievously miscalculated the resolve of the UN members trying to keep a madman in check, who had demonstrated many times his willingness to invade other countries, commit genocide against his own subjects and most alarmingly, using WMDs whenever he felt like it. This is all documented and historical fact.


Anyway... I'll not waste your time and mine if you wish to believe there weren't any WMDs contrary to what the facts are.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 12:14 PM
Place them strategically within the civilian masses and loaded with high explosives and in some sense they are......:thumb:-Tyr

Was the Boston bomber charged with using WMD?

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 12:33 PM
Anyway... I'll not waste your time and mine if you wish to believe there weren't any WMDs contrary to what the facts are.

I had read somewhere that the chemicals found were out of shelf life. Those chemical agents found, last anywhere between 2 to 3 years.

jimnyc
09-06-2015, 12:41 PM
NO WMD were ever found in Iraq. Not one. If anyone, for whatever reason, believes that WMD were found, please post a link.

There were TONS of chemical weapons that were accounted for by UN inspectors. Then Saddam tossed them out. 3 years later they returned and these chemical weapons were GONE. TONS of them. Even the UN inspectors called them out for this and stated they were in material breach.

I agree, they weren't ever found. TONS <--- that's a LOT.

A lot of other weapons WERE found. I am not going to go searching for links again, as I have a sneaky suspicion they will be denied as actually being WMD's. But hell, it was even announced recently that ISIS found stockpiles of Saddam's chemical weapons. No matter WHAT is posted it's always shrugged off by liberals and they state it's not WMD's, or that it's too old.

jimnyc
09-06-2015, 12:43 PM
I had read somewhere that the chemicals found were out of shelf life. Those chemical agents found, last anywhere between 2 to 3 years.

Not always true. It degrades once weaponized. If stored properly, and not weaponized yet, it can last a few decades.

Drummond
09-06-2015, 01:32 PM
Sadly, I believe blogs and opinions are not evidence.

The Chilcot report will put to rest the propaganda from both sides of the table.

Nonnie, the Chilcot Inquiry first came into being because Gordon Brown ordered it. Its supposedly 'fair' remit is to work from the assumption that there was something seriously wrong with the British Government's decision to join America's efforts in Iraq ... and its direction throughout is taken in order to satisfy opinion in the UK which insists this is so.

Putting it very bluntly .. it's an officially-sanctioned witch-hunt, its purpose to dissuade future Governments against taking the same line that Blair's one did. Any and all evidence they try to collect will be collected to - it is hoped - prove the proposition of fundamental error of ever going into Iraq.

Our Left hated what Blair did, you see. He even suffered two Cabinet Ministerial walkouts in protest .. from Robin Cook and Clare Short. The harder-line Left have been gunning for Blair ever since, and Gordon Brown - himself no fan of Blair - wants things settled so that Labour never support you with such enthusiasm ever again.

Perhaps Chilcot has taken so very long to publish his Report .. and we STILL haven't had a date for it, have we, Nonnie ? .. because Chilcot underestimated the difficulty of the job he'd been handed ?

Drummond
09-06-2015, 01:37 PM
Pressure cooker bombs are classed as WMD !!

Are you telling me that if, say, two of these WMD's were captured by terrorists, then deployed in the London Underground, or Newcastle's Metro, that their use wouldn't prove devastating, with much loss of life ?

By the way, find me the section of UN Resolution 1441 which demanded that only WMD's in a pristine condition qualified as WMD's. Fact is that even degraded ones are still WMD's.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 01:45 PM
Nonnie, the Chilcot Inquiry first came into being because Gordon Brown ordered it. Its supposedly 'fair' remit is to work from the assumption that there was something seriously wrong with the British Government's decision to join America's efforts in Iraq ... and its direction throughout is taken in order to satisfy opinion in the UK which insists this is so.

Putting it very bluntly .. it's an officially-sanctioned witch-hunt, its purpose to dissuade future Governments against taking the same line that Blair's one did. Any and all evidence they try to collect will be collected to - it is hoped - prove the proposition of fundamental error of ever going into Iraq.

Our Left hated what Blair did, you see. He even suffered two Cabinet Ministerial walkouts in protest .. from Robin Cook and Clare Short. The harder-line Left have been gunning for Blair ever since, and Gordon Brown - himself no fan of Blair - wants things settled so that Labour never support you with such enthusiasm ever again.

Perhaps Chilcot has taken so very long to publish his Report .. and we STILL haven't had a date for it, have we, Nonnie ? .. because Chilcot underestimated the difficulty of the job he'd been handed ?


The WORST political years in UK's ENTIRE HISTORY was Blair and Brown.

I have my fingers crossed Blair gets his just desserts.

His resistance to Chilcot's questions is evident of his lies.

Drummond
09-06-2015, 01:49 PM
The WORST political years in UK's ENTIRE HISTORY was Blair and Brown.

I have my fingers crossed Blair gets his just desserts.

Granted, they were no picnic. But an officially-sanctioned Inquiry designed to do the job of a witch-hunt isn't the way to go.

Besides ... how about the days when Labour first introduced our NHS ? Costs even THEN were astronomical, and we came close to bankrupting the UK because of it.

Fact ... the British Labour Party did more to extend State rationing, than even Adolf Hitler did !! The last vestiges of it finally disappeared, not in 1945, but in 1955 !

Oh, and I see you added to your post. Fact is, Nonnie, that Blair did appear before the Inquiry, and answered questions put to it. See this ...

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/50865/20110121-Blair.pdf

Chilocot's opening remarks on the day Blair was called before him to testify. An excerpt ...


As I made clear in launching this round of hearings, there are a number of areas where we need to clarify what happened. We need to find the lessons to be learned and to do that we need to construct as reliable and accurate account as possible and reach our own conclusions.

Nothing quite like dressing up bias as 'fairness', eh ? Chilcot proceeded from the presumption that lessons HAD to be 'learned' ...

NightTrain
09-06-2015, 01:55 PM
Pressure cooker bombs are classed as WMD !!


No, that would be an IED.

WMDs are a bit more complicated than a pressure cooker bomb. Incidentally, when I was growing up as a kid, my Mom's pressure cooker blew up while we were all standing right there. The lid embedded itself in the ceiling and stuck there, and there were beans everywhere... and we all got scalded a bit, but not badly. Turns out a navy bean had plugged the safety vent from the inside. Sounded like a 12 gauge shotgun going off!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-06-2015, 02:06 PM
Was the Boston bomber charged with using WMD?

I think not. Then again I suspect many charges were ignored and not charged against him.
That has nothing to do with my comment that -"in some sense " they are .

Mass-being defined as -------------


mass
mas/
noun
1.
a coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
"a mass of curly hair"
synonyms: pile, heap; More
2.
the majority of.
"the great mass of the population had little interest in the project"
synonyms: majority, greater part/number, best/better part, major part, bulk, main body, lion's share; most
"the mass of our students are licensed drivers"
adjective
1.
relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things.
"the movie has mass appeal"
synonyms: widespread, general, wholesale, universal, large-scale, extensive, pandemic
"mass hysteria"
verb
1.
assemble or cause to assemble into a mass or as one body.
"both countries began massing troops in the region"
synonyms: assemble, marshal, gather together, muster, round up, mobilize, rally
"they began massing troops in the region"

Now are we going to debate the definition of both Weapon and Destruction ?
Or will my saying---" in some sense"as a clarifier be properly understood?

And yes, I fully understand the general thoughts when the term ,WMD is used...

However, had you been in that crowd of innocent people they bombed, I bet you'd think it was a WMD
and not quibble about it so ... - ;)---Tyr

jimnyc
09-06-2015, 02:52 PM
The Feds did charge him with WMD's (Boston).

Still doesn't change anything about Iraq and WMD's though. The missing chemical weapons alone, it's indisputable that they would be recognized as such, as they were beyond lethal, and it's only intent is to be used for weaponry. Same as large missiles and such. We're not talking about Iraq missing a few IED's, but massive amounts of chemicals. When someone says "2,000 tonnes", do that math, that's a LOT.

jimnyc
09-06-2015, 03:32 PM
Incidentally, when I was growing up as a kid, my Mom's pressure cooker blew up while we were all standing right there. The lid embedded itself in the ceiling and stuck there, and there were beans everywhere... and we all got scalded a bit, but not badly. Turns out a navy bean had plugged the safety vent from the inside. Sounded like a 12 gauge shotgun going off!

I believe someone in your family took a picture of the event! :)

http://i.imgur.com/7HqkMYt.jpg

NightTrain
09-06-2015, 04:09 PM
I believe someone in your family took a picture of the event! :)


Close! It was on a woodstove, so there wasn't any damage to it... but that just made the lid go that much faster! :laugh:

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 04:24 PM
I think not. Then again I suspect many charges were ignored and not charged against him.
That has nothing to do with my comment that -"in some sense " they are .

Mass-being defined as -------------



Now are we going to debate the definition of both Weapon and Destruction ?
Or will my saying---" in some sense"as a clarifier be properly understood?

And yes, I fully understand the general thoughts when the term ,WMD is used...

However, had you been in that crowd of innocent people they bombed, I bet you'd think it was a WMD
and not quibble about it so ... - ;)---Tyr


Are pesticides WMD?

Drummond
09-06-2015, 04:26 PM
Are pesticides WMD?

I don't think that what was found and captured in Iraq were cans of pesticide.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 04:40 PM
I don't think that what was found and captured in Iraq were cans of pesticide.

Did you know that pesticides are not WMD but if you have sufficient pesticides and use them in a manner towards citizens to be deemed as WMD, then they are deemed WMD.

Basically, it's probably easier to work out what items aren't WMD.

It's probably one of those where certain governments move the goal posts on word meanings to encompass more and more to suite their means.

Nonnie
09-06-2015, 04:51 PM
Evolution of its use

During the Cold War, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, in the West the euphemism "strategic weapons" was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal, which was presented as a necessary deterrent against nuclear or conventional attack from the Soviet Union (see Mutual Assured Destruction).

Subsequent to Operation Opera, the destruction of a pre-operational nuclear reactor inside Iraq by the Israeli Air Force, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin countered criticism by saying that "on no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel." This policy of pre-emptive action against real or perceived WMD became known as the Begin Doctrine.

The term "weapons of mass destruction" continued to see periodic use throughout this time, usually in the context of nuclear arms control; Ronald Reagan used it during the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, when referring to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.[10] Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, used the term in an 1989 speech to the United Nations, using it primarily in reference to chemical arms.[11]

The end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. With the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs became a particular concern of the first Bush Administration.[12] Following the war, Bill Clinton and other western politicians and media continued to use the term, usually in reference to ongoing attempts to dismantle Iraq's weapons programs.[citation needed]

After the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, an increased fear of non-conventional weapons and asymmetrical warfare took hold in many countries. This fear reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, no WMD were found in Iraq. (Old stockpiles of chemical munitions including sarin and mustard agents were found, but none were considered to be in a usable condition due to corrosion.)[13]

Because of its prolific use and (worldwide) public profile during this period, the American Dialect Society voted "weapons of mass destruction" (and its abbreviation, "WMD") the word of the year in 2002,[14] and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for "Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness".[15]

In its criminal complaint against the main suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing of 15 April 2013, the FBI refers to a pressure-cooker improvised bomb as a "weapon of mass destruction".[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

sundaydriver
09-06-2015, 05:09 PM
Are pesticides WMD?

I think over a half million people in Bophol India would say yes. Of course Union Carbide said; no.

jimnyc
09-06-2015, 05:17 PM
If this satisfies anyone, this is from Wiki, which was referenced in this thread already. I suppose individual things can be broken down and be debated from here. It lists 3 different terms - 1) Strategic 2) Military 3) Civilian

-------------

United States
Strategic

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs,[17] some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.[17]

The abbreviations NBC (for nuclear, biological and chemical) or CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) are used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles, because all three involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems.

However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.

The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President,[18][19] the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,[20] the U.S. Department of Defense,[21][22] and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.[23]

Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons. The U.S. military refers to WMD as:

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[24]

This may also refer to nuclear ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).

The significance of the words separable and divisible part of the weapon is that missiles such as the Pershing II and the SCUD are considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not.

In 2004, the United Kingdom's Butler Review recognized the "considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’". The committee set out to avoid the general term but when using it, employed the definition of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:

"Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons].
Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research,development,support and manufacturing facilities.
Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."[25]

Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because "only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction". He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of terror" when aimed against civilians and "weapons of intimidation" for soldiers.

Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.[26] For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term "weapons of mass terror," apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.

Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at 9 July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".[27]

An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves".[28] The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of total war as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[29]

Military

For the general purposes of national defense,[30] the U.S. Code[31] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[32]

For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[33] the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons."[34]
Criminal (civilian)

For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[35] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[36]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[37]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[38]

any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[39] pipe bombs,[40] shoe bombs,[41] and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin[42] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

(a) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#United_States

Drummond
09-06-2015, 10:37 PM
Did you know that pesticides are not WMD but if you have sufficient pesticides and use them in a manner towards citizens to be deemed as WMD, then they are deemed WMD.

Basically, it's probably easier to work out what items aren't WMD.

It's probably one of those where certain governments move the goal posts on word meanings to encompass more and more to suite their means.

But where are you going with this ?

Are you saying that those WMD's found in Iraq were full of pesticide ? Or could it be that they were filled with something rather more deadly ?

Shall we stick to facts (I refer, of course, to facts hidden from scrutiny in the UK, courtesy of the British press ... those I've now provided you with evidence of) ?

gabosaurus
09-07-2015, 12:35 AM
The alleged "WMD" found in Iraq were decades old remnants of chemical stockpiles that were gained with cooperation with the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran conflict. There was nothing modern and certainly nothing that had been developed by the Iraqis.
The WMD claims were lies perpetrated by the Bush regime in attempts to justify their invasion of Iraq. Nothing less.

Nonnie
09-07-2015, 03:04 AM
But where are you going with this ?

Are you saying that those WMD's found in Iraq were full of pesticide ? Or could it be that they were filled with something rather more deadly ?

Shall we stick to facts (I refer, of course, to facts hidden from scrutiny in the UK, courtesy of the British press ... those I've now provided you with evidence of) ?

In reality, WMD weren't found in Iraq.

What was found was remnants of chemicals, as rightly explained by gabosaurus from previous wars.

Any rational person would deem WMD would be bombs/missiles that are nuclear or chemical that are ready to load into or onto a plane and to be dropped or fired from the plane. Not a handful of rusty out of date casings and chemicals. But as the goalposts keeping moving with the definition of WMD to encompass more in order to back the West's argument, having a cupboard full of pressure cookers could now be deemed naughty.

The culture in the Middle East means it needs controlled by dictators. As the dictators were removed, the nut jobs are now free to cause havoc. It was a bad situation and it's now a worse situation.

So what's the answer now? If it was right to remove Saddam, now what?

Gunny
09-07-2015, 04:08 AM
But where are you going with this ?

Are you saying that those WMD's found in Iraq were full of pesticide ? Or could it be that they were filled with something rather more deadly ?

Shall we stick to facts (I refer, of course, to facts hidden from scrutiny in the UK, courtesy of the British press ... those I've now provided you with evidence of) ?

What the deal is the left refuses to acknowledge is we sold Saddam all kinds of chemical crap under the guise of dual use equipment while he was being the enemy of our enemy. The CIA taught his chemists to refine their mustard gas they used on Iran . Not so surprisingly, you used to could google that info bit it seems to have vanished with all the other things you could that in any way supported Bush/the right.

The smear campaign is rather blatantly obvious. Just as blatantly obvious as if we sold the crap to him, I guess we damned well knew he had it. And as Jim pointed out, you got some knucklehead trying to redefine what a WMD is. Nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons are WMD. The sarin Saddam used on the Kurds wasn't a figment of any of THEIR imaginations.

As far as your pesticide questions goes, we try to pretend we aren't doing anything wrong by labeling the components "dual use". You can sell all kinds of crap individually that mean nothing until you start mixing some together. I'd rather just be nuked than hit with mustard gas. That crap makes your lungs blister, then they pop and you drown in your own crap. Chlorine's another cheap-o. It just burns you up from the inside out. Sarin is easily available on the black market and it doesn't take a whole lot. Think they used it on your subway a few years back.

Drummond
09-07-2015, 07:44 AM
In reality, WMD weren't found in Iraq.

I'm well aware that your thinking is led by the British press's refusal to carry any news which contradicts that line. But I for one don't like having the British press censor my understanding of what's truly happening in the world.


What was found was remnants of chemicals, as rightly explained by gabosaurus from previous wars.

Nonnie, Gabby has her own Leftie political agenda.

And .. calling them 'remnants' is highly inaccurate. They were old weapons, but my understanding is that they were also intact ones.


Any rational person would deem WMD would be bombs/missiles that are nuclear or chemical that are ready to load into or onto a plane and to be dropped or fired from the plane. Not a handful of rusty out of date casings and chemicals. But as the goalposts keeping moving with the definition of WMD to encompass more in order to back the West's argument, having a cupboard full of pressure cookers could now be deemed naughty.

Nonnie, it is you who's decided to move goalposts !! Nowhere in UN Resolution 1441 was it demanded that only pristine WMD's qualified to be WMD'S !! It's you who is now deciding that !! The very fact of their discovery proves once and for all that the UN Resolution was being violated, therefore, invasion was justified !


The culture in the Middle East means it needs controlled by dictators. As the dictators were removed, the nut jobs are now free to cause havoc. It was a bad situation and it's now a worse situation.

You don't believe that Middle Eastern dictators are nutjobs themselves ? Regimes ordering mass graves, rape rooms, that invade neighbouring regimes, act entirely sanely ?

Should I post you a picture of Gaddafi wearing his choice of costume at the time, and advance it as evidence of 'sanity' ?


So what's the answer now? If it was right to remove Saddam, now what?

Here's my answer --

1. Get rid of the Leftie-in-Chief, since he's a big impediment to the War on Terror.

2. Recommence the War on Terror (.. 'naughty' idea, eh, Nonnie ?) !

3. A declaration to the world, essentially a repeat of GW Bush's ... that there is, and can be, no safe haven for terrorists anywhere on this Earth. Countries not on board for fighting the War on Terror must be deemed to be in opposition to it.

4. America coordinates its intelligence gathering activities with other equivalents (e.g MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, etc). Terrorist hotspots are located globally, their activities reviewed in the greatest detail possible.

5. With the understanding in place that America will fight its War on Terror wherever that war leads, they then follow through, and do what it takes to neutralise the terrorists. Governments obstructing that effort are deemed hostile, and treated accordingly .. be it with frozen assets, sanctions, or even outright military action if required.

6. With the precedent set of total intolerance towards terrorism WHEREVER it manifests itself, more and more cooperation would be forthcoming, and over time, the world would become too toxic a place for it to thrive. Unlike now, of course.

Jeff
09-07-2015, 08:08 AM
The alleged "WMD" found in Iraq were decades old remnants of chemical stockpiles that were gained with cooperation with the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran conflict. There was nothing modern and certainly nothing that had been developed by the Iraqis.
The WMD claims were lies perpetrated by the Bush regime in attempts to justify their invasion of Iraq. Nothing less.

Heck Gabs I agree with this, they did get what they had from us, as for nothing being modern, well I also agree, these folks look like they are about 100 years behind time, but that would be the ugly in me speaking of course. But do you honestly believe that they would of took the time to hide the relics they had from us and left the stuff ( that no matter how behind times they are, I am sure they could at least upgrade the relics we gave them ) laying around,I mean no one is that stupid, it's a known fact we gave them weapons to keep Iran in check. But again 6 months bought them a lot of time to hide a needle in a hay stack, or better yet get them out of the country and into another terrorist hands.

fj1200
09-07-2015, 04:41 PM
Yeah. Just unless you're one the unlucky few they target. As long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

But that isn't the question. Do they threaten our survival? No. Can they bring harm to some? Possibly, but that isn't a WWIII question and can be dealt with strategically.

DLT
09-07-2015, 05:05 PM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?

Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.

Kathianne
09-07-2015, 05:28 PM
Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.

I do believe she's hoping for ICC.

fj1200
09-07-2015, 05:43 PM
Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.

How did BO set in motion Arab Spring? I might argue that AS is the antithesis of ISIS.

Black Diamond
09-07-2015, 06:16 PM
How did BO set in motion Arab Spring? I might argue that AS is the antithesis of ISIS.

Obama was instrumental in helping Egypt and Libya overhrow Mubarak and Gaddafi. He attempted to overthrow Assad, but was stopped (or is being stopped) by Putin.
Obama sounds like a neocon in this instance.

Nonnie
09-07-2015, 06:49 PM
Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol



Sorry, it's clear you didn't grasp the OP.

Due to Bush and Blair's involvement with the ME, the Islamic terrorists have free reign.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2015, 07:27 PM
Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.

He had "his people" go over there to kick start it off. Tyr

Drummond
09-07-2015, 08:30 PM
Sorry, it's clear you didn't grasp the OP.

Due to Bush and Blair's involvement with the ME, the Islamic terrorists have free reign.

Totally the opposite is true. For as long as Bush and Blair kept momentum going on the War on Terror, terrorists were wrong-footed. What do you think Coalition forces were doing in the ME .. playing Tiddlywinks ??

No, the real problems began with Obama, and his reversal of previous policy. Troop withdrawals led to the current situation. For as long as the very opposite to that was true, they were kept in check. And more than that, some were killed. Yet more were taken to Gitmo.

You don't have a doctor prescribe medicine, medicine which keeps an illness in check, have a replacement doctor halt the treatment, then blame the PREVIOUS doctor if the illness then gets worse !!

Black Diamond
09-07-2015, 09:04 PM
Sorry, it's clear you didn't grasp the OP.

Due to Bush and Blair's involvement with the ME, the Islamic terrorists have free reign.

Your hackery is showing.

And then some.

aboutime
09-07-2015, 09:13 PM
Totally the opposite is true. For as long as Bush and Blair kept momentum going on the War on Terror, terrorists were wrong-footed. What do you think Coalition forces were doing in the ME .. playing Tiddlywinks ??

No, the real problems began with Obama, and his reversal of previous policy. Troop withdrawals led to the current situation. For as long as the very opposite to that was true, they were kept in check. And more than that, some were killed. Yet more were taken to Gitmo.

You don't have a doctor prescribe medicine, medicine which keeps an illness in check, have a replacement doctor halt the treatment, then blame the PREVIOUS doctor if the illness then gets worse !!


Sir Drummond. Just an observation here, but 'nonnie' seems to be a perfect example of our American, Liberal, DNC Talking Points Manual, student who has yet to learn how to Spell, Speak, Count, and Inhale. Just an observation as I wander through the desperation of intended Progressive Ignorance "American Style".:laugh:

gabosaurus
09-07-2015, 11:51 PM
Sir Drummond. Just an observation here, but 'nonnie' seems to be a perfect example of our American, Liberal, DNC Talking Points Manual, student who has yet to learn how to Spell, Speak, Count, and Inhale. Just an observation as I wander through the desperation of intended Progressive Ignorance "American Style".:laugh:

Except Nonnie is not American. :rolleyes:

fj1200
09-08-2015, 09:27 AM
Obama was instrumental in helping Egypt and Libya overhrow Mubarak and Gaddafi. He attempted to overthrow Assad, but was stopped (or is being stopped) by Putin.
Obama sounds like a neocon in this instance.

That wasn't an answer to the question. AS started in Tunisia and then Algeria.

Gunny
09-08-2015, 09:44 AM
Except Nonnie is not American. :rolleyes:

So? Neither are you if we go by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. And people tolerate YOUR opinion. Maybe you ought to get around more, Miss Know it All. Your intolerance to others is the problem here.

And right about now I'd prefer to be living back on Crete than in the Hell-hole the idiot you voted for created. So when you want to point fingers, start with your mirror.

revelarts
09-08-2015, 09:44 AM
I hope and pray there is never a WW3.

But I suspect they'll be a lot of small wars and terror for many years to come.
plus underhanded tech attacks and stealth deniable warfare will become more prevalent.
And the rank and file will "know" less and less about real enemies and friends. If we don't wake up.

Gunny
09-08-2015, 09:48 AM
I hope and pray there is never a WW3.

But I suspect they'll be a lot of small wars and terror for many years to come.
plus underhanded tech attacks and stealth deniable warfare will become more prevalent.
And the rank and file will "know" less and less about real enemies and friends. If we don't wake up.

The rank and file aren't as dumb as people think. The problem with the rank and file is they're so busy working to pay taxes so slackers can get welfare, they don't have a lot of time to pay attention; whereas, losers and elitists with no jobs more than willing to spend everyone else's money have all the time in the world.

Nonnie
09-08-2015, 10:18 AM
Sir Drummond. Just an observation here, but 'nonnie' seems to be a perfect example of our American, Liberal, DNC Talking Points Manual, student who has yet to learn how to Spell, Speak, Count, and Inhale. Just an observation as I wander through the desperation of intended Progressive Ignorance "American Style".:laugh:

I'm English. Stop wandering and read. If you would like me to correct any of your spellings to English, by all means ask.

revelarts
09-08-2015, 11:29 AM
The rank and file aren't as dumb as people think. The problem with the rank and file is they're so busy working to pay taxes so slackers can get welfare, they don't have a lot of time to pay attention; whereas, losers and elitists with no jobs more than willing to spend everyone else's money have all the time in the world.

well sure work keeps people occupied, but the context people come to new info with makes a difference. If the reality of foreign affairs or politics falls outside of certain believed parameters then the new info is rejected or shoehorned into frameworks people are used to.

And the messengers are called names, and the elite players feed the false framework via the media to keep the rank and file re-assursed.
so new games are played out and the rank and file see results but not the real causes.. because they don't have a "believable" or "realistic" context for it.

Truth Detector
09-08-2015, 11:37 AM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?

WWIII can only occur if we get a few more empty headed Liberals like Obama for President and the American sheeple foolishly put Democrats back in charge of Congress over the next few decades.

We can all avoid that by keeping Liberal Democrat politicians at the margins of political power where they can do the least amount of damage.

Nonnie
09-22-2015, 05:31 PM
Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!

Then it's just purely speculation.

Nonnie
09-22-2015, 05:32 PM
WWIII can only occur if we get a few more empty headed Liberals like Obama for President and the American sheeple foolishly put Democrats back in charge of Congress over the next few decades.

We can all avoid that by keeping Liberal Democrat politicians at the margins of political power where they can do the least amount of damage.

Don't blame the leader, blame those who voted for the leader.

DLT
09-22-2015, 06:05 PM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?


According to Biblical prophecy, it will be the whole world against Israel, for one thing. Gog and Magog are, supposedly, Russia and China. Damascus is to be completely destroyed, but according to a video I saw, so is Mecca...as the "Whore of Babylon", so to speak.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY20IFaWlsQ&feature=youtu.be

I don't know (anything for certain). It's all so confusing. I do know that it's not quite time yet. Certain things have not been fulfilled.

But I don't hold out much hope for any Rapture of the believers/Christians BEFORE any of this bad stuff happens. I think we may live to witness it all. Now...whether we will live through it remains to be seen. (you asked)

Elessar
09-22-2015, 08:04 PM
If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?

Bush and Blair are not to blame.

It is the Muslim tribal fanatics.