Iraqi scientists much better than US and UK says Bush/Blair !

by Simon 12 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  Of course they havn't said that outright but effectively, that's what they have said. Consider the evidence:

  First, we are told that Iraq has WoMD (yeah, I know ... stop laughing ... you have to bear with this)

  Next, they give it the real hard-sell and say that they are an imminent threat ("ooh ... be very scared ... oh, and let us take whatever action we want"). We're told that they could deploy WoMD in just 15 minutes !! (our wonderful "military intelligence" ... surely an oxymoron?)

  After that, we're told that they never had WoMD at all but that they would find evidence of WoMD programmes.

  Think about it ... this means that when attacked, the Iraqi scientists would first need to develop the WoMD very quickly indeed so that they could then be deployed in 15 minutes !! This must make then far more advanced than any scientists we have, no?!

  Another explanation of course is that politicians are dishonest and deceptive and tell so many lies that when you put things together they don't make sense.

  How can Mr Blair claim that they would only expect to find evidence of WoMD programmes and at the same time claim that the 15 minute deployment intelligence wasn't a pile of rubbish?
• 

  Englishman

  *ahem*

  Simon!

  Go to bed!

  Englishman.
• 

  Simon

  Is that the best defense you can come up with ?!
• 

  little witch

  Simon,

  I just told someone the what for in regards to political conversations made to annoy and what do you do?

  I swear, I can't take you anywhere!
• 

  shamus

  Simon,

  Oh.
• 

  Englishman

  *Groan*

  Simon,

  You are a left-wing Brit.

  Your opponents are right-wing Americans.

  You own the site. Whatever you do or say will be torn to pieces, be it rightly or wrongly. If you lock the thread or get pissy and reduce posts because of that, you will be condemned. It's rough, it's tough and it's bloody unjust but shit happens.

  So my advice to you, old pal, is just to stay out of the political stuff.

  Mike.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Simon, I agree. I read with some disbelief on another thread as many posters insisted that the US rationale for war never changed. I think it's clear that it did. I can recall quite clearly the urgent speeches before the UN claiming that the US had irrefutable evidence of Iraq's weapons. I listened with intense interest as Colin Powell made the speech that many expected to be a Cuban Misile Crisis -type revelation of knockout, hard evidence. All he could come up with was an obtuse claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from an African country, which claim has now been shown to be false.
  

  I watched incredulously (even in my "politically neutral" Witness days) as the administration marched inexorably to war, never having presented any evidence for its charges. Even as Iraq softened its position toward the weapons inspectors, allowing them into palaces that had previously been off-limits, the US changed from its increasingly unbelievable WoMD charge to the adament complaint that Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions. It seemed beyond clear to me that the US didn't want to allow the UN body to do its work - it wanted war, now.

  Now that the war is started and ongoing, the rationale continues to change. The US never said it wanted to go to war to capture Saddam Hussein, but now that it has, it uses this as justification for the war, as if it had done what it set out to do. To me, this entire episode smacks of the respinning of history that we have grown to hate so well from the Society. None of the original claims for Iraq have held up, so the administration switches to other goals and claims that it is a mission accomplished. 1914, anyone?

  SNG
• 

  Simon

  You are a left-wing Brit.

  Wrong. I'm a right wing Conservative voter. It probably does put me to the left of the current labour party though.

  Your opponents are right-wing Americans.

  I have no problem with right wing Americans. What I do have a problem with is the right-wing neo-con cultists.

  You own the site. Whatever you do or say will be torn to pieces, be it rightly or wrongly. If you lock the thread or get pissy and reduce posts because of that, you will be condemned. It's rough, it's tough and it's bloody unjust but shit happens.

  Maybe I'm past caring?

  So my advice to you, old pal, is just to stay out of the political stuff.

  Why should I? If people are going to post political propagandist drivel that I get sick of then I'm going to push it right back in their face until they learn. If they don't like it then tough - just call it pre-emptive action or "might is right" which glib arguments seems to satisfy them with other, much more important issues.

  I may even put a few "Dean for President" banners up (hopefully they'll be like Garlick to Vampires)
• 

  jst2laws

  Hey Mike,

  Don't get this left wing American going either. Everyone tells me I should be a republican, but I just cant get comfortable with lying and promoting the agenda of religious fundamentalists.

  Simon,

  Your a

  Why aren't you in bed yet?

  Steve
  
  
  
• 

  little witch

  Eman,

  As I do not make a habit of commenting on political threads, and generally do not condemn others I think I am in no danger of retribution.

  I was using a thing called humor, as I am sure Simon is aware. Sarcasm is oft misunderstood I suppose.