Zamo Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Full story 10,000 people dead, no WMD and the threat from terrorism greater than ever. Can someone explain to me how this qualifies for a peace prize?!?!? :loopy: Edit: Link now amended!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Originally posted by Zamo Full story 10,000 people dead, no WMD and the threat from terrorism greater than ever. Can someone explain to me how this qualifies for a peace prize?!?!? :loopy: Can someone explain to me when the practice of giving an AC Cobra to the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 Originally posted by max Can someone explain to me when the practice of giving an AC Cobra to the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize started? Please don't even joke Max - even the thought of such an injustice is too much to bear!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomme Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 From the story... "The pair have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said toppling the Iraqi dictator had reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction." Eeerrrrrr... which weapons of mass destruction would those be? Pressure builds for WMD inquiry Nomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Originally posted by nomme From the story... "The pair have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said toppling the Iraqi dictator had reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction." Eeerrrrrr... which weapons of mass destruction would those be? Pressure builds for WMD inquiry Nomme Those in Libya and North Korea perhaps. Not, you'll note, those in Israel though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lickszz Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I was tempted to post about this on Saturday. It appears that they have been nominated for constructing the regime change in Iraq. With no WMD found I'd be surprised if they were to win the award. Weren't they both nominated a couple of years ago by a different Norwedgian politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 It turns out that the 2 million people who marched in London and the rest of the UK had better intelligence than the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Let the Americans deal with Bush. Blair is our responsibility. He and his cohorts (Straw and Hoon particularly) should be required to account for their actions. We still do not know how the attorney general arrived at his judgement that a war would be legal. We do know that the intelligence services reporting to the JIC were either incompetent or deliberately misleading. Either that or the JIC was in full possession of the facts, but these facts were in fact massaged by one office or another for political purposes. It is common knowledge that the US president came into office with a clear agenda to topple Saddam Hussein. Signatories to an open letter, to President Clinton from the Project for the New American Century, are now key members of Bush's Administration. What I want to know is what are the real reasons that Britain took part in this invasion and occupation of a foreign sovereign state, the ejection of the existing political system, dissolution of the police and other civic organisations? Post Hoc justification on nebulous humanitarian grounds is insufficient because the UK went to war specifically on the basis of a clear and immediate threat to Cyprus from Iraqi long range rockets tipped with chemical warheads. Within 45 minutes. (cyprus was the only British Outpost within range of Samoud missiles that could be found) This was a complete and utter fiction. There is something rotten in the City of Westminster, and many many people have lost their lives as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Maiden Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 okay I don't want to get into a mass argument or debate about the whole affair but can someone tell me why it would be wrong to go to war with a country who committed crimes against humanity? Did no one notice the men women and children who were killed by saddam using chemical warfare? His own people? I didn't support the war in iraq because of WOMD, I supported it because I do not wish to see repeats of the crimes against humanity caused in concentration camps in WWII or indeed the concentration camps made by the British during their waring in Africa. I do not know of every attrocity in the world but I was made aware of the ones in Iraq by relatives. Can't comment on the Peace prize just yet, haven't read the story. *edit* having read the article I cannot honestly see how they qualify being that no WOMD have been found. Moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chill Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Moon Maiden, I guess it comes down to a matter of trust. If you believe that the war was fought on purely altruistic grounds then that's fine. But there are a lot of people, myself included, who don't believe for one fraction of one second that Bush and Blair fought this war for the benefit of the Iraqis. Phanerothyme has already mentioned the PNAC/Neo-Con posse, so I won't retread that ground. But put simply, I believe that any intervention that isn't based purely on altrustic grounds is doomed to failure. It will be years before we see the effects of USUK intervention and we can finally judge whether the war was "a good thing". Let's hope it was. Another issue that comes out of all this, suppose some time in the future we come under a genuine threat from another nation/terrorist group. Having already cried "Wolf!", how are we as a nation going to be able to trust what we are being told by the government regarding the threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Even David Kay admits that Iraq was "researching better methods" of "weaponising" the deadly poison ricin. Saddam might not have had an enormous arsenal, but he was still "an active player in the mass-murder market." Can we really afford to wait for threats to become so obvious that they are staring us in the face? By that time it might be too late to do anything. Just a (devil's advocate) thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.