Mecky Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Jesus Christ you just don't see what you look like do you? He had WMDs. Had. Past tense. Hans blix ran around looking for them and couldn't find any and after we levelled large parts Iraq the Americans (and no doubt us too) spent a great deal of time and resources looking for them. They found nothing, nothing at all. Since 1988 he'd had the small matter of gulf war one hammering away at his infrastructure and then years of sanctions. He was no more a threat to the west than a stick of rhubarb. Is the world better without saddam Husain in it? Of course but bush (who still tries to tie 911 to Iraq despite zero evidence there was any) and Blair went to war over something that wasn't there and has started a chain of events that's no where near finished in Iraq and the Middle East in general. Blair lied and covered it up. Only the most fanatical could possibly see it any other way. It was completely avoidable. You and Blair might be able look those fleeing Iraq or those servicemen who came back missing arms and legs in the eye and say the war in Iraq was right but most normal people couldn't. Had/has ... how did you know he didn't have them when he said he didn't, just because Hussein said he didn't? And if Blair lied where is the evidence and why hasn't been disclosed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Why were no WMD's found Mecky? Blair made a lot of bold statements about WMD's, that turned out to be untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Had/has ... how did you know he didn't have them when he said he didn't, just because Hussein said he didn't? And if Blair lied where is the evidence and why hasn't been disclosed? Because Han blix (pre war) and the American military ( post war) didn't find any!!!! It's like saying can I prove he didn't have a robot clone army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 What about the 45 minute debacle that Bliar was foaming at the mouth to tell us. A blatent LIE. Bliar the epitome of a champagne socialist. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 What about the 45 minute debacle that Bliar was foaming at the mouth to tell us. A blatent LIE. Bliar the epitome of a champagne socialist. Angel1. Actually, the ones being called "champaigne socialists" at the time were the ones opposing Blair's Iraq policy. So please don't insult "champagne socialists" by comparing them to Tony Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Because Han blix (pre war) and the American military ( post war) didn't find any!!!! It's like saying can I prove he didn't have a robot clone army. That doesn't prove anything either way, now does it? How do you know he did't ship them out to Syria, who showed gas attacks a few months ago, or even to Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 That doesn't prove anything either way, now does it? Of course it does. Christ on a bike, even bush finally admitted there were no WMDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwert Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Iraq's current trouble has nothing to do with Bush,Blair removing Saddam from power according to Tony Blair,so thats a relief then. Did Tony indicate who's fault it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Of course it does. Christ on a bike, even bush finally admitted there were no WMDs. So how did Hussein and Chemical Ali kill all those kurds in 88? The pictures were shown on TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 So how did Hussein and Chemical Ali kill all those kurds in 88? The pictures were shown on TV They HAD chemical weapons in 1988 but didn't have them in 2003 after the first gulf war, sanctions and air strikes all well before 2003. He didn't have any in 2003 or we would have found them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.