BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM

I will mourn all those babies the Iraqis pulled out of incubators and killed when they invaded Kuwait.

You might have read Hans Blix, which is more than Blair did, but you haven't read Snopes.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

No, T... We know you couldn't have possibly read Blix or even followed his speech to the UN in January, 2003, or you would know what the rest of the civilized world knows which is there was no justification in B&B ordering up the invasion of Iraq...

And while you admitting to be ignorant of the Blix report does expalin why you have sonsistentyly been wrong about the war it does not excuse it... We tried to bring you up to speed but you were too busy arguning insignifacant stuff and missed the big picture...

Your bad!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:19 PM

Mr Burke, the stories about babies being thrown out of incubators during the occupation of Kuwait is as true as the fable about US Forces killing 1 million+ Iraqi civilians.

We know you couldn't have possibly read Blix or even followed his speech to the UN in January, 2003.

"We" Bobert, "We", who are this "We" you are talking about?? You actually know the square root of damn all about what I have read, what I have listened to, what I have watched. But I will tell you this I have read a great deal of what the good Doctor has written, I actually watched and listened to him and Mohammed el-Baradei deliver their report to the assembled UN Security Council on the 27th January, 2003. In fact I watched and listened to all the reports that he delivered to the UN. Which from your comments, remarks and assertions related to what Hans Blix has said is something that you most certainly have never done.

Tell me when it was that Dr.Hans Blix reported that there were no WMD in Iraq?? Rhetorical question Bobert because he never did.

Did the good Doctor believe that there were WMD and WMD programmes running in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?? Another rhetorical question Bobert - You bet your ass he did But then you would have known that if you had read the good Doctors book.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:20 PM

As Ake said, Clare Short's performance was indeed woeful. Whatever Cook's agenda might have been, this inquiry would have been a lot more fun if he was still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

Well, T... It's this way... Given the fact that B&B were so scared that Saddam had WMDs and were prepared to invade Iraq Saddam unless Saddam did the impossible of proving he didn't have any, Saddam agreed to let inspectors come in and look for WMDs... I mean, logic has it that if Saddeam didn't have any WMDs the only thing he could do was invite B&B's boys in for a looksie... Right???

So Saddam said, "Come on in" and then Blix and his boys did just that... Might of fact things were going so welll that Blix went before the UN and said the "most imposrtant" thing was that the Iraqis were letting them inspect where ever the inspectors wanted...

So, other than B,B&T, the sane and civilized world was happy 'cause wioth Blix's boys in Iraq to prove to the world that Iraq and Saddam were not a danger that logic woulde prevail and there would be no war... Right???

Well, T, this is where the story kinda does an Apollo 13 'cause B&B wanted to have a war anyway... Really didn't matter why... They just wanted themselves a new shiney war to show that they had what you call "moral courage" (translated, "small penis complex so lets send some folks with bigger ones to go fuck up some folks") and that's excactly what happened... How many people got killed is still an unknown... Several studies have it upwards of a million people, T... That's a lot of folks, BTW... Other studies much less but nowhere near the 14,000 that you once vlaimed... Or was that BB???

So fast forward I keep askin' you about Blix but you don't seem to want to talk much about Blix??? I reckon I wouldn't either if I was playin' yer hand... BTW, yer hand sucks in case you hadn't noticed...

As for "we"... Heck, T, you know who we are... "We" are the many folks here who have tried over the years to get you to see just how wrong you were then and now... Maybe you'd forgotten thos folks, too... I donno... You do seem to be having probles with yer focus so maybe more stuff is slippin' thru yer thinkerator than I suspect...

Hey, maybe one day alhiezemers will set completely in and then you will be at peace with yourself... I donno... Maybe not...

Anyway, ol' Bobert would love for yout o find some peace... Of course, yer going to have to start by confessin' yer sins... Yes, it is a sin to support senseless killing... You don't have to be the trigger man... But you know that, right???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 06:02 PM

Thanks for the endorsment Peter..they're rather thin on the ground these days :0)

It's my belief that Robin Cook's resignation was very much a "politicians decision" based on not emotion, but astute assessment of the political situation.
Cook viewed Blairs gamble in giving his personal backing to Bush and war as a monumental political blunder, a blunder which would give Cook his chance to lead the Labour Party; but for that to happen,Cook was obliged to dis-associate himself from Blair and his foreign policy by resigning from the govt. His resignation speech was a masterpiece of political theatre.
It was also important for Cook that the war actually took place, so after his resignation he did not join the demonstrators, but kept a very low profile.

If Cook had lived, when the political tide began to run against Blair, as you and I knew it would, he would have stepped forward as the authentic voice of the Labour Party, with no blood on his hands.

The reason the Labour party are losing seats and credibility is not because of Brown the "Non Personality" the electorate are sick of posturing personalities, but because he and most of his cabinet are still associated in the public perception with the support of Blair, against the wishes of grass roots Labour voters and most of the British public.

Cook would have walked in!

Too devious?.....well you know politicians better than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 01:38 AM

No Bobert it was actually this way:

1. From around 1993 Saddam Hussein started giving the UNSCOM weapons inspectors and the rest of the UN the run around in Iraq to such an extent that Scott Ritter complained about it and resigned five years later because the UN were not dong enough to enforce their own resolutions.

2. Late in 2001 GWB was advised by the same people who had advised Clinton in 1998 that Iraq armed with WMD posed a threat to the USA, the national interests of the USA and the allies of the USA in the middle-east and Persian Gulf region. Perhaps you could tell me Bobert why your President would ignore such a warning??

3. The US went to the UN advised them of their concerns and asked them to enforce the terms of Resolution 687 and verify Iraq's compliance, adding that if the UN did not do this the USA would do it militarily.

4. US starts to build up troops in the area, while the UN does what it does best - Talk. It was the build up of troops on his borders that prompted Saddam Hussein to invite the UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, he also had an ulterior motive in that he thought that by inviting the inspectors back he would pre-empt the UN and that there would be no Resolution 1441. By the time the inspectors actually turned up in Iraq Saddam Hussein had had roughly nine months to relocate, destroy and kill anything that could potentially embarass him.

5. Proposed by the UK and seconded by the USA 1441 = Iraq's Last Chance. It was passed unanimously in the Security Council on 8th November 2002. No messing about full proactive co-operation to be given by Iraq from Day 1. No material breaches of the Resolution to be tolerated. That was how it was supposed to be done, they were supposedly Dr Hans Blix's riding instructions. But none of that ever happened, Blix, who Saddam had no respect for (After all he'd run circles round Blix during the UNSCOM days), and the UN caved into pressure from Russia, France and China and ensured that 1441 was not enforced to the letter.

6. So Saddam agreed to let inspectors come in and look for WMDs But that was not UNMOVIC's Job according to 1441 Bobert and you would have known that if you had ever read that or any of Hans Blix's Reports.

7. There were seven instances that could be classified as material breaches of UN Resolution 1441 and at that point the US and UK said enough something has to be done. The UK starts to draft a second resolution, President Chirac of France states that France will veto ANY second resolution irrespective of the circumstances. That in effect killed the diplomatic process and the UN train ran into the buffers. The US had warned right from day 1 of the process - You act to address our concerns or we will - On 20th March, 2003 the US invaded.

8. How many people got killed is still an unknown... Several studies have it upwards of a million people, T... That's a lot of folks, BTW... Other studies much less but nowhere near the 14,000 that you once vlaimed... Or was that BB???

No Bobert several studies have tried to estimate how many people have been killed. Others have painstakingly logged and researched actual deaths, witnessed (not heard about) and confirmed and they all arrive at figures around one tenth of the million you tout. The other lie that you cling to is that those killed were killed by US Forces, where the truth puts roughly 80% of the deaths in Iraq down to Iraqi civilians being killed by foreign Jihadist groups; Ba'athist insurgents; sectarian militias and criminal gangs. I believe the figure that varies between 11,000 and 14,000 dates back to 2003 and covers the total number killed by MNF troops during the invasion.

9. I keep askin' you about Blix Naw Bobert what you did was misquote, take out of context and cherrypick little bits and pieces from Blix's reports that suited your purpose. And far from not responding myself and others went to great lengths to refute your wilder flights of fancy and imagination. So now Bobert I generally don't bother responding to the crap you come out with with regard to the good Doctor Blix, you obviously are not going to read what he has written, so there seems little point in pursuing the matter.

But one thing Bobert, should it ever come to a trial for Tony Blair, which I very much doubt, what was written, what was actually said, and what was done will be judged in full in context under the rules of evidence, and all your lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and myths will be dismissed for what they are and the verdict will come in "NOT GUILTY".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 08:34 AM

#1... Correct

#2... Correct

But then the story goes off the tracks... What occured that you don't want to talk about has nothin' at all to do with UN resolution and that is Bush started with his sabre rattling about this and that... Saddam is a bad man... Musroom clouds... Aluminum tubes. Blah, blah, blah... Thie is the part of thet story that you ignore and ignore... No one was talkin' about UN resolution back in then, T...

The war was rolled out to be sold in August of '02 with no mention of UN resolutions or even going to the UN... That fact changes everything... If Bush and Blari had sold the war correctly then...
maybe more people would have said, "Geeze, maybe we do need to do this..."

But the war was sold with a bunch of emotionally charged lies... That's B&B's bad...

That being a given then #3, #4 and #5 were steps that didn't have to happen as the premise for these cations was flawed...

Then we get around to points #6 thru #9 and here we have some very major differences...

You wanted and war and were going to find any rationilzation to have one... I didn't want a war and so I did the same on my side...

You think when Blix said that the "most important" thing was that Iraq was "cooperating" in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted that that statement was not the "most imortant" or even "important"...

Well, if yer looking to go to war then, yeah, you would skim past that statement like it was a radiation pit... Problem is that inspite of the other problems that the inspectors ahd had in the ***past*** they were now able to do their jobs of proving or disproving the existence ot WMDs...

That's what Blix said... That's why it was premature to order up and invasion... That is how histporians will judge this... I really don't care about what Iraq had done prior to January, 2003 in terms of cooperating... That is completely irrelevent... We weren't in the business or revenge... We were supposed to be in the business of keeping the world safer... We failed on both counts...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 09:34 AM

""Don T - your hypothetical situation.

Solution: Taking into account that they have come to arrest someone they think is armed and connected to some sort of crime that they are investigating. Take note of the time the 5 minute warning is given then within that time get anything in your house that looks remotely like a gun wrap it up wait until 4 minutes 45 seconds has elapsed toss out the "gun" and come out with hands up and obey all instructions without hesitation.

Oh and for things such as would be required for programmes that cover such activities as:

- The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons
- A nuclear weapons programme
- The manufacture of ballistic missiles

With all the specialist equipment required and the forensic traces that the above activities leave behind. Provided that you did have those things at one point (As was known to be the case with Iraq) if you are being totally transparent and honest it should be easy to prove that you no longer have anything connected with those activities, especially as you are dealing with the same people who had been working on your disarmament programme previously. So please do not try the rather childish tactic of over simplifying a problem just to make it suit your argument or point of view.""

Facile, stupid, and ineffectual!

Facile because you are avoiding answering a serious question, by fabricating a nonsensical response.

Stupid, because you must be aware that any subterfuge purporting to give up a weapon, while failing to reveal said weapon would not be accepted.

Ineffectual, because it still doesn't deal with your obvious belief that a negative is susceptible of proof, something the rest of the world agrees is impossible.

Your second point, regarding the mythical Iraqi WMD, is ridiculous in the extreme, for the following good reasons.

1). Before the fighting, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis were allowing his team access to anything they asked for, and allowing them to go wherever they chose, yet they didn't turn up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

2). The fighting over, inspection teams went into Iraq, and assiduously searched for WMD, or evidence thereof, without turning up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

If you were right, and Saddam had these weapons, why were there no "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind", either before, or after, the war.

Given that there were no "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind", it would seem that they did not exist.

Regarding your accusation of over simplification, I find it more effective to simplify explanations, when dealing with the "hard of understanding".

If this is too difficult for you, ask somebody else to explain it. I've had my fill of Bush/Blair apologists who would prefer to keep crooked leaders, rather than make any effort to understand WHY they should be brought to book.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM

Ah Don, admit it you're just pissed off because I came up with a solution to your little problem.

You have obviously never been in any situation remotely like the one you described, therefore it is highly unlikely that I will take your word for what might or might not happen.

Something gets thrown out that is of the right size and lands with a convincing thud, followed by a person appearing through the door, preferably as near naked as possible with both hands in full view and guess what Don - They aren't going to open fire

1). Before the fighting, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis were allowing his team access to anything they asked for, and allowing them to go wherever they chose,

But that is not what was required was it Don 1441 demanded full proactive co-operation and that is not what you have described above.

yet they didn't turn up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

Could it possibly be because nothing was destroyed at the site the Iraqis have brought you to. The site where they swear that the unaccounted for WMD were unilaterally destroyed without the required oversight by UNSCOM years previously.

Go to the former battle-fields of Northern France Don with a forensic scientist with the right kit and he can tell where shells landed and whether they were from the First or the Second World War

2). The fighting over, inspection teams went into Iraq, and assiduously searched for WMD, or evidence thereof, without turning up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

They were still operating blind in a very large country. However items were found both by UNMOVIC and by the post-invasion Iraq Inspection Teams. In bringing Baghdad airport back into service they found a Mig 29 buried in the sand, they weren't looking for it they just stumbled across it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:50 PM

Without stage 4 Bobert UNMOVIC would never have been invited abck into Iraq.

Now as far as Blix and Iraqi Non-Complaince with UN Resloution 1441 goes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/iraq.jackstraw

As far as what Blix did say when he reported to the UN Security Council on 27th January 2003:

1. I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.

It would appear Bobert that Dr. Blix does not think that Iraq is co-operating fully and to decide something in principle does not equate to doing something in practice.

2. In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

There weren't supposed to be any tolerance of problems and total compliance was required from day 1.

3. I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment.

Were the Iraqi Authorities supposed to harass UNMOVIC Inspectors Bobert??

4. The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust

Not quite the picture of co-operation that you would like us to believe Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:29 PM

Tell ya' what, T... Rather than provide you with the quote yet again I'll make you a deal... If I provide Blix's own words that can be verified where he said that the Iraqis were cooperating will you just admit that the war was a mistake???

Deal???

B~!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:49 PM

Cut the cack, Teribus. Everyone knew that Saddam was trying to save face. It was obvious to the allies that he had no serious military capability, let alone WMD- he was a small town bully. How do we know that? They went and camped in Kuwait, well within the range of an international hand grenade. I bet he wished he'd kept the gas shells he'd bought off the Germans then- he could have wiped out the lot, or at least given them velvet pause, with a simple artillery barrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:06 PM

The deal is still on the table, T...

Blix quote for your confession...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 07:55 PM

BTW, T... Just thought you should know that there's a major snow storm headin' my way which will more than likely knock me off the pudder for days so if you take the deal or not and just want to do yer usual arguin' over how many angels can stand on the end of a pin, not to fear... I'll be back when I can get back... Don't wnat you to get no self-righteous bigass head thinkin' that whatever you said was goin' unanswered 'cause I didn't have an answer... I'll allways have an answer 'casue I was on the right side of the "moral courage" arguement... It's just friggin' snow and my pudder dish is gonna be covered with the stuff... But I'll be back... You can take that to the bank...

And I got Hanz Blix's speech right here next to my pudder...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 07:56 AM

The words in RED are those delivered by Dr. Hans Blix to the assembled Security Council of the United Nations on the 27th January 2003 Bobert

What in effect he is saying that they have agreed in principle to partially co-operate.

Letting the inspectors look where they wanted to amounts to a game of hide-and-seek and that is not what was demanded of the Iraqis under the terms of 1441 - Their Last Chance - well they got their last chance and they blew it by heeding the advice of the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and seriously underestimating the determination of the USA and the UK.

Was the war a mistake - HELL NO

Mr Burke - you didn't read that Guardian link did you.

Why did Saddam not use his undoubted and undeniable WMD capability in 1991 Paul? Because Saddam was probably given that hint that if he did so he along with the whole of Iraq would be destroyed. He also knew that in facing the opponents that he did he was looking at an army that had been trained to deal with and fight through a chemical or biological attack.

In Europe during the Cold War the Soviets and their Warsaw pact Allies were told in no uncertain terms that use of Chemical or Bacteriological Weapons as they were called in those days would result on an immediate counter-attack involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Neither the armed forces of the UK or the US had C&B weapons from 1956 & 1960 respectively. Not once in all the time I served in the RN did I ever come across any Chemical or Bacteriological munitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:03 AM

PS Bobert if you've got Blix's speech next to your computer might be a good for you to actually read it while you're snowed in.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 08:24 AM

Here is the transcript of Blix's speech in its complete form:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

This is paragraph that Bobert clings onto out of a whole catalogue of difficulties Blix is reporting

I shall deal first with cooperation on process. In this regard, it has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

Blix says that they are co-operating on process but goes to state that they are NOT co-operating on substance

What was required:

Resolution 1441 was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active.

What co-operation UNMOVIC got was patchy, sporadic and in the case of active co-operation non-existent.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:13 AM

T,

So I take it that you just want to cherry pick Blix's speech where he was going thru a review of problems he had had (past tense) with the Iraqis but not at all concerned with the here-and-now as of the day he delivered the speech???

That's called revenge, T!!!

Was tyhe invasion of Iraq, which BTW some sources say was responsible for upwards of a 1,000,000 death about revenge???

Danged!!!

Why didn't you just say that???

Oh, BTW, T... Seein' as you are stuck on what Iraq had done in the past prior to the here-and-now as it existed on January 27th, 2003 here is where things were as of that date:

"Iraq has on the whole COOPERATED rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The MOST IMPORTANT point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect...

...We have further had GREAT HELP in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our planers and our helicopters have been GOOD. The environment has been WORKABLE"   

(Hans Blix Update to the the UN Security Council, January 27th, 2003)

Sorry about the CAPS, T... I'm not screaming at you... It's just that you seem to conviently skip by the here-and-now conditions on the ground in Iraq as of January 27th, 2003...

This is why the Iraq was was wrong and didn't need to be initiated by Blair and Bush... The apparatus was in place and if the word "workable" means "working" then whether or not Iraq had WMDs was to be proved one way or another... But Blair and Bush didn't want to have their claims (lies) disproved so rather than allow the process to work itself thru they short circuited sanity and called up the invasion...

That's the way it went down in a nutshell... Of course you don't like that and of course you'll never admit it because in doing so you would have to admit that you, yes you, have blood on your hands...

It must really suck to be in your position...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 11:24 AM

So no UK or USA chemical/biological weapons since 1960, Teribus? How do you categorise napalm? ASnd the uranium-depleted armour-piercing stuff that still litters parts of Bosnia-Hercegovina? And if I may be allowed a little diversion into morality, why was it OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920s (in Iraq, by happy coincidence) and not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980s.

After quoting Blix above you then tell us (in red, but forgetting to tell us who you are quoting) "what was required." Well for sure there were indeed "requirements". The bit that's missing is any suggestion that failure to meet the requirements would be all-out war. Let's keep in mind here that Iraq is not the only country to have flouted a UN resolution. Israel has done it repeatedly, with impunity.

On the question of 1441, of course, we now know that your assertion about Chirac's position was completely without foundation. Chirac did NOT say he would oppose a second resolution in all circumstances. He just said he would not support such a resolution until Iraq (and Blix) had been allowed more time.

In this respect Chirac, Blix and most of the civilised world were all on the same page. Only the US admin was pressing for a war without UN authority. Perhaps your mistake has been to accept too readily that "might is right."

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:31 PM

Napalm Peter is an incendiary and would definitely not be classified as either chemical or biological weapon.

Depleted Uranium is exactly what it says it is, it is less radioactive than all that naturally occuring uranium that is lying about planet earth, I could eat the stuff by the bucket load and it would not affect me. The DU stories are a myth, particularly those relating to Iraq and Coalition use of the munitions that are used in and anti-tank role. During Desert Storm there were no major battles involving Coalition Forces around Basra.

After the Iraqis signed the ceasefire at Safwan (which they never honoured) they were allowed to fly helicopters. And they used their helicopters to suppress a Shia uprising in the South of Iraq. now let me see what helicopters did they fly again, oh yes Soviet supplied M-24 Hinds armed with rotary 20mm cannon firing - Yes Peter you've got it DU rounds, so IF there is any problem related to the dust spatter from DU rounds in Southern Iraq they can from Iraqi Gunships not Coalition aircraft.

WHO reckons DU radiation is a load of rubbish.

And if I may be allowed a little diversion into morality, why was it OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920s (in Iraq, by happy coincidence) and not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980s.

I don't know you tell me, although I can't ever remember saying that it was OK for the UK to use chemical weapons in the 1920's. The reason why it was not OK for Saddam to use them in the 1980's had something to do with an agreement that he had signed saying that he wouldn't use them maybe.

Bobert I would read that speech/report again, you have obviously skipped most of it to land on the bits that you think supports your arguement.

Oh Peter the text I quoted in red comes from the speech given by Blix to the UN Security Committee on 27th January 2003. You can confirm that by opening the link, its there in the transcript for all to see.

Was the US right to invade Iraq and enforce the terms of the Safwan ceasefire - Most certainly

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:53 PM

No, T.... I have hit upon the single most important part of Blix's speech... You know, the part that made the war a war of choice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,t
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:29 PM

Thesenon-existent chemical weapons are easy to forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 03:23 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle - PM
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:29 PM""

Do you really expect anyone to actually plough through that lot?

What really counts, is that the pretext for war was a false one, and the need for invasion was trumped up and sold to the public of both the UK and the USA as a "clear and present danger", which it very clearly wasn't.

As for chemical weapons, the last major nation to avail itself of their use was indeed the US of A, which, as Freda pointed out, liberally sprayed Vietnam with Agent Orange.

Now Teribus will, I expect, enlighten us with his rationale re-classifying Agent Orange as a gardeners aid.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

Albeit long, it makes for good reading; it helps show that no matter how these "kooks" try to twist the facts, it clearly shows which powers have been complicit in starting wars and fomenting civil unrest and revolutions. The SAME powers that benefited from upheaval and chaos one hundred years abo are doing it now, and for the same basic reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

Well Freda & Don T, Agent Orange was not considered to be a chemical warfare agent, it was classified as a Herbicide and a Defoliant.

Chemical and Biological Warfare agents are designed to be targeted at personnel and they are designed to deliberately kill or incapacitate people. Agent Orange was never targeted at people and it most definitiely wasn't designed or used to kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:24 PM

Doesn't change anything one way or another...

The war was a moral disaster....

And that's to say the least...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:45 PM

""Chemical and Biological Warfare agents are designed to be targeted at personnel and they are designed to deliberately kill or incapacitate people. Agent Orange was never targeted at people and it most definitiely wasn't designed or used to kill people.""

Tell that to the relatives of those it did kill or incapacitate, you warmongering arsehole.

It don't make much difference to them whether they are intentional, or collateral, damage.

And don't try to tell me that the US government didn't know what that so called de-foliant does to people. That was the bonus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:57 PM

Don its a very bad idea to call Teribus nasty names.
Just a word of wisdom....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:22 AM

Bobert and Dr Hans Blix's Report to the UN Security Council 27th January 2003

Bobert wishes to infer that all the problems that Dr.Hans Blix mentioned during his delivery of the UNMOVIC Report on 27th January 2003 referred to problems encountered in the past and that as of 27th January 2003 everything was just perfect and that UNMOVIC was enjoying total co-operation from the Iraqi Authorities.

Blix's report was some 104 paragraphs long

Paragraphs 1 to 4 were the introduction. At this point UNMOVIC has been back in Iraq for 60 days.

Paragraphs 5 to 14 recalls and summarises the UNSCOM period of inspections from 1991 to 1998.

Paragraphs 15 to 18 cover the period between the end of UNSCOMS time in Iraq and the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1441. These four paragraphs detail the following points of importance:

The key questions:

1. How much (WMD) might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter?

2. What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left?

3. How it (Iraq) can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?

Key Statement: It was only after appeals by the secretary-general and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other member states that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.

Paragraphs 19 to 22 cover UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and UNMOVIC Reporting frequency.

Paragraphs 23 to 25 deals generally with Iraqi co-operation and legislation that Iraq should implement:

It is in these paragraphs that Blix refers to:

"       Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process

"       That it would appear that Iraq was co-operating with regard to process, notably access

"       That they have yet to be found to be co-operating in terms of substance

"       That there are certain items of legislation that the UN require IRAQ to pass into law so that the disarmament process and civil rights obligations can be undertaken.

Paragraphs 26 to 37 deals specifically with co-operation on process:

"       Blix backs up what he said previously on co-operation on process by stating: I shall deal first with cooperation on process………. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

"       Blix describes the environment as being workable.

"       On access he only notes one exception to access being granted.

"       He notes problems on co-operation related to air operations. U2 surveillance flights were not permitted by Iraq counter to the requirements of resolution 1441. (The U2 surveillance flights never did take place)

"       He noted problems relating to helicopter movements to support inspections, but these were resolved by both UNMOVIC Inspectors and Iraqi Officials travelling in the same helicopters. This delaying tactic and the solution had been experienced during earlier UNSCOM inspections and should not have arisen with UNMOVIC.

"       Blix reports disturbing incidents and harassment. Allegations of intelligence gathering, again tactics used against UNSCOM inspections previously.

"       Blix reports anti-UN demonstrations in front of UNMOVIC Offices and at inspection sites. Blix also notes that "Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities"

Paragraphs 38 & 39 relate to Iraq's lack of co-operation in substance both paragraphs are quoted in full below:

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

Paragraphs 40 to 46 covers the submission of Iraq's "last-chance-full-and-final" Declaration to the UN:

"       In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward.

"       Declaration of 7th December should have addressed outstanding matters dating back to UNSCOM Inspections and detailed in the Amorim Report of March 1999. As of 27th January 2003 UNMOVIC finds the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved.

Paragraphs 47 to 58 covers the known status of the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Programme and their Declaration Document:

"       Declared, manufacture on a pilot scale only, of poor quality and unstable, therefore never weaponised. The small quantity that remained was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991 without UNSCOM supervision (A requirement at that time)

"       UNMOVIC information is in conflict with the above from documentary evidence found relating to purity and stabilisation of the agent and that the VX agent was weaponised.

"       No trace or accountability of key VX precursor chemicals which Iraq says were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq without the required UNSCOM Supervision.

"       The "Air Force Document" originally found by UNSCOM in 1998 and confiscated by Iraqi "Minders" from the UNSCOM Inspector who found it. Iraq has now produced the document and details chemical munitions (Bombs) produced and used during the Iran/Iraq War. Between records of bombs actually dropped and the figure of bombs consumed during this period there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs that are unaccounted for.

"       Chemical warheads for 122mm have been found. Iraq explains that they were overlooked from the 1991, but the facility in which they were found was built after that date. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.

"       More Chemical warheads found plus mustard gas precursor chemicals.

"       Equipment previously used in the production of chemical weapons and destroyed by UNSCOM was found to have been repaired and moved and used for the production of chlorine and phenols.

Paragraphs 59 to 64 covers current known status of the Iraqi Biological Weapons Programme and their Declaration Document:

"       Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

"       Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

"       There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

"       In its recent submitted Declaration of 7th December 2002 Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. This serious omission appeared to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered

"       In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Paragraphs 65 to 75 covers the current known status of the Iraq Missile Programme and their Declaration Document:

"       As of 27th January 2003, there remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War.

"       Declaration of Iraqi missile development, two systems Al-Samud II and Al-Fatah may be proscribed systems (Al-Samud range 183km with an OD of 760mm contravenes UN instructions dating back to 1994) Iraq says missiles are under development but have been deployed already with Iraqi armed forces.

"       Iraq has ignored UN instructions dated back to 1997 regarding use of engines from surface-to-air missiles for use in ballistic missiles.

"       Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.

"       Illegal import of items associated with rocket and missile development as late as December 2002.

Paragraphs 76 to 95 "Helping prove the negative" - Documentation and Personnel Interviews:

Paragraphs 79 to 87 relates to documents:

Key Paragraph 79:
UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq. But nor is it, or I think anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98 presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help.

"       Touches on information received from the intelligence services of other member states relating to movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons.

"       Discovery of undeclared chemical warheads for 122mm rockets and invites Iraq to - Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision.

"       The Iraqi excuse that - All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons - Is not credible, citing other documentary evidence that still would exist.

"       Some NEW documents produced voluntarily 1093 pages covering 1983 to 1990

"       Over 3000 pages of new and undeclared documents relating to Iraq's nuclear programme discovered in the home of scientist may indicate that Iraqi authorities are hiding documents in private homes deliberately.

Key paragraph 87:
Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site will be very serious matter.

Any further concealment? - There should not have been any concealment from the outset, here Blix oversteps his authority to give Iraq a second last chance. Iraqis accept access to private sites? That was understood and required from day 1 where is this supposed co-operation in allowing inspectors to look wherever they wanted to gone?

Paragraphs 88 to 95 relate to Personnel interviews - or lack of them:

"       UNMOVIC ask for a list of persons in accordance with Resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs, as well as their missile programs, were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. When questioned further on this obvious discrepancy the Iraqis provided some 80 additional names. 3,500 does not equal 480.

"       Private interviews to the extent required just did not happen, interviewees were afraid to undergo interviews unless Iraqi Authorities were present. When the Iraqi Authorities were told that this was not acceptable and that they would have to encourage interviewees to take part in private interviews none would come forward under those circumstances.

Paragraphs 96 to 104 cover a description of UNMOVIC facilities and capabilities within Iraq.

Not quite the rosey picture that Bobert would like to portray and it gives a damning indictment of the manner that Blix carried out his role as head of UNMOVIC. With the full backing and authority of the UN Security Council he was not sent to Iraq to:

"       Put up with things
"       Request things from the Iraqi Authorities

He was sent there to demand and enforce, he was woefully ill-equipped in terms of track-record, nature and bearing to do either and expect any sort of respect or compliance from Saddam Hussein, after all Saddam Hussein had danced circles round Blix between 1991 and 1998, why should this time be any different. Saddam Hussein was perfectly aware of that and so too were the USA and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:27 AM

Well Freda & Don T, Agent Orange was not considered to be a chemical warfare agent, it was classified as a Herbicide and a Defoliant.

Chemical and Biological Warfare agents are designed to be targeted at personnel and they are designed to deliberately kill or incapacitate people. Agent Orange was never targeted at people and it most definitiely wasn't designed or used to kill people. –Teribus

Well, Magnesium is "classified" 12th and Phosphorus is "classified" 15th on the periodic table. They can also be used on anything from toothpaste, road flares and even herbicides. Unfortunately, they can also be used for bombs and nerve agents.

White Phosphorus is also "classified" as a chemical weapon by the U.S., but is sure did not stop them from using it in Iraq, nor did it stop the Israelis from using it in Gaza.

Hypocrites and wicked, best describes anyone that thinks that random or mass murder is justifiable, under ANY circumstance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 11:54 AM

Down that road Captain, just because you can kill someone with a pencil does not make it an offensive weapon.

White Phosphorus is used as a marker or for smoke, and in your rules of engagement that is its permitted use and function.

Having said that, purely as a hypocritical warmongering arsehole, if I were to find myself and the men under my command in a life threatening situation, then my priorities are to ensure that I protect the lives of my men before any others to ensure that the maximum number of my men get through the engagement alive. If you are at war there is only one rule - You make damn sure you win.

Now if, in a similar situation, the likes of yourself Captain Subtle, or Don the Twat (I take it that that IS what the T stands for), would prefer standing there getting hammered while you confer with somebody who looks up what are supposed to be the rules in order to advise you. Then all I can say is thank fuck I would never find myself under your command. I say that for primarily your own good because if I was present the first thing I'd do is damn well shoot the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM

Oh dear!.....I did warn you Don, you might get away with your inaccuracies, and abuse with ole softy's like me, but if you wish to debate with Teribus, you first need to read and understand accurately what he says; he is very precise.
Secondly, dont make him angry as he doesn't make any allowances for the infirm.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 05:57 PM

Having said that, purely as a hypocritical warmongering arsehole, if I were to find myself and the men under my command in a life threatening situation, then my priorities are to ensure that I protect the lives of my men before any others to ensure that the maximum number of my men get through the engagement alive. If you are at war there is only one rule - You make damn sure you win. -Teribus

It's amazing how the same criminal minds that invade and occupy other countries think that they can always justify screwing the natives out of their land, resources and lives, by breaking the same rules they themselves created.

No matter how you try to spin it, I do not think that even you can justify the killing of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003. Please justify killing a defenseless 23 year female, that probably did not even weigh 100 pounds, with a Bulldozer of all things. Talk about chicken shit and straight up evil. Go ahead and justify it "tough guy".

I say that for primarily your own good because if I was present the first thing I'd do is damn well shoot the pair of you. -Teribus

That is interesting. If you keep talking like that you may actually cause someone to lose a half of second of sleep. You "tough guy" you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

Dont shoot the messenger Captain

"If you are at war there is only one rule - You make damn sure you win."

and we were taken to war, not by teribus, but by the UK's strongest believer in "liberal democracy"....Mr Tony Blair!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 06:34 PM

Yes, we all know, silver-tongued Tony Blair, George W. Bush's lapdog.

Of course, not even "Bush" had anything to do with invading Iraq. I assure you, that twit is barely capable of tying his own shoes, let alone making a decision about which country to attack and how to attack it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:18 PM

It's amazing how the same criminal minds that invade and occupy other countries think that they can always justify screwing the natives out of their land, resources and lives, by breaking the same rules they themselves created. - Captain Subtle

I will take your word for it Captain, having never made or created any rules in my life or personally invaded or occupied other countries or screwed the natives (or anybody else) out of their land, resources or lives. Tell me Captain on that latter one would that be screwing them out of their lives as in the shag of a lifetime?

No matter how you try to spin it, I do not think that even you can justify the killing of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003. Please justify killing a defenceless 23 year female, that probably did not even weigh 100 pounds, with a Bulldozer of all things.

Ah your little troll agenda now gets revealed. Not here to talk about the testimony being given at the Chilcot Inquiry at all are you? Just want to have a little Anti-Israeli rant, that being the case why not start your own threat on the subject. Oh wait a minute, you are a Guest so that option is not open to you tough luck.

But:
1. I do not think that even you can justify the killing of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003.

And oddly enough Captain Subtle I cannot think for the life of me why I would want to.

2.    Please justify killing a defenceless 23 year female, that probably did not even weigh 100 pounds, with a Bulldozer of all things.

No, but it is interesting to know that you have to be over 100 pounds in weight before you can be officially considered as a suitable potential candidate for death by Bulldozer. What an absolute mine of obscure, idiotic but interesting information you are Captain.

Picture of your murder weapon Cap'n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D9R-pic0010.jpg

Now how high do you think that stands? (4 metres)

And what height would you have to be standing at to be able to tell that Rachel Corrie's head, shoulders and upper body would be plainly visible above the blade at the front? (At least 1.5 metres off the ground)


Where in relation to the Bulldozer would you have to be standing to be able to state that Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the driver? (A witness who could state with any degree of certainty that Rachel Corrie was standing head, shoulders and upper body directly in front of the driver of the Bulldozer would also have to have been standing directly in front of the Bulldozer and the driver)

And Guess What Cap'n - (Witness reports don't match up to any of that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

""Now if, in a similar situation, the likes of yourself Captain Subtle, or Don the Twat (I take it that that IS what the T stands for), would prefer standing there getting hammered while you confer with somebody who looks up what are supposed to be the rules in order to advise you. Then all I can say is thank fuck I would never find myself under your command. I say that for primarily your own good because if I was present the first thing I'd do is damn well shoot the pair of you.""

I hadn't realised T. Oh those poor pilots, being placed in such an invidious position.

They must have agonised for hours before deciding that self preservation required them to rain down Agent Orange, and Napalm, from 30,000 feet.

I understand now. Those treacherous Vietcong could have brought 'em down quite easily with their missiles and AA, if they could have seen 'em through the trees, and if they had missiles and AA.

What a bugger, to be forced to use chemical weapons. My heart bleeds.

You, on the other hand, have just shown yourself to be exactly what I called you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:57 PM

Yeah, T... I've read every single word of Blix's statement... Your colorized posts are very entertaining to look at with all them colors but rereading portions of a statement I have now read several times is a total waste of time...

It all boils down to my argument that all this would have been sorted out without a war... I mean, we had Saddam "by the shorts" and he knew it, the international community knew it and it was a new ball game...

But, no... You have to put your doom and gloom spin on it because you are a negative person... I don't mean that to be disrepestfull or mean... That's just the way you are... Your history here is one of military solutions for jsut about everything... That is anti-human and anti-Erath and anti-anti-anti... There are folks in the world like that... Maybe a psychologist could explain it, I donno...

You will never ever admit that you were wrong... Folks that start wars never ever do... So I reckon you are stuck witgh your colorized rationalizations... Won't change that you and Blair and Bush short circuited the inspections before things could get sorted out without war...

That, my friend, is on you and yer buds, B&B...

B~

Subject: Lyr Add: John Chilcot
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 07:43 PM

The idea for the following came to me while walking to Cardiff's BBC folk club tonight. With verse written between performances I was ready with this for my spot.
I know it still needs polish, but this is how it came out.
If anyone thinks they can use it, consider ir 'public domain'.
Cheers
Nigel

_____________________________________________________


The Chilcot Enquiry
(TTTO Who's afraid of the big bad wolf)

(Chorus)
Who's afraid of John Chilcot,
(is) Tony Blair? No he's not.
Who's afraid of John Chilcot,
tra la la la la.

It was just a few years back,
(with) Bush's party on the rack.
He called his crony, brother Tony,
Let's invade eye-raq
Ha, ha ha, the two little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Chorus)

So they planned a small foray,
'Til the UN said "No way!"
We don't give a damn, if you kill Saddam,
But regime change don't pay.
Ha, ha ha, our two little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Cho)

So, Lord Goldsmith, help us please,
This is why we pay your fees.
We need the right to start this fight,
Can you cite some WMDs?
Ha, ha ha, the three little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Cho)

Well, the goverment had qualms,
That they'd not find any arms.
But with Campbell in, they included 'spin'
To find missiles midst the palms.
Ha, ha ha, the four little pigs just laughed ha ha!

(Cho)

Now John Chilcot holds the rein,
While our "leaders" feel the pain.
(Tho') He's not done yet, still it's fair to bet
On a whitewash once again!

(spoken) At this point I'll stop singing & laughing, as it's just not funny anymore!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 07:57 PM

No, it's not, Nigel... But you got the story right...

Reminds me of the name of a song that Black Sabboth wrote: "War Pigs"...

That's really what we have here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM

Motherearth is the body, and you, Teribus, represent a single cancerous cell that makes up the malignant neoplasm that threatens to consume our world.

You and your ilk are a dying breed. Your lizard brain is obsolete. You are nothing but a candy-ass, tough talking, pansy.

I have first hand experience with your type. Talk tough... Act tough... But when the chips are down are no where to be found. But, once the chaos settles, you always come back wearing a certain new scent of... "Je ne sais quoi"... of... I just crapped my pants cologne.

Do your self and all of us a favor... tough guy, enlist to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq, and be sure to trip an "IED".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM

Saw Blix on the BBC programme Hardtalk with Jonathon Charles the other day. Charles made absolute mincemeat out of him, catching a very much revisionist Blix script out time and time again. But Charles just kept hauling Blix back to explain the words he used on the day as opposed to the words he now wishes he had used. Watching it it almost rekindled my faith in the BBC as an objective impartial broadcaster. Long and short of it was Bobert that:

- in November 2002 Blix thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD
- in January 2003 Blix thought that Sadam Hussein had WMD
- in February 2003 Blix thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD
- in March 2003 Blix still thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD

Negativety Bobert?? I cannot think of anything more negative, or heartless, than to condemn the peoples of both Afghanistan and Iraq to the regimes that they were living under in 2001 and 2003 respectively.

The middle-east has been more peaceful in the past 10 years than it has been in the fifty years before that, and it is getting better by the minute.

Negativety Bobert?? Who was it that was spouting on about Baghdad being a "Stalingrad"; who was it spouting about "Civil War" destroying Iraq and causing it to break up into three states. You would dearly love to believe that 1 million + people had been killed, you would dearly have loved to have seen the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq fail. Why?? Because you could not accept in 2000 what Al Gore could - That George W. Bush won the US Presidential Election, it further infuriated you that he won his second term in 2004, despite all the crap that you and your fellow travellers tried to tar him with. By all means cling to your fantasies, your myths, your half-truths and misrepresntations if they give you comfort. But do not for one minute think that you can trot them out here and expect to get away with it.

Take a good look back at various predictions made and you will find Bobert that most of mine have been borne out while most of yours have not.

Cap'n - if the UK military would take me back, I'd go out to Afghanistan tomorrow, without a seconds hesitation. I would love to serve in the same theatre of operations as my son. Unfortunately they have age restrictions and and medical fitness requirements, while I might still be able to get fit enough, I most certainly cannot duck the age thing. I had my experience in what they refer to as conflict zones in Borneo and in Northern Ireland, which judging from your posts is a damn sight more "service" than you have ever seen, or are ever likely to see, which means that your remarks are water-off-a-ducks-back, totally meaningless, nothing but magpie chatter.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:17 AM

Oh one more thing Bobert, this observation of yours (incorrect as usual):

You will never ever admit that you were wrong

There are people on this forum who I have argued and discussed things with fiercely and one thing that they can testify to is that if I ever have been shown to be in error I have always openly admitted it, which is a damn sight more than you have ever done.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:34 PM

"if the UK military would take me back, I'd go out to Afghanistan tomorrow, without a seconds hesitation." -Teribus

"if the UK military would take me back, I'd go out to Afghanistan tomorrow, without a seconds hesitation." -Teribus

"If", "if". That is a lot of "ifs" there tough guy.

Keep it positive tough guy. "Where there's a will, there's a way".

Call "Blackwater Worldwide", they may give you a "shot" to serve in one of there "theatres", "if" you really want the gig.

"I had my experience in what they refer to as conflict zones in Borneo and in Northern Ireland..." -Teribus

Listen here braggart, I do not need to, nor will I, talk about my personal experiences with you or anyone else. Rest assured, that most people, especially YOU, would not be able to cope with my life experiences. Quit trying to make your self into this mythical "G.I. Joe" figure, no one is buying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM

Well there would be a lot of "ifs" "if" you keep double pasting the same bloody sentence wouldn't there you feckin eedjit.

In fact you stupid twat in the portion of that post of mine addressed for your attention the word"if" only appeared once, I know the mental arithmetic might be a tad challenging for someone such as yourself with so much experience of the world (too busy to learn to count past 1 - by fuck you really must have been a busy little troll)

Listen here braggart, I do not need to, nor will I, talk about my personal experiences with you or anyone else.

Please, please, please do hold to that promise for fucks sake, that would give us all a break (But as a possible cure for insomnia it might have a use).

Rest assured, that most people, especially YOU, would not be able to cope with my life experiences.

Well any life experience that tells you what weight you have to be before you can get killed by a Bulldozer, I would describe as leaning towards the bizarre, although not particularly harrowing.

Life experience moron you wouldn't recognise it if it jumped up and bit you, you pathetic poseur.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:59 PM

Obviously, you candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be, the wrong sentence was posted by accident.

As I stated previously, "if" you truly would like to see some military action, you would take the necessary steps to make your wet dream possible.

Please do human kind a great favor and find someone that can use you in Afghanistan or Iraq, preferably as a mine sweeper, you disgusting braggart.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 07:50 PM

Well, T....

Yeah, I did predidct that Iraq would break into 3 states... Stayed tuned... As long as the US is pouring it's treasury into Iraq that ain't gonna happen... I never said it would happen as long as the US is throwing $$$ and arms into Iraq... It's when the US leaves... That has always been my prediction... We both know it...

I mean, you might call that "negativity" on my part and. yeah, it is... I never saw a successful outcome in Iarq and I still don't... That's why I have consistenetly opposed this war going back forever...

As fir the 2000 elections... Hey, show me where I ever supported Al Bore... I didn't... I supported and voted for Green Party candidates... But that doesn't change the ****fact**** that the Bush handlers were ready for the election to go to the Supreme Court where 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents... That was the sorriest election since the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 where a deal was made and the winner became the loser...

As for your predictuions, T???? Name one that has come to pass??? Just one... Don't hurt yer head on this one... What, are you gonna say that Iraq is a sterling success??? If so, pee in the cup so we can find out what drugs you are on...

As for me admittin' I am wrong??? I'm not... Historians will get it right... Most allready have... But you wouldn't know about the many people who have said that Iraq was the largest blunder in US history because you don't want to face that reality...

If you wanted regime change, T, why didn't you just kill Saddam??? You won't nawer that question becuase you have no answer for that... Might of fact you won't answer any of the tuff questions because you don't have answers for them... You cherry pick Blix but ignore the here and now in his report of Jan 27... You ignore the "most important"... You ignore "cooperating"... Those realities (facts) don't jive with yer little pathology/mythology... That's your problem... Not mine... I was on the correct side of history... You weren't... You are now forever damned by your own denial... Your problem... Not mine...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:37 AM

Cap'n grits teeth and furiously types:

Obviously, you candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be, the wrong sentence was posted by accident.

This just could not get any better. Wrong sentence eh Moron? Been through the whole post, Guess what Cap'n?? The word "if" only appears TWICE Sort of reinforces the point made previously:

I know the mental arithmetic might be a tad challenging for someone such as yourself with so much experience of the world (too busy to learn to count past 1 - by fuck you really must have been a busy little troll)

Still Cap'n you can now jot this down as yet another experience and if you go back and read that post of mine you will now know with absolute certainty how to count to TWO. Look at it this way, you will have doubled your skill in one department and pat yourself on the back as you are now well on your way to learning what the two words "a lot" means when put together.

Thanks Cap'n your provided me with some really good laughs in this thread.