BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

What I said was that the intention was to obtain the oil.

   The fact that Bush and Blair failed is not surprising.


The economics of what you think they tried to do is ludicrous and makes no sense at all. Iraq at the time that sanctions were applied was ranked 17th in the world for oil exports. Neither the UK or the US took any oil from Iraq all the time that sanctions were in place or if they did it came through traders in extremely small amounts. After 2003 the US bought a token amount of oil from Iraq and contrary to popular believe the USA is not dependent on oil from the region.

You cannot steal oil and although field service contracts have been awarded to foreign companies (Mostly National Oil Companies of foreign countries) the oil still belongs to Iraq or whatever other country an oil field is located in, it is a national resource and is treated as such. That has been the way that the international Oil & Gas Industry has worked for at least forty years. I am sorry but there is just no way at all that Bush or Blair could obtain Iraq's oil even if they had wanted to.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GRex
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:46 AM

Teribus

      I will not dispute your details regarding the Iraqi oil contracts. What I said was that the intention was to obtain the oil.
      The fact that Bush and Blair failed is not supprising.

      Not sure whether I'm pleased or not. This war is a terrible thing and seems entirely unjustified.

             GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Pee in the cup, T... You are dillusional... Either that or you are watching a much different chain of events...

It's not me that ain't gettin' the jist... You are jist-less... Dillusional and jist-less...

Now pee in the cup and quit with the mythology...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

1. The war in Baghdad hasn't ended yet...

Must be the quietest war ever fought then Bobert, either that or nobody is bothering to report it.

2. The US military is still fighting and dieing in Iraq... BTW, T, That's why they call it "war"...

Oh yes Bobert that may go on a while yet. By the way Bobert care to tell us how many of those still "dying" have died in non-combat related events.

3. The 2000 elections are something that you brought up in yer usual confrontational/argumentative so it was fair game for me to answer that... I mean, why else di you bring it up???

GWB your attack-dog trigger, just love the way you start to splutter whenever he is mentioned.

4. On Turkey, you were correct but I never took an advesarial position on that anyway... Who cares' you were due to be right once in a hundred... Good job, T...

Well you did ask for one JUST ONE prediction that I made that was correct, and well, there you have it. Always try to oblige Bobert.

5. The Iraq army did fight... Gorella style... Many of them still at it...

Naw Bobert they didn't. The Iraqi Army didn't like Saddam that much and if many of them are still fighting they are now part of the new Iraqi Security Forces fighting the last remnants of a dispirited and beaten insurgency. Gorella style - WTFIT???

6. The book is still out on the Ba-athists... Right now the US is payin' them to not shoot at US... Same on the "Civil war"... When the US leaves (or sets up a miliatry base somewhere away population centers) then we'll see... I still say that there a shit load of bad things yet to happen in Iraq when either of those scenerios comes to pass...

They will all be making far, far too much money to bother with any of that crap Bobert

7. The only reason that the US oil companies didn't glam onto the oil is because the war has gone very, very badly for the US and UK in terms of international reputation... That's a no-brainer.... You don't get credit for that because it happened for resaons other than the above things that you have claimed that are false claims...

Sorry Bobert, that is just more of your bullshit, the field service contracts were awarded as they were, and to who I said they would go to at the time in exchange for debt cancellation (France; Russia & China) The Iraqis then drove very hard bargains that US companies baulked at, but other oil rich national companies took them up on (Malaysians; Angolans) You were of the opinion that the US was in there to steal Iraq's oil I said that that was impossible - I proved to be right. It had bugger all to do with international reputation.


8. Regime change didn't have to involve killing upwards of a million civilains, T... That was a purdy dumb idea...

What 1 million people and upwards were killed Bobert?

9. Lastly we get around to Blix... What is it that you still can't comprehend about the terms "Most important" and "cooperation" both, BTW which are conatined in the same sentence??? Those words to hard for you... Maybe Blix should have given another speech written in crayons using only one syable words???

Ah but Bobert it was the words, sentences and paragraphs that preceeded, went in between "most important" and "co-operation" as well as the words, sentences and paragraphs that followed that tell you what Blix was actually reporting. I dare say that you will get the jist of it one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 PM

Pee in the cup, T...

You are so prejudiced (not biased) that you can't even see that just about everything that you said you predicted actually didn't come to pass...

The war in Baghdad hasn't ended yet...

The US military is still fighting and dieing in Iraq... BTW, T, That's why they call it "war"...

The 2000 elections are something that you brought up in yer usual confrontational/argumentative so it was fair game for me to answer that... I mean, why else di you bring it up???

On Turkey, you were correct but I never took an advesarial position on that anyway... Who cares' you were due to be right once in a hundred... Good job, T...

The Iraq army did fight... Gorella style... Many of them still at it...

The book is still out on the Ba-athists... Right now the US is payin' them to not shoot at US... Same on the "Civil war"... When the US leaves (or sets up a miliatry base somewhere away population centers) then we'll see... I still say that there a shit load of bad things yet to happen in Iraq when either of those scenerios comes to pass...

The only reason that the US oil companies didn't glam onto the oil is because the war has gone very, very badly for the US and UK in terms of international reputation... That's a no-brainer.... You don't get credit for that because it happened for resaons other than the above things that you have claimed that are false claims...

What next... Oh yeah... TERIBUS BULLSHIT!!!

Regime change didn't have to involve killing upwards of a million civilains, T... That was a purdy dumb idea...

Lastly we get around to Blix... What is it that you still can't comprehend about the terms "Most important" and "cooperation" both, BTW which are conatined in the same sentence??? Those words to hard for you... Maybe Blix should have given another speech written in crayons using only one syable words???

Did I miss anything???

Don't think so...

Congrates on getting the Turks thing right... Really has nothin' to do with the big picture but at least you did get 1 point... Beats gettin' skunked...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... Blah, blah, blah.

That is what you sound like, Teribus.

You're a bore, but I am sure your wife has already told you that. You repugnant, piece of bottom feeder dung.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:39 PM

Took you 11 "F'n" hours to come up with that Cap'n?? You're slipping, surely you can do a great deal better than that.

You're no competition at all chum, but nevertheless fume on, I am having a whale of a time.

"kooks", "candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be", "trailer park"??? you from across on the west side of the pond, you sad little troll? Might explain your "insomnia" remark but that would be taking us into the realms of arithmetic as yet unplumbed by people of your experience so for the sake of brevity I will not even attempt to explain it all for you. Ask your Mum or Dad, best pick the one who is actually using the family brain-cell at time of asking.

BYEEEEEE.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:42 AM

"F'n" this, "F'n" that. You are so eloquent. Talk about a crutch. I guess that is how they communicate in the trailer park that you live in. Am I right, tough guy?

Or do you fall into the "you can take the person out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the person" category?

I have always wondered why reasonable, intelligent people tolerate Cretans, such as you, Teribus. I guess it is some kind of morbid curiosity to watch the train wreck. To find out how YOU can sleep at night, knowing the type of pathetic, vulgar, despicable, poor excuse for a human being that you are. But, I guess you answered that question "insomnia" boy, you can't cope with your own scummyness.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

1. 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...

Yeah, well Bobert we both know that that is your 20x20 hindsight in operation as it leads me to recall another of your predictions and a standpoint of yours taken at the time:

The US was NEVER going to leave Iraq they were there to set up permanent military bases in order to control the region and the regions oil.

Make your mind up sunshine cant have it both ways. Oh and of course there was this one:

"the CPA was permanent wasn't it Bobert, the US were never going to hand over to any Iraqi Government."


2. 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...

Well Bobert there are millions of Iraqis who would disagree with you.


3. As fir the 2000 elections... Hey, show me where I ever supported Al Bore

Illustrates your poor skill in English comprehension Bobert, you show me where I stated that you supported Al Gore, I merely stated that you could not accept what Al Gore did accept – that GWB won the 2000 Presidential Election. I did not say that you supported Al Gore there now did I (Pssst Bobert here is a chance to do something that you have never done before – admit that you got it wrong)

4. 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...

Let me see now as you brought up Iraq:

- That the taking of Baghdad would not result in a house-to-house middle-east version of Stalingrad

(I was correct there was no "Stalingrad type stand was there)

- That if committed to the invasion offensive military operations would be swiftly completed

(The War phase lasted about eight weeks)

- That the Iraqi Army would not stand and fight it would simply melt away.

(Totally correct there wasn't I Bobert)

- That the failure of the Turks to allow access into Northern Iraq for US Forces would have a negative impact on the operation.

(Correct there as well, had Turkey allowed US forces access the border with Syria to the west would have been sealed cutting off western and central Iraq to foreign jihadi fighters and the Ba'athists in Syria)

- That any Ba'athist inspired insurgency would never succeed.

(Didn't did it? Also AQ's second-in-command admitted that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq had failed completely and turned muslims against the movement)

- That there would be no "Civil War" in Iraq

(Correct again - How many elections have they had now Bobert?? I mean ones where they can actually vote, not just slip a premarked slip into a box?)

- That US & UK oil companies would not be allowed into Iraq to "steal" Iraq's oil.

(Correct again Bobert, how depressing for you. Only present in two fields as part of joint ventures, the rest went to the French; the Russians; the Chinese; Malaysians; Angolans; Dutch; Norwegian and guess what Bobert the oil still belongs to the Iraqis, not stolen by the US at all.)



5. 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...

Of course you are not wrong Bobert as all your arguments are based upon those things that we have come to know and love – THE BOBERT FACT – which is more accurately described as BOBERT BULLSHIT


6. 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...

FFS not this again!! This so-called "tuff question" of yours has been answered so many times it has now become boring, you keep bringing it up because you do not like the answers. But nevertheless:

The objective (the aim if you like Bobert):   Regime Change In Iraq (Official US Foreign Policy from summer 1998)

Proposed Bobert solution: Kill Saddam Hussein

Why it would not work:

1. Killing Saddam Hussein does not effect regime change

2. Ba'athist Regime would remain in power in Iraq

3. The policies of the Ba'athists in Iraq would not have changed in any significant way

4. Likeliest candidates to succeed Saddam would have been one of his two sons who were actually both worse in their excesses than their father

5. Since the many failed and bizarre attempts at the assassination of Fidel Castro by the US over the years I believe that deliberate targeted assassinations are illegal under US law.

There you go Bobert that is your "Tuff question" answered for the umpteenth time. You might not like the answer but even you cannot doubt that an answer has been given to your question - or will BOBERT FACT deny that??

Now you tell me what you think killing Saddam Hussein would have achieved??


7. 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...

So I produce and link to actual transcripts of what Blix actually said in full and I stand accused of cherry-picking the speech?? You are the one who should be peeing in the cup.

I highlight the speech dividing the sections as Blix wrote them to cover the various points of his report. You accuse me of ignoring "most important", accuse me of ignoring "co-operating" where just by review of my posts on this thread anyone can clearly see that far from ignoring them I actually highlighted them and put them into the context in which they were used by Blix.

Your trouble Bobert is that you just cannot read anything and "GET" what is actually being said, and that Bobert is your problem…… It is certainly NOT MINE.

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.

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 11:22 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,t
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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.