Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 21:06:03 GMT
Nothing like the instability our invasion caused, lol So you no longer claim that the invasion was illegal, good. Perhaps you have managed to read and understand the UN resolutions leading up to, and following the invasion. Nothing clears the air better than being well informed. Information beats pure opinion every time. I never said that. Of course it was illegal. Or tshall we say it was of dubious legality. Resolutions had to be stretched to breaking point to even attempt to argue legality. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2023 23:19:24 GMT
So you no longer claim that the invasion was illegal, good. Perhaps you have managed to read and understand the UN resolutions leading up to, and following the invasion. Nothing clears the air better than being well informed. Information beats pure opinion every time. I never said that. Of course it was illegal. Or tshall we say it was of dubious legality. Resolutions had to be stretched to breaking point to even attempt to argue legality. So your opposition is based upon opinions, not on 12 years of Saddam refusing to comply with UN resolutions about his non-compliance with the 1991 Ceasefire agreement he signed up to. A Ceasefire is to cease fighting while a way is found to resolve the causes of the war and find peace. So clearly, if a Ceasefire agreement is not adhered to then a state of war still exists. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2023 23:35:52 GMT
You've had this before but you're still in denial, some of those WMDs fell into the hands of the post war terrorist groups and they even detonated one as an IED (but being thick they didn't know how to make it work as a nerve gas weapon) There is NO PROOF whatsoever that Saddam had WMD’s Rather than quoting the bloody New York Times who don’t even know what side it hangs half the time… Search for links from those at the sharp end who wasted thousands of man hours on a fools errand. There was genuine UK Intelligence that Iraq did have WMD. Around 2004/5 the Intelligence agency that kept Blair and Co. informed on WMD posted an admission in the press that they got it wrong on WMD in Iraq. Saddam also got it wrong on WMD by playing "cat and mouse games with the inspectors" (quote, Hans Blix). Thus making it impossible for UN inspectors to complete their mission. The Iraq Survey Group that entered Iraq after the invasion found 50 WMD. They also found that Saddam was building Missiles with a greater range than allowed by the ceasefire agreement. Rather than blustering out your ill informed opinion, why not try some real research on the subject. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2023 1:19:31 GMT
I never said that. Of course it was illegal. Or tshall we say it was of dubious legality. Resolutions had to be stretched to breaking point to even attempt to argue legality. So your opposition is based upon opinions, not on 12 years of Saddam refusing to comply with UN resolutions about his non-compliance with the 1991 Ceasefire agreement he signed up to. A Ceasefire is to cease fighting while a way is found to resolve the causes of the war and find peace. So clearly, if a Ceasefire agreement is not adhered to then a state of war still exists. Saddam Hussein adhered to the ceasefire agreement. He had no weapons of mass destruction. That he had a load turned out to be a massive lie. When it comes to the supposed facts of the case I previously posted this but you ignored it. So have another read.... There was no vote on the war because of the certainty of it being vetoed. They had to fall back on a resolution insisting that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors. All the evidence suggests that they did. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that they did. The USA said they did not but offered no convincing evidence and were proved wrong after the fact when no weapons were found. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said after the invasion that it was illegal at the time that it happened. Colin Powell has subsequently expressed regret that he was wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had thereby complied with UN resolutions in full. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_WarMost experts regard the invasion as being of dubious legality and it was certainly unprovoked and launched on what proved to be a wholly false pretext. And Blair and his government were complicit in dodgy dossiers of such obvious fabrication that it was blatantly obvious at the time to anyone with an ounce of common sense that we were being lied to. It was a shameful episode in our history when Blair himself strode the world stage in the role of Bush's toady, to a breathtakingly cringeworthy and nationally shaming extent. So much so that no less a person than Nelson Mandela mockingly referred to him as the US foreign secretary rather than the British Prime Minister. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 4, 2023 1:25:52 GMT
So your opposition is based upon opinions, not on 12 years of Saddam refusing to comply with UN resolutions about his non-compliance with the 1991 Ceasefire agreement he signed up to. A Ceasefire is to cease fighting while a way is found to resolve the causes of the war and find peace. So clearly, if a Ceasefire agreement is not adhered to then a state of war still exists. Saddam Hussein adhered to the ceasefire agreement. He had no weapons of mass destruction. That he had a load turned out to be a massive lie. . . . the lie here is ^ Saddam had some WMDs (whether he knew it or not), he actually part sourced the rumours he had more (to intimidate Iran) and he was not compliant with those cease fire agreements because he over and over frustrated the weapons inspections they were conditional on until given one last '1441' chance - which he again didn't fully comply with. Just check what Hans Blix told the UN instead of relying on what any vexatious person could have written in Wiki |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 4, 2023 5:39:48 GMT
There is NO PROOF whatsoever that Saddam had WMD’s Rather than quoting the bloody New York Times who don’t even know what side it hangs half the time… Search for links from those at the sharp end who wasted thousands of man hours on a fools errand. There was genuine UK Intelligence that Iraq did have WMD. Around 2004/5 the Intelligence agency that kept Blair and Co. informed on WMD posted an admission in the press that they got it wrong on WMD in Iraq. Saddam also got it wrong on WMD by playing "cat and mouse games with the inspectors" (quote, Hans Blix). Thus making it impossible for UN inspectors to complete their mission. The Iraq Survey Group that entered Iraq after the invasion found 50 WMD. They also found that Saddam was building Missiles with a greater range than allowed by the ceasefire agreement. Rather than blustering out your ill informed opinion, why not try some real research on the subject. Like I have already stated Saddam was his own worst enemy. No WMD's of any cosequece were found after GW2 depite thousands of man hours being wasted and as for hand blix just another waste of space swedish liberal who was a part of the not fit for purpose UN. Maybe you should take your own advice and try doing a bit of research on the subject rather than blindly defending a total see you next tuesday like blair. |
|
