|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 23, 2023 13:55:19 GMT
When you Google or reference 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' 'Nukes' as you put it is defined as such, just try and Google it.
***A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people***
Yes... Slowly. AND SADDAM HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Not when Blair Bush declared war on the basis he had WMD
Saddam Hussein certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, yet by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 23, 2023 14:09:15 GMT
Yes... Slowly. AND SADDAM HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Not when Blair Bush declared war on the basis he had WMD
Saddam Hussein certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, yet by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone.
Blair did not declare war on Iraq, The British Parliament did. The UK invasion of Iraq was not based upon whether or not Iraq had WMD, it was based upon Iraq / Saddam's 12 year refusal to comply with the 1991 Cease Fire agreement that Saddam signed up to. The refusal to comply meant that a state of conflict still existed. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 23, 2023 14:42:16 GMT
Not when Blair Bush declared war on the basis he had WMD
Saddam Hussein certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, yet by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone.
Blair did not declare war on Iraq, The British Parliament did. The UK invasion of Iraq was not based upon whether or not Iraq had WMD, it was based upon Iraq / Saddam's 12 year refusal to comply with the 1991 Cease Fire agreement that Saddam signed up to. The refusal to comply meant that a state of conflict still existed. Blair 'was' the British Parliament, he was Prime Minister, the clue is in his title 'Prime', it could only be signed off by HIM. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 23, 2023 14:55:00 GMT
AND SADDAM HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Yadda, Yadda. Yeah, he gassed the Kurds. But you were still lied to, Zany. We all were, but the more intelligent of us have realised it and aren't doubling down on the mugging off that we received. Blix is a bullshitter. B'liar should be tried for war crimes. The Gulf War ended decades ago. Hussein has been dead nearly 20 years, but the alleged the vast quantities of WMDs have never been found. Because they never existed in the first place. B'liar lied to you, Zany. Says the lesser intelligent Squeezy LOL Squeezy looking more stupid than ever and spouting more stupidity than ever, It's pretty clear that you (and your hero) live in your own fairy tale made up world. It is clear after the invasion that Saddam did not have a stock of WMD, But he gave every indication that he did. A) He reused for 12 years to fully comply with the UN inspectors. Thereby denying the Inspectors the ability to declare Iraq WMD free. B) According to Blix Saddam played "cat and mouse games" over the inspections. C) Blix had receipts for more WMD materials than the number of WMD destroyed back in 1991. And therefore was right to expect that production of WMD would continue. D) There were 50 WMD found in Iraq after the invasion, plus some chemical precursor for WMD. You are a bull shitter and an immature B'liar juvenile, perhaps you should be tried as a traitor. Please make an effort to be a little more mature before posting again  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 23, 2023 14:59:43 GMT
Blair did not declare war on Iraq, The British Parliament did. The UK invasion of Iraq was not based upon whether or not Iraq had WMD, it was based upon Iraq / Saddam's 12 year refusal to comply with the 1991 Cease Fire agreement that Saddam signed up to. The refusal to comply meant that a state of conflict still existed. Blair 'was' the British Parliament, he was Prime Minister, the clue is in his title 'Prime', it could only be signed off by HIM. Either Blair did not have the power to declare war on Iraq or he chose to put the vote to whole of parliament, either way it was the whole of parliament that made the decision. So your assumption is completely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 23, 2023 15:31:45 GMT
Did you have a point? Beyond the fact that Saddam killed 5,000 innocent men women and children using WMD doesn't bother you. That's not the reason we went to war though, Zany. Stop deflecting and try again. Who says its not the reason, its a great part of the reason. Saddam was a monster and therefore a danger to the world. Stop deflecting from what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 23, 2023 15:36:59 GMT
Yes... Slowly. AND SADDAM HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Not when Blair Bush declared war on the basis he had WMD
Saddam Hussein certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, yet by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone.
Hans Blix last report before the war. I'm sure the weapons inspectors know better than you. Hans Blix. In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, w hich Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 23, 2023 15:37:35 GMT
Fairsociety has laid it out for you above: There were no WMDs.
It was a lie. And B'liar cared even less about people dying than you do.
And that's clearly fuck all.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 23, 2023 15:39:02 GMT
Fairsociety has laid it out for you above: There were no WMDs. It was a lie. And B'liar cared even less about people dying than you do. And that's clearly fuck all. You know F'all. Try reading Hans Blix rather than Fairsociety. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 23, 2023 15:40:00 GMT
Not when Blair Bush declared war on the basis he had WMD
Saddam Hussein certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, yet by the time American and British troops entered the country in 2003 they were gone.
Hans Blix last report before the war. I'm sure the weapons inspectors know better than you. Hans Blix. In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, w hich Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. Errrr I'm sure the weapons inspectors know better than you.
They never found ONE WMD, so I know, and they know there were NO WMD, the inspectors now know better, they were on a wild goose chase, the WMD had long long gone, it was just Blair/Bush LYING.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 23, 2023 15:43:50 GMT
Fairsociety has laid it out for you above: There were no WMDs. It was a lie. And B'liar cared even less about people dying than you do. And that's clearly fuck all. You know F'all. Try reading Hans Blix rather than Fairsociety. As I said, I wouldn't trust a thing Hans Blix says. As an aside, how many innocent Iraqis died during the war that you continue to support? And can you explain why those innocent deaths were less important to you than those of the Kurds? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 23, 2023 15:44:13 GMT
Hans Blix last report before the war. I'm sure the weapons inspectors know better than you. Hans Blix. In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, w hich Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. Errrr I'm sure the weapons inspectors know better than you.
They never found ONE WMD, so I know, and they know there were NO WMD, the inspectors now know better, they were on a wild goose chase, the WMD had long long gone, it was just Blair/Bush LYING.
Because they couldn't find any, it didn't exist. Yeah sure that works. Sigh. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 23, 2023 15:49:59 GMT
You know F'all. Try reading Hans Blix rather than Fairsociety. As I said, I wouldn't trust a thing Hans Blix says. As an aside, how many innocent Iraqis died during the war that you continue to support? And can you explain why those innocent deaths were less important to you than those of the Kurds? Given a choice between the weapons inspectors and The squeezed middle. I think I'll choose Hans Blix. Ta anyway. I could tell you how many lives were ended by the coalition and how many were considered innocent ones. And how many innocent lives were ended by Saddam aside from the Kurds. The fact you raise it as if its a point in favour of your argument shows you have no idea at all. You're just a headline copier. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 23, 2023 15:50:52 GMT
Because they couldn't find any, it didn't exist. Yeah sure that works. Sigh. Well based on that logic, they could have been carried off by Big Foot riding on the Loch Ness Monster. We never found either of those either!🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 23, 2023 15:51:25 GMT
Yadda, Yadda. Yeah, he gassed the Kurds. But you were still lied to, Zany. We all were, but the more intelligent of us have realised it and aren't doubling down on the mugging off that we received. Blix is a bullshitter. B'liar should be tried for war crimes. The Gulf War ended decades ago. Hussein has been dead nearly 20 years, but the alleged the vast quantities of WMDs have never been found. Because they never existed in the first place. B'liar lied to you, Zany. That it, all you got. Yada yada he killed 5,000 innocent people. Christ that's a very low standard of morals. As of July 19, 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,431 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,994 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of the Iraq War
Roll call of the dead: The 179 British servicemen and women who paid ultimate price in Iraq
The number of casualties in the Iran-Iraq War ranges from 1,000,000 to twice that number. The number killed on both sides was perhaps 500,000, with Iran suffering the greatest losses.
So now we know Bush/Blair war had far more deaths and casualties than any war Sadam Hussein caused, now will you agree Bush/Blair were far worse War criminals than Hussein, oh and just a little tit-bit, this will make you cringe even more ...
The United Kingdom was part of the US-led coalition that illegally invaded Iraq in March 2003. The UK forces remained in Iraq until May 2011. During that time, cases of torture, sexual violence, ill treatment, and other inhumane abuses were reported in detention centres where UK forces operated.
|
|
