How do native western Europeans feel?

[GLASNOST]

My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda.

You certainly do swallow Rightist propaganda by the lorry loads.

At the time, it was accepted as legal.

It was NEVER accepted as legal:
* The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war was illegal."

* Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441 do not permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Those conditions were not met.

* In addition to all of that the US lied about WMD's in Irak and the US falsified evidence of WMD's in Irak.

* The US also forced the UN inspection team to leave, which itself found that there were no Wmd's in Irak.

Your logic is fucked ................. 4 ways from Sunday.

 

[Drummond]

My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda.

You certainly do swallow Rightist propaganda by the lorry loads.

At the time, it was accepted as legal.

It was NEVER accepted as legal:
* The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war was illegal."

* Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441 do not permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Those conditions were not met.

* In addition to all of that the US lied about WMD's in Irak and the US falsified evidence of WMD's in Irak.

* The US also forced the UN inspection team to leave, which itself found that there were no Wmd's in Irak.

Your logic is fucked ................. 4 ways from Sunday.

Tiresome.

The Attorney General advised the Government that it was a legal war. Was the Attorney General incapable of judging the issue ?

UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequences' if Saddam didn't meet that Resolution's requirements. Do you deny that an armed invasion qualifies as 'serious consequences' .. ??

Iraq definitely DID have WMD's ... or was it only stink bombs that the Kurds were gassed with (cue a hasty history rewrite) ?

Then again ... see this, for further evidence of them being found ...

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq | Fox News

News such as this didn't reach Europe (a remarkable example of news management !). But some news agencies in the US did cover it. The New York Daily News .. Fox News .. outlets such as those.

Oh, and have you noticed that that 'the war was illegal' pronouncements only became stridently expressed AFTER it was over ? After, in fact, memories about it had dimmed somewhat ?

... funny, that ......

 

[Drummond]

Check this out ....

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

... and then tell me that the 2003 Iraq War wasn't justified .......

 

[GLASNOST]

My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda.

You certainly do swallow Rightist propaganda by the lorry loads.

At the time, it was accepted as legal.

It was NEVER accepted as legal:
* The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the war was illegal."

* Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441 do not permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Those conditions were not met.

* In addition to all of that the US lied about WMD's in Irak and the US falsified evidence of WMD's in Irak.

* The US also forced the UN inspection team to leave, which itself found that there were no Wmd's in Irak.

Your logic is fucked ................. 4 ways from Sunday.

Tiresome.

The Attorney General advised the Government that it was a legal war. Was the Attorney General incapable of judging the issue ?

UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequences' if Saddam didn't meet that Resolution's requirements. Do you deny that an armed invasion qualifies as 'serious consequences' .. ??

Iraq definitely DID have WMD's ... or was it only stink bombs that the Kurds were gassed with (cue a hasty history rewrite) ?

Then again ... see this, for further evidence of them being found ...

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq | Fox News

News such as this didn't reach Europe (a remarkable example of news management !). But some news agencies in the US did cover it. The New York Daily News .. Fox News .. outlets such as those.

Oh, and have you noticed that that 'the war was illegal' pronouncements only became stridently expressed AFTER it was over ? After, in fact, memories about it had dimmed somewhat ?

... funny, that ......

Would you like my personal opinion? I think you are only pretending to be stupid.

 

[GLASNOST]

Tiresome.

Tiresome, is it?

* Saddam agreed to destroy his weapons (chemical, WMD) and he did.

* The UN wanted proof and sent an inspection team.

* Saddam did not accept the team because he said it was rife with CIA agents.

* The UN discovered that Saddam was right and sent a new team led by Hans Blix whose job it was to inspect the 12 sites that the Americans said they had proof of the presence of WMD's.

* The team inspected the first 11 sites and found proof that those weapons had indeed been destroyed. They now set out to inspect the 12th. and final site.

* But just as they were to about to complete their mission, the Americans declared they were going to invade despite the UN inspection team's work.

* It is a matter of historical fact that there were no WMD's in Irak, that the Americans lied about WMD's, that the Americans lied about proof of the presence of WMD's, that the Americans faked a so-called telephone dialogue confirming their 'proof', that the Americans infiltrated the first UN inspection team with CIA spies in order to sabotage the UN mission and plant false evidence, that the Americans did not follow the UN Resolutions pertaining to cooperation between Saddam and the UN, that the Americans did not fulfill the requirements to make an invasion legal, that the invasion was, therefore absolutely illegal.

Not so tiresome after all, eh?

 

[montelatici]

Frigging hell, that nutcase is quoting Fox News during Roger Aiele's leadership as a source for fact? What an idiot.

 

[GLASNOST]

Unbelievable, isn't it.

 

[Drummond]

Tiresome.

Tiresome, is it?

* Saddam agreed to destroy his weapons (chemical, WMD) and he did.

* The UN wanted proof and sent an inspection team.

* Saddam did not accept the team because he said it was rife with CIA agents.

* The UN discovered that Saddam was right and sent a new team led by Hans Blix whose job it was to inspect the 12 sites that the Americans said they had proof of the presence of WMD's.

* The team inspected the first 11 sites and found proof that those weapons had indeed been destroyed. They now set out to inspect the 12th. and final site.

* But just as they were to about to complete their mission, the Americans declared they were going to invade despite the UN inspection team's work.

* It is a matter of historical fact that there were no WMD's in Irak, that the Americans lied about WMD's, that the Americans lied about proof of the presence of WMD's, that the Americans faked a so-called telephone dialogue confirming their 'proof', that the Americans infiltrated the first UN inspection team with CIA spies in order to sabotage the UN mission and plant false evidence, that the Americans did not follow the UN Resolutions pertaining to cooperation between Saddam and the UN, that the Americans did not fulfill the requirements to make an invasion legal, that the invasion was, therefore absolutely illegal.

Not so tiresome after all, eh?

Good God. You say it's ME who's swallowed propaganda ??

For starters - if I accept your contention that the CIA infiltrated the UN inspection team(s), then that surely compromised their impartiality. Therefore, of what actual use were they ?

But anyway ... I see you completely ignore the evidence I posted of their existence. OF COURSE you do. Anything countering your propaganda, will be ignored - won't it ?

The whole problem about Saddam was that he did NOT prove to anyone that the WMD's he had were destroyed. He always refused to give numbers of original stocks and extent of destructions. The best his regime managed was to arrange for the UN teams to go to sites where WMD's had been destroyed, yes, but those teams had no way of assessing quantities destroyed, or, the number that needed to be destroyed to confirm that Saddam had no more stocks available to him. Hans Blix himself confirmed that to assess quantities destroyed at any one site with any degree of accuracy was impossible.

Besides, the manpower sent by the UN was farcical. How could they ever hope to search an entire country (.. not that they even had permission to). They were led where Saddam wanted them to be led.

(It's a bit like me saying that the UK has no nuclear weapons or capability to launch any .. so I'll arrange for inspection teams to check out Southend-on-Sea, and the Tower of London, to prove it. If they find no such weapons on either 'site' ... hey presto .. we can't have any !!!)

The whole UN operation was pathetic. It could achieve nothing. Nothing less than an invasion of Iraq, and the ending of hindrance from Saddam, could ever settle the issue. This is what happened, and it's this that you're so stridently in opposition to.

WHY ?

 

[GLASNOST]

WHY ?

'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know WHY the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'

Well? What have you to say for yourself, boy? Why do you not pay attention? Speak up! We're going to find out, you know. We are going to find out if it takes the whole day.

 

[Mindful]

WHY ?

'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know WHY the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'

This again? (Groan)

It's already been done to death.

 

[GLASNOST]

Awfully nice of you to keep it alive.

 

[Mindful]

Awfully nice of you to keep it alive.

You must be an arsehole.

 

[GLASNOST]

Awfully nice of you to keep it alive.

You must be an arsehole.

And you must be the whole arse: Hole, cheeks, and sphincter.

 

[Drummond]

WHY ?

'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know WHY the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'

Well? What have you to say for yourself, boy? Why do you not pay attention? Speak up! We're going to find out, you know. We are going to find out if it takes the whole day.

I love it.

I provide evidence to disprove your assertions. I offer you an argument to do likewise. What I get in return is no attempt at reasonable argument, but THIS, instead.

I fully understand your difficulty. I even sympathise. Fact is that anyone who'd truly thought logically about any of this wouldn't have swallowed the bog-standard media line about it (one only concocted in detail YEARS after the event !!). You can't counter the contents of the Intelligence document my link led you to. You can't counter the absurdity of supposing that Blix's team ever had a chance of usefully establishing quantities of WMD's destroyed, or of finding out with any hope of certainty how many he started out with, or, of ever covering enough of Iraqi territory to be sure that none were still being hidden by Saddam's regime.

The WMD's Saddam's regime had could've been moved, after all. They weren't irremediably rooted to the ground (and what use could they have been to anyone, ever, if they were ??). Saddam could've arranged for 20 percent of stocks at each of his known sites to be destroyed, then kept the remaining 80 percent aside at alternative locations neither known to Blix, nor accessible by his teams. Blix had no way of knowing, none at all, that something of this kind hadn't been arranged.

If all you can truly offer is efforts at ridicule, and nothing else of useful substance, I must regard my argument as won outright. Try proving me wrong in what I say. TRY.

But you can't -- can you ?

 

[Drummond]

WHY ?

'It's him miss! It's the Drummond boy what don't know WHY the US and Britain waged an illegal war! Everybody knows but 'im! You've told him and told him ....... but he just won't listen!'

This again? (Groan)

It's already been done to death.

I agree and sympathise. 'Tiresome' hardly seems to cover it.

But there are people who need to be deprogrammed from believing barely logical - if 'media-preferred' - nonsense ... still.

I can only do my best. Old though this is, done to death as it's been ... still, the old nonsense survives ....

 

[GLASNOST]

I provide evidence to disprove your assertions.

All of your 'evidence' that the facts have disproved. You are just wasting time now and talking just to hear the echo of your own voice.

 

[Drummond]

I provide evidence to disprove your assertions.

All of your 'evidence' that the facts have disproved. You are just wasting time now and talking just to hear the echo of your own voice.

Zero substance to your reply .. again. You achieve nothing by this approach. But I'll agree on one point ... yes, I'm wasting my time. You'll cling to your version of reality, come-what-may, and let nothing intrude upon it. You cannot usefully defend it .. as I've proven .. but that makes no difference to you.

Blix and his people were led around by Saddam. They did establish that SOME destructions of WMD's had taken place. As to quantities destroyed ... they had no clue. As to the original number needing to be destroyed ... Saddam never gave them figures to help them out on that, only a bland 'we have no WMD's' assurance. The whole thing was a farce, from beginning to end. Anyone applying logic to an examination to events of that time, instead of just believing what the media parroted, would know this.

You choose not to. And I'll forever be wasting my time in trying to get you to see reality.

Sad. Really sad.

 

[GLASNOST]

Zero substance.

More talk but still ....

... nothing but the same rhetoric.

 

[Drummond]

Zero substance.

More talk but still ....

... nothing but the same rhetoric.

-- See ? AGAIN, zero substance. No evidence offered backing your argument over mine. No facts or figures. No actual proof that my statements are incorrect. As for 'the same rhetoric' ... well, it would be the same. The truth doesn't change just because you'd prefer it did !

And ... derision just doesn't cut it .. don't you get that ?

What a total waste of time talking to you is.

 

[GLASNOST]

Have you lost your mind ...... or have you never had it?