Downing Street Says » Butler Report

Asked precisely when the Prime Minister had been informed about the withdrawal of intelligence, the PMOS said that he had dealt with this matter last week. He had nothing further to add. Asked if the Foreign Secretary had told him, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had found out as a result of the Butler Inquiry. He had nothing more to say on the issue.

83 Comments »

I see before me sheer insanity.Not one person can prove that there are NO W.M.D yet so many are saying that,without a SHREAD of EVIDENCE that there are none?.Where is there proof?.Tony blair on the other hand can prove there ARE W.M.D. They are saying that W.M.D.cannot be found they should be saying where are the remains of there destruction for that CANNOT be found.I see that american troops are digging up an Iraqi jet fighter from the Iraqi desert just the other day?.You have to understand the mind set of all of this.After the Iraq/Iran war in which so many died and the first gulf war saddam hussain hand over to the Iranians all his jet fighter`s handed over after a war with them? to stop the coalition from getting them "the Iranians did not give them back after the gulf war".Does anyone think that saddan hussain woke up one morning and said "Oh dear I must destroy all my W.M.D.as they might kill someone"Does anyone think he would do that it seem`s they are people that think just that!!!.The truth of this is that faced with his fate he would have giving them away to anyone that would (one day) use them against the west.He had MORE then enough warning of what was going to happen to him and his lackies.What I see now is people trying to get Tony Blair and President Bush for there own political aim`s THEY ARE A DISGRACE to there own nation`s.If and I think it is only a matter of time there is another 9/11 and it could be much worse there will be a RECKONING with all those that said THERE ARE NO W.M.D.They will NO DOUBT think they can SPIN there way out of it.Signed.George Dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 24 Jul 2004 on 12:01 pm | Link
George, George, George. Firstly, if you learned to spell and use proper grammar then people might not mistake you for an avid Sun reader.

Secondly, where exactly have you had your head buried lately? Tony B.Liar CAN prove there are WMD in Iraq? Really? Then you can’t have read the Butler report very thoroughly (if at all) - he concedes very clearly that there is NO evidence to show there are WMD in Iraq, and that The Liar should not have used those claims. Even in his diplomatic establishment-ese his report is pretty damning; so before you come ranting about people who have genuuinely held views based on common sense and a little experience of the world (something which you are obviously sadly lacking), I suggest you finish reading Janet And John first.

Even The Liar himself conceded that "we may never find" WMD in Iraq. If you had any knowledge of the world you would know that Iraq DID have WMD (chemical weapons, that is) but never had the delivery systems developed to make them effective as any kind of strategic weapon. The weapons he DID have were supplied by ourselves, France, Germany and the US. A great deal of these were used up in the war against Iran (in which we actively supported Iraq), and the fact that Iraq was an autocracy run down by greed, corruption, fear and the associated suspicion and backstabbing that naturally goes with that meant that they never had the technology or expertise to properly replace those weapons. It is a fact that Saddam exploited the knowledge we all had that he had used chemical weapons to hold the Middle East (and especially Israel) in the grip of fear that he would use them again. The fact that he didn’t (couldn’t!) says a great deal. If he had them, why didn’t he use them against Coalition troops in the first Gulf War? What did he have to lose?

And your knowledge of human nature is as sadly lacking as your knowledge of the world at large. Saddam was an egomaniac; he was paranoid about everyone around him, especially his generals - his view was that if he kept the Army constantly occupied they wouldn’t be able to plot against him. This is a man who would give nothing to anyone - for the simple reason that he wouldn’t be able to claim credit for it himself.

No-one is getting at The Liar or Brush to make political points; people are just sick of being lied to, especially when our Forces are sent unjustly to die. The machiavellian squirmings which the government went through before and after the Hutton report shows clearly that there are certain things the government does NOT want investigating - and chief amongst them is the sketchy intelligence they used to justify a war which had been decided long before. The lack of post-war planning clearly shows this to anyone with eyes - it is basic military doctrine to plan for the aftermath, because it makes their job easier. I know this, because I served in the military for a long time, including during the first Gulf gig. Did you? I suspect not. Although people begged the government to be allowed to plan for the aftermath they were refused - purely so that The Liar could claim that the conflict was not pre-planned. And yet it so clearly was, as the changing language in Septembers "dossier" clearly shows.

I could go on forever and give you some real proof of the governments duplicity in general and Tony B.Liars in particular, but your ranting suggests that you only have one viewpoint and no amount of reasoning is likely to change that. I respect your difference of opinion; however, what I do not respect is your narrow minded attitude that people who question are a disgrace to their country. It is precisely that kind of blinkered jingoistic flag-waving "patriotism" which allows our "governments" to get away with unjustified invasions and mass murder - and the people who indulge in such behaviour are the real disgrace, especially when they hide behind a flag while allowing others to go to fight on their behalf.

Incidentally, what has 9/11 got to do with it? What WMD did the 9/11 hijackers use? Are you American? The reason I ask is because that is exactly the same kind of ignorance shown by Americans who care more about their 5-liter 4-wheel drive SUVs than they do about the mass murder which happens in order to allow them to enjoy the cheap cost of fuel in the USA.

Come back with some reasoned comments but please leave the pro-government rhetoric behind, it isn’t appreciated over the Iraq issue.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Jul 2004 on 9:08 pm | Link
\x93Not one person can prove that there are no WMD\x94 \x96 quite correct George because, apart from statements that defy logic, it is impossible to prove a negative. However it is not down to me or anyone else to prove that there are no WMD, we didn\x92t decided to start a war. Blair and Bush started a war because they said that Saddam Hussein had WMD so it is now for them to prove that he did have them. They claimed to have evidence of the WMDs but even the surface-skimming investigations into the war can\x92t seem to find any evidence to prove the existence of WMDs. If Bush and Blair cannot prove that there were WMDs then it is quite right for people to question their decisions and their case for going to war.

Wanting leaders to be held account for their decisions does not make me a \x91disgrace to my nation\x92. If anything it makes me a credit to my nation and any other nation that encourages political debate and truly believes in freedom of speech. The disgrace is that the people who are supposed to act on our behalf to question the actions of leaders (opposition parties, the media etc) have, on the whole, done nothing but act as cheerleaders for Bush and Blair since before the war began. I don\x92t think anyone is convinced by those of them who now claim that they would have been critical of governments with hindsight \x96 their job was to be critical at the time decisions were being made!

You make a lot of assumptions about Saddam Hussein\x92s state of mind and his motives. As I think its fair to assume that you have never met the man, you must be forming your opinion of him based on what the media have told you \x96 the same media that supported the war and were desperate to justify it. I have never met Saddam Hussein either so I can\x92t claim to know how he would act but some of your assumptions seem at odds with the facts we do have. Saddam didn\x92t decide to get rid of his WMDs, the UN and weapons inspectors did that for him after the first gulf war. The weapons inspectors\x92 reports suggest that after his stockpiles of weapons were destroyed following the first gulf war he did not have the facilities needed to make any more. Therefore there were no WMDs to be destroyed. He couldn\x92t make any and no-one would sell him any. I also don\x92t understand your belief that Saddam was against the \x91west\x92. Iraq was a secular country and had far more in common with western countries than any of the countries around him \x96 that was why the US had been supplying him with weapons for so many years. The only groups that are described as \x91anti-west\x92 (incorrectly, but that\x92s a different argument) are the Islamic fundamentalist groups. As Iraq was not an Islamic state they also hated Saddam Hussein so he would definitely not have given them weapons even if he had any.

\x93I think it is only a matter of time there is another 9/11\x94. I assume that means that you think there are going to be more acts of terrorism. Well I couldn\x92t agree more and if you paid attention to the reports coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc then you would realise that there are acts of terrorism going on every day. As the US is committing a lot of them it wouldn\x92t surprise me if some extremist group decided to give the US \x91some payback\x92 and launch attacks on US civilians. The question is how do you prevent terrorism?

Bush and Blair seem to think that you stop terrorism by being a bigger and badder terrorist than anyone else \x96 applying the same thinking as Mutually Assured Destruction during the cold war. The problem is that this is not the cold war. Killing innocent civilians in the Middle East will only cause more terrorism, not less. In the same way that after the attacks on the World Trade Centre the US did not stop to wonder why it was attacked it just decided to go half way round the world and kill people.

To stop terrorism you don\x92t try to kill all the terrorists, you try to stop them becoming terrorists in the first place. Prevention is always better than cure. It would be a nice change if Bush and Blair practiced the Christian beliefs that they claim to hold so dear and turned the other cheek; beat their swords into ploughshares; and treated other people as they would want to be treated.

On a final point, in response to your comment on the other thread, there is no need for me to sign my name to these comments because who I am doesn\x92t really matter. You can agree or disagree with me if you wish but you don\x92t need to know who I am to make that decision.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 24 Jul 2004 on 9:38 pm | Link
Dear Papallazzzaru,Firstly you try to belittle me by saying thing`s about me personally.A sure sign you think you have lost an argument!.Secondly I do not read the sun.Thirdly Bush does not have an "R" in it`s spelling.Now I will ALWAY`S stick to fact`s and those are that however much you want "there to be no W.M.D" on all that we know there is still not A SHRED of EVIDENCE to support your claim that there are NO W.M.D. you make ASSUMPTIONS by saying there are none.How on earth do you know that!!!.You say "A great deal of these were used up in the war against Iran" as you say you "served in the first gulf war" then the only way you could know that is if you were saddan`s stock keeper WERE YOU.Look at what you are saying you can PROVE NOTHING that say`s there are NO W.M.D.Everything I say is FACTUAL that is all I am saying.There are something`s you say I agree with,where they got there W.M.D.from is just one but that is not the point I am trying to make to everyone.I am trying to put people`s feet back on the ground like your`s.You say 9/11 was not a W.M.D. attack I KNOW THAT it was an attack in which THOUSAND`S died it could easily have been an attack with W.M.D.don`t you understand that!!!.I see people out to gain political advantage off this situation when they should be thinking of saving people`s life`s.You will excuse me if I do not join you in that I will stick to fact`s no matter how much I wish they were not fact`s.I could like you resort to personalising all this with you (and I could) but I feel far to sad to enter your domain.sign,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 24 Jul 2004 on 10:18 pm | Link
Georgie, the belittling was started by yourself with your sanctimonious demands for people "who are a disgrace to their country" to apologise, along with pointed remarks about "the people above". Read what you wrote.

1. I know Bush doesn’t have an "R" in it. That was intentional. Brush, as in daft as a…

2. I disagree that I have "lost an argument".

3. Your "facts" have all been disputed by the Butler report - so what exactly are YOUR sources?

4. Please explain exactly how 9/11 could have "easily been a WMD attack".

5. Thousands died at Halabjah (the infamous massacre for which "Chemical" Ali was responsible). They were killed with a mixture of Mustard gas, Cyanide gas and Sarin. These were supplied by ourselves. We turned a blind eye at the time. Shortly afterwards, a US warship shot down an Iranian airliner with 260 people on board - and then tried to blame it on the Iranians themselves. The US and UK are not exactly angels whiter than the driven snow.

6. Talking of saving lives, I am all for that. Which is why I object to a war based on lies and overhyped intelligence. Which is why I object to meaningless jingoism which only encourages our leaders to do more of the same.

7. My feet are firmly on the ground - much more so than either Tony B.Liars or George Brushs. I would never tell lies on such a scale that the casualties are numbered in their thousands.

8. I know Saddam didn’t have WMD for a very simple reason - because I can read past the end of my nose. All the weapons inspectors in Iraq could find no evidence of them in recent years, and it is a proven FACT (confirmed by MANY sources) that Saddam did not possess the means to make more or get hold of them from anywhere else - and again for a couple of very simple reasons. Firsly, after the Iran - Iraq war Iraq was over $80 billion in debt and no-one would sell him any on dodgy credit, and secondly because the world was aware of his crimes by this stage and no-one wanted to be tainted by association. This, of course, did not stop us (UK & USA) earlier, but by that time our needs had changed; Saddam was getting too big for his boots and he was no longer seen as the bulwark against the spread of Iranian style Islamic governance; partly because Ayatollah Khomeni was no longer in the picture and secondly because without overt Western support he was all but powerless anyway after 8 years of war.

9. If, as you claim, you are so concerned with saving lives, why are you such an ardent supporter of Brush and Bliar when they have both been personally responsible for the deaths of thousands in Iraq alone, to say nothing of Afghanistan, Kosovo, and others too numerous to dredge from memory?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Jul 2004 on 10:39 pm | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,Thank`s for your reply.You too have MISSED the point.Were you go wrong is in saying that it is upto Bush and Blair to prove there are W.M.D. THEY CAN because there is not and NEVER has been A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to say there is NOT.Don`t you understand this simple point I am trying to make.I want to know who was the person who first said there were no W.M.D.If you care to get copies of Hansard you will see M.P.`s like Cook,Short,Jones,covering there track`s by saying thing`s like "there are no W.M.D.well not many left to be found in Iraq" the "well not many left to be found in Iraq" is open to a debate all by itself.I am not trying to defend Blair I am trying get FACT`s into the forefront of all of this and not thing`s that cannot be prove but seem to have replaced the fact`s.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 24 Jul 2004 on 10:42 pm | Link
So now you are saying that Bush and Blair can prove there ARE WMD in Iraq - because no-one can prove there AREN’T any?!?! Are you by any chance a lawyer?!?!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Jul 2004 on 10:49 pm | Link
George, can I suggest that you study logic or some simple guides to reasoning and argument. As I said before no-one can prove a negative. Just because I cannot prove that Saddam didn’t have WMD doesn’t mean that he did. I cannot prove that the world was not created by a big pink elephant but that doesn’t mean that we all have to believe that interstella big pink elephants exist.

You claim to be sticking to facts but you haven’t stated any facts to support the claim that Saddam had WMD at the start of the war. All of the intelligence and investigations that have been conducted have not found any facts to show that Saddam had WMD at the start of the war.

The people who first said that there were no WMDs were the UN weapons inspectors. They were the experts and they had spent a lot of time in Iraq. The only people to say that there were WMDs were Bush and Blair and they didn’t have any evidence to base that on.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 24 Jul 2004 on 11:00 pm | Link
Don’t go to bed yet George, it’s just getting interesting…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Jul 2004 on 11:23 pm | Link
Dear Papallazzzaru,Firstly you say you "can read past the end of your nose"well you don`t know me!!! but you seem to make a lot of assumptions about me.I don`t defend Bush and Blair,Bush`es politict`s are as alian to me as an alian.I think he is one off the worst leader`s of a nation the world has ever seen.As for Blair well he is what he is because the Labour party woke up to the fact that Britain like`s a centre/ right goverment as history has proved.After Kinnock got beat they made the decision to make themselves more electable by going MORE right.As for me well the last time I voted my vote went to Dave Nellist Socialist party,I don`t lie why should I.ONCE AGAIN your reply has not one PROVEN FACT that W.M.D.do not exist.You say weapon`s inspector`s could not find any W.M.D.in Iraq (a country the size of france)well how do you know that they were still in Iraq! once again you make assumptions.Let`s face it most of what you say is assumption`s as regard`s W.M.D.All I say is FACT.I unlike you do not make assumption`s when I say people are a disgrace to there nation`s it is on the fact that they are saying thing`s they cannot PROVE, thing`s that might wipe out your family my family.Once again Bush and Blair have proved there are W.M.D.You again say thing`s that indicated that you know how much W.M.D.saddam hussain had in the first place!how can you say this!!!.Is there something I am missing, something I don`t KNOW but you do.No matter how much you dislike my view`s I have to tell you that are not view`s I am stating FACT`S.It would seem I am the only one that is THAT`S THE PROBLEM.signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 24 Jul 2004 on 11:33 pm | Link
Once again - where and what are your facts? You haven’t stated a single one yet. All you have stated is logic which a 3-year old could unravel. Give us some facts - and I don’t mean the same """facts""" stated by Brush and Bliar. You seem to have some knowledge denied the rest of us, even to our immortal leaders - both of whom, incidentally have both recently stated that they now don’t believe WMD will be found. Well, what are your sources? Come on - put your money where your mouth (fingers) are and state some unassailable facts. You haven’t stated a single one yet apart from to say that because we can’t prove there are No WMD, ergo there must be SOME. Even Brush and Bliar didn’t use logic quite so simplistic (although it was close…)
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Jul 2004 on 11:42 pm | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,At this point I have to have a little laugh.You say I should study logic and reasoning Oh dear Oh dear me.Well what can I say.You still have not understood what I am stating.You do have to prove there are no W.M.D. It ALREADY has been PROVEN that there are.Bush and Blair have you beaten hand`s down.That you say it has to be proved there are none fly`s in the face of logic and reasoning.Do you really believe that a thing like saddam hussain would "firstly" let the weapon inspector`s get there hand`s on all his W.M.D.or most.Secondly do you really believe that a thing like saddam hussain woke up one morning and ordered that all his W.M.D.be destroyed.Do you really expect anyone to believe that!!!.signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 24 Jul 2004 on 11:55 pm | Link
George, you asked earlier if you are missing something. Ok, I’ll be blunt. You are. You’ve missed the whole of the conclusions of the Butler report as well as at least 6 months of political shenanigans. Brush and Bliar have BOTH stated recently in public that they no longer believe WMD will be found in Iraq. Just one question. Please, please explain when, where, and how Brush and Bliar have proved WMD DO exist, and please follow that with an explanation of why they both recently said that they no longer believe in their existence.

Also, if as you claim Saddam gave away his WMD, please explain to whom and when exactly - and also, why, because you haven’t made that clear. I’ll play devils advocate for one minute and pretend that your "logic" has swayed my opinion; so now do please us all the coutesy of filling in those essential gaps in our knowledge.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:02 am | Link
When has it been proven that Saddam had WMD at the start of the war? Where is this evidence? The best intelligence operatives in the western world have been looking for this evidence and haven’t found any. Even Bush and Blair now admit that there weren’t any WMD.

Where are your facts? Give me a reference to the report or a website address where there is evidence that there were WMD. Just because you say it doesn’t mean it is true. Give me facts. Give me evidence.

On a secondary point, Saddam Hussein is not ‘a thing’ he is a person, a human being, the same as Bush, Blair, you or me.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:04 am | Link
Dear PapaLazzzaru,I have already and you have admitted there are or as you say WERE W.M.D.now logic and reasoning say you must PROVE there are NO W.M.D.before you can say there are not,one step at a time if we are to make progress.They did exits we KNOW that,they do not exit we don`t KNOW that because that has to be PROVEN.Can you prove that!!!.Please let me know.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:08 am | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,Human being`s don`t kill in there thousands and thousands.I am a human being saddam hussain is something that is not human do you want me to tell you of the thing`s he did,do I have to!.He took the shape of a human being but that was all.He cared nothing for anything even he`s own meant nothing to him.That is a FACT too.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:17 am | Link
Umm, no, I don’t think you have. You have stated that Brush and Bliar have already proven there are WMD (even though they haven’t). You have said repeatedly that you deal only in facts. And yet your facts amount to unthinking agreement with the "judgements" of the above named, without any logical support from yourself. Ok, let’s us take this in simple stages.

1. Iraq had some WMD
2. They used some
3. They had a few left
4. Weapons inspectors found nothing
5. Brush and Bliar said they had them
6. Weapons inspectors in Iraq could find nothing
7. Intelligence reports of WMD have been withdrawn
8. The Iraq Survey Group found none
9. The Butler report said there were none
10. Bliar said there were none
11. Brush said there were none
12. Every reporter and writer who ever visited Iraq for more than a couple of months said there were none.
13. Iraqi dissidents say there were none
14. Everyone now agrees there were no WMD
15. Except for you.

Please explain, as you have so far failed to do, where your "facts" come from.

Please explain how you can say they exist even when Brush and Bliar have both now withdrawn their original claims.

Please explain how and why your knowledge of WMD in Iraq seems to be more in depth and informed than any of the above.

Please reply in such a way as to avoid repeating your pathetic claim that Brush and Bliar have proven they exist - because we all know (well, all except you it seems) that they don’t exist and haven’t existed for a long time. So again, please refer to my previous post and give us all the benefit of your infinite wisdom and priescent knowledge in answering these questions.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:24 am | Link
Now you really are drifting off into la la land. Human beings kill in their thousands, their tens of thousands and their millions. The last century is full of examples of humans killing other humans in vast numbers and do you know how they did it? They stopped talking about each other as humans and starting talking about each other as things. The ‘things’ came under many different names - jews, japs, nazis, charlie, commies, yanks, negros, terrorists etc etc. The name didn’t matter as long as it dehumanised them.

You may hate someone for what they have done but as soon as you start saying they are not human then you have started down the same path as them.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:30 am | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,Again I will tell you, you say to me prove that there were W.M.D. BEFORE the start of the war.I don`t have TOO.It has NEVER been PROVEN that there were no W.M.D.BEFORE the war,don`t you see that yet.We know there were.All this is based on "say it loud enough and long enough and people will believe it".As for Bush and Blair they are not saying there are no W.M.D. they are saying it look`s like we will not find any in Iraq.How do I know that they are not in Iraq I don`t.I only know that after the first gulf war Iraq handed over all it`s jet fighter`s to Iran rather then let them slip into our hand`s.What does that tell you.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:35 am | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,How about`s calling saddam "let`s see" I know PRUE EVIL.That will do for me.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:40 am | Link
I’ve never heard of Iraq giving weapons/planes to Iran. Where is the evidence of this?
Comment by Uncarved Block — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:42 am | Link
"All this is based on "say it loud enough and long enough and people will believe it""

Yup, and you are going out of your way to say it most often and with little variation. Once again, where is your proof? Where is your proof that Iraq handed over it’s fighter planes to Iran? I have read lots (and I mean lots, not just hearsay by politicians) about Iraq, both before and after the war with Iran; I have studied Iraqi history, I speak it’s language, it is somewhat of a hobby of mine, and yet I haven’t seen a single thing that says Iraq handed its planes to Iran. I don’t believe it for a second. Iraq hated Iran. Why would he do that? Is that the limits of your "proof"? Please provide a source for this info, a link or the name of a book or SOMETHING.

Again, the point you seem to be trying most hard to convince us of is that because no-one has proven there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, then that means that Brush and Bliar were right to claim it DID have WMD. What kind of perverse "logic" is that? So, by extending that logic, if George Brush says Iran has nuclear weapons, does that make it so? After all, no-one outside of Iran can prove they DON’T have nuclear weapons at present. And if that is the case, would that not have made Iran more of a priority than Iraq? What about North Korea?

By extending your logic far enough it means that pretty much any country we or the US care to invade, we can do so quite guiltlessly, because no-one can prove they have not done anything wrong if our leaders say they have.

Well, going by your own logic I’m just glad you aren’t in a position of power…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 12:46 am | Link
Dear PapaLazzzaru,This is getting really strange.Once more I will explain.Firstly,W.M.D.were used in the Iran/Iraq war (we don`t need another example).You know this to be a FACT.Now between that time and this time someone has said there are NO W.M.D.Great,All I want to know is when were they all destroyed,where were they all destroyed.To tell me they were all used up in that war "I say how do you know that"Please tell me.You are still putting the cart before the horse that is were you fall down.FACT`S deal in FACT`S.You give me information YOU are the ONE telling me there are NO W.M.D.I don`t have to give you information you know the same as me.Now I have not heard one person say they have PROOF there are no W.M.D.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:01 am | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,It was on a program on the B.B.C.sometime ago.I see you don`t know all the fact`s of what is going on.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:04 am | Link
What programme on the BBC? What was their source? Just because the BBC says it doesn’t mean its true either.

Following the first gulf war inspectors were sent into Iraq to look for WMDs - they destroyed all the ones they could find and since then there has been no evidence of Iraq having any WMDs.

By the way, what does ‘PURE EVIL’ mean (apart from just being another name for ‘a thing’)? and how do you decide who it applies to? Was Saddam pure evil when he was our ally or when did he change? Is Gadaffi pure evil, is Bush or Blair?
Comment by Uncarved Block — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:12 am | Link
Dear PapaLazzzaru,I do not tell lies.To say you don`t believe me I find offensive.Go away and check with say Newsnight at the B.B.C.before saying thing`s like that.In other word`s get the FACT`S.As for me I am off to do other thing`s.You it seem`s have made your mind`s up no matter what.As for me I watch and WAIT for someone to give me the PROOF I need before I come to a decision.I am being HONEST when I say I have not seen ANY yet.As far as I am concerned the right action was taken by Bush and Blair.I am not going to lay down in front of monster`s whatever the price no matter what the cost,I am doing no less then the monster`s do. You think about that.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:16 am | Link
"I am doing no less then then monster’s do" then what’s the difference between you and ‘the monster’? You think about that.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:21 am | Link
Well, you now seem to have conceded Iraq DID have some WMD but now seems to have none. I shouldn’t have to explain all this to one so deeply versed in facts, but a simple fact about chemicals is that they don’t last forever. You have munitions (shells, rockets, warheads, whatever), and you have the stuff that goes in them (the chemical bit). If you leave the one inside the other indefinitely you are obviously going to have corrosion, breakdown of the chemical compounds, loss of effectiveness and so on. So if Saddam had any sense (he was as mad as a fish but one would go so far as to suggest that you don’t rule a country for 20-odd years by being outright stupid) he would have made sure that the chemicals were removed from the munitions. We know from the reports of weapons inspectors and the ISG that they found odds and sods of munitions but no chemicals. Once removed from the munitions it all depends on the form of the chemicals. Gases escape; liquids evaporate and powders and very inefficient anyway as far as WMD are concerned. The only way to remove chemical compounds from munitions and still be able to re-use the chemicals is to have pristine facilities and equipment, as well as personnel who are trained in the necessary techniques. We have some of the best personnel in the world and probably THE best facility at Porton Down. Many other countries don’t pursue the acquisition of such weapons because they have the sense to realise all the above and the dangers inherrent in ignoring the above. I’m sure Saddam knew all this, but being the megalomaniac egomaniac he was, he probably just didn’t care. We knew in the first Gulf War that his facilities for the use and manipulation of such materials were suspect; adequate testimony was to be found all over norther Kuwait and southern Iraq where we regularly found chemical shells rotting away, leaking and corroding. No less a personage than Dr. David kelly (acknowledged by the government as the country’s leading expert on WMD) said on many occasions that he was amazed at the seeming lack of casualties in Iraq from the mishandling of chemical munitions; probably closer to the truth was the fact that most of the mishandlers were already dead. As I said earlier, chemicals don’t last forever, and even when you have removed them from the munitions in your pristine facilities and stored them in high-quality storage containers, they still have a "shelf-life". Nothing lasts forever; and nothing is quite as volatile as a chemical compound, especially if badly handled. So although I obviously can’t account personally for every litre of Anthrax and Sarin, it is fairly obvious that just because you once had WMD, this doesn’t mean you will always have them. We know that Saddam had a finite amount of chemical weapons (WMD is a misnomer, because it all depends how and where they are used), and we know he used a certain amount against Iran. We know he used a LOT against Iran. He may even have used most of what he had stocked. So yes, we do know he HAD them. We also know he used them. But it would be a complete fallacy to suggest that just because he had them and used them, this meant that he had lots left over to carry on using them 20 years after he first received them. This is the basis of Bliar and Brushs propaganda, and is as fallacious as your own "facts", "proof" and "logic". It is also disingenious to suggest that he destroyed them (a claim made by Blair and Brush but not by any weapons inspectors); even more disingenious to suggest that because he had them and doesn’t have them now, he gave them away to some terrorists who happened to be passing. The simplest explanation is often the best, and in my opinion he didn’t need to destroy them because after a certain time the things become unusable anyway.

As you can see I have now volunteered some information in reply to your question. Once again I would ask you to back up some of your own claims and facts with some explanations or proof, instead of the repeated assertion that you don’t need to because it has already been done. Although no expert I know enough to be confident of what I have laid out above; check it out if you don’t believe me. But again, have some courtesy and back up the argument you started yourself.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:27 am | Link
As a final comment as you seem to be off to bed now; "you aren’t going to lay down in front of some monster".

Does that mean that you are off to sign up with the Armed Forces to fight evil wherever you see it? Or is that more of the empty, meaningless rhetoric and hearsay you have been spouting all evening?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:30 am | Link
Dear Uncarved Block,When you start down the road of appeasement you are the one that is finished.They give there all to beat us.We must give our all to beat them.I find it strange, would you be so tolerant if your family or friend`s end up as victims of the next attact, WOULD YOU.As for us we have law`s could you see there leader`s before a court for wrong doing like our`s!.You might say there are not over this but then you have to prove there were not W.M.D. you cannot do that CAN YOU.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 1:41 am | Link
Dear PapaLazzzaru,Once again you get personal.Firstly all my family on my mother`s side are now dead.No one bear`s that surname except one who is now in his 70`s.All the sons were killed in WW1.My daughter serve in the Army in Bosnia and other places.My son was injured while in the Army tank reg and had to leave the service. As for me I am disabled and unable to fight anyone.I am also 54 yrs old.So please don`t come that line with me.As for all your knowledge well don`t you think he could have got fresh supplies.After all he managed to get a lot of oil out through Turkey!!! and elsewhere.No all what your are saying has flaws.Goodnight and goodbye.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 2:02 am | Link
Once again you contradict yourself continually. How could he have gotten more? He was skint and no-one wanted to give him anything. Or I suppose next you will say that other countries were queuing up to give Saddam all their spare WMD?

No, no, no. The FACTS, as grudgingly conceded by both Brush and Bliar, are that whatever he had left post-Iran were either destroyed by the weapons inspectors or were in no fit state to be used anyway. The FACTS are that Iraq had no usable WMD. Unassailable fact. The further FACT that no-one can now find any weapons or references to them bears this out quite adequately, it seems, for most of the international community - except for George Dutton, who continues to insist that this continued lack of existence means that they DO exist! Talk about banging your head against a brick wall.

Further, I have spent most of today trying to find any reference to Iraq giving its fighter planes to Iran. I have not managed to find a single reference - even on the BBC website, which was, according to you, the channel which broadcast these "claims". So again, as I and Uncarved Block have asked for repeatedly and received only uncorroborated bluster in return, please post a link to this story. If you also cannot provide this then I (we) will take this as proof that you also have none!

As for terrorist attacks; you still seem to be labouring under the predominantly American misapprehension that Iraq was all about terrorism. Again, the FACTS as stated repeatedly (not by me, but by various committees, inquiries and reports) are that there is NO EVIDENCE of this at all. Having said that, Iraq IS now a breeding ground for terrorists and because of the unjustified invasion I agree we are now more at risk than we ever were before. But this is after the fact. 9/11 should not have happened - my personal belief is that it was allowed to happen by the US government in the same way they allowed Pearl Harbour to happen, and for a very simple reason - body bags on home soil increases public awareness of a "threat" and gets public opinion on the side of a government whose only motivation is cash and control. However, the repeated assertions of a duplicitous US president does not make it so; the same as your own repeated assertions (backed up by childish logic) do not make it so.

"We must give our all to beat them" - as you pointed out that you personally are disabled, what you actually mean is "others should give there all to beat them". Again, though, you are missing the point - that the only reason they "give their all to beat us" is because of the repeated injustices of US and UK foreign policy which has constantly victimised innocent people in order to secure our huge defence industries. Personally, although obviously I cannot condone their actions, I can understand their grievances. Personally I think the root cause of much of the violence in the Middle East is the constant hypocricy of the US in relation to Israel.

Also, referring to one of your earlier posts, please explain why it is so offensive that I do not believe you. I did not call you a liar; I simply said I do not believe that particular claim. If you find it so offensive, please prove me wrong - then I will apologise unreservedly for disbelieving a claim for which I can find no evidence (as I said earlier I cannot find a single reference to it). Further in that post you say you agree with Brush and Bliars actions; believe it or not I actually agree! However, where we differ is that I do not believe they did it for the right reasons. If Bliar had went to Parliament and asked for support to rid the world of an evil tyrant then, even if he had lost that vote, I would have respected him for that. But he KNEW he would not have received backing for such an action, which is illegal in international law, and so he lied to get his way. THAT is the crux of the problem. It is also the crux of your own problem if you set so much store by the actions of a leader who finds it necessary to lie to the country. If he can lie over an issue which really did not need to be lied about, what else is he lying about? Can we believe anything he says, about anything? Are the crime figures being manipulated in the same way intelligence on Iraq was manipulated? What about immigration? Unemployment? The NHS? Etc.

I care little for politics, personally. I am realistic enough to know by now that the only way to make governments sit up and listen is by voting against them. However, the invasion of Iraq has so incensed me that I now find myself questioning every action of the government and the motives behind their actions. If I am in any way indicative of other voters then this government in particular, and government in general, have a huge problem in re-establishing trust. Unfortunately for Tony B.Liar, it is too late; I’m sure he will hang on like Thatcher until he is eventually ousted by his party (if he wins the next election, which unfortunately I believe will be the case). But of one thing I am glad. His testimony in the history books will no longer be the ringing endorsement of a Prime Minister who was honourable and did things for the right reason; rather, he will be maligned as a leader whom the country at large believed was dishonest, duplicitous and self-serving. For that is what he is. Although having said that, no-one should be surprised - after all he is a politician…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 3:32 pm | Link
I think george dutton’s point is that Saddam had WMD, which we know he used in the Iran-Iraq War and against Iraqis. He wants someone to demonstrate (or in his words PROVE) that they were gotten rid of. Iraq destroyed it’s weapons after the Gulf War. We know this as it was a condition of the ceasefire treaty, has been repeatedly confirmed by intelligence sources inside the regime, and was enforced by a decade of heavy inspections.

I think the appeasement accusation is a bit low. I also don’t see how it applies to Iraq, no-one was arguing that we should let Saddam conquer the Middle-East. And Saddam clearly wasn’t a threat to us, he had enough problems at home.

Frankly, WMD is a menace and needs to be dealt with; but I am amazed at just how useless the efforts of Bush and Blair have been. What we appear to have managed to do is invade one of the few countries who don’t have WMD, and cause a huge increase in terrorism. At the same time we’re allies with nations like Pakistan - who not only have WMD, but have also been giving it away. I’m amazed how Bush and Blair have managed to keep the support of so many people who are concerned about terrorism and WMD, while being so obviously inept in dealing with it.
Comment by square peg — 25 Jul 2004 on 3:39 pm | Link
"And Saddam clearly wasn’t a threat to us, he had enough problems at home"

How can you PROVE that? Were you there? Did you know him personally? ;o)

…(sorry, that was also a bit of a low blow…)
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 3:44 pm | Link
You again miss the the point I am trying to make to everyone.You are trying VERY HARD to shift the discussion to other problem`s.I agree with some of what you say about other thing`s.What I am saying is that no one can prove there are NO W.M.D. You have to prove this as it has been proven that there are.It follow`s then that to say there are NONE and not produce ANY EVIDENCE to back up your claim is ludicrous.Now I am claiming nothing.I am asking for someone to give me the proof that W.M.D.do not exist,can you give me proof of your claim that they do not exist.You make statements above that they did not have any money to replace them! tell me where did all that money saddam had with him when he was caught come from!.And all that money they found in Iraq when the troop`s went in come from MILLIONS upon MILLIONS american dollar`s stacked up that was on the television too or is that another fact you don`t want to know along with that fact that Iraq handed over jet fighter`s to Iran before the first gulf war which you can check with the B.B.C.newsnight team.You are the one with an agenda not me.You seem to have made up your mind come hell or high water not me.I am all for getting to the TRUTH first before trying anyone for there supposed crimes.Last night you again tried to murk up the water`s by saying that W.M.D.would not last that long well Anthrax is a W.M.D.it`s shelf life is at least 50year`s.You see I don`t have to prove anything all I want is one concrete answer to my simple question where is your PROOF that W.M.D. do NOT exist.So far you have giving me NOTHING. signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 5:42 pm | Link
Shifting the discussion? It was YOU who brought up the 1st World War! If that isn’t shifting the discussion then I don’t know what is.

And none of us HAVE TO PROVE THERE ARE NO WMD. We did not start a war based on the premise that they did exist. Tony Bliar and George Brush did that; they claimed to have solid intelligence that Iraq could launch weapons within 45 minutes (and then backed away from stating which weapons those were). It was THEY, no me or anyone else who said they existed - and on that basis and that basis alone Bliar asked for support in a war which was supposedly to protect us from an "imminent threat". We have seen no proof of this imminent threat, neither nuclear, chemical or biological. So why did they say those things? There is and was NO PROOF that they could confidently make those assertions; ALL of the claims they made have since been discredited. So please tell us once and for all, where are the FACTS that you base your claims on? Don’t keep telling us you don’t need to prove it because George and Tony already have. They haven’t. They lied. End of story. If you want to believe their lies then more fool you.

Again, there is NO EVIDENCE of Iraq giving planes to Iran. You misheard, or misunderstood something I’m sure - if you even saw it. I can find NO SINGLE REFERENCE TO IT. If you know of such a reference, please quote one.

And are you really SO NAIVE that because Saddam had lots of cash (escape money) then Iraq could afford to buy WMD? Even The Liar hasn’t made that claim. So again, what are your sources? Let’s face it, you have none. You are desperately trying to defend the indefensible - something which even Lord Butler shied away from. Earlier you accused me of "getting personal" because I had already lost the argument; I have logically reasoned through each of my replies and yet your own replies are simply repeats. That to me is the mark of a man who has lost an argument and doesn’t want to admit he is wrong. Sorry George, if you want to convince people to accept your point of view then you are going to have to do a LOT better - so far on this page I see 3 views contrary to your own. Pretty much the same odds as Bliar and Brush face to convince people they are not liars of staggering proportions.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 6:13 pm | Link
None of what I say fit`s your agenda or that of a few more like you.I have really rattled you by saying that Iraq handed over it`s jet fighter`s to Iran just before the first gulf war.That does not fit into your agenda it shows that any W.M.D.could have been handed to someone else.All you had to do was phone the B.B.C.to find out.Or phone your M.P.he would have found out for you. As you claim to know so much you would have thought you would have been on to them by now just to keep yourself RIGHT up to date.This is a VERY IMPORTANT development but does not fit with your agenda.When you don`t admit fact`s to other`s that bad,when you don`t admit fact`s to yourself that an illness.A rational person would have said I WILL find out if that is true and then I will expose you on this web site for all to see I was right YOU were wrong.You it seem`s make one assumption after another and when it does not fit your agenda you disregard it.As for bringing up the first world war that was in reply to your snid remarks about me joining the army if I felt that Bush and Blair were right.Again what had that to do with what I was asking!!!.You time and time again refuse to answer a simple QUESTION why because you don`t in truth know the answer.Robin Cook,Clair Short,Lyne Jones,have all said "there are NO W.M.D.well not much anyway!!!".They don`t even know.Don`t believe me on that get HANSARD, order a copie and read it for yourself.So if they don`t know how on EARTH do YOU.You don`t like Tony Blair that`s your problem,PLEASE don`t download your problem`s on to me. signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 25 Jul 2004 on 11:41 pm | Link
Nope, not me George - I don’t have an agenda. You obviously do; about that I don’t even care. But again, you are wrong. I have telephoned the BBC and they know nothing about what you are talking. I have also spoken to a number of distinguished reporters who have worked at the BBC for years, as well as visiting Iraq many many times. They have never heard of it either. So stop making things up to fit your own "agenda"!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 Jul 2004 on 11:47 pm | Link
It`s now come down to lies.YOU LOST BIG TIME.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:16 am | Link
George Dutton, you are a complete moron. I’ve read through this whole thread and I can’t see one single place where you talk sense. You mention being disabled; that has obviously addled your brain and filled you with hate to the extent you can see nothing else. Rather than criticising people for questioning the Government (rightly or wrongly), you should be congratulating people on upholding truly democratic values in a way which the Government does not. Instead you spout hate and invective, claiming that you are only quoting facts. The fact that your facts are not facts at all completely escapes you and your constant demands for proof are irritatingly repetitive - especially when your own is so completely non-existent. Are you so afraid that fear has negated your reasoning? Or are you simply incapable of reasoning? Who exactly ARE these monsters in front of whom you refuse to lie down? In my estimation the most obvious candidate is Bush, followed closely and spinelessly by Blair; if these are the monsters to which you refer then I admire your stance. I fear not though; the monsters to which you are referring will no doubt be the strangely ephemeral "terrorists", the very mention of whom is enough to make Americans quake - the only thing George W. Bush can count on for support in his re-election campaign. It is this total refusal to accept real life which makes you that most contemptible of people - a hatemonger whose messianoic zeal is matched only by his total ignorance.
Comment by Nowonmai — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:16 am | Link
George, get a life. You have won nothing; nor have I lost anything. Are you one of these people who would rather be right than happy? Is winning an argument all that is important to you? Because as I said you have won nothing, which makes it all the more sad to see your glea when you believe you have won. If I had "lost" as you put it, surely I would have come round to your way of "thinking"? I haven’t; I dispute everything you have said, because you have constantly distorted the facts as they are known and understood by the whole country, and argued like a child that you are right and everyone else is wrong. How pathetic.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:24 am | Link
Incidentally, what are the lies you are referring to? Your own in asserting that the BBC made a program about Iraq giving its fighter planes to Iran? That is the only outright lie I am aware of on this page. The people I spoke to were mystified. HOwever, following your sage advice I’ll take it up with my MP - I’m sure, as you suggest, that he will be able to get to the bottom of it. Lol!!! My sides are hurting me!!! You are so GONE, please let me have a puff of whatever you are smoking. In one breath you slag off the likes of Cook, Short, etc for not knowing about WMD - then you direct me to another MP to find out answers about a related matter. You should be on a stage, mate!!!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:28 am | Link
Dear Nowonmai,When you get personal it mean`s you have not the intellect to debate.Such ranting`s it no doubt something to do with your upbringing some parent`s have a lot to answer for.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:31 am | Link
I said YOU LOST BIG TIME.These distinguished reporter`s you spoke with you won`t mind given me there names!.They will not mind as they are in the public eye.It`s just so anyone reading this will not think you did not make it up as it`s VERY important to your standing and there`s in this matter.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:37 am | Link
You aren’t worth debating the colour of orange juice with - you’d argue it was black. Go back to school and learn how to spell and use the English language correctly before you talk about debating. Your own debating skills are sadly in abeyance, and this isn’t helped by the fact that you type like a 7 year old. It is actually painful to read some of your longer posts.
Comment by Nowonmai — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:40 am | Link
Ranting!!! That’s rich, coming from you!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:41 am | Link
Why should I supply you with answers when you haven’t answered a single question sensibly yet. Take the question put to you by Nowonmai; who exactly are the monsters you refer to?

Incidentally, Anthrax has a shelf life of approximately 5 years (if kept in perfect storage conditions), not 50. Another FACT you got completely wrong.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:45 am | Link
Dear Nowonmai,How strange your use of the English language.The way you use word`s remind me of someone else.Now who could that be.I am sure it was someone I was talking to.They too lost the debate BIG TIME.Now what was there name.Oh yes they did not give it.Afraid I suppose but coward`s alway`s are.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:49 am | Link
Break it up, put a space in now and again, drop the unnecessary quotation marks, and people might actually understand what you are drivelling about…
Comment by Nowonmai — 26 Jul 2004 on 2:55 am | Link
Dear PapaLazzzaru,There is an Island off the west coast of Scotland it was contaminated with Anthrax over 50 year`s ago no one can go to that Island as it was still contaminted upto 3 year`s ago the last time I heard about it on the television.The Island is called Isle of Gruan.You are not given me the names of those distinguish reporter`s I believe you,it`s just that people will say you did not get in contact with anyone you just made it up,and I will not have them saying that about you.This matter is not a petty one off "you did not give me answer`s so why should I give you name`s" it is a grown up Debate.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 3:04 am | Link
I don’t care which island is contaminated with Anthrax; I’m not talking about Anthrax contamination - I’m talking about storing it as you maintain Iraq obviously did before they gave away their WMD to Iran or wherever it is you think those WMD ended up. Different thing entirely.

Never mind trying to wheadle (I’m not even certain that is a real word…) information out of me - if as you allege you saw a show on Newsnight about Iran receiving military hardware from Iraq, you must at least be able to remember when you saw it. I don’t care what people think of me; so far you are the only person on this thread who has expressed a contrary viewpoint, and you have shown nothing apart from contradictions to back it up. Your case for your original insults about people who criticise their government has been backed up by precisely nothing. So rather than being concerned about what other people may think of me, you should be more concerned with how loose and unfounded your whole argument has been so far.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 3:13 am | Link
Dear Nowonmai,You say it is painful to read some off my longer post`s,have you tried taken an asprin.Don`t take too many as they can give you a bad stomach.You should also go to the optician as you may need glasses.Why not go and lie down in a dark room and calm yourself down it can`t be any good for you to get so excited.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 3:19 am | Link
Dear PapaLazzzaru,Firsly I never said I saw it on newsnight.I said I saw it on the television.It was big news at the time.Secondly I never said that Iraq gave it`s W.M.D. to Iran I said it could have given it`s W.M.D. to Iran.BIG DIFFERANCE.As for saying thing`s about those that say there are NO W.M.D. I again ask you for your proof.You don`t have any.You must back up what you say.GIVE ME PROOF.It`s the only QUESTION I WANT an answer to.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 3:28 am | Link
I don’t have any PROOF, you know that. But then, I don’t need to produce proof - I didn’t take the country to war. The people who DID take the country to war also have no proof, and lots of people are dead because of the war they based on a complete lack of credible evidence. I’m sure we’ve covered this ground before, but you refuse to consider this viewpoint - there was NO PROOF to back up sending troops into a conflict from which many of them will not return. That is a crime Tony B.Liar is guilty of, not me.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 3:38 am | Link
Well we FINALLY can make progress.You now say you have no PROOF.You must now understand NO ONE HAS.That is the point I have been trying to make.As no one has proof and you go by the fact`s then you have to conclude that there are W.M.D. You say that the people that took the country to war have no PROOF they DON`T need any it`s NEVER been eatablished that there are no W.M.D.You say lot`s of people are dead True but you must also say a lot of people are dead after 9/11 so how many 9/11`s do you want us to put up with.No one can tell the future but for long term stability and the saving of life countries like Iraq must be made free for the people of those countries to take affective action against those that threatening us all.Give those who threatening us no where to hide.You also must know that MANY lives have been saved as saddam can no longer kill so many of his own people as he did before we went to war.He is no longer a threat to people.People also forget he tried to get us to make a super gun which he was going to use against Israel and other`s.What were his intentions there to send over W.M.D!.How many lives were saved by this war in the long term will be FAR FAR HIGHER then if we had left him in power.Just look at the estimates of how many have died as a result of all the thing`s he has done since he came to power in Iraq then come back onto this site and tell me we should not have gone to war.I will then give up on you as a TOTALly lost case.As for some of our M.P.`s you have to understand that some of them will NEVER go to war no matter what the circumstances are.Some may well be honest enough to tell you that.All this is about people saying they would not have gone to war if they had knowing that there were no W.M.D.I am pointing out to them that it cannot be proved there were no W.M.D.So they know want our security to be based on maybe`s or I think.I am saying please go by knowing fact`s.But let`s face the truth,many of them and the press are after Tony Blair and George Bush and as they say hate can blind people.I sit here and now tell you that my family came close to being kill by the I.R.A.a few year`s ago.They tried to blow up some GIANT gas tank`s not far off my house,if that had gone up it would have been like a hydrogen bomb going off.My family would not be here know.If you don`t believe me that`s your problem.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 9:59 am | Link
Many of us have been close to being killed some by terrorism, some of us by ignorance and most of us by accident. That is just a ‘time-space’ reality, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time….

The GWB TB - WMD debate is about honesty and what people like us who will never know the inner workings of a politician’s mind make out of the externally visible signs.

We and the USA gave Iraq WMD during the Iran/Iraq war - that is why some people chose to ignore Hanz Blix and say that they believed that Iraq still had WMD. I use the believe word advisedly here because most of what we debate on this site is the result of us believing something written by somebody else.

For my part I believe that both TB and GWB were stupid in not being intelligent enough to ask the simple questions that most people were asking at the time before the war - about the integrity of the information on which they were basing decisions. They say that they didn’t ask those questions and that that absolves them of any guilt, but, for me, it also confirms their stupidity.

What I or anyone else believes is interesting but not open to ‘proof’, it can only be debated on the sources from which we derived those beliefs. Without ’sources’ to support a debate we express only an opinion and must accept that ’sourced’ arguments are stronger than un-sourced.

Me - I believe in God - would I debate this belief? No, why? Because the existence of God cannot be proved.

George - you have the right to your beliefs you have the right to place faith in your beliefs but you need to accept that there is a gulf of difference between a belief and a fact.

Anyone in this thread is free to tell me that God doesn’t exist - I’m sure they will but I don’t care
Anyone is free to tell me that GWB and TB were right but I don’t care
From all that I think I know, from all that I have read that I believe to be true, from all that I see in the body language of GWB and TB [and here I have extensive analytical experience] I believe that they are stupid, or liars, or both.
{grammatically I know I shouldn’t have used successive ‘or’s but I’m making a point}
No amount of CAPITAL LETTERS {shouting} is going to change my beliefs

Have a good week
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 26 Jul 2004 on 10:54 am | Link
The issue, as with all of them, is one of lack of evidence.

For example: Pakistan, through its lack of proper policy and control, has been directly responsible for nuclear technology and secrets being sold to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. The penalty for Pakistan? None; it is a nuclear nation, already at the brink of co-destruction with India. The diplomats and the press gave them a fat lip, and that was it.

Pakistan has actively passed on the secrets that everyone claims Iraq *could* have done - however, as it turns out, Iraq had nothing to give; the control regime put in place was, after all, enough to do what needed to be done.

For example: A wide range of countries have actually been used to assist Al-Qaida in terrorist activities; amongst those are Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Actions taken? Vary.

Iraq? Nothing. No connection. No sympathetic audience for Al-Qaida, and an anti-religious grip on the country by a Saddam who held control with an iron fist.

The argument made by many is that the war on terror shouldn’t have been fought in Iraq; that Iraq has never had, and until our intervention, would likely have never been, a party to the terrorism we witness today.

Our actions have changed that fact. We destabilized the region, in the hopes of getting something more stable later; that gamble has yet to pay out, the dice have not yet stopped rolling.

However: To pretend that the war on Iraq was a clear and definite "good idea" is fallacy; governments generally do not act on the ‘greater good’, they act on national interests.

What is clear now, because of the evidence that doesn’t exist, is that the criteria of ‘national interests’ has not been met. This wasn’t even the much-touted-by-America "preemptive counterstrike", whereby the defensive act takes place before the offensive one by one’s opponent, has proven entirely worthless and baseless.

This was Regime Change. Illegal within the UN charter, expressly prohibited by the governments of the world because It Might Be Them Next. In diplomacy, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say, and arguments about it slide right down the slippery slope into complete and total anarchy.

So.

The burden of proof relies on those who make the first strike. The first strike was made on Iraq, not by Iraq, and against the wishes of the UN inspectors, who had already clearly stated that the grounds for war did not exist.

Meanwhile, the West, through actions completely disconnected from Al-Qaida, have created strong imagery which can be used by the enemy they weren’t bothering to try to defeat by implementing Regime Change in Iraq; that imagery can then be used by the ‘real’ enemy, sponsored terrorism, to usher even more people into martyrdom - our actions outside of the terrorist threat’s scope reinforce the terrorists’ arguments that the West is interested in regime change and overlaying its culture over the rest of the world.

They painted the West out as a set of cowboy clowns in costume; our response was to go out, spend billions on fake red noses, paint, large shoes, and polka-dot outfits, and dress up as them. In came the gunslingers, out went the regime, and we became the image that Al-Qaida had already been using to recruit; we became our own worst enemy.

It’s hard to see how that meets the national interest.
Comment by Gregory Block — 26 Jul 2004 on 11:12 am | Link
I was always led to understand that "ignorance is no plea in Law"
That being so it seems that TB took us to war illegally.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 26 Jul 2004 on 11:32 am | Link
The eloquent expansions by Uncarved & Roger are of course much appreciated and informative to those who don’t already understand this issue; however, I fear that to some (or ONE!) this is all so much more pure speculation, completely lacking in actual PROOF! Time will tell if the penny has dropped…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 4:31 pm | Link
Dear Roger,Thank`s for your reply.I am asking Roger how people can say there are no W.M.D.I just want to find out this fact and cannot find it anywhere.All I have heard are M.P.`s saying there are "no W.M.D.well not many left" and there are "no W.M.D."and then not telling me how they know that. What does that tell me,it tells me they don`t know.All I am asking for is for just one person to prove there are none and no one can do that.People say expert`s say it`s unlikely there are W.M.D. Unlikely mean`s they don`t know.All I do know is that W.M.D.existed at the end of the Iraq/Iran war and people tell me that somewhere from then to now they no longer exist.I say great.But when I ask how do you know that I get nothing to explain how this happened.Is it to much to ask for someone to explain.All these people come on to this site and say this and that. I am not asking for this and that.I am asking for one single thing how do you know W.M.D.no longer exist.I don`t want to know about the right and wrong`s of the war I have my own thought`s on this.Can anyone tell me the answer to my question as none that have been on this site can.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 7:14 pm | Link
George, we’ve been banging this nail for a while now; I have to say with your last reply that your tune seems to have changed from "evidence of no WMD = WMD exist" to "evidence of no WMD COULD mean WMD do not exist but this has yet to be proven".

Agreed. 100% correct. And this is what we have been saying all along. Your original premise was that Bliar and Brush have proven conclusively that they DO exist, not DID exist. Wrong. We ALL know that they DID exist.

SO. If we start from there.

We know they DID exist.
We also know that Iraq used SOME against Iran and also his own people.
We ALSO know that UNSCOM weapons inspectors disposed of SOME.
We ALSO know that SOME facilities were bombed out of existence.
We also KNOW that Iraq disposed of SOME themselves, under supervision of UNSCOM & others (this is documented, you’d probably be able to find it fairly easy - I don’t have time at the minute to provide links).
We also KNOW for a certain time Iraq was unable to produce or buy more - again, weapons inspections and the close attentions of half the world’s intelligence agencies. This lasted from 91 - 98-98. Even after this time until weapons inspectors were allowed back in at the end of 2002, naturally the attentions of the same intelligence agencies were firmly focused on Iraq.

Therefore this leaves us with a period of time between 1998 and 2003 when Iraq COULD conceivably have obtained or produced more. However, bearing in mind that in order to BUY WMD this would mean going to another country; therefore, although our HUMINT was poor in Iraq, this does not mean that we would not have gotten wind of such attempts via other parties - bear in mind the serpentine and often unlikely links between intelligence people. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the relatively primitive training of the Iraqi "spies", for want of a better, more all-encompassing name, would have allowed them to keep such transactions completely hidden from the rest of the world. In short, I think we can all rest assured that had Iraq actually MANAGED to buy WMD from elsewhere, one way or another someone would have gotten wind of it.

So, discounting for the sake of argument the possibility that Iraq managed to buy WMD from someone else, the only remaining possibility is that they managed to produce more themselves.

We KNOW that Iraq WANTED to produce more. We KNOW that they TRIED to produce more.

BUT.

And this is the whole point.

What we DON’T know is whether they succeeded. We’ve already conceded that HUMINT was limited and unreliable. We’ve also conceded that there is a period of roughly 5 years when they COULD have succeeded. We know from the US that the CIA have since admitted that most of its intelligence based on HUMINT was about 5 years out of date.

So here we are now. We’ve conceded that Iraq COULD have produced WMD between 1998 and 2003. We also know that prior to the US election in 2000 which Brush won (rightly or wrongly) Tony Bliar fully agreed with Bill Clinton that containment was working and there was no need for military action. We also KNOW that at the same time, the Project for a New American Century, a thinktank composed of the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and so on, advocated a stronger stance on Iraq. This was for a myriad of reasons, not one of which was related to WMD. of course, WMD was a convenient excuse for military action, but it wasn’t the REASON. These were (are) a mixture of personal, political and financial considerations which I won’t get into because it would take forever.

We also KNOW that prior to 9/11 George Brush was already considering military action against Iraq. This again is documented, and even though the 9/11 Commission (in the same way as numerous enquiries on this side of the pond) refused to directly attribute blame or criticism, their conclusions are nontheless damning, in what they don’t say as well as what they do. If you’d followed it as closely as I did, you’d also know that testimony by US government witnesses was as unconvincing and evasive as it was over here. Compared with the forthright honesty of most of the other witnesses it was pretty pathetic to behold. You can call them anti-Government if you want, you can say they all had an agenda if you want, but the simple facts are that, as Uncarved Block & Roger said above you don’t need to be an expert on human nature to spot self-serving evasion or forthright honesty.

We now also know that after 9/11, Tony Bliar changed his previous stance from agreeing with Bill Clinton on the success of containment, to agreeing with George Brush that containment wasn’t working and military action was the only option left. We know all about the dodgy dossiers and the circumstances and shenanigans surrounding them. We know that before publication, the dossier was fully comprehensive in that it qualified every point with such caveats as necessary; ie. "Saddam is interested in procuring WMD, he may even have succeeded, BUT we don’t know for certain because HUMINT is limited and we can’t confirm this". We also know that after publication the dossier read "Saddam has WMD and he can use them within 45 minutes".

We KNOW this is not true. We know it 150%. We have already established that the intelligence on Iraq was limited and was suitably qualified in such a way that NO-ONE who read it could conclude that Iraq HAD SUCCEEDED IN PROCURING WMD.

And again, this is the crux of the problem. We are supposed to be a democracy, allied to another democracy across the pond. Part of being a liberal democracy is that you follow the rules as laid down, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. We know the UN is not perfect; we know in a lot of cases it is a waste of time. In the same way we know our own justice system is often badly flawed. However, we still all have to obey the law as laid down.

But we didn’t. We and the Americans decided that Saddam Hussein, who for a long time was useful to us, had to go. We know that regime change is an illegal justification for war under international law as laid down. Our governments also know that. But they were determined to go their way, for whatever reasons. And of course they didn’t want the accusations of being undemocratic that would naturally follow if we went to war for the purposes of regime change. Well, when I say that, I mean we in the UK - the US have gotten so arrogant that they now care nothing at all for international law because there is no-one willing to challenge them hard enough. Hence the publication of the dodgy dossier and Tony Bliar’s repeatedly nauseating pleas for people to trust him.

And now we arrive… The point is, Bliar KNEW, as we all KNOW, that NONE of us KNOW if Iraq had WMD or not. The CHANCES were good that he did not; we know Iraq was bankrupt and struggling for friends throughout the world. This of course was all down to the fact that Saddam was a megalomaniac who cared for one thing and one thing only; himself. But that’s beside the point. As I said, Blair KNEW that NO-ONE could say for certain whether or not Iraq had WMD. But he said HE knew. He stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD and would use them. He said the reason he knew was that he had intelligence which was so secret no-one, not even the intelligence services themselves, could see it apart from himself and selected cronies. Even now, after various committees have listed various things that should not have been used as justification, he still insists that they are wrong and he was right, because he still has this ace up his sleeve, this nugget of super-secret information which, unfortunately and to his dying regret, Prime Ministerial privelege prevents him sharing.

Please! Don’t say you are so naive as to actually believe that (rhetorical question?!

The questions Bliar needs to answer right now, if he were to deserve an apology (and of course that would depend on the veracity of his anwers) are;

1. Why now? Why suddenly change your tune from Clintons to Bushs, when there was no credible evidence that the threat had increased?
2. Who took all the caveats out of the dossier and why?
3. Did you do a deal with Bush, and if so when and why?
4. If the war was such an honourable course of action, how come at least one of your own kids is not at least training for a role in the military?

There are others, of course, and I wouldn’t profess for a second to know all the questions or the answers to them. But the problem because of his course of action and refusal to account for it afterwards, as has been said countless times recently, is that his trust is now dimished to a point where the majority of the country does not trust him at all. If he can lie so readily about Iraq, what else is he lying about, or has lied about in the past? And is our dimished standing around the world really worth the price in blood which has been paid so far and continues to be paid as we debate?

(Capitals are for emphasis only; I’m NOT SHOUTING…!)
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Jul 2004 on 9:12 pm | Link
Once again you are off onto other thing`s that I am not asking about.I still want someone to give me the proof that W.M.D.do not exist.Until anyone does they do exist.There is no evidence to the contrary.Don`t you understand that.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 26 Jul 2004 on 11:45 pm | Link
I wasn’t off onto other things; I was trying to qualify what to me and others on this thread is a perfectly simple argument. There is no evidence that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist; does that mean it exists beyond a doubt?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Jul 2004 on 1:02 am | Link
Your at it again unbelievable.We know W.M.D.did exist.We have never knowing if the Loch Ness Monster exist.We know W.M.D.still exist because there has never been any evidence to the countrary. You told me last night you had no proof that W.M.D.do not exist.Tomorrow you will be telling me that fairies may exist at the bottom of your garden.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 27 Jul 2004 on 3:54 am | Link
No, once again you’re wrong; we have NO EVIDENCE that the Loch Ness Monster has never existed. We SUSPECT it is all a fabrication, but we have no proof…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Jul 2004 on 4:44 am | Link
You first have to established something existed before you can say it no longer exist.Your premise is that you have to disprove somthing does not exist before proving it did.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 27 Jul 2004 on 10:54 am | Link
We don’t know they existed after weapons inspectors disposed of the last they found. Same logic.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Jul 2004 on 11:08 am | Link
George, do you believe that dinosaurs are still roaming the earth? Where do you think that the dodos are hiding? Have all the neanderthals gone on holiday somewhere?

They all existed and no-one can prove that they do not still exist. Most people believe the available evidence and conclude that dinosaurs, dodos and neaderthals are all extinct. But, as there is no PROOF, that will clearly not be good enough for you George.

So, George, are you going to accept that your reasoning is faulty and agree that it makes sense to believe that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the start of the war? Or are you going to give me directions to ‘the land that time forgot’?
Comment by Uncarved Block — 27 Jul 2004 on 2:14 pm | Link
Got you with that one.Time and time again you make assumption that are knowingly wrong.I will give you two you have just made.Firstly.Dinosaurs still do exist there descendents are all around us they are called birds.Neanderthals never died out.There is a bit off them in you and me.When modern man came out of Afirca and moved into Europe he pushed Neanderthal man more and more further north and yes bredding took place between modern man and Neanderthal women and vice versa.I only say this as your education is sadly lacking.And yes I can prove that W.M.D.existed before the Iraq war they were used in the Iraq/Iran war.As for dodos again you are wrong it is all documented from the ships log that they were all killed and further expedition`s confirmed this fact.They could not fly and were easy prey for the sailor`s with there club`s,and they only existed on one Island in the Indian ocean (whose name escape`s me at the moment).They have never been seen anywhere else Earth (so far)lol.By the way your premise is a good one BUT only in the field of theoretical physics. Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 27 Jul 2004 on 5:16 pm | Link
"And yes I can prove that W.M.D.existed before the Iraq war they were used in the Iraq/Iran war"

Go on then, prove it. Don’t tell me they were used in the Iran/Iraq war - PROVE it.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Jul 2004 on 7:12 pm | Link
This is getting boring, anyhow it was the means and ability to deliver, and not the existence of WMD’s that was really in doubt.
Comment by Colonel Mad — 27 Jul 2004 on 7:39 pm | Link
Re: The Iraqi Airforce.

For the record, george dutton is right about the Iraqi Airforce. Iraqi planes flew to Iran during the First Gulf War, as a last ditch attempt to avoid then being destroyed by bombing. I remember it being in the the news at the time. The intention was that Iraq would be able to regain it’s airforce after the war had finished. This wasn’t the case; 137 planes were flown to Iran, and after the war the Iranian government declined to return them.

I got this by googling on "gulf war iraqi air force iran"

<a href="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0071.shtml">http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0071.shtml</a>

However, as far as I can see this has no connection with current debates on WMD.
Comment by square peg — 27 Jul 2004 on 8:16 pm | Link
"As for dodos again you are wrong it is all documented from the ships log that they were all killed and further expedition`s confirmed this fact… They have never been seen anywhere else Earth (so far)lol."

Isn’t this a good parallel with Iraqi WMD? They were recorded as being destroyed after the Gulf War and further inspections have confirmed this fact. They have never been found anywhere in Iraq.

To me this looks like sound reasoning for assuming something doesn’t exist.
Comment by square peg — 27 Jul 2004 on 8:21 pm | Link
Thanks for that, Peg; glad SOMEONE can back up arguments. However, I’d like to point out that George’s premise was that Iraq GAVE her planes to Iran, not that there was any kind of arragnement to get them back. But, apologies to George - even if he was slightly off track. See, I’m man enough to apologise when I am proved wrong.

The Colonel is correct too; it IS getting boring. Unfortunately George Dutton refuses to accept that his own logic is flawed, and therefore the argument will drag on because I think it’s important that people do realise the truth.

Earlier Goerge accused me, and others, of having an "agenda" and of "not liking Tony Bliar". Again, by using his own logic against him, he too obviously has an agenda - he is obviously a fan of Tony Bliar and refuses to consider that he could be wrong. Not necessarily IS wrong, but COULD be. We have all conceded parts of the argument in order to iron out the main principle, and to me it seems fairly clear cut. The lack of evidence that something does not exist DOES NOT MEAN it exists, as Uncarved Block pointed out. But I fear I am wasting my time again; I can anticipate George’s reply almost word for word. Once again he will accuse us all of having missed the point and of not understanding that we are all wrong.

So once again, to use George’s own logic against him, there is no proof WMD existed after (I think) 1996 when the weapons inspectors got rid of the last batch that they had found. If that’s the case, like the dinosaurs, they become a point of argument; you either BELIEVE they did or not - but you can’t prove it either way. So if George carries on insisting that because we have no evidence that Iraq destroyed all it’s remaining WMD then they are definitely there, then I will spend the rest of the week looking carefully for dinosaurs and dodos.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Jul 2004 on 8:30 pm | Link
LOL.There must have been someone like you at Troy.No there are no greek soldiers,look the beach it`s empty.We can`t find any greek soldiers there all gone.You stupid stupid person.No I`m not going to look into the wooden horse,how can the greek`s get enough soldiers in there to hurt us.You stupid stupid person go away while I and people like me with far superior intellects pull this wooden horse into the city. We all know what happened to the Trojen`s. I also see no apology to me on your learning that Iraq did hand it`s jet fighter`s to Iran or are you going to tell square peg you don`t believe him as well.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 27 Jul 2004 on 11:08 pm | Link
Dear Square peg,Problem with your reasoning is that we don`t know how much W.M.D.saddam had!.We don`t know if the weapon inspector`s found it all.It would seem to me that saddam would have chuck them out long before they found it all which is what he did.He was hardly going to chuck them out after they had found all he had.There were not that many weapon inspector`s and Iraq is about the size of france.To follow the reasoning that further inspection turned up nothing is true but there again they would not have found many jet fighter`s he had giving them away to Iran.What else might he have giving away and to whom. What I am trying to highlight is the fact that no one can say there are no W.M.D.because no one know`s. Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 27 Jul 2004 on 11:58 pm | Link
You’re ‘avin’ a giraff, aincha George?!?! I’ve just cottoned on - this is a deliberate wind-up, innit me awld sossage?!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 28 Jul 2004 on 12:59 am | Link
Dear Square peg,I should have told you that searching for a bird that run`s about on the ground on a small Island is nothing like a parallel to searching for W.M.D.in a country the size of France and could be buried to a great depth.That is if they are in that country!.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 28 Jul 2004 on 3:52 am | Link
Well, if it wasn’t a wind up, it’s adding weight to the argument that democracy is rubbish. Imagine someone like Dutton (I assume it usually has a capital) being allowed to vote! You all battled bravely there against the forces of gross stupidity.
Comment by Lodjer — 30 Jul 2004 on 9:26 am | Link
Dear Lodjer, You say"adding weight to the argument that democracy is rubbish"I am glad you did not have to live in Iraq you would then find out what our democracy really is or do you think saddam`s is the one you like best!!!.You should also understand that when people have lost a debate they alway`s get personal.What you are saying to the world is george dutton has no right to say the thing`s he does,so where is your version of democracy in that!!!.Well it say`s a lot about the person you are.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 30 Jul 2004 on 12:50 pm | Link
Oh, I quite agree. And I wouldn’t want to comment on the politics, I am simply a utilitarian at heart.
Comment by Lodjer — 30 Jul 2004 on 12:54 pm | Link
I’ve got to compliment you in one way, George - your complete lack of understanding (worrying enough in itself) in this issue is matched only by your sheer stubbornness and stamina in arguing that black is white!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 30 Jul 2004 on 2:01 pm | Link
It is if you dye it.Which is what some try to do.Signed,george dutton.
Comment by george dutton — 30 Jul 2004 on 3:29 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Butler Report

83 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries