So they found WMD

[Blub2k]

You have a fair point on the boltulism, but the scientist who was found with it has told of other agents and product lines which could be switched to produce anthrax in under a week.

Ok so where are they. If you do a google now on the botulism vials you will find very little on it online, that means it is not that important as you can guarantee that the REAL news sources would have reported that BIG, that snotrag the Sun does not count as a real newspaper. Here is the best article that I can find on it presently but read it and yes, all of your points are there but more importantly none of them are substantiated otherwise it would be all over the place and the tone of the ISG is that as hard as they try they cant find the evidence they seek.
WMD not here

THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL!!!!

[Bazzlad]

The only problem with your view is this...

We'll use September the 11th as an example.
Say it didn't happen, and America bombed Afganistan on the 9th, you'd be saying that was illegal too.

I get the impression the only time you'd justify an attack is when 1000's of people have been killed by Saddam (Remember when he gassed the Kurds? Was that not illegal?)

Prevention is better than retaliation. He WAS not complying he was given chance to do so, and failed to.

THE WAR WAS JUSTIFIED.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
Then why was Hans Blix on TV saying he wasn't being given full assistance by the Iraqis? And as they fired the scud missiles as war broke out *Not at our forces-Can't remember who at, can anyone?* it looks like they did a great job of deconstructing them, bear in mind they'd been in place since the first gulf war, how many years could it take to destroy missiles? War broke out because Saddam was a threat, and a big one at that, the only thing I don't understand is why he was allowed back in power after the first gulf war? Anyone care to enlighten me?

OK.

Point 1. Blix stated that progress was being made. OK? Progress? Get that?

Point 2. A number of news organisations incorrectly identified SCUD missiles being launched on the opening day of the invasion. This information was not corroborated by the Army and later recalled by the news outlets that mentioned it.

Point 3. Saddam never lost power at the end of the gulf war.

So lets get this right. As it stands we know that Saddam had no biological weapons, no chemical weapons and no nuclear weapons. He had no nuclear weapons program. One scientist had a vial of botulism in his fridge (the toxicity of which we are unclear about) that had been there 10 years. He had no air force, no navy and an army that got comprehensively slaughtered as soon as the fireworks started.

Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam was a "big threat" ? Seriously?

[Ice Kay]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
[B]*Cough* hahaha *Cough*
So you'll believe it when they say there wasn't any, but not when they discover there was.
I said SUN not Sunday Sport.

LOL, Exactly 'THE SUN'

[Bazzlad]

i read the daily mail ant the sun.
both are good papers, snob.

[Ice Kay]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
Then why was Hans Blix on TV saying he wasn't being given full assistance by the Iraqis? And as they fired the scud missiles as war broke out *Not at our forces-Can't remember who at, can anyone?* it looks like they did a great job of deconstructing them, bear in mind they'd been in place since the first gulf war, how many years could it take to destroy missiles? War broke out because Saddam was a threat, and a big one at that, the only thing I don't understand is why he was allowed back in power after the first gulf war? Anyone care to enlighten me?

So why did he also say Iraq did not pose an immediate thread too ?

[Bazzlad]

thread? lol, too much hexus attack!

I notice he said that after war had started.

[Blub2k]

THIS IS WHY HE GOT BACK INTO POWER

He was a big friend of Rummies while he was killing Iranians.

U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

[Bazzlad]

Thanks for that,
Not one person has commented on my entire first post, enough of you were quick to jump to the defence of an evil nation lead by an evil dictator, but none made a single comment about the medias disgusting biased coverage of the war.

[Blub2k]

The newspapers which you read are both right-wing newspapers that run more made up stories about the threat of asylum seekers than I have had hot dinners. You would do well to widen your reading material a bit, move from the nazi newspapers you are presently reading and read some more diverse points of view, you are reading nothing except propaganda.
Here try this site for a start

The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003

There are a few things that you have also not heard all that much about and certainly heard nothing about in the SUN or the mail. Might change your mind a bit on the whole war thing if you read through all that site.

[Bazzlad]

I watch BBC news 24 throughout the war, and was amazed by how blatently biased they were. You reckon there isn't a problem with asylum seekers mate?
How come my council tax is getting higher and higer, how ocme we have the largest amount in Europe?
I can't believe you meant that.

[Blub2k]

The bias is mostly on the pro-war side of things and your posts are not based enough in fact to take that seriously really as you have gone the whole nine-yards with believing the pro-war line. A true patriot and would probably do your country proud and all that but not that inquisitive really.

[Ice Kay]

Blame the government policies for the asylum seekers problem.

[Bazzlad]

And I'm pretty sure that the sun and daily mail do not wish to exterminate jews and extend there reach across europe.

[Bazzlad]

I fail to see how anything on that website has more truth than anything I read. one is pro, one is anti, they both have spin and personal opinions merged with facts.
Ain't no one EVER gonna convince me Saddam Hussain did not pose a threat, as earlier stated, who'd believed Bush about the Taliban had he listened to the warnings that were given to him by his intellegence agencys and attack them first.
Saddam is an evil, evil man, the war was justified.

[Ice Kay]

Not quite, but global domination seems inevitable with USA at the top.