Iain, my facts are from the BBC. Your 'independent' sources are proof of nothing. Those websites are set up by pro-invasion groups, the same groups that provided figures and examples of atrocities for Blair/Bush. Figures provided by those groups in the INC have never stood up to scrutiny. Check the bottom of your CNN report (reported by a pool reporter) link on the mass graves story which you might have missed: Pool reporters organized by the U.S. military.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha....Facts from the BBC. That's a joke in itself. Who honestly believes anything that bunch of people say.

What about the news from the Shia website, or the actual photographs displayed. I presume you think they were all staged as well? Or how about this...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...4C935BB5C7.htm

I suppose you think that the UK government writes the Aljazeera website as well?

Stick your head back in the sand. Perhaps it'll all go away....

 

Precisely. The decision for regime change was made long before British troops were sent to the region. The possibility of removing Saddam under the banner of a Security Council resolution would have legitimized the action of regime change by a different name, but the prime motive was regime change. That is against international law and against the doctrine of no pre-emptive military action when there is no credible and imminent threat.

Straw is quoted in the leaked meeting minutes as saying that they'd have to "work up" the justification for going to war, and that's exactly what they did.

IMHO I think it's fair to say that Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Jeff Hoon have been disingenuous on more than a few occasions.

 

Iain,

and how many of those "mass graves" were filled in the late eighties, when the USA were busy selling Saddam loads of chemicals and munitions?

Saddam has been a relative angel since the first Gulf war - and was becoming more compliant.

I bet that BLIAR, as a consequence of going to war, has killed far more people that Saddam since the early nineties!!! Now that is a crime

mb

 

You're telling me to stick my head in the sand?? Now that is funny.
So Shianews.com is a more reliable news source than the BBC? I've heard it all now.
The point is that just because the UK government didn't say it doesn't make it true. But that doesn't seem to register with you.

Don't do a Blair on me, stick to the original argument which was about the figures you've been banging on about. No one has claimed people did not die under Saddam. Yes plenty did, especially in the late 80s but this is 15 years later.
You want to see a mass grave - go dig up the road to Basra where the Americans dumped thousands of bodies (some still alive) with bulldozers in the first Gulf war.

 

No I'm not saying that, (and never even hinted at it). But it's obviously a source with absolutely no affilliation with the uk or usa governments, and they are saying much the same things. Just using it to demonstrate that it's not all propaganda from our government.

Of course it registers. I firmly believe you can't believe anything that any government says in these situations. They will all manipulate the facts to support their own cause. It's called propaganda, and is fairly common in times of conflict. What you have to do is to look at the reports from lots of different sources (both from our own government and most importantly, from elsewhere in the world), and form your own opinion.

and the evidence suggests that Saddam just continued his reign of terror and murder through those 15 years, up until Bush etc went in in gulf war II. I found a link earlier (from the independant world human rights organisation), which estimate that he murdered somewhere around 300,000 people in those 15 years.

For your information (if you read the posts above), I've not been banging on about any figures. In fact I don't think I've mentioned them once. I just think it's very naive to even suggest that the mass graves do not exist, and in fact are still being found.

Blair may have lied about the original reasons for going to war, but nobody can deny that the end result may well turn out to be a lot more positive than leaving Saddam in power to continue his murderous ways.

I guess we have to look at the reasons why Blair may have lied. Perhaps it was because he wanted to topple Saddam and he thought the only way to get support was to play the wmd card. Don't know, but there have been so many independant enquiries into this now that if there was any deliberate deception, it should have been exposed by now.

Of course we had a tory government in the 1st gulf war, when these quoted bulldozer events happened, so what makes them better than Blair?

 

What do you mean no affiliation, they were working within the US funded and created Iraqi National Congress. They provided all the bullsh*t for them and were the groups placed in charge once Saddam was toppled.

I've never said they don't exist but you claimed figures provided above had been verified by the UN when this isn't true at all.

That's up to the Iraqi people, it's their country, not some dollar greedy fat cats in there to rape the place. The world is full of dictators. Saddam was removed not because he was a ******* but because he wasn't our ******* and Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world which people like Cheney's friends wanted to get their hands on. Blair lied. This war was illegal, the UK has a tarnished image abroad, Iraq is a mess and people are being blown up or shot every day. I'd hardly call that postive. Two years on and the attacks are no less than they were then. How long will our troops be stuck there for? It's anybody's guess.

What has that got to do with the Tories? And anyway, under Blair an Iraqi life isn't even worth counting.

Oh...and here is some more great news why the Iraqis are so much better off:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/op...IBT/3DWBlHtUyQ

I'm off...snooker is getting good.

 

I love the comments made in this post! NOT! Some people claiming, "I think we should go in there now" Clearly more "im an office worker" type that are never going to see the light of any of the danger other than reading the horror stories of Iraq in the news. All very well sitting there and saying lets throw the Uks weight around the world a bit more and push forward the troops. But maybe some people should see it from other peoples life perspectives, soldiers have lifes too, have families and have other halfs. These people have a life too but get dragged into this needless fighting and the comments from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Yes these people know what they are getting involved with when they marry or date a soldier of any description however there is a certain degree of give and take when it comes to war. Most other gfs/bfs etc probably never expected their men/women to go to war in this day and age. Yes thats what our armed forces are there for but no one expected to have to fight a war that no one beleives in anymore, and yes a lot of soldiers are of the same opinion! Just really p***es me off when people sit here and push for more fighting when some of us just want our men home so we can be with them instead of living off some letters now and again.
I know my man will probs read this as he comes on the site so not sure what you will say he he !

 

Lot of good sense in the post above by scoobygurllover.

It has been reported that Bush had made up his mind long before to attack Iraq and our little cabal of leaders then spent the rest of the time trying to drum up justification for us to do the same.

The decision for us to go in was made as soon as Bush told them his intentions.

I think that witholding the truth is the same as telling lies. Just the same as when Heath conned us into voting yes to the EEC without telling us about the plans for future federation! We were lead to believe that it was purely for trading purposes.

Les

 

Forgive me for saying this, but isn't that what being in the army is all about? Or should my had earned wages just go towards keeping them nice and safe at home and playing on Salisbury plain?

I always thought that when you joined the army, then you had to understand that there was a chance you might have to go and fight somewhere, and stand the chance of getting killed. Yes, it's painful for the families concerned if someone dies, and they have my sympathies, but if they didn't the possibility of this happening, then they shouldn't have joined up IMO.

That's rather off topic from this post though

All politicians tell lies. They always have, and they always will.

 

Hmm...

No comment from PS Lewis.

Funny that ......