Off Topic Other Stuff (anything you want to share)

Iraq was all about King Oil.

Now that oil isn't seen in the same light anymore....would Iraq be worth the bother in this day and age.

Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction.....but the war made him get rid of them before we took over....so was the war justified in the end ?

 

I forgot to mention a long and bloody war with Iran of course, stoking the fires of Sunni-Shia conflict and leading towards all sorts of bloodshed around the world, and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Whether Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons at the end of Desert Storm is almost neither here nor there. He certainly did have them as late as March 1991, two months AFTER the coalition invasion began because they were used against the Marsh Arabs around Karbala. It's certain to me that if Desert Storm hadn't taken place, new production of WOMD would have started.

 

Ref your last sentence. It may be certain to you but in the end that is opinion only. I could say the polar opposite to that and it would hold as much validity as your statement. The Dossier that was presented as a pretext to going to war was built on a lie. That isn't opinion that has been proved. If you are going to send people overseas to die then you need to have a proper reason not just that you as the PM want to as support for someone else. Contrary to your belief about having volunteers to do the dirty work and not conscripts, the volunteers do not do so to fight when it's on the whim of a Leader. They do have an opinion even though it isn't often expressed. They have to make themselves believe it is for a cause. If they don't then how would you feel burying your mate who died for nothing noble at all. It's very easy to agree with sending somebody else isn't it. I mean you don't see them die and it's only a bit of news on the Tele. Before being so eager to put others in those places though you should perhaps think if there were no volunteers and the job still needed doing would you be so brave and noble to volunteer yourself or send one of your kids to do the job for you. I think we both know the answer to that don't we. As that was is over you could try getting a gun and popping over to Afghanistan. The volunteers have been pulled out but there is still plenty of bad men to fight there. When you've done with that one you can invade all the others with WOMD. You might be busy for a fair old time though. I think Blair is a war criminal who should be in jail.

 

He had chemical weapons, he'd used them before against military forces & civilians. He made no attempt to reassure the world he had no more such weapons. He had a history of starting wars in a volatile & strategically important region. The French don't bother with dossiers. First sign of trouble in one of their ex colonies and in go the paras. Soon all is quiet & no questions are asked.

 

I'm not French and I don't agree with any Country invading another on a pretext notdistant. However, I have a vote in this Country and it is my fellow Countrymen who are being sent somewhere. What about Putin starting wars and using chemical weapons? What about China doing the same? Sadam allowed Inspectors into Iraq. One who was our's who found no such weapons strangely died if you recall. I wonder how that happened. A bit convenient wasn't it but then again that's just a conspiracy theory even if a plausible one. What about Afghanistan allowing terrorist training? What about Iran doing much the same and developing nuclear capability? When Sadam started a punch up with Iran the west armed him with the weapons he then used on his own. Western Governments thought he was ok then. Funny old World isn't it. One day you are up and the next you get invaded.

You object, as I do, to Boris telling porkies to get out of Europe and think that's terrible yet you appear to applaud Blair for doing the same thing with his arguments for getting a load of our fellow countrymen killed. That isn't really very consistent is it. I happen to think that it is definitely not alright for any Politician to lie and especially when it's the so called Leader of the bunch.

 

I lie is to say something you know to be untrue. It's not a lie to say something you believe to be true at the time but which turns out later to be wrong.

It seems that there were individuals in the US government who knew the evidence was dubious: notably Donald Rumsfeld, then the US Secretary of Defence.

It's also likey that the US President was prevented by Rumsfeld and others of finding this out by keeping the President & his team off the distribution list on the subject.

If the US President was kept in the dark, you can be damn sure Blair was too.

See the table in this Wiki page showing Iraq's use of such weapons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program.

 

Blair was believing that he had the up to date info....from the President.....so if Rumsfeld new better than he is the guilty party......what Saddam had done to the Marsh Arabs pointed to him having weapons of mass destruction.....Iraq has a lot of desert....could they still be hidden there ?

 

I thought better of you than to give that explanation of a lie notdistant. Blair saying he didn't know is about the same as Carter saying "I did not have sex with that woman" because he put something in the wrong place and it defied their definition. I do not believe for one second that Blair and half the Cabinet at the time didn't know. I do not believe for one second that the US President at the time didn't know also. In my opinion that's just naive thinking. To also believe that any weapons were simply moved and hidden is about the same. With all of the satelites flying about up there I doubt a fly could hide in the Amazon. I do however acknowledge that it is just opinion as it stands but you will never convince me that Blair is an innocent man.

 

I think that Clinton might get a little uptight to think that it was Carter not him that denied ...not having sex with that woman....Hilary wouldn't be convinced I bet.

 

Whoops! That's the trouble with US Presidents they all seem the same. I actually suspect that Clinton would much rather it was Carter having to deny it. Anyway you know who I meant.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...to-forgive-donald-rumsfelds-iraq-warmongering

 

All I'm going to say is there are apparently at least 600,000 people who have signed a petition who also believe Blair is a war criminal. The rest is opinion. Mine is that Blair knew the information in his dossier was a lie but he told it anyway to suck up to his American partners in crime.

 

Which means many millions haven't.

 

No it means many millions have not expressed an opinion or can be bothered to sign a petition. Many millions didn't vote for Brexit you could argue but many millions didn't vote against Brexit depending on which side you sit on. Petition wise 600,000 who have bothered is not an insignificant number in those terms. If 600,000 people took to the streets throughout the Country in revolt then it would be considered mass unrest.

 

Well having put back in the loft the few decorations that we bothered putting up this last Christmas.....we had delivered this morning (11th Jan) by the.... Royal SNAIL Postal Service....a final Christmas card....it seems to have taken by the postage franking....25 days to arrive.....a distance of 10 miles door to door......good job Amazon etc do a better delivery system....and quite often free of charge as well.

We had ordered through Amazon three books last year....at the standard postal rate.....and they arrived within 23 hours of clicking the buy button....free of charge as well.

PS.....I do apologize to any snail that might read this....it's not anything personal.

 

The answer is to give your Christmas Cards to Amazon and get them to deliver them then if it's faster and free. I just went outside and read your post out loud and there was a great big sigh and lots of tutting from the garden. I've told them which Town you live in so you may get invaded now.

 

Here's an interesting little story involving people we know.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sp...shden--diamonds-collapse-involved-6476983?utm

I had a bit of a soft spot for R&D: My other half and I went with a friend of hers from work & her husband to see R&D v Argyle. We say in the sun in the away end (very much a family club of course) and Argyle were miserable in the 1st half. Whether they were fed raw meat by Paul Sturrock at half time or not, I don't know but the same side didn't come out for the second half. They tore R&D to bits and ran out 2-3 winners.

https://www.11v11.com/matches/rushden-and-diamonds-v-plymouth-argyle-27-august-2001-7903/

 

I'm not the biggest Royalist on the planet but I don't on the other hand want the Monarchy to end particularly either. I think the Queen herself has done nothing but act in the best interests of the Country and done her duty at every turn even if a few times a bit slowly and late. However, I have been watching the news avidly over the last few weeks and have to say any sane and normal person would have to feel so sorry for her after all these years of service.

She has a son who thinks it ok to bonk anything handed to him on a plate and then try to deny anything happened at all with stupid defences of actions. She has a grandson who acted like a complete dick when he married and decided to leave for America to live there then complain when he got bad publicity and throw a few tantrums. She has a Prime Minister who is an utter disgrace to the post and lies so easily it scary. Charles threw his toys out of his pram and crapped both on his ex wife and family. She has given almost 70 years to the job and she must look at it and think why. What did she do to deserve being shafted by this load of cretins. Sadly she will not be with us for ever so which one of the pile of crap left behind will take over? If it was a vote I think it just might be "none of the above" that won the day.

 

I'm not saying that the Duke of York is innocent....but it does look as if this Giuffre woman seemed to be having a good time in that photo....for someone who is being abused.

I think she's chuffed that at the time she was under age.....and I can see the cash register is now screaming out .....money, money,. money to her.

 

The people who trafficked that good time girl as you would have it are both convicted sex traffickers. You are saying he is innocent by the tone and words you use. I have a daughter and 6 grandaughters. Have you got any? The man is a complete prick and ought to be hung by his balls until they fall off. Spoilt little bastard that he is thinks some girl a half of his age fancies the pants off him and herself. He's no better than a rapist.