Quote:
Originally posted by Confed999
[b]
So they accidentaly burried well maintained chemical delivery shells and forgot to disclose them? They were accidentaly producing illegal rockets and forgot to disclose them? They were accidentaly etc... etc... etc... Sorry Trooth, they knew what they were doing. I would also like to see the quote from a high level weapon inspector that says "there was no intent in ANY material breach".
|
I shall dig it out. The ones i saw were in a TV programme, where even Kaye was backing down. But i am sure they have been reported elsewhere, i will have to search.
Regarding the missiles shells etc. This is all part of the problem. We went to war because Iraq was going to launch a chemical attack on his enighbours in 45 mminutes. It was a direct threat to the west. Now we are talking about some missles whose extra range was indicated in test results, rather than design spec, test results that they did declare. Then there were the aluminium tubes that Kaye was convinced where for enriching Uranium. Until he got closer and found tehy were not. Then there was the mobile bio labs. Abosulutely they were bio weapon labs. Blair and Bush said so. Oh, no, wait. Bit more investigation, turns out they were not. Oops.
From my point of view, the point is not if Iraq were in breach. The debate as over the imminent threat, over what Colin Powell (a man i have respect for) told the UN. Not the watering down and shifting goalposts that has taken place in the last 18 months.
Tthe US and for all i know the UK are in breach of chemical weapons disposal committments in various treaties. The point is that the language changed from "end of the world" to "iminient threat" to "no WMD, but WMD programmes", to "material breach" to "well, ok, a few vats, some viles and some nice shiny shells". Now it is clearly being left. It wouldn't surprise me if the US/UK etc never released an official report into WMD in Iraq - the final summing up, until Bush and Blair are out of office (so the earliest could be May 05), because to publish any report would re-awaken the debate.
If my government wants to go to war i want it to tell me why. I don't want it to give me a reason it thinks i will agree with. I want it to tell me why it is going to war. If it wants to go to war because the nice man from BP has a fantastic holiday villa in the Algarve and he has promised to put Ewan through Oxford, i want to know it. If it wants to go to war to protect UK interests, citizens etc. I want to know the reason. All i know from the Iraq war is ever decreasing circles of spin.
But i have, in somewhat i tradition, spun myself off at a tangent.
Quote:
|
Who can they not trade with? What country's goods are being blocked?
|
Well a cynic would say that the reconstruction contracts where not being selected by the Iraqi's. I have no problem with the US selecting the contractors for the ones where it is footing the bill. But it isn't footing the bill for all of the work.