Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-01-2012, 02:25 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default UK experts to help Iraq destroy chemical residues

By BUSHRA JUHI | Associated Press – Mon, Jul 30, 2012

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...623c7c7df2d345

Quote:
BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.

The British Defense Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion.

Saddam stored the chemical weapons near population centers so that he could access them quickly, despite the danger to his civilian population.
A lot of dirty hippies owe me a freaking apology. I should be able to slap them for every time I had to listen to that nasally whine: "Where’s the WMD's?"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-01-2012, 09:01 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
By BUSHRA JUHI | Associated Press – Mon, Jul 30, 2012

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...623c7c7df2d345



A lot of dirty hippies owe me a freaking apology. I should be able to slap them for every time I had to listen to that nasally whine: "Where’s the WMD's?"
Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by military forces in 1991 during the first Gulf War or by U.N. inspectors after the fighting. The inspections halted just before the invasion.

(the key word in your own quote is "Remnants")

So...were these left over munnitions capable of being launched within forty five mins, and capable of reaching England and the United States geographically?

Or is it more a case of decontamination of known sites which posed little or no threat except to the immediate vacinity? I'm betting on the latter...for the primary reason, that if these bunkers had just been discovered, their would be global news coverage in detail....if they really are anything like the justification given to the United Kingdom...then how come it has taken almost precisely a decade for the allied force to get rid of the threat If you invaded in 2003...you wouldnt be neutralizing the threat nine and a half years later AFTER most of your invasion contingent had pulled out.

So its either a collosal neglect...Weapons of Mass Distruction in the Capitol, left, in place for nine years, able to be deployed within forty five mins, and with the capacity to reach US and UK cities.

OR....Its just been discovered...in which case where is the bloody press?


or...its nothing...a few things not able to do what the Forty Third President claimed it could do.

Oh...and as we're on this subject...Syria has admitted to having chemical and biological weapons, that not even the Americans knew they had! AND they have threatened to use them if the west intervenes on the current Arab Spring civil war going on.

They probably DO have weapons and probably CAN deploy...but I dont see America rushing to invade them. Neither do I see the United States rushing to invade Iran which is building Nukes, underneith major cities to avoid being disturbed from Israeli Air Strikes.

What I DID see was the United States rushing to distroy a dictator who was playing silly beggers with a bluff that even they didnt truely believe.

I do however give credit to Bush for two things...Firstly, I do believe he had legitamate reasons in wanting to invade Iraq which probably saved the world from Iran. There is a theory that Iran was on the verge of crushing a fragile Iraqi Regieme, apart from the implications of Iraqi Oil falling into Iranian hands...I think that there was a certain amount of distress about what Iran would have then done. Noone mournes the loss of the old regieme thats for sure.

Secondly, despite the fact he realized that he might have been hasty, and realized that his justification might not be prooven, he recognised that once war has been declaired, the burden of responsibility for growth and repair, falls upon the aggressors. He worked against Congress, and infact against the American people by the end of his regnum, because he rightly thought that America, having gone in, had to see it through no matter how long it took, and how many lives were lost. True Liberation is not about Conquest, its about what follows after that. Neither the British, nor the Americans are much good at that, especially in Asia and the middle east. America are slightly better then the British infact as they immediately move towards provincial rule, and had much success with rebuilding Europe.

They also recognise...or maybe President Bush was the last to do this...that its not simply good enough to invade...and that the course must be stayed even when people looose interest or the novelty wears off. I really do wish that Bush had been able to stay in office.

IMHO considering what he faced, he didnt do a bad job. I would say one of his biggest successes, and what the Western World outside of America should be most greatful for, is that he acted against the instincts of American Culture when faced with two cateastrophes. The immediate want for revenge, and to assert ones power after the original terrorist attack in 2001. He remained unbelievable calm and righteous in a time when anyone would have understood him giving into hatred and blind rage.

Secondly...for all that people mocked George for being dumb he saw something that nigh on no other Republican thought of. He showed that he cared not only for his people, but for all peoples when he decided that the Federation had to intervene in the banking crisis. As an American and follower of the constitution, strictly speaking, he should have stood back and watched as his own country and the entire western world plunged into chaos, because the Federal Government...and infact any American Institution should adhere to a strictly self regulational maintainance. Secondly, he should not have given consideration to anyone outside of the Federation because America should be issolationistic. Constitutionally, they do not have to think, or pay heed to anyone outside of their soverignty. At NO time that I can find, across his foreign policy did he ever act unconstituionally. He only acted with the authority of Congress, and he approached the international bodies as one should expect a consitutionalist to do, with appauling disregard...which...is totally in line with the realms of the constituion...as I try to explain to those who dont understand

Besides...I suppose ultimately at least it was worth knowing that the United Nations wasnt all its cracked up to be...better we find out sooner rather then later I suppose.

Pity he couldnt stop the Euro...but I suppose thats a little too much to ask for
__________________

Last edited by Tyburn; 08-01-2012 at 09:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2012, 09:38 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by military forces in 1991 during the first Gulf War or by U.N. inspectors after the fighting. The inspections halted just before the invasion.

(the key word in your own quote is "Remnants")

So...were these left over munnitions capable of being launched within forty five mins, and capable of reaching England and the United States geographically?

Or is it more a case of decontamination of known sites which posed little or no threat except to the immediate vacinity? I'm betting on the latter...for the primary reason, that if these bunkers had just been discovered, their would be global news coverage in detail....if they really are anything like the justification given to the United Kingdom...then how come it has taken almost precisely a decade for the allied force to get rid of the threat If you invaded in 2003...you wouldnt be neutralizing the threat nine and a half years later AFTER most of your invasion contingent had pulled out.

So its either a collosal neglect...Weapons of Mass Distruction in the Capitol, left, in place for nine years, able to be deployed within forty five mins, and with the capacity to reach US and UK cities.

OR....Its just been discovered...in which case where is the bloody press?


or...its nothing...a few things not able to do what the Forty Third President claimed it could do.

Oh...and as we're on this subject...Syria has admitted to having chemical and biological weapons, that not even the Americans knew they had! AND they have threatened to use them if the west intervenes on the current Arab Spring civil war going on.

They probably DO have weapons and probably CAN deploy...but I dont see America rushing to invade them. Neither do I see the United States rushing to invade Iran which is building Nukes, underneith major cities to avoid being disturbed from Israeli Air Strikes.

What I DID see was the United States rushing to distroy a dictator who was playing silly beggers with a bluff that even they didnt truely believe.

I do however give credit to Bush for two things...Firstly, I do believe he had legitamate reasons in wanting to invade Iraq which probably saved the world from Iran. There is a theory that Iran was on the verge of crushing a fragile Iraqi Regieme, apart from the implications of Iraqi Oil falling into Iranian hands...I think that there was a certain amount of distress about what Iran would have then done. Noone mournes the loss of the old regieme thats for sure.

Secondly, despite the fact he realized that he might have been hasty, and realized that his justification might not be prooven, he recognised that once war has been declaired, the burden of responsibility for growth and repair, falls upon the aggressors. He worked against Congress, and infact against the American people by the end of his regnum, because he rightly thought that America, having gone in, had to see it through no matter how long it took, and how many lives were lost. True Liberation is not about Conquest, its about what follows after that. Neither the British, nor the Americans are much good at that, especially in Asia and the middle east. America are slightly better then the British infact as they immediately move towards provincial rule, and had much success with rebuilding Europe.

They also recognise...or maybe President Bush was the last to do this...that its not simply good enough to invade...and that the course must be stayed even when people looose interest or the novelty wears off. I really do wish that Bush had been able to stay in office.

IMHO considering what he faced, he didnt do a bad job. I would say one of his biggest successes, and what the Western World outside of America should be most greatful for, is that he acted against the instincts of American Culture when faced with two cateastrophes. The immediate want for revenge, and to assert ones power after the original terrorist attack in 2001. He remained unbelievable calm and righteous in a time when anyone would have understood him giving into hatred and blind rage.

Secondly...for all that people mocked George for being dumb he saw something that nigh on no other Republican thought of. He showed that he cared not only for his people, but for all peoples when he decided that the Federation had to intervene in the banking crisis. As an American and follower of the constitution, strictly speaking, he should have stood back and watched as his own country and the entire western world plunged into chaos, because the Federal Government...and infact any American Institution should adhere to a strictly self regulational maintainance. Secondly, he should not have given consideration to anyone outside of the Federation because America should be issolationistic. Constitutionally, they do not have to think, or pay heed to anyone outside of their soverignty. At NO time that I can find, across his foreign policy did he ever act unconstituionally. He only acted with the authority of Congress, and he approached the international bodies as one should expect a consitutionalist to do, with appauling disregard...which...is totally in line with the realms of the constituion...as I try to explain to those who dont understand

Besides...I suppose ultimately at least it was worth knowing that the United Nations wasnt all its cracked up to be...better we find out sooner rather then later I suppose.

Pity he couldnt stop the Euro...but I suppose thats a little too much to ask for
Good post Dave, glad I read the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-02-2012, 05:07 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
Good post Dave, glad I read the whole thing.
SO AM I

I dont actually dislike George Bush...and I dont fault him for his actions in the international community

Lets be quite clear...the American Culture and the British Commonwealth Culture are DIFFERENT...once you understand that, you start to see that a lot of things Brits take offence at, when it comes to americans, are not malicious, nor particularly arrogant...they are not usually meant to be offensive at all.

Brits just dont understand cultural confidence at all, for a start...and because they dont understand the constitution, they dont understand why Bush acted like he did...infact...a lot of Americans dont seem to understand that either.

One has to remember two things..firstly...would you have coped better faced with what happened under George Bush? The answer to that, if honnest is...I very much doubt it. Secondly...specifically with the United Nations...it was NOT America that issued the Assembly with a deadline for response....and the reply might have had more to do with that, then America.

It was Tony Blair who told the United Nations they only had a set period to decide...and the French may well have vetoed simply because that bit of nastiness came from England

People forget that...and not everyone reads my posts fully enough...they read the first line and assume I am being anti-american and dont understand...actually...thats not the case...I do understand, and whilst I criticise, I dont fully condemn...certainly not Bush....lets not forget that the guy also had immense pressure from his Father...and lets not forget some of his cabinet members who asserted their authority were well capable of pulling strings. It wasnt entirely George Bush...and after the invasion, IMHO he did exactly the correct thing...IF his motives, however falsly portrayed, were valid in ways that could not politically have been uttered, then he may well have martyred his public opinion in order to save the world from a far worse threat...We know he had this in him, because contrary to popular believef, I've already shown that he will go against his public to hold true to his convictions concerning warfare, and that in cateastrophe he defies the constitution and thinks about all peoples, regardless of how that might make him, personally look.

Should that not be applauded more then what the Forty Fourth has achieved?? I'm not trying to hate on Barack Obama...but...his defiance of the constituion was to better his own illegal instituion AGAINST the betterment of his people. His ideal of warfare is to accept no responsibility, to pull out of places before rebuilding is done, and to negotiate with those governments who harboured terrorists in the bloody first place. He has no Military experience, neither has he any knowledge of assets important to the United States offshore...like oil...he prooved that with the BP oil slick.

He's dangerously close to centralism...which is NOT what America was designed to be...even if its what I, personally, live under.

He's a black man thats good at public speaking...thats really about all. You shouldnt let him in for a second term...the novelty has worn off. You need to ellect someone...dare I say it...more like Bush
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.