This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

Firstly I was a soldier. So the fact that he had and used chemicals in the past is not proof. What proof do you want? would an inventry from a factory do for you.
He had, and used chemicals. Fact. A real threat. Fact.
Should we therefore sit back and wait for him to sell some to terror organiazations before we do anything?
If that was the course of action taken by the government you would have been sat here now winging and moaning that we should have done somthing before hand.
1oz on the underground could kill 10's of thousands of people. Is that a risk worth taking?

zscrooge

Your assertion that there was no evidence of chemcial weapons is fundamentally incorrect.

pth

ptholden

Let me make the distinction even clearer. Of course, he had chemical weapons (and he used them on the Kurds, US provided them). The point I thought I had made clear was that this occurred in the 90s and that by 2003 intelligence forces on both sides of the Atlantic suggested that this chemical threat had receded. I do not believe in retrospective war.

Marc3254 - 17 Aug 2006 13:40 - 570 of 571
He had, and used chemicals. Fact. A real threat. Fact.

Can't disagree with that - if you'll allow my bold typeface.

1oz on the underground could kill 10's of thousands of people. Is that a risk worth taking?

Yes it could. First, Saddam was in no position to use that on us. Second, has removing Saddam made the underground safer - I think not.

"chemical threat has receded".
Not quite the same as "hasn't got any, no threat at all".
I believe that it is not a risk worth taking, and I never catch the underground!! There are those that would hold to never striking the first blow, and how wonderful that would be if we could trust 6 billion people to hold the same view.
I fully support the action that was taken. It was taken for two damn good reasons (protect and free the iraqi people, and ensure the long term safety of our nation) and whether or not it has achieved those aims, it was the right thing to do, and if the circumstances arose again, I would expect any national leader to put the safety of his own country first and do the same again, if there was any doubt at all that a threat existed.
alan

If we thought more of other people and less of ourselves we may be safer!

You really think that Blair thought there was a serious threat to our country? He knew perfectly well from intelligence that this was not the case, hence the desperate need to to 'sex up' documents and the Downing Street memo.

As regards 'any doubt.' LOL! Then let's strike every nation where there is a slight doubt that there may be a threat!

Re chemical weapons. Let's have a bit of evidence rather than hazy conjecture.

No evidence of an active chemical and biological weapons program
In his State of the Union address the president cited the large volumes of chemical
and biological agents produced by Saddam Hussein and repeatedly declared: "He
has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has
destroyed it."
In fact, substantial amounts of the chemical and biological agents produced by Iraq
were accounted for and destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors during the 1990s.21
UNSCOM reported in 1997 that "considerable quantities of chemical weapons,
their components and chemical weapons-related equipment have been
destroyed by Iraq and UNSCOM."22
During the 1990s UN inspectors destroyed 480,000 tons of live chemical agent.
They also destroyed more than 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals.23 UNSCOM
found that 3,915 tons of precursors existed in 1991; it accounted directly for
2,850 tons and confirmed Iraqs claim that 823 tons were destroyed during the
Gulf War.24
In the 1990s UN inspectors supervised Iraqs destruction of 12,792 of the
13,000 155mm artillery shells filled with mustard gas Baghdad had declared as
remaining after the Gulf War ended. UNSCOM inspectors also accounted for or
destroyed 337 bombs and 6,454 rockets containing sarin.25
The UN reported in 1999 that "UNSCOM ordered and supervised the
destruction of Iraqs main declared BW [biological weapons] production and
development facility, Al Hakam. Some 60 pieces of equipment from three other
facilities involved in proscribed BW activities as well as some 22 tonnes of
growth media for BW production collected from four other facilities were also
destroyed. As a result, the declared facilities of Iraqs BW programme have
been destroyed and rendered harmless."26
UN inspectors destroyed all of Iraqs known chemical and biological weapons
production facilities. In the months prior to the war UN monitors conducted
hundreds of inspections of possible chemical, biological, and missile sites in
Iraq and found no evidence or documentation confirming the existence of the
alleged chemical and biological stockpiles.
Sites that the U.S. and Britain alleged were involved in the production of
biological or chemical weapons were repeatedly inspected by UNMOVIC.
These included Falluja II, at which inspectors found a chlorine plant not even in
operation, and al-Dawra Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility, which
appeared to journalists as having not been reconstructed since its destruction
in the mid-1990s. The inspectors reported no evidence of the production of
proscribed agents at these sites.27
According to an investigative report in U.S. News and World Report, the
Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment in September
2002 stating "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and
stockpiling chemical weapons."28

No evidence of mobile biological weapons labs
Secretary of State Powell claimed that Iraq developed mobile biological weapons
laboratories. Powell said that the United States had "firsthand descriptions of
biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails." He cited Iraqi defectors
associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) as sources for these charges.
He offered no physical or documentary evidence, however, providing only an
animation to depict such facilities.29
After the war U.S. investigators discovered two trailers that it claimed were
mobile weapons labs, but no biological or chemical agents were actually
detected in the vehicles and independent experts cast doubt on the claim.30
UN inspectors searched extensively for mobile laboratories during the 1990s but
found no evidence confirming their existence.
Hans Blix told reporters on 4 February that UN monitors inspected two alleged
mobile labs and found nothing. "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected
and nothing has been found."31
Dr. Blix told the New York Times on 5 February: "We have had reports for a
long time about these mobile units. . . . We have never found one. We have
not seen any signs of things being moved around, whether tracks in the sand
or in the ground."32
In his 7 March report to the Security Council Dr. Blix stated that, "several
inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to
mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile
workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed-processing
equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."33
"We know from UNSCOM that Iraq was pursuing mobile fermentation," said a
senior U.S. Defense Department official on 13 September 2002, "but the
inspections never found them."34
Former UNSCOM chairman Eks expressed skepticism about mobile labs at a
3 February 2003 press briefing:
UNSCOM never found any mobile labs. . . . There is . . . the question
of how to transport a bio lab by road. On their roads it will shake
around in transportation. It is a tremendous high-risk operation if a
truck runs into another truck . . . for a bio lab you need electricity, a
ventilation system, such as HEPA filters, a system that is highly
sophisticated and complex.35
Former UN weapons inspector and microbiologist Raymond Zilinskas told the
Washington Post that Powell's descriptions of the alleged mobile labs did not ring
true. A fermentation cycle would normally take thirty-six to forty-eight hours, not
the twenty-four hours suggested by Powell. He also noted that such facilities
would generate large quantities of highly toxic waste. "This strikes me as a bit
far-fetched," he observed.36
A former senior UNSCOM inspector told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times
in September 2002 that his inspection teams searched for such mobile labs
from 1993 to 1998 without success. "I launched raid after raid," he said. "We
intercepted their radio traffic. We ran roadblocks. We never found anything. It
was just speculation."37

References
21 United Nations, Report of the Executive Chairman on the Activities of the Special Commission
established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9(b)(i) of resolution 687 (1991),
S/1998/332, New York, 16 April 1998.
22 United Nations, Letter dated 22 November 1997 from the Executive Chairman of the Special
Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9(b)(i) of Security
Council resolution 687 (1991) addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/1997/922,
New York, 24 November 1997, para. 12.
23 United Nations, Report of the Executive Chairman on the Activities of the Special Commission,
S/1998/332, and British Foreign Office, "Foreign Office Paper on Iraqi Threat and Work of
UNSCOM," London, 4 February 1998.
24 United Nations Security Council, Letter dated 27 January 1999 from the Permanent
Representatives of The Netherlands and Slovenia to the United Nations Addressed to the
President of the Security Council, S/1999/94, New York, 29 January 1999.
25 United Nations, Letter dated 27 January 1999, S/1999/94.
26 United Nations, Letters dated 27 and 30 March 1999, S/1999/356.
Unproven: The Controversy over Justifying War in Iraq 15
27 Originally printed in Glen Rangwala, Nathaniel Hurd, and Alistair Millar, "A Case for Concern,
Not a Case for War," Middle East Report Online, 28 January 2003. Available online at MERIP
(4 June 2003).
28 Bruce B. Auster, Mark Mazzetti, and Edward T. Pound, Truth and Consequences, U.S. News
and World Report, 9 June 2003, 17.
29 Animated slides can be found at the U. S. Department of State, "Biological Weapons," Slides
20-22, 5 February 2003. Available online at the Department of State
(6 February 2003).
30 William J. Broad, "After the War: Biological Warfare; U.S., in Assessment, Terms Trailers Germ
Laboratories," New York Times, 29 May 2003, A5.
31 Dan Plesch, "U.S. Claim Dismissed by Blix," The Guardian, 5 February 2003.
32 Julia Preston with Steven R. Weisman, "Powell to charge Iraq is shifting its illegal arms to foil
inspectors," New York Times, 5 February 2003, A1.
33 Dr. Hans Blix, United Nations, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection
Commission, Security Council 7 March 2003 Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of
UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix, 7 March 2003. Available online at the United
Nations (4 June 2003).
34 U.S. Government, Department of Defense, "Background briefing on terrorism and weapons of
mass destruction," 13 September 2002. Available online at DefenseLINK
(3 February 2003).
35 Rolf Eks, "Briefing on Iraq."
36 Joby Warrick, "Despite Defectors' Accounts, Evidence Remains Anecdotal," Washington Post,
6 February 2003, A28.
37 Bob Drogin and Maggie Farley, "Inspectors Face Iraq's 'Dark Years'," Los Angeles Times, 9
Sept 2002.

Substantial amounts? Just enough left for a small country or only one or two cities then??
Still the point is deliberately missed.
Annan, Blix and that Mohammed guy were on record as saying that Iraq were witholding full and free access. They were not co-operating fully with the UN inspectors. That was the reason for a resolution, carried unanimously, to use force. No ambiguity there!! Just very simple plain facts. Saddam got exactly what he deserved.
Annan, Blix and co may regret that they were party to a legal and just war, but that makes them neither right, nor saint.
Whilever the inspectors were not allowed full and free access then all evidence, by nature must be anecdotal and less than full proof. That is also a fact.
The very simplest fact yet to be answered by the apologists is why the inspectors were not allowed full and free access. Every single country of the UN, us included, allow full and free access to inspectors. I find it incredible that anyone can argue, with a straight face, that it was for any other reason than Saddam had something to hide.
BTW. Feel free to quote the substantial amounts bit, but for every report showing how much was destroyed, there are plenty more that show how much has simply disappeared.
Also remember that the destruction came about for no other reason than the Allied victory in the first gulf war, when that was a condition of the treaty that ended it. It never happened because that Saddam was a jolly nice, if slightly misunderstood chap, who turned over a new leaf. Neither was it down to a stern letter and a good talking to. It was done because it was forced on him, and had he not he would have had very little left to rule.
This time he tried to play the world for mugs for just too long, and was left unable to talk his way out of it again.

zscrooge

I was not referring to the weapons known to have been used prior to GW1.

Alan

The UK initially supported USA on the premise of removing WMD, regime change was NOT ostensibly part of the plan. In fact Blair stated categorically that this was not the case. The change of stance to regime change followed the failure to discover WMD, afterall, he had to have some reason for taking the country to war.

pth

I know that the stance was not regime change.
It bloody well should have been. It is arguably implicit that when a nations dictator refuses to allow necessary inspections and force has to be used, that regime change is a necessary and attractive by product.
Alan

I think we should have an inspection of the WMD, Chemical warfare and Biowarfare that America and Britain and America are holding and developing. I think both countries should have inspections carried out by the United Nations and the amount of money declared.

This could then be ballanced against aid and healthcare to underdeveloped countries.

Point 1)
The Uk and US are inspected.
Point 2) What a country spends its money on is no business whatsoever of those in the UN, providing it is not used for for breaking UN regulations. It is the business only of the electorate, and no-one else.

"Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell" was one of the first headlines from "The Onion" about September 11. "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule," was another. Which illustrates another important aspect of humor, the best and most effective kind tells the truth. Oh, I don't necessarily mean capital "T" Truth or immutable truth, nor objective, time-transcending, universal truth either. (Neither the Ten Commandments nor the square root of pi are the punch-line to a joke.) I just mean jokes can be more honest than speeches or dirges, because we tend to avoid telling the truth when we can't sugarcoat it with humor.

Consider Mohammed Atta who had the intestinal fortitude to carve up innocent men and women in order to crash a plane into more innocent men and women, but who went to his grave shaking with terror that a woman might touch his man-panties, even after he died.

If "The Onion" is right, Atta and his evil troupe are in Hell right now. But the really funny thing is their Hell might also be his Heaven. A German scholar made a fairly startling discovery this year. It turns out the 72 virgins these guys expect upon arrival in Paradise might not be virgins at all. Oh, I don't mean that they might have played the field in college (or burka-knitting school) or anything like that. I mean, they might be raisins. It turns out that the passage which so many of these psychopaths considered their eternal nookie ticket was mistranslated over the centuries.

Because of a grammatical glitch, it's quite possible that the Koranic passage which promises that salvation is an eternal Fleet Week for young men who massacre innocents more likely promises that you get a nice bowl of juicy white raisins when you go to Heaven. Not only is that great news for twitchy evil pervs like Atta because it means his tighty-whiteys will remain unsullied by female hands for all eternity, it opens huge new possibilities for "Fruit of the Loom" underwear. One can only imagine the reactions of these young men, all torqued-up from endless assurances that their afterlife will be one endless booty-call, only to be greeted with a great big bowl of white raisins.

Of course, I should be careful, the German scholar who made this discovery has to use a pseudonym because he's legitimately worried that he will be murdered by people who insist Islam means peace.

Okay, that's a bit unfair. The Muslims who go around saying "Islam means peace" aren't the ones who want to kill religious dissenters, infidels, etc. Islam is a big religion and there are surely good folks in it. But the thing to understand is that there are a great number of Muslims who aren't going around saying "Islam means peace." One small example: At the University of Nablus, Professor Suliman Bashear suggested that Islam, like all other religions, evolved over time rather than having been simply delivered, perfectly formed, from Mohammed's mouth. His students responded by throwing him out the second-floor window.

WHAT'S SO FUNNY 'BOUT PEACE, LOVE & UNDERSTANDING
For a long time, I couldn't figure out why I thought that was so funny. Sick and twisted too, of course. But there's a punch-line in there somewhere. And I think I've got it.

In the aftermath of 9/11, a lot of people, myself included, wrote a lot about the death of irony and cynicism. Everywhere you looked, there was Yeats and T. S. Eliot and various psalms. But in a sense, 9/11 didn't expunge cynicism (as we use the word today), it redirected it to where it belongs.

Every single day since those planes crashed, there has been a parade of experts, authors, intellectuals, self-righteous C-SPAN callers, and weepy NPR hosts informing us that what Americans need most is more "understanding." We need to understand what Islam means, we need to learn our own "violent history," we need to comprehend where Arabs, Europeans, Muslims, rebels, freedom fighters, Palestinians, and anybody else who criticizes America are "coming from." Sanctimonious editors would tell us that the well-informed and well-traveled understand that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." American parochialism, in effect, was the source of all the world's problems because if we would just read a book we'd understand that the bad guys really aren't so bad.

What a crock. First of all, it is a myth of staggering endurance that "understanding" leads to peace. Israelis and Palestinians, for example, understand each other far better than any American understands either, and it has not brought them one inch closer to peace. Indians and Pakistanis understand each other perfectly, and yet, after several wars, they remain not very far from the brink of nuclear annihilation. Throughout history, whether you are talking about Greeks and Turks, Poles and Russians, English and Irish, or Haitians and Dominicans, it is the peoples and nations who understand each other best who are most likely to hate each other most. It's not that understanding necessarily fosters conflict, it's just that understanding doesn't do much to stop conflict. Agreement prevents wars, understanding without agreement tends to make wars more intense because both sides more fully comprehend the intentions of their opponents.

The "understanding" myth endures because it serves as a podium of arrogance for the ignorant to stand on. European sophisticates and Left-wing peace marchers believe as an article of faith, not intellect, that America is wrong and therefore if we simplistic Americans educate ourselves we will agree with them. It doesn't occur to them that we could possibly hold our views and know what we're talking about at the same time.

Well, on September 11, after several years of al Qaeda's declared war on us (You do know we didn't start this war? Right?), we decided to declare war back. Ambrose Bierce once quipped that "War is God's way of teaching Americans about geography" and so, not surprisingly, Americans have learned vastly more about Saudi Arabia, Islam, Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, and the like than they ever knew before. And, lo and behold, the understanding we've gained only makes us understand more than ever that we're right, they're wrong, and we're the good guys in this global conflict. We've turned our skepticism and cynicism, albeit briefly, away from institutions which make our nation great and pointed it at the false pieties and hateful-yet-fashionable propaganda which says America is somehow inferior to every crapulent backwater and European debating society alike.

Americans question themselves all of the time. We ask hard and, often, stupid questions about our religions, our laws, and our politicians every single day. We study Islam in our universities (while Saudis confiscate Bibles and jail people who carry them) and our leaders, from the president on down, talk themselves blue in the face about the need for tolerance and understanding.

And I guess that's what's so funny about the defenestrated professor. Eugene Volokh once pointed out that "every age seems to warn itself most sternly about the risks that are least likely to do it harm." If you asked Queen Victoria what the biggest threat to Britain was, she'd say it was the decline in sexual probity. But, today, if you ask a bed-hopping Hollywood producer, Volokh noted, he'd rant about the threat from sex-hating moralists. Well, if you ask an American college professor or journalist the same question, they'd first probably whine about the nonexistent threat to our ever-freer free speech. But coming in at a close second would be their belief that America needs to understand its own history and the world more.

But, despite the best efforts of our public schools, Americans actually understand their history. We just don't wallow in it. Because one of the great things about America is that it was designed to be a life raft to escape the sinking ship of history. If Arabs and their American apologists want to bitch and moan about the crusades, if they can't get over the fact that a few hundred years ago their societies imploded like a bad soufflin a clay oven, that's their problem. We're not mad at the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor anymore, but we're supposed to keep apologizing for a defensive war launched by popes nearly a millennium before the Boston Tea Party? Get over yourselves, you're not that important.

Meanwhile, if you asked a college professor in, say, Saudi Arabia what the biggest threat to his society is, you'd probably get an earful about the decline in respect for religious authority in a country that makes Vatican City look like Vegas. Of course, you might find a more clear-eyed observer, who might list the bigotry, backwardness, and oppression of his own society. But if he said any of that out loud, his students would probably throw him out the window, too.

Food for thought.

The recent homegrown plot in Britain to blow up transatlantic flights will intensify the fear that the country's 1.6 million Muslims are rejecting political tolerance and free speech for a violent, radicalized version of Islam. There is a real concern that British Muslims do pose a threat to that country and its traditional values. So how prevalent are such radical views among British Muslims?

Some answers are provided by the most comprehensive survey to date of Muslim opinion in Britain. The results from NOP Research, broadcast by Channel 4-TV on August 7, are startling.

Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, "Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws."

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

Also concerning freedom of speech, as the NOP Research survey reports, "hardcore Islamists" constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of "staunch defenders of Islam." This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined.

The scary reality is that only three percent of British Muslims "took a consistently pro-freedom of speech line on these questions." The Muslim threat to British security is so severe that the assistant London police commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur, has called for an inquiry into the radicalization of young Muslims. Ghaffur sadly describes "a generation of angry young people vulnerable to exploitation."

Before the London bombings, British intelligence services estimated that one percent of British Muslims either support or are involved in terrorism. While this is mainly a peaceful and productive immigrant population, a significant number are prepared to act against their own country.

The British government believes that, in recent years, 3,000 British Muslims have returned home from al Qaeda training camps. Intelligence experts estimate that 1,200 Muslim radicals (80 percent of Pakistani origin) are currently pursuing a terrorist rather than a democratic option to vent their disgust at Tony Blair's support for America's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and opposition to Hezbollah.

This terrorist weed that is choking the U.K. is especially hard to eradicate because it is growing in British soil. America's fastest-growing religion is Islam, but here in the States the numbers are not a security concern, as a commitment to Islam has not overwhelmed a strong attachment to America itself another victory for the cultural melting pot.

By contrast, the U.K. embraced taxpayer-subsidized multiculturalism and has paid a very dear price, indeed. The result cultural apartheid has encouraged a significant number of Muslims to exhibit more loyalty to fellow Muslims outside of the U.K. than to their fellow Britons.

"What a country spends its money on is no business whatsoever of those in the UN" except if it is an "Arab State" or under developed state in which America has financial interest or reserves it would like to plunder.

And of course the apologists would have us believe that these angry young men are made that way by our society not understanding and embracing them. The truth is that they are that way due to internal influences from their own family, friends and religious groups. The oppression they feel to not be able to live the life of their non muslim friends at school, and their jealousy of western freedoms, denied them by their parents.

What crap, Fred.
Many Arab countries are as rich as creosote and have no issues like that.
The UN is not a world governement and if it was then how on earth would any agreement ever be reached?
An under developed state does have the way its money is spent watched, because it aint their money. It has been given to them for humanitarian purposes and I can just imagine the outcry if we gave 'em a few million and never checked if it went on food and drugs or on palaces for the leader (a la Iraq).

Nice sale of Armanents to Saudi by the announcec today by the peace makers.

I suppose Russia had better get involved again and increase it arms sales.

You desire a world without armaments???
How odd.

H6. Yes desirable but unrealistic.

However, there would be a few I might keep a bullet or two around, just in order to to deal with them. 8-)

That was the reason for a resolution, carried unanimously, to use force.
Unanimous? Which resolution was that then?

The very simplest fact yet to be answered by the apologists is why the inspectors were not allowed full and free access.

Yet more half truths swallowed by the gullible.

Iraq cooperated with the inspectors
In the months prior to war Iraqi officials provided substantial cooperation to
renewed UN inspections. The monitors had unfettered access to all sites and
complete freedom of movement. Even Saddam Hussein's palaces, previously off
limits to UN officials, were opened to inspection.
According to Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has been
provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."9 Blix reported that "prompt
access . . . has been given to inspection teams." This "open doors policy," as
Blix described it, was "an indispensable element of transparency and a
process that aims at securing disarmament by peaceful means."10
IAEA director ElBaradei reported that "Iraqi authorities have consistently
provided access without conditions and without delay."11 ElBaradei reported
on 27 January that "all inspection activities have been carried out without prior
notification to Iraq, except where notification was needed to ensure the
availability of required support."12


9 United Nations, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection.
10 Blix, Notes for Briefing, 1-2.
11 International Atomic Energy Agency, Status of the Agencys Verification Activities, para. 5.
12 International Atomic Energy Agency, The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq.


I provide evidence. You provide statements which presumably are second hand from media/press of the time which in turn get their stuff from politicians. I have already posited that the democratic process was distorted by Bush and Blair, available intelligence manipulated for public consumption so that war seemed the only option.

And finally: This time he tried to play the world for mugs for just too long, and was left unable to talk his way out of it again.

This kind of narrative plays well in The Daily Mail, Hollywood blockbuster or the heartlands of America but when you start to think and analyse real facts rather than secondhand soundbites, such a story seems limited in international politics and when war is concerned.