Re: Government & Humanity
Hi
I am somewhat cynical about Chilcott.
It all depends upon the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Iraq had used Chemical Weapons in the war with Iran, so yes they had had them, if you interpret Weapons of Mass Destruction in it's broadest sense, which is all Nuclear, Chemical and Bacteriological Weapons.
They had used them against Iran, but the West, led by the USA did not kick off about that, because Iran at that time was seen as bigger baddie than Iraq.
Now, put yourself in the position of being questioned by the Politicians.
Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?
Strictly speaking it did, they had some binary chemical artillery shells, but not weapons of Mass Destruction as most people understand.
How quickly could they use them?
Well that depends?
What if they were on site, ready use, next to the artillery pieces.
Well in that case, very quickly, but that isn't a threat, they can only fire them a few miles and they will pose no real danger.
That is not what you were asked.
So the Government spin doctors turn honest answers into Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction which they launch in minutes, scare the pants off people and use it to justify an invasion which completely destroyed a Country, with massive casualties, anarchy and where there are still casualties today, unleashed a wave of brutal terrorism and all for no justifiable reason at all.
The Politicians and spin doctors involved all have excellent lawyers.
Cynical I may be, but I cannot see successful criminal proceedings being brought against those actually responsible.
9/11 was naff all to do with Iraq, it was planned, financed and executed by Saudis, not Saddam.