Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
> "Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents"
If that were true, there would be not a few thousand dead soldiers, but hundreds of thousands. I think these analysts have their heads right up their keisters. It takes no genius to figure out that if Iraq had WMDs, and the insurgents had inherited those, then the Coalition would be in serious trouble. Why use suicide bombing when you can release a toxin that could wipe out an entire army base? It is illogical!
Even after all these years people are trying to make excuses for the simple fact that Tony Blair and George W. Bush manufactured intelligence and lied to the public to justify a war whose final aim was to make billions of dollars for Haliburton, Exxon and other big oil companies. Why winge on about WMDs? They should just be honest and admit the truth.