Purpose Of The Board

[Hutch]

Dear all.

What is the point of this board? Its cluttered up by topics that would be far better dealt with-if at all- on the other side of the forum. Anybody coming here hoping to find reasoned debate and intelligent analysis of the F-M situation would be very disappointed.

I have asked before for the Argentina 'killer arguments' to be presented. Lay out your proofs in a locked sticky at the top of the forum. The UK/FI could have their position placed up there too. That would be informative and a spur for debate. The board could be a resource as well as a debate space.

I realize that would be some work but if Argentinas claim is so great, obvious and clear it can't be that much work, can it? Instead we get a few disconnected clauses from Anglo-Spanish treatys, a list of non Argentine sightings and landings in the FI and so on.

What do we have instead? Very few 'live' debates about the Islands, but circular arguments about other issues. We can't discuss this all the time I know, but sometimes might be nice?But for that we need a solid basis of discussion which is lacking.

At a casual glance it seems that Javier alone has started 17 topics and of these 12 had no relation to the Islands. Why? True, some of the posts could be said to have a vague, tenuous relation to the Islands but by far most of them do not. And so the board is distracted, listless and directionless.

Any hope or is the board now pointless?

Hutch

[Sakura26]

Hello Hutch and Everybody

Yes, I'm back, finally (or "sadly" in my case) it's always hard coming back from vacations........ Has anyone missed me? (you can lie here...)

I agree the forum is going nowhere, I've noticed that long ago, but I dont see how to move on... But dont blame it on our side, Hutch, if you say all our proofs, are not proofs at all for you, then it's the british side the one building walls between us, you dont want to recognize our rights, but instead you expect us to recognize yours and the islanders'...

So, is this a forum to reach an agreement or the british side is only expecting Argentina to surrender? that's not gonna happen, I've said that before. We are patient, the reign of invincible power you and your cousins in America is not going to last forever.....

In fact, I can see a 3rd world war coming, Iran and North Korea seem to be ready to fight, they wont become the "next Irak"......

So when they finally destroy this empire of fear and abuse the anglo-saxons have created, we, the patient latinamericans that have not messed with anybody, will be able to recover what's ours without problems...

It's a matter of time to me.... But anyway, it's sad that you are not willing to negotiate, this forum could have worked well, it's probably the only one without censorship......

Regards
Noelia

[caton]

Hutch,


I must concede you are partly right(*) but there IS a relation between the Malvinas issue and those which we have discussed. What is the true original cause of the Malvinas conflict? Your foreign policy, you are having a war each and other year always invoking some beautifull motive which has no relation with the truth. You invoke self determination here when you rape it there, etc. If you (meaning not UK but yourself) are able to defend what the entire world knows is criminal, I know what you can think of our Right (or anybodys: you are stronger, that's all that matters).

Why does it happen to you, all that warfare, if not because of your own actions? Forget about empire and the UK and it's present victims will live in peace.

Best - Javier

(*) Brazilians say it in a very comical way:

"O senhor tein raçao.
Ma tein poca.
E a poca raçao que o Senhor tein
NAO VALE NADA!

[caton]

Sakura,

Claro que te extrañamos! Un gusto en saludarte!

Javier

[Johnmcd]

Noelia,
Hutch has made a very valid point and probably underscores what I have thought for a long time. That is few people care about sovereignty over the islands and therefore has become less of a topic than it once was.

I’m quite sad to see you mounting what appears to be xenophobic attack on the British side: I quote…<br>
“So when they finally destroy this empire of fear and abuse the anglo-saxons have created, we, the patient latinamericans that have not messed with anybody, will be able to recover what's ours without problems…”

I’ve never thought that anyone from the west felt any different from any other inhabitant of this very small world of ours. Your choice of words are very naive indeed. But if that’s how you view the west (Anglo -Saxons) then so be it.

N Korea, Iran and now Syria are indeed moving away from any dialogue sponsored by the UN. Please be factually correct here. It is not the west against them - it is their own un-elected leaders dragging their own people from engaging with the world. Freedom and emancipation from fear lies within, not without.

Negotiation! That’s what this forum is all about - isn’t it? If so then please provide a platform for that to happen without slapping our faces for trying.

Best wishes,
John.

[Sakura26]

Hello John

Look, from my point of view (that is the same as the whole latinamerica's) this is what things look like:

Either you're being sarcastic or you REALLY believe you're the good guys. I know you're a good person, by the way you speak, what you say and the words you choose, I can tell you are someone who would not hurt anyone on purpose, therefore I know you are one of those who really believe the curtain of lies the british and american government are setting.

You're very wrong if you think there's a western union. Latinamerica is very sick of the abuse of the United States. Some countries have the courage to say so, some others prefer to stay quiet, but we all think the world is in now in constant danger because of them.

This is clearly a good try to take over the world. The democratic elections in Irak were a complete failure. The city is completely destroyed, people are still dying, there's more terrorism now than when Saddam was in charge, and the guy that won the election was "magically" the one Bush wanted to win.

And now, Iran says they dont have the weapons, and Bush says they do. Here we go again. Then, it 's gonna be another bloody mistake America made in the name of freedom.

Argentina doesnt have the (millitary) power to do anything to stop this insanity. We can only wait until the american pride leads them to destruction, like it happened with many other empires in the world, like the Roman Empire for example.

Britain has two options now. You can go against them, and stoy this insanity, or you can keep kissing their butts and help them destroy the only planet we have. Because you know very well, that if North Korea and the United States start a nuclear war, there's no hope for anyone, no matter what hemisphere you live in.

So yes, I'm very angry, but that's not being xenophobic. I love foreign cultures more than you can imagine. I have friends from all around the world, even countries that are in conflict with Argentina, such as the States, Britain, Chile and Brazil (sportive rivalry.....)
Maybe you dont, but I do consider people in this forum my friends. Different points of view help understand each other.

Maybe if you lived here you would see things the same way we do. I'm absolutely sure that if I lived there, I could be a victim of the lies of the government. But at least, I would be enough open minded for listening to foreigners (from ALL over the world) who tell me my troops are killing innocent people for oil, not for freedom.

Sometimes, not knowing the awful truth it's easier than facing such a terrible fact. Maybe it's inconcious..who knows...... I only know that people are not their governments, and so I wont stop having friends from anywhere for political reasons.

Regards
Noelia

[Johnmcd]

Hello Noelia,
With respect your point view is hardly that of the whole of S America --pluuussseee!!

However, I can appreciate to some degree the ill feeling many Latin Americans have over US foreign policy. I personally don’t support most of what comes of the Whitehouse and I’m rather disturbed that the US has not adopted to Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change along with India and China. On the over hand the US attitude to S America is conditioned by many factors, mainly what un-corrupted politician to talk to and when will you pay back $100bn you owe them. If you hate the US so much why do so many S Americans aspire to immigrate there? Probably because it is a much more stable and economically viable country to be in - and a place where a vote actually counts. That brings me to your points on the Iraqi election.

The Iraqis have yet to choose their own Prime Minister and President - so what are you talking about when you maliciously say, “…and the guy that won the election was "magically" the one Bush wanted to win” The Iraqi election was multi-party/multiethnic choice for a 275-member national assembly. Under Iraq's interim constitution, two-thirds of the national assembly must agree on a President and two vice Presidents, who in turn will select the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The front contender for power is the Shi'ite leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari who tried to get rid of Saddam back in the 70’s and 80’s before fleeing to Iran. He’s not exactly a Bush bed partner!

The problem you and many like you appear to have is this:

You have been fed a steady diet of disaster and negativity and were unprepared and quite clearly taken aback by the spectacle of majority of Iraqis defying the terrorists and insurgents to participate in a free and successful democratic election. I can’t blame you really for what your media fed you in their anti-US haste - a democratic culture will always be harder to spot, particularly for a media that obsesses with reporting explosions, gunfights as opposed to the processes of reconstruction - physical, political, spiritual - of a country and society.

Best wishes,
John.

[Sakura26]

Dear John

You wrote

If you hate the US so much why do so many S Americans aspire to immigrate there?

This is a stupid question John... No matter how patriotic you are, if you can get a better life somewhere else, and you have the chance to go, you would do it....Especially if your family depends on you which is the case of many of the inmigrants of the US... As much as I would like to be 100% patriotic, I admit that I speak my mind because I'm absolutely free, I Have nothing to gain or to lose by saying what I think.... but, if Bush called me saying he has a 100.000 dollar cheque twice a year for supporting him, I would be the first one flying the american flag in my backyard..... Of course it doesnt mean I'll like him or that I really support the US, but I can fake it to get the money.... and believe me, everybody here would say "you did the right thing, I would have done the same" And that's because money is a priority here, our economies are very weak and people suffer a lot the lack of it...

What makes you think it is OUR media the ones cheating us? I wish you could see the same news broadcasted by CNN and broadcasted by any argentine news network, you would see the difference... We have both here, you have only one, so I CAN tell the difference, you cant....Not about what they say, but what they show...

There's nothing malicious in my words, people in Irak are not suffering for what I'm writing here, they are suffering for the abuse of bigger, stronger countries.

Each one is free to admit or deny the facts they want. But the facts won't change at all anyway...

Regards
Noelia

[Johnmcd]

Noelia,
Thanks for your very open reply.

You talk about the media in your country. I do hope that it is not so unscrupulous as it once was; the same sort of media that force fed you the myth about the Falklands and how the islanders were implanted colonists to prevent the rightful owners from taking their sovereign territory.
The media here in the UK is probably the same as rest of the free world, including a free Iraq. We can all watch whatever news coverage we want from across the world on digital or satellite. I often flick between news agencies and try to reduce to clear terms what actually might be happening. I usually end up being bombarded by a stream of visual images and chatter. There is always the danger of being perpetually mislead.

Being mislead or indeed being purposely mislead by taking in what you want to hear and not what is known to be fact is nothing new. Your own self-interest, vanity or fear, can prevent anyone from being impartial. We are all susceptible to this. Fear is a very powerful weapon in the media. Fox News and Arabic news stations are adept at raising our fears, real or imagined. Neither are critical examiners of truth.

You also mention patriotism. Is that love of country, right or wrong? When you and I were born we didn’t know if we were either Argentine or Scottish. What does it mean to belong to a different country and grow up expressing that difference? Does it mean the we must, because of nationality, make the judgements of each other valueless? “Our national interest demands” “The safety of the country requires” and so on. Our emotions get aroused as we always ‘love’ our country.

I feel fortunate that I was able to travel the world and found that nationality and race is an extraordinary lie. What I found to be clearly apparent is that we all share the same basic desires of peace and security and go through our short stay on this planet attempting to achieve this - no matter how painful that quest might be. I have yet to find words that could accurately describe this deep human desire to be free. Words that I might use might be misinterpreted or cause ambiguity. Words, it would seem, are not capable of precise definition. Words exercise an odd attraction for nearly everyone. Freedom. Those who think we have it never seem stop and wonder what it actually means. There was that moment, however, when I saw an Iraqi woman coming out of a polling station with purple dye on her finger - holding it up to the world’s press to show what she had just done.

No words were spoken - none needed.

Best wishes,
John.

[caton]

John,


Your quote:
"Under Iraq's interim constitution, two-thirds of the national assembly must agree on a President and two vice Presidents, who in turn will select the Prime Minister and Cabinet."

Who wrote the 'constitution'?

"You have been fed a steady diet of disaster and negativity (...)"

Let the following article. I hope you would not consider the Lancet as anti British. Was it not you who denied the 100 000 dead?

Iraqi dead is little news
ROBERT KOEHLER 16.FEB.05

A hundred thousand Iraqi dead were recently buried - on Page Five. Bear with me.

I think we need to dig them up. I'm haunted, you might say, by a relentless optimism that if enough Americans could just notice that number, let it gnaw at the margins of their conscience - long enough to say, "Come again? How many? A hundred thousand?" - something would give somewhere in the mandate George Bush claims he has to "bring freedom to the world" at a price cruel beyond reckoning to the recipients.

A hundred thousand.

The story came out just before the election. Ours, I mean. Maybe the timing was bad. Media skeptics and Bush supporters cried foul. Scientists are trying to influence the outcome with, harrumph, facts.

Yeah, fat chance.

Anyway, the story had a short shelf life and zero impact.

A couple days later, we leveled Fallujah.

In case you missed it, here's what happened: During the month of September, a team of Iraqi and American investigators talked to some 8,000 people from nearly 1,000 households in every region of the country, asking how many family members had died both before and after the invasion.

They were led by Les Roberts, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University with extensive experience researching war-related mortality.

He has worked in eight war zones. In the past, his findings have had significant policy and humanitarian impact. The electrifying results of the Iraq study, that the civilian death toll is far higher than previous estimates, were published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed British medical journal Lancet, and since it came many scientists have verified the validity of the researchers' methodology.

The study's only incorrectness is political. Roberts told me the other day he decided to undertake the study out of a concern that he was hearing nothing in the news about deaths among Iraqi civilians from the secondary causes common in war-torn areas.

"I was sure I'd be talking about diarrhea and women dying in childbirth," he said.

That's how it usually is in the Third World. Shockingly, his courageous researchers found almost nothing of the sort. Indeed, Iraq is not (or was not) the Third World. It was a prosperous and highly functioning society. Its citizenry were well educated. They knew, for instance, to boil their drinking water.

People weren't dying in large numbers from disease. If they had been, the findings may have generated a humanitarian response. Alas, Iraqis turned out to be dying from the wrong causes.

"I did not think violence would be the main cause of deaths, and that the coalition would be the main killers," he said.

Say what? If you believe in the war, this is where it gets hard, where denial kicks in.

This can't be true. We're bringing democracy - "freedom" - to Iraq. Witness the ink-stained V's that Iraqis flashed after voting last month.

America's political ideals have the same global appeal as Coke, Big Macs and Hollywood action thrillers, and now the Iraqi masses can enjoy all of these commodities. Hurray for American largess!

A hundred thousand civilian dead. Mostly by our bombs, shells and missiles. This is not reported, ladies and gentlemen.

Especially our ongoing daily, nightly, air war over every part of Iraq, and the armada of fighter jets and attack helicopters in constant deployment, ready to deliver Hellfire missiles and laser-guided smart bombs of 500 to 2,000 pounds at a moment's notice.

This is mostly how we hunt insurgents, by taking out buildings and neighborhoods. Our model is the tuna-fishing industry. Save the dolphins? Save the Iraqis!

Here, for instance, from GlobalSecuity.org, is a terse account of how it works:

"During the strike (last fall), two 500-pound bombs were dropped on a target reported by Coalition Press Information Center officials to be a confirmed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi terrorist meeting. Two F-16 Fighting Falcons performed a simultaneous GBU-38 release on the same target in central Iraq. The bombs precisely hit a two-story building while reportedly causing . minimal collateral damage."

What Roberts and his team had the effrontery to do was, in essence, look a little more closely at the cumulative effect of all this "minimal collateral damage," plus the occasional maximal damage that occurs when the smart bombs miss their targets.

We've dropped maybe 20,000 bombs on Iraq's cities since Saddam's overthrow. Thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, have paid the ultimate price.

"I'm a big believer that good information always tugs at the heart strings of folks and on net produces more good than harm," Roberts said.

I'm still hoping he's right.

Robert Koehler is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer.

[Johnmcd]

Javier,
Before I get tucked in.

Today, in Britain on average some 5,000 people died. Many from heart disease and cancer, some from AIDS, some violently by car accident or murdered. Some from simply being too old to carry on with the burden life.

How many people have died in Iraq through violence is what you actually mean. I know. I don’t have a figure and neither does the transplant for your own opinion. He doesn’t know but searches for the answer, but speaks your own lazy language.

The Iraqi Interim Constitution is a template by the ICL, (The International Constitutional Law Organisation) sponsored by practically every country on the planet including your own.

Here’s the preamble to the Constitution:

The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom, which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all their forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law.
These people, affirming today their respect for international law, especially having been amongst the founders of the United Nations, working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations, have endeavoured at the same time to preserve the unity of their homeland in a spirit of fraternity and solidarity in order to draw the features of the future new Iraq, and to establish the mechanisms aiming, amongst other aims, to erase the effects of racist and sectarian policies and practices.
This Law is now established to govern the affairs of Iraq during the transitional period until a duly elected government, operating under a permanent and legitimate constitution achieving full democracy, shall come into being.

Goodnight Javier.

John.

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John!

Finally I did it right with my password.

Some considerations.

1. I know you are a good person;

2. Also I know you are a smart one;

3. I know you have good will.

That stated I would like to pose you some honest questions:

1. What kind of evidence about this sad invasion would you take into account and change your opinion?

2. If actually 100.000 Iraqi citizens were killed by the invasion, and you had no doubt about this, would you still think it was justified?

3. The reasons for invading were dismissed as lies, and you were repeating them in the other forum. How many more lies would make change your mind?

4. Having in mind that neither UK nor US are the world police, would you still find justification in invading more countries?

5. There are lots of evidences that this war was about oil; if you were convinced by some evidence that this was really the truth, again, would you change your mind?

Establishing these parameters would be interesting for both of us, in case you find evidence on what you are stating, I mean, this would convice myself, as well, that this sad war had some justification.

Saludos amigos, Maquilishuat

[Johnmcd]

Hi Otto,
Good to see you back!

I’ll be as open as I possibly can. We go way back on this debate!

What kind of evidence about this sad invasion would you take into account and change your opinion?

I truly hoped that no invasion would be necessary and that the Iraqi people would take matters into their own hands, as they tried to back 1990, when we disastrously let them down. I also hoped that international pressure would also be enough to contain Saddam. WMD was a huge factor. As we know the UN under Hans Blix, and then later, quite recently, the Iraq Survey Group found nothing. No matter - all the time Saddam remained in violation of the numerous UN resolutions that he continually ignored or played to his advantage, such as the oil for food programme. The UN had become powerless in Iraq while trying to enforce:

UN 678: Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.

There was never any third way with Saddam. A Saddam in power today would have no weapon inspectors on site and he would be able to carry on with his previous plans. In others words I would still morally support the invasion to get rid of him from the region. My deep regret is the way the US led coalition conducted themselves after the fall of Saddam particularly in central Iraq.

If actually 100.000 Iraqi citizens were killed by the invasion, and you had no doubt about this, would you still think it was justified?

Yes, the morbid Body Count! I read the Lancet Report provided by Javier, which he takes to be a creditable source. I also read hospital reports provided by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent that gave figures directly contributable to coalition action. These figures cite some where in the region of 18.000 and then again these figures cannot be wholly relied upon since they have no way of knowing who pulled the trigger. The casualty reports are of course being used for propaganda, particularly last November when US and Iraqi forces stormed into Fallujah. I think that those who use the Body Count should compare directly with the bodies pulled out of mass graves. Saddam was killing off the population right up until 2003. We should bear this in mind.

The reasons for invading were dismissed as lies, and you were repeating them in the other forum. How many more lies would make change your mind?

The information we had at the time was based on intelligence reports and the controversy surrounding this still goes on: Sexing up reports to make them more digestible for the British public and so on. Where they lies? No, I don’t believe they were. I believe a solid threat assessment was made based on the capability of Saddam’s arsenal that he had used so efficiently in the past such as in Halabja killing 5,000 Kurdish civilians. This was only one of forty chemical assaults staged by Saddam against the Kurdish people. We also remember the Scud missile attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia. Any one of those missiles could have carried a chemical or biological agent. The forces deployed into Iraq were working on a worse possible case scenario and quite right to do so in my mind. There again I spent 27 years in the military and had 3 deployments to the Gulf all because of this mad man.

Having in mind that neither UK nor US are the world police, would you still find justification in invading more countries?

I truly hope not. You are referring to Iran, Syria and N Korea? This is a matter for the world community and how we would all tolerate a nuclear capable Iran and N Korea. Anything I would say will of course be highly hypothetical - the same as your question. Personally, I think the Iranian theocracy will fade away by the will of the Iranian people themselves now that Iraq has gained a secular base for democracy. N Korea is a much different proposition - I think the Great Leader might just ‘let one off’ against Seoul or a city in Japan. What would you say if he did and we didn’t do nothing to stop it in the first place? d**ned if we do - d**ned if we don’t! Syria of course is much in the news recently - highlighting to everyone that they still have 14000 troops in the Lebanon. Do you know why? Do you know why the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated?

There are lots of evidences that this war was about oil; if you were convinced by some evidence that this was really the truth, again, would you change your mind?

No. The action against Saddam was to prevent further regional de-stabilisation and to ensure that oil supplies from the gulf states got through. A powerful un tethered Saddam would have control or heavily influence the whole region. He attempted to do this on the 2 August 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. He also had his sights on Saudi Arabia and the Emirates until he was stopped. So yes oil was a consideration when we could have seen a world wide global economic collapse if Saddam was in a position to close off the gulf. During the Iran/Iraq war the Iranians attempted to do exactly this. How many Chinese ‘Silkworm’ missiles did the Iranians fire against oil tankers during that time? The fact is that most of the world’s oil supply still comes out of the Gulf ports such as Jebal Ali and Bahrain. But the Iraq war was never an attempt to get a ‘personal supply’ That resource belongs entirely to the Iraqi people and how they dispose of this enormous wealth will be up to them and no one else. Good luck to them!

Best wishes,
John.

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John:

Thank you for your extensive email. It cleared my mind, and I hope it did in the right way.

Considering your first point, you may remember that your reasoning was nowhere to be seen during the months preceding the invasion. This means that the war was “sold” to the British public through another rationale. You even mentioned the UN resolution of 1991 to justify the invasion of 2003 when, as you noticed it, most of the dismantling of supposed WMD were already done.

Another interesting issue, my question was “if you did not have any doubt about the 100,000 figure”, which was not touched; you classified it as propaganda and it was precisely this point I intended to avoid, i.e., in case you had no doubts and the propaganda issue, together with others were dismissed.

Considering the “lies” for invading you do not consider them as such, just bad intelligence. The difference is that they were the reason to invade, and this was pedaled in the media. Well, you may not distinguish lies from mistakes considering what was brought to the media. I remember you the case in the UN where satellite photos were used as “proof”, and not as a possibility.

Now you state some danger coming from N Korea. Shall we agree that this is something to be dealt with diplomacy? Or shall we attack just the weak countries? In this case there is no reasoning about being d**ned if we do - d**ned if we don’t.

Then you say that the war was to avoid regional “de-stabilization and to ensure that oil supplies from the gulf states got through”. So, the war was for oil, no?

My strong impression is that you thing the world is yours, and there are just some problems on conquering it. Also that the amount of people killed in the process makes no difference, as long as everything is stabilized and with passive governments granting a safe flow of resources towards some countries. The bad intelligence also makes no difference, because some guys are bad anyway. Some countries can have nuclear weapons, some countries not, and some countries are subject to regime change, but not those of the first world (as they call themselves).

This is a poor way to build any future for the world. No peace treaties are considered anymore just “perfecting bunker busting weapons”, or creating new weapons and ignoring other people interests. According to this vision no peace will ever come to anyone, just domination.

Yours, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Hi Otto,
You are right on the first point. I don’t deny this. Like many in this country and elsewhere, I was horrified that Saddam had a WDM capability despite the best effort of the inspectors, whom you must surely agree, were led a merry dance. The point you miss ( I hope not conveniently ignored) that the inspectors would have pulled out and Saddam would have been left to carry on with what ever he wished to do. The Iraq Survey Group, while finding nothing, did state that he had the infrastructure in place to develop a whole range of weapons. Not mentioned in my posting is the fear that he could have got out a series of weapon components before the his regime fell. $30bn got out, so why not valuable weapon assets as well? Of course this is supposition and I have no proof other that he (Saddam) is a devious murderer. The UN resolution mentioned is just one of many - too numerous to re-produce here.

I answered your ‘question’ totally over the ‘body count’ and gave you Red Cross figures. These figures are from people on the ground, not some erstwhile journalist who hates GW just as much as you. Propaganda, yes, these figures are being used morbidly much to my disgust - I’ve got to say. If you have irrefutable truth that the coalition forces were in engaged in the whole slaughter of Iraqi civilian population - then cough up!

Intelligence. They simply got it wrong by using a threat assessment based on the worst possible case. Under Saddam, Iraq had developed chemical and biological weapons able to attack neighbouring countries and tried hard to develop a nuclear bomb. Iraq had previously admitted to this. Additionally, Iraq’s military planning specifically envisaged the use of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq remained in breach of UNSCR 687 (Chemical and Nuclear Weapons) and maintained the command & control, logistical support to do this. “Uh, hallo, this is Hans Blix here - Saddam ain’t got any WDM…don’t know where he put them, but he ain’t got any. Now let’s leave this nice dictator alone and drop the nasty sanctions” Yeah, right!

N Korea pulled out of the 6 nation talks on que when they stated that they do in fact have nuclear weapons. It was China that persuaded N Korea to enter into the talks in the first place in 2003. Hopefully China will bring them back in again. (The Great Leader is a nice dictator too - 100% of his people love him”)

Best wishes from freezing cold UK,

John.