Forum Topic

It's 2003 all over again, 45 minutes.

"In 2003, the alleged WMD threat from Iraq centered on claims that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and was actively developing more. These claims, particularly regarding the ability to deploy weapons within 45 minutes, were used to justify military intervention. However, no such weapons were found after the invasion, leading to accusations of intelligence exaggeration and manipulation." (Google)

David Ainsworth ● 36d35 Comments

"This response ignores the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime"That we armed.

Michael Brigo ● 28d

They certainly did, based on the dodgy dossier provided by Blairs government.

Andy Pike ● 28d

Thank you Lucille.There has been a lot of re-writing of history over the Iraq war of 2003 and the build up to it.  This has been to suit an anti-Blair narrative from both the right and the far-left. Rather like George Galloway, who travelled to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam Hussein and saluted him for his "indefatigability" and "courage" yet calls for Tony Blair to stand trial in The Hague. Typical political posturing from the far left, and political opportunism from those on the Conservative side who prefer us to forget that they voted in Parliament for the Iraq war.

David Beeney ● 28d

Mr AinsworthHow on earth did you segue to the Iraq war of 22 years ago in order to defend Iran today ? I presume you terminated your membership of the Labour Party then and only re-joined when St Jeremy became leader and held out the hand of friendship to Hezbollah.I see the poor old thing is still marching and chanting for peace even though he was kicked out of the Party after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission published its report, saying Labour had broken the law regarding antisemitism.'The Commission put some of the blame on "serious failings" under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.But it was not the conclusion of the report that led to the former leader's suspension, says Labour.Instead, it was his reaction to the findings.The report was published at 10:00 GMT on Thursday. Around 30 minutes later, Mr Corbyn put out a statement.He said anti-Semitism was "absolutely abhorrent" and "one anti-Semite is one too many" in the party.But he then said: "The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media."After another 30 minutes or so, Mr Corbyn's successor as Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, made his own statement.He said those who believed the issue of anti-Semitism in the party had been "exaggerated" or were a "factional attack" were also "part of the problem and... should be nowhere near the Labour Party".Sir Keir told the BBC on Friday that he had informed his predecessor of what he planned to say and was "deeply disappointed" that Mr Corbyn's comments appeared to contradict his statement'.Those were the days when Starmer stood for something.You claim - 'We cheat, we lie, we get away with it. We are the good guys always.'I know I have posted this before but perhaps you missed it.It seems to sum up you and other anti-British fellow travellers.“In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. 
They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow (NOW THE ARABIC MIDDLE EAST). In the 
general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident 
thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals 
are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always 
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse 
racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a 
poor box. All through the critical years (AS TODAY) many left-wingers were chipping 
away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian (now pro-ARABIC and anti-ISREAL), but always anti-British.”― George Orwell, England Your England

John Hawkes ● 34d

Well said Mr Beeney.

Lucille Grant ● 34d

@Jane 18.6.25 21.02Unfortunately I didn't Jane as I cancelled my SKY account last year because it was an expense I could do without.  However I was thrilled when Alcaraz won it because he is my favourite player since Nadal retired.Yesterday I was watching a completely enthralling and entertaining match that Jack Draper eventually won, but followed by a disappointment when Dan Evens lost. Currently on/off watching an uninspiring match between two rather petulant players and really can't be bothered to cheer on the Brit. Looking forward to Alcaraz on next!

Sue Hammond ● 34d

Well, of course the UK knew that he had had chemical weapons, we kept the receipts!"In 1985 a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company, was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas. The guarantees led to UK government payment of £300,000 to Uhde in 1990 after completion of the plant was interrupted by the first Persian Gulf War. The plant was later highlighted by the US government as part of arguing for the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.Britain was said to have exported thiodiglycol (a mustard gas precursor) and thionyl chloride (a nerve gas precursor) to Iraq in 1988 and 1989."We cheat, we lie, we get away with it. We are the good guys always. We helped Iraq in their bad behaviour, then we were shocked by Iraq's bad behaviour.

David Ainsworth ● 34d

Now that you admit to being able to use search, you can look up all your accusations of gaslighting and show why you made them.And don't forget that one persons' false narrative of events' can in fact be a difference of interpretation or opinion, and so not "gaslighting".

David Ainsworth ● 34d

Mr Ainsworth'So sad that you use the word "gaslighting" repeatedly to cover up your lack of facts.''Gaslighting is a form of manipulation and psychological control. It occurs when someone deliberately feeds false information to make the victim question their memory, perception, and sanity. The term refers to forcing doubt about reality by pushing a false narrative of events'.Are you suggesting I do that ?As you keep all my posts where have I used this technique towards you in order to cover up my lack of facts ?And don't forget that one persons 'false narrative of events' can in fact be a difference of interpretation or opinion.

John Hawkes ● 34d

So glad that you do remember how to search for posts and yet you repeat your old joke about files.So sad that you use the word "gaslighting" repeatedly to cover up your lack of facts.

David Ainsworth ● 34d

Mr Ainsworth'Best left to Mr Hawkes, who is the site "gaslighting" champion. It appears 45 times so far in his posts. Way ahead of the rest of us in his suffering'.I use the term where I think it appropriate and represents what I think the other party is attempting.I do smile to imagine you going through my posts and making a count of my usage of the term.So sad😢

John Hawkes ● 34d

Ms Holliday'There may be a Cobra meeting, but it is up to Parliament to decide...'Not strictly true whatever we might think or want.'There is no constitutional requirement for the Crown to seek any explicit form of parliamentary approval before committing British forces to military action. By virtue of the royal prerogative, the Sovereign may give the order to commence military action, which is customarily given on the advice of His Majesty's Government..

John Hawkes ● 34d

Mr Ainsworth'I bet that you can tell us which countries helped Israel to get the Bomb'.The US I expect as long ago it realised that Israel would be threatened with annihilation from its Arab neighbours if it did not wield a big stick.And of course Israel had the skills and brain power to develop one.All those years ago however I am sure it could not have appreciated that such a threat would still be supported by the West Putney Palestinian Liberation Front.But I doubt that causes much concern at the Pentagon.

John Hawkes ● 34d

"He certainly *had* them at the time of the Iraq/Iran war.However he clearly did not at the time of the Gulf war, no evidence was found before, during or after.Tony Blair should deffo have been on trial."This response ignores the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, and the fact that for years he obstructed UN weapons inspectors in defiance of UN resolutions which were a condition of the 1991 ceasefire following Hussein's unprovoked invasion of a Kuwait.  He only cooperated at a very late stage, giving him plenty of time to conceal the evidence.  I don't believe for one moment that any Prime Minister, of either of the main parties, would commit British troops to conflict without any basis whatsoever. This response also fails to condemn Saddam Hussein's previous use of weapons of mass destruction - a convenient omission from those who would like to see Tony Blair stand trial at The Hague.  But hey, that's ok to re-write history, as long as it fits the narrative of those with a vested interest of discrediting previous Labour Governments and Labour's electorally most successful leader.

David Beeney ● 34d

TBH I think it will be more fun there than here! Did you see the final of the French Open - amazing match!

Jane Carter ● 35d

@DA "Horses for courses, Ms Hammond"Explain

Sue Hammond ● 35d

There may be a Cobra meeting, but it is up to Parliament to decide...Trump may say what he likes, but is it not up to the House of Representatives to decide?

Ivonne Holliday ● 35d

"Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of an imminent threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb for more than 30 years."Some claim longer!It is odd that a country that has built ballistic and hypersonic missiles has taken so long to build a nuclear bomb.Perhaps Israel should have built ballistic and hypersonic missiles instead of nuclear bombs?

Ed Robinson ● 35d

Horses for courses, Ms Hammond

David Ainsworth ● 35d

Bore off or post something sensible.  Back to Queens for me!

Sue Hammond ● 35d

@RichardWe seem to agree on something at last!  Below is my response in the Godfather 2 (stupid title) thread:"Everyone knows that the US has the mighty military power and the warfare expertise to totally obliterate Iran, but Trump is presently holding back. Why is this?Perhaps America/Trump has learned a harsh lesson from America's disastrous coalition between Bush and Blair that waged an illegal war in Iraq in 2003 on the false pretext that Iraq was harbouring WMDs.  The effects of this illegal war were devastating and ongoing.  It became Blair's shameful legacy.I believe that Billy Big ⚾️🎾is going to hold an emergency Cobra meeting later today to discuss the UK's response to the evolving crisis.  He will do whatever Trump has told him to do.

Sue Hammond ● 35d

"Typical gaslighting response from Brigo"Pretty meaningless comment. Best left to Mr Hawkes, who is the site "gaslighting" champion. It appears 45 times so far in his posts. Way ahead of the rest of us in his suffering.

David Ainsworth ● 35d

Now, according to the Times, "Britain is weighing up whether to provide military support to the US in the event that President Trump decides to bomb Iran .... Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting with senior officials and ministers this afternoon to discuss a series of potential scenarios."Hasn't he learned anything from Blair's foolish support for Bush II over Iraq?

Richard Carter ● 35d

Typical gaslighting response from Brigo🙄

Sue Hammond ● 35d

Thank you.I bet that you can tell us which countries helped Israel to get the Bomb.

David Ainsworth ● 35d

Go and buy yourself a history book if you need reminding.

Michael Brigo ● 35d

Mr Brigo'He certainly *had* them at the time of the Iraq/Iran war.However he clearly did not at the time of the Gulf war, no evidence was found before, during or after'.You seem to know pretty much everything about everything so please where did they go in the mean time ?

John Hawkes ● 35d

Mr Ainsworth"NK had many facilities deep underground, some of which were unknown to the international community...sound familiar?"'Give us an idea, please. Who had facilities deep underground, some of which were unknown to the international community, that you know of?'NK stands as an abbreviation for North Korea.

John Hawkes ● 35d

NK eg Kangson Enrichment Facility Iran eg Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and Lavizan-Shian

Adam Tripp ● 35d

"NK had many facilities deep underground, some of which were unknown to the international community...sound familiar?"Give us an idea, please. Who had facilities deep underground, some of which were unknown to the international community, that you know of?

David Ainsworth ● 35d

many experts said North Korea was years away from building nukes (or not at all), they were quickly proved wrong. NK had many facilities deep underground, some of which were unknown to the international community...sound familiar?

Adam Tripp ● 35d

He certainly *had* them at the time of the Iraq/Iran war. However he clearly did not at the time of the Gulf war, no evidence was found before, during or after.Tony Blair should deffo have been on trial.

Michael Brigo ● 35d

We should not discount the fact that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction.  The UN definition of weapons of mass destruction includes chemical and biological weapons.  Saddam Hussein had a record or using chemical weapons, including during the Iran / Iraq war and against the Kurdish civilian population in Iraq.  None were found after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.  But that could well be because up until the eleventh hour, Saddam Hussein had obstructed the work of UN weapons inspectors - in contravention to the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War - which may have bought him time to conceal the evidence.  So the alliance of far left / Corbynite activists and Tories, both of whom have a vested interest in discrediting past Labour Governments, are perhaps somewhat naive in their calls for Tony Blair to stand trial in front of the International Criminal Court on count of a so-called illegal war, whilst at the same time, it seems, forgetting the barbarity of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

David Beeney ● 35d

Mr AinsworthGet the dressing out !https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291"Atomic watchdog says Iran not complying with nuclear safeguards"'The UN-backed atomic watchdog passed a resolution on Thursday declaring that Iran is not complying with its obligations regarding nuclear non-proliferation.The development follows serious warnings from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) earlier this week that inspectors have been unable to determine whether Iran’s nuclear programme was “exclusively peaceful” – as per the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal from which the United States subsequently withdrew.A fresh round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran is slated to begin on Saturday in Oman, according to news reports, amid heightened geopolitical tensions linked to rumours of an impending Israeli attack on Iran.Following Thursday’s resolution vote by the IAEA’s board of governors – which passed by a vote of 19 for, three against and 11 abstentions - Iran’s atomic energy body reportedly announced plans to open a new uranium enrichment plant and increase production of enriched fissile material.The draft for Thursday’s resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency’s inspectors.Tehran has “repeatedly” been unable to explain and demonstrate that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use, the draft text maintains.Iran has also failed to provide the UN agency with “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad, it continues.“Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency’s questions,” IAEA chief Grossi said on Monday. “It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.”According to Mr. Grossi, Tehran has stockpiled 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium.“Given the potential proliferation implications, the agency cannot ignore [this],” he told the UN agency’s governing board on Monday.

John Hawkes ● 36d

Mr Ainsworth'"In 2003, the alleged WMD threat from Iraq centered on claims that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and was actively developing more. These claims, particularly regarding the ability to deploy weapons within 45 minutes, were used to justify military intervention. However, no such weapons were found after the invasion, leading to accusations of intelligence exaggeration and manipulation." Oh those duplicitous Labour politicians and their dodgy dossier !On the other hand here's more word salad for you to chew on."UN nuclear watchdog urges Iran to cooperate"BBC News 5 June 2024 'The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has passed a resolution calling on Iran to urgently cooperate and reverse its decision to bar some of its inspectors.There are concerns Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, an accusation Tehran denies.The resolution, drafted by Britain, France and Germany, passed by the 35-nation board of governors was voted for by 20 countries, with only China and Russia voting it down. Twelve nations abstained and one country did not take part.Iran called the decision "hasty and unwise", Iranian state TV reported.The resolution, passed at a quarterly meeting in Vienna, said Iran must urgently, fully and unambiguously co-operate with the IAEA.It also said Tehran should answer longstanding questions about uranium traces found at two sites there and allow some of the agency's most experienced enrichment inspectors back in to the country.Iran is now enriching uranium up to 60% purity - close to the 90% needed for weapons grade - while it keeps accumulating large uranium stockpiles, according to the IAEA.

John Hawkes ● 36d