New US Evidence on Iraq

bonkey

Originally posted by utopio When my country lets people die to get oil I don't want to belong to that country.

Thats nice, but have you stopped to think where the oil your country gets today comes from?

Odds are that at least some of it comes from those friendly Middles Eastern regimes, with maybe a drop of good clean Nigerian crude.

In short, its highly probable that your country already "lets people die" to get oil, and indeed funds those who are perpetuating the killing.

Its all well and good to take a moral stance against the evils of war, but you have to remember the rest of the evils as well.

jc

yankinlk

excellent bonkey.

(but im sure utopio is using "martian brand" oil produced from the ear wax of Klingons living on Arangatoon 7, hence he isnt contributing to ANY of the worlds problems and can live totally at peace with himself.)

Originally posted by utopio
I don't think the USA has the right to decide what is good for another country in an other continent. The USA isn't the world police!! And now the whole world has to pay for Americans mistakes. Everything they tried to repair only brought new chaos and new enemies.
And I can't see a chance of success in this war. Nothing will change when Saddam is dead. They kill him and the terror won't stop, perhaps it even will become worse. When they attack the Iraq terrorism could become uncontrollable. It is one possibility, I don't want to take this risk for one small dictator.

whether they have the right to or not, the U.S wants to defend it's interests.
They are a large and powerfull nation and from what I can see, if it's oil you are worried about, all the rest of the, large and powerfull nations are making shapes in some form or other to secure, both their interests and their oil aswell.
Lots of people can take offence to this ( un necessarily in my opinion) and in todays world , that includes madmen, who may choose to try to destroy western civilisation.
mm

utopio

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats nice, but have you stopped to think where the oil your country gets today comes from?

Odds are that at least some of it comes from those friendly Middles Eastern regimes, with maybe a drop of good clean Nigerian crude.

In short, its highly probable that your country already "lets people die" to get oil, and indeed funds those who are perpetuating the killing.

Its all well and good to take a moral stance against the evils of war, but you have to remember the rest of the evils as well.

jc

Perhaps sometimes it is good not to know all about ones countrie's intrigues it only would make my angry. But at least we don't make a war and kill thousands of people for it. And even when it were otherwise I wouldn't change my mind and never would support such opinion.

whether they have the right to or not, the U.S wants to defend it's interests.
They are a large and powerfull nation

Exactly that is it what I hate in the American politic,
they have to show everybody how stong they are, only think at theirself and trample over dead bodys to reach their aims.
But this isn't their right and anybody has to say that. Destruction and death isn't the right appliances. With that kind of way they aren't better than the terrorists. I love America, but can't understand their politics.

bonkey

Originally posted by utopio Perhaps sometimes it is good not to know all about ones countrie's intrigues it only would make my angry. But at least we don't make a war and kill thousands of people for it. And even when it were otherwise I wouldn't change my mind and never would support such opinion.

I'm not saying that you should support the war, but I am saying that it seems a bit facetious to oppose the war because people will die, and then discard any issues about what regimes today's purchasing of oil is supporting.

In effect, you oppose an Iraqi war cause thousands would die, but you're saying that it would be okay if thousands are dying to obtain oil today, because its not a war, and you're not aware of it.

jc

Hobart

I still do not see any evidence being produced to the UN security council or the the World's population by Colin Powell. Here is a quote from Senator Joe Biden after the Powell speech to the UN

The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, said Secretary of State Powell "made a powerful and irrefutable case" against Iraq in his presentation to the United Nations Security Council February 5

Notice the use of the word irrefutable. My question is where is this evidence?

Then we have Tony Blair talking about Unmistakable evidence against Iraq. Now AFAIKS all he is talking about is the fact that there is unmistakable evidence without producing any. To me this just looks like mammas home cooked pie in the sky!!!

It also seems evident to me that there is a lot of discussion going on about the reason for this war. To me it looks pertently evident that the US is going to war to further it's own economic safety. Iraq is of no threat to the US or Europe. It is well documented that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism and yet we here nothing about the pending US invasion of Iran. So the question has to be asked. If the US came out and said we are only going to war with Iraq because we need to control the Oil. Would those supporting the USA's current position on Iraq still back them? Or do you still believe that this is just the USA defending the rights of the IRaqi people, as it has done over the last twenty years, and deposing Saddam Hussien for threating the use all those WMD he has hidden under the sand?

Originally posted by Hobart
So the question has to be asked. If the US came out and said we are only going to war with Iraq because we need to control the Oil. Would those supporting the USA's current position on Iraq still back them? Or do you still believe that this is just the USA defending the rights of the IRaqi people, as it has done over the last twenty years, and deposing Saddam Hussien for threating the use all those WMD he has hidden under the sand?

But their stated position many times, is their desire to protect America and the U.K and others from the menace of the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear technoligies.
Their evidence points to inconsistancies in the Iraqi account of what they've done with what the UN did not destroy.
The taped conversations point to , "evacuating" not destroying any evidence.
And even today they still won't let U.N controled spy planes Verify anything, which points logically to suspicions.

I mean if Russia, Germany and France don't want regime change, like the Americans do , it's hardly co-incidence that they to have been making shapes with Sadams government looking for oil.
By extension those countries are prepared to tolerate, all the severe human rights abuses in Iraq ...not a very moral case against regime change.
mm

PunyHuman

You guys are looking for evidence? George W explains it all in Bushwhacked 2. Marvellous.

If this has already been posted, my apologies...

Go to www.warprecords.com and click on the little picture of Dubya in the bottom left corner. Big enough file over analogue but believe me it's worth it.

This was made by Chris Morris, the genius satirist behind the Day Today and Brasseye.

Hobart

Originally Posted by Man
But their stated position many times, is their desire to protect America and the U.K and others from the menace of the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear technoligies

I know Man. And I have reapeatly heard them re-emphaise this. But it should now be evident that this seems to be a flawed tactic. According to the weapons inspectors, both present and past, Iraq does not and did not have the capability to launch strikes on either the US or the UK or any part of Europe. In Fact the Scud missiles they had in the late 80's and early 90's were proven to be totally ineffective at delivering conventional warheads. Sadamm had the option of hitting Isreal with chemical agents then but did not. His main reason for this being that he would have lost the support of many Arab states had he used them. If fact I would say he was in a better position to use them then then he is now! There However that does not go on to answer my question. The Question being that if the US said it was going in for the Oil would it be as acceptable as the current facade they are putting on?

We, the Public, have been constantly told that evidence would be produced to prove that Sadamm had and does have WMD. We ere also told that he was a threat to the US and UK. AFAICS no credable evidence has been produced to the UN or the Public to prove this. We did not say hang-on give us the proof and then we will believe you. We were told that Iraq was part of the 'Axis of Evi' and were told that we would be given the proof. Now were being told to shut and stop asking and just believe us. If we look at what has happened since november it is obvious that at every turn we are been given a different message, and I paraphrase:

1) Nov 2002 (US/UK/UN) says let the WI back in or we will go to war). (Nov 2002) WI let back in

2) Dec 2002 (US/UK/UN) says give us a list of your weapons or we will bomb you. Iran produces and delivers documentation

3) Jan 2003 (Us/Uk/UN) says thia documentation is all lies tell us the truth or we will bomb you. Iran says we can't say it's lies because we would be accused of lying and get boomed. We can't say it's the truth or we will be accused of being liars and get boombed. Iraq says fcuk all really.

4) Jan/Feb 2003 (US/UK) says we now have evidence that they are lying and we will produce it at the UN. Iraq says go ahead we will be there.

5) Colin Powell produces a picture of a truck and a mound of dirt. He also shows us a drawing of the new MatchBox transformer truck and calls it a mobile chemical refineory. He translates a telephone call of 2 arabs talking about moving stuff and says there.Now. We told you so. UK produces report as fact and current intel, which just happens to contain the musings of a college kid from 12 - 13 years back and the US accept it. Iraq, and the rest of the world (mostly~), break their ****e laughing at it.

I accept your concerns, Hobart, but from what I can see,the Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors is only now improving and only slightly.
Why, only now, three months after, they first arrived, if they have nothing to hide?
Why are they ( according to Panorama last night ) frantically following the inspectors cavalcade around in an effort to warn instalations of an inspection? and why are they bugging their offices?
and again what have they to hide from U.N spyplanes?

Sadam's regime are not making it easy for themselves, in their case either.
That Regime would want to be actively re butting, Colin Powells presentation and the path to do that is clear, if they have nothing to hide.
The fact that they are humming and hawing is very suspicious indeed.
Jane Corbin interviewed the Head of Iraq's Chemical weapons research operation on last nights Panorama.
Of course there were minders present...but the interesting thing at the moment is that, that scientist is now *cough* missing ( according to last sundays Telagraph and Jane Corbin on gerry Ryan this morning ) and hasn't yet been interviewed by the weapons inspectors.

This is all highly suspect.

Regarding:

He translates a telephone call of 2 arabs talking about moving stuff and says there.

Very dangerous stuff though! and why were they moving it at all??

UK produces report as fact and current intel, which just happens to contain the musings of a college kid from 12 - 13 years back and the US accept it. Iraq, and the rest of the world (mostly~), break their ****e laughing at it.

Some may be laughing, but the fact remains that the person on whose thesis this was based, has stated that, it is a valid account of the situation as it is today.

2) Dec 2002 (US/UK/UN) says give us a list of your weapons or we will bomb you. Iran produces and delivers documentation

( I presume you meant Iraq )
Blix told the UNSC, what he thought of those documents, they were designed to keep,the inspectors busy, for a while.
Now i wonder why that would be?

Jan/Feb 2003 (US/UK) says we now have evidence that they are lying and we will produce it at the UN.

Those phonecalls were evidence of Iraq making sure things had been "evacuated"
Were the phone call recordings hoax??

Regarding the Oil by the way and,
to directly answer your question, if the U.S declared war on Iraq for the stated reason of wanting it's oil-of course , it would not have many allies,neither would Ireland if we did the same.
But that doesn't take from the job at hand, ie satisfying 1441.
mm

utopio

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm not saying that you should support the war, but I am saying that it seems a bit facetious to oppose the war because people will die, and then discard any issues about what regimes today's purchasing of oil is supporting.

In effect, you oppose an Iraqi war cause thousands would die, but you're saying that it would be okay if thousands are dying to obtain oil today, because its not a war, and you're not aware of it.

jc

I think i don't have the right to say "yes" to a war, because I can't know if everything Bush says is true. I am not the boss of the CIA or American president, so I don't have enough information to say a war would be right. Resulting I only have the possibility to say "no" to a war. And I think it isn't right to kill people for obtain oil, in every kind of way. Oil isn't important enough to let thousands of people die, not for me. I only meant that if I would know all of the things that are done to obtain oil, I couldn't sleep anymore.
Surely there are other possibilities, but war can't be one.

Hobart

Originally posted by Man
from what I can see,the Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors is only now improving and only slightly.

That seems to be the message coming from the UN. But I fail to see how they were being un-cooperative? Would this not be in vioation of 1441?

Why are they ( according to Panorama last night ) frantically following the inspectors cavalcade around in an effort to warn instalations of an inspection? and why are they bugging their offices?

Saw the program myself. And TBH I was slightly unnerved by the interview at the beginning of the Chief Wahtshername (responsible for the production of the chemical wewpons in the 80's and 90's). It was her deamanour and the presence of the Iraqi guards which unnerved me more than what she had to say. In relation to the following of the inspectors and bugging. I thick it would be very naive of the WI to expect that they would be able to travell all over the state of Iraq without the government keeping some tabs on them. They did not impede the WI in any way, AFAICS, and I would suspect that Sadamm has told them that he wants daily, if not hourly updates, and what they are doing and where they are going. Paranoia seems to be the ordder of the day there. And on pain of death if he does not know what, if anything, is found. I also believe that he (Sadamm) has to prepare himself for the eventuality of them find weapons such as the missiles that were found in Jan. However I do not believe the bugging/following of WI is an admission of the fact that they have anything to hide.

Some may be laughing, but the fact remains that the person on whose thesis this was based, has stated that, it is a valid account of the situation as it is today

I meant at the 'evidence' in its' total and not the fact that the thesis was based on facts from 12 years ago. However it is interesting that the UK dossier was presented as current evidence and not based, partially, on a thesis from 12 years ago! Why use this? Surely they have up to date intel? Or do they?

( I presume you meant Iraq )

I did.

Those phonecalls were evidence of Iraq making sure things had been "evacuated"

According to Colin Powell.

Regarding the Oil by the way and, to directly answer your question, if the U.S declared war on Iraq for the stated reason of wanting it's oil-of course , it would not have many allies

So if it is not about Oil how then is Iraq a threat to the US and UK?

Why are they ( according to Panorama last night ) frantically following the inspectors cavalcade around in an effort to warn instalations of an inspection? and why are they bugging their offices?

True. If America was ever to be inspected by the UN for hoarding weapons of Mass Destruction, i'm sure the US would be alot more efficient and have warned their bases beforehand. You're complaining that the Iraqi's are being this obvious about their concern about the weapon inspections? The fact that they're concerned, at least gives us the impression that the Iraqi administration, want to prevent this war............

What impression are the Bush administration giving, by constantly calling for attack?

So if it is not about Oil how then is Iraq a threat to the US and UK?

They are a threat merely by being in the Middle East & by being arabic.

In response to

Originally posted by Hobart
That seems to be the message coming from the UN. But I fail to see how they were being un-cooperative? Would this not be in vioation of 1441?

Hans Blix said they were being less than helpfull, he was scathing in that regard, I thought 1441 was all about co-operating with weapons inspectors, are you failing to agree with the head of the weapons inspectors?

However it is interesting that the UK dossier was presented as current evidence and not based, partially, on a thesis from 12 years ago! Why use this? Surely they have up to date intel? Or do they?

Where and who presented it as current evidence? All I said was to point out the author of a large part of whats in the famous dossier, believes it to be an accurate reflection of the situation today.
Thats not unreasonable for the UK to say either, without comprimising inteligence sources.
And when you say:

According to Colin Powell.

in response to me are you saying or implying that the taped phonecalls are a hoax?

So if it is not about Oil how then is Iraq a threat to the US and UK?

Well again, the U.S and U.K stated line, is prevent the pro liferation of nasty chemicals to mad men, I accept that, you don't thats fair enough.
* warning analogy coming...*
Some people are terrified of Rats, some aren't.
I'd just as soon stamp them out , if I suspect they are there, rather than risk Weils disease.
mm

Hobart

I thought 1441 was all about co-operating with weapons inspectors, are you failing to agree with the head of the weapons inspectors?

No I am not. But what I am saying is that if they were being un-cooperative is that not in violation of 1441. ANd if that was the case why were they not reported as being in violation?

Where and who presented it as current evidence?

I am not saying that Downing Street came out and said, last week, that this is evidence we have gathered and it is current. What I am saying is that they did not say that it was not current! Now we are dealing with peoples lifes here and to 'suggest' and I put that in commas for a reason, that Iraq is still a threat based on 'some' evidence from 12 years ago is a bit much. TBH they (the US and UK) patrol nearly 2/3rd's of the countryin the no-fly zone so current intel., if it exists, should not be that hard to come across. In fact it would suggest to me that if they were relying on a 'Thesis' from 12 years ago (I think it was 12 years ago) well then they have no current evidence rthat Iraq is still a threat!

Thats not unreasonable for the UK to say either, without comprimising inteligence sources

This is one statement I cannot understand? We are talking about sending hundreds of thousands of troops into battle. We are talking about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians and yet you want to protect so-called 'intelligence sources'. Why can they not give some sort of relevant evidence without compromising intelligence sources? I simply do not see the problem?

in response to me are you saying or implying that the taped phonecalls are a hoax?

No I am not. I do not know. But again we were told that there would be compelling evidence? We have no idea who these people were. When the phone call took place. USA/UK using dis-information? Heaven forbid. I would suspect if this was put in front of any court of law as 'compelling evidence' that it would be laughed out of court. After 4 months of trying is this really the best the USA can come up with??

Well again, the U.S and U.K stated line, is prevent the pro liferation of nasty chemicals to mad men

Where is the evidence? There is none. We were told that he had WMD's. Not 1(one) shred of evidence has backed this up. We are now told that the west does not want the 'proliferation' of 'chemical and biological weapons'. Where is the evidence that Sadamm would do this? There is none. Zero. But then again it's just convienent that the second biggest Oil reserve is located there and that the worlds biggest Oil user is lining up to put in his own man at the head.

Loomer

In relation to the taped converstations it so much as whether there a hoax or not. Its very easy to put whatever spin you want on a situation relative to the context that it appears in. The taped conversations were presented in such a way that we supposed to assume that they were the subject of nefarious actions. Its all about context. Fear is often used as a tool to control a populace or influence its opinion, and this was clearly the desired reaction of the presentation of evidence.

The fact remains the evidence presented held very little weight if it were in respect to convicting a criminal.

America have and continued to use a bullish approach to the whole affair. George Bush looked like a little child the other day in a speech stamping his feet because he is not getting his way.

Because of the broad lack of support in the drive for war, the Bush regime/propaganda-mill have diverted there focus slightly from the threat of Saddam to the non-compliance of Western allies. Not surprisingly France and Germany are at the receiving end of much American disdain. America however cannot afford to pressure the likes of Russia and China in this way.

It is their treatment of France/Germany that will hopefully take the steam out of the War machine that has been building and we can focus on more important matters like a peaceful solution to the situation in Iraq and on other fronts.

In addition let's hope we can be free of such banal statements as "Let's Roll" in relation to the projected killing and suffering of many.

Originally posted by Hobart
No I am not. But what I am saying is that if they were being un-cooperative is that not in violation of 1441. ANd if that was the case why were they not reported as being in violation?

Well I would have thought , that Hans Blix's last update to the UNSC, was a report to the UNSC regarding their lack of co-operation.Of course, the UNSC could have said right lets go to war then but they didn't, they awaited Colin Powells presentation and still await Hans Blix's next report on feb 14th.

Regarding, the comprimise of inteligence sources, It's usual, to infiltrate the enemy, become one of them and then destroy.
But given, the risk of wiping out all inteligence sources,with one getting caught, then I wouldn't blame any agency anywhere for being carefull.

We have no idea who these people were. When the phone call took place. USA/UK using dis-information? Heaven forbid. I would suspect if this was put in front of any court of law as 'compelling evidence' that it would be laughed out of court. After 4 months of trying is this really the best the USA can come up with??

If you are suggesting that Colin Powell fabricated, these taped conversations for to be put in front of the foreign ministers of the members of the UNSC, I find that impossible to believe.
Such an action would be so dangerous to their credibility as to be beyond belief.
If however someone could present me with convincing evidence that the U.S lied to the UNSC with these calls, then I will accept that, have you such evidence?
Untill such time as that is proven, I have to accept that part of Mr Powells presentation.

Where is the evidence? There is none. We were told that he had WMD's. Not 1(one) shred of evidence has backed this up. We are now told that the west does not want the 'proliferation' of 'chemical and biological weapons'. Where is the evidence that Sadamm would do this? There is none. Zero. But then again it's just convienent that the second biggest Oil reserve is located there and that the worlds biggest Oil user is lining up to put in his own man at the head.

Well, if you are so concerned that the U.S would get it's hands on the oil-then thats in Sadams gift really as he is the one who must comply with 1441 and fully co-operate with the Weapons inspectors.
Tony Blair Made a very valid point when on Newsnight, he asked what the world would have said if the west invaded Afghanistan to eliminate Al Q'ueda prior to 9-11-they would be outraged.
So he asked, should we ignore Sadam and leave all the weapons inspectors questions unanswered and by default risk that substances there should get into the wrong hands, or deal with the issue.

I cannot understand? We are talking about sending hundreds of thousands of troops into battle. We are talking about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians and yet you want to protect so-called 'intelligence sources'. Why can they not give some sort of relevant evidence without compromising intelligence sources? I simply do not see the problem?

Well thats always the way with sensitive inteligence, I'm afraid.
Even in our own land there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the risk of inteligence sources being comprimised and the consequences thereof-witness Northern Ireland.
Whats sadams problem with the U2 planes again I wonder?
For the record there is no need for a war, imho, just a cleansing of Iraq of all remaining chemical or biological agents, and obviously, proof that they have no nuclear programme.

On an aside but important note, I am disturbed by, what I've heard from Iraqi citizens living in Ireland regarding tens of thousands of Sadams own citizens who have been killed by his regime over the last couple of decades.
for those that believe this is entirely about oil,Have the Germans French , Russians and chinese any proposals for to put a stop to that level of abuse and murder.
Again I don't want a war and it disturbs me that, powerfull nations are taking sides on which is morally more correct,in this case to allow Sadam to continue with torture or the other moral dilemma - War.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Their evidence points to inconsistancies in the Iraqi account of what they've done with what the UN did not destroy.

It would be more correct to say that the evidence contains explanations from the Iraqi's about the discrepancies - explanations which the US (via the Weapons Inspectors) appear to be simply dismissing out of hand. Now, I accept that there is a requirement to be cautious, but when there is a hole in paperwork (which there will be in anything of as large a scale as this), the US/UN approach is immediately that the Iraqi's are clearly lying.

As an interesting counterpoint (which I think I've mentioned before), I'm pretty sure that the US is incapable of accounting for every gram of radioactive material to have been produced by its nuclear stations. Surely, if we use the same logic, such inaccuracies show that the US had a covert nuclear development program (parellel to their normal one) in breach of their being on board the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time? No? But this is the logic used against Iraq.

Yes - I know most people consider the US more trustworthy than Iraq, but my point is that inaccuracies do not automatically show duplicity to conceal something. They could just be inaccuracies. They should be investigated, but from a stance of "lets see what we can find out", not "you're guilty, you're lying, and unless you produce the real documents without inaccuracies, we're gonna invade".

The taped conversations point to , "evacuating" not destroying any evidence.

Agreed. However, this conversation (at the very least) was not dated, and we've already seen one situation where the US and UK are apparently quite happy to use information from a decade ago to bolster their current case.

It is probable that Iraq are trying to hide something. What they are most likely trying to hide is research documents from their nuclear program - not actual materials. Documents, after all, are the simplest things to copy and hide untraceably, whilst materials are far more problematic.

If this is the case, then yes - the Iraqi's are in material breach. However, is it a reason to go to war? Why - what will it accomplish? If we accept that this information is so easily hidden and of such significance - how do we prevent it from remaining in the hands of any "old guard" Iraqi resistance which may spring up after the war? If we cant - then what was the purpose of the war in the first place?

And even today they still won't let U.N controled spy planes Verify anything, which points logically to suspicions.

Yes and no. Iraq kicked the previous inspectors out for being riddled with intelligence community - something which was supported (I believe) by statements from some of the Inspectors at the time. Now, the same nations responsible for most of that spying are threatening war and asking for permission to fly spy planes over wherever they want.

Not only that, but they want to hold the Iraqi's responsible for the security of the U2 planes even when they are in UN-controlled airspace in the no-fly zones. Now honestly...is that a reasonable request? You might as well tell the Iraqi's that the plane was flying from the UK with in-flight re-fuelling, and that the Iraqi's would be responsible for it from the moment it took off from British soil.

I mean if Russia, Germany and France don't want regime change, like the Americans do , it's hardly co-incidence that they to have been making shapes with Sadams government looking for oil.

Thats about as solid an argument as the one claiming that the only reasons the US want to go into Iraq is oil.

Of course, if thats true about the US, then I think Russia et al are quite right in what they're doing.

On the other hand, if we're willing to accept that the US is doing this for non-commerical reasons, why is it so impossible to consider that those opposed to war may also have the same logic.

By extension those countries are prepared to tolerate, all the severe human rights abuses in Iraq ...not a very moral case against regime change.

And by that standard, all the other corrupt regimes which the US is happily allowing to continue on their merry way is pretty damning too. You know - small places like China where the US are tripping over their feet trying to sell them stuff.

If you're gonna set those standards, don't just cherry pick the country which happens to back up your point. if you look across the board, you'll quickly see that human rights abuses in and of themselves dont register very significantly on the "to do something serious about" list of any the major western powers.

jc

Loomer

Originally posted by Man
Well thats always the way with sensitive inteligence, I'm afraid.

To be quite frank, that is complete BS. The majority of snooping by America is done by the Sig-Int section of the NSA, these days mainly with satlites. Contrary to what you may believe the CIA is a shadow of its former Cold-War days self. The vast majority of intel the US has on Iraq would have been attained by the NSA electronically and not by CIA field-agents which have been actively discouraged for the last twenty years (Read "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford for more info).

So any suggestion by Powell or anyone else that withholding intelligence from inspectors and the world for the purpose of safeguarding sources is purely another tactic to pevert the peaceful resolution of this situation.

Loomer

Did you notice the name of Bush's "envoy". He is Zalmay Khalilzad who is a former consultant for Unocal. Unocal was looking to secure a pipeline through Afghanistan before 1998 and the US cruise missle attacks. A few months ago a Minister in the Kazia (also a former Unocal consultant) government annouced that Unocal is talking with them about a pipeling though Afghanistan again. Hmmmmmm???!!!!!?????

Originally posted by Greenfool
The absolute, grotesque pit of US government hypocrisy comes in a report in the new york times which says that the US government plans to allow Turkish soldiers to occupy the Kurdish region of Iraq. Since Turkey also has an appalling history of oppressing and persecuting its Kurdish population, (the Ilisu dam is an example) this development finally dispels the last remaining fiction that America cares about the Kurds. Apparently the Kurds are being sold down the river - again! - this time because America needed to trade something for permission to use Turkish air bases for the coming war.

So much for the long-standing lie that America would support an autonomous Kurdish territory. This is a classic example of being delivered from the frying-pan into the fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/europe/07TURK.html

Originally posted by bonkey
And by that standard, all the other corrupt regimes which the US is happily allowing to continue on their merry way is pretty damning too. You know - small places like China where the US are tripping over their feet trying to sell them stuff.

If you're gonna set those standards, don't just cherry pick the country which happens to back up your point. if you look across the board, you'll quickly see that human rights abuses in and of themselves dont register very significantly on the "to do something serious about" list of any the major western powers.

jc

Agreed, As the timing, of our posts clashed , I went on to say in my last post that all this troubles me to be honest.

this conversation (at the very least) was not dated, and we've already seen one situation where the US and UK are apparently quite happy to use information from a decade ago to bolster their current case.

Bonkey, Powell said in his presentation that one of the conversations took place on the 26th November 2002

Mr Powell said this conversation took place on 26 November 2002. An Iraqi colonel is asking a Republican Guard general what to do with a "modified vehicle" from the al-Kindi company if inspectors ask to see it.

Thats from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2732309.stm
I find it difficult to believe that, Powell would put a hoax in front of the UNSC, and it's suffecient to add fuel to my suspicions.
mm

Originally posted by Loomer
To be quite frank, that is complete BS. The majority of snooping by America is done by the Sig-Int section of the NSA, these days mainly with satlites. Contrary to what you may believe the CIA is a shadow of its former Cold-War days self. The vast majority of intel the US has on Iraq would have been attained by the NSA electronically and not by CIA field-agents which have been actively discouraged for the last twenty years (Read "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford for more info).

So any suggestion by Powell or anyone else that withholding intelligence from inspectors and the world for the purpose of safeguarding sources is purely another tactic to pevert the peaceful resolution of this situation.

I never suggested that sensitive inteligence is being with held from the weapons inspectors, just the general public.
but I suspect that the products of such inteligence might be passed on to the inspectors, not the sources-thats not BS, it's common sense.

How are you or I to know, if the U.S has any operatives in Iraq, one things for sure, we won't get names and adresses on that.
I may be in a version of custers last stand here:p but to be frank untill, I see something that quashes those intercepts, I still have been told that the Iraqi's are hiding something.
mm

Loomer

Well Man you must find comfort in that old adage "Ignorance is Bliss"

There are many like you who don't bother with anything but hackneyed mainstream journalism for your information so your in good company or company at least.

Originally posted by Loomer
Well Man you must find comfort in that old adage "Ignorance is Bliss"

There are many like you who don't bother with anything but hackneyed mainstream journalism for your information so your in good company or company at least.

no I take comfort in this boards adage or rule:

Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not.Never attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)

From: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46807
I presume you are saying then that I am ill informed on the Iraq question because, I have faith in the BBC:rolleyes:
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Bonkey, Powell said in his presentation that one of the conversations took place on the 26th November 2002

Sorry - my choice of wording let me down. My point is that there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation took place on teh date claimed...even the systems where this would be gleaned from could easily have their data retro-modified to supply any necessary date as "proof".

Yes, I admit its unlikely, but bear in mind that lack of corroborating documentation backing up the veracity of otherwise insubstantiated claims is the basic key point which the US is constantly using to point at the Iraqi's and shout "liar liar pants on fire".

Yet here, its enough to play a conversation and say "we intercepted this on such-and-such a date, in such-and-such a location".

Leaving that aside, though, lets assume it did happen and look at what was actually said :

An Iraqi colonel is asking a Republican Guard general what to do with a "modified vehicle" from the al-Kindi company if inspectors ask to see it.

Yeah...and al-Kindi is known to have, at some point in the past, worked on prohibited weapons systems, and therefore this must be dodgy.

On the other hand, the possibility of al-Kindi having done other work for the Iraqi military is staggeringly high - its rare that you'd get such a serious contract (WMD related) without a track record.

Also, the Iraqi's have a right to their military, even under the UN resolutions. As long as there's no WMDs in there they can have what they like...including stuff they may have designed themselves.

So, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that what was being discussed here was vehicles/materials/research relating to conventional warfare that the Iraqi's want to keep away from the inspectors, who already have shown a willingness to ask seemingly irrelevant questions. Lets not forget that the previous inspectors were riddled with Intelligence operatives.

Add all of that together, and there's an equally likely scenario that Iraq is trying to hide things it is allowed to hide.

Yes, there is enough to be suspicious - your theory is just as possible and probable as mine. However, suspicion is all it is - there are perfectly reasonable explanations possible as well.

The problem is that the US want to convince us that every single one of their allegations are true, whereas the reality is far more likely to be that some are true, many are exaggerated, and the rest are not true at all. The problem is that while the US remains dogged about proving every single claim, it increases massively the risk of ending up as the superpower who cried wolf.

If Iraq can disprove a few of these points before getting caught out on anything or war starting in the meantime, they are probably home and dry, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent they really are.

This is, IMHO, the main reason Bush is in a rush for war. While his protestations of Iraqi guilt at every corner have garnered him much public support, it is likely to all come crashing down if he actually has to allow the thing to drag on until something gets proven...because then its a question of what gets proven first - that some of the claims are true, or that some are definitely false.

jc

DiscoStu

Im sure the French and Germans are thinking along those lines to.

Their proposal for a UN led force to back up the inspectors and the blocking of nato defences for turkey are going to hold the whole process up for at least 2 weeks or so. Blair is not going to move before the eu emergency summit next week and squabbleing in the un over the new proposals are going to keep the us hands tied.

Two quite impressive political manuevers by "old europe" there.

Originally posted by DiscoStu
Two quite impressive political manuevers by "old europe" there.

Yeah, I agree but I don't like the pictures, I see on the News tonight though, of President Putin with chirac standing full square behind the French at a time when theres friction in NATO over Turkey.
I suspect, theres more than just oil to meet the eye in that support, in that a break up of NATO would be nice.
mm

DiscoStu

I suspect, theres more than just oil to meet the eye in that support, in that a break up of NATO would be nice.

quite possible. if the us decides to move before the dispute is settled you could most likley say goodbye to nato.

however a uk defense select committee didnt think that the us was that interested in nato since 9/11.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/914/91408.htm#n116

will they let it crumble?

Victor

From: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ei.html

Ireland
Area: land: 68,890 sq km
Railways: total: 3,314 km
broad gauge: 1,949 km 1.600-m gauge
narrow gauge: 1,365 km 0.914-m gauge (Bord na Móna)

Iraq
Area: land: 432,162 sq km
Railways: total: 2,339 km standard gauge: 2,339 km 1.435-m gauge

So Iraq has a similarly sized railway network to Irish Rail's, in a country 6 times the size. Much of it across desert. Why can't they point out these rail mounted laboratories to the inspectors?

Originally posted by Victor
From: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ei.html



So Iraq has a similarly sized railway network to Irish Rail's, in a country 6 times the size. Much of it across desert. Why can't they point out these rail mounted laboratories to the inspectors?

I don't know Victor and now that Iraq have agreed to allow the U2 planes in, I reckon, they'll be keeping the mobile labs, if they have any, in the sheds for the time being.

On a side note, while mindfull of the serious nature of the issues involved, for someone interested in world affairs and politics, today, this week and the coming weeks is/are very fascinating!
mm