bush and blair vindicated

Sparks

Man,

That *could* just mean, that they were quick enough to remove any evidence.

That wouldn't explain the faking of evidence by the US. Plus, you always leave traces of chemicals at sites used for any length of time - one specific site presented to the UNSC by Powell as a chemical weapons factory was hit by special forces early in the invasion - and lab tests revealed absolutly nothing there.
And the general opinion of the UNMOVIC inspectors as to the quality of the US intel was a well-known one prior to the invasion. "It's $hit" was the quote, as I recall.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

That wouldn't explain the faking of evidence by the US.

link please to this faking of evidence
mm

gandalf

Ammm most of what Colin Powell presented to the UN man

(Hang on lads Fox News say they've found a mobile chemical weapons lab now !!!!!! :rolleyes:)

Gandalf.

Sparks

Man,
As you wish:
VIENNA (Reuters) - A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said.

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded and based on deliberately fabricated evidence, according to an investigation by the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq.

davelerave

maybe i shoulda said they probably will be vindicated.for now ,they've got rid of an evil dictator at a cost of many innocent lives ,but they have a lot more to do yet to win the peace long-term in the middle east

Actually I have no problem with being skeptical about that "evidence" , just that it would be deliberately faked and presented to the security council as such.
It may well be the case that Mr Powell was reading too much into some of what he was presenting.
Time will tell.
mm

Sparks

Man,
Given Powell's record in relation to My Lai, Panama, Nicaragua and so forth, as well as the fact that he is meant to be a professional with the largest, most professional staff in the world, I cannot accept that it is an innocent mistake without some proof.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
As you wish:
VIENNA (Reuters) - A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said.

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded and based on deliberately fabricated evidence, according to an investigation by the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq.

Hmmm, I must confess I didn't know that, but then I didn't know this either

The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq. "It's something we're just beginning to look at," a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service.

Thats also from The WP 5 days later and indeed

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate," said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction.

mm

Sparks

Man,
I'm unsurprised that the FBI is now being asked to investigate - to do otherwise would be a tacit admission of complicity by the bush administration. Also, if the CIA evaluated the reports as forgerys, why did Powell present them to the UN?

And from the news:
Experts say U.S. `discovery' of nuclear materials in Iraq was breach of U.N.-monitored site
and
In harsh remarks published Wednesday, U.N. weapons chief Hans Blix roundly criticized Washington's decision to go to war in Iraq, and faulted U.S. intelligence for offering what he called bogus information about an alleged Iraqi weapons purchase from Niger.

*cough* Powell only mentioned in his speech to the UNSC:

Since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear programme have been focussed on acquiring the third and last component: suffecient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion. to make the fissile material he needs to develop an ability to enrich uranium.

He went on then to speak of factual information regarding centrefuges which the U.S had intercepted, which although,could have been used for conventional rockets, were of such a high spec as to in their opinion be suspicious.
Thats a perfectly natural suspicion given Sadams record in the area.

Now where is the evidence so far, or indeed the conviction that the U.S falsified the documents you talk about?
Because otherwise your original contention, that the U.S were faking evidence, which I questioned above is just an unsubstantiated allegation and not a matter of fact.

Also, if the CIA evaluated the reports as forgerys, why did Powell present them to the UN?

Well the article, I read said:

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate,"

and not that they were forgeries, perhaps the people to determine that was Dr Al Baredi, his organisation , being the authority on the subject, and indeed as you pointed out his people made that determination.
mm

Gordon

"This is a local shop for local people, you'll find no weapons of mass destruction here!"


"You're maiy laives now... deehv"

Sparks

Man,
The US evidence was presented to the UN and then found to be a crude forgery. Given the crudity of the forgery, and the proported expertise of the US intelligence community, it seems unlikely to be a simple mistake. That would be supported by Powell's past record, as well as that of most of the Bush administration.
So it's not unreasonable to suspect intentional deception.
Further, not only were the nuclear intelligence documents "inaccurate", so was the intel relating to the chemical and biological weapons programs.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
The US evidence was presented to the UN and then found to be a crude forgery. Given the crudity of the forgery, and the proported expertise of the US intelligence community, it seems unlikely to be a simple mistake. That would be supported by Powell's past record, as well as that of most of the Bush administration.
So it's not unreasonable to suspect intentional deception.
Further, not only were the nuclear intelligence documents "inaccurate", so was the intel relating to the chemical and biological weapons programs.

But what about the phone calls, they must have been forged too...it's obvious, when they included the blessings of Allah:rolleyes:
I'm not a Bush supporter politically, but he has pulled off operation Iraqi freedom fairly well, i'll join the people of Iraq, in saying well done regardless of what strokes were or were not pulled to bring it about.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Man,
Then you would have to support the IRA as well. Or is it only okay for the US to break international law and kill people to achieve a political end?

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Then you would have to support the IRA as well. Or is it only okay for the US to break international law and kill people to achieve a political end?

No.
One can support a country, which is different to supporting a terrorist organisation.
The U.S had the support of it's people for the action she took, the Provo's never had.
and we've been over the "illegality" ground already, nothing here has been declared illegal.
mm

seamus

Originally posted by Man
No.
One can support a country, which is different to supporting a terrorist organisation.
The U.S had the support of it's people for the action she took, the Provo's never had.
and we've been over the "illegality" ground already, nothing here has been declared illegal.
mm

The U.S. Government, like all good Governments, used half-truths and scare tactics to gain it's people's support for the war.

What was it? 50% of Americans believed Saddam had links with Al-Queda? Just goes to show the power of the U.S. propaganda machine.

The point here is that the U.S. declared "Saddam is lying. He has WMDs which he has not declared and is not actively disarming. We must invade Iraq and remove the regime in the name of peace and stability." 'Liberation of the Iraqi people' was only touted as a happy side-effect of such action, and never declared as an official objective (iirc).

As soon as the war starts, WMD are safely hidden from the agenda. What's their first objective? "SECURE THE OIL FIELDS, SIR!", 'to ensure the future economy of the Iraqi people'. 26(?) days on, and the only reference we hear to WMDs are Sky News talking about a 'possible' find of substances which 'may' have been used in WMDs.

Now, I have no problem with the liberation of the Iraqi people, and I don't believe the coalition will feck off and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. What I have a problem with is them marching in under false pretences. The reason they bypassed the UN was because they couldn't secure support for an invasion to remove WMDs. Liberation of the Iraqi people or installation of a democracy weren't given as reasons. So they went in, illegally, in a situation where, if they had said why they were actually attacking Iraq, they may have secured support from the UN and much much more of the world's population. IMO this war was to do with vengeance and economic back-scratching, not peace, stability and humanitarianism.

The war was started because of WMDs . None have been found. Its NOT ok to now go "Oh well, never mind, at least the Iraqis are liberated". That's neither democratic nor Christian, the two religions which Bush loves to push.

(Wow, a convoluted post by me on Politics, will wonders never cease? )

Sparks

I don't believe the coalition will feck off and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves.

The fact that they probably won't is the actual problem in the long term

And Man,
1) The Provos did have popular support in the early 70s. It still didn't make their actions right.
2) A government is not and can not be above either national or international law - otherwise there's not point in either.
3) The US has broken many aspects of the Geneva convention, the Hague Convention and the UN Charter in plain sight of the entire world. Would you like me to cite you some examples, or will you accept that they have?
4) The only reason that the US gets away with it is because they've got the guns. Nice lesson to show to every terrorist and dictator in this world - might makes right and sod the UN, democracy, diplomacy and the rule of law.
5) We have been over the illegality aspect and it's been agreed that they have acted illegally. Problem is the lack of a court whose decision on the matter could be enforced. Maybe it's time that got fixed.

Originally posted by seamus
The U.S. Government, like all good Governments, used half-truths and scare tactics to gain it's people's support for the war.

What was it? 50% of Americans believed Saddam had links with Al-Queda? Just goes to show the power of the U.S. propaganda machine.

No, people there on the whole were scared and shell shocked after 9-11, their government didn't have to put up much of a case to foster that.

Regarding what polls say 50% of Americans thought...
Well you'll get mis conceptions and ignorance in all societies.
If I took a walk down my local town and into some of the estates, and asked who the Taoiseach was, straight away, I'd get Bertie Ahern,
Tanáiste? : some wouldn't know.

Minister for justice, an awfull lot wouldn't know, thats a fact.

Indeed in this country, theres a gene in roughly 40% of the people that seems to make them vote Fianna Fáil come what may.

The important thing with the U.S public, is that they knew what their government was about to do and the majority agreed with it.
mm

Originally posted by Sparks
And Man,
1) The Provos did have popular support in the early 70s. It still didn't make their actions right.

The provo's never had a mandate from the people of this island.

2) A government is not and can not be above either national or international law - otherwise there's not point in either.

Well, when you have China,and Russia, the congo amongst others on the security council ( not exactly bastions of human rights ) then how can you up hold international law??
At one stage, you had the U.S, the U.K and France all offering "help" to smaller members of the U.N.SC if they voted the right way.
Now I'm sure we withnessed the most open episode of this in the weeks before the Iraq war, which leads me to wonder what sort of wheeler dealing goes on in issuess that are not as much in the worlds media.

3) The US has broken many aspects of the Geneva convention, the Hague Convention and the UN Charter in plain sight of the entire world. Would you like me to cite you some examples, or will you accept that they have?

Oh it's clear that they have, I don't have a problem with you telling me that. ( I did have a problem with you stating as fact that they had forged evidence as that would be an un proven allegation )
Indeed the latest, one that they have been accused of breaking, was not bringing law an order to the streets of Iraq.
*cough* two days after the fall of Baghdad and given that they didn't want to be seen as a replacement agressor for Sadam.
I note it's now the third day since the fall of Baghdad and large numbers of Baghdad police force have turned up in response to calls from the U.S to restore order.
Which leads me into:

5) We have been over the illegality aspect and it's been agreed that they have acted illegally. Problem is the lack of a court whose decision on the matter could be enforced. Maybe it's time that got fixed.

With regard to the U.N charter, the coalition will maintain that they went into Iraq legally based on existing U.N.S.C resolutions.
Their action cannot be said to be an illegal act solely on the basis of breaking the "thou shalt not invade unless attack" aspect of the charter, unless that body declares it so.
Now we are back to the in adequacies of the U.N again because the system as it stands at the moment is designed for a perfect world, where no permanent member of the U.N.S.C has an axe to grind or interests to protect that aren't in conflict with each others.
Thats the perfect world we'll be waiting a long time for methinks.
mm

Sparks

Man,

The provo's never had a mandate from the people of this island.

Some rereading of history required. They never had a mandate from all of the people, but for a short period of time they had localised but rather large pockets of support.

Well, when you have China,and Russia, the congo amongst others on the security council ( not exactly bastions of human rights ) then how can you up hold international law??

Because to do otherwise is madness.

I note it's now the third day since the fall of Baghdad and large numbers of Baghdad police force have turned up in response to calls from the U.S to restore order.

By which time the damage is done. Hospitals, UNICEF offices, the Baghdad archeological museum, all looted. Government offices destroyed, records destroyed. Now the task of running the country is going to be a damn sight harder.

With regard to the U.N charter, the coalition will maintain that they went into Iraq legally based on existing U.N.S.C resolutions.

Manson maintained his acts were justified as well, if I recall correctly.

Now we are back to the in adequacies of the U.N again because the system as it stands at the moment is designed for a perfect world, where no permanent member of the U.N.S.C has an axe to grind or interests to protect that aren't in conflict with each others.
Thats the perfect world we'll be waiting a long time for methinks.

Agreed

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Some rereading of history required. They never had a mandate from all of the people, but for a short period of time they had localised but rather large pockets of support.

They still have pockets of significant support, if you subtract tactical voting from Sinn Féin's vote count.
But I was answering your comparison between, what the U.S does and what the IRA have done.
In that one is a country whose Republican government has a mandate to govern, including going to war if it deems it necessary.
If a countrys people are suffeciently miffed, they can throw them out the next time.
No such sanction exists for the IRA/Sinn Féin.
Their electoral support was actually at one of it's lowest ebbs at the height of their bombing campaign.
Ironically, it was really only after the GFA that their support started to rocket.

Agreed on the rest.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I note it's now the third day since the fall of Baghdad and large numbers of Baghdad police force have turned up in response to calls from the U.S to restore order.

Is this the same police force that two days ago the US was saying it was not willing to utilise on the grounds that the police were very obviously assisting the Republican Guard by calling in positions of US troops for indirect-fire targetting purposes?

How have things changed so radically in two days that these people - who used to be the daily enforcers of the reign of oppression - are now being held up as a success story in terms of getting the looting under control?

Apparently, in two days, they have been converted from Saddam-supporting, populace-oppressing evildoers to a shining light in the salvation of Baghdad, and a triumph for the coalition in terms of bringing the lawlessness under control.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Apparently, in two days, they have been converted from Saddam-supporting, populace-oppressing evildoers to a shining light in the salvation of Baghdad, and a triumph for the coalition in terms of bringing the lawlessness under control.

jc

well, the term "shining light" is a bit extreme for them.
Yes they are being used,but now the Americans are there when they are being used.
It's not as if, they are going to re-open the torture chambers.
The locals know the wrong do-ers as opposed to the rank and file who may not have been.
In the new free Iraq, I'd expect the "evil do-ers" will probably be weeded out, if they haven't left for syria already that is.
It's a short term solution,untill a proper vetted force is set up.
mm

It's not as if, they are going to re-open the torture chambers

Its possible that they will on the grounds of searching "terrorists". Everyone has seen what they did after afghanistan, can you tell me in any certainty that the US won't do the same here?

Originally posted by klaz
Its possible that they will on the grounds of searching "terrorists". Everyone has seen what they did after afghanistan, can you tell me in any certainty that the US won't do the same here?

Hmmm, you're stretching it a bit there, I was talking torture for not saying Sadam " Allah be with you.." or for parking parking fines...
mm