The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

Yes, I especially like this part:

Quote[/b] ]Dr. ElBaradei talked about the aluminum tubes that Iraq has tried to acquire over the years. But we also know that notwithstanding the report today, that there is new information that is available to us and I believe available to the IAEA about a European country where Iraq was found shopping for these kinds of tubes.

And that country has provided information to us, to IAEA that the material properties and manufacturing tolerances required by Iraq are more exact by a factor of 50 percent or more than those usually specified for rocket motor casings. Its experts concluded that the tolerances and specifications Iraq was seeking cannot be justified for unguided rockets. And I'm very pleased that we will keep this issue open.

Yes, it's the infamous aluminium tubes that every nuclear expert (both US, UN and IAEA) had agreed had no use whatsoever for nuclear applications.

Good thing Powell knew better than the top nuclear scientists    

edit: US forces hit in northern Iraq. Two dead. That makes it three the last 24 hours.

Also: BBC says Kelly was weapons source

What I don't get is some of the criticism directed at the BBC. Obviously Kelly did not like the attention he got from being pointed out as the source, so I can't see any other conclusion than that the BBC made the right decision and protected him as a source.

[-TU--33ker 0]

That's so sad!

If the head of an European country (ok, maybe not in Italy ) would lie to his people like bush did and they find out about it, this person would have been kicked out ouf the governement immediately.

[Badgerboy 0]

When only 50% of the population actually vote, I'm not surprised. Thats half the population who don't seem to give a fuck about what their President is up to.

[denoir 0]

Bush was spotted very early for what he is. Blair on the other hand is a much more dangerous animal. He is very likable, eloquent and projects an image of compassion and understanding. As a matter of fact, he is just as guilty as Bush. And this Kelly incident showed that he and his associates are not different than any other politicians. His image, his words are difficult to associate to his actual actions, which makes him in my eyes far worse than Bush.

He convinced the British to give support for the war by appealing to humanitarian values and to do "what is right". His main argument was "Trust me, I know this has to be done. I understand your concerns but we have to act now".

He was saying that while at the same time he was directly lying about the WMD case. He asked for trust while at the same time decieving. That makes him far more dangerous in my eyes than a trained chimpanzee like Bush. The influential hawks in the Bush administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice...) never hid their agenda. They made it very clear that they wanted a war, no matter what the cost. It was no surprise that they would select evidence that supported their cause and ignore the evidence that didn't. I would have expected no less from them.

btw. About Kelly, I'm starting to understand the BBC controversy. You see in Sweden journalists have the constitutional right to protect their sources. The sources themselves can't be interrogated or forced to testify against their will. I just found out that the UK has no such laws so it is a more unclear matter if BBC had the right or not to protect its sources.

Very interesting how this BBC<->Blair cabinet row emerged though, especially since the BBC was very pro-war during the prelude of the war and the war itself.

[Badgerboy 0]

Denoir, in a recent poll it was revealed that US citizens prefered Blair (Who came first) to Bush (Who came second) as their favourite leader!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Very interesting how this BBC<->Blair cabinet row emerged though, especially since the BBC was very pro-war during the prelude of the war and the war itself.

BBC was pro-war

No, you got that completely wrong. The BBC was pro-British troups, as any newspaper should be. Regarding the political stance, BBC was actually in the middle, leaning towards against war though.

The papers that were pro-war are the tabloids owned by that wanker Murdoch (Sun, Mirror etc.) and other rubbish papers (News of the World).

Newspapers that were against the war were the Independent and the Guardian and the Private Eye.

[denoir 0]

The Guardian and the Observer were anti war. BBC was compared to other European media indeed pro-war. Even the most conservative media here in Sweden, that declared themselves as pro-war was less so than the BBC. Indeed, the tabloids were more pro-war than BBC, but they don't count as real media. Nobody in a right state of mind takes them seriously.

BBC made a sharp turn about mid May, when they started questioning the success of the war. This was especially visible in their TV Broadcasts where their segments of "Happy Iraqi thanking coallition troops for liberating them"-themes to "US controlled areas suck. UK controlled areas rule" -themes and finally to the point of "Everything sucks" -theme.

Note that this was before the WMD row. Then they got into a fight with the government, and - well, you know the rest.

This change is also evident by the outrage from the government's side that when what used to be their little propaganda outlet turned against them.

[Crazysheep 1]

Indeed, the tabloids were more pro-war than BBC, but they don't count as real media. Nobody in a right state of mind takes them seriously.

Would you bet on that? Believe me, some people are veeeeeery stupid.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Nobody in a right state of mind takes them seriously.

Just 2/3 of the British population

Interesting point of view though, I only read British and German sources during the war, the general feeling I got was that British sources were supportive of their troups and mostly pro-war too, whilst the German sources tried to discredit the war effort a bit too hard.

[denoir 0]

Nobody in a right state of mind takes them seriously.

Just 2/3 of the British population

Who said that I consider them to be in a right state of mind? j/k

---

Gilligan issues statement over Kelly tragedy

This is interesting:

Quote[/b] ]"Entirely separately from my meeting with him, Dr Kelly expressed very similar concerns about Downing Street interpretation of intelligence in the dossier and the unreliability of the 45-minute point to Newsnight.

"These reports have never been questioned by Downing Street.

So why are they after BBC's ass then?

[Crazysheep 1]

Why are they after BBCs ass? Well, my friend has a theory but I'm not too sure. It's this; they killed Kelly, and make it seem as if the BBC was responsible for driving him over the edge. Then, they have a competence inquiry and then put it under government control. Hey presto, they have their propaganda outlet back again.

[denoir 0]

If anything, judging from the media response, the government is blamed for his death. They forced him into the spot-light, not BBC. On the contrary, BBC insisted on protecting him and not reveal him as a source.

--

On Iraq, one interesting thing that caught my eye in this newsweek article.

Quote[/b] ] Events on the ground in Iraq will create the context for the presidential election. Bush is trying to muster international support. Even the loyal British are down to only 14,000 troops in Iraq, a fraction of what’s needed. Some 10 countries have offered modest help; another 60 turned down Bush, refusing assistance without a clear U.N. mandate. Word from the battlefield is not optimistic. “I think we’re in trouble,†says a former ambassador to the region. “What I hear from my military contacts is that this is going to break our Army.â€

It's good to see that most countries stick to their principles. External help will come only with a UN mandate and that will only happen if UN is given full control over the political and economical reconstruction. I think that Blair would welcome it. It would however be Bush's worst nightmare. He spent very much time trying to discredit the UN so now crawling back begging for help won't be looking good. Also I can imagine that there is a very strong lobby that supported Bush in his war-quest as exchange for a piece of the delicious crude Iraq cake. Giving economic control to the UN would probably not be very populse. Well, I suppose they are not very happy now as is, considering that Iraq's infrastructure must be rebuilt before the country can be properly exploited.

[FSPilot 0]

Wasn't the BBC taken off of royal navy ships because it was too anti-war?

[denoir 0]

Not to my knowledge. I would be very surprised as they were extremely supportive of the troops during the war itself. I actually stopped watching BBC for a while there because it was more like WW2 war propaganda than serious journalism.

[FSPilot 0]

Really? I distinctly remember the royal navy stopping showing BBC news on their ships because they just kept reporting casualties.

[denoir 0]

I did a search and this is what I found:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4644421,00.html

Quote[/b] ]BBC hits back at Ark Royal reports

Jason Deans

Wednesday April 9, 2003

The Guardian

The BBC has dismissed claims that its news channel, News 24, has been banned from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier in the Gulf because the crew felt it was too pro-Iraqi.

News 24 was available aboard HMS Ark Royal for an 80-day exclusive period, then the crew sampled rival channel Sky News but had now gone back to the BBC service, according to a BBC spokesman.

"We think it is great that they have this choice. They apparently sampled Sky for a while and have now returned to News 24," he said.

"It is important that everyone has a choice of rolling news, and we are pleased to hear they are back with News 24 with its comprehensive and impartial coverage of the conflict," the BBC spokesman said.

The initial story that News 24 had been banned from the Ark Royal was filed as a pooled report by journalist Richard Hargreaves, who works for the ship's home port paper, the Portsmouth News.

Rolling news is beamed into the warship, as well as two entertainment channels, as part of the navy's efforts to improve creature comforts.

Sailors appreciate being more in touch with home and world events, but officers were reportedly angry at the BBC's coverage of the war to date.

A BBC correspondent has been on board the ship and the crew was said to have no gripe with his reports.

But they were said to be particularly incensed by comments BBC presenters and commentators made about the carrier's Sea King helicopter tragedy a fortnight ago, when it was suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven people.

[FSPilot 0]

Ah, ok, that must of been it then.

I can't blame the sailors. I got pissed off when some news show did a report on a sleeping pilot. Apparently someone brought a video camera on a flight (prohibited under CFR §91.21) and taped a pilot sleeping at the controls. Of course they didn't tape the co-pilot flying the airplane (making it perfectly legal and a common practice in airlines), but they still decided to make a story about it.

I guess they don't think the airlines have had enough economic trouble, they have to broadcast BS stories about them too.

[Major Fubar 0]

Not to my knowledge. I would be very surprised as they were extremely supportive of the troops during the war itself. I actually stopped watching BBC for a while there because it was more like WW2 war propaganda than serious journalism.  

I have to agree with you there - I get BBC on my cable package, and I found it virtually as pro-war and pro-US as CNN or any of the other US news stations I get...

[denoir 0]

I can imagine that the conservatives in the UK are having a field day. Since they are pro-war and anti-Blair, the natural poitical process of things has killed two birds with one stone for them. They got the war they wanted and Blair is free-falling.

[murkyfox 0]

I just read that the American general is going to form an armed militia from iraqis. What we should do instead is joint police training using police squads and tactics from america to teach the new iraqi police on how to keep the peace instead of helping to form a militia. I see that as telling them that they should use a militia to keep the peace instead of using their police to keep civil order like we do. We're holding them to a lower standard. We should offer joint police training instead. You don't arm the country you just liberated because even Saddam's guy may have punched and pissed on a few people, the ones that never got hit are like, "you bombed our country, our buildings, its trashy, the power is out, bridges, banks looted, thats your fault." rather than, "yay you liberated us". It's the people with that opinion who might get their hands on the weapons and thats not what we want. I think we should be training their police forces using our police tactics instead of helping them to form a military state. That's just taking them and making them a military state by training them to keep order using military. I also think that giving them weapons may lead them to use them against us. Just like Afghanistan. If we redistribute what we took from their soldiers to their police and train their police everything should be fine. I understand some of you ignorant boys will jump on the side of the general without forming your own opinion though because you have a blind respect for authority, men in the military, adults, whatever, and have faith in your countrymen. I don't have respect or faith in any man on this earth so I form my own opinions rather than let my easiness lead to my own destruction. Even Jesus taught not to be a respecter of persons or to have faith in man but in a higher power have respect and faith in because man will fail you. You can't be so relaxed on peoples judgement like, "oh i trust jim, he wouldn't do that." because you turn around and jim might blow you away or something like that. That's why you can't respect or have faith in everyone to act on their own. Responsibility takes time and arming these civillians instead of their police is not a good option after they've been under a regime. I see another terrorist unit forming from this. I hope not. I hope we don't even arm them. I hope we do police training for them instead. I ABOVE ALL BELIEVE THOUGH that you should never arm a country who doesn't have firm GUN CONTROL LAWS or a strong police unit to keep things in order in case those weapons get out.

[denoir 0]

I agree. Forming a US-loyal Iraqi military at this point could have really nasty consequences. Just look at the current attacks directed at the collaborators that work with the coalition forces. The Iraqi people must be ready for it and accept it, otherwise the risk for a civil war is imminent.

[Schoeler 0]

The thinking behind it is that while Iraq is in a transitional state from chaos to viability, a traditional police force is simply overmatched. At the same time, the U.S, can see that American presence in the towns is breeding resentment and fueling the reisistance movement. The goal is to train an Iraqi force to take over the U.S. peacekeeping duties. In this way, if the resistance kills them or targets them, they will be targeting Iraqis, and thus losing support in the local populace, which, frankly just wants a return to normalcy right now. The timing is critical, if this can be accomplished while most of the Iraqi population still desires peace, and for the U.S. to remain long enough to restore order, the resistance could be crushed through peaceful means. I think this is the sort of thing that should have been done much sooner. Train the Iraqis, and let them take over restoring their nation. Just give them money and training and logistical support. The Iraqis know best how to handle their own people and problems peculiar to their culture and society.

[denoir 0]

The flaw of that reasoning is that you have no Iraqis today who could be said that they truly represent the Iraqi people. Arming the pro-US factions will only fuel the resistance more.

That's peace keeping 101. That's why peace keeping forces are always external. You never, ever arm the locals and expect them to do the job. If you want an example of a spectacular failure of that principle, look at Afghanistan today. The Northern Alliance was armed and given the responsibility and authority of rebuilding the country. Afghanistan is currently in a worse shape than it has been for over 20 years.

To ensure a successful process you have to:

1) Rebuild the infrastructure of the country

2) Remove all weapons floating around

3) Initiate a political process and set up a local government that is both democratic and protective of all minorities in the country

First after that the new government can start thinking about a military force of its own. It should be coordinated with the withdrawal of the peace keeping force.

Local police forces should also not be used for any prupose beyond trafic control.

Peace keeping is a serious comittment. It requires man power, time and money. The coalition forces have now that responsibility. Backing away from it and trying to delegate that responsibility to people who are both unable to do it and have an agenda of their own will ultimately result in the failure of making Iraq a normal country.

In Iraq you have four powerful factions fighting for their agendas. You have the Sh'ia, the Sunni, the Kurds and the Saddam loyalists. Ironically enough the Saddam loyalists are the ones that come closest to sharing the same vision of a future Iraq as the US has. They want to keep it in one piece while the others want to tear it apart. The peaceful co-existance of the three other groups was artificial and enforced by Saddam. Now that factor is gone and every faction wants to rip Iraq apart while getting as a big piece of it as possible. Instead of Saddam the external force is needed to hold the country together. Once the political and economical infrastructure has been built - an infrastructure that's based on the cooperation between the separate factions - then you can start building a police force, military and all other instutions that are supposed to represent the entire Iraqi population, regardless of which faction they belong to.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Would ripping Iraq apart be such a bad idea though? Yes, Turkey would not be happy about an independent Kurdistan on their borders, but what about the others? The Sunnis would get support from Iran, the Shias would get support from Jordan and Syria and the Saddam loyalists could be the happy US puppet. Thus you would have something like a cold war situation, but nothing would happen really.

Thus you remove the potential danger of civil war as all nations will be busy trying to rebuild infrastructure. If you manage to disarm them before you rip them apart the chance for war is lowered too.

[denoir 0]

Dividing Iraq is not an option from US point of view. Why? Because the Sh'ias would go off joining Iran. The Kurds would get much more resources to continue their terrorist activities.

Not to mention that having to negotiate oil deals from three countries that don't like you is worse than negotiating oil deals from one country that has a friendly government.