The Iraq Thread 2

[bn880 5]

It looks to me like some good people are trying to show just how illegal that camp in Guantanamo might be, and they are simply being scooped up like it was under communist rule. Otherwise what's the point.

[ralphwiggum 6]

otherwise that they are carrying some infos that they are not supposed to hav ein the first place? if someone wants to expose how inhumane it is, they can find other means, not who is doing what.

[denoir 0]

My guess would be that this whole Wilson case is about CIA fighting back. I'm sure that they have realized by now that they will take the full blame for the non-existing WMD.

They have already been unfairly blamed for not preventing the WTC attacks and I don't think its something they want to go through again. Sure, Tenet is a wuss, but I'd be surprised if his submissive nature is representative of his entire organization.

Remember, it was CIA that requested the probe and that insisted on a full investigation. Objectivly this is rather odd as Wilson's wife was not an undercover operative, but a regular analyst.

[bn880 5]

otherwise that they are carrying some infos that they are not supposed to hav ein the first place? if someone wants to expose how inhumane it is, they can find other means, not who is doing what.

Nope, not if you really know how these things work in reality (not you, you as in them). You need solid data and information to try someone for war crimes or crimes against humanity. It's not enough to give some abstract information, it's enough when the ones doing the deeds rott in prison themselves.

EDIT: And I wonder what exactly they have that's so illegal. It's possible that they needed information which is dual purpose, but they only intended to reveal crimes. Doubt they are spies but who knows... (not)

[ralphwiggum 6]

Nope, not if you really know how these things work in reality (not you, you as in them).  You need solid data and information to try someone for war crimes or crimes against humanity.  It's not enough to give some abstract information, it's enough when the ones doing the deeds rott in prison themselves.  

so why does a classified info(no more now that it is out) on who is the interrogator is important and not what he did is useful? notice that there were no indications of what kind of other information he had other than who is there.

there is difference between who is there and what they did or did not do. just because i own a gun doesn't make me a criminal, it's what i do with that gun(robbery) that defines me as criminal.

so the info about interrogators do not mean that they are torturing prisoners.

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: And I wonder what exactly they have that's so illegal.  It's possible that they needed information which is dual purpose, but they only intended to reveal crimes.  Doubt they are spies but who knows... (not)

probably some info about names of interrogators? i wonder if any half-decent military organization would welcome their every detail being passed out to others.

who knows? even chevy chase and dan Akroyds were spies.

[theavonlady 2]

Blind man's bluff.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Blind man's bluff.

What an incredibly dumb claim to make. Yeah... Hussein faked the distribution of chemical weapons to Iraqi troops in an effort to deter an invasion... an invasion that hinged politically on the existence (edit: or perceived existence) of said weapons, mind you. Is this not making very much sense to anyone else?

[theavonlady 2]

Iraqi cops on the take.

Quote[/b] ]One protester, Yassin Khudier claimed he paid a $100 to the driver of the chief of the Facilities Protection Force in order to get a job.

[theavonlady 2]

Zinni-cysm.

[bn880 5]

Nope, not if you really know how these things work in reality (not you, you as in them). You need solid data and information to try someone for war crimes or crimes against humanity. It's not enough to give some abstract information, it's enough when the ones doing the deeds rott in prison themselves.

so why does a classified info(no more now that it is out) on who is the interrogator is important and not what he did is useful? notice that there were no indications of what kind of other information he had other than who is there.

there is difference between who is there and what they did or did not do. just because i own a gun doesn't make me a criminal, it's what i do with that gun(robbery) that defines me as criminal.

so the info about interrogators do not mean that they are torturing prisoners.

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: And I wonder what exactly they have that's so illegal. It's possible that they needed information which is dual purpose, but they only intended to reveal crimes. Doubt they are spies but who knows... (not)

probably some info about names of interrogators? i wonder if any half-decent military organization would welcome their every detail being passed out to others.

who knows? even chevy chase and dan Akroyds were spies.

So I was right it looks like, getting the names of the persons doing interrigations is hte first step. Maybe they are counting on their own testimony and on the testimony of the prisonners in the future to convict those accused. To accuse you need the names, best with pictures. What's so hard to understand here.?

[ralphwiggum 6]

So I was right it looks like, getting the names of the persons doing interrigations is hte first step.  Maybe they are counting on their own testimony and on the testimony of the prisonners in the future to convict those accused.  To accuse you need the names, best with pictures.     What's so hard to understand here.?

maybe you should read my analogy about guns and me again

just because the list is there does not make the interrogators war criminals. the relevance of the interrogation list is that it shows who are there NOT what they do.

you are assuming that interrogators are doing "war crimes" and the "spy with the list" is doing it for the favor of justice, which neither can be proven unless you can prove your assumptions to be correct.

how about this thought?

the list was obtained and was to be sent to some AQ sympathizers that could use the list to threaten the interrogators (who were acting in humane manner in terms of dealing with prisoners) and compromise well being of the family, through kidnapping and extortion of the interrogator's family?

in shorter words, you are assuming that

1. the interrogators are war criminals

2. the list obtained was to expose that and bring justice

but can you read through the "spy"'s minds and tell with 100% assurance that the list was not going to be used in another way?

also, you are not analyzing the problem. "war crimes" argument can only suceed if you can PROVE that there were such actions. getting a list of interrogators DONOT mean those interrogators were conducting "war crimes". so you cannot say the list proves that there is a "war crime"

[bn880 5]

Oh no I'm not assuming the interrogators are automatically war criminals etc, it's just the way it goes, you can not automatically believe these guys were planning to cause harm to "America", they may have been doing it because of something bad they witnessed or know about the camp.

So, when you graduating from that Bovine U?

Does it not for a second strike you as strange, that 3 people working in the freaking holy camp of earh were trying to spy? I mean how would they get there in the first place, get cleared etc.

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's discuss this in a new thread

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh my god!

We have new evidence.

WMD smuggling

[theavonlady 2]

Well, no joke, there's an unusual news headline right now at Debka:

Quote[/b] ]Kuwait claims to have foiled attempt to smuggle $60m worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to a European country. Al-Siyassah adds smugglers were under surveillance and arrested “in due time†and arms will be turned over to an FBI agent.

Wonder what this is about?

[SgtBarnes 0]

60 million dollars worth? I didn't realise these things had prices. Perhaps they're homedespot valuations  

[Pukko 0]

Annan seems to continiue standing up while others bend over for the Bush administration:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....3549550

Quote[/b] ]U.N.'s Annan Criticizes U.S. Draft Resolution on Iraq

Thu October 2, 2003 03:54 PM ET

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan took the unusual step on Thursday of criticizing the new U.S.-draft resolution on Iraq because it did not hand over power to Iraqis quickly enough.

The United States has revised its U.N. Security Council proposals that aim for a step-by step transfer of some power to Iraqis but give no timetable for the end of the U.S.-led occupation. The U.N. role is enhanced but not pivotal.

"We will have to determine whether it is a radical change from the past, or what it is," Annan told reporters. "Obviously it's not going in the direction I had recommended."

The United States wants a transfer of power only after a constitution and elections have taken place. But Annan advocated a provisional Iraqi government taking power before a constitution and elections were conducted, as in Afghanistan.

"Obviously that is not what is in the draft," Annan said.

Russia, France, Germany and other Security Council members held similar positions, arguing that a symbolic end to the occupation was needed to stabilize the volatile country.

France's ambassador, Jean-Marc Sabliere, told council members at closed consultations the new text "does not meet our expectations," diplomats reported.

No Security Council member has threatened to veto the resolution but France has said it might abstain. Negotiations continue on Monday.

Annan, after a lunch with Security Council members, said handing power over more quickly "may change the dynamics on the ground in terms of the security situation and send a signal to the Iraqi community and to the region."

"That doesn't mean that the international community walks away, " Annan said. "...But you get rid of the idea that it is an occupation."

After the Aug. 19 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed 22 people, Annan said he wanted a radical approach that would make it safe for U.N. staff to return. Only about 30 foreign U.N. staff out of more than 600 are still in Iraq.

MAIN PURPOSE

The main purpose of the new resolution, as in earlier drafts, is to transform the military operation into a U.N.-authorized multinational force under American command.

This provision is aimed at attracting contributions from nations wary of sending soldiers as part of an occupation force, although volunteers appear to be scarce.

In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the resolution was not "an effort on our part to hang on for as long as we can."

"But I think it's a bit naive to suggest that any time in the next couple of weeks or months, you can simply say: 'here are 25 people, they seem to be getting along, let's give them responsibility for the country,"' Powell said.

"We have to do it in a careful, responsible way in order to make sure we do not leave a failed state behind," he said.

The new resolution would ask the United Nations to assist the U.S.-appointed 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, in cooperation with the occupation authorities, in preparing a constitution and holding elections.

To meet some objections, the text speaks of the "temporary nature" of the U.S.-led occupation and says the administration of Iraq will be "progressively undertaken by the evolving structures of the Iraqi interim administration."

But Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergei Lavrov advocated the United Nations setting a timetable by a specific date for a route toward full sovereignty.

"We believe that at this stage we should give the United Nations the leading role in the political process," he said.

Maybe there still is some hope in avoiding an all TBA resolution?

[denoir 0]

So, what went wrong in Iraq?

Long, but excellent TIME article about the post-war troubles in Iraq and their pre-war reasons. It's really worth to read.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Why we have to remove The Bush Administration (TBA) and The Blair Administration (TBA2) Unless the WMD is found

Well we have reached the spot september has passed and no WMD has been found.

Quote[/b] ]Let me reiterate

If the US and UK administrations don't come up with the proof of WMD.

It does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour)

Or were stupid (criminal neglegence)

Both are resignation matters in a true democracy.

If they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them

by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US

otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

I feel the adminstrations have until the end of September to come up with proof of WMD or their legitimacy as administrations is lost.

I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitamacy if they atempt to remain in power without finding the WMD. So we will have to lose these lame duck administrations in that case.  It is a cheaper option than having them continue on unable to govern.

Allready the UK government has had to spend months of adminstration time and money explaining its actions with regard to the whistle blower Dr David Kelly and its PR department has wasted more doing a hatchet job on the reporter Andrew Gilligan. All for what to say it did not lie when it said the Iraqis had WMD that could be fired in 45 minutes (it was refering to WW1 style Gas shells that it could fire maybe 25 miles) but it left everyone with the impression this was WMD that could be fired on UK bases in Cyprus.

At the very least Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the adminstrations not US and UK tax payers. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an adminstration that fails to come up with proof of WMD have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before I pay for it.

We then come to the matter of investigating a possable war crime this would be for the future Iraqi government or better a referendum of the Iraqis to decide. It may well be that such a government decides that the removal of Sadam was a worth while venture.

They have to pull their fingers out and find that WMD to stand a chance of staying in power and prevent our taxpayers from having to cough up for their (mistakes or lie) does not matter which.

but those of you who are more observant may notice that I did not actualy give a reason other than honour for TBA and TBA2 to be removed, re-read it if you dont believe me. Oh I said about the lame duck effects and the economic consequences, but what the heck; why would I be bothered about a government dishonoured, or frozen out of policy making by the need for its actions to be investigated. The 2 pence on tax or lost to work on the public good bugs me but it is only money and a bit more local poverty.

No the most basic reason for having to get rid of TBA and TBA2 is the:

Boy who Cried wolf effect

Neither of those administrations can effectivley play the trump card of "trust us we are your elected leaders" when it comes to defence again.

THE most important power of a leader is that they command in war but consider TBA and TBA2 in these circumstances.

They come to you with secret information that a nation is a threat to the world. They even provide you with a dossier on it.

They ask to go to war.

Do you say yes?

Or do you blink and say we need more info?

I know I dont have to ask you to be truthfull with yourselves because your and your families lives depend on it.

Now ask yourself would TBA and TBA2 then get a majority vote in their own country?

Perhaps now you understand why North Korea anounced its Nuclear Weapons program.

Kind Regards walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hell this is a good way of presenting it!  

See yourself!

I am realy surprised. So many soldiers died because of rocket proppelled grenades...and many many simply died overnight....not waking up anymore (what is that about???). Then this huge amount of car accidents....Any comments?

And then: Pfc. Mack died after jumping into the Euphrates  river and did not resurface?

And what is special tactics squadron?

[ralphwiggum 6]

I am realy surprised. So many soldiers died because of rocket proppelled grenades...and many many simply died overnight....not waking up anymore (what is that about???). Then this huge amount of car accidents....Any comments?

And then: Pfc. Mack died after jumping into the Euphrates  river and did not resurface?

most attacks on convoy in the beginning of post-major war were done with RPGs, now it seems to be moving to explosives. and there were some sort of pnuemonia problem a few months ago.

maybe he doesn't know how to swim or got some sudden physical ailment kick in?

anyways,

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/06/sprj.nitop.oversight.reut/index.html

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The White House has demanded a shakeup of the oversight of U.S. efforts to suppress unrest in Iraq and Afghanistan, The New York Times reported on Monday, citing senior administration officials.

The reform includes a new "Iraq Stabilization Group," to be run by national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the newspaper said.

The creation of the group appears to place more responsibility and control with Rice and the White House as U.S. soldiers remain under attack in Iraq and the Taliban militias that formerly ruled Afghanistan appear to be reorganizing, the paper said.

Rice describes the reorganization in a confidential memorandum sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, on Thursday, according to the Times.

Rice told the newspaper that she wrote the note together with Vice President Dick Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld after talks she held with Bush in late August.

The memo -- which outlines working groups to coordinate antiterrorism efforts, economic development, political affairs in Iraq and the creation of clearer messages to the media -- is "a recognition by everyone that we are in a different phase now," Rice told the Times in an interview on Sunday.

The working groups are to be run by four of Rice's deputies, a signal that the White House will have more say in trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, said the Times, adding that senior White House officials denied that interpretation.

Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism for his handling of the postwar turmoil, supports the reorganization, the daily said.

Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told the paper that the defense secretary was "aware of the new approach." The spokesman also told the Times that Rumsfeld's relationship with L. Paul Bremer, who heads the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, "remains unchanged."

Rumsfeld...the jackass of the centruy.

anyways, there was this hilarious incident regarding Polich troops.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/Famulus....=EUROPE

Quote[/b] ]Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defence Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Friday.

France strongly denied having sold any such missiles to Iraq for nearly two decades, and said it was impossible that its newest missiles should turn up in Iraq.

but then,

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....3558044

Quote[/b] ]WARSAW/ROME (Reuters) - Poland apologized to France on Saturday for claiming that its troops had found advanced French-made missiles in Iraq that had been produced this year.

The report sparked strong criticism from French President Jacques Chirac, who called it wrong and drawn up without proper checks.

However, neither Polish nor French authorities denied that the Roland-type anti-aircraft weapons were discovered near the Iraqi town of Hilla in a zone controlled by the Polish-led military force.

"Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski expresses regret concerning the information on the alleged date of the production of these missiles," the ministry said in a statement, adding that a investigation had been ordered.

The Polish Defense Ministry said on Friday that Polish troops in Iraq had discovered four French-made Roland missiles, which are part of short-range air defense systems in many countries including France and Germany.

Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak told Reuters the missiles were manufactured in 2003, but the French Foreign Ministry promptly denied that, saying production of the most modern Roland 3 rocket ended in 1993.

[Major Fubar 0]

@Walker - nice post. But didn't you hear? It was never about WMD, it was about freeing the poor huddled masses of Iraq from that convenient boogeyman Saddam. That whole WMD thing was just your imagination. Or at least, that's what the revisionist historians in US/UK/Australian politics would have us believe.

[Acecombat 0]

Well i must say that were living in a time where i guess people need humour to keep themselves entertained .... i mean BUSH and Rumsfeld f@** up a country and post tainted lies and the world laughs it off....wow..

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I heard on the radio this morning that the PENTAGON was selling a lot of material that could be used for B-weapons production over the internet without background checking the buyer's

ARGH

[Acecombat 0]

I heard on the radio this morning that the PENTAGON was selling a lot of material that could be used for B-weapons production over the internet without background checking the buyer's

ARGH  

Must be covert deals with Israel i'll say ...

But if it isnt then i havent seen a bigger fool then these buearucrats in Brainwashington D.C.

OR maybe they could be pseudco deals trying to capture buyers and following them to the bigger fish trying to find out where it all ends... maybe JUST MAYBE