The Iraq thread 3

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Not to discount that if it is indeed true, but the Washington Times is generally understood to be more or less a quasi-mainstream conservative rag here in America. Usually it makes up part of the conservative "echo chamber" that became so infamous during the Clinton years- fringe publications would pick up a questionable story, then slightly more respectable publications would, and so on and so forth until actual mainstream (and supposedly liberal-biased) publications would be "forced" to pick up a story. In general though, I would classify the Washington Times as being about as unbiased and reliable as the New York Post

[Acecombat 0]

how about checking image size?

http://212.43.196.62/pix/pix_rs/gouvernement_iraq.jpg

[denoir 0]

@ Feb. 05 2004,01:01 )]Not to discount that if it is indeed true, but the Washington Times is generally understood to be more or less a quasi-mainstream conservative rag here in America. Usually it makes up part of the conservative "echo chamber" that became so infamous during the Clinton years- fringe publications would pick up a questionable story, then slightly more respectable publications would, and so on and so forth until actual mainstream (and supposedly liberal-biased) publications would be "forced" to pick up a story. In general though, I would classify the Washington Times as being about as unbiased and reliable as the New York Post

No kidding. And this serves quite well as a marker for the reliabilty. Compare the WT Article with the one posed on the first page of this thread. Notice the difference?

The original claims written by a notoriously unreliable Iraqi newspaper newspaper called "Al-Mada" were that they found a list of 240 non-Iraqi citizens that were bribed in oil by Saddam. On the list were a couple of former French government officials and businessmen. Notice the "former". So the title " Saddam bribed Chirac" and in the text "..used oil to bribe top French officials.." are not just skewed interpretations but direct and straight lies.

Now we come to the good part. According to Al-Mada the list also contained names of former American State Department officials, a British member of parliament and sevral US businessmen. So an equally correct article would be:

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Bush and Blair

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top US and British officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

I am always a bit cynical of politicians and so I was skeptical of Bush's interest in pursuing the war in Iraq.  Having said that, I was also highly skeptical of France's "official" opposition to the war on Iraq.  

The belief that countries in general develop their international agendas based on strictly altruistic terms is IMO naive.  There are more "important" concerns, such as control of resources, security, economic opportunity, etc.

First of all, you can't claim to be on equal moral ground when you start a war based on self-interest as when you oppose a war based on self-interest.

Second, claiming that France's opposition was based on their economic interests is a case of  the fox saying ?Those grapes are probably sour anyway.?. The truth is that almost 90% of the French people opposed the war. Chirac, being the democratically elected representative of those people represented that view. There is no way he could have gone against the overwhelming public opinion on that one. And if he had done that, he would have not been doing his job.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

The belief that countries in general develop their international agendas based on strictly altruistic terms is IMO naive. There are more "important" concerns, such as control of resources, security, economic opportunity, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree, although France's opposition to the war (as well as that of Germany's) was focused more on the impact a conflict would have on regional stability. That implies that French economic interests could be compromised if the war was to go ahead - in that context, I suppose, France did not hide its concerns about economic links when opposing the US position.

The issue about whether French officials were 'bribed' into opposing the war is almost a moot point, considering the US relationship with Iraq (and a host of other dictatorships) in the past. Also, anything coming out of the Washington Times should be subject to intense scrutiny. Doesn't charging France with having a lust for oil seem just a little bit hypocritical? I liked the 'bad guy' list at the bottom as well...

Altruism in international politics is non-existant - an argument of this type basically boils down to who's arguing for the least selfish or harmful reason.

[ericz 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote ( Feb. 05 2004 @ 00:54)

I am always a bit cynical of politicians and so I was skeptical of Bush's interest in pursuing the war in Iraq.  Having said that, I was also highly skeptical of France's "official" opposition to the war on Iraq.  

The belief that countries in general develop their international agendas based on strictly altruistic terms is IMO naive.  There are more "important" concerns, such as control of resources, security, economic opportunity, etc.

Quote[/b] ]First of all, you can't claim to be on equal moral ground when you start a war based on self-interest as when you oppose a war based on self-interest.

I am not claiming anything and I do not think that article made any such comparison. On the issue of whether one position is better than the other or not, both are morally corrupt.

Quote[/b] ]Second, claiming that France's opposition was based on their economic interests is a case of  the fox saying ?Those grapes are probably sour anyway.?. The truth is that almost 90% of the French people opposed the war. Chirac, being the democratically elected representative of those people represented that view. There is no way he could have gone against the overwhelming public opinion on that one. And if he had done that, he would have not been doing his job.

Again, I am not claiming anything and I would hope that if 90% of the people are against the war, then Chirac should have and did oppose it.

In fairness to Mr. Charles Pasqual (the former French Interior Minister) listed in the original report here is his replyBBC

I wonder what other "former ministers" he is talking about.

@Mr. Shrub

Quote[/b] ]Altruism in international politics is non-existant - an argument of this type basically boils down to who's arguing for the least selfish or harmful reason.

True.

[denoir 0]

I am not claiming anything and I do not think that article made any such comparison. On the issue of whether one position is better than the other or not, both are morally corrupt.

That's a very pointless position. It's a matter of degree. If you disregard that then you can say that there is no difference between Saddam and Bush because both were corrupt.

If you shoot your neighbour and take his money, you'll go to jail. If you don't shoot your neighbour because he owes you money, not many will find it objectionable.

The issue of the Iraq war isn't now speculations of the underlying motives, but the actual reasons presented for a war. The reasons given for the war were false, either by unprecedented incompetence or on purpose. France & co never ruled out the possibility of a war, but they wanted the UNMOVIC to complete thier job. Bush did not.

There is a very good reason why international law is very specific on under which conditions you may or may not wage wars on other countries. These rules are in place to promote stability in the world in the same way as regular law does not allow you to kill anybody at will. Are the people advocating that we have such laws acting out of selfish motives. Of course they are. However these selfish motives apply to most people in a population and thus become indirectly altruistic. What is good for me doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad for everybody else. Our civilization is based on having a system that gives benefits that its members find pleasing.

The Iraq case is no different. France et al opposed the war because it breaks the rules which in term results in a more unstable world, which in turn hurts France.

Quote[/b] ]I wonder what other "former ministers" he is talking about.

Those being his political rivals, I would suspect.

[ericz 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's a very pointless position. It's a matter of degree. If you disregard that then you can say that there is no difference between Saddam and Bush because both were corrupt.

My statement does not claim a side, it simply acknowledges that both positions are immoral.  Yes, it is a question of degrees.  However, IF Bush is found (an official inquiry) to have lied for his own monetary gain  or that of  his associates ( in pursuing the Iraq war), then I would say that Bush and Saddam are not that very different.

Quote[/b] ]If you shoot your neighbour and take his money, you'll go to jail. If you don't shoot your neighbour because he owes you money, not many will find it objectionable.

Okay....

Lets say that GWB started the war on Iraq for personal reasons (didn't like Saddam's threats, "God" told him to do it, personal enrichment, enriching his associates, etc.) as many anti-war people claim.  If these formed the basis for his launching the war on Iraq, which has claimed the deaths of over 500 of his countrymen and caused hardships to thousands of other Americans, then it could be said that he killed his own countrymen and caused the death of thousands of Iraqis.  This is immoral and I think most would agree it's most reprehensible. If France opposed the war on the basis of protecting French business interests and had succeeded in averting war but at the same time allowing Saddam's regime to continue its repression of its people and the killing of its political opponents, then that would also be reprehensible.  Hardly a high moral ground in any case.

Quote[/b] ]The issue of the Iraq war isn't now speculations of the underlying motives, but the actual reasons presented for a war.

The "actual" reasons presented for and against the Iraq war by the U.S. and it's allies and France and its supporters is a matter of public record.  Speculating on the underlying motivations for each sides position is  much more interesting and is part of trying to arrive at an understanding that doesn't take either sides claims at face value.  

Quote[/b] ]There is a very good reason why international law is very specific on under which conditions you may or may not wage wars on other countries. These rules are in place to promote stability in the world in the same way as regular law does not allow you to kill anybody at will.

Good thing too, although many countries including the U.S. frequently interpret it differently.

Quote[/b] ]Are the people advocating that we have such laws acting out of selfish motives. Of course they are. However these selfish motives apply to most people in a population and thus become indirectly altruistic. What is good for me doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad for everybody else.

It doesn't mean that its good for everyone else either.

Quote[/b] ]Our civilization is based on having a system that gives benefits that its members find pleasing.

What system is that?  I think ours (USA) is based on guarantees of personal freedom and inalienable rights.

Quote[/b] ]The Iraq case is no different. France et al opposed the war because it breaks the rules which in term results in a more unstable world, which in turn hurts France.

Reasonable conjecture.

Quote[/b] ]Those being his political rivals, I would suspect.

LOL!

[EiZei 0]

@ Feb. 05 2004,01:01)]Not to discount that if it is indeed true, but the Washington Times is generally understood to be more or less a quasi-mainstream conservative rag here in America. Usually it makes up part of the conservative "echo chamber" that became so infamous during the Clinton years- fringe publications would pick up a questionable story, then slightly more respectable publications would, and so on and so forth until actual mainstream (and supposedly liberal-biased) publications would be "forced" to pick up a story. In general though, I would classify the Washington Times as being about as unbiased and reliable as the New York Post

Doesnt Sun Myung Moon own that magazine?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Feb. 05 2004,01:01)]Not to discount that if it is indeed true, but the Washington Times is generally understood to be more or less a quasi-mainstream conservative rag here in America. Usually it makes up part of the conservative "echo chamber" that became so infamous during the Clinton years- fringe publications would pick up a questionable story, then slightly more respectable publications would, and so on and so forth until actual mainstream (and supposedly liberal-biased) publications would be "forced" to pick up a story. In general though, I would classify the Washington Times as being about as unbiased and reliable as the New York Post

Doesnt Sun Myung Moon own that magazine?

That's the one.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Ask Walker:

Well, that would be relevant if the question was in regards to being right or wrong. But it wasnt. It was about being elitist.

If I understand you correctly, one could counter that it was about an elitist majority. Assuming such a counter-argument, one could quote Walker again - twice:

Quote[/b] ]Nice to see Avon quoting me.

and:

Quote[/b] ]The real question is a simple one

Who was right?

Pardon my trivialities.

[joltan 0]

BBC Article on war reasons - one year AFTER Mr. Powell's (in)famous speech.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq: Mindset behind intelligence failures

Analysis

by Paul Reynolds

BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

A year after the US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the American case against Iraq to the Security Council, attention is turning from the actual failures of intelligence to why they happened.

Powell made the case against Iraq

On 5 February 2003, Mr Powell declared: "Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

A year on, that claim is hard to justify in several key respects. Even Colin Powell himself now says that he "doesn't know" if he would have supported war if he had known there were no actual stockpiles of weapons as he claimed that there were in his speech.

What is striking is the mindset displayed in the speech. The natural suspicion of Saddam Hussein meant that many pieces of intelligence were interpreted in an unfavourable manner even when another interpretation was available.

It is this mindset which some experts now think lay behind the failure of intelligence. Put simply, you see what you want to see.

It has happened in warfare many times before.

Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would attack in June 1941.

The Israelis did not believe the evidence of their eyes before Egypt crossed the Suez Canal in 1973.

Britain failed to heed signs that Argentina might take the Falklands in 1982.

Fear and loathing

In the case of Iraq, it was compounded by the knowledge that Saddam Hussein had indeed developed and used such weapons before.

Intelligence assessment therefore was based on the assumption that he might well try again.

Information which led in that direction was accorded importance. Information which did not was doubted.

We are particularly bad about understanding societal trends

Dr David Kay

Dr David Kay, until recently head of the Iraq Survey group, put his finger on one of the central issues when he said that the secrecy and corruption in Iraqi society meant that accurate intelligence from reliable sources was very hard to get.

He compared the failure to the overestimates of the Soviet Union's economy in the late 20th century.

" We are particularly bad about understanding societal trends," he told a Senate committee.

Believing the worst

Another former CIA expert, Kenneth Pollack, in a long analysis of what went wrong in the Atlantic Monthly, also refers to the attitude that Saddam must be up to no good.

"Everyone outside Iraq missed the 1995-1996 shift in Saddam's strategy - that is, to scale back his WMD programmes to minimise the odds of further discovery - and assumed that Iraq's earlier behaviour was continuing."

Looking back, there are several examples of the mindset at work in the Powell presentation.

1. Material which is simply unaccounted for must be weapons.

The UN inspector Dr Hans Blix knew that Iraq had not fully explained what had happened to various quantities of biological and chemical agents, but could never bring himself to say that this was potentially insignificant.

It provided a loophole which could be exploited by those who argued that the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence.

Mr Powell made use of the loophole. He declared that Saddam Hussein had admitted to having 8,500 litres of anthrax but that he "could have produced 25,000 litres."

There was no evidence that he actually did so, but the possibility that he could became the probability that he had.

Later, Mr Powell says that "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent." This notional agent then becomes something more in the next sentence: "That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield weapons."

2. A reliance on potentially unreliable human sources: the mobile laboratories.

Mr Powell relied on human sources in his account of trucks, which, supported by artists' impressions, he described as "mobile, biological agent factories." He quoted four such sources and said that Iraq had at least seven such trucks.

Two have been found but crucially there is no agreement as to what they were. The CIA website still says they were for biological warfare.

But Dr David Kay told the Senate Committee: "I think the consensus opinion is that when you look at those two trailers, while they had capabilities in many areas, their actual intended use was not for the production of biological weapons."

3. Taking sides over disputed intelligence: the aluminium tubes.

This is a prime example of disputed physical intelligence which was presented as reliable on the balance of probabilities.

Mr Powell did mention the doubts expressed about whether they were for a uranium-enriching centrifuge or for rocket tubes as some experts concluded.

But he came down firmly on the side of the more sinister explanation. The issue is unresolved to this day.

What did the photos show?

4. Remote intelligence: interpreting aerial photographs.

Much was made of these, which purportedly showed chemical weapons dumps being sanitised of their illegal stocks. Since no such stocks have found, the activity in the photos remains a mystery.

They made an impact at the time. But they have not been substantiated by finds on the ground.

The strong points

On the other side of the coin, some of the allegations made by Mr Powell remain strong.

The tapes of conversations between Republican Guard officers did refer to the removal of a "modified vehicle" and to the need to hide references to "nerve agents" in wireless instructions. These remain suggestive though not determinative.

The accusation that Iraq was developing missiles of a range beyond that permitted by the UN has been born out.

Also strong was Mr Powell's description of how Iraq failed to come clean and open its books, sites and scientists to full inspection, as it was required to do under resolution 1441.

Kay's own conclusions

David Kay's conclusion is that Iraq was conducting "weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities." It was a phrase he used in his interim report in October 2003 and one picked up by President Bush.

Examples of this, Dr Kay told the Senate Committee, were work on a precursor for VX nerve agent and on the production of anthrax in dry form. His interim report had also referred to a clandestine network of laboratories and to work on ricin and aflatoxin.

That is dangerous and illegal activity, but it is some way away from Mr Powell's assertion to the Security Council that "Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm, as required by the international community.

As someone working in the remote sensing field myself especially point 4 of that article is something I can personally subscribe to. Even with modern satellites of 1m and better resolution you're not going to see truly what's on the back of a truck - wether you use visible or infrared or radar imagery. You can just guess.

Also there was an article in the german press about Tennet negating having supplied the White House with wrong intel. He speaks of a 'wrong perception' of facts on behalf of the White House. Sorry, article only in german

Der Spiegel

Quote[/b] ]Falsche Analysen zur Existenz irakischer Massenvernichtungsmittel? Davon will CIA-Chef George Tenet nichts wissen. Er beschuldigt vielmehr das Weiße Haus "falscher Wahrnehmung".

I'm sure there's something in the english press, too.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Denoir : The truth is that almost 90% of the French people opposed the war. Chirac, being the democratically elected representative of those people represented that view. There is no way he could have gone against the overwhelming public opinion on that one. And if he had done that, he would have not been doing his job.

Spain did, Italy did and even the UK did do so. Each of the these countries had a polls showing 80% of the people opposed war.

Polls might exaggerate, especiallly in europe where most popular newspapers are left-wing, but even deducting 10-20% still shows great opposition.

We always talk about France but I would be quite interested to know what made spain and italy take their decisions.

[theavonlady 2]

Also there was an article in the german press about Tennet negating having supplied the White House with wrong intel. He speaks of a 'wrong perception' of facts on behalf of the White House. Sorry, article only in german

Der Spiegel

English:

Quote[/b] ]CIA Director Plans to Defend Efforts

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet wants to clear up some "downright inaccuracies" in what some have asserted about the intelligence community's prewar estimates on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, officials say.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]spain and italy take their decisions.

Oil . What else.

Oil export contracts

I guess these contracts will be nihilated once Iraq has a self chosen government. The Iraqi´s are not keen on exploitation.

They have the oil, 11 percent of the world reserves by the way, and they are the ones to decide whom they sell their oil to and for wich price, not the USA.

Quote[/b] ]Earlier this month, ChevronTexaco and five other companies won contracts for 10 million barrels of Iraqi crude, the first round of contracts following the war.

The contracts, disclosed by Iraq's state oil marketing firm, could generate around $300 million at current prices. The proceeds will go to a fund controlled by the United States and its allies and earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction.

ChevronTexaco, headquartered in San Ramon, was the only U.S. company to be awarded Iraqi oil. The other firms winning contracts were Tupras, in Turkey; Total, of France; ENI, in Italy; and Repsol and Cepsa, both in Spain.

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]Second, claiming that France's opposition was based on their economic interests is a case of the fox saying ?Those grapes are probably sour anyway.?. The truth is that almost 90% of the French people opposed the war. Chirac, being the democratically elected representative of those people represented that view. There is no way he could have gone against the overwhelming public opinion on that one. And if he had done that, he would have not been doing his job.

Again, I am not claiming anything and I would hope that if 90% of the people are against the war, then Chirac should have and did oppose it.

In fairness to Mr. Charles Pasqual (the former French Interior Minister) listed in the original report here is his replyBBC

I wonder what other "former ministers" he is talking about.

it's Charles Pasqua .... impopular bastard lacking integrity

in my Punk years, we used to spit on his photograph

the only thing he was good at was fighting terrorism, he killed the Action Directe group and helped a lot in the liberation of hostages in Lebanon, these two actions were his only sources of popularity, for the youth at least

the name of Pasqua appeared in several Justice files including illegal arms trade with Angola, illegal political parties financing and the list goes on ...

but heck he has some Corse blood in his veins. i guess that's a good excuse ...

[theavonlady 2]

Ringside seats, anyone?

Quote[/b] ] CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

"Oh, yes you did"!

"Oh, no we didn't"!

[EiZei 0]

http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2073238

An somewhat interesting article from 2002 regarding the intelligence matter, then again, its glaringly obvious whose fault this is.

Quote[/b] ]

You've got to hand it to Donald Rumsfeld and his E-Ring crew at the Pentagon. They know all the stratagems of bureaucratic politics, and they play the game well. In their latest maneuver, reported on the front page of last Thursday's New York Times, the secretary of defense has formed his own "four- to five-man intelligence team" to sift through raw data coming out of Iraq in search of evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida terrorists.

Rumsfeld has publicly continued to push this link as a prime—or at least the most easily sellable—rationale for going to war with Iraq, even after the CIA and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency have dismissed the connection as tenuous at best. But Rumsfeld contends that the spy bureaucracies may have missed something. As his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Times, there is "a phenomenon in intelligence work that people who are pursuing a certain hypothesis will see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." Since Wolfowitz is one of Washington's most forceful advocates of a second Gulf War, we can safely predict that he will find the facts he needs to make his case.

[bn880 5]

Meanwhile, Pakistan has been giving nuclear secrets to Libia, Iran and NOrth Korea and has just made a neat little diversion to pardon itself: Pakistans top Nuclear scinetist was supposidly _the_ "leak" of the information, and now he hasked for forgiveness and got it.

Translation: Pakistan gives away Nuclear information to countries considered most dangerous.

Well, at least that's what it looks like when some facts are considered.

[walker 0]

Hi all

TBA = The Bush Administration

TBA2 = The Blair Administration

I draw your atention to the discusion we were having back in mid July 2003.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=615

It is when I joined this debate, I was a bit of a late starter.

It was around this time that my disquiet at the failure to find WMD began.

As I have stated like a vast majority of people in the US and UK at the time I supported the war on what has since proved to be the false prospectus of TBA and TBA2.

That that prospectus has been proved false angers me as it does many others.

Now TBA and TBA2 wrigle and squirm to get themselves off the hook. Blaming those who risk their lives gathering the intelligence is sickening beyond words.

We know now that it was not an intelligence failure it was political failure. Where TBA and TBA2 conived to fool them selves into believing in a non existant threat.

And in all that time the true threat of Al Qaeda has been left to grow and in fact been fertilised by an unjust war.

Over time in this thread I have developed an argument that I continue hold. I make it once again here:

TBA AND TBA2s FAILURE AT A TIME OF WAR

I wish to make an assertion: The Bush Administration (TBA) and The Blair Administration (TBA2) have failed the coalition at time of war. The most heinous crime any representative administration can make.

How the miserable failure George Bush has the effrontery to say this war was in the interest of anyone but his cronies in business is beyond me.

I think it would help if I state the current position:

(1)WMD and the threat of Saddam

The initial given reason for the War was a preemptive strike to defend the US and other countries allied to the US against the possibility of WMD being used either by his friends who were terrorists or by his own military using intercontinental rockets

(2)Regime change

A secondary reason for the war was to remove a tyrant, Saddam, and his powerbase, the Baath party, from power.

In the first these aims the coalition has failed.

(1a) Failure to find WMD and ICBMs

No WMD has been found. Not even factory parts other than the ones destroyed by the UN.

No inter continental rockets have been found. Not even factory parts other than the ones destroyed by the UN.

We knew the WMD existed in the past because the chemicals and plant to make them were sold to Saddam by the members of TBA and their companies.

We know they had the rockets because the Russians gave them the medium range rockets and their very educated workforce (many of the worlds top scientists were educated in Iraq) were working on extending the range of these missiles. The UN found some and destroyed them.

Neither of these were found by David Kay so either:

The greatest fear of the worst failure of TBA and TBA2

They were given to terrorists; in which case attacking Saddam was a real big boo boo or they were given to Syria or Iran both nations could now in theory obliterate Israel with them, another big boo boo.

OR

A more likely probability is that they were destroyed by the UN; as has been said by the Saddam government when it was in power and most world intelligence services including the CIA believed and as George Tennet has reiterated today. This is the conclusion that both, Kay and the incoming head of the US team searching for banned weapons in Iraq, Charles Duelfer have come to.

The above has now more or less been proven even members of TBA admit it

Political Consequences of Coalition Failure to find WMD

WMD was the primary pretext for War and the subject of TBA and TBA2s false prospectus for war (with it Saddam and Iraq was seen as dangerous to the coalition countries)

As the US and UK administrations have not come up with the proof of WMD.

<u>It does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behavior)

Or were stupid (criminal negligence)</u>

Both are resignation matters in a true democracy.

If they don't resign then a true democracy must remove them

by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US. In the end we have elections in the UK and who knows the next US election may not be fixed. It is the ability of the people to remove failed leaders that is the sole distinction between an elected administration and a totalitarian regime. Otherwise they are no different than Saddam's Regime.

(2a)The coalition with the help of Kurdish intelligence found Saddam

We knew he existed because there were pictures and film of him shaking hands with members of the current US administration after he gassed the Kurds in Halabjah. After securing a deal to sell him more WMD.

In the secondary aim of removing Saddam and perhaps the Baath Party the coalition had been successful but it has failed to replace it with an Iraqi elected administration. Instead we have an unelected interim government with increasing ties to big business that looks set to form a puppet regime like that of SLORC in Mandalay. (Halliburton's other great dictatorship that they shake hands with and that makes Saddam's regime look like pussies.)

Political Consequences of Coalition failure to capitalize on its Success in finding Saddam.

In finding Saddam the coalition had removed a continuous focus of resistance and threat to any future democratic government in Iraq. The coalition could have regained some of the initiative but allowed it self to slip into congratulatory backsliding. Now once again coalition casualties are at 50 a month and rising with our alies the kurds and Iraqi police taking casulties in the hundreds per month.

The 750,000 dollars in the suitcase was Saddam's daily bribe money where is the rest? It belongs to the Iraqi people and can be used to help reconstruct the country. Estimates put it at up to 40 billion dollars. With their old business acquaintances with Saddam surely TBA can trace some of the accounts they had dealings with.

Failing to address the economic, social and political needs of Iraqis would mean a former Evil Tyrant, Saddam will begin to be seen as a Robin Hood.

Failing to rebuild a country after you smashed it apart in a war makes the people who live there resent you.

If you can not even find the WMD, for which you fought the war, they resent you more.

If while you are failing to find the WMD you smash up the wrong peoples houses or shoot their innocent family members, friendly fire happens accepted but it don't alter how people feel, they will resent you more.

SOME HISTORY

Before GW2 Saddam was not involved in funding the training or attacks of any Terrorist organizations. He was singularly hated by Al Qaeda as he was the head of a secular state founded around the communist ideals of Baath party. Al Qaeda was initially grown by the CIA as a conduit and control system for anti communist activity in Afghanistan but it went rogue in the 90s.

After GW2 Saddam got out with LOTS of money much in offshore numbered accounts and at least 3 container loads of Dollars were seen leaving the Iraq National Bank in the days before the US secured Baghdad Saddam's pocket change.

US intelligence has found evidence to believe that the former enemies Al Qaeda and Saddam's  surviving Baath party cronies have now found common cause in attacking the coalition.

Saddam's money is unaccounted for; it may have already been transfered to Al Qaeda (let us pray it has not)

Al Qaeda after the fall of Afghanistan could afford to do one attack somewhere in the world every 6 months. With economic backing of Saddam's wealth it was managing 1 or 2 a month if that money has been stopped all well and good; if it has not then the long term threat of up to 40 Billion dollars in Bin Laden's  hand does not bear thinking about.

Saddam had perhaps a few thousand fanatical supporters in his own country via his money he had access to the Al Qaeda and a Muslim world that is increasingly fractured by blind lashing out conducted by a Bush Administration that has still failed to find Bin Laden.

Consequences for the War on terror and foreign policy consequences of the TBA's and TBA2's private intelligence departments failure to correctly assess the Iraq threat.

Before GW2 Al Qaeda was significantly weakened by the attacks in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had a sufficient force of Coalition troops there to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban. Effort was being made to rebuild the country and remove it as an Al Qaeda recruiting base. Since GW2 the number and quality of these troops has been reduced to feed in to the increasing demand on troop numbers in Iraq. The drain on US and UK troops is now so bad that yesterday Dick Cheney has had to go cap in hand to the Europeans and Canadians to beg for their help by putting their troops in harms way too. This after trying to fool these countries into going to war on a false or criminally negligent prospectus and then having the gall to accuse those same countries of all manner of crimes good luck with that one Dick.

The mistake of fighting a war on two fronts

Any one with a brain can see that the adventure-ism in Iraq of TBA and TBA2 has left them fighting a war on two fronts always costly and considered a strategic error.

As a result the US and the Coalition members and probably the rest of the world are in more danger of terrorism than before GW2 or are the higher number of attacks my imagination? It may even include a WMD threat. Let us just pray the WMD was not there in Iraq in the first place.

The Boy Who Cried “Wolf!†effect

It is a fable we are all familiar with. TBA and TBA2 Cried “Wolf!†and there was no WMD. I ask, the next time when a real wolf is there will their armed services, citizens and society believe TBA and TBA2? They either fooled their people or were fooled themselves by their own private intelligence departments designed to manufacture evidence of a threat that never existed. Such fools can not be allowed control of atom bombs.

TBA2 Tied up in investigations

Already the UK government has had to spend months of administration 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 referring 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 Even Tony Blair Believed it! Though most in his cabinet and his defence secretary new it was just battlefield weapons.

TBA Tied up in investigations

In the US the investigation into which White house official revealed the identity of the CIA agent in charge of finding illegal nuclear weapons materials is due to start early this year. As is the investigation into failures of US intelligence in the run up to GW2. The CIA has already made it clear they blame TBA's private intelligence firm. Why TBA employed that bunch of amateurs is beyond me.

Legal consequences for TBA and TBA2 of not finding WMD

It maybe that Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings in pursuit of a wrongful war if no WMD is found. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the administrations not US and UK tax payers. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an administration 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.

War Crimes

We then come to the matter of investigating a possible 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 Saddam was a worth while venture.

Still we live in democracies we can get rid of lame duck administrations. I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitimacy if they attempt 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.

TBA and TBA2s Failure in a time of war

So both TBA and TBA2 have failed us at a time of war by increasing the number of enemies the coalition faces and by failing to deal with those dangerous enemies. Where is Bin Laden? Maybe Kurdish intelligence can help the Coalition find Him.

The single biggest sin a democratic administration can make is failure in war. It is considered a terminal error.

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

Meanwhile, Pakistan has been giving nuclear secrets to Libia, Iran and NOrth Korea and has just made a neat little diversion to pardon itself:  Pakistans top Nuclear scinetist was supposidly _the_ "leak" of the information, and now he hasked for forgiveness and got it.

Translation: Pakistan gives away Nuclear information to countries considered most dangerous.  

Well, at least that's what it looks like when some facts are considered.

Sorry but I WILL have to butt in here to correct you

Qadeer Khan himself didnt probably give the info the govt was involved and he had to take the fall for it if he was doing it for money he wouldnt have left europe and go to his 3rd world country in the first place.

Secondly he sent equipment through the Black market which spearheads the Nuke Black market which is HQ'ed inside Europe so you better have the europeans checked for leaks these leaks have been happening since the dawn of atomic bomb research.The origin of the story lies in the western and European countries itself. These countries encourage all illegal activities of the regimes in the areas of interest and supply them with every sort of equipment. The world community should tackle the issue right from the roots, from the countries capable of making the sensitive equipment. It is ironical to note that technology transfer from the west was completely unguarded and has been happening in the region which houses IAEA itself.

So dont blame Pakistan for it alone or Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan for it.

[bn880 5]

Wait a second, what did you correct exactly? Looks to me like nothing.

[Acecombat 0]

Wait a second, what did you correct exactly?  Looks to me like nothing.

You were saying that Dr Abdul Qadeer passsed them on , ON his own accord which he didnt ... you dont use a PAF jet otherwise to send stuff to NK , he was a bait in the govts/armys hunger to gain more weaponry and alliances for tech from others.

[bn880 5]

Wait a second, what did you correct exactly? Looks to me like nothing.

You were saying that Dr Abdul Qadeer passsed them on , ON his own accord which he didnt ... you dont use a PAF jet otherwise to send stuff to NK , he was a bait in the govts/armys hunger to gain more weaponry and alliances for tech from others.

No I was not... read the post again. It was basically part of my point what you are saying.

EDIT: Anyway, who cares, I don't really disagree with what you said, and I added supposidly in there, was trying to show that it is a "hide" tactic.

[Acecombat 0]

Wait a second, what did you correct exactly?  Looks to me like nothing.

You were saying that Dr Abdul Qadeer passsed them on , ON his own accord which he didnt ... you dont use a PAF jet otherwise to send stuff to NK    , he was a bait in the govts/armys hunger to gain more weaponry and alliances for tech from others.

No I was not... read the post again.  It was basically part of my point what you are saying.

EDIT: Anyway, who cares, I don't really disagree with what you said, and I added supposidly in there, was trying to show that it is a "hide" tactic.

Ok sorry then i might have missed your point there

[Balschoiw 0]

Meanwhile, back in Bush´s sandbox:

Quote[/b] ]The US said that coalition forces now consider the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and “affiliates†in north Iraq to be terrorist organizations. This indicates the CPA will support the use of coalition troops against PKK enclaves in northern Iraq, a policy decision long sought by the Turkish government. Paul Bremer, civilian head of the CPA in Baghdad gave this official statement: "President Bush has committed to end the use of Iraq as a terrorist haven. There is no place for terrorism or terrorist organizations in the new Iraq." Bremer also mentioned as PKK "affiliates" the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK) and the Kurdistan People's Congress (aka “Kongra Gelâ€). Turkey has been pressuring the US for an open and unequivocal declaration that the PKK in Iraq is a “terrorist organization.†The US had already called the PKK terrorists, but the situation in northern Iraq was, in Turkey’s view, “politically unsettled.†Some have suggested  that coalition troops and Turkish forces were sharing intelligence about PKK activities in Iraq. Turkey and the US discussed sharing Special Forces and liaison officers if Turkish peacekeepers deployed into Iraq. That did not occur due to Iraqi objections to the presence of large Turkish forces beyond the Iraqi-Turkish northern border region.

Yeahaa ! Another terrorist hunt  

Quote[/b] ]A new Islamic radical group, the "Jaish Ansar al-Sunna," took credit for the recent suicide bombings against Kurdish political parties in northern Iraq. It is feared that the Islamic radicals are trying to terrorize portions of the population into supporting them, and thus providing parts of Iraq where the Islamic radicals could establish bases. While far fetched, it's the kind of idea that is popular in Arab and Moslem countries. The theory is that by attacking Kurdish and Shia leaders, the largely Sunni Arab al Qaeda groups would generate sympathy among Sunni Arab populations. The flaw in this logic is that the Sunni Arabs are a much hated minority (15-20 percent of the population) that lives mostly in central and western Iraq. Once Iraq is governing itself again later this year, the new Iraqi government, dominated by Shia and Kurds (together about 80 percent of the population), would not react calmly or gently to continued violence by radical Sunni Arabs.  

We told you TBA didn´t we ? A minority role of Shia in the upcoming elections will cost you the head.

Edit:

And the british are not friendly anymore:

Howard calls for Blair to resign

Amnesia ?      Get a doctor !!!

He deserves the "Man with the magic dance to avoid accusations" award:

pic size not UN approved!

http://www.smily.at/smily/smily910.gif