blair's war...

ohgratuitous

well, it’s out. now that the propaganda has really started, what are you thinking?

if you wish to read the dossier, you can download it here. (pdf)
or see it at a glance here.

from the guardian.

Saddam 'has plans to use chemical weapons'

•Blair: he must be stopped
•Dossier a damp squib says rebel MP
•Iraq dismisses dossier as 'baseless'

Staff and agencies
Tuesday September 24, 2002

The government today published its long-awaited dossier on Iraq, claiming Saddam Hussein's regime was continuing to produce chemical and biological agents and had military plans to use them. The dossier, distributed hours before the House of Commons begins an emergency debate on Iraq, says President Saddam has plans to use the weapons even against his own population and some are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them. The 50-page document also says Saddam has retained command and control authority over the weapons and has sought to acquire "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, despite having no civil nuclear programme that could require it. Iraq dismissed the claims in the dossier as baseless. Speaking in Baghdad, the Iraqi culture minister, Hammed Youssef Hammadi, said: "The British prime minister is serving the campaign of lies led by Zionists against Iraq. Blair is part of this misleading campaign." He said the claims about weapons in the document were "totally baseless".

Rebel MP: dossier is damp squib

The document was also swiftly condemned by one Labour rebel as a "damp squib" and a "PR stunt" and the Liberal Democrats said the dossier had "no clear evidence" of an imminent threat from Saddam. Labour sceptics are determined to force a vote later tonight on a technical motion to show their opposition to any military action. Government whips expect between 15 and 50 Labour MPs to rebel, with other more moderate MPs with grave concerns about military action against Saddam simply failing to vote. One rebel, Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, dismissed the dossier. She said: "The document is a damp squib. It really consists of a re-working of information that was already public. "It seems more like a PR stunt than a serious attempt to bring new information forward. Tony Blair will have to do better than this if he wants to convince the British public to go to war." The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "This dossier will require close scrutiny. At first glance, this dossier does not appear to show clear evidence of an immediate and imminent threat from Iraq. Nothing in this document should divert us from dealing with these matters through the United Nations." But the shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that they were "not expecting great startling revelations of new weapons" and that having seen the dossier, the government's position was the correct one.

Blair: He has to be stopped

In a foreword to the report, the prime minister, Tony Blair, says the dossier had been compiled using evidence from the government's joint intelligence committee. On President Saddam, he says: "I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he has made progress on weapons of mass destruction and that he has to be stopped." Mr Blair acknowledges that "gathering intelligence inside Iraq is not easy". But says that he and other ministers are satisfied with the authority of the information in the document, called Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction - the Assessment of the British Government. The prime minister says it is "unprecedented for the government to publish a document of this kind". He continues: "In recent months I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq that despite sanction, despite the damage done to his capability in the past, despite the United Nations security council resolutions expressly outlawing it, and despite his denials, Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop WMD [weapons of mass destruction], and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region and the stability of the world." Mr Blair adds: "I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up." Mr Blair says that the Iraqi leader "does not regard them only as weapons of last resort ... he is ready to use them ... and is determined to retain them". He said information from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors "shows that Iraq has refurbished sites formerly associated with the production of chemical and biological agents. "It indicates that Iraq remains able to manufacture these agents and to use bombs, shells, artillery rockets and ballistic missiles to deliver them". Mr Blair will have talks tonight with one of the chief EU sceptics on military action against President Saddam, the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, after his narrow election win at the weekend.

Xterminator

Typical one sided soundbite.
Not a view. Not an opinion, just rehashing a newspaper article.

Perhaps you might call it Saddam's war?

After all, Blair will be only 1 ally on one side, Saddam the commander in chief on the other. Sounds fair?

Oh but your sound bite isnt quite as effective is it then?

There are complex issues here with both sides claiming the upper moral ground. At the end of the day, if Bush and Blair stay within the UN, and get UN approval for all actions, before they take action, then they will have my backing.

I would point out that Saddam has used chemical weapons or Iraqi soldiers.

He invaded Kuwait.

He is a supporter of terrorism.
Evidence here

He denied he was building the super cannon, which was subsequently discovered.

He lead the UN weapons inspectors on a little dance, when they were last in Iraq, until they could no longer function, and pulled out. To me that proves he has something to hide.

Yes the world will be a more unstable place if sadam had nuclear weapons.
So given all this, i believe there is a case for UN action against Iraq, other than the 'sanctions' which afftect the people of Iraq, not the leadership!

X

PH01

Saddam has to go. There is no question about it. This guy is a menace.
So he doesn't have the nukes right now and he may not have them in a year. But he IS going to acquire them - and who knows what he'll do once he gets them. He has to be taken out and taken out NOW!

dathi1

Saddam has to go. There is no question about it. This guy is a menace.

Brilliant!!
Yes way to go yeeee haaarr!!
and then we're gona sort out Sharon. The invasion of Israel will be imminent. They HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEY KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE EVERY WEEK...and They Break UN Resolution 242 every day!!

oh hang on a minute......................... cant have that can we???

Our Military contracts down the drain (10 billion a year is worth a few hundred AAArab children a year.)

Our OIL companies 1000, 000,000,000, and on and on

Our foothold colony in the middle east guaranteed Military sales and oil supply.

Blair: must be listening to Mandy again..Getting carried away with the old British Colonial attitude which serves them well when the RAF Bombed the Kurds in 1924.............for oil. Does the Church of England still have those military stocks in GEC Plessy?

Rumsfeild and Co. Nixon's Lackey (not a war criminal) only killed 3million people in Laos and Cambodia.

Congoliza Rice: High School Student Politician who found out were Afghanistan was this year. But despite coming form an oppressed minority she's riding the wave with her Big Oil shares in AMOCO etc..

Bush: Door Knob.

All the above see the world through Strarbucks and Applepie....except Ashcroft..The man who wants to cover up the naked statues in the Whitehouse... He sees it as a continuation of the Christian Crusades to Jerusalem. Tha Jihad begins.

mike65

Of course Saddam has to go, just because Bush is a hick it does'nt mean his proposistion is wrong.

The anti war brigade are doing the tyrants bidding for him,
did anyone see George Galloway this afternoon, sheeze...:rolleyes:

Its easy to do nothing.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
I would point out that Saddam has used chemical weapons or Iraqi soldiers

And the US conducted radioactivity tests against their own soldiers when they were doing their research some time back. These soldiers were not made aware of any of the risks, or even potential risks. They were, effectively, unsuspecting guinea pigs (or maybe rhesus monkeys would be a better analogy).

But I suppose thats different for some reason.

There is also loose evidence which suggests that nations such as the US have also tested many chemical/biological agents in their own nation and in those of others.

Of course, the US denies this. Then again, I'm pretty sure Saddam denies ever having done likewise.

He denied he was building the super cannon, which was subsequently discovered.

I vaguely recall posting something about this previously which indicated that the super-cannon was being covertly funded by the west up until such times as Saddam invaded Kuwait.

I also seem to recall that the US (or other western allies) more or less admitted that "Saddam is a madman - he has chemical weapons. We know - we gave him the tech" when the chemical issue first arose in the Gulf War.

Now, while it would be beyond doubt that Saddam poses a clear and present danger if he has these (or similar) weapons, there is no proof of this, other than the US saying "yes he does", while others say "no he doesnt". Again - it boils down to our willingness to believe Uncle Sam over anyone else.

More interesingly, the US has never publicly stated that the first step in preventing the proliferation of such weapons in unstable nations is that they should stop giving them to these nations in the first place.

He lead the UN weapons inspectors on a little dance, when they were last in Iraq, until they could no longer function, and pulled out. To me that proves he has something to hide.

Yes - this is correct if you believe the US version of the story. The UN version is usually that things were going well until the US, UK and other nations used it as cover for unauthorised intelligence gathering, and it was these operations which caused the expulsion - and rightly so, if it is true.

Guess it depends on who you choose to believe....note that in no case am I believing something from Saddam - just stuff other than the US government proclamations, and the associated media and friendly foreign government lackeys repeating it blindly.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
Of course Saddam has to go, just because Bush is a hick it does'nt mean his proposistion is wrong.

Absolutely.

What concerns me most is the reasoning being applied for why Saddam should be replaced.

Bush sounds like a warmonger. His reasons for stomping on Saddam are intellectually unsound, or (worse) suggest that if they were to be applied unilaterally that the US will spend the next few dacades conquering most of the face of the globe in the name of stamping out terrorism.

The US has yet to answer (or be seriously asked) the difficult question of why Saddam is such a threat. Why the Taliban was such a threat.

The simple truth is that so much of this mess is the US' own doing - at least partly. And yet we hear no word of the US making fundamental shifts in foreign policy to ensure that this type of problem doesnt resurface.

But we cant have that. The US needs to "protect its interests" by sticking its nose into whatever the administration of the day decides is necessary, and then let the administration of another day pick up the pieces if it all goes bad. After all, theres a lot of money to be made along the way.

I agree that Saddam has to go. I do not believe, however that he is the root of the problem. He is, however, a much easier target for the US to pick on then their own mistakes.

How many people would support the US in getting rid of Saddam because "we made a mistake putting a madman into power, feeding him large weapons, and then discovering that we cant control him".

jc

PH01

There is this guy in a kitchen wearing a tall white hat. Some people call him 'Chef'. He's standing next to a table and on that table there is a pretty big bowl.
Beside the bowl there is some eggs, flour, sugar, butter, milk, some dried fruits, sultan and raisins.
Behind Chef there is a oven which has just been turned on to preheat to 190 C.

What do you think is likely to happen in the next 30 minutes?

Xterminator

Originally posted by bonkey


And the US conducted radioactivity tests against their own soldiers when they were doing their research some time back. These soldiers were not made aware of any of the risks, or even potential risks. They were, effectively, unsuspecting guinea pigs (or maybe rhesus monkeys would be a better analogy).

But I suppose thats different for some reason.

There is also loose evidence which suggests that nations such as the US have also tested many chemical/biological agents in their own nation and in those of others.

Of course, the US denies this. Then again, I'm pretty sure Saddam denies ever having done likewise.



I vaguely recall posting something about this previously which indicated that the super-cannon was being covertly funded by the west up until such times as Saddam invaded Kuwait.

I also seem to recall that the US (or other western allies) more or less admitted that "Saddam is a madman - he has chemical weapons. We know - we gave him the tech" when the chemical issue first arose in the Gulf War.

Now, while it would be beyond doubt that Saddam poses a clear and present danger if he has these (or similar) weapons, there is no proof of this, other than the US saying "yes he does", while others say "no he doesnt". Again - it boils down to our willingness to believe Uncle Sam over anyone else.

More interesingly, the US has never publicly stated that the first step in preventing the proliferation of such weapons in unstable nations is that they should stop giving them to these nations in the first place.



Yes - this is correct if you believe the US version of the story. The UN version is usually that things were going well until the US, UK and other nations used it as cover for unauthorised intelligence gathering, and it was these operations which caused the expulsion - and rightly so, if it is true.

Guess it depends on who you choose to believe....note that in no case am I believing something from Saddam - just stuff other than the US government proclamations, and the associated media and friendly foreign government lackeys repeating it blindly.

jc

Sorry for the long quote.

Bonkey, just because you distrust the americans, and question there motives and actions in the past, it doesnt address the issue of Saddam, and whether some action is needed to prevent such a man from becoming a nuclear power.

I would simply say that your doubts are all the more reason why the UN, and not US unilateral action is the umbrella under which any action should be debated, and then implemented.

This would provide checks and balances to any Bush reactionary tactics, while preventing a possible bigger problem from developing.

X

The Saint

What about Isreal? Their defence minister said that if Iraq attacked them with non-convensional weapons (chemical or biological) that the reserve the right to deploy a nuclear weapon to Iraq. Does this not make them a threat to the region? The missiles that Saddam has can only go about 1000km as far as Turkey, Greece, ect. How does this make Iraq a direct threat to the US or Britain? I think there is something fishy going on and I dont think that the US are persueing this very wisely.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
Bonkey, just because you distrust the americans, and question there motives and actions in the past, it doesnt address the issue of Saddam, and whether some action is needed to prevent such a man from becoming a nuclear power.

Heh.

Read my next post. The bit where I mention :

I agree that Saddam has to go. I do not believe, however that he is the root of the problem.

I have a dislike for the reasoning being applied to why Saddam is being removed. I dont think I have ever actually argued that he shouldnt be removed.

jc