New US Evidence on Iraq

Hobart

I saw the highlighted and edited version of Colin Powells' speach to the UN on Wednesday Evening. A brief summary can be found here and I quote briefly:

The special Security Council session appeared to be less an attempt at direct persuasion of reluctant allies than a PR exercise aimed at rallying international and American public opinion behind Washington's case for war

Now IMHO Powell presented no evidence of a smoking gun. I saw 1(one) photograph of a truck outside of a compound, which was held as evidence of the movement of chemicals. I also say a comically put together 'illustration' of a mobile chemical lab, which I have no idea what it was used for as it was certainly not evidence. I also saw/heard a transcript of a telephone call alledgely from an 'Iraqi' scientist and a government official. Which purported to show 2 guys trying to hide the evidence of the entire Iraqi Nuculer program.

In short I am still not convinced. And even less so by this so-called evidence. Anybody else see it? Have any comments?

DadaKopf

I'm always amused at Washington's use of arial photographs. When Washington wants to create a bit of nuclear paranoia, they whip out some arial photographs and instantly bring people back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. They're trying to raise people's fears (and subsequent support for war) by linking people's minds to previous crises like this. When people fear for reasons like this, what other justification do they need? Why do they need to see evidence? Fear blinds people.

Of course those photos proved nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And now there's Britain's plagerism embarrassment. It's becoming clearer and clearer how flimsy the justification of this war is and I suspect even people who were previously in favour of it are now changing their minds.

Here's that essay that Whitehall ripped off: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html.

Borzoi

Lets be honest;

If the US produced a picture of Saddam holding a shell labeled 'Chemical Weapon' in one hand and a copy of yesterday's Baghdad Times in the other, some people would demand more proof.

What is required is for the US to release it's intell to the UN arms inspectorate teams, and for them to produce the evidence - if any exists.

Greenfool

The absolute, grotesque pit of US government hypocrisy comes in a report in the new york times which says that the US government plans to allow Turkish soldiers to occupy the Kurdish region of Iraq. Since Turkey also has an appalling history of oppressing and persecuting its Kurdish population, (the Ilisu dam is an example) this development finally dispels the last remaining fiction that America cares about the Kurds. Apparently the Kurds are being sold down the river - again! - this time because America needed to trade something for permission to use Turkish air bases for the coming war.

So much for the long-standing lie that America would support an autonomous Kurdish territory. This is a classic example of being delivered from the frying-pan into the fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/europe/07TURK.html

Occidental

Originally posted by Hobart
I saw 1(one) photograph of a truck outside of a compound, which was held as evidence of the movement of chemicals. I also say a comically put together 'illustration' of a mobile chemical lab, which I have no idea what it was used for as it was certainly not evidence.

Had a quick glimpse of this on Sky and couldn't believe what I was seeing. I will now avoid Dublin docks and I'm most certainly never going near Rotterdam. As for wooden crates, well don't get me started.

Loomer

Colin Powell's evidence reminded me of Johnny Cochrane using the Chewbacca Defense in Chef's court case in a South Park episode:

[Court]

Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and gentlemen of this deposed jury, you must now decide whether to reverse the decision on my client Chef. I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen [pulls down a Picture of Chewbacca] this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey [holds up a monkey], look at the silly monkey.

[A juror holds in a laugh and his head explodes]


Oh how I laughed

What ye are basically saying here is that Colin Powel presented lies and fabrications to the foreign ministers of the members of the security council...
Think about that for a minute rather than monkeys and wookies:rolleyes:
mm

Loomer

Ok Man - Well actually I'm not convinced of the relevence of Powell's "compelling" evidence. I think one could make a case case against the validity of Powell's evidence as much as one could accept them at face value.

Cork

Originally posted by Loomer
Ok Man - Well actually I'm not convinced of the relevence of Powell's "compelling" evidence. I think one could make a case case against the validity of Powell's evidence as much as one could accept them at face value.

I agree with this. If this was presented by anybody but Powell. This evidence would not convince me.

But Powell has credibility. Still - I am undecided.


Saddam must go. But the forth coming UN report will be interesting. It will all dfepend on this report.

growler

on the surface it looks rather harmless but without access to the photos over a period of time and being trained in how to interpret such images we (well me anyway) really aren't in a position to judge, big missile shapes are much easier to accept than what may be a few caravans and nice mound of earth.

its a poor reflection on public opinion that people are so ready to reject everything that the US says out of hand , but if someone were to show me the blueprint for a nuclear weapon/ anthrax / botulism / star wars etc. i wouldn't know it either.

chances are it's just propaganda, those who want to believe it will.

Originally posted by Loomer
Ok Man - Well actually I'm not convinced of the relevence of Powell's "compelling" evidence. I think one could make a case case against the validity of Powell's evidence as much as one could accept them at face value.

Is there any part of colin Powells presentation that you might specifically, tell me is a lie on Mr Powells part?

I agree, that it's not compelling, in some respects, but it does raise serious questions in others.
Take the taped phone conversations, for instance.
To dismiss them, you would have to say that they are fabrications.
Otherwise, it's proof of further, hide, hide, hide.

I personally, find it very suspicious indeed , that, some months after, the inspectors come back to Iraq, only now is there a willingness to let U2 spy planes have a look.

I can't help thinking,somebody there in Iraq were saying, hey, don't let them use those yokes yet lads, untill we're sure, we've "evacuated" most of the evidence.

It brings me back, to my student days again and when, the Tvlicence inspector called...We hid the telly,but we still got fined though, he knew, we must have had it....
( I blame the spy down in Xtravision for that..:D )
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

yankinlk

Originally posted by daveirl
And this is why I say let the inspectors continue with the threat of immediate millitary action. People who say that the inspectors would be doing their job if there wasn't this threat of action are kidding themselves but with an immediate threat of action we are getting results, so this is why I can't see why the UKUSA can't wait 6 or 12 months while letting them do their jobs.

...and so you have proved the paradox. Bush is blamed for threatening war and not letting the inspectors do their job, and yet we all know without the threat of war the inspectors wont get to do their job.

face it. bush hasnt made a step wrong yet. why does everyone assume hes not playing the game the only way it CAN be played.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by daveirl
And this is why I say let the inspectors continue with the threat of immediate millitary action. People who say that the inspectors would be doing their job if there wasn't this threat of action are kidding themselves but with an immediate threat of action we are getting results, so this is why I can't see why the UKUSA can't wait 6 or 12 months while letting them do their jobs.

I 100% agree with this post. I'm increasingly begining to think that war might not be as inevitable as everyone is being led to believe.
The mere presence of the forces are putting pressure on Sadam's brutal regime.
mm

I personally, find it very suspicious indeed , that, some months after, the inspectors come back to Iraq, only now is there a willingness to let U2 spy planes have a look.

The Iraqis never had a problem with the UN spy planes...Their position was "We cant guarantee their safety unless the US/UK stop their illegal flyovers/bombing"...They had no problem with it being there...Had the US/UK stopped these excursions they could have guaranteed safety

I'm increasingly begining to think that war might not be as inevitable as everyone is being led to believe.

What?...I cant see how some people are still believing the lies, the propaganda...Its all horsesh1t...Bush is going to war...His mind is made up....Next week apparently...

Powells evidence the other day was nothing significant...The phone conversations.."Have you hid all the weapons of Mass Destruction....Yeah, yeah.. Dont tell the Americans"...I mean seriously...A joke...Nothing in any way justifying the mass murder about to take place

face it. bush hasnt made a step wrong yet. why does everyone assume hes not playing the game the only way it CAN be played.

Yes...Holding the world to ransom...Buying off International Support with the oil he's about to steal...About to kill thousands of Iraqis (and most probably a few Americans) all in the name of Big Business...This is hardly a game...

Originally posted by CQD
The Iraqis never had a problem with the UN spy planes...Their position was "We cant guarantee their safety unless the US/UK stop their illegal flyovers/bombing"...They had no problem with it being there...Had the US/UK stopped these excursions they could have guaranteed safety



What?...I cant see how some people are still believing the lies, the propaganda...Its all horsesh1t...Bush is going to war...His mind is made up....Next week apparently...

Powells evidence the other day was nothing significant...The phone conversations.."Have you hid all the weapons of Mass Destruction....Yeah, yeah.. Dont tell the Americans"...I mean seriously...A joke...Nothing in any way justifying the mass murder about to take place



Yes...Holding the world to ransom...Buying off International Support with the oil he's about to steal...About to kill thousands of Iraqis (and most probably a few Americans) all in the name of Big Business...This is hardly a game...

Well, the govt of sadam Hussein, is more truthfull, honest and humane, and doesn't tell any lies either...?

Why couldn't the Iraqi's guarantee the safety of U2 planes, a few months ago and they can now??
It wouldn't have anything to do with what they might have seen a few months ago, by any chance??

So , you regard the phone conversations, in powells presentation a joke...He presents jokes to the foreign ministers of the security councils members, how convenient of you to think that :rolleyes:
mm

Loomer

People make the point that Bush/Blair are doing the right thing by mounting pressure of attack to force the Iraqi leadership to comply with Resolution 1441.

While I wish in my heart of hearts that this were true if you knew the daily figure charged to the US/UK people for the mobilisation and upkeep of there armed forces in the Gulf region I would be very skeptical of an about face if the inspectors job was allowed to run its full course to a satisfactory conclusion. I will endeavour to try and find some figure for this.

Taking all this into consideration I and a number of people view any attempt to discredit the Iraqis efforts at disarmament as a veiled attempt to bypass the UN's role in the world as overseer so as to complete unfinished business and secure oil reserves that will guarantee US oil supply up to 2050.

Call me a skeptic and anti-american if you will but considering the key players involved, this is the conclusion I have come to.

Loomer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/14/nirq14.xml

For UK's part Ministry of Defence has calculated that cost of war would be 1.5 billion Sterling

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/reuters20030208_69.html

American estimates range from $61-$200 billion!!!

Add to that the cost of humanitarian aid.

Not to mention 159000 Gulf War veterans are recieving disability payment suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome"

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/000284.html

But its all worth it, ... Right???

Loomer

Funny Stuff

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/PowellUN/PowellSpeechgifs/1/deadder.gif

utopio

Originally posted by Borzoi
Lets be honest;

If the US produced a picture of Saddam holding a shell labeled 'Chemical Weapon' in one hand and a copy of yesterday's Baghdad Times in the other, some people would demand more proof.

What is required is for the US to release it's intell to the UN arms inspectorate teams, and for them to produce the evidence - if any exists.

Even when they find thousands of evidences,
why war??
america forgets one thing: They are to blame for all these troubles. Who trained Al Quaida? The CIA! Who gave Iraq such weapons to use them against the Iran? The USA!
And I don't think that the Iraq is such a huge danger that they have to be attacked. And Saddam they surely never will get, he will hide hisself and will take all his weapons with him.

yankinlk

Originally posted by daveirl
Do you think he is going to give the inspectors 6 more months if that's what they ask for?

I dont think he won't necessarily...but I don't think he can tell us that one way or another ahead of time. As soon as he shows weakness to bow to pressure from Europe, (or greens, or antiamericans, or antiwars or nudists spelling out the word peace) then the game is up.

I think its too easy to be 100% anti amercian/bush/war or be on the other side and be like KILLKILLKILL...the issues are WAY more complicated than that.

and to cqd and the others that say this all about oil...i say "whats your point?" the americans want the oil, the french want the oil, ze germans would take a can or two...who doesnt want some of it?

utopio

Originally posted by yankinlk


and to cqd and the others that say this all about oil...i say "whats your point?" the americans want the oil, the french want the oil, ze germans would take a can or two...who doesnt want some of it?

When my country lets people die to get oil I don't want to belong to that country.

Originally posted by utopio
Even when they find thousands of evidences,
why war??
america forgets one thing: They are to blame for all these troubles. Who trained Al Quaida? The CIA! Who gave Iraq such weapons to use them against the Iran? The USA!
And I don't think that the Iraq is such a huge danger that they have to be attacked. And Saddam they surely never will get, he will hide hisself and will take all his weapons with him.

Thats all subjective, what you're saying is that because the U.S contributed to the problem, that they shouldn't be involved in the solution..
So a View was taken at the time that Iraq defeating Iran would be good for the region?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that, the U.S would have been more worried about Iran then, considering, after the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranians were the ones burning the U.S flags.
mm

Originally posted by Loomer
[But its all worth it, ... Right???

It must be... with all the resources being committed.
Ultimately.
mm

yankinlk

to utopio... i love the "two wrongs make a right" argument used by you and countless others. ie: since america in the past hired/trained/supported some group they shouldnt be allowed to say or do anything against that group ever again because its their own fault that group exists.

halkar

It was interesting and funny to watch the new evidence on the telly last week but I am more against to war then I was before after watching all that sh!te . After all most of the evidence presented was found last year and some in last April. Why did they have to wait to bring these front? They could have given to UN last year and UN probably would have find the locations and decide for war and we have no Saddam now !!

Bottom line is US and Bush wants war and i think UN should really do all they can to stop US for that and show them who is the boss

you regard the phone conversations, in powells presentation a joke...He presents jokes to the foreign ministers of the security councils members,

That's all he did!! I am sure they where laughing off their @sses that day, after all almost all world did!! That shows how desperate they are to go for war!!! Iraq is becoming a test bed for them to show off their new war toys to the world and sell!! Money is a curse after all!!! :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Balfa

The question is not if the evidence proves the existance of weapons of mass destruction, but if the existisance of those weapons requires overt military action by the US.

North Korea, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, The UK and the USA themselves all have weapons of mass destruction, but who's invading them?

Some might argue that in the case of Iraq, Saddam is a madman and may actually -use- them. Well with that argument I have two isues:
1. As the Saudis say, the Iraqi people should be choosing their leader, instead of the US inserting their own puppet leader as they have done in so many other countries.
2. If Bush isn't a madman, and hence -will not- be using his weapons of mass destruction, then why does he have them?

@sses

Originally posted by halkar
That's all he did!! I am sure they where laughing off their @sses that day, after all almost all world did!! That shows how desperate they are to go for war!!! Iraq is becoming a test bed for them to show off their new war toys to the world and sell!! Money is a curse after all!!! :rolleyes:

Oh I don't know about that, sure if the U.S wants to sell it's new toys to fighting parties,it's a poor reflection on the people, fighting who live there.

Again I ask, are you saying the interesting part of the presentation, the taped phone calls are hoax?
ie: that the U.S would present hoax evidence to the foreign ministers of the UNSC.
Because the bottom line there would be, if found out, the credibility damage would be terminal.
I doubt very much if they would even do or expect to get away with that.that part of Colin Powels presentation was very damning.
mm

utopio

Originally posted by Man
Thats all subjective, what you're saying is that because the U.S contributed to the problem, that they shouldn't be involved in the solution..
So a View was taken at the time that Iraq defeating Iran would be good for the region?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that, the U.S would have been more worried about Iran then, considering, after the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranians were the ones burning the U.S flags.
mm

I don't think the USA has the right to decide what is good for another country in an other continent. The USA isn't the world police!! And now the whole world has to pay for Americans mistakes. Everything they tried to repair only brought new chaos and new enemies.
And I can't see a chance of success in this war. Nothing will change when Saddam is dead. They kill him and the terror won't stop, perhaps it even will become worse. When they attack the Iraq terrorism could become uncontrollable. It is one possibility, I don't want to take this risk for one small dictator.

bonkey

Originally posted by utopio When my country lets people die to get oil I don't want to belong to that country.

Thats nice, but have you stopped to think where the oil your country gets today comes from?

Odds are that at least some of it comes from those friendly Middles Eastern regimes, with maybe a drop of good clean Nigerian crude.

In short, its highly probable that your country already "lets people die" to get oil, and indeed funds those who are perpetuating the killing.

Its all well and good to take a moral stance against the evils of war, but you have to remember the rest of the evils as well.

jc

yankinlk

excellent bonkey.

(but im sure utopio is using "martian brand" oil produced from the ear wax of Klingons living on Arangatoon 7, hence he isnt contributing to ANY of the worlds problems and can live totally at peace with himself.)

Originally posted by utopio
I don't think the USA has the right to decide what is good for another country in an other continent. The USA isn't the world police!! And now the whole world has to pay for Americans mistakes. Everything they tried to repair only brought new chaos and new enemies.
And I can't see a chance of success in this war. Nothing will change when Saddam is dead. They kill him and the terror won't stop, perhaps it even will become worse. When they attack the Iraq terrorism could become uncontrollable. It is one possibility, I don't want to take this risk for one small dictator.

whether they have the right to or not, the U.S wants to defend it's interests.
They are a large and powerfull nation and from what I can see, if it's oil you are worried about, all the rest of the, large and powerfull nations are making shapes in some form or other to secure, both their interests and their oil aswell.
Lots of people can take offence to this ( un necessarily in my opinion) and in todays world , that includes madmen, who may choose to try to destroy western civilisation.
mm

utopio

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats nice, but have you stopped to think where the oil your country gets today comes from?

Odds are that at least some of it comes from those friendly Middles Eastern regimes, with maybe a drop of good clean Nigerian crude.

In short, its highly probable that your country already "lets people die" to get oil, and indeed funds those who are perpetuating the killing.

Its all well and good to take a moral stance against the evils of war, but you have to remember the rest of the evils as well.

jc

Perhaps sometimes it is good not to know all about ones countrie's intrigues it only would make my angry. But at least we don't make a war and kill thousands of people for it. And even when it were otherwise I wouldn't change my mind and never would support such opinion.

whether they have the right to or not, the U.S wants to defend it's interests.
They are a large and powerfull nation

Exactly that is it what I hate in the American politic,
they have to show everybody how stong they are, only think at theirself and trample over dead bodys to reach their aims.
But this isn't their right and anybody has to say that. Destruction and death isn't the right appliances. With that kind of way they aren't better than the terrorists. I love America, but can't understand their politics.

bonkey

Originally posted by utopio Perhaps sometimes it is good not to know all about ones countrie's intrigues it only would make my angry. But at least we don't make a war and kill thousands of people for it. And even when it were otherwise I wouldn't change my mind and never would support such opinion.

I'm not saying that you should support the war, but I am saying that it seems a bit facetious to oppose the war because people will die, and then discard any issues about what regimes today's purchasing of oil is supporting.

In effect, you oppose an Iraqi war cause thousands would die, but you're saying that it would be okay if thousands are dying to obtain oil today, because its not a war, and you're not aware of it.

jc

Hobart

I still do not see any evidence being produced to the UN security council or the the World's population by Colin Powell. Here is a quote from Senator Joe Biden after the Powell speech to the UN

The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, said Secretary of State Powell "made a powerful and irrefutable case" against Iraq in his presentation to the United Nations Security Council February 5

Notice the use of the word irrefutable. My question is where is this evidence?

Then we have Tony Blair talking about Unmistakable evidence against Iraq. Now AFAIKS all he is talking about is the fact that there is unmistakable evidence without producing any. To me this just looks like mammas home cooked pie in the sky!!!

It also seems evident to me that there is a lot of discussion going on about the reason for this war. To me it looks pertently evident that the US is going to war to further it's own economic safety. Iraq is of no threat to the US or Europe. It is well documented that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism and yet we here nothing about the pending US invasion of Iran. So the question has to be asked. If the US came out and said we are only going to war with Iraq because we need to control the Oil. Would those supporting the USA's current position on Iraq still back them? Or do you still believe that this is just the USA defending the rights of the IRaqi people, as it has done over the last twenty years, and deposing Saddam Hussien for threating the use all those WMD he has hidden under the sand?

Originally posted by Hobart
So the question has to be asked. If the US came out and said we are only going to war with Iraq because we need to control the Oil. Would those supporting the USA's current position on Iraq still back them? Or do you still believe that this is just the USA defending the rights of the IRaqi people, as it has done over the last twenty years, and deposing Saddam Hussien for threating the use all those WMD he has hidden under the sand?

But their stated position many times, is their desire to protect America and the U.K and others from the menace of the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear technoligies.
Their evidence points to inconsistancies in the Iraqi account of what they've done with what the UN did not destroy.
The taped conversations point to , "evacuating" not destroying any evidence.
And even today they still won't let U.N controled spy planes Verify anything, which points logically to suspicions.

I mean if Russia, Germany and France don't want regime change, like the Americans do , it's hardly co-incidence that they to have been making shapes with Sadams government looking for oil.
By extension those countries are prepared to tolerate, all the severe human rights abuses in Iraq ...not a very moral case against regime change.
mm

PunyHuman

You guys are looking for evidence? George W explains it all in Bushwhacked 2. Marvellous.

If this has already been posted, my apologies...

Go to www.warprecords.com and click on the little picture of Dubya in the bottom left corner. Big enough file over analogue but believe me it's worth it.

This was made by Chris Morris, the genius satirist behind the Day Today and Brasseye.

Hobart

Originally Posted by Man
But their stated position many times, is their desire to protect America and the U.K and others from the menace of the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear technoligies

I know Man. And I have reapeatly heard them re-emphaise this. But it should now be evident that this seems to be a flawed tactic. According to the weapons inspectors, both present and past, Iraq does not and did not have the capability to launch strikes on either the US or the UK or any part of Europe. In Fact the Scud missiles they had in the late 80's and early 90's were proven to be totally ineffective at delivering conventional warheads. Sadamm had the option of hitting Isreal with chemical agents then but did not. His main reason for this being that he would have lost the support of many Arab states had he used them. If fact I would say he was in a better position to use them then then he is now! There However that does not go on to answer my question. The Question being that if the US said it was going in for the Oil would it be as acceptable as the current facade they are putting on?

We, the Public, have been constantly told that evidence would be produced to prove that Sadamm had and does have WMD. We ere also told that he was a threat to the US and UK. AFAICS no credable evidence has been produced to the UN or the Public to prove this. We did not say hang-on give us the proof and then we will believe you. We were told that Iraq was part of the 'Axis of Evi' and were told that we would be given the proof. Now were being told to shut and stop asking and just believe us. If we look at what has happened since november it is obvious that at every turn we are been given a different message, and I paraphrase:

1) Nov 2002 (US/UK/UN) says let the WI back in or we will go to war). (Nov 2002) WI let back in

2) Dec 2002 (US/UK/UN) says give us a list of your weapons or we will bomb you. Iran produces and delivers documentation

3) Jan 2003 (Us/Uk/UN) says thia documentation is all lies tell us the truth or we will bomb you. Iran says we can't say it's lies because we would be accused of lying and get boomed. We can't say it's the truth or we will be accused of being liars and get boombed. Iraq says fcuk all really.

4) Jan/Feb 2003 (US/UK) says we now have evidence that they are lying and we will produce it at the UN. Iraq says go ahead we will be there.

5) Colin Powell produces a picture of a truck and a mound of dirt. He also shows us a drawing of the new MatchBox transformer truck and calls it a mobile chemical refineory. He translates a telephone call of 2 arabs talking about moving stuff and says there.Now. We told you so. UK produces report as fact and current intel, which just happens to contain the musings of a college kid from 12 - 13 years back and the US accept it. Iraq, and the rest of the world (mostly~), break their ****e laughing at it.

I accept your concerns, Hobart, but from what I can see,the Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors is only now improving and only slightly.
Why, only now, three months after, they first arrived, if they have nothing to hide?
Why are they ( according to Panorama last night ) frantically following the inspectors cavalcade around in an effort to warn instalations of an inspection? and why are they bugging their offices?
and again what have they to hide from U.N spyplanes?

Sadam's regime are not making it easy for themselves, in their case either.
That Regime would want to be actively re butting, Colin Powells presentation and the path to do that is clear, if they have nothing to hide.
The fact that they are humming and hawing is very suspicious indeed.
Jane Corbin interviewed the Head of Iraq's Chemical weapons research operation on last nights Panorama.
Of course there were minders present...but the interesting thing at the moment is that, that scientist is now *cough* missing ( according to last sundays Telagraph and Jane Corbin on gerry Ryan this morning ) and hasn't yet been interviewed by the weapons inspectors.

This is all highly suspect.

Regarding:

He translates a telephone call of 2 arabs talking about moving stuff and says there.

Very dangerous stuff though! and why were they moving it at all??

UK produces report as fact and current intel, which just happens to contain the musings of a college kid from 12 - 13 years back and the US accept it. Iraq, and the rest of the world (mostly~), break their ****e laughing at it.

Some may be laughing, but the fact remains that the person on whose thesis this was based, has stated that, it is a valid account of the situation as it is today.

2) Dec 2002 (US/UK/UN) says give us a list of your weapons or we will bomb you. Iran produces and delivers documentation

( I presume you meant Iraq )
Blix told the UNSC, what he thought of those documents, they were designed to keep,the inspectors busy, for a while.
Now i wonder why that would be?

Jan/Feb 2003 (US/UK) says we now have evidence that they are lying and we will produce it at the UN.

Those phonecalls were evidence of Iraq making sure things had been "evacuated"
Were the phone call recordings hoax??

Regarding the Oil by the way and,
to directly answer your question, if the U.S declared war on Iraq for the stated reason of wanting it's oil-of course , it would not have many allies,neither would Ireland if we did the same.
But that doesn't take from the job at hand, ie satisfying 1441.
mm

utopio

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm not saying that you should support the war, but I am saying that it seems a bit facetious to oppose the war because people will die, and then discard any issues about what regimes today's purchasing of oil is supporting.

In effect, you oppose an Iraqi war cause thousands would die, but you're saying that it would be okay if thousands are dying to obtain oil today, because its not a war, and you're not aware of it.

jc

I think i don't have the right to say "yes" to a war, because I can't know if everything Bush says is true. I am not the boss of the CIA or American president, so I don't have enough information to say a war would be right. Resulting I only have the possibility to say "no" to a war. And I think it isn't right to kill people for obtain oil, in every kind of way. Oil isn't important enough to let thousands of people die, not for me. I only meant that if I would know all of the things that are done to obtain oil, I couldn't sleep anymore.
Surely there are other possibilities, but war can't be one.

Hobart

Originally posted by Man
from what I can see,the Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors is only now improving and only slightly.

That seems to be the message coming from the UN. But I fail to see how they were being un-cooperative? Would this not be in vioation of 1441?

Why are they ( according to Panorama last night ) frantically following the inspectors cavalcade around in an effort to warn instalations of an inspection? and why are they bugging their offices?

Saw the program myself. And TBH I was slightly unnerved by the interview at the beginning of the Chief Wahtshername (responsible for the production of the chemical wewpons in the 80's and 90's). It was her deamanour and the presence of the Iraqi guards which unnerved me more than what she had to say. In relation to the following of the inspectors and bugging. I thick it would be very naive of the WI to expect that they would be able to travell all over the state of Iraq without the government keeping some tabs on them. They did not impede the WI in any way, AFAICS, and I would suspect that Sadamm has told them that he wants daily, if not hourly updates, and what they are doing and where they are going. Paranoia seems to be the ordder of the day there. And on pain of death if he does not know what, if anything, is found. I also believe that he (Sadamm) has to prepare himself for the eventuality of them find weapons such as the missiles that were found in Jan. However I do not believe the bugging/following of WI is an admission of the fact that they have anything to hide.

Some may be laughing, but the fact remains that the person on whose thesis this was based, has stated that, it is a valid account of the situation as it is today

I meant at the 'evidence' in its' total and not the fact that the thesis was based on facts from 12 years ago. However it is interesting that the UK dossier was presented as current evidence and not based, partially, on a thesis from 12 years ago! Why use this? Surely they have up to date intel? Or do they?

( I presume you meant Iraq )

I did.

Those phonecalls were evidence of Iraq making sure things had been "evacuated"

According to Colin Powell.

Regarding the Oil by the way and, to directly answer your question, if the U.S declared war on Iraq for the stated reason of wanting it's oil-of course , it would not have many allies

So if it is not about Oil how then is Iraq a threat to the US and UK?

Why are they ( according to Panorama last night ) frantically following the inspectors cavalcade around in an effort to warn instalations of an inspection? and why are they bugging their offices?

True. If America was ever to be inspected by the UN for hoarding weapons of Mass Destruction, i'm sure the US would be alot more efficient and have warned their bases beforehand. You're complaining that the Iraqi's are being this obvious about their concern about the weapon inspections? The fact that they're concerned, at least gives us the impression that the Iraqi administration, want to prevent this war............

What impression are the Bush administration giving, by constantly calling for attack?

So if it is not about Oil how then is Iraq a threat to the US and UK?

They are a threat merely by being in the Middle East & by being arabic.

In response to

Originally posted by Hobart
That seems to be the message coming from the UN. But I fail to see how they were being un-cooperative? Would this not be in vioation of 1441?

Hans Blix said they were being less than helpfull, he was scathing in that regard, I thought 1441 was all about co-operating with weapons inspectors, are you failing to agree with the head of the weapons inspectors?

However it is interesting that the UK dossier was presented as current evidence and not based, partially, on a thesis from 12 years ago! Why use this? Surely they have up to date intel? Or do they?

Where and who presented it as current evidence? All I said was to point out the author of a large part of whats in the famous dossier, believes it to be an accurate reflection of the situation today.
Thats not unreasonable for the UK to say either, without comprimising inteligence sources.
And when you say:

According to Colin Powell.

in response to me are you saying or implying that the taped phonecalls are a hoax?

So if it is not about Oil how then is Iraq a threat to the US and UK?

Well again, the U.S and U.K stated line, is prevent the pro liferation of nasty chemicals to mad men, I accept that, you don't thats fair enough.
* warning analogy coming...*
Some people are terrified of Rats, some aren't.
I'd just as soon stamp them out , if I suspect they are there, rather than risk Weils disease.
mm

Hobart

I thought 1441 was all about co-operating with weapons inspectors, are you failing to agree with the head of the weapons inspectors?

No I am not. But what I am saying is that if they were being un-cooperative is that not in violation of 1441. ANd if that was the case why were they not reported as being in violation?

Where and who presented it as current evidence?

I am not saying that Downing Street came out and said, last week, that this is evidence we have gathered and it is current. What I am saying is that they did not say that it was not current! Now we are dealing with peoples lifes here and to 'suggest' and I put that in commas for a reason, that Iraq is still a threat based on 'some' evidence from 12 years ago is a bit much. TBH they (the US and UK) patrol nearly 2/3rd's of the countryin the no-fly zone so current intel., if it exists, should not be that hard to come across. In fact it would suggest to me that if they were relying on a 'Thesis' from 12 years ago (I think it was 12 years ago) well then they have no current evidence rthat Iraq is still a threat!

Thats not unreasonable for the UK to say either, without comprimising inteligence sources

This is one statement I cannot understand? We are talking about sending hundreds of thousands of troops into battle. We are talking about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians and yet you want to protect so-called 'intelligence sources'. Why can they not give some sort of relevant evidence without compromising intelligence sources? I simply do not see the problem?

in response to me are you saying or implying that the taped phonecalls are a hoax?

No I am not. I do not know. But again we were told that there would be compelling evidence? We have no idea who these people were. When the phone call took place. USA/UK using dis-information? Heaven forbid. I would suspect if this was put in front of any court of law as 'compelling evidence' that it would be laughed out of court. After 4 months of trying is this really the best the USA can come up with??

Well again, the U.S and U.K stated line, is prevent the pro liferation of nasty chemicals to mad men

Where is the evidence? There is none. We were told that he had WMD's. Not 1(one) shred of evidence has backed this up. We are now told that the west does not want the 'proliferation' of 'chemical and biological weapons'. Where is the evidence that Sadamm would do this? There is none. Zero. But then again it's just convienent that the second biggest Oil reserve is located there and that the worlds biggest Oil user is lining up to put in his own man at the head.

Loomer

In relation to the taped converstations it so much as whether there a hoax or not. Its very easy to put whatever spin you want on a situation relative to the context that it appears in. The taped conversations were presented in such a way that we supposed to assume that they were the subject of nefarious actions. Its all about context. Fear is often used as a tool to control a populace or influence its opinion, and this was clearly the desired reaction of the presentation of evidence.

The fact remains the evidence presented held very little weight if it were in respect to convicting a criminal.

America have and continued to use a bullish approach to the whole affair. George Bush looked like a little child the other day in a speech stamping his feet because he is not getting his way.

Because of the broad lack of support in the drive for war, the Bush regime/propaganda-mill have diverted there focus slightly from the threat of Saddam to the non-compliance of Western allies. Not surprisingly France and Germany are at the receiving end of much American disdain. America however cannot afford to pressure the likes of Russia and China in this way.

It is their treatment of France/Germany that will hopefully take the steam out of the War machine that has been building and we can focus on more important matters like a peaceful solution to the situation in Iraq and on other fronts.

In addition let's hope we can be free of such banal statements as "Let's Roll" in relation to the projected killing and suffering of many.

Originally posted by Hobart
No I am not. But what I am saying is that if they were being un-cooperative is that not in violation of 1441. ANd if that was the case why were they not reported as being in violation?

Well I would have thought , that Hans Blix's last update to the UNSC, was a report to the UNSC regarding their lack of co-operation.Of course, the UNSC could have said right lets go to war then but they didn't, they awaited Colin Powells presentation and still await Hans Blix's next report on feb 14th.

Regarding, the comprimise of inteligence sources, It's usual, to infiltrate the enemy, become one of them and then destroy.
But given, the risk of wiping out all inteligence sources,with one getting caught, then I wouldn't blame any agency anywhere for being carefull.

We have no idea who these people were. When the phone call took place. USA/UK using dis-information? Heaven forbid. I would suspect if this was put in front of any court of law as 'compelling evidence' that it would be laughed out of court. After 4 months of trying is this really the best the USA can come up with??

If you are suggesting that Colin Powell fabricated, these taped conversations for to be put in front of the foreign ministers of the members of the UNSC, I find that impossible to believe.
Such an action would be so dangerous to their credibility as to be beyond belief.
If however someone could present me with convincing evidence that the U.S lied to the UNSC with these calls, then I will accept that, have you such evidence?
Untill such time as that is proven, I have to accept that part of Mr Powells presentation.

Where is the evidence? There is none. We were told that he had WMD's. Not 1(one) shred of evidence has backed this up. We are now told that the west does not want the 'proliferation' of 'chemical and biological weapons'. Where is the evidence that Sadamm would do this? There is none. Zero. But then again it's just convienent that the second biggest Oil reserve is located there and that the worlds biggest Oil user is lining up to put in his own man at the head.

Well, if you are so concerned that the U.S would get it's hands on the oil-then thats in Sadams gift really as he is the one who must comply with 1441 and fully co-operate with the Weapons inspectors.
Tony Blair Made a very valid point when on Newsnight, he asked what the world would have said if the west invaded Afghanistan to eliminate Al Q'ueda prior to 9-11-they would be outraged.
So he asked, should we ignore Sadam and leave all the weapons inspectors questions unanswered and by default risk that substances there should get into the wrong hands, or deal with the issue.

I cannot understand? We are talking about sending hundreds of thousands of troops into battle. We are talking about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians and yet you want to protect so-called 'intelligence sources'. Why can they not give some sort of relevant evidence without compromising intelligence sources? I simply do not see the problem?

Well thats always the way with sensitive inteligence, I'm afraid.
Even in our own land there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the risk of inteligence sources being comprimised and the consequences thereof-witness Northern Ireland.
Whats sadams problem with the U2 planes again I wonder?
For the record there is no need for a war, imho, just a cleansing of Iraq of all remaining chemical or biological agents, and obviously, proof that they have no nuclear programme.

On an aside but important note, I am disturbed by, what I've heard from Iraqi citizens living in Ireland regarding tens of thousands of Sadams own citizens who have been killed by his regime over the last couple of decades.
for those that believe this is entirely about oil,Have the Germans French , Russians and chinese any proposals for to put a stop to that level of abuse and murder.
Again I don't want a war and it disturbs me that, powerfull nations are taking sides on which is morally more correct,in this case to allow Sadam to continue with torture or the other moral dilemma - War.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Their evidence points to inconsistancies in the Iraqi account of what they've done with what the UN did not destroy.

It would be more correct to say that the evidence contains explanations from the Iraqi's about the discrepancies - explanations which the US (via the Weapons Inspectors) appear to be simply dismissing out of hand. Now, I accept that there is a requirement to be cautious, but when there is a hole in paperwork (which there will be in anything of as large a scale as this), the US/UN approach is immediately that the Iraqi's are clearly lying.

As an interesting counterpoint (which I think I've mentioned before), I'm pretty sure that the US is incapable of accounting for every gram of radioactive material to have been produced by its nuclear stations. Surely, if we use the same logic, such inaccuracies show that the US had a covert nuclear development program (parellel to their normal one) in breach of their being on board the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time? No? But this is the logic used against Iraq.

Yes - I know most people consider the US more trustworthy than Iraq, but my point is that inaccuracies do not automatically show duplicity to conceal something. They could just be inaccuracies. They should be investigated, but from a stance of "lets see what we can find out", not "you're guilty, you're lying, and unless you produce the real documents without inaccuracies, we're gonna invade".

The taped conversations point to , "evacuating" not destroying any evidence.

Agreed. However, this conversation (at the very least) was not dated, and we've already seen one situation where the US and UK are apparently quite happy to use information from a decade ago to bolster their current case.

It is probable that Iraq are trying to hide something. What they are most likely trying to hide is research documents from their nuclear program - not actual materials. Documents, after all, are the simplest things to copy and hide untraceably, whilst materials are far more problematic.

If this is the case, then yes - the Iraqi's are in material breach. However, is it a reason to go to war? Why - what will it accomplish? If we accept that this information is so easily hidden and of such significance - how do we prevent it from remaining in the hands of any "old guard" Iraqi resistance which may spring up after the war? If we cant - then what was the purpose of the war in the first place?

And even today they still won't let U.N controled spy planes Verify anything, which points logically to suspicions.

Yes and no. Iraq kicked the previous inspectors out for being riddled with intelligence community - something which was supported (I believe) by statements from some of the Inspectors at the time. Now, the same nations responsible for most of that spying are threatening war and asking for permission to fly spy planes over wherever they want.

Not only that, but they want to hold the Iraqi's responsible for the security of the U2 planes even when they are in UN-controlled airspace in the no-fly zones. Now honestly...is that a reasonable request? You might as well tell the Iraqi's that the plane was flying from the UK with in-flight re-fuelling, and that the Iraqi's would be responsible for it from the moment it took off from British soil.

I mean if Russia, Germany and France don't want regime change, like the Americans do , it's hardly co-incidence that they to have been making shapes with Sadams government looking for oil.

Thats about as solid an argument as the one claiming that the only reasons the US want to go into Iraq is oil.

Of course, if thats true about the US, then I think Russia et al are quite right in what they're doing.

On the other hand, if we're willing to accept that the US is doing this for non-commerical reasons, why is it so impossible to consider that those opposed to war may also have the same logic.

By extension those countries are prepared to tolerate, all the severe human rights abuses in Iraq ...not a very moral case against regime change.

And by that standard, all the other corrupt regimes which the US is happily allowing to continue on their merry way is pretty damning too. You know - small places like China where the US are tripping over their feet trying to sell them stuff.

If you're gonna set those standards, don't just cherry pick the country which happens to back up your point. if you look across the board, you'll quickly see that human rights abuses in and of themselves dont register very significantly on the "to do something serious about" list of any the major western powers.

jc

Loomer

Originally posted by Man
Well thats always the way with sensitive inteligence, I'm afraid.

To be quite frank, that is complete BS. The majority of snooping by America is done by the Sig-Int section of the NSA, these days mainly with satlites. Contrary to what you may believe the CIA is a shadow of its former Cold-War days self. The vast majority of intel the US has on Iraq would have been attained by the NSA electronically and not by CIA field-agents which have been actively discouraged for the last twenty years (Read "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford for more info).

So any suggestion by Powell or anyone else that withholding intelligence from inspectors and the world for the purpose of safeguarding sources is purely another tactic to pevert the peaceful resolution of this situation.

Loomer

Did you notice the name of Bush's "envoy". He is Zalmay Khalilzad who is a former consultant for Unocal. Unocal was looking to secure a pipeline through Afghanistan before 1998 and the US cruise missle attacks. A few months ago a Minister in the Kazia (also a former Unocal consultant) government annouced that Unocal is talking with them about a pipeling though Afghanistan again. Hmmmmmm???!!!!!?????

Originally posted by Greenfool
The absolute, grotesque pit of US government hypocrisy comes in a report in the new york times which says that the US government plans to allow Turkish soldiers to occupy the Kurdish region of Iraq. Since Turkey also has an appalling history of oppressing and persecuting its Kurdish population, (the Ilisu dam is an example) this development finally dispels the last remaining fiction that America cares about the Kurds. Apparently the Kurds are being sold down the river - again! - this time because America needed to trade something for permission to use Turkish air bases for the coming war.

So much for the long-standing lie that America would support an autonomous Kurdish territory. This is a classic example of being delivered from the frying-pan into the fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/europe/07TURK.html