Iraq

[the mo beats experience]

could you condense the article into a paragraph, please, for a sun reader!

include pictures where appropriate.

 

oh, and a shocking headline,

 

ta.

[purrrrrrrrrrry]

Rog ignores me YET AGAIN!

 

Knowing something of you, I am intruiged to know what "******** ***" means to you (As in Manx Chat, but hey, if anyone presses me about it heeheh!)

 

Also why you haven't commented on the uranium information - heck, fella, it's not like I quoted R&J ("Thankyou Mr President" - bwahahahahaha!!!)

 

And besides any of this, where TF did your Scottish B&B thread go to? I have a theory on that all of my own (the B&B owners pissed-offedness I mean!) that I'd sooooooo love to share

[Rog]

purrrrrrrrrrry writes ----

Also why you haven't commented on the uranium information

Refer to this thread dated Jul 12 2004, 12:28 PM Post 34.

 

And besides any of this, where TF did your Scottish B&B thread go to? I have a theory on that all of my own (the B&B owners pissed-offedness I mean!) that I'd sooooooo love to share

 

The thread was deleted by the moderators as they had received a complaint and one in particular took offence at what he saw as my sneering approach to the issue. He was quite correct. I was sneering ----- at the pair who so obviously had gone out of their way to cause trouble.

 

If your theory is based on Tom being a ‘closet poof’ then that is simply wrong and a classic argument put up by those who simply can not understand those who find some aspects of life though permitted still quite disgusting.

 

I am one such person and the article by ‘Barry Beelzebub’ writing in his latest column in the Bristol Evening Post captures my sentiments on the subject precisely.

[Static]

Rog - your response to the Uranium issue (Jul 12 2004, 12:28 PM Post 34) was the typical sort of reply from someone who had lost that particular discussion. YOU brought up the issue of the Uranium as though it was proof that Saddam had WMD. Once I proved you wrong on that point you dismissed the whole thing as irrelevent.

 

Bit of hypocrisy there?

[Rog]

Rog - your response to the Uranium issue (Jul 12 2004, 12:28 PM Post 34) was the typical sort of reply from someone who had lost that particular discussion. YOU brought up the issue of the Uranium as though it was proof that Saddam had WMD. Once I proved you wrong on that point you dismissed the whole thing as irrelevent.

 

Bit of hypocrisy there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don’t think so.

 

I brought up the issue of the uranium as being an issue that had been satisfactorily resolved with the shipping of the material to safe hands and NOT as proof alone of saddam having WMD though possession of this fissile material certainly gave him the capacity to rapidly fabricate weapons that would certainly result in mass fatalities not to mention pollution that would render whole cities uninhabitable simply by surrounding an explosive charge with radioisotopes and exploding it in a populated area. Construction of such a weapon could be achieved within days if not hours. Radioactive materials do not need to be made to go critical to be used as a very effective weapon.

 

The matter of the possession of the real horror weapons – principally the chemical and biological weapons - is dealt with in much more detail in the articles related to the links back to reports that convoys of trucks were seen leaving Iraq and going to Syria and Lebanon. Ask yourself why were there so many biological and chemical protective materials in so many places throughout Iraq? And just how big a container would you need to store 5000 litres of biological agent – and there’s one hell of a lot of stored up death in 5000 litres of anthrax or botulism spores. Also the matter of chemical agents. One very nasty agent is formed by the combination of two otherwise quite innocuous chemicals being mixed. One of these chemicals is isopropyl alcohol – often found as a solvent and used to be used in typewriter correction fluid and thinners and the other though less chemically inert is still a common place industrial chemical. No mention is made of the substantial and unusually large quantities of these materials found, nor is much made of the finding of empty shells. How long does it actually take to decant 20 litres of a material that has the same degree of hazard as petrol from one container to another? Try ‘not long, Rog’ as an answer.

 

Bit could this be presented as proof positive of the presence of WMD? No. The only proof that would be accepted would be the finding of a loaded and primed weapon all dressed up and waiting to go. The facts of just what has been found let alone the knowledge of what has been shipped is dismissed as in all cases the ‘dual use’ argument flourishes.

 

There is some strange and even bizarre reason that people – even senior politicians – want to believe ‘Third World Right ----- USA Wrong’ in spite of all of the evidence over the years that although by no means pure, white, untarnished, and innocent in every way, the US nonetheless is a damm sight more trustworthy than most other nations on the Earth.

 

It’s well worth reading the articles that I have pointed and linked to in my original post. Even though from a UN source they certainly tell a very different story from the pre-digested version that is publicised. And don’t underestimate the domestic politics and judgements made. There are times that taking your lumps and getting it over with – even if undeserved – can be the best of a serious of bad options and that standing your ground – even if you know that you are right – may be more costly in the long term.

 

Take Nixon, I suspect that if at the beginning of ‘Watergate’ he had simply metaphorically stood up and said “Yes, I did know what was going on, and I did approve it” although there would have been all hell break out, within a very short time it would have been forgiven if not forgotten by most people.

 

Look at ‘Two Jags’ Prescot and the disgraceful attack that he made on the Welshman who lobbed an egg at him. How was it handled? An attempt to justify Prescot? None of it. All Bleah had to say was something to the effect of ‘Well, that’s John’. Today I doubt most people would even remember Prescot’s attack without being reminded of it.

So I suspect rather than continue to defend the belief – no knowledge – of the existence of WMD both Bush and Bleah have decided to play the ‘we may have been wrong about them – let’s move on’ card.

 

I remain utterly convinced that these devices and materials did and still do exist and are tucked away in hiding with many being held in the Lebanon and Syria. Please God the only way we get final proof positive is if they are found and not used.

[When Skies Are Grey]

I seem to recall in Gulf War 1 that the Iraqis had difficulty hitting countries per se with the SCUD missiles let alone targetting the UK within 45 minutes and launching a precise attack!! Maybe they did a lot of research or either just took the time to read the US instructions manuals that went with the weapons when they got them in the first place

[ans]

Ok, the discussion wandered massively off thread, and with PK's approval, I've split off the content of that into a new thread and re-opened this topic so people can continue with the discussion about Iraq if they want to.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Just a bit of an update -

 

Things have got massively worse in Iraq since the 'Handover'

 

American troops are hunkered down behind great slabs of concrete, totally ineffective in helping the Iraqis maintain order - in the interests of keeping the body count as low as possible before the November elections....

 

Most of the civilian contractors 'rebuilding' the country have skedaddled because of the high risk to staff....

 

Kofi Annan, General Secretary of United Nations has today stated that the American/Allied action was illegal in terms of the United Nations Charter, because a second resolution was not sought....

 

Therefore war crimes have been committed. (I know Rog, you are going to go on about how the United Nations is rubbish) - but America and Britain were the main authors of the Charter which has now been breached.

 

The UK Government will still not release the full briefing papers as to the legality of the war - surely this is the ideal time to spike the argument of the UN?

 

And finally, Brigade Commander Tim Collins, whose declaratory pre-battle speech Bush has on the wall behind his desk, has said today that the war was a sham, that it is illegal, and that there was no planning to build the new Iraq.

 

Troops are occupiers and oppressors he says, not liberators, which he understood was the principal aim of his men.

 

And theres more....

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

That is why there was a comprehensive briefing to many journalists from the MOD and Security Services, (not just Doctor Kelly) that the dossiers were wrong, that Campbell and Blair were exaggerating the threat, which did not exist and that war was being undertaken on a false premise.  Why did Elizabeth Wilmshurst resign?  Why won't the Attorney General release the arguments for going to war? 

 

There was one page 'for' or legally justifying the war, and about fifteen more valid pages arguing that the war was illegal.    Exit Elizabeth, but gagged.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And now the gag has been lifted and the smoking gun can clearly be seen.

 

Her letter has been released under the Freedom of Information procedures and a deleted paragraph in her letter, now revealed, shows that just before the war started, the Attorney General who had until that time stated that the war was illegal, changed his advice to the Government. Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned immediately on the eve of the war when he changed his decision - she having been party to giving advice that it would be an illegal war.

 

You can understand how someone can change their mind, but not how the legal situation can change overnight.....

[Ringwraith]

And finally, Brigade Commander Tim Collins, whose declaratory pre-battle speech

 

You mean this?

 

"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

 

"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

 

"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

 

"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

 

"It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.

 

"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

 

"It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

 

"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

 

"If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

 

"[Regarding the use by Saddam of chemical or biological weapons] It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

 

"As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

 

"Our business now is north

 

 

And what did the yanks say???

 

"IT'S HAMMER TIME!"

[P.K.]

And what did the yanks say???

 

"IT'S HAMMER TIME!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shouldn't that read:

 

"IT'S MILLER TIME!"

[Rog]

War, any war, is by its very nature an illegal act at a world perspective.

 

The employing of aggressive warlike tactics in pursuit of the imposition of a UN decree is another matter altogether. That is NOT war it is a police action (though the guys at the sharp end would be hard pressed to see the difference).

 

What Bleah tried to do was to make an excuse for taking the UK to war when no excuse was needed and that is where he screwed up.

 

If, instead of trying to justify his actions by using the UN as an excuse or by using the ‘perceived immediate threat’ as an excuse, he had simply presented a cabinet decision that the UK would join the US in opening hostilities against Iraq then none of this stupidity about was it legal or not would have even been on the table. But of course he would not as there would have been political meltdown in The house let alone NuLabour.

 

The whole matter, in my view, is not a question of the legality or otherwise of what has been done, but the utter incompetence and duplicity of Bleah.

 

He is less than useless. I say less than useless because it was Bleah as much as anyone who persuaded Bush to even raise the matter within the UN. Bush should simply have ignored the UN, it’s worthless anyway, and gone into Iraq as a simple act of war by the US on behalf of the free world. Something for which we should all be very grateful that did happen anyway.

[T Reznor]

'some' people in the US wanted to invade Iraq in 1998, don't believe me? then read this: (note who wrote the letter)

 

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

as for the rest of the people who are part of this and their ultimate aim:

 

http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

 

SO, AGREEING WITH BUSH AND SUPPORTING THE WAR MAKES YOU AN AMERICAN IMPERIALIST, IS ANYONE HERE AN AMERICAN IMPERIALIST?!

 

and I quote "We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership."

 

and again, look who signed it....

 

now you don't read that in the tabloids!

[Rog]

SO, AGREEING WITH BUSH AND SUPPORTING THE WAR MAKES YOU AN AMERICAN IMPERIALIST, IS ANYONE HERE AN AMERICAN IMPERIALIST?!

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Put that way and in that context, yes. I am.

 

So?

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Bumped for the third time

 

re Attorney General's Legal Advice re war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst etc,

 

And I suppose to say, "I told you so"....