News From Iraq

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4
The United States and our allies, especially Great Britain, are doing a
very noble thing here. We stuck our necks out on the world's chopping block
to free an entire people from the grip of a horrible terror that was beyond
belief.

I've already talked the weapons of mass destruction thing to death,
...bottom line, who cares? This country was one big conventional weapons
ammo dump anyway. We have probably destroyed more weapons and ammo in the
last 30 days than the US Army has ever fired in the last 30 years (Remember,
this is a country the size of Texas), so drop the WMD argument as the reason
we came here, ....if we find it GREAT, if we don't, SO WHAT?

To me this is the most interesting bit. I have no doubt that the work our guys are doing over there is worth doing and making a positive difference to the Iraqi people. but...

We cant use that as justification for the war,. We'd have to invade multiple countries as a matter of principle if we were to use that argument as justification for the invasion, which incidentally, we never did before the war began.

Finding WMD is not a non-issue as Major Rydbom believes. If there are no WMD then..

i) Blair and Bush lied
ii) the USA/UK etc were not in immediate danger from Iraq. (our main justification)

No disrespect intended towards Major Rydbom but "So what" is a pretty flippant response to this situation.

It would be nice if we could invade every country run by an evil dictator but we cant. the USA and the UK have already stretched the UN to breaking point with this war. If they cant come back with a smoking gun and say "see we told you guys we were right all along" there are going to be serious consequences for all concerned.

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@8 July 2003 - 17:20


To me this is the most interesting bit. I have no doubt that the work our guys are doing over there is worth doing and making a positive difference to the Iraqi people. but...

It seems to me that, at this point, we are dealing with two separate issues here.

One: You just stated that you "have no doubt" that we are having a positive impact on the people of Iraq. I agree, and think we should explore ways to maximize the effect we can have on the country and the surrounding region. We seem to be doing good and should continue to do so.

Two: Did Bush/Blair intentionally mislead and deceive us about the reasons for beginning the war? Maybe. I just read today of preliminary findings by a committee in the UK that seem to indicate that, at the very least, data was "sexed-up" ( a uniquely charming English collocquialism) to support Blair"s position.

Should a similar finding be reached over here then I would be all for making both leaders face whatever consequences are legally appropriate in their respective countries.

[hobbes]

I agree with EBP on this one word for word, but I have made this clear repeatedly.

Also, I would like to state my support for the individuals, like Rydbom, who trusted their government and it's motives, and put their lives on the line. It would be a transgression if it were proven that they had been sent over there on false pretenses.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@8 July 2003 - 18:20

Finding WMD is not a non-issue as Major Rydbom believes. If there are no WMD then..

i) Blair and Bush lied
ii) the USA/UK etc were not in immediate danger from Iraq. (our main justification)

No disrespect intended towards Major Rydbom but "So what" is a pretty flippant response to this situation.

I intended only to post Major Rydbom's letter as an update from someone on the scene.

As an aside, how long before an actual finding of WMD or their disposition is no longer considered justification for the war?

Has the potential relevance of same already gone by the boards?

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by clocker@8 July 2003 - 23:50

Two: Did Bush/Blair intentionally mislead and deceive us about the reasons for beginning the war? Maybe. I just read today of preliminary findings by a committee in the UK that seem to indicate that, at the very least, data was "sexed-up" ( a uniquely charming English collocquialism) to support Blair"s position.

I thought the committee concluded that the report had not in fact been "sexed up" by Alistair Campbell, or anyone else in the Government?

This is what the big row is at the moment between the Government and the BBC, becaue the Government wants the BBC to apologise for reporting that the dossier had been deliberately altered to make Saddam look more threatening, and they won't do it.

[clocker]

I'm sorry, barbarossa, I'm sure that you're right.

I admit that once I got to the phrase "sexed-up" my attention wandered.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As an aside, how long before an actual finding of WMD or their disposition is no longer considered justification for the war?[/b]

I think that depends on the gullibility of the electorate and the effectiveness of Gvt propaganda. For me though WMD were and always will be the real justification. People should goto their local libraries and look back on the archive of national newspapers to remind themselves of how this 'product' was sold to us.

Originally posted by j2k4@
Has the potential relevance of same already gone by the boards?

?

<!--QuoteBegin-barbarossa
thought the committee concluded that the report had not in fact been "sexed up" by Alistair Campbell, or anyone else in the Government?

This is what the big row is at the moment between the Government and the BBC, becaue the Government wants the BBC to apologise for reporting that the dossier had been deliberately altered to make Saddam look more threatening, and they won't do it. [/quote]

As I understand the situation at the moment...

The MOD say they have found the source within their ranks and that he admitted the "Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes" claim was probably put in the dossier "for effect" but did not say who put it there.

The BBC's reporter Mr Gilligan maintains that his source does not work for the MOD and that his source claims that the 45 minute claim was added by Alistair Campbell, Tony Blairs press secretary, and that the intelligence services were not happy with this rather dubious addition.

So.. there seems to be no doubt that the 45 minute claim was highly suspect. The current sticking point is who was responsible for putting it in the 2nd dossier.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+9 July 2003 - 06:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 9 July 2003 - 06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@
As an aside, how long before an actual finding of WMD or their disposition is no longer considered justification for the war?

I think that depends on the gullibility of the electorate and the effectiveness of Gvt propaganda. For me though WMD were and always will be the real justification. People should goto their local libraries and look back on the archive of national newspapers to remind themselves of how this &#39;product&#39; was sold to us.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Has the potential relevance of same already gone by the boards?

[/b][/quote]
No; what I mean is would it even be possible for WMD to be found, or solid documentation of their disposition (with witnesses), and have such be accepted as legitimate proof?

I&#39;ve seen intimations in this forum that those who are inclined to disbelieve will reject any actual finding of evidence as planted or fabricated.

As another aside (not trying to make hay, here), does the existence of Saddam&#39;s "trailers of WMD" summon any suspicion at all?

[Neil__]

j2k4
there now has to be suspicion.

I think that we didn&#39;t have to find actual WMD
If we could have found enough GENUINE documents to the effect
then we would have been satisfied
But now Tony and George have been found "tampering" with Documents
then further proof is now needed
Witnesses would be good but then we have the problem of America and U.K. getting their hands on them first.

they have been caught in a lie and now we require far more substantial evidence
before we believe them further.

But if the evidence is clear then I have to accept it.

As for others they may require more convinsing

Evilbagpuss.
The BBC has stated the British government is playing a game whereby with succesive denials of the source of the leak the government will close in
They have reiterated the source was not in the MOD but will make no further affirmations or denials about any other reported location for the mole.

Neil

[j2k4]

I haven&#39;t exact info on the case extant in the U.K., but it sounds at this point more like an as-yet-undecided pissing contest.

Thanks, but I&#39;ll wait.