Uk Intelligence.

**hobbes** · 07-21-2003, 10:57 PM

In THIS forum it is required that you read the thread. You must read Myfiles and his points about "willful blindness" to get the gist of my post.

I was specifically responding to your comment that our elections were "fixed". I have already commented on the original post by JPaul.

Don't you see the irony. GBush was accussed of putting forth the intelligence report that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons because it fit his agenda. You do the same by stating that his election was fixed. Both of you have abandoned impartiality to support your preconceived conclusions/agendas.

You seem to feel justified in holding Bush to a standard you don't follow yourself. This is called hypocracy.

Jpaul, by the way, is an intelligent man with opinions, but not a media source.

You need to prove that our election proceedings were tainted, not just give us your opinion because you are not a "Bush fan".

**sArA** · 07-21-2003, 11:06 PM

My couple of pennies worth...

The idea of anyone deliberately 'sexing up' a reason for war is despicable.

Possibly, Blair thought he could 'handle' Bush and keep him in some kind of check by being his 'mate' cos everyone else is scared of him.

As with all friendships based on manipulation and fear (remember the bullies at school and their little gang of cronies?) The toadie always gets it in the end...

Serious miscalculation of Blair to try and brownose Bush.

Now he is in the shit past his nose if the US blames the UK for the whole thing. The French will have a field day saying 'we told you so', and will do their best to make Britain the laughing stock of Europe. With our 'friends' in the US turning our backs,
it doesn't look good for Blair's future career does it?

**lynx** · 07-22-2003, 01:38 AM

It seems to me that there is some serious truth evasion going on here.

The 'intelligence' about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger was (once again) very dubious, this has been admitted by both the US and UK governments, although certain elements of the UK government still seek to proclaim they believe it could still be true.

It is unprecedented that a war be started on evidence as flimsy as this (and all the other evidence is equally flimsy), but both governments put this information forward as prima facia evidence of WMD. It is inconcievable that the heirarchy of the two governments did not discuss this in great detail before presenting this 'data'.

It is equally inconcievable that the intelligence agencies of the two countries did not warn their 'masters' of the unreliability of the information, so we are drawn to the conclusion that there were other reasons for wishing to ignore those warnings.

Hobbes - perhaps you could point out the hypocracy/conspiracy theory in my argument. My only wish is to get to the truth of the matter.

**myfiles3000** · 07-22-2003, 03:51 AM

It is unprecedented that a war be started on evidence as flimsy as this

unprecedented, like, in the history of mankind? I could think off the top of my head of, say, half a dozen from last century. the niger documents, as ludicrous as they were, did not constitute the only evidence offered to wage war, and were therefore not crucial for Shrub and Blair to justify the invasion. it doesn't excuse what happened, but lets not overstate the role of the Niger documents.

(and all the other evidence is equally flimsy),

No, there is entirely credible evidence that hussein had bio and chem weapons, and all the thousands of litres of mold or athletes foot, or whatever the hell they were cooking up, have not been accounted for. This is not in dispute by any credible observer.

but both governments put this information forward as prima facia evidence of WMD.

what information are you referring to exactly? Because its not all the same, the evidence runs the spectrum from absurd to highly credible. feel free to reject Bush's decisions, i sure as hell do, but you have to stick with the facts.

It is inconcievable that the heirarchy of the two governments did not discuss this in great detail before presenting this 'data'. It is equally inconcievable that the intelligence agencies of the two countries did not warn their 'masters' of the unreliability of the information, so we are drawn to the conclusion that there were other reasons for wishing to ignore those warnings.

indeed, means to the end of democratizing and free-market-izing the middle east. do you, linx, reject in principle means to end strategies, that is, lesser short-term injustice for greater long-term justice?

My only wish is to get to the truth of the matter.

if truth is what you seek, I would avoid generalizations, and embrace nuance, nuance being something that comes with age and experience and as often as not drinking single malts neat.

**thewizeard** · 07-22-2003, 05:09 AM

Hobbes: @ Election farce; I don't agree with you or J2K4 on that matter. I pointed out at the time, it was off topic. Sorry to undermine your argument. So your conclusion that it was ironic is a little early. I have upset you in the past; don't go grinding your axe here.

In the words of Sallust,"Ambition drove men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue." This sounds familiar when applied to this case.

To chose a totally inadequate man (Republican Party) for such a responsible post
says more about that party than about their candidate. To rule at any cost..... Well it's backfireing on them now.

I will keep it short, I don't want to get the facts of the matter. They will just turn out to be more lies. The truth is indeed more important than the facts. All the rhetoric in the world wont change that.

**lynx** · 07-22-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 04:51

It is unprecedented that a war be started on evidence as flimsy as this

unprecedented, like, in the history of mankind? I could think off the top of my head of, say, half a dozen from last century. the niger documents, as ludicrous as they were, did not constitute the only evidence offered to wage war, and were therefore not crucial for Shrub and Blair to justify the invasion. it doesn't excuse what happened, but lets not overstate the role of the Niger documents.

Please supply examples, it is easy to say 'I can do x' and then not do so. I did not say it was the only evidence.

(and all the other evidence is equally flimsy),

No, there is entirely credible evidence that hussein had bio and chem weapons, and all the thousands of litres of mold or athletes foot, or whatever the hell they were cooking up, have not been accounted for. This is not in dispute by any credible observer.

See, there's the bit where I refer to other evidence. Where are these credible observers, please bring them forward.

but both governments put this information forward as prima facia evidence of WMD.

what information are you referring to exactly? Because its not all the same, the evidence runs the spectrum from absurd to highly credible. feel free to reject Bush's decisions, i sure as hell do, but you have to stick with the facts.

I wonder if I might be referring to the 'Niger documents', since that is the topic of this thread. Facts stuck to 100 per cent.

It is inconcievable that the heirarchy of the two governments did not discuss this in great detail before presenting this 'data'. It is equally inconcievable that the intelligence agencies of the two countries did not warn their 'masters' of the unreliability of the information, so we are drawn to the conclusion that there were other reasons for wishing to ignore those warnings.

indeed, means to the end of democratizing and free-market-izing the middle east. do you, linx, reject in principle means to end strategies, that is, lesser short-term injustice for greater long-term justice?

Here, I am demonstrating that all parties were aware of the weakness of the evidence, and that it is too late now to start pointing fingers of blame. I do indeed reject means to end strategies, these were exactly the principles held by the Nazi party in the last century. But feel free to put the jackboot of your 'democracy' on the necks of other countries.

My only wish is to get to the truth of the matter.

if truth is what you seek, I would avoid generalizations, and embrace nuance, nuance being something that comes with age and experience and as often as not drinking single malts neat.

Nuance is exactly that which is used to hide the truth. Age and experience show that it leads to obfuscation. I would suggest you lay off the single malts a little, myflies.