Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

A war against Iraq?

(Page 17 of 18)
> > > >
 
Re: [perlman] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Yes, that is what I would like to say and ofcourse, they have found the "low-uranium" mechenical in Iraq too. But it was from the U.S weaps

All that's the evidence so far

Cheers,

Dat

Programming and creating plugins and templates
Blog

Last edited by:

tandat: Jun 2, 2003, 10:20 AM
 
Re: [tandat] A war against Iraq? In reply to
All in good time =)
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I was reading that there is quite the storm of press in the UK right now about Blair misrepresnting to the public about the evidence they had about Iraq's WMD's which is apparently getting ignored by most of the US media. Interesting discussion on Metafilter about it:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/26098

Are you hearing a lot about this in mainstream media?

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
 
Re: [Alex] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It's an interesting thread, but when you get an American writing things such as:

Quote:
The government lied so that they could murder thousands of people for the sake of covert political expediency, ideology, and oil.

...(referring to our government) should it be considered credible?

Blair is having a hard time over here no thanks to a power hungry ex-cabinet member of parliament - Clare Short. She created a big scene by threatening to resign, then withdrawing the threat, then finally resigning...she wants some of the lime light.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jun 2, 2003, 11:18 AM
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.

The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."

The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a for the early use of force in Iraq.

"There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," he said in a telephone interview. They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas."

CHEMICAL WEAPONS REPORT 'SIMPLY WRONG'

The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.

Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.

"They established beyond any doubt that there were connections that had gone unnoticed in previous intelligence analysis," he said on the PBS NewsHour Thursday.

A Pentagon spokesman, Marine Lt. Col. David Lapan, said the team in question analyzed links among terrorist groups and alleged state sponsors and shared conclusions with the CIA.

"In one case, a briefing was presented to Director of Central Intelligence Tenet. It dealt with the links between Iraq and al Qaeda," the group blamed for the Sept. 2001 attacks on the United States, he said.

Tenet denied charges the intelligence community, on which the United States spends more than $30 billion a year, had skewed its analysis to fit a political agenda, a cardinal sin for professionals meant to tell the truth regardless of politics.

"I'm enormously proud of the work of our analysts," he said in a statement on Friday ahead of an internal review. "The integrity of our process has been maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong."

Tenet sat conspicuously behind Secretary of State Colin Powell during a key Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council arguing Iraq represented an ominous and urgent threat -- as if to lend the CIA's credibility to the presentation, replete with satellite photos.

Powell said Friday his presentation was "the best analytic product that we could have put up."

SHAPED 'FROM THE TOP DOWN'

Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research working on weapons, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped "from the top down."

"The normal processing of establishing accurate intelligence was sidestepped" in the runup to invading Iraq, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security and who deals with U.S. intelligence officers.

Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to U.S. President George Bush May 1 to hit what they called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."

"In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin -- cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy," it wrote. "There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One of the many similar reports from the majour news services (including the news wire services, CBC, CNN, BBC - to name a few). And British (un)intelligence has been shown in a similar light. The CIA is even investigating how its intel was utilized and possibly abused by the Pentagon and the Executive Branch. Is British intelligence still using (outdated, and edited) student papers as part of its intel research? And, what happened to those two or three Iraqi ships that fled Iraq, and that the US and the British had intelligence were carrying WMD's? Or the intel preceding the Iraqi invasion / occupation, that was later shown to be either forged or wrong. Presumably, the same intelligence was used in finalizing of the regime change / invasion of Iran by the US (and possibly and most probably, with the UK in tow) and US-sponsored, counter-Irani terrorists (I guess the US believes it takes terrorists to fight so-called terrorists). At any rate, dozens of US and UK companies are raking in hundreds of millions to billions of dollars from the sale of Iraqi oil as they rebuild Iraq (followed soon enough by Iran) and the Middle East in their image. "God Bless Iraq", but we'll decide 'which of your Gods.' Democracy, but we'll decide who may run for office. Trade, but we'll decide with whom and when. By some estimates, it may be two to even three years before Iraqi will seem fit to be a sovereign nation and run its own affairs. Afghanistan is no closer to sovereignty after nearly two years, and Afghanis continue to be killed on a daily basis - along with the odd allied soldier. Nation building is not as easy at is looks on paper (the US Republicans know this all to well as they, time after time, berated the Clinton administration for so-called nation building in the Balkans), especially when the people do not welcome the conquerors. And over time, the resentment will turn to violent rage. In the Middle East, time runs fast as patience is quickly exhausted. A lesson well learned from previous occupations (Turks and the British to name a few). And if you think the Arab World will tolerate the future US/UK-sponsored regime changes in Iran, Syria, etc., then you have a big and unpleasant surprise at the end of the tunnel. They 'tolerated' the conquest of Iran, but it would not serve their 'interests' to allow the conquest of the Middle East. And one conservative think tank that I know enough, has the same reservations and concerns. Bush's holy crusade against evil does not end here, and it will not end in accordance to his twisted game plan. Terrorists are not born, they are made. Often made by occupations. And even some Bush administration insiders are concerned that the Iraqi situation has hurt the war on terrorism. So no WMD's discovered in Iraq, destablized Middle East (Israel and Palestine are far from peace, and a few more terrorist attacks will settle that), mounting historical / monsterous deficits/ debt for the US (on the brink of bankruptcy), and a faltering war on terrorism. Are we sure Bush has given up his drinking and other nasty habits?

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It's a game of opinions.
 
Re: [Wil] A war against Iraq? In reply to
In Reply To:
Just to remind the pro-war supporters here, that we are still waiting for justification and evidence of weapons of mass destruction.


Curious. Before the war, it was "give the inspectors time to work". The time variable being a period of at least 12 years. If we start with the premise of fairness and impartiality, why are there no arguments for an additional 12 years to "give the inspectors time to work"?
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading
 
Re: [BeaverheadRiver] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Not 12 years. UN weapons inspections teams left Iraq in 1998 after US et al decided to bomb the hell out of them. The US decided to terminate the inspections at that time. And inspections were working, as was evident then and is evident now. Iraq posed no clear and present danger to other countries in the region or elsewhere. And no WMD's used by Iraq when the US/UK declared war and invaded Iraq. Not even Scuds (although initially reported by media to have been used, the reports were officially discounted). And, attacks only directed against enemy forces in neighbouring countries. All fair in love and war. The UN was ready to give Iraq no more than a few months (France and Canada were fully onboard with this - even with 30 days), but the US/UK had so-called dire intel that Iraq was up to its neck in WMD's, and ready to launch a large scale and immediate invasion in the Middle East, or attack on the US. The US/UK has had almost three months and full / unfettered run of the country, but no WMD's discovered. 1000's poring over the country, but nada. Rumsfeld was overheard on 911 saying that they should bomb the hell out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, as soon as I heard of the suicide bombings in New York, I knew that Iraq was next - one of the first things I said to my girlfriend when she woke me up with the news. I didn't know when the US would invase Iraq, but I guessed anywhere between a few months to a few years after 911. No surprises. Iran and Syria will be no surprise either. What will be a surprise will be when. Bush may want to wait until after re-election before he goes ballistic.

At any rate, let's see how this game unfolds over the coming months, and few years. It should prove interesting. Just remember the players (those on the playing board and those on the side, ready to jump in unexpectedly). And remember that the rules of engagement are not carved in stone.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
The UN teams pulled out after Iraq began blocking the inspectors and hindering their progress.

'but the US/UK had so-called dire intel that Iraq was up to its neck in WMD's, and ready to launch a large scale and immediate invasion in the Middle East, or attack on the US.'

Nobody in the alliance ever said that.

And be honest about the French position, it was to delay, obfuscate, and deny for their friends in Baghdad.

Shouldn't you be ducking from the black helicopters hovering over your house?
 
Re: [BeaverheadRiver] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Yet the so called 'anti-war' movement can't explain why Saddam didn't just cooperate with the UN if he had truly disposed of his arsenal or the infrastructure to produce it.

Nor do they want to talk about the mobile labs.

The are some legitimate pacifists and activists around. Those you can actually talk to. However, the majority of these chuckleheads are just plain "anti", and have already moved onto other causes....the 2004 election, G-8, WTO, globalization, free some idiot, communist revolution, general anarchy, cheaper starbucks, etc., etc., etc.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Jun 2, 2003, 1:46 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Maybe I should be ducking the black helicopters, given the prevalent and accepted insanity in the US. Much of my greater resentment of the US began awhile back when the US arrested an Arab-Canadian who was returning from the Middle East to Canada. The US arrested him in New York while on a brief stop-over to Toronto, on the grounds that he was a terrorist. After a few days of intense but fruitless interrogation and no evidence to support the US claim that we was a terrorist, he was deported not back to Canada, but back to the country he was born. A country he has not been for nearly 20 years. Never allowed access to lawyer. Canada never informed or contacted, until Canada filed a formal protest. By then it was too late, he was gone and imprisoned in Syria. He came to Canada in his teens, and has a family (wife and young children) and business here (a reputable business, not on any watch lists). He left Syria because he did not want to be drafted into the Syrian army. He's a pacificist and he, like the US, does not support the Syrian government. Evading the Syrian draft is very, very serious. On his arrival to Syria, he was immediately arrested. As far as I know, he has been locked away in a Syrian prison since then. If (and I mean if) he does ever get out, it won't be without great physical and emotional damage. The US position, oh well, shit happens. No apologies, or assistance to get back to Canada. That's one story. There are several other incidences of Canadians being rounded up, and jailed for several months. Not as dramatic, but illustrates the prevailing insanity in the US. No charges, no evidence, minimal (if any) legal aid, and only informing the Canadian government when we bitched loud and hard enough. No evidence required, only the appearance of suspicion based on ethnicity. But then the same rules, according to US law, do not apply to non-US citizens. And are they nearer to striking out the sunset provisions in the Patriot Act yet as some Republicans (Hatch?) are urging? What a lie, what a deception. My prediction, is it will happen along with enacting Patriot Act II (this one was speculated upon by the pundits even while the original act was being pushed through).

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
"No evidence required, only the appearance of suspicion based on ethnicity." There's no basis in fact for that statement.

Anybody can get into Canada. Because we share a border, that's a threat for our security. If visiting foreign nationals don't want to have problems, they should get their papers and visas in order.

Nobody is going to apologize here for enforcing immigration laws.
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Not as dramatic, but illustrates the prevailing insanity in the US.

I think you'll find such cases in plenty of countries, you just happened to identify the US as that is the country you have chosen to pick on. For example last year in the UK a family of immigrants were jailed temporarily before being deported but it was deemed that the treatment was unfair and they were released.

Such events happen world-wide. Targetting the Us and implying that it only happens in the US because of the "insanity" is misrepresentative.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jun 2, 2003, 2:37 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Anyone can get in Canada, wrong - same media hype (like SARS) that was later disregarded for the most part (neoconservative dinos like to hang on to it, for the obvious reasons). None of the 911 guys, for example, originated from Canada. Only a couple to date that I know of that have terrorist links. The 911 guys just 'walked' into US straight from the Middle East / Europe, virtually unchallenged. The guy (wish I could recall his name) I spoke, did have all the required and proper papers - including Canadian passport, photo identification and all valid travel documents as he was returning to Canada as he has done in the past. And no criminal record, here or anywhere. INS per se did not deport him, at least not on immigration charges - if they did, why not consult with his nation's government. Official word out of Washington was that they lacked evidence to pursue criminal terrorism charges, so they deported him to Syria. Nothing else added - to the public, or the government of Canada. No immigration charges or violations cited, officially or unofficially. No surprise there. And the US did not send him to his rightful country. The US sent him to a country he was born in a long time ago, knowing he faced persecution and human rights violations. I wonder how his children will turn out, knowing that their dad was sent by the Americans to Syria to possibly never return or even die. They are made.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Some countries you just expect that from. But when it happens between two so-called friends, it is different. I don't take it all that personal if a stranger slugs me. But when an apparent longstanding friend slugs you for no apparent reason right out of blue and continues punching, it is more personal. More disturbing. The stranger I'll never see again. But the 'friend' will always be knocking your door saying "Hey friend, let's...", and then slugs you again. For the past 2 years, the US has been slugging us over and over again. The list is endless. Like softwood lumber. Again WTO has just ruled in our favour, but the US will be appealing (which I'd expect Canada to do if Canada lost). But like always, they will lose. But it does not matter as they will not recognize the ruling. But that only scratches the surface. International law and trade agreements only apply to the US if it is solely in their best interests. Never a middle ground. This is what we deal with. What you don't understand is that Canada and the US have (or I should say, had) a special relationship that few countries share. For one thing, we are each the others largest single trading partner. But there are many other factors, including special and unique bonds as well. It would be hard to describe to an outsider. But we were once brothers. But now they do everything possible to screw us. It's all about expectations and history. Now we just (barely) tolerate the US, and hope for regime change.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Canada doesn't have a broad reputation as a safe haven for illegal immigration for nothing.

Mr. Maher Arar was flying from Tunis to Montreal, stopping in New York where he was detained. "The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York" (link).

He remains in Syrian custody. If he has a valid complaint against the INS, and he survives Syria, he can always try to sue.

And it seems that unfortunate fuss over SARS in Toronto wasn't so off base after all. Isn't it back on the WHO travel list now?
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
But we were once brothers. But now they do everything possible to screw us. It's all about expectations and history. Now we just (barely) tolerate the US, and hope for regime change.


That's pretty much the same sentiment here. A once friendly nation has drifted so far that we barely share common values or interests. A regime change might help, but it's doubtful.

And some of my Canadian friends tell me they also feel the same about Ottawa. Tongue

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Jun 2, 2003, 4:17 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I think certain anti-war/anti-us protestors know the fall of Saddam's regime has been a success thus far but aren't man enough to admit it so just find other things to whinge about as a diversion.

Last edited by:

Paul: Jun 2, 2003, 4:05 PM
 
Re: [Alex] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Yes.

Hence my posting, and my link to that BBC article.

Tony Blair has now put his leadership on the line by saing that he 100!% believes that there will be WMD discovered in Iraq.

If there are not, I doubt he will be able to hold his premiership.

Anyone lying to the house of Commons is a very very very serious matter and undermines the whole democratic process the United Kingom is based upon, and the only option left would be to resigne.

It's now a waiting game.

Tick. Tock.

- wil
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
In Reply To:
I think certain anti-war/anti-us protestors know the fall of Saddam's regime has been a success thus far but aren't man enough to admit it so just find other things to whinge about as a diversion.

Jesus christ Paul.

This is a technical issue.

The reason given to the UK public for going to war with Iraq WAS NOT ABOUT REGIME CHANGE but about EVIDENCE OF WMD.

Yes. I will agree. Regime change, might, bring some stability to the region.

But that's not the issue.

The basic

very very basic

issue here is that the RH Tony Blair decieved the house of commons by publishing spin and making them believe in spin. And that, is a very very very serious allegation. You lie to the house of commons, the house of trust, and the whole deomcratic process of the United Kingdom is built upon falls down like a pack of cards overnight.

- wil
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
If he has a valid complaint against the INS, and he survives Syria, he can always try to sue.


Nice. I'll pass along the sentiments to his family (or survivors). Death my deportation, the new US justice that evades international human rights laws. I recall a CNN report about the CIA (albeit limited fortunately) practice of deporting some prisoners to Syria for no-holds-barred 'interrogation', in which US agents monitored (I presume taking notes and asking the odd question). Do you trivialize his life because (1) he is Canadian and you are still peeved at Canadians for not supporting the US, (2) of your hatred of anyone that the Bush administration 'suspects' of being a terrorist (whether evidence exists or not to support their case), or (3) of your hatred of Muslims in general? And please no, "I'll have you know, I have some [fill in ethnic race here] friends."

And yes as far as Toronto back on the WHO travel list. But a more virulent and lethal virus is in the Canadian population. It is expected to kill up to 200 times more Canadians this year than SARS has killed to date. And not so long ago, a form of the virus killed millions worldwide. Look out, it's coming to a town near you, and it's not Mad Cow or the AIDS virus.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It's trivial because it's a minor blip. If his cause is worthy the Canadian government is fully capable of addressing the issue with Syria - if it even wants to. From what I've read today on the subject, it doesn't appear to be a priority of the Canadian Foreign Ministry.

If the old INS made a mistake, so be it. That organization was absorbed into a new agency charged with securing the nation's borders and managing the immigration process. Hopefully they'll do a better job.

And no, I'm not upset that Canada no longer backs us on the big issues. Sure, it's nice to offer you the occasional ride to a hot zone, or have your endorsement of some cause, but other than for niceties it's becoming of little importance. That's okay, Canada has different priorities.

Canada's interest in international peacekeeping duties or aid missions is reflected in your loss of a military airlift capacity, and a navy that in 10 years will be relegated to brown water* duties only. Soon it only be able to offer limited "logistical assistance", i.e., a few guys wearing cammies looking at maps, and some warm bodies for the blue hat brigade. That's okay as well, there are plenty of other nations eager to participate in NATO or on other bilateral missions.

As to your other accusations of my motives, the answer is simply no.

* No brown water is not a racist statement. Blue water refers to the open oceans, brown water refers to the littorals (close to shore).

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Jun 2, 2003, 6:47 PM
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I don't consider the loss of one human life, a blip (to be ignored and forgotten about). Was 911 a minor or majour blip? I fight for all people together and individually. Always have, and always will. I will never brush away the life of a single person just because of an error in judgement as part of a larger battle. And the Canadian government continues to work to free Arar from the Syrian prison that the US sent him to - admittedly, not as diligently as before, but the Syrians don't succumb to political pressure. And I 'd prefer to see our new state-of-the-art frigates patrolling Canadian waters, and assisting UN-sanctioned peacekeeping missions. Yep, we have other priorities like paying down the debt and providing a social safety net for our citizens (rated internationally and by the UN in the top 1-3), unlike borrow-and-spend conservatives who's first priority is the military - you see this gone completely mad in North Korea, and it was the largest contributing factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Most US states and cities are awash and drowning in red ink, and many are driving up taxes to stay afloat. That's going to hurt come elections. Debt is no stranger to Canada to say the least, but for the past 6 years we have been balancing the books because we know that debt cannot increase forever. Ask any economist. For what it's worth, we did add another 1 billion dollars per year to the military. I am a left-winger, but would like to increase that three-fold. But only if Canada sticks to UN-sanctioned missions. Otherwise, not another drop. But damned if we will close hospitals, undereducate our children, and allow your country to slip so headfirst into debt that all the money in the World could not extricate ourselves out of. There are limits, and the law of diminishing returns.

At any rate, got a business to run and a life to live. Been fun again. Perhaps we could get our own reality show Wink

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
 
Re: [dan] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I can appreciate your left wing viewpoint. However, I would point out that the man is not lost yet, simply detained against his will in a hostile state. If Syria is unwilling to listen to Canada on the matter, you have to wonder why...as Syria will listen to other allies when pressed. Perhaps there is even tacit agreement amongst the parties as to the outcome.

The Canadian Navy I'm sure applauded the $1 billion. However, that may not have even covered its operating account deficit. It will take a sustained budgetary commitment to overcome 30 years of neglect, as well as the 1990's defense funding freeze. That would take a political commitment, and such does not appear forthcoming out of Ottawa any time soon.

The desire to participate in UN operations is definitely laudable, but unfortunately not sustainable given the current and long term future of the Canadian forces.

As to US state and city budgets, if you spend more than you take in - shit happens, adjust accordingly.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
The DOJ has already completed an investigation about the treatment of the post 9/11 detainees.

Checks and balances at work:

http://www.usdoj.gov/...pecial/0603/full.pdf
> > > >