NationStates Jolt Archive

Not that any of the usual suspects around here will give it any credence. Why should they? They're in so deep now that to admit they were wrong might destroy them, or so they think.

But that's not the point of this thread. No, this thread is to discuss this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-niger11dec11,0,3831325,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines) from the LA Times which puts yet another hole in the old "the rest of the world's intelligence agencies though Saddam had WMD" statement.

PARIS — More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.

The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002.

The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request.

Chouet's account was "at odds with our understanding of the issue," a U.S. government official said. The U.S. official declined to elaborate and spoke only on condition that neither he nor his agency be named.

However, the essence of Chouet's account — that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA — was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity.

If that story doesn't do anything for you, you can always try this one (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?rnd=1134369344630&has-player=true)--it talks about how CIA money was behind the formulation of the Iraqi National Council, and how this propaganda move has been in the works since the first Gulf War. Interesting reading.

Conservative USian: The French! hah, the women there don't even shave! How could they have reliable intelligence? Those Monkey eatin' surrender cheezits.

jus kiddin'

This brings up a good point though. Conservative people who think the war in Iraq is teh greatest thing since peelable bananas really do liek to say that every intelligence agency around the world had the same conclusion that the US did... BUT <- big butt there I hope Oprah doesn't sue for copyright infringement -> how do we know they aren't just keeping quiet liek the French did just so as not to get on the US's bad side and have their dogs renamed as Freedom Poodles?

yes I knoew +1 shouldnt post drunk

sorries :fluffle:

"If the French knew in 2001 and 2002 that the Niger reports were baseless, why was the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director for Nonproliferation telling the United States on November 22, 2002 (per the SSCI report) that they had intelligence showing that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger?"


http://instapundit.com/archives/027394.php

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/12/why_out_italy.html

So much for the LA Times! :p

But isn't it interesting to know that Leftists no longer have the ability to question authority? ^_~

um, aren't those blogs? they have some sort of credibility somehow? more credibility than someone from the french intelligence agency?

But nothing in the OP shows that Saddam was abiding by the ceasefire agreement.

But nothing in the OP shows that Saddam was abiding by the ceasefire agreement.
Never said it did. But thanks so much for acting as though that's relevant to this discussion. [/snark]

um, aren't those blogs? they have some sort of credibility somehow? more credibility than someone from the french intelligence agency?


They have as much credibility as the LA Times. :D

They have as much credibility as the LA Times. :D
Nah, they don't. But thanks for playing.

um, aren't those blogs? they have some sort of credibility somehow? more credibility than someone from the french intelligence agency?
Yes, instapundit is a blog.

But if you follow the links in the story, eventually you get to another blog with links to evidence. I think you want to dismiss them out of hand because they present a worldview you can never agree with.

I would, however, believe that the French government, like the US government, has a situation where one part of the government is distinctly unaware of what another part of the same government has said or is doing or believes.

It's entirely possible that different parts of the French government, over time, have believed contradictory things about the Niger uranium idea.

The Nazz would like everyone to believe that the Niger uranium is the only WMD that the US was worried about.

The Nazz would like everyone to believe that the Niger uranium is the only WMD that the US was worried about.
The Nazz would like no such thing, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

However, while the Niger uranium was not the only WMD the US was worried about, it was the primary piece of evidence used to scare a public into believing that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, and the nuclear component of the WMD case the administration made was the primary part of the case. Chemical and biological weapons were noted and cited (and never found either, but that's another story), but it was the specter of the mushroom cloud that sold the public on the war--perhaps not you personally, DK, but the public as a whole.

The nuke is the bookeyman, because every person in the US grew up seeing video of the mushroom clouds over Japan and over the Pacific test islands--very few people, by comparison, know what a Ricin or a Sarin attack looks like, or what anthrax will do to the human body, so it's not as effective as a scare tactic. But the nuke--that's the big boy, and the Bush administration pushed it even when they knew they had less evidence for that than for any other component of a pathetically weak case for WMD.

Not that any of the usual suspects around here will give it any credence. Why should they? They're in so deep now that to admit they were wrong might destroy them, or so they think.

But that's not the point of this thread. No, this thread is to discuss this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-niger11dec11,0,3831325,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines) from the LA Times which puts yet another hole in the old "the rest of the world's intelligence agencies though Saddam had WMD" statement.



If that story doesn't do anything for you, you can always try this one (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?rnd=1134369344630&has-player=true)--it talks about how CIA money was behind the formulation of the Iraqi National Council, and how this propaganda move has been in the works since the first Gulf War. Interesting reading.

...and this makes Saddam Hussein less deplorable how?

Does it make up for any of the people he murdered, kidnapped, gave acid baths to?

I think you've completely missed the point: taking down Saddam is justification in and of itself;

Freeing the Iraqis, GETTING THEM THE ABILITY TO VOTE THEIR OWN PEOPLE into office, is justification for all those who have sacrificed their lives for the good of Iraq;

Stopping the oppression (or fear of oppression) of 80% of Iraqis is justification of the US's actions;

Killing 50,000+ terrorists (those who would kill anyone who espouses democratic ideals)/insurgents (those who would kill peaceful Iraqis) justifies our actions.

So WHY THE F*** does WMD matter?

*If GW didn't know, then he didn't lie. So why do you still care? Do you hate President Bush so much that you'll hang onto arguments that are about as meaningful as last Wednesday's weather report?

*It still seems a bit odd that we're assuming that we've searched all of IRaq. But since the WMD argument is not at all important when you consider the progress being made (this of all weeks), I won't waste my time worrying over it. He had them and if they're not in Iraq, they're probably in Syria.

However, while the Niger uranium was not the only WMD the US was worried about, it was the primary piece of evidence used to scare a public into believing that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, and the nuclear component of the WMD case the administration made was the primary part of the case.

I guess you'll overlook the 1800 gallons of anthrax that UNSCOM said was missing (up to the moment of invasion), and that the US cited the UNSCOM report - and that we found out what happened to the anthrax - and that no amount of UNSCOM inspections would ever have revealed what happened to it, since Dr. Taha could not talk as long as Saddam was in power.

I guess you think that 1800 gallons of anthrax is no threat to anyone and that no one should take pains to find out where it is and what its disposition might be.

I guess you think that 1800 gallons of anthrax is no threat to anyone and that no one should take pains to find out where it is and what its disposition might be.


Nah, threat to someone? Yeah. Threat to the United States? No. :p


I think you've completely missed the point: taking down Saddam is justification in and of itself.
You know, if that was said at the time- things might have panned out differently.

But since thats the new thing apparently- you've got a lot of work ahead of you (the United States)- there are a lot of leaders the deserve to be 'taken down'.

How about the al-Saud family first? Or Musharraf? Or Kim in DPRK?

I guess you'll overlook the 1800 gallons of anthrax that UNSCOM said was missing (up to the moment of invasion), and that the US cited the UNSCOM report - and that we found out what happened to the anthrax - and that no amount of UNSCOM inspections would ever have revealed what happened to it, since Dr. Taha could not talk as long as Saddam was in power.

I guess you think that 1800 gallons of anthrax is no threat to anyone and that no one should take pains to find out where it is and what its disposition might be.

that's not possible, Deep Kimchi -- Saddam Hussein is to be sainted.

I guess you'll overlook the 1800 gallons of anthrax that UNSCOM said was missing (up to the moment of invasion), and that the US cited the UNSCOM report - and that we found out what happened to the anthrax - and that no amount of UNSCOM inspections would ever have revealed what happened to it, since Dr. Taha could not talk as long as Saddam was in power.

I guess you think that 1800 gallons of anthrax is no threat to anyone and that no one should take pains to find out where it is and what its disposition might be.
You're so good at answering the question you wish was asked I almost wonder if you get paid to spread this kind of crap around.

Was the anthrax cited as a part of the WMD case? Yes--as a very small part. But the nuclear threat was the big dog. That was the part that scared the early war supporters shitless. That was the boogeyman that Condi Rice invoked when she said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The anthrax was enough for you, but that wasn't sexy enough to sell it to the public and the Bush administration knew it, so they went with this bullshit uranium story instead, and the point of this article is that they did so even when the French intelligence agency told them the story was bullshit.

Nah, threat to someone? Yeah. Threat to the United States? No. :p


Considering that it can be put in a jar and carried anywhere, and considering that the US had already been attacked by anthrax in very recent memory, and considering that 1800 gallons is more than enough to kill everyone on the planet, it's a threat to the US.

You're so good at answering the question you wish was asked I almost wonder if you get paid to spread this kind of crap around.

Was the anthrax cited as a part of the WMD case? Yes--as a very small part. But the nuclear threat was the big dog. That was the part that scared the early war supporters shitless. That was the boogeyman that Condi Rice invoked when she said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The anthrax was enough for you, but that wasn't sexy enough to sell it to the public and the Bush administration knew it, so they went with this bullshit uranium story instead, and the point of this article is that they did so even when the French intelligence agency told them the story was bullshit.

I don't for a moment believe your assertion that the Niger story was "the big dog".

Plenty of people in the US remembered the very recent anthrax attacks, and it had people scared.

But that's not the point of this thread. No, this thread is to discuss this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-niger11dec11,0,3831325,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines) from the LA Times which puts yet another hole in the old "the rest of the world's intelligence agencies though Saddam had WMD" statement.



Well, it's not like the Russians agreed either.... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/12/wirq12.xml)


after talks with Tony Blair in a hunting lodge outside Moscow, he repeated Russian doubts, saying he was against waging war on Iraq and had heard no compelling evidence that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Similar statements were made by most of the major world leaders who declined to join the coalition.

It's all just another bit of historical revisionism. They conveniently forget that the leaders of other countries were demanding to see convincing evidence as their own security services had none, which is what forced the Powell dog-and-pony show at the UN. The UIS didn't, after all, do that just for the fun of it.

Indeed, they completely forget calling these other leaders names for failing to see what they stated was so clearly evident to all - that Saddam DID have WMD.


Now the party line is that these leaders were making all that up... that their security services HAD given them compelling evidence, but that they had chosen to ignore it for political reasons.

All this despite the fact that the Senate Commission clearly explored all of the caveats to the NIE on Iraq and concluded that even the CIA didn't have reliable proof either....and that the analysts knew it.


So somehow now, despite the fact that the CIA had no firm proof of WMD - just strong suspicions from poor sources, the story is that the rest of the world HAD believed this fact, despite any and all evidence to the contrary as indicated by the actions of their leaders.


The fact's are pretty simple:

The rest of the world had strong, unsubstantiated suspicions that Iraq still had WMD. But no proof firm enough to warrant military intervention.

The CIA had the same strong suspicions, and the intelligence was wrapped up with the qualifiers and caveats stripped from it and presented to the world as proof.



That difference between "suspicion" and "proof" is the issue that some people seem to have trouble with. And they are indeed very different.

that's not possible, Deep Kimchi -- Saddam Hussein is to be sainted.
Only in your pathetic little mind.

I don't for a moment believe your assertion that the Niger story was "the big dog".

Plenty of people in the US remembered the very recent anthrax attacks, and it had people scared.
Then you're denying reality.

That difference between "suspicion" and "proof" is the issue that some people seem to have trouble with. And they are indeed very different.

I notice an interesting thing.

You're willing to question the motivation behind US and UK intelligence - because you assume that they had hidden motives.

So the French and Russians had no hidden motives to prevent an attack on Iraq? With the tens of billions in under-the-table-in-violation-of-sanctions weapons contracts at stake? With French companies getting the lion's share of oil for food scandal money?

With lucrative oil contracts for France and Russia if the sanctions were lifted?

Nice bias there.

Considering that it can be put in a jar and carried anywhere, and considering that the US had already been attacked by anthrax in very recent memory, and considering that 1800 gallons is more than enough to kill everyone on the planet, it's a threat to the US.

Oh please Deep Kimchi. Are you now suggesting that Iraq's military capabilities had stretched to the fact that Saddam had developed squads of followers to transport 'jars of anthrax' to attack the United States?

There were more dangerous opponents and wepaons out there then Saddam and his anthrax.

Nazz, the point of your argument is that there was no reason for the US to invade.

Completely illegitimate. And that no one can argue anything extra, such as "it's good that Saddam is gone".

Fine. We'll just put him back in power, help him reconstitute his army, and leave. That's the point of your argument.

If it's illegitimate to remove him from power, and no argument can be brooked in favor, we MUST put him back in power - NOW

Nazz, the point of your argument is that there was no reason for the US to invade.

No, there were reasons to remove him from power for sure. But its just the United States at the UN went about it all wrong. Had they stuck to different arguments instead of really dodgy arguments, then things might have panned out along thier wishes anyway.

No, there were reasons to remove him from power for sure. But its just the United States at the UN went about it all wrong. Had they stuck to different arguments instead of really dodgy arguments, then things might have panned out along thier wishes anyway.
I don't for a moment believe that even if other nations had participated in the invasion, that there would be any less insurgency than we see now.

I notice an interesting thing.

You're willing to question the motivation behind US and UK intelligence - because you assume that they had hidden motives.

So the French and Russians had no hidden motives to prevent an attack on Iraq? With the tens of billions in under-the-table-in-violation-of-sanctions weapons contracts at stake? With French companies getting the lion's share of oil for food scandal money?

With lucrative oil contracts for France and Russia if the sanctions were lifted?

Nice bias there.


Oh dear, we're not going to go down the "It's all about oil" road are we?

I don't ascribe that as the primary reason for the US decision to enter the war, and if I WERE to suggest it you'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

And yet you are more than willing to try that same crap as being the prime motivating factor for everyone else NOT to go in? Besides those two countries, how about everyone else who wanted proof? The Germans for instance? The Canadians?

Talk about having it both ways when questioning motivations!


As to the motivations of the security services, I DON'T ascribe that notion to the CIA directly but rather to the political appointees who stripped the caveats from the individual analyst reports, omitted contradictory evidence (e.g. department of Energy findings on the aluminum tubes etc), and published a deliberately biased document.

If, as some also claim but that I doubt, this stripping of data was done prior to it reaching the White House - then you certainly would have cause for concern about your security services, however there is a difference between STRIPPING data, and other countries getting the FULL data complete with caveats that left them unconvinced, because I haven't seen any indication that other countries similarly massaged their intelligence to make it look LESS likely that Saddam had WMD.



Nope, most other countries were pretty honest about it. they were clear that they suspected it but needed proof before commiting to military action.

What the hell is dishonest about that?

I don't ascribe that as the primary reason for the US decision to enter the war, and if I WERE to suggest it you'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

Oh, I do believe that control of the Persian Gulf region in general is the whole reason for disputes. Everything else to me is a sham.

It's colonialism, pure and simple. The problem is, no one can agree on who the colonial powers will be, or how indirectly they will control the colonies.

I don't for a moment believe that even if other nations had participated in the invasion, that there would be any less insurgency than we see now.
Maybe, maybe not.

I mean with the general invasion. A sharing of burdens- there would be a lot less US troops in there- a lot more international flavour would certainly have quelled the anti-Americanism.

But again, I was talking about the temporary Europe-America split.

Nah, threat to someone? Yeah. Threat to the United States? No. :p


You know, if that was said at the time- things might have panned out differently.

But since thats the new thing apparently- you've got a lot of work ahead of you (the United States)- there are a lot of leaders the deserve to be 'taken down'.

How about the al-Saud family first? Or Musharraf? Or Kim in DPRK?

nope, we did the world a favor (with our real friends the Brits and others). Someone else can do the heavy lifting next time.

Nazz, the point of your argument is that there was no reason for the US to invade.

Completely illegitimate. And that no one can argue anything extra, such as "it's good that Saddam is gone".

Fine. We'll just put him back in power, help him reconstitute his army, and leave. That's the point of your argument.

If it's illegitimate to remove him from power, and no argument can be brooked in favor, we MUST put him back in power - NOWThat's not the point of my argument, and again, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

There were reasons to invade--oil, humanitarian intervention, naked imperialism. The only one I would have bought into was the humanitarian one, but that doesn't mean there weren't reasons to invade.

But the threat of weapons of mass destruction wasn't one of those reasons.

As to your other point--is it good that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure it is. But is there any net benefit if we wind up with another Saddam in power? Or if we wind up with a country run by a fundamentalist Shi'ite regime like Iran's? Or if we wind up with a broken nation that becomes a haven for terrorist groups when it wasn't before? If we wind up with the region being even less stable than it was before? Because that's where we're headed, DK, whether you like to admit it or not.

Looked at in a vacuum, Saddam's removal is good. Looked at in the larger context, the question of whether there was any net gain remains to be answered, and given the track record of the people running the show right now, I'd say the prospects look dim.

The Germans for instance? The Canadians?


Canada might actually be honest. Germany, no - they got oil for food money, and had sold Saddam his centrifuges (as well as selling them to Pakistan, Iran, well you get the picture).

Looked at in a vacuum, Saddam's removal is good. Looked at in the larger context, the question of whether there was any net gain remains to be answered, and given the track record of the people running the show right now, I'd say the prospects look dim.

Given the track record of the UN, the prospects would be just as dim, or dimmer, if this was a UN operation.

Given the track record of the UN, the prospects would be just as dim, or dimmer, if this was a UN operation.
And that has what to do with this discussion? That's what I thought.

Great defense of your administration by the way--the UN would have fucked it up so the fact that we fucked it up is somehow okay. :rolleyes:

Canada might actually be honest. Germany, no - they got oil for food money, and had sold Saddam his centrifuges (as well as selling them to Pakistan, Iran, well you get the picture).

Now now, the motivation of Germany or France NOT going to war is the same as the US GOING to war. One is as guilty as each other in that respect.

And that has what to do with this discussion? That's what I thought.

Great defense of your administration by the way--the UN would have fucked it up so the fact that we fucked it up is somehow okay. :rolleyes:
No, we're doing a better job than the UN would have done.

Let's review the UN's track record, shall we?

Does the UN have any success that compares to the US success with Germany and Japan?

I didn't think so.

Now now, the motivation of Germany or France NOT going to war is the same as the US GOING to war. One is as guilty as each other in that respect.
Yes it is -

Economic control and defense domination of the region - stabilization (and what is perceived as stable).

Ever wonder why so many ships "secure" the Persian Gulf (just about everyone who is anyone has ships there)?

Why the price of gold is rising? (Iraq is not the reason anymore - the markets perceive that as either stable or getting better over the long term). It's because Iran is making noises, and everyone else is getting anxious.

You'll notice that the US isn't rip-roaring ready to invade Iran, either.

There seems to be an unspoken agreement that we'll all do it together this time - but I have the very strong feeling that if the invasion or destruction of Iran is not a NATO or US operation, and is a UN operation, it will fail.

No, we're doing a better job than the UN would have done.And you base that on.....

Right.

But even if we are--and I'm not conceding that--that still doesn't excuse the shit job we've done.
Let's review the UN's track record, shall we?

Does the UN have any success that compares to the US success with Germany and Japan?

I didn't think so.Has the US had any success since Germany and Japan? I didn't think so. We've had failure after failure under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so this isn't a partisan issue.

No, we're doing a better job than the UN would have done.

Let's review the UN's track record, shall we?

Does the UN have any success that compares to the US success with Germany and Japan?

I didn't think so.

This might be a bit'o a surprise for you but Japan and Germany are technically UN successes... see the United Nations was the nations united against the Axis - or the Allies in WW2.

Besides it's not like the US was the sole occupier/rebuilder of Japan or Germany... they did have a little help from those other nations called the "Allies".

As for more recent successes - um I'd think that Eygpt, Cambodia were successful... the former Yugoslavia could have been without being hamper by US vetos; as of course could Rwanda for that matter. So before we get on the yaaa! US - boo! UN pulpit one should be aware that the US has also played (and still does with Bolton) more than a bit part in hampering UN policy and missions.

...and this makes Saddam Hussein less deplorable how?

Does it make up for any of the people he murdered, kidnapped, gave acid baths to?

I think you've completely missed the point: taking down Saddam is justification in and of itself

Freeing the Iraqis, GETTING THEM THE ABILITY TO VOTE THEIR OWN PEOPLE into office, is justification for all those who have sacrificed their lives for the good of Iraq

Stopping the oppression (or fear of oppression) of 80% of Iraqis is justification of the US's actions

Killing 50,000+ terrorists (those who would kill anyone who espouses democratic ideals)/insurgents (those who would kill peaceful Iraqis) justifies our actions.
I'm starting to get a little fed up of having to keep pointing this out, but these sort of humanitarian considerations are not only offensive left wing liberal nonsense, but have only been raised by the neocons to justify their presence in Iraq since it became clear that the WMD excuse for invading was a pile of shit. It isn't why your country went in there. If the US gave a flying fuck about human rights, there's other countries it could look into besides Iraq.

So WHY THE F*** does WMD matter?
Because it was at the very least a distortion of the facts and more likely a blatant lie to provide an excuse to start an invasion that nobody outside of the White House wanted.

*If GW didn't know, then he didn't lie.
You've given him a polygraph test about this, then? I can't imagine how else you'd be in any position to make a statement like that.

And you base that on.....

Right.

But even if we are--and I'm not conceding that--that still doesn't excuse the shit job we've done.
Has the US had any success since Germany and Japan? I didn't think so. We've had failure after failure under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so this isn't a partisan issue.

I'm writing a paper on the nature of invasion and nation-building. I plan on posting a summary later.

The question that faces the UN, NATO, the US, or anyone planning on overthrowing a government is, "how long do you plan to stay?" And the second, and perhaps the most important question is, "where do you plan on ending up with all of this?"

I leave partisanship out of this, because it's not relevant.

During the occupation period, there WILL be an insurgency in most Third World countries - the degree and intensity has little to do with who the occupier is (UN, NATO, or the US) and more to do with whether or not the population itself actually feels "defeated" and whether or not they have any subpopulation that ascribes to a fanatical ideal.

For four years after WW II ended, the US, UK, Russians, and French fought the German resistance - the Werewolves and other bitter-enders. The British fought bitter-enders in South Africa in the Boer War. It's a relative constant that is largely ignored by policymakers. And while some may criticize the US for overlooking this, there is somehow a magical handwave given to "if you did it through the UN, it would have worked".

Unfortunately, defeating bitter enders requires a degree of ruthlessness not forthcoming from most Western nations (even the US) and certainly not from the UN.

It requires that during the initial invasion, that the majority of the population feel "defeated", and that the bitter enders in particular feel the sting of defeat.

Hence the effectiveness of the British use of concentration camps during the Boer War.

Hence the current inklings of defeatism from the Sunnis in Iraq, who are realizing that it may be better to participate in the political process, vote, and get something, than fight and get killed while your neighborhood goes to shit.

In the aftermath of WW II, Allied forces not only killed insurgents in Germany, but they exacted reprisals (illegally) as well, and conducted summary executions of insurgents without trial. This in combination with the utter devastation wreaked upon the country, convinced everyone that resistance was useless and there was more to be gained by just getting on with your lives.

Re-education of the children is also important. And that takes a generation.

For all of those politicians (right or left) who will promise you that "with our plan, the war will soon be over" or "it will be ok if we just leave now", both are full of shit.

This is generational warfare. We defeat the parents, convince them of their defeat, and re-educate their children to replace them.

We were able to do a massive program of denazification in Germany. Political correctness will never allow us to do that to radical Islam.

Fighting an insurgency across the generation is a given.

I also review the Soviet effect on Yugolslavia - a powder keg of incompatible social groups held together by a strongman and the threat of force. And the moment that no strongman was present, the whole place fell apart - even after several generations of stability.

So even in the end, there isn't a guarantee.

If you define "no guarantee" as failure, or define "it will take generations" as a failure, then it's all going to be failure, unless you can somehow emulate the success in Germany and Japan. This would require a degree of ruthlessness that we were once capable of - and a degree of cultural antipathy that we were once capable of.

We're not capable of it anymore. The UN far less so.

Given the track record of the UN, the prospects would be just as dim, or dimmer, if this was a UN operation.

That's not really the point is it? The point of the whole thing is whether the invasion did any net benefit to Iraq as a nation. Sure. Removal of Saddam Hussein. Democratic elections. Big deal. What good is the removal of Saddam when simply replace police terrorism with international terrorism that come in explosive packages? What's the point of democratic elections if the government in power is actually incapable of doing much from lack of influence or any other factor? If in the end, Iraq becomes a big flop or fragments into a bunch of warring states, would it have been any better had there been no invasion in the first place?

If the suffering and death toll of the Iraqi people post invasion exceed that of when it was under Saddam's time, can we really say the invasion was for humanitarian reasons? Maybe, but the way it has been conducted certainly don't give evidence to that claim.

Even if you blame the insurgency/terrorists for the majority of that, it won't change the fact that the invasion was what made the it all possible in the first place.


Does the UN have any success that compares to the US success with Germany and Japan?

Straw man. The UN has neither access to the nuclear material deployed in Japan during the second World War nor has it had the option to completely remove a government in power and install its own.

This might be a bit'o a surprise for you but Japan and Germany are technically UN successes... see the United Nations was the nations united against the Axis - or the Allies in WW2.
Was the Soviet Union part of the UN at that point in history?

Straw man. The UN has neither access to the nuclear material deployed in Japan during the second World War nor has it had the option to completely remove a government in power and install its own.

Not a strawman. The UN has had plenty of opportunity to be involved in nationbuilding.

Not a strawman. The UN has had plenty of opportunity to be involved in nationbuilding.
But no independent power. It relies on the good will of the member nations to do the actual work, especially in the realm of the military and security.

But no independent power. It relies on the good will of the member nations to do the actual work, especially in the realm of the military and security.
It's had plenty of supplied military, security, and money.

The problem is that it is a perfect example of clusterfuck by committee.

Most governments are right on the edge of being the same thing - and only avoid it by having a fairly independent executive (whether semi-permanent like a Prime Minister or President or temporary like a general in charge of an operation).

Was the Soviet Union part of the UN at that point in history?

Yep - afterall they were part of the Allies and they even hosted one of the formational conferences in Moscow...

Yep - afterall they were part of the Allies and they even hosted one of the formational conferences in Moscow...
Rightyho. My mistake.

The problem is that it is a perfect example of clusterfuck by committee.


Which only serves to validate my point. The UN simply does not have the option to actually bring down a government and replace it with one of its own. The member states would rather do that on their own. Can the UN say for example, conscript member nation forces and topple a government? No. It can't do that.

The only way the UN would be able to even come close to having the ability to follow your example of the Allied (Not US alone, damned revisionist viewpoints) rebuilding of Germany and Japan would be if it had its own industrial, financial and military base that was completely independent of any other nation. A world power in its own right you could say.

But the US, along with most of the other major powers, would certainly oppose that. So would you I think.

But the US, along with most of the other major powers, would certainly oppose that. So would you I think.


Which is my point exactly - the UN is a moribund and useless organization if people are proposing that "if the US didn't go it alone, and let the UN do it".

The UN can't tie its own shoelaces, and is so corrupt, it can't manage money to save its own life.

um, aren't those blogs? they have some sort of credibility somehow? more credibility than someone from the french intelligence agency?

Nice to know you're the sort of person who believes anything and everything a spy would tell you.

[Pats Sumamba Buwhan on the head and hands her a lollipop]

So the answer is 'Yes, blogs *do* have more credibility!' Always happy to clear things like that up for those who don't catch on quick. ;)

Nazz your forgeting the fact that the Iraqi's used them on one village and a neighbor. Your also missing the facts that CLINTON bombed them because of WMD production. Your also missing the fact that Russia, Germans, French and Americans all sold him materials related to the production of WMD. How do you think he made them in the first place? This arguement is not a straw man. I like how your little article from the un-biased French tries to make the Bush Administration bad.

The UN can't tie its own shoelaces, and is so corrupt, it can't manage money to save its own life.

The UN so far as the major decisions are made (Not counting UNICEF and similar branches), rely on the cooperation of the larger member states in order to succeed. It can put forth motions, but a veto from any in the security council will shoot it down. Yes, there's corruption, but I'm willing to bet it isn't any worse than any other governmental body of similar size. But if you want to take sections as representatives of the whole, it could also be said to be the same if applied to other governments no? Say, certain governments who use ultimately meaningless talking points like liberty and freedom no?

Nazz your forgeting the fact that the Iraqi's used them on one village and a neighbor.

The ones with the "made in America" labels? Yes. More or less everyone knew about them.


Your also missing the facts that CLINTON bombed them because of WMD production.

Timeline difference. Not to mention the fact that he never ever claimed that they actually had working nuclear weapons like a certain republican did.


Your also missing the fact that Russia, Germans, French and Americans all sold him materials related to the production of WMD. How do you think he made them in the first place?

What? Nuclear weapons? He certainly never had any so far as any investigation is concerned. Boo hoo. Aluminium tubes? Oooh. Scary. Enriched uranium? The only stocks there was already under lock and key and monitored by UN inspectors. Which looters made off with after the fall of Baghdad.


I like how your little article from the un-biased French tries to make the Bush Administration bad.

You mean like how the "un-biased" American press tries to make the Bush Administration good?

Nice to know you're the sort of person who believes anything and everything a spy would tell you.

[Pats Sumamba Buwhan on the head and hands her a lollipop]

So the answer is 'Yes, blogs *do* have more credibility!' Always happy to clear things like that up for those who don't catch on quick. ;)


hmmmm, I fail to see where I said I believe what the spy said. (I know you already made this connection in your surperior brain but as I am mentally retarded and unable to explain myself clearly, I feel I need to explain that I think that his claims should be looked into and not dismissed outright)

Please explain to me how a blogger has more credibility or opinion carries more weight on the subject of french intelligence than someone from the french agency. Please explain in small words so that I can follow along. I'm so :confused: :rolleyes:

The UN can't tie its own shoelaces, and is so corrupt, it can't manage money to save its own life.

If you replaced an N with an S it would fit very well here.

Well except for the part about tying it's own shoelaces. I don't think corruption or money management has anythign to do with mental agility.

Just one thing to add to Sumamba's comment on Marrakech's post above. Hussein did indeed use chemical weapons--before the first Gulf War. It's important that we get the timeline straight here, because too many people mistakenly think that Saddam used them to quell the Kurdish uprising after the first Gulf War. He didn't--he used conventional weapons. Same end result--lots of dead Iraqis, for which the US must take at least partial blame--but he killed them in the time honored way of guns and bombs, not chemical weapons.

I think you meant Non Aligned States's comment :)

hmmmm, I fail to see where I said I believe what the spy said. (I know you already made this connection in your surperior brain but as I am mentally retarded and unable to explain myself clearly,...

I figured as much but I thought that saying so outright would be rude. :)

I feel I need to explain that I think that his claims should be looked into and not dismissed outright)

Ah. So the fact that the public record clearly contradicted his claims is somehow not supposed to be noticed? :p


Please explain to me how a blogger has more credibility or opinion carries more weight on the subject of french intelligence than someone from the french agency. Please explain in small words so that I can follow along. I'm so :confused: :rolleyes:

Spy = trained liar. French Spy = trained liar with a vested interest in lying for the convenience of France. French spy who makes claim easily contradicted by a look at the public record =
trained liar with a vested interest in lying for the convenience of France who has been caught in a lie.

Instapundit = blog with a track record for reliability superior to that of the New York Times or the L.A. Times (Not that this is hard to achieve! :D ).

BTW Sumamba, something you may not have noticed since by your own admission you are a slow learner...The blogs had not made assertions so much as asked *questions*. Questions that you were not able to answer. Questions the Big Nazz was not able to answer. Questions no leftist in Nationstates were able to answer. Questions do not require credibility. They merely require a logical and truthful answer. But the fact that no brave defender of the French spies seem to be able to answer these questions would seem to indicate that what is laughingly called French "intelligence" does not deserve any weight at all. :rolleyes:

Nazz, the point of your argument is that there was no reason for the US to invade.

Completely illegitimate. And that no one can argue anything extra, such as "it's good that Saddam is gone".

Fine. We'll just put him back in power, help him reconstitute his army, and leave. That's the point of your argument.

If it's illegitimate to remove him from power, and no argument can be brooked in favor, we MUST put him back in power - NOW
Apologies for putting words into Nazz's mouth, but I think the point of his argument here is not that there was no reason to invade, more that your administration lied to you, knowlingly lied to you and all you can do is obfuscate the matter by bringing other points up not relevant to this particular post in the hope that this will sidetrack everyone away from the issue.
It also helps you in your blinkered support of the Bush admin.
It seems to me like you're in the denial phase right now.


As for the nuclear thing not being a major scare tactic, I can distinctly recall one particular soundbite of "Let's not wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud", yet can't really think off-hand of any similar, oft-used bites regarding any other WMD.

Spy = trained liar. French Spy = trained liar with a vested interest in lying for the convenience of France. French spy who makes claim easily contradicted by a look at the public record =
trained liar with a vested interest in lying for the convenience of France who has been caught in a lie.

Instapundit = blog with a track record for reliability superior to that of the New York Times or the L.A. Times (Not that this is hard to achieve! :D ).

BTW Sumamba, something you may not have noticed since by your own admission you are a slow learner...The blogs had not made assertions so much as asked *questions*. Questions that you were not able to answer. Questions the Big Nazz was not able to answer. Questions no leftist in Nationstates were able to answer. Questions do not require credibility. They merely require a logical and truthful answer. But the fact that no brave defender of the French spies seem to be able to answer these questions would seem to indicate that what is laughingly called French "intelligence" does not deserve any weight at all. :rolleyes:
So someone asking questions, without then doing any research to ascertain the validity of those questions has more relevance and intergrity than what is being presented? Someone making a blog and coming up with a couple of questions immediately gives whatever they're shovelling credibility?
Why should the other person have to defend their position?
Out of curiosity, do you also accept that NASA has to spend several hundred million dollars proving they went to the Moon, simply because a few bloggers have questioned their claims?

Well, here's a couple of questions for you:
What possible benefit would the French intelligence agency have in publishing a complete lie? Why would they risk angering the US yet again, so soon after finally seeing a positive improvement in diplomatic ties between the two countries. Why would they risk destroying their own intelligence agency's integrity and reputation?


BTW, I love how you italicised French intelligence - awesome! A very subtle and humourous way to belittle and marginalise them, making anything they say immediately suspect. The rolly eyes at the end just added icing to the cake. Well done!

They have as much credibility as the LA Times. :D
No, they have as much credibility as YOU. Or me, through this medium.
The LA TIMES has more credibility since they actually have people investigating it in person instead of mouthing off on a forum, or blog.

I think you've completely missed the point:
How arrogant of you.
Nazz started the thread, you ignorant *expletive*.
Quit trying to bait-and-switch to make yourself feel pretty.
Deal with the info you're getting.

Nazz your forgeting the fact that the Iraqi's used them on one village and a neighbor. Your also missing the facts that CLINTON bombed them because of WMD production. Your also missing the fact that Russia, Germans, French and Americans all sold him materials related to the production of WMD. How do you think he made them in the first place? This arguement is not a straw man. I like how your little article from the un-biased French tries to make the Bush Administration bad.
Then you'll love how my "little" article from the un-biased Germans tries to ... well, put out the facts.

*ahem*

Posted on Sun, Nov. 20, 2005

WMD claims exaggerated, Germans say

U.S. was told before Iraq war informant didn’t see weapons

By Bob Drogin and John Goetz

Los Angeles Times


BERLIN – The Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated the claims of a key informant on weapons of mass destruction during the run-up to the Iraq war, German intelligence officials say.

Five senior officials from Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, known as BND, told the Los Angeles Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities before the war that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell also misstated Curveball’s claims in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball’s German handlers for the past six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.

“This was not substantial evidence,” said a senior German intelligence official. “We made clear we could not verify the things he said.”

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems.

“He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy,” said a BND official who supervised the case. “He is not a completely normal person,” agreed a BND analyst.

Curveball was the chief source of prewar U.S. claims that Baghdad had a biological weapons arsenal, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. U.S. investigators did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handle his case.

The German account emerges as Washington is engaged in a political battle over prewar intelligence. The White House lashed out last week at Senate Democrats and other critics who allege that the administration manipulated intelligence to go to war. Democrats have forced the Senate intelligence committee to resume a long-stalled inquiry. Democrats in the House are calling for a similar inquiry.

Multiple warnings

An investigation by the Los Angeles Times based on interviews since May with about 30 current and former intelligence officials in the U.S., Germany, England, Iraq and the United Nations shows that U.S. missteps in the Curveball case were far worse than official reports have disclosed.

The White House, for example, ignored evidence that U.N. weapons inspectors disproved virtually all of Curveball’s accounts before the war. President Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq’s germ weapons as the invasion neared, even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed.

At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials embraced Curveball’s claims even though they could not verify them or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after invasion.

After the CIA vouched for Curveball’s information, Bush warned in his State of the Union Speech in January 2003 that Iraq had “mobile biological weapons labs” designed to produce “germ warfare agents.” The next month, Bush said in a radio address and a statement that Iraq “has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.

Curveball told his German handlers, however, that he had assembled equipment on only one truck and had heard secondhand about other sites. Moreover, he could not identify what the equipment he worked on was designed to produce.

“His information to us was very vague,” said the senior German intelligence official. “He could not say if these things functioned, if they worked.”

David Kay, who headed the CIA’s post-invasion search for illicit weapons, said Curveball’s accounts were maddeningly murky.

“He was not in charge of trucks or production,” Kay said. “He had nothing to do with actual production of biological agent. He never saw them actually produce agent.”

Powell also highlighted Curveball’s “eyewitness” account when he warned the U.N. Security Council on the eve of war that Iraq’s trucks could brew enough weapons-grade microbes “in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people.”

The BND supervisor said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball’s information as a justification for war.

“We were shocked,” the German official said. “Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven. … It was not hard intelligence.”

Fingers point at CIA

In a telephone interview, Powell said CIA director George Tenet and his top deputies personally assured him before the Feb. 5, 2003, speech that intelligence on the mobile labs was “solid.” Since then, Powell said, the case “has totally blown up in our faces.”

Powell said no one warned him that veterans in the CIA’s clandestine division, including the European division chief, had voiced growing doubts to supervisors about Curveball’s credibility.

“This is one we really pressed on, really spent a lot of time on,” Powell recalled. “We knew how important it was.”

“All the (CIA) leadership stood by it,” agreed Lawrence Wilkerson, then Powell’s chief of staff. “They were convinced, of all the things Powell was presenting, that this was the most solid and most incontrovertible evidence they had.”

At the U.N., Powell said the “eyewitness” was at the site of a 1998 weapons accident that killed 12 technicians. Wilkerson said CIA leaders had explained that the “principal source had not only worked in the mobile labs, but had seen an accident and had been injured in the accident. … This gave more credibility to it.”

But German intelligence officials say the CIA was wrong. Curveball “only heard rumors of an accident,” the BND supervisor said. “He gave a thirdhand account.”

Tenet has denied ignoring warnings that Curveball might be a fabricator. He declined to be interviewed for this story.

Curveball also could not be interviewed. BND officials threatened last summer to strip him of his salary, housing and protection if he agreed to meet with Times reporters. He now lives under an assumed name in southern Germany.

CIA officials now concede that he fused fact, research off the Internet and what former co-workers called “water cooler gossip” into a nightmarish fantasy that played on U.S. fears after the Sept. 11 attacks. His motive, they say, was to get a German visa, not start a war.

After the invasion, the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group, headed by Kay, found that Curveball was fired from his job in 1995, at the time he said he was starting work on germ weapons.

A former CIA official said records showed he had been jailed for an apparent sex crime and that for some time he drove a Baghdad taxi. His childhood friends called him a “great liar” and a “con artist.”

“The Iraqis were all laughing when we asked about him,” recalled a former CIA investigator. “They were saying, ‘This guy? You’ve got to be kidding.’ ”

No background check

The case began in November 1999, when the Baghdad-born chemical engineer flew into Munich on a tourist visa and applied for political asylum. The Germans sent him to a refugee center outside Nuremburg.

During interrogations in 2000 and 2001, the Iraqi told BND officers he had worked on a secret weapons program between 1995 and 1999. He said he worked for Dr. Rihab Taha, known as “Dr. Germ,” and had helped build a mobile germ factory at Djerf al Nadaf, a grain handling facility southeast of Baghdad.

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, working from a clandestine operating base called Munich House, became the liaison for U.S. intelligence and assigned his code name. German officials insisted Curveball hated Americans, so the DIA was not allowed to interview him.

As a result, the DIA – like the BND – never tried to check Curveball’s background. Despite that failure, CIA analysts accepted the incoming intelligence reports as credible and passed them to senior policymakers. CIA officials admit now the system failed.

“Look, analysts were studying drawings made by artists working from descriptions by a guy we couldn’t talk to,” explained a former senior CIA official who helped supervise the case and the post-war investigation. “It was hard to figure out.”

“Our fear is that as it was analyzed and translated and reanalyzed and retranslated, and comments got added, it could have gotten sexed up by accident,” agreed a former CIA operations official.

Curveball at first seemed eager to please. But as the questions intensified, Curveball grew moody and irritable. His memory began to fail. He confused places and dates. He fretted about his personal safety, about his parents and wife in Baghdad, and about his future in Germany.

“His whole story has a lot of bumps in the road, a lot of ups and downs,” said the BND supervisor. “He was between two worlds, sometimes cooperative, sometimes aggressive. He was not an easy-going guy.”

Curveball largely ceased cooperating in 2001, after he was granted asylum, officials said. He would refuse to meet for days, and then weeks, at a time. He also increasingly asked for money.

“He knew he was important,” said the BND analyst. “He was not an idiot.”

A former British official involved with the case said that Curveball was under intense stress, terrified both that his visa scam would be exposed, and that his lies would be used to start a war. “He must have been scared out of his mind,” he said.

British intelligence warned the CIA in 2001 that spy satellite images taken four years earlier, when Curveball claimed to be working at Djerf al Nadaf, conflicted with his descriptions. The photos showed a wall around most of the main warehouse, clearly blocking trucks from getting in or out.

CIA analysts ignored the wall, or speculated it was a temporary structure deliberately built to fool spy satellites.

U.N. weapons inspectors were the first to disprove Curveball’s claims.

On Feb. 8, three days after Powell’s speech, U.N. Team Bravo left its Baghdad hotel to conduct the first search of Curveball’s former worksite. U.N. records show that the American-led team spent 3 1/2 hours at the site.

The doors were locked, so Boston microbiologist Rocco Casagrande crawled through a hole in the wall. Inside, he scraped five samples from the walls and floor and tested them that afternoon for bacterial or viral DNA. The results all came back negative.

“No threat agents detected,” Casagrande wrote in his computer journal that night.

A British inspector found another surprise. Curveball had said the germ trucks could enter the warehouse from either end. But there were no doors. And a 6-foot-high wall surrounded most of the building. It was the wall British intelligence saw in 1997 satellite photos. It clearly prohibited the traffic flow Curveball had described.

The U.N. inspectors “could find nothing to corroborate Curveball’s reporting,” the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group reported last October, more than a year after the invasion.

U.N. weapons teams also raided the other sites Curveball named. They interrogated managers, seized documents and used ground-penetrating radar to search for buried material, according to U.N. reports. They found no evidence of germ trucks or anything else suspicious.

On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, told the Security Council that searches had found “no evidence” of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. It drew little notice at the time.

The invasion of Iraq began two weeks later.

The UN so far as the major decisions are made (Not counting UNICEF and similar branches), rely on the cooperation of the larger member states in order to succeed. It can put forth motions, but a veto from any in the security council will shoot it down. Yes, there's corruption, but I'm willing to bet it isn't any worse than any other governmental body of similar size. But if you want to take sections as representatives of the whole, it could also be said to be the same if applied to other governments no? Say, certain governments who use ultimately meaningless talking points like liberty and freedom no?



The ones with the "made in America" labels? Yes. More or less everyone knew about them.



Timeline difference. Not to mention the fact that he never ever claimed that they actually had working nuclear weapons like a certain republican did.



What? Nuclear weapons? He certainly never had any so far as any investigation is concerned. Boo hoo. Aluminium tubes? Oooh. Scary. Enriched uranium? The only stocks there was already under lock and key and monitored by UN inspectors. Which looters made off with after the fall of Baghdad.



You mean like how the "un-biased" American press tries to make the Bush Administration good?

Excellent post. *bows*
Indeed, rockets that only had a range of 111 miles.
This isn't just something i read. I have a friend just out of Iraq, worked in INTEL.

Unless one can show that Saddam Hussein was in full compliance with the 1991 ceasefire, the case for war is proven. What does one do when a ceasefire agreement is violated? Resume firing!

What does one do when a ceasefire agreement is violated? Resume firing!If that kind of diplomacy had been prevalent during the cold war, things would have looked very different...

Unless one can show that Saddam Hussein was in full compliance with the 1991 ceasefire, the case for war is proven. What does one do when a ceasefire agreement is violated? Resume firing!

So? When air defence batteries opened fire on aircraft inside Iraqi airspace (of which they really shouldn't be there), they got plastered with bombs.

Furthermore, might I remind you that when the Highway of Death occured, which was nothing more than a massacre of retreating troops, Iraq was complying with Resolution 660 in which the US agreed to not fire upon said troops. There was a ceasefire. But I guess someone didn't tell the US pilots eh?

So who broke the ceasefire agreement first hmm? Why, I think it was the Stars and Stripes. Which goes to show that the US doesn't really care about treaties, or agreements or the world for that matter. Not when it can bloody get away with what it wants.

Oh, it also breaks the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III which specifically forbids the killing of soldiers not in combat. Another day, another Geneva Convention violation by the US, another bunch of ass covering lies that the gullible eat up. Business as usual.

So? When air defence batteries opened fire on aircraft inside Iraqi airspace (of which they really shouldn't be there), they got plastered with bombs.

Furthermore, might I remind you that when the Highway of Death occured, which was nothing more than a massacre of retreating troops, Iraq was complying with Resolution 660 in which the US agreed to not fire upon said troops. Guess who broke the ceasefire agreement first hmm?
Again, an excellent post.
I was looking that up, since my archives are on a non-accessible drive ... but oh well.

I was currently on here ...

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

Might be of interest.

Or ....

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp
-however, that's PDF ....

Or finer points, care BBC (biased stuffy-nosed bastards! ;) )

At-a-glance: Butler report

Lord Butler's inquiry has published its verdict on the intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq. Here are the main points.
The reliability of intelligence


Doubt has been cast on a "high proportion" of human intelligence sources - and so on the quality of intelligence assessments given to ministers and officials

The problems were partly caused by weaknesses in the way MI6 carried out its checks on sources

There was third hand reporting of information about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons -with a sub-source reporting to a second MI6 main source

One MI6 source reported authoritatively on some issues but on others was "passing on what he had heard within his circle"

Reports from a third MI6 main source have been withdrawn as unreliable

Information used to justify the certainty of claims to the public about Iraq's production of chemical weapons came from "a new source on trial"

Information from another country's intelligence agency on Iraqi production of biological and chemical agents "were seriously flawed" and the grounds for British assessments that Iraq had recently produced such stocks "no longer exist"

There was no "over-reliance" on dissident Iraqi sources

Iraqi weapons


It would be rash to say now that no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programmes will ever be found

Before the war Iraq wanted to get banned weapons, including a nuclear programme

Iraq was developing ballistic missiles with a longer range than allowed

It did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for use, or developed plans for using them.

The war decision


There was "no recent intelligence" to lead people to conclude Iraq was of more immediate concern than other countries, although its history prompted the view there needed to be a threat of force to ensure Saddam Hussein's compliance

The inquiry is surprised ministers, officials, and intelligence agencies did not reassess the quality of intelligence as UN weapons inspectors failed to make finds in the months immediately before the war

Intelligence only played a "limited" role in determining the legality of the war

No evidence was found that Britain went to war to secure continued access to oil supplies

Tony Blair's policy to Iraq shifted because of 11 September, not the pace of Iraq's weapons programmes.
The 45-minute claim

The claim that Iraq could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes should not have been made in the government's weapons dossier without explaining what the claim referred to

MI6 now says the intelligence report on the claim "has come into question", with doubts cast about one of the links in the reporting chain


Uranium from Niger


British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim.
Mobile biological weapons laboratories


It was "reasonable" for intelligence chiefs to report about Iraq seeking more mobile biological weapons labs

But the intelligence from the source did not show Iraq had recently produced stocks of biological agents

This evidence could not have existed if MI6 had talked to the source directly from 2000 onwards.

The weapons dossier


"A serious weakness" was that the intelligence chiefs' warnings about the limitations of their judgements were not made clear enough

Judgements in the dossier "went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the intelligence available"

The impression there was "firmer and fuller" intelligence backing up the dossier was reinforced when Tony Blair told MPs on its publication day the picture painted by intelligence agencies was "extensive, detailed and authoritative"

Joint Intelligence committee (JIC)


No evidence has been found of "deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence"

In general, original intelligence was reported correctly in JIC assessments, with the exception of the 45-minute claim

An intelligence report important in drafting the dossier should have been shown to key experts in the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS), who were right to raise concerns

JIC chairman John Scarlett should not withdraw from taking up his new job as director of MI6

There is a strong case for future JIC chairmen being people with experience of dealing with ministers in very senior roles and being "demonstrably beyond influence" and so probably in their last post.

The workings of government


The inquiry team is concerned about the "informality" of government procedures reduced the "scope for informed collective political judgement" - a reference to cabinet decision making

Other countries of concern


Uncovering Libya's weapons programmes was a "major intelligence success"

The dismantlement of Pakistan nuclear scientist AQ Khan's efforts to sell nuclear technologies to countries of concern is a "remarkable tribute" to the work of the intelligence agencies, with good cooperation between US and UK agencies

It is difficult to get intelligence about North Korea but the agencies' ingenious tactics have provided important insights on exports of missile delivery systems.

Intelligence work in Iran, North Korea, Libya and the AQ Khan problem show the importance of exploiting links between supplies and buyers when fighting weapons proliferation.

These "success stories" also show there can be "lucky breaks" but they come from the foundation of knowledge developed over several years and close collaboration between all involved.
Terrorism


All British intelligence agencies are developing new techniques and there is "clear evidence" they are cooperating at all levels

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has proved a success after working for more than a year

International collaboration on counter-terrorism has been significantly improved in the last six or seven years

The inquiry team is worried the procedures of the international community "are still not sufficiently aligned to match the threat" of terrorism
Osama Bin Laden


In January 2000, the Joint Intelligence Committee said Bin Laden had some toxic chemical or biological materials and an understanding of their use. But there was no hard intelligence he owned genuine nuclear material

A JIC assessment in 1999 said one of Bin Laden's followers claimed Bin Laden "intended to attack US and UK targets in India, Indonesia and the US, by using means which even the US could not counter, implying the use of chemical or biological material".

---------

And then, of course, there's ...

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

The Downing Street "Memo" is actually meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth behind how the Iraq war began. This site is intended to provide information about the Downing Street Memo and how it fits in with numerous other documents and events that relate to the Bush administration’s march to war.

These other items include:

Additional leaked UK government documents that provide further evidence of the illegality of the invasion, the search for justification at the UN, and the lack of planning for the aftermath

Information from the US and UK defense departments that indicates the Iraq war began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion

John Bolton’s reported abuse of his authority to spy on and discredit UN officials who stood in the way of US policy

The Bush administration’s smear campaign against Joseph Wilson in retribution for his challenging Bush’s infamous claims about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa. (On October 28, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, has been indicted in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife.)

These incidents are the tip of a very big iceberg. From cherry-picked intelligence to a criminal lack of planning for the war’s aftermath; from no-bid contracts for reconstruction to character assassination for anyone who dares to question the premises of the war—the Bush administration has perpetrated what is now being called the most egregious foreign policy misstep in our history.
--------------
And of course there's sh*tloads more but i think someone else who cares might bother with it for now.
'Lest someone task me so.

Unless one can show that Saddam Hussein was in full compliance with the 1991 ceasefire, the case for war is proven. What does one do when a ceasefire agreement is violated? Resume firing!
You know, I've noticed you around here before, with your absolutist point of view, which works okay in an internet setting, but not so well in the real world. Since the discussion we're having deals with real-world issues, let's talk about it in those terms, shall we?

In strictly legal terms, you may be correct. However, in making a case for war, one must deal with public perception to an equal if not greater degree, and to put it bluntly, saying Saddam wasn't in compliance with the 1991 ceasefire wasn't going to get the public support the administration needed to get authorization from Congress to restart hostilities.

The administration needed something sexier. Enter WMD, especially nukes. That's what got them congressional approval and public support.

Now, if you're an "ends justify the means" type, as I imagine you are based on your post history, the none of this matters to you. But it matters to a lot of people in this country, because Saddam's violation of the ceasefire didn't matter enough to them to support the war, but the possibility of nuclear weapons did.

Furthermore, might I remind you that when the Highway of Death occured, which was nothing more than a massacre of retreating troops, Iraq was complying with Resolution 660 in which the US agreed to not fire upon said troops. There was a ceasefire. But I guess someone didn't tell the US pilots eh?

There was no ceasefire in effect at that time, read your history books. And stop making up history on your own.

It's no more a war crime than the British air attacks on the retreating German forces packed into the Falaise Gap.

I'm not sure what's the point of these threads anymore.

At this point, I tend to think that anybody who will believe the Bush administration might lie to them has seen enough evidence to convince them that it did, and anybody who won't never will.

I firmly believe that the American government spun the case to its public to make the war palatable to them. This has nothing to do with whether the war was actually justified or not.

As a separate issue, I believe that the war on Iraq is no more justifiable than a war on any other oppressive state, and by deciding to take on the role of "Team America World Police" the US has itself become an oppressor -- simply because it decided, without the consent of the globe, that it would be the one making the decisions of what's wrong and what's not on a global scale. After all, just because the dictator happens to be benevolent doesn't make him any less of a dictator.

I'm not sure what's the point of these threads anymore.

At this point, I tend to think that anybody who will believe the Bush administration might lie to them has seen enough evidence to convince them that it did, and anybody who won't never will.

I firmly believe that the American government spun the case to its public to make the war palatable to them. This has nothing to do with whether the war was actually justified or not.

Speaking as the original poster, here's why I make these types of threads.

Because I think it's important to know how and why we wind up at war, and how deception plays a part in it (which I believe it always does). It's important to know what deceptions were laid out there, and to what lengths the people in power went to deceive the public in order to garner support.

I'm not trying to play some "gotcha" game, though some on this forum undoubtedly look at it that way. All politicians lie--that's about as absolute a truth as you can find in this world. The key is to find out why they lied and to what extent they lied and what the costs of those lies will wind up being.

Because I think it's important to know how and why we wind up at war, and how deception plays a part in it (which I believe it always does). It's important to know what deceptions were laid out there, and to what lengths the people in power went to deceive the public in order to garner support.


Speaking as someone who has spent time being shot at in a war, I can tell you that as for me, and most of the infantrymen I served with, the how and why are immaterial once you're over there with people shooting at you.

Frankly, you've posted your belief that Bush is evil, and deceived everyone, and everyone in the US is so unbelievably stupid all the time, and the war is a complete waste and will only end in absolute disaster no matter what we do, and Halliburton and Cheney did it to make money and get oil,....

Yes, we know how you feel. But repeating yourself over and over again isn't convincing anyone who wasn't already convinced.

There was no ceasefire in effect at that time, read your history books. And stop making up history on your own.

It's no more a war crime than the British air attacks on the retreating German forces packed into the Falaise Gap.

Actually the British didn't bomb the Germans after rejecting a cease-fire agreement.

In the case of the Highway of Death the US attacked the retreating troops after rejecting a cease-fire agreement negotiated by the Soviets - and supported by the UN as being in compliace with Resolution 660 (ie. withdrawing forces back to pre invasion positions).

Now as for the aftermath of the Highway of Death - ever wonder why the ground campaign ground to a halt after British troops happened upon the aftermath? Ever wonder why the rest of the Coalition stopped combat operations after this date?

Speaking as someone who has spent time being shot at in a war, I can tell you that as for me, and most of the infantrymen I served with, the how and why are immaterial once you're over there with people shooting at you.

Frankly, you've posted your belief that Bush is evil, and deceived everyone, and everyone in the US is so unbelievably stupid all the time, and the war is a complete waste and will only end in absolute disaster no matter what we do, and Halliburton and Cheney did it to make money and get oil,....

Yes, we know how you feel. But repeating yourself over and over again isn't convincing anyone who wasn't already convinced.
Again--stop putting words in my mouth. It does you no credit.

And if you don't like my threads, then stop replying to them. You get your ass handed to you every time you wander into them anyway. Nobody is forcing you to reply.

By the way, I'm not trying to convince those who have their minds made up--you guys are beyind hope. It's the people who have been taking the administration at face value and who are now wondering that I'm trying to reach.

Again--stop putting words in my mouth. It does you no credit.

And if you don't like my threads, then stop replying to them. You get your ass handed to you every time you wander into them anyway. Nobody is forcing you to reply.

By the way, I'm not trying to convince those who have their minds made up--you guys are beyind hope. It's the people who have been taking the administration at face value and who are now wondering that I'm trying to reach.

Looks like your technique needs some improvement. According to Gallup, the independents are swinging back Bush's way.
http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=20413
The increase in Bush's overall job approval is reinforced by comparing the average of two polls in November with two polls in December -- 37.8% vs. 42.9%, respectively. That average five-point difference is well outside the margin of error of the combined polls, showing that the increase, while small, is statistically significant.

The improved ratings come in the wake of a more active effort by Bush to defend his administration's Iraq policy. On Nov. 30, the president launched a series of four speeches, which were intended to highlight the importance of the upcoming Iraqi parliamentary elections. Since then, he has delivered two additional addresses, all making the case for a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq until "victory" is achieved.

The poll suggests that Bush's increase in ratings comes primarily among independents, who typically are more susceptible than strong partisans to being influenced by new information. Republicans and Democrats apparently are little swayed in their positive and negative views, respectively, of the president.

Looks like your technique needs some improvement. According to Gallup, the independents are swinging back Bush's way.
http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=20413
You know, DK, I have to love your spinning ability. You take a single poll, note that in that poll Bush's approval ratings have gone from a shitty 38% to a merely horrible 43% and claim victory. If you aren't getting paid for this, then you ought to be.

...and this makes Saddam Hussein less deplorable how?

Does it make up for any of the people he murdered, kidnapped, gave acid baths to?

I think you've completely missed the point: taking down Saddam is justification in and of itself;

Freeing the Iraqis, GETTING THEM THE ABILITY TO VOTE THEIR OWN PEOPLE into office, is justification for all those who have sacrificed their lives for the good of Iraq;


Stopping the oppression (or fear of oppression) of 80% of Iraqis is justification of the US's actions;

Now, here's the thing that scares me. How is it that the Bush Administration has been able to change the cause for the war so easily, and people still buy it? "Freeing the Iraqi People" was coined well after the beginning the war. That is to say, well after we discovered that the actual stated reason for the war, WMD's, was found to be bogus. We then changed it to terrorism and 9/11(Which is still being pushed today as justificatioins). Which, as we all know, is completely idiocy. The 9/11 commission, a bi-partisan commission appointed by Bush himself, said that Iraq had no connection with 9/11. And yet people still think this war is about it. However, many people don't buy this, so to appease some of them it's about "Iraqi freedom". Really, the "reason" for the war has changed twice already. How do people still buy it?


Killing 50,000+ terrorists (those who would kill anyone who espouses democratic ideals)/insurgents (those who would kill peaceful Iraqis) justifies our actions.

Well, being as how terrorism wasn't involved in Iraq until after we overthrew Saddam... and "insurgents" meaning "rebels"(You know, the people who feel that America is invading their land-propaganda does a lot for people). You know, under the right pretences, American "revolutionaries" could have been called "insurgents" or "terrorists"... but meh. Mere semantics.


So WHY THE F*** does WMD matter?

Because it's the reason we went to war. This is easy.


*If GW didn't know, then he didn't lie. So why do you still care? Do you hate President Bush so much that you'll hang onto arguments that are about as meaningful as last Wednesday's weather report?

However, evidence is coming forth that makes it seem like he may have known. Is your love of Bush so great that you'll let him lie to you(or allow the chance of him to lie to you) without care?


*It still seems a bit odd that we're assuming that we've searched all of IRaq. But since the WMD argument is not at all important when you consider the progress being made (this of all weeks), I won't waste my time worrying over it. He had them and if they're not in Iraq, they're probably in Syria.

WMD's ARE important because that is THE reason we went to war. No other reason. All other reasons were created well after we enterred Iraq. This was was about WMD's, which was based on faulty, at best, information, and what is appearing to be manufactured, at worst, information.

And you know what? There are PLENTY of countries which actually DID harbor terrorists at the time(Which Iraq didn't-for many reasons), and DID have WMD's, and treats their people in absolutely deplorable(Sometimes far worse than Saddam) ways. Why didn't we go for them? Why, if "freeing" people is so important, don't we go for other countries as well? I mean, really, if we want to free people from being oppressed, there are far worse than Saddam.

There was no ceasefire in effect at that time, read your history books. And stop making up history on your own.

It's no more a war crime than the British air attacks on the retreating German forces packed into the Falaise Gap.

Certainly there was. Resolution 660 was being complied with the attachment by the Soviets of there being a ceasefire. Given that Iraq at the point of time (5:35pm EST) complied with the resolution and ordered the retreat via Baghdad radio, one certainly can't deny that they had begun the withdrawal. Supposedly, Kuwaiti eyewitnesses attest that the troops began leaving at 2AM EST. One cannot deny that the US administration hadn't known about this given that the order was broadcasted via public radio.

Furthermore, violations of Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III and the Geneva Accords and the 1977 Conventions DO constitute war crimes. That being the attacking of withdrawing soldiers as well as the targetting of civilians who happened to be using the highway at the time of the indiscriminate bombing.

Judging by the way it was conducted, one can only surmise it was to be a precursor to a full scale invasion during the first gulf war despite Iraqi compliance.

Or perhaps you would like to give your excuse for why the highway of death got its name hmmm?

And yes, given the nature of these things, I do believe that the firebombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden and other areas of indiscriminate mass bombing to be war crimes, particularly because they specifically targetted both the industrial base and civilians.

Realpolitik however, dictates that the dominant powers would never subject themselves to scrutiny should they be caught violating rules that they set down.

Speaking as someone who has spent time being shot at in a war, I can tell you that as for me, and most of the infantrymen I served with, the how and why are immaterial once you're over there with people shooting at you.

If you don't think the hows and whys dictate whether you get sent over there to be shot at, well, sticking your head in the sand won't do any good.

What I find funny is the fact that some people seem to build up Saddam as this world power who could have done us imminent harm at any moment.

The only WMD that we had a strong case about was the anthrax he had (which had been destroyed more than a decade before...but that fact had been covered up to A.) protect the people who destroyed it from Saddam's wrath and B.) protect Iraq from Iran and other powers who would have had a field day with a completely emasculated Iraq.)

The problem is is that while Saddam was undeniably and evil man, no one can really make the argument that he was suicidal or incompetently stupid.

If Saddam had unleashed his non-existant anthrax on America after somehow smuggling it into America and then figuring out a way to deliver it in a devastating way...you can't just throw it in the air and hope people die, and only a few people died from the envelopes, which contained enough anthrax to kill many many more people...he would have invited crushing and global retaliation from the US and all of it's allies.

Using the anthrax (which he didn't have,) would have been the end of Saddam. The whole world would be united and supportive of the US.

Saddam was freely able to rattle his saber within Iraq, but a provacative move outside his borders would have meant his immediate and undeniable extinction. He has to appear strong to keep himself safe from his neighbors (hence his uncooperativeness,) but he couldn't even CONSIDER an outright provacative move against a REAL power (much less the only remaining Super-Power.)

Since everyone agrees that Saddam only looked out for himself and protected his power jealously, it makes no sense that Saddam would ionvite his own death like that. Saddam did like to play dangerous games, but HE WAS NOT A SUICIDE BOMBER.

The idea that Saddam would have used his (imaginary) WMD on the US in an outright attack is illogical and silly.

So, in order to make their case, the Bush gov't planted fears that Saddam would share his WMD with Al Qaeda...the same Al Qaeda who considered Saddam a dangerous secular enemy. IF YOU were a power-hungry maniac, would YOU give that kind of power to your political enemies? Of course not.

Use your heads people.

Saddam was an annoyance to the US. He was never a real threat.

The only WMD that we had a strong case about was the anthrax he had (which had been destroyed more than a decade before...but that fact had been covered up to A.) protect the people who destroyed it from Saddam's wrath and B.) protect Iraq from Iran and other powers who would have had a field day with a completely emasculated Iraq.)

The problem is is that while Saddam was undeniably and evil man, no one can really make the argument that he was suicidal or incompetently stupid.

If Saddam had unleashed his non-existant anthrax on America after somehow smuggling it into America and then figuring out a way to deliver it in a devastating way...you can't just throw it in the air and hope people die,

Actually, yes you can throw it from the top of a high building. If you threw it from the top of a building, say, in Baltimore, it would kill millions of people all the way up through New York, who would be contaminated within a half day of your throw.

No, he wasn't suicidal or incompetenly stupid. Yes, there had been talks between Saddam's regime and other terrorist organizations (funny how he just offed Abu Nidal as soon as people were talking about that sort of thing). Yes, there had been tentative overtures to al-Q, but they really hated each other.

I think that the only stretch you could make is the following:

1. Major terrorist attacks on the US are politically unacceptable - if you're seen doing nothing at the time an attack takes place, you and your party are out of office.

2. The first attack, 9-11, is a freebie. But, Americans expect some buttkickery in the short term, and beating up on Afghanistan was not satisfying enough in a PR sense.

3. Have to have the impression that you're doing something. Hunting down guys in secret can't play on the TV.

4. You hear about a vague threat. Perhaps there's only a 1 percent chance that WMD exists AND somehow, Saddam might be friendly to not so friendly people. Is 1 percent an intolerable risk? I wonder how they framed the risk in private.

5. Someone does minor anthrax attacks in the US - you're lucky that they were not thrown from a roof.

6. For those who want certainty, or at least high probability before an attack, this decision is not made on that basis. It is made on the basis that even a minor percentage (and who knows how small a risk was articulated) is too high of a political risk to take.

Look at the political ass-covering that was the 9-11 Commission. And everyone was allowed to cover their ass. But on the next major terrorist attack, if you aren't following "the best defense is a good offense", the perception that you're "soft on terror" will vaporize your political party.

Not a risk politicians take, even at less than 1 percent odds.

...
Instapundit = blog with a track record for reliability superior to that of the New York Times or the L.A. Times (Not that this is hard to achieve! :D ).
...


ahahahaha

I take back any comments I have made about your superior mental prowess.

Actually, yes you can throw it from the top of a high building. If you threw it from the top of a building, say, in Baltimore, it would kill millions of people all the way up through New York, who would be contaminated within a half day of your throw.

No, he wasn't suicidal or incompetenly stupid. Yes, there had been talks between Saddam's regime and other terrorist organizations (funny how he just offed Abu Nidal as soon as people were talking about that sort of thing). Yes, there had been tentative overtures to al-Q, but they really hated each other.

I think that the only stretch you could make is the following:

1. Major terrorist attacks on the US are politically unacceptable - if you're seen doing nothing at the time an attack takes place, you and your party are out of office.

And Bush really was dong nothing when the attacks occurred.

2. The first attack, 9-11, is a freebie. But, Americans expect some buttkickery in the short term, and beating up on Afghanistan was not satisfying enough in a PR sense.

Sure it was, if they concentrated thier PR on Afghanistan. Are you saying that whenever we're attacked, politicians have to attack 2 countries to stay in office? Come on Kimchi, you know that's BS.

3. Have to have the impression that you're doing something. Hunting down guys in secret can't play on the TV.

So you're saying doing the political thing is better than doing the right thing? Basically, you're arguing here that Bush did exactly what us "librul lefties" accuse him of...undertaking a war for purely (or largely) political purposes.

4. You hear about a vague threat. Perhaps there's only a 1 percent chance that WMD exists AND somehow, Saddam might be friendly to not so friendly people. Is 1 percent an intolerable risk? I wonder how they framed the risk in private.

If a 1% risk were unacceptable, we'd be in a state of constant war. Attacking on the basis of a 1% threat during the Cold War would have assured the destruction of the human race.

5. Someone does minor anthrax attacks in the US - you're lucky that they were not thrown from a roof.

It was my understanding that the only way to infect someone with anthrax spores was to expose them to the powder in an enclosed space. Do you have as source that indicates that anthrax made in the 1980's can be spread by dumping it off of a building? If anthrax were that easy to spread, it would have happened already.


6. For those who want certainty, or at least high probability before an attack, this decision is not made on that basis. It is made on the basis that even a minor percentage (and who knows how small a risk was articulated) is too high of a political risk to take.

Again, almost every country in the world represents a 1% risk to us. North Korea is a bigger risk than that. China is a bigger risk than that. Starting a war under false pretenses or flimsy pretenses can be as politically damaging as not starting a war soon enough. Also, did FDR get removed from office because he didn't attack Japan first? I don't think so. The course you're suggesting would mean that, in order to save his/her job, every politician should go on a perpetual witch-hunt with every power that poses a slight risk. Also, you're implying that war and invasion is the only way to address risk. That's barbaric and ultimately self-defeating.

Look at the political ass-covering that was the 9-11 Commission. And everyone was allowed to cover their ass. But on the next major terrorist attack, if you aren't following "the best defense is a good offense", the perception that you're "soft on terror" will vaporize your political party.

Not a risk politicians take, even at less than 1 percent odds.

Again, you're pretending that that is the only political risk. Bankrupting the country is a political risk. Reaching out to only your base is a political risk. The deaths of young men and women in an unpopular war is a political risk.

Nope, I don't buy your paranoid reasoning one bit.

Certainly there was. Resolution 660 was being complied with the attachment by the Soviets of there being a ceasefire. Given that Iraq at the point of time (5:35pm EST) complied with the resolution and ordered the retreat via Baghdad radio, one certainly can't deny that they had begun the withdrawal. Supposedly, Kuwaiti eyewitnesses attest that the troops began leaving at 2AM EST. One cannot deny that the US administration hadn't known about this given that the order was broadcasted via public radio.

Attacking withdrawing soldiers is not a war crime. Just because Baghdad orders a retreat doesn't mean there's a universal ceasefire at all. Nor does the start of compliance with Resolution 660 mean an immediate ceasefire.

Saw the highway of death myself up close. It was named that by reporters.

If attacking withdrawing forces is a war crime, then you'll have to charge most major nations with that crime - whenever they were victorious in battle.

Or do you forget incidents like the Falaise Gap?

Technically, unless an enemy is offering surrender, you're allowed to kill his troops. Unilateral ceasefire is not an offer of surrender, nor is it an offer to parley, nor is it an offer of ceasefire - you have to call up the other side and tell them you give up.

I've shot people who were taking a crap who were nowhere near their rifle. Perfectly legal.

Actually the British didn't bomb the Germans after rejecting a cease-fire agreement.

In the case of the Highway of Death the US attacked the retreating troops after rejecting a cease-fire agreement negotiated by the Soviets - and supported by the UN as being in compliace with Resolution 660 (ie. withdrawing forces back to pre invasion positions).

Now as for the aftermath of the Highway of Death - ever wonder why the ground campaign ground to a halt after British troops happened upon the aftermath? Ever wonder why the rest of the Coalition stopped combat operations after this date?
Kimchi doesn't wonder, it would appear. Kimchi both takes orders and reiterates talking points.
Most of his posts would reflect this.

Nobody is forcing you to reply.
Well, it might appear that a horribly misguided and twisted sense of "honor" combined with a learned discipline is forcing him to reply,
not a keen familiarity with the facts in an issue.

Attacking withdrawing soldiers is not a war crime. Just because Baghdad orders a retreat doesn't mean there's a universal ceasefire at all. Nor does the start of compliance with Resolution 660 mean an immediate ceasefire.

Saw the highway of death myself up close. It was named that by reporters.

If attacking withdrawing forces is a war crime, then you'll have to charge most major nations with that crime - whenever they were victorious in battle.

Or do you forget incidents like the Falaise Gap?

Technically, unless an enemy is offering surrender, you're allowed to kill his troops. Unilateral ceasefire is not an offer of surrender, nor is it an offer to parley, nor is it an offer of ceasefire - you have to call up the other side and tell them you give up.

I've shot people who were taking a crap who were nowhere near their rifle. Perfectly legal.


Glad to see yet another Yank who failed to read up on the Geneva Convention :rolleyes: When did honour become such a rarity within the US Military culture?

You might want to make note of the fact that yes indeedy Virginia it is a 'warcrime' to go after soldiers retreating under a cease-fire - in this case one brokered by the Soviets and accepted by Iraq and the UN... One guess which nation vetoed the cease-fire at the Security Council level...

And Bush really was dong nothing when the attacks occurred.
Now that's just an unfair representation of Dubya.
He was employing his public image, at great risk, both to be seen as giving a f*ck about education AND by the tricky wordplay of My Pet Goat, which had him flummoxed at least a good seven minutes until he suddenly realized he had another vacation that he hadn't yet straightened out in his calendar book. Then the final understanding of the morals he'd been exposed to clicked in place, and he blinked into a different mode of thinking, and eventually was whisked away to hide on an airplane OUT OF COMMUNICATION for somewhere in the vicinity of 7 or more hours, while people were suffering and in a formidable din of terror and uncertainty.
That concentration was bold and brazen, to sit and freeze, on camera, reticent and determined, with that unshakable visage of leadership etched into the memory of anyone watching (who of course, knew what was going on) - yes, that's what the american public wants, an unshakable, un-flippity-floppity, unblinking leader. One who isn't afraid in the least to f*ck the sh*t out of his own country's people in order to maintain his party's and his corporate owners' legacy of supremacy and greed.
Yes, any enemy of the U.S. should be afraid with him as their leader.

*this is the long version of a wistful spraypainting on an overpass not long after the incident*

Glad to see yet another Yank who failed to read up on the Geneva Convention :rolleyes: When did honour become such a rarity within the US Military culture?

You might want to make note of the fact that yes indeedy Virginia it is a 'warcrime' to go after soldiers retreating under a cease-fire - in this case one brokered by the Soviets and accepted by Iraq and the UN... One guess which nation vetoed the cease-fire at the Security Council level...

Well if it was vetoed it obviously became null and void, correct?

Doesn't the power to veto make pretty much anything anyone tries to do pointless?