If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
That Iraq Dossier
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
The government has made public the dossier that claims to show the extent of Iraq's WMD programme and the danger Saddam presents. Some key points are found here .
It is a shame that a dossier that may contain many truths and a genuine case against Hussein has been contaminated with the Rev. Blair's spin touch. Some of the statements are pointless, without foundation and a blatant and patronising attempt by Blair to convince us to embrace his war:
"Saddam has plans to use the weapons even against his own population."
I'm still at pains to figure out how on earth Bush and Blair know that for a fact.
"Saddam Hussein attaches great importance to possessing weapons of mass destruction."
Er... and so does the U.S.A., currently developing a multi-billion dollar computer system to simulate new nuclear tests and develop new generations of warheads. They're not in a great hurry to destroy their remaining chemical and biological weapons either. And so does the British government, consistently refusing to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And so do India, Israel, Pakistan, China and France.
."It shows that he does not regard them only as weapons of last resort."
No, what it shows is Blair's desperation to convince a sceptic British public that his war is right by making assuming and unfounded statements like this.
"The long-awaited Government document says Saddam could deploy the weapons against his own people within 45 minutes"
But not as fast as Texas cowboy Bush, the fastest in the West, who could destroy his own people or any other country in as little as six minutes thanks to his ballistic missiles. Or his apprentice Blair, who could do a similar thing in a mere 24 minutes or so, depending on where his submarines are.
As I said the dossier contains many valid points and might present a strong case enough to pursue further action if Iraq does not comply with UN resolutions. But when facts are mixed with half-cooked, patronising shit like this one tends to take the whole document with a pinch of salt
It is a shame that a dossier that may contain many truths and a genuine case against Hussein has been contaminated with the Rev. Blair's spin touch. Some of the statements are pointless, without foundation and a blatant and patronising attempt by Blair to convince us to embrace his war:
"Saddam has plans to use the weapons even against his own population."
I'm still at pains to figure out how on earth Bush and Blair know that for a fact.
"Saddam Hussein attaches great importance to possessing weapons of mass destruction."
Er... and so does the U.S.A., currently developing a multi-billion dollar computer system to simulate new nuclear tests and develop new generations of warheads. They're not in a great hurry to destroy their remaining chemical and biological weapons either. And so does the British government, consistently refusing to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And so do India, Israel, Pakistan, China and France.
."It shows that he does not regard them only as weapons of last resort."
No, what it shows is Blair's desperation to convince a sceptic British public that his war is right by making assuming and unfounded statements like this.
"The long-awaited Government document says Saddam could deploy the weapons against his own people within 45 minutes"
But not as fast as Texas cowboy Bush, the fastest in the West, who could destroy his own people or any other country in as little as six minutes thanks to his ballistic missiles. Or his apprentice Blair, who could do a similar thing in a mere 24 minutes or so, depending on where his submarines are.
As I said the dossier contains many valid points and might present a strong case enough to pursue further action if Iraq does not comply with UN resolutions. But when facts are mixed with half-cooked, patronising shit like this one tends to take the whole document with a pinch of salt
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Given the fact that up till now Bush &Co. have shown nothing by way of concrete documented proof to back their claims, this only further shows how much of this whole argument is supposition and accusation and how little is actual fact.
Any first year philosphy student learns that to present a case you must not argue supposition without concrete supporting evidence.
So far, this demand for war rests on nothing more substantial than a character assessment of Saddam, and that character assessment could well apply to numerous other world leaders who we currently call "allies".
As for killing his own people, the Bush family have made that a speciality. Texas is the worst state in the Western world for capital punishment, and although I admit I cant quite remember the facts, it is something like 10 times worse than the state with the fewest capital punishments that actually allows it.
Cant bang on about human rights when the good ol' Us of A does that, can we?
Well go to war, its without a shadow of a doubt. And I know itll be us that get it in the neck in 10 years time when the USA realises its put someone worse in that what its got rid of. Like, for instance, General Pinochet or the Taliban,
Remember the persuit of WMD alone is enough to breach that resoltuion...
Problem is that the moment when there is no doubt that Iraq has nuclear weapons will be the moment that they are used. Until then, Cladestine, all we have are intelligence reports. It just depends on how much faith you put in them. Obviously, you would prefer to wait until there is no doubt.
I still believe that inspection should be the firt step and that this should be backed up with the threat of force is Saddam refuses to co-operate unconditionally (as per UN687) with those inspections. However, if the UN is unable to act, I will support unilateral action, because I would rather put Iraqi civillian in perile (and more importantly the regime), than Israeli, UK, US civillians.
Its also worth noting that the second Sadaam has such weaponry, he becomes the biggest force in the region (other than Israel) and given his track record for wanting to control the region he becomes a threat. When you consider that, unless we want to put ourselves in peril of a nuclear attack, this will also mean that there is very little we can do about it.
As for US human rights, Kermit, I agree that the death penalty breaches these. However, I really don't think that you can link the two. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about Saddam, just that we need to do more about US policy...
I also do support inspections with elimination of any WMDs found. The difference between us is that I do not support a further US invasion of that country. We can argue this ad infinitum but I wont change my view that the US is demonstrating the height of hypocrisy in this whole ordeal whilst also neglecting the cleanup and reconstruction of messes we have already made or been party to (i.e. Afghanistan and Palestine).
Either Bush cuts ties with all attrocity laden dictatorial regimes with subsequent overthrow of them all (which is itself an unlikely and dangerous set of scenarios) or bring our forces home and start doing some good for people in the world beyond mere humanitarian hand outs.
If my own country's house was in order I might be inclined to say fine and give grudging consent to dealing with some of our past illicit foreign policy mistakes, but quite frankly my country is not okay and Bush's diversionary tactics do nothing to answer the needs at home.
You cited Hitler as a comparison to Saddam a while back, well I compare him to the Bush administration far more effectively.
With Rumsfeld/Cheney looking to strike anywhere and everywhere they can deploy forces and Ashcroft systematically betraying as many of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties with his Dept. of Homeland Security (which I might add both Bush and Ashcroft have been pressing to be "above the law") the US is as firmly in the grip of a bunch of maniacal fascists as Iraq could ever hope to be.
A luxury others don't have.
You wouldnt believe how much military hardware I saw on the motorways coming back from wales today. Everything from huge bloody great tanks on massive trucks to iddy biddy landrovers. Must of seen at least 150+ military vechicles.
You can express your opinion in the voting booth.
Would it make a difference?
Democracy is such a bitch, huh?
Who knows, given daddy and the old boy network, Bush just might get away with another bungled election process in 2004.
Scary views, huh?
Oh come on. What's the point of a statement like that? Democracy is in fact a bitch. And just because someone is democratically elected (a moot point in Bush's case) doesn't mean he can do what he likes without answering to the people. And people like Clandestine are perfectly entitled to air their views.
One of the main points being made I think is that Bush is trying to manipulate the electorate by this war. It distracts from issues closer to home, and is likely to give him a chance in the next election. The problem being that people worry that that is a major factor in the war, rather than the reasons being given. Personally, I believe that it is a huge factor in the decision.
Also, interesting you mention Israel a couple of times MoK. Israel is another major piece of evidence that Bush's rhetoric is just that, and he does not actually mean what he says. It's bluster to try to justify his position on Iraq, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Interesting article attached about the inconsistency of it all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,798021,00.html
Now I'm not trying to say we should or shouldn't go to war. I'm saying I think the reasons for doing it are not necessarily what are being suggested, and that if they are the real reasons, there are other countries that should also be dealt with.
Funny thing...
A great number of votes were never tabulated as they made no difference in the electoral vote, so we actually don't know who won the popular vote, not that it matters, since the US system does not rely on the nationwide popular vote and never has. Also interesting that Clandestine doesn't mention that under EVERY recount, regardless of what standards were used, Bush won Florida, which means he won the election under the same criteria as every other President in history. Since the rules of Presidential elections are set in the US Constitution, and the US Supreme Court is responsible for ruling on the constitutionality of any law or ruling in the United States, I don't see how the US Supreme Court exceeded their mandate. What I see is that they made sure that the requirements of the Constitution were met.
Hmmmmm, Clandestine, how come you aren't bitching about the election of John F. Kennedy?
The point is that he is answerable to the people and time will tell if those people actually support him or not.
I don't believe that is the case, it certainly didn't work for previous presidents..war does not mean that you will stay in power, nor will it detract from home problems. Vietnam certainly proved that.
I think it has more to do with oil, but with the mitigating factor of the Iraqi regime. As I have always said, I really don't care about Bush's motive, if it means that Saddam's regime disappears. I would prefer that the Iraqis do that themselves, but our assistance is needed for that to happen.
I suggest that you read my posts, you will find that I do support action against Israel for non-complaince with UN resoltuions, but you cannot blame their failure on Bush alone. Suvvessive US Govt have failed to address the situation there, and as I said earlier, if anything Israel is proof that the UN is toothless.
As above really, but just to add that I agree that there are other nations who need to "be dealt with", I just don't see that as a reason for not acting in this case. If anything it just reinforces why we should act...
As for JFK, I didnt mention it because frankly, he's dead and buried and im concerned with today's President and his own suspect administration.
MoK, and what makes you think that any replacement regime will either last (if put in place by the US) or that it would be any better than Saddam? Better the devil you know as they say!
I think there is evidence to support that making positive moves militarily does go down well with the American voting public. This was shown in the increase in Bush's popularity in the last year, and even when Bush snr invaded Iraq. Anyway, I'm not saying it works, I'm saying I think they think it works.
I never said you didn't support action against Israel, I just said it was interesting you mentioned Israel, as it linked to the story I posted. I wasn't using it to try to contradict your supposed support of Israel, because I knew you weren't supporting Israel.
I was also not blaming Bush alone. But if you look at his quotes in that article about making sure the UN acts rather than just talks, everything he said can and does apply to Israel, and other countries. So if he actual meant what he said we should be seeing action taken there as well. Of course we won't, because he just made those comments to sound plausible. I don't blame Bush for the ongoing problems over the last few years, but his quotes are clearly rhetoric and nothing more. Lies, basically.
And finally, I didn't say it means we shouldn't act either. It reinforces why we should act in all cases, not just this one.
Yep...Wales sucks
He already has the ability to use tank and artillery shells loaded with bio and chemical weapons, and is capable of manufacturing missiles that can reach Cyprus, Turkey and Greece.
The quicker we destroy him the better IMHO.
Also what that dossier didn't say was that Iraq was sold the euipment to produce weapons of mass destruction by America and other western countries when Iraq was an ally of the west during the Iran/Iraq war, back then they never made a fuss about the Iraqi regimes brutal treatment of its own population or its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds or against Irainian troops. Back they western governments were too busy doing business deals with the Iraqi regime, just like they do now with the Suadi Regime which is every bit as brutal as Saddam's and the regime in Columbia which America supports with massive amounts of military aid!
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk
Just a thought, and I'll admit to not having enough knowledge about the US legal system, but doesn't someone have to appeal to the Supreme Court before than can make any decision? Isn't that was is needed here?
A similar thing worked over here when the Govt introduced similar legislation recently. They lost the very first appeal...
Nothing makes me certain, but there are times when the devil you know isn't the better option. I would rather have instability without a nuclear armed Saddam, than instability with.
@ GOlden Boy, looks like we really agree then, just from differing approaches. Act against them all, Israel and Zimbabwe included.
Secondly, the current status quo is far from the instability warned of if this regime is toppled. It may be far from our Western conptualisation of peace and security, but given the history of tribal and factual infighting in the region things could unravel completely if we meddle even more than we already have in the past.
So you don't believe that Saddam wants nuclear arms?
Well, idiot. The UK has approximately 50 nuclear weapons on submarines patrolling around the world.
The USA has a few thousand, as does Russia and China
Israel has about 10, none of which are ICBM
Pakistan and India have about 30 a piece, both of which aren't ICBM.
Apart from countries in Western Europe and Australia no other countries have nuclear capability.
We don't impose sanctions on Israel because they haven't or have ever threatened to nuke anyone, they are more concerned with defending themselves than attacking anyone else.
Pakistan and India are allies with Western Europe, America and in particular the UK so there's no threat there.
Other countries either don't want nukes, because of the MAD threat presented by the USA and UK, or want nukes but have neither the ability or economy to build, maintain and use them.
Saddam however, is not concerned with MAD, and is quite able and willing to use nukes on any country or race that looks at him the wrong way.
America supports the Columbian regime, because although brutal keeping them in power prevents huge shipments of drugs arriving in the USA, which they view as a bigger problem.
Whowhere, though i mostly agree with anything you share here, I must say i consider your analysis of Israel particularly faulty.
Israel has always had this victim mentality and used it to garner sympathy from we guilt-ridden western nations. Its a bludgeon whose time has run out in the face of Israel's own disregard for UN resolutions, their use of the state military machine for their own brand of terrorism, and their utter dismantling of Palestinian areas with resultant civilian deaths.
What we have in this conflict is a brand of the holocaust all over again with an entire people kept virtually prisoner in areas that amount to little more than rubble strewn concentration camps, regular Israeli incursions with indiscrimate shelling or shooting that continues to increase the palestinian civilian death toll regardless of whether it is reported on a regular basis (which it isnt).
In the face of that i think even Greenhat would strap on some C4 and take out however many he could after he watched his family slaughtered or buried alive in rubble while the Western world wags its finger and does nothing.
And as for Columbia, don't for a seccond think that equal funds and resources aren't being spent and used to ensure that these drugs DO make it into the US. The so-called war on drugs is the biggest and longest running farce ever dreamed up in political circles. The point is, there is no winning that war because our good ol boys would have one thing less to dazzle voters with at election time.
You think you can stop him? Without sanctions, or force? Even sanction can't.
If he wants them and has the money to pay for them, don't you think he will get them then?
Perhaps this has something to do with WW2, and the fact that every state surrounding them has, at some pooint, either invaded or expressed the wish to remove them from the map...
NB This doesn't mean I support their actions.
Or rather because you cannot win it. People want drugs, others want to supply them...