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
A Dossier Of Lies!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
LIE 1: Saddam Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction"
FACTS: Even Blair is forced to admit that in fact Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) has inspected Iraq. It has looked for the enriched uranium needed to produce nuclear weapons. On 28 June this year the IAEA insisted that Iraq did not have the capacity to produce enriched uranium.
Iraq does have some useless low-grade uranium. This cannot be used for nuclear weapons without specialised, expensive and very obvious industrial-scale facilities.
Britain and the US have produced no evidence that such facilities exist in Iraq. Blair claims that Iraq "could" produce or obtain this material with outside help. So could any other state in the world.
Blair says Iraq has imported steel and aluminium tubes that could be used in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium. The Washington Post noted on 10 September this year that the tubes are in fact used in making conventional artillery, which Iraq is not prohibited from doing even under the sanctions regime.
LIE 2: Iraq has large stocks of chemical and biological weapons
FACTS: Iraq did have some such material in the 1980s-mainly the biological weapon anthrax, and the nerve agents sarin and VX, as well as mustard gas. United Nations inspectors destroyed most of these in the 1990s. Blair says some stocks were "unaccounted" for.
Most chemical and biological agents have a limited shelf life and become useless after a few years. Anthrax, for example, becomes useless even under ideal storage conditions after three years at most.
Iraq has never had the highly advanced technology needed to produce more than laboratory quantities of VX.
LIE 3: Iraq has rebuilt facilities to produce nuclear or biological weapons
FACTS: The "evidence" for this comes mainly from Iraqi scientists who have defected to Europe or the US, and have been offered financial rewards by the US as well as guarantees of asylum. Even the US State Department has in the past warned that such sources should not be taken seriously.
Among the British and US allegations are that a site at Taji in Iraq has been rebuilt to produce chemical and biological weapons. Journalists from the respected Reuters news agency visited the site in mid-August this year. They found nothing resembling the advanced industrial and scientific facilities needed to produce weapons.
Instead they discovered only "boxes of powdered milk from Yemen, Vietnam, Tunisia and Indonesia, and sacks of sugar from Egypt and India".
LIE 4: Iraq has missiles that could hit its neighbours and British forces
FACTS: By 1997 817 of Iraq's 819 ballistic missiles had been destroyed, according to the UN weapons inspectors. Charles Duelfer is the former US deputy assistant secretary of state and deputy head of the Unscom weapons inspectorate, and a leading advocate of war against Iraq.
Even he says Iraq could have at most 12 to 14 missiles today if it has salvaged parts to rebuild some. These have a range of a few hundred miles at most. They were ineffective in the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq had far more missiles. They can not be used for biological weapons like anthrax, which are destroyed by the missile's impact.
Blair claims that Iraqi missiles could threaten British troops in Cyprus. Britain has no business being in Cyprus. It only has bases there to help protect the multinationals' oil profits. Blair says Iraq threatens British fighter jets. But that is only because they are flying over Iraq.
LIE 5: Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction if it had them
FACTS: Iraq did have some chemical and biological weapons at the time of the 1991 Gulf War. Even facing defeat, Saddam Hussein did not use them. The reason is simple. Iraq faces the US, Britain and Israel, which have overwhelming military power and definitely have real weapons of mass destuction.
For Iraq to even threaten to use any such weapons if it had them would bring a devastating response. George Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has admitted, "If they do acquire weapons of mass destruction, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."
LIE 6: Iraq will use chemical weapons again because it used them before
FACTS: Iraq did use mustard gas and sarin in its war with Iran from 1981 to 1988. It did this with the compliance of the US. The US gave Saddam Hussein intelligence information and "crop spraying" helicopters which helped in such attacks.
In 1986 a United Nations Security Council statement recognised that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces". The US voted against this in the UN Security Council. This was because Iraq was a US ally at the time.
Saddam Hussein went on to use chemical weapons against Kurdish people at Halabja and other places in Iraq in 1988. The US did not condemn Iraq, and stepped up its support for Saddam Hussein's regime.
Blair also claims that "Saddam practices torture, execution and other forces of coercion against his enemies". This is equally true of a host of other regimes across the world which are US and British allies-Saudi Arabia for one.
LIE 7: Saddam Hussein is linked to Al Qaida and the 11 September attacks
FACTS: There is not a shred of evidence for this. An earlier claim by some US papers that an Iraqi agent met with one of the 11 September attackers in Prague has been rubbished. Blair points to a group in Iraq called Ansar al Islam, which allegedly has had tenous links with Al Qaida.
He forgets to mention that this group operates in eastern Iraqi Kurdistan, which since 1991 has been controlled by the US-backed Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and not the Iraqi government.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk
FACTS: Even Blair is forced to admit that in fact Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) has inspected Iraq. It has looked for the enriched uranium needed to produce nuclear weapons. On 28 June this year the IAEA insisted that Iraq did not have the capacity to produce enriched uranium.
Iraq does have some useless low-grade uranium. This cannot be used for nuclear weapons without specialised, expensive and very obvious industrial-scale facilities.
Britain and the US have produced no evidence that such facilities exist in Iraq. Blair claims that Iraq "could" produce or obtain this material with outside help. So could any other state in the world.
Blair says Iraq has imported steel and aluminium tubes that could be used in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium. The Washington Post noted on 10 September this year that the tubes are in fact used in making conventional artillery, which Iraq is not prohibited from doing even under the sanctions regime.
LIE 2: Iraq has large stocks of chemical and biological weapons
FACTS: Iraq did have some such material in the 1980s-mainly the biological weapon anthrax, and the nerve agents sarin and VX, as well as mustard gas. United Nations inspectors destroyed most of these in the 1990s. Blair says some stocks were "unaccounted" for.
Most chemical and biological agents have a limited shelf life and become useless after a few years. Anthrax, for example, becomes useless even under ideal storage conditions after three years at most.
Iraq has never had the highly advanced technology needed to produce more than laboratory quantities of VX.
LIE 3: Iraq has rebuilt facilities to produce nuclear or biological weapons
FACTS: The "evidence" for this comes mainly from Iraqi scientists who have defected to Europe or the US, and have been offered financial rewards by the US as well as guarantees of asylum. Even the US State Department has in the past warned that such sources should not be taken seriously.
Among the British and US allegations are that a site at Taji in Iraq has been rebuilt to produce chemical and biological weapons. Journalists from the respected Reuters news agency visited the site in mid-August this year. They found nothing resembling the advanced industrial and scientific facilities needed to produce weapons.
Instead they discovered only "boxes of powdered milk from Yemen, Vietnam, Tunisia and Indonesia, and sacks of sugar from Egypt and India".
LIE 4: Iraq has missiles that could hit its neighbours and British forces
FACTS: By 1997 817 of Iraq's 819 ballistic missiles had been destroyed, according to the UN weapons inspectors. Charles Duelfer is the former US deputy assistant secretary of state and deputy head of the Unscom weapons inspectorate, and a leading advocate of war against Iraq.
Even he says Iraq could have at most 12 to 14 missiles today if it has salvaged parts to rebuild some. These have a range of a few hundred miles at most. They were ineffective in the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq had far more missiles. They can not be used for biological weapons like anthrax, which are destroyed by the missile's impact.
Blair claims that Iraqi missiles could threaten British troops in Cyprus. Britain has no business being in Cyprus. It only has bases there to help protect the multinationals' oil profits. Blair says Iraq threatens British fighter jets. But that is only because they are flying over Iraq.
LIE 5: Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction if it had them
FACTS: Iraq did have some chemical and biological weapons at the time of the 1991 Gulf War. Even facing defeat, Saddam Hussein did not use them. The reason is simple. Iraq faces the US, Britain and Israel, which have overwhelming military power and definitely have real weapons of mass destuction.
For Iraq to even threaten to use any such weapons if it had them would bring a devastating response. George Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has admitted, "If they do acquire weapons of mass destruction, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."
LIE 6: Iraq will use chemical weapons again because it used them before
FACTS: Iraq did use mustard gas and sarin in its war with Iran from 1981 to 1988. It did this with the compliance of the US. The US gave Saddam Hussein intelligence information and "crop spraying" helicopters which helped in such attacks.
In 1986 a United Nations Security Council statement recognised that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces". The US voted against this in the UN Security Council. This was because Iraq was a US ally at the time.
Saddam Hussein went on to use chemical weapons against Kurdish people at Halabja and other places in Iraq in 1988. The US did not condemn Iraq, and stepped up its support for Saddam Hussein's regime.
Blair also claims that "Saddam practices torture, execution and other forces of coercion against his enemies". This is equally true of a host of other regimes across the world which are US and British allies-Saudi Arabia for one.
LIE 7: Saddam Hussein is linked to Al Qaida and the 11 September attacks
FACTS: There is not a shred of evidence for this. An earlier claim by some US papers that an Iraqi agent met with one of the 11 September attackers in Prague has been rubbished. Blair points to a group in Iraq called Ansar al Islam, which allegedly has had tenous links with Al Qaida.
He forgets to mention that this group operates in eastern Iraqi Kurdistan, which since 1991 has been controlled by the US-backed Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and not the Iraqi government.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk
0
Comments
1)WMD's aren't just nukes, and if you read the dossier then you would know that we have evidence that he is producing nukes anyway.
He has larger stockpiles of biological agents than most Western nations, the US and UK included.
2)Anthrax, if you knew anything can survive for decades. The island of the coast of the UK that was tested with anthrax in the 40's has only recently become inhabitable. Nerve gas doesn't "go off" at all, it is a gas, what does it do, go mouldy? Even if anthrax only had a shelf life of 3 years, it can be made by anyone wih access to livestock.
As for VX, maybe the fact that he has used them suggests he has the ability to manufacture more than a "laboratory amount".
3)Photographic evidence of ballistic missle launch sites that he has rebuilt to facilitate large missiles suggest that he does indeed have the capability to arm them with something more substantial than a chicken. Of course, being a socialist you believe 2+2=5 so you ignore such blindingly obvious facts.
4)British Intelligence have found proof of balistic missiles still in production. Blair didn't say he had the ability to hit our bases, he said given a few months he will have. Our bases were there long before we discovered oil in the Middle East, they were established during the second world war to prevent Greece from being overthrown and the Nazis gaining control of the Mediterranean.
5)Of course he would use them. Our intelligence agencies have determined that Saddam is not concerned with the MAD effect, if he gains the ability to strike us, he will, regardless of the outcome.
6)It doesn't matter if the US were allies, it is completely irrelevant, the UK and Germany are allies, shouldn't we be? The Iraqis continue to use chemical weapons, and threaten to use them against us.
7)Blair never said there was an Al-Qaeda link, idiot.
Here's a suggestion for you, perhaps you should do the following:
1)Get an education on the military strengths and weaknesses of the countries involved
2)Read the information presented by the OFFICIAL sources that have been working covertly in Iraq for 4 years
3)Stop being so naive
Certainly no justification for the mindless manner in which US/UK are charging into this issue irrespective of its utter hypocrisy.
Well stated, but to deaf ears and blind eyes...
No, Blair did not.
It was Czech Intel that documented the meeting between Atta and iraqi Intel in Prague..
Now how would iraqi Intel know how to contact a person like Atta and set up a meeting in the first place??
I know, the Phone book or make an appointment through the Terrorist's Guild??
Who was it that documented the al-Qaeda testing chemical and biological weapons in northern Iraq???
Clandestine
Yes, Iraq is a good nation and the UK/US is picking on them.. Making up all these stories about this peaceful and tranquil nation.
Don't you wish your Nation shared a long border with Iraq, the bastion of peace tranquility and Human Rights... Perhaps you need to start a petition for a write in candidate, Sodam Insane for the Nobel Peace Prize.....
Isn't it funny how the US appears to inform us of these 'facts' gradually, instead of all at once (which would present a much more comprehensive case against Saddam)? Could it be that as the opposition to an attack continues undiluted the US is growing more impatient and chooses to release these accusations every other day in the hope that one of them will do the trick and convince the international community an attack is inevitable?
As for Saddam killing many of his own Kurdish population with WMDs, most of these attacks took place in 1988. At the time Saddam was best friend of the West and I don't recall our leaders complaining much about the atrocities at the time. I think it's disgraceful that Blair chooses to include this incident in his simplistic and comic-like dossier when we've looked the other way for 14 years.
The US/UK intent in rushing in there with guns blazing is simply hegemonic power mongering and cares not a whiff for how many more civilians will be killed by our oh so magnanimous actions supposedly on their behalf.
Do you realise that in the last foray into Iraq during Desert Storm, we used depleted uranium shells which to this day has only added to the death toll as well as adding increased birth defects to the list? But you warmongers probably dont give a crap about that since its just "collateral damage".
A very interesting episode of Simpson's World (a BBC human interest/news series) last night was an interview of an exiled Iraqi journalist and writer living in the UK who made some very valid points.
She pointed out that what has been lost in all this ranting by Bush/Blair is the nature of democracy itself. Both the leading proponents of Invasion have repeatedly employed the rheotric of "bringing democracy to the people of Iraq". This is in itself a major hypocrisy since one cannot impose demopcracy on a society. It must be allowed to grow naturally from within.
She argued quite eloquently that in drawing lines in the sand as Bush has done saying "you either back our plans to invade or you are on the other side and evil" is exactly the mindset that drives Saddam. No moral difference whatsoever in that kind of thinking because it nullifies all debate and villifies anyone who considers democracy to be wide enough to embrace dissenting views and beliefs.
I doubt very highly that the Iraqi public is thrilled at the prospect of having foreign powers throw more military firepower at them or have a government imposed on them by the US. How would you feel if a foreign power decided that the UK needed a change of leadership and decided to do it for you by force?
Since Saddam is only strengthened by the sanctions, what should be done if we truly want to help the people of Iraq to return to the fold is to remove the sanctions and let them rebuild their shattered infrasturcture (perhaps under some limitations such as only water and electricity services) and let them raise themselves back up to the point where insrugency movements could have some chance of toppling the regime from within. Foreign invasion is just another example of "quick fix" thinking that is both shortsighted and ultimately ineffective in providing constructive and lasting change.
All this talk of war has moved into the realms of brutish authoritarianism which is out of keeping with the peace and freedom loving rhetoric our leaders are so often heard spouting.
No labs in Northern Iraq have been under Kurdish control for ten years. No major installations of any sort in Iraq have been under control of Kurds for ten years. Tanks, attack helos, chemical and biological weapons made sure of that.
Does that make bombing with chemical weapons inside one's own country any less heinous, no. But given the constant encouragement by the west for Saddam's actions against Iran at that time, it is understandable why he would have used such lethal weaponry to wipe out the Iranian troops who had penetrated into Iraq.
Its contextual information like this which muddies the black and white case the warmongers want us to swallow.
That point, however, nicely avoids the point i made, namely that much of what is being argued is being done deviod of the full contextual picture, which if pointed out by the media along with the rhetoric, would undermine the moral superiority Bush and Blair are trying to claim.
Do you mean the mailed anthrax in the U.S. I believe the FBI thinks thats a domestic terrorist act, not a war crime.
Or was there another one somewhere else?
The FBI investigation concluded that the perpetrator was likely a high ranking scientist within the military industrial complex. The investigation was stalled by both the administration and the military.
see this lengthy report for details: http://www.totse.com/en/politics/terrorists_and_freedom_fighters/163722.html
Another twist of the truth.
All the signatory Nations have anthrax and other such agents.. Not in weapons form, but they do have them..
By your words, you see a nuclear weapon inside every nuclear powerplant or radiology area of a hospital..
Are you kidding??
I have a great diagram for folding tinfoil to protect the mind from the "rays.."
Get some education, so we can debate you.. Right now, you fall under the heading of although there's lights on upstairs, there's no one's home..
No twist of any truth needed reverse, only those who willingly choose to ignore it.
The grade of Anthrax released last year in the US the AMES strain anthrax. That is weapons grade dear boy. Best you run along now and dig your head of out of the sand.
Now now be nice...
There is a difference..
The one is public knowledge, the other was discovered by counting iraqi bodys... Or was it iranian bodys or kurdish bodys.. But what are dead iraqis, iranians, or kurds compared to something you read in the newspapers??
That is assuming you know what weapons grade is..
That seems to be the point you don't get.. Its one thing to have things, another to use them to butcher people..
You stick your head in the sand and play with words as people are butchered.. Point is, you don't care a damn except to express an opinion, that is sad.
Actually the US/UK Govt already knew because we had helped arm him.
And before you suggest that he has shown a willingness to use them, I'll remind you of naplam and agent orange usage by the US.
This doesn't mean that I don't support disarming Saddam by any means, it just means that we should be honest about other aspects of foreign policy too.
I know the UK/US did arm Sodam Insane, but I do NOT know if he was given CBR or NBC type weaponry by the UK/US..
Many weapons are intended to deter one's enemy from using them, such as nuclear ones.. Only a maniac would use nuclear weapons and we all seem have them..
Napalm is a weapon of war, as is white phosphorus and other such horrible instruments of death.... We use a quote that states war is Hell and no truer words were ever spoken...
When you kill a man, you take all he has and all he could ever be, are we to debate about humane killing
Of interest, that picture of a young girl burnt with napalm? Is it still as horrid if I say the US had nothing to do with it?? It was south vietnamese aircraft directed by south vietnamese commanders..
It does not change the horror, but it does set matters straight. As a Vietnam Vet, I can tell you about how the NVA tortured civilians.. It was so common place, the news media did not bother to report it, but it was enough to make men that killed often vomit at the sight...
Remember once black powder cannons would fire two balls linked by a chain.
Britain's 303 round with the nose of the projectile filled with paper mache so that it tumbled in tissue..
Who invented the flame thrower? White phosphorus and other such weapons..
No matter how one looks at it, War is some nasty business, unhealthy to all living things...
BTW-
Agent Orange was once sold here in the US to farmers. In the 1960's no one had any idea of the long term effects.. How could they be so blind is merely a rhetorical question.. Point is, mankind has always been so blind, its not out of meanness, but stupidity...
There was a time when men thought that a swordfish actually grew from a trout size to 2000 pounds in a few years.. Mankind has always been naive, items like Agent Orange, lead paint and others are just another example of our stupidity...
Another example is the damage the romans did to themselves by using lead pipe to bring water to their baths..
Again, there is nothing pretty about warfare.. However, sodam insane uses these weapons upon civilians.. Neither the US or the UK would supply such a maniac conventional weapons if all they were used for was to bomb civilian targets.. Soldiers are vaccinated and issued protective equipment, leaving the soldiers to witness the horrors inflicted upon civilians..
Thank you for your insight... Other Veterans have made the attempt to introduce reality into the mix, but it has been generally dismissed as propaganda by those who would prefer to believe that the United States is the chief source of terror in the modern world...
Not nukes, even we aren't that stupid, but some of the components (those with dueal usage) certainly came from here.
Its a chemical agent, used for its chemical effect. The fact that it isn't a WMD is the only redeming factor...
Yes, because it isn't the person who used the weapon that was relevant there, so much as the injuries caused.
Besides, some would question how the Vietnamese managed to get hold of such weaponry.
and I would condemn that too. Like I say, the protagonist is irrelevant.
Now tell me, are the "prisoners" in Camp X-ray (or whatever it is called this week) being treated in a manner which you would find acceptable, if they were US? I doubt it. That's the type of hypocrisy which falls into the hands of the anti-US lobby.
Well, at the time, he was an ally.. There was a time when the Allies were against the Axis.. That has changed.. Those things happen.
Napalm, are you offering there's "proper & acceptable" ways to kill and maim? Sorry, MOK, to me dead is dead. The method is a moot point...
Am I against war? Hell yes any man that has seen war is against it.. BUT, unlike some I see no proper way to kill and maim or is it I see no decent sporting way to kill people.
In the case of napalm, you see a difference between being burnt and some one's brain being scrambled by the huge concussion of a 2000 pound bomb? Or those little "lazy dogs" dropped from hi flying aircraft that maim a person and allow them to lay there and bleed to death..
Perhaps you see some difference between an arm being burnt as compared to it being removed by a bullet tearing it off, if there is a difference to you, sorry I don't see it.
From what we see on the news? They are being treated quite well.. Yes, I would guess being in a tropical climate is hard on them, the humidity and all.. But the accomodations, food, medical care and such are all quite good..
Many Americans are complaining about the cost.. A man that has never seen a dentist getting full dental care?? Most here say its a waste of money because they will be released..
They have a "cell," with sanitation, showers, a suitable (based on their religion) diet, medical and dental care.. As we say they are getting the whole 9 yards
I don't know what you are being told, but the care they are receiving is of high quality.. Superior to any they have ever received in their lives..
Its easy to print a raft of shyte in the newspapers saying oh these poor picked on people..
Bottomline is they are well treated and being cared for.. But, no it ain't fun being locked up inside a compound, yes the facilities and care easily exceed any requirement of any International Law.
However, as far as what you read in the news, well, rumors are always better than reality...
Actually, the detainees at X-ray are being treated in a manner I would consider acceptable for my men if they were POWs and significantly better than any American POWs or prisoners have been treated by anyone in the world for 50+ years. We actually train (as do your forces) to prepare our people to expect torture, starvation, etc. We learned that lesson from the Japanese, the North Koreans. the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Somalis. We chose not to learn other lessons from them and the Nazis about torture and running prison camps. One thing that we did learn is that torture is counterproductive. We learned that from our people who suffered from it.
The truth is not what people wish to hear.
So far, the biggest item of contention is them wearing "turban.." So we have POW's complaining about what style hat they want to wear?? And the world is ready to start War Crimes Trials over headgear.....
After the atrocities of the Japanese, the North Koreans, the Nazis, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Somalis, and others, let's notice how highly this issue really ranks in the annuals of War Crimes...
Oh, lets not forget they are restrained while being moved, something that most civilized nations do to common criminals..
Point is, there are no atrocities. The atrocities were committed by these prisoners to the afgani people.... But who in the bloody hell cares enough to speak for them??
That they might be denied internet access certainly must be considered an "atrocity"... :eek: