Viewing Thread:
"Ok, hear me out."

Dr Kelly apparently comitting suicide.
The revelations at the Hutton inquiry that he told a friend should Iraq be invaded, he fully expected to "be found dead in the woods".
Why? Because he had promised prominent Iraqi officials that if they co-operated with UN inspectors, there would be no war.
But it happened anyway.
And Iraqis are extremely big on honour and loyalty.

So what if Dr Kelly *was* murdered. But why immediately suspect the MOD?
Is it not possible that Iraqi exiles/hardcore supporters of Hussein over here (the same ones we're drafting all this legislation for our protection over), would have arranged it?

I'm just mulling this one over.
Kelly promises Iraq no war if co-operate with UN
They do so.
War anyway.
Kelly's name leaked
Kelly turns up "dead in the woods", as he predicted.

Spot on.

I'd just add that while a tank may be useful offensively in an open battlefield where comparatively indiscriminate destruction is an option, if your enemy can blend into a group of civilians, and you don't have the will to kill so many innocents, the tank isn't much use to you.

Saddam loyalists no longer have to fight tanks and such hardware at all.

Blank, with respect, in an urban environment armoured vechiles greatest threat is people on foot - I won't refer to them as civlians because those opposing coalition forces are not civilians, they're terrorists now.

APC's and tanks are meant for long range combat and fast moving engagements, not close quarters combat. One guy with a grenade, RPG, anti tank missile, or just plain old explosives, can take down a tank in an urban setting given the chance.

Vechiles like the Humvee and jeep are slightly more useful for the mobility they give, but at the end of the day they're bullet magnets in any engagement, as are any vechiles.

So Dr Duck is quite right, Saddam's supporters can cause more damage now than they could in a straight fight, which is why we are seeing coaltiion casualties being greater after the major war is over, than during the war.

Inevitably - if the situation cannot be brought around and hte bodies keep on piling up with little to gain for their sacrifice - America, and the UK are going to reach a point where someone in their respective defence departments starts talking seriously about an exit strategy for all forces, and this is exactly what those opposing the coalition in Iraq want.

They know the Western public will not tolerate large military losses, the terrorists in Iraq know all they have to do is take out targets of oppurtunity and eventually, if they do it long enough, our political leaders will bring the forces back home, leaving the remaining terrorists to reinstall a new regime with Saddam back in power, and if that happens every life lost in Iraq will have been for nothing, and one day in the future we'll have to go do it again.

IMO, right now I'd say we're getting close to the point where Balir\Bush decide to end this because of the political flak they are taking. Why can so few people see that just withdrawing from Iraq now is insanely stupid and shortsighted ?

Dr Duck wrote:
> Maybe he felt he had a better chance fighting a guerilla campaign -
> send most of his army to blend in with the civilians, and pick off
> Americans slowly, until the ongoing deaths caused America to lose the
> political will to continue occupation of Iraq. Then he could seize
> power again.
>
> No doubt better odds than fighting the Americans head to head.

But don't forget it's not just American soldiers. It's American tanks, and other vehicles. Against tanks these "civilians" (as I'll now call them) wouldn't be too much use - surely if there's a better way it would be used effectively. He had enough time to figure something out. He must have if he had time to hide them all *chuckles*

Belldandy wrote:
> the enquiry has not finished yet, there is no final report, and as
> you're always telling us, people are innocent until proven guilty.

Unless they're Iraqis, in which case they're liars and their pockets are stuffed full of plutonium gas bombs.

Light wrote:
> Umm...but doesn't the fact that nothing has yet been found after a
> few months searching kinda indicate that whether the claim was 20 or
> 45, it was still an absolute pile of uncorroborated nadgers?

True, but the Hutton Enquiry is not about finding the accruacy of the information, it's about the events leading up to Dr Kelly's death, one of which is Gilligan making the claim that he had sourced information saying that the 45 minute claim was sexed up.

The fact that our own intelligence people knew that their source was telling them closer to 20 minutes, and comitted that information to record, shows that Gilligan lied in his report, and frankly I find hte BBC's defence of "we reported it but didn't know if it was true" a total cop out on their part. It was false, and the fact that Gilligan made the false claim led to the public demand for the FAC hearing, which it is reasonable to assume sent Dr Kelly onto the path to suicide, or his death at any rate. Kelly, IMO, did not lie to the FAC hearing, but I'll bet money that Gilligan did.

> Also, although I think Gilligan is going to be screwed, isn't anyone
> in the tiniest bit worried that absolutely no-one from government
> appears to be taking responsibility for anything that happened that
> lies within the scope of this enquiry? Our whole government appear to
> be unaccountable for their actions. Is no-one else a little scared by
> that?

To be fair, Blair has done so, in part, and Campbell is now gone. You didn't know this when you posted, but I would say you could perhaps give the Government and Blair more leeway in the future, after all the enquiry has not finished yet, there is no final report, and as you're always telling us, people are innocent until proven guilty.

(in response to Garin)

A good point, and it's certainly a possibility.

However, there are a few reasons why it may be unlikely:

We're talking about a big decision, going to war, you'd expect all evidence and stuff to have been checked and double checked thoroughly.
Assuming people *wanted* to make sure it was correct.

While Bush may be 'challenged' in his mental capacity (though I get the impression he's sharper than most people would think), he's surrounded by lots of people who I have no doubt know their stuff, and have earned their positions through ability and competence.

The Florida election debacle - whatever you believe really happened, I think most would be forced to accept at least the possibility of a well thought out conspiratorial plan having been conducted by various Republicans and 'interested parties'.
So there's also the possibility such things are happening again.


Of course, since we know so little about the intelligence on which the decision to go to war was based, all we can really do is speculate, and anything is possible.

I was waiting for you to say that.

:D

Blair gives his testimony at The Hutton Enquiry.
What's the news?

"POWER CUT! - THOUSANDS GET HOME LATE"

Ssh!!

You'll be ridiculed for being deviant!