The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.neilswaab.com/comics/wiggles/images/rehab239.jpg
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Thanks for that; interesting reading. None of it however answers the
> simple question; if there really is that much evidence, then why have
> no WOMD or evidence been found? Why did the head of the womd finding
> team resign, saying that none would be found? Seriously; quoting
> statistics is great for supporting a case, but when no WOMD or
> evidence thereof have been found, you don't have a case in the first
> place.
Absence of proof will NEVER be proof of absence.
Dr. Gordon Kilgour, the chairman of the Chemistry Department at Portland State University, has said that one canister of Type VX gas is enough to kill two and a half million if properly dispersed.
The canisters referred to were the 50 pound canisters dropped by the Americans on the Vietnamese. Now I did a rough calculation, that amounts to about 20 litres.
Think of that as ten 2 litre bottles of coke. Do you think that if I was to hide something the size of a bottle of coke tonight, in Britain, you could ever find it? Now think of the fact that Iraq is not far off twice the size of Britain. Could be a bit on the difficult side couldn't it?
Not only that, but most Iraqi army officers would never want them to be found, if weapons of mass destruction were ever found then it would almost justify the war, which they wouldn't want.
That illustrates the difficulty in finding chemical weapons, they are small, they are portable and they don't need lots of heavy equipment. They could be hidden easily.
As for the reliability of the intelligence, I have not seen or heard enough about it all to comment. But was there the possibility of there being a threat? Yes.
If there was a possible threat against your family Light, would you take any sort of action? Or would you just sit back and think "well it doesn't look likely, nothing to worry about"? Of course not.
When you run a country, there are more lives involved, the stakes are higher. Ok, so a full blown invasion was probably not the best solution. But then, sitting and back and doing nothing would not have been either.
> Thanks for that; interesting reading. None of it however answers the
> simple question; if there really is that much evidence, then why have
> no WOMD or evidence been found? Why did the head of the womd finding
> team resign, saying that none would be found? Seriously; quoting
> statistics is great for supporting a case, but when no WOMD or
> evidence thereof have been found, you don't have a case in the first
> place.
Absence of proof will NEVER be proof of absence.
Dr. Gordon Kilgour, the chairman of the Chemistry Department at Portland State University, has said that one canister of Type VX gas is enough to kill two and a half million if properly dispersed.
The canisters referred to were the 50 pound canisters dropped by the Americans on the Vietnamese. Now I did a rough calculation, that amounts to about 20 litres.
Think of that as ten 2 litre bottles of coke. Do you think that if I was to hide something the size of a bottle of coke tonight, in Britain, you could ever find it? Now think of the fact that Iraq is not far off twice the size of Britain. Could be a bit on the difficult side couldn't it?
Not only that, but most Iraqi army officers would never want them to be found, if weapons of mass destruction were ever found then it would almost justify the war, which they wouldn't want.
That illustrates the difficulty in finding chemical weapons, they are small, they are portable and they don't need lots of heavy equipment. They could be hidden easily.
As for the reliability of the intelligence, I have not seen or heard enough about it all to comment. But was there the possibility of there being a threat? Yes.
If there was a possible threat against your family Light, would you take any sort of action? Or would you just sit back and think "well it doesn't look likely, nothing to worry about"? Of course not.
When you run a country, there are more lives involved, the stakes are higher. Ok, so a full blown invasion was probably not the best solution. But then, sitting and back and doing nothing would not have been either.
Light wrote:
> ...and it won't actually look at how the intel was used. So that's
> two enquiries, neither of which look at how the government used the
> intel to form their case for going to war. Hmmm....suspicious, don't
> you think?
It probably wouldn't make any difference. We will be told if the Intel was good, or bad. We will also be told if that Intel did point to WMD. So well will make our own decisions either way. People will look at the evidence on the Intel, then the decisions taken, and then make their judgements. Although in some cases, i'm sure those judgements have already been made.
> Yeah, they're cleared of the 45 minute claim. That's quite a long way
> off clearing the government about lying concerning their intel
> though, innit?
Well, i suppose not.
> Okay; so where is the proof of this? If he drove them over the
> border, why aren't they being looked for? Anyway, he SAID that. How
> comes you're willing to believe him, but not believe what any senior
> Iraqi's have said about NOT having WOMD?
Well if their over the border, there may be some sort of covert search underway. Anyway, my decision to support the war wasn't solely based on interviews like this one.
> Okay; just me being overly picky. My apologies.
Not at all, easy mistake to make.
> Yup, and I don't believe he did. It's a matter of faith on both our
> parts I think.
Agreed.
> Thanks for that; interesting reading. None of it however answers the
> simple question; if there really is that much evidence, then why have
> no WOMD or evidence been found? Why did the head of the womd finding
> team resign, saying that none would be found? Seriously; quoting
> statistics is great for supporting a case, but when no WOMD or
> evidence thereof have been found, you don't have a case in the first
> place.
It might not show us an ICBM tipped with C&B weapons, but it does show that Iraq was far from innocent in their WMD programms. I know that every body wants the actual weapons, me included, but my personal primary reason for supporting the war was for the good of the Iraqi's. David Kays findings are just a confirmation for me. I understand why it isn't for others, i really do, but its all about personal stand points. I see the Kay interim report as enough, others don't.
> ...and it won't actually look at how the intel was used. So that's
> two enquiries, neither of which look at how the government used the
> intel to form their case for going to war. Hmmm....suspicious, don't
> you think?
It probably wouldn't make any difference. We will be told if the Intel was good, or bad. We will also be told if that Intel did point to WMD. So well will make our own decisions either way. People will look at the evidence on the Intel, then the decisions taken, and then make their judgements. Although in some cases, i'm sure those judgements have already been made.
> Yeah, they're cleared of the 45 minute claim. That's quite a long way
> off clearing the government about lying concerning their intel
> though, innit?
Well, i suppose not.
> Okay; so where is the proof of this? If he drove them over the
> border, why aren't they being looked for? Anyway, he SAID that. How
> comes you're willing to believe him, but not believe what any senior
> Iraqi's have said about NOT having WOMD?
Well if their over the border, there may be some sort of covert search underway. Anyway, my decision to support the war wasn't solely based on interviews like this one.
> Okay; just me being overly picky. My apologies.
Not at all, easy mistake to make.
> Yup, and I don't believe he did. It's a matter of faith on both our
> parts I think.
Agreed.
> Thanks for that; interesting reading. None of it however answers the
> simple question; if there really is that much evidence, then why have
> no WOMD or evidence been found? Why did the head of the womd finding
> team resign, saying that none would be found? Seriously; quoting
> statistics is great for supporting a case, but when no WOMD or
> evidence thereof have been found, you don't have a case in the first
> place.
It might not show us an ICBM tipped with C&B weapons, but it does show that Iraq was far from innocent in their WMD programms. I know that every body wants the actual weapons, me included, but my personal primary reason for supporting the war was for the good of the Iraqi's. David Kays findings are just a confirmation for me. I understand why it isn't for others, i really do, but its all about personal stand points. I see the Kay interim report as enough, others don't.
Light wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> By the way, Light, you keep saying the UK is supporting other
> dictatorships all over the world. Might i be able to look at some
> links? I'm just not very well read in this area. Thx.
>
> Sure; here's a link for the US support of dictatorships;
>
> http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
>
> Here's a Friends of the Earth memo submitted to the Commons;
>
> http://www.parliament.the -stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/
> cmselect/cmintdev/uc79-ii/uc7911.htm
>
> Here's one concerning Africa (though take with a pinch of salt;
> socialists have a tendency to exaggerate);
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/afri-f16.shtml
>
> And here's another one about the US;
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/
> m1132/6_53/80757272/p4/article.jhtml?term=
>
>
> Let me know if you want any more.
Well exsqueeze me, but didn't Skarra want links to the UK supporting regimes? That's not the US is it?
The FOE one is, well, barely linked and pretty much grasping at straws on your part. And the World Socialist Web Site? That's like me using the White House website to support US policy...
> Skarra wrote:
> By the way, Light, you keep saying the UK is supporting other
> dictatorships all over the world. Might i be able to look at some
> links? I'm just not very well read in this area. Thx.
>
> Sure; here's a link for the US support of dictatorships;
>
> http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
>
> Here's a Friends of the Earth memo submitted to the Commons;
>
> http://www.parliament.the -stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/
> cmselect/cmintdev/uc79-ii/uc7911.htm
>
> Here's one concerning Africa (though take with a pinch of salt;
> socialists have a tendency to exaggerate);
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/afri-f16.shtml
>
> And here's another one about the US;
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/
> m1132/6_53/80757272/p4/article.jhtml?term=
>
>
> Let me know if you want any more.
Well exsqueeze me, but didn't Skarra want links to the UK supporting regimes? That's not the US is it?
The FOE one is, well, barely linked and pretty much grasping at straws on your part. And the World Socialist Web Site? That's like me using the White House website to support US policy...
Skarra wrote:
>
> Tony spoke about this in his news conference today.
Did he? Haven't read about that yet.
>
>
> I don't know, i'm just going on what Hutton said.
Fair enough.
>
>
> There is one now, its the Butler, or Butter report or something, but
> there is one underway.
...and it won't actually look at how the intel was used. So that's two enquiries, neither of which look at how the government used the intel to form their case for going to war. Hmmm....suspicious, don't you think?
> I quote:-
> "...the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that
> the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong
> before the Government decided to put it in the dossier was an
> allegation which was unfounded."
>
> So Gilligan said they knew the claim was wrong, but lied and put it
> in anyway. Hutton clears them of this, in my view.
Yeah, they're cleared of the 45 minute claim. That's quite a long way off clearing the government about lying concerning their intel though, innit?
>
> How does one dispose of WMD in the space of a couple of months with
> absolutely no evidence remaining, especially when there will have
> been so much satellite surveillance of Iraq that we could probably
> tell what people were having for breakfast on any given day?
>
> A number of Iraqi officers in service before, and during the war have
> spoken on this. I specifically remember a report on C5 a few months
> ago now. This guy, a Major-General i think, said he put a number of
> stratigic missiles, similar to Al-Samoud 2, in the back of
> Ambulances, and drove them over the border.
Okay; so where is the proof of this? If he drove them over the border, why aren't they being looked for? Anyway, he SAID that. How comes you're willing to believe him, but not believe what any senior Iraqi's have said about NOT having WOMD?
> I didn't meen, 'if' as in a mistake may or may not have been made. I
> meant it as an expression of speech.
Okay; just me being overly picky. My apologies.
>
?
>
> Well, everybody aroung Tony Blair before the war sais he believed
> fully Iraq did have at least C & B weapons. I think he saw the
> Intel, believed it, and did what he believed to be right.
Yup, and I don't believe he did. It's a matter of faith on both our parts I think.
>
> We could go round on this all day, but I have to say this; I don't
> believe that you've come up with a single piece of evidence that
> gets
> round the simple fact that no WOMD have been found.
>
> Some of David Kays speech:
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/
>
> A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
> Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN
> monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
>
> A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
> agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections
> were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
>
> Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
> home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
>
> New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
> Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin
> were not declared to the UN.
>
> A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production
> facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared
> UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
>
> Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with
> ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit
> imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed
> Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including
> Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
>
> With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of
> our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant
> information - including research and development of BW-applicable
> organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in
> possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of
> this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program
> and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be
> activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
>
> To sum up:-
>
> Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who
> worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his
> aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass
> destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who
> claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities
> readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs
> whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these
> officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or
> his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production
> or make available chemical weapons.
>
> In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but
> undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened,
> would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at
> least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150
> km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine
> procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
>
> In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that
> there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development
> activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
> While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and
> capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these
> undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical
> and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained
> cadre.
>
> Let me conclude by returning to something I began with today. We face
> a unique but challenging opportunity in our efforts to unravel the
> exact status of Iraq's WMD program. The good news is that we do not
> have to rely for the first time in over a decade on
>
> *the incomplete, and often false, data that Iraq supplied the
> UN/IAEA;
>
>
> *data collected by UN inspectors operating with the severe
> constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed;
>
>
> *information supplied by defectors, some of whom certainly fabricated
> much that they supplied and perhaps were under the direct control of
> the IIS;
>
>
> *data collected by national technical collections systems with their
> own limitations.
>
> Now, lets just wait and see what the final report of the ISG sais.
Thanks for that; interesting reading. None of it however answers the simple question; if there really is that much evidence, then why have no WOMD or evidence been found? Why did the head of the womd finding team resign, saying that none would be found? Seriously; quoting statistics is great for supporting a case, but when no WOMD or evidence thereof have been found, you don't have a case in the first place.
>
> Tony spoke about this in his news conference today.
Did he? Haven't read about that yet.
>
>
> I don't know, i'm just going on what Hutton said.
Fair enough.
>
>
> There is one now, its the Butler, or Butter report or something, but
> there is one underway.
...and it won't actually look at how the intel was used. So that's two enquiries, neither of which look at how the government used the intel to form their case for going to war. Hmmm....suspicious, don't you think?
> I quote:-
> "...the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that
> the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong
> before the Government decided to put it in the dossier was an
> allegation which was unfounded."
>
> So Gilligan said they knew the claim was wrong, but lied and put it
> in anyway. Hutton clears them of this, in my view.
Yeah, they're cleared of the 45 minute claim. That's quite a long way off clearing the government about lying concerning their intel though, innit?
>
> How does one dispose of WMD in the space of a couple of months with
> absolutely no evidence remaining, especially when there will have
> been so much satellite surveillance of Iraq that we could probably
> tell what people were having for breakfast on any given day?
>
> A number of Iraqi officers in service before, and during the war have
> spoken on this. I specifically remember a report on C5 a few months
> ago now. This guy, a Major-General i think, said he put a number of
> stratigic missiles, similar to Al-Samoud 2, in the back of
> Ambulances, and drove them over the border.
Okay; so where is the proof of this? If he drove them over the border, why aren't they being looked for? Anyway, he SAID that. How comes you're willing to believe him, but not believe what any senior Iraqi's have said about NOT having WOMD?
> I didn't meen, 'if' as in a mistake may or may not have been made. I
> meant it as an expression of speech.
Okay; just me being overly picky. My apologies.
>
?
>
> Well, everybody aroung Tony Blair before the war sais he believed
> fully Iraq did have at least C & B weapons. I think he saw the
> Intel, believed it, and did what he believed to be right.
Yup, and I don't believe he did. It's a matter of faith on both our parts I think.
>
> We could go round on this all day, but I have to say this; I don't
> believe that you've come up with a single piece of evidence that
> gets
> round the simple fact that no WOMD have been found.
>
> Some of David Kays speech:
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/
>
> A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
> Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN
> monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
>
> A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
> agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections
> were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
>
> Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
> home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
>
> New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
> Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin
> were not declared to the UN.
>
> A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production
> facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared
> UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
>
> Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with
> ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit
> imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed
> Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including
> Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
>
> With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of
> our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant
> information - including research and development of BW-applicable
> organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in
> possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of
> this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program
> and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be
> activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
>
> To sum up:-
>
> Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who
> worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his
> aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass
> destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who
> claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities
> readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs
> whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these
> officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or
> his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production
> or make available chemical weapons.
>
> In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but
> undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened,
> would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at
> least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150
> km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine
> procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
>
> In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that
> there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development
> activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
> While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and
> capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these
> undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical
> and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained
> cadre.
>
> Let me conclude by returning to something I began with today. We face
> a unique but challenging opportunity in our efforts to unravel the
> exact status of Iraq's WMD program. The good news is that we do not
> have to rely for the first time in over a decade on
>
> *the incomplete, and often false, data that Iraq supplied the
> UN/IAEA;
>
>
> *data collected by UN inspectors operating with the severe
> constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed;
>
>
> *information supplied by defectors, some of whom certainly fabricated
> much that they supplied and perhaps were under the direct control of
> the IIS;
>
>
> *data collected by national technical collections systems with their
> own limitations.
>
> Now, lets just wait and see what the final report of the ISG sais.
Thanks for that; interesting reading. None of it however answers the simple question; if there really is that much evidence, then why have no WOMD or evidence been found? Why did the head of the womd finding team resign, saying that none would be found? Seriously; quoting statistics is great for supporting a case, but when no WOMD or evidence thereof have been found, you don't have a case in the first place.
Light wrote:
> When there is such controversy over it, don't you think it should?
> The government and intel are acting on behalf of us, the public. When
> there is such a huge level of public interest, and public mistrust of
> our government, wouldn't you agree that keeping even more secrets and
> only giving us half the story breeds more mistrust?
Tony spoke about this in his news conference today.
> Alistair Campbell has said that the intel people were okay with the
> changes? Can't say as I'm surprised. Is there anything from any of
> the intel agencies themselves saying explicitly that they're okay
> with changes made?
I don't know, i'm just going on what Hutton said.
> That's a big if, and bearing in mind that no enquiry has looked at
> the validity of the intel it's not really possible for us to say yay
> or nay.
There is one now, its the Butler, or Butter report or something, but there is one underway.
> Except Hutton didn't clear the government about lying. He cleared
> them of embellishing the document used. But see my previous
> paragraph. Also it's worth noting that neither Hutton nor the next
> enquiry had within their remit anything about looking at the way the
> government used all the intel available. Hutton looked only at the
> document the government provided. It didn't investigate whether the
> government had dismissed the intel saying that Iraq had no WOMD.
I quote:-
"...the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the Government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation which was unfounded."
So Gilligan said they knew the claim was wrong, but lied and put it in anyway. Hutton clears them of this, in my view.
> M'kay. I disagree.
Fair enough.
> How does one dispose of WMD in the space of a couple of months with
> absolutely no evidence remaining, especially when there will have
> been so much satellite surveillance of Iraq that we could probably
> tell what people were having for breakfast on any given day?
A number of Iraqi officers in service before, and during the war have spoken on this. I specifically remember a report on C5 a few months ago now. This guy, a Major-General i think, said he put a number of stratigic missiles, similar to Al-Samoud 2, in the back of Ambulances, and drove them over the border.
> IF anybody made a mistake? As no WOMD or evidence thereof has been
> found, why 'if'?
I didn't meen, 'if' as in a mistake may or may not have been made. I meant it as an expression of speech.
> What other reasons? If it's pure humanitarian then I agree. But as
> has been argued many times, the humanitarian reason was the last one
> on the list. And if WOMD really are such a big concern, then why are
> North Korea (who have threatened to develop and use them) getting
> away so lightly?
Well, everybody aroung Tony Blair before the war sais he believed fully Iraq did have at least C & B weapons. I think he saw the Intel, believed it, and did what he believed to be right.
> We could go round on this all day, but I have to say this; I don't
> believe that you've come up with a single piece of evidence that gets
> round the simple fact that no WOMD have been found.
Some of David Kays speech:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/ speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
To sum up:-
Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.
In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.
Let me conclude by returning to something I began with today. We face a unique but challenging opportunity in our efforts to unravel the exact status of Iraq's WMD program. The good news is that we do not have to rely for the first time in over a decade on
*the incomplete, and often false, data that Iraq supplied the UN/IAEA;
*data collected by UN inspectors operating with the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed;
*information supplied by defectors, some of whom certainly fabricated much that they supplied and perhaps were under the direct control of the IIS;
*data collected by national technical collections systems with their own limitations.
Now, lets just wait and see what the final report of the ISG sais.
> When there is such controversy over it, don't you think it should?
> The government and intel are acting on behalf of us, the public. When
> there is such a huge level of public interest, and public mistrust of
> our government, wouldn't you agree that keeping even more secrets and
> only giving us half the story breeds more mistrust?
Tony spoke about this in his news conference today.
> Alistair Campbell has said that the intel people were okay with the
> changes? Can't say as I'm surprised. Is there anything from any of
> the intel agencies themselves saying explicitly that they're okay
> with changes made?
I don't know, i'm just going on what Hutton said.
> That's a big if, and bearing in mind that no enquiry has looked at
> the validity of the intel it's not really possible for us to say yay
> or nay.
There is one now, its the Butler, or Butter report or something, but there is one underway.
> Except Hutton didn't clear the government about lying. He cleared
> them of embellishing the document used. But see my previous
> paragraph. Also it's worth noting that neither Hutton nor the next
> enquiry had within their remit anything about looking at the way the
> government used all the intel available. Hutton looked only at the
> document the government provided. It didn't investigate whether the
> government had dismissed the intel saying that Iraq had no WOMD.
I quote:-
"...the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the Government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation which was unfounded."
So Gilligan said they knew the claim was wrong, but lied and put it in anyway. Hutton clears them of this, in my view.
> M'kay. I disagree.
Fair enough.
> How does one dispose of WMD in the space of a couple of months with
> absolutely no evidence remaining, especially when there will have
> been so much satellite surveillance of Iraq that we could probably
> tell what people were having for breakfast on any given day?
A number of Iraqi officers in service before, and during the war have spoken on this. I specifically remember a report on C5 a few months ago now. This guy, a Major-General i think, said he put a number of stratigic missiles, similar to Al-Samoud 2, in the back of Ambulances, and drove them over the border.
> IF anybody made a mistake? As no WOMD or evidence thereof has been
> found, why 'if'?
I didn't meen, 'if' as in a mistake may or may not have been made. I meant it as an expression of speech.
> What other reasons? If it's pure humanitarian then I agree. But as
> has been argued many times, the humanitarian reason was the last one
> on the list. And if WOMD really are such a big concern, then why are
> North Korea (who have threatened to develop and use them) getting
> away so lightly?
Well, everybody aroung Tony Blair before the war sais he believed fully Iraq did have at least C & B weapons. I think he saw the Intel, believed it, and did what he believed to be right.
> We could go round on this all day, but I have to say this; I don't
> believe that you've come up with a single piece of evidence that gets
> round the simple fact that no WOMD have been found.
Some of David Kays speech:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
To sum up:-
Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.
In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.
Let me conclude by returning to something I began with today. We face a unique but challenging opportunity in our efforts to unravel the exact status of Iraq's WMD program. The good news is that we do not have to rely for the first time in over a decade on
*the incomplete, and often false, data that Iraq supplied the UN/IAEA;
*data collected by UN inspectors operating with the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed;
*information supplied by defectors, some of whom certainly fabricated much that they supplied and perhaps were under the direct control of the IIS;
*data collected by national technical collections systems with their own limitations.
Now, lets just wait and see what the final report of the ISG sais.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light hasn't even managed to understand large chunks of the Hutton
> Report so I fear anything else is beyond him.
Yeah, whatever. Can you answer the points I've raised please?
>
> I suspect these regimes we're supposed to be supporting will be the
> usual historical examples. At a guess, Indonesia (because we, along
> with other countries who are conveniently forgotten, sold a few
> weapons to them), Chile (because we gave medical treatment to
> Pinochet), Iraq (because we supplied weapons which, again
> conveniently forgotten, were destroyed by the allies or captured in
> 1991), probably manage to tie in China as well, probably we'll get Al
> Qaeda (by the usual flawed logic chain that links America to Al
> Qaeda)... Who've I missed? Light'll probably include the US as well
> (based on election junk).
Hush Bell; the grown ups are talking. If you've got something constructive to add, I'm all ears and I'm sure Skarra is too. But if not, I'll keep talking to someone who knows their stuff. So, your smoke and mirrors aside, will you answer the points I've raised please?
> Light hasn't even managed to understand large chunks of the Hutton
> Report so I fear anything else is beyond him.
Yeah, whatever. Can you answer the points I've raised please?
>
> I suspect these regimes we're supposed to be supporting will be the
> usual historical examples. At a guess, Indonesia (because we, along
> with other countries who are conveniently forgotten, sold a few
> weapons to them), Chile (because we gave medical treatment to
> Pinochet), Iraq (because we supplied weapons which, again
> conveniently forgotten, were destroyed by the allies or captured in
> 1991), probably manage to tie in China as well, probably we'll get Al
> Qaeda (by the usual flawed logic chain that links America to Al
> Qaeda)... Who've I missed? Light'll probably include the US as well
> (based on election junk).
Hush Bell; the grown ups are talking. If you've got something constructive to add, I'm all ears and I'm sure Skarra is too. But if not, I'll keep talking to someone who knows their stuff. So, your smoke and mirrors aside, will you answer the points I've raised please?
Skarra wrote:
>
> I was just trying to be as pragmatic as possible, but that isn't
> easy. I guess i screwed it up this time.
Heh. Hey, fair play to you for at least giving him a chance. It's not your fault he's far too stupid and egocentric to take it.
>
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be of the highest quality, i'm just
> saying, as far as the intel community sees it, why should they have
> to make every piece of intel gathered public.
When there is such controversy over it, don't you think it should? The government and intel are acting on behalf of us, the public. When there is such a huge level of public interest, and public mistrust of our government, wouldn't you agree that keeping even more secrets and only giving us half the story breeds more mistrust?
>
> I'm saying they didn't lie at all. I believe they saw the intel, and
> it pointed to Iraq having WMD.
Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. In my defence, I'd point to the fact that both Powell and Rumsfield of the US government have admitted to having doubts over the war intel.
>
> Yes, he didn't look at the validity of the intel, but, and i quote:-
>
> *Mr Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime
> Minister *that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to
> make as strong *a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by
> Saddam Hussein's *WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions
> to Mr Scarlett as to *changes in the wording of the draft dossier
> which would strengthen it. *But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr
> Scarlett that 10 Downing Street *recognised, that nothing should be
> stated in the dossier with which the *intelligence community were not
> entirely happy.
>
> So, everything there the intel guys were ok with.
Alistair Campbell has said that the intel people were okay with the changes? Can't say as I'm surprised. Is there anything from any of the intel agencies themselves saying explicitly that they're okay with changes made?
>
> Did the US and UK governments exaggerate the threat? Or were they
> themselves misled by available pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD
> capability?
>
> The intel may well have been wrong, but if all the intel pointed to
> WMD, how could Tony Blair just sit and do nothing?
That's a big if, and bearing in mind that no enquiry has looked at the validity of the intel it's not really possible for us to say yay or nay.
>
> Yes, thats what the new investigation is looking at, the Intel
> itself. Hutton sais that Downing Street didn't lie, but he doesn't
> know if they got it wrong. If the Intel was wrong, is that Blairs
> fault? No, just a screw up at MI6. And as i said a few weeks ago, i'd
> like to know if they got it wrong.
Except Hutton didn't clear the government about lying. He cleared them of embellishing the document used. But see my previous paragraph. Also it's worth noting that neither Hutton nor the next enquiry had within their remit anything about looking at the way the government used all the intel available. Hutton looked only at the document the government provided. It didn't investigate whether the government had dismissed the intel saying that Iraq had no WOMD.
>
> To sum up if i havn't made my views clear:
> I believe the Government didn't lie, just acted on the Inteligence it
> had.
M'kay. I disagree.
> I believe that if no WMD are found, that doen't mean they wern't
> there pre-war.
How does one dispose of WMD in the space of a couple of months with absolutely no evidence remaining, especially when there will have been so much satellite surveillance of Iraq that we could probably tell what people were having for breakfast on any given day?
> I believe if anybody made a mistake, it was the Inteligence
> community. Perhaps not even them. There are reports that Saddam
> himself was lied to by people claiming he had WMD.
IF anybody made a mistake? As no WOMD or evidence thereof has been found, why 'if'?
> I believe that Hutton clears the Government from 'sexing-up' stuff.
> And i still, and always will believe action in Iraq was the right
> thing to do, for other reasons as well as the WMD issue.
What other reasons? If it's pure humanitarian then I agree. But as has been argued many times, the humanitarian reason was the last one on the list. And if WOMD really are such a big concern, then why are North Korea (who have threatened to develop and use them) getting away so lightly?
We could go round on this all day, but I have to say this; I don't believe that you've come up with a single piece of evidence that gets round the simple fact that no WOMD have been found.
>
> I was just trying to be as pragmatic as possible, but that isn't
> easy. I guess i screwed it up this time.
Heh. Hey, fair play to you for at least giving him a chance. It's not your fault he's far too stupid and egocentric to take it.
>
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be of the highest quality, i'm just
> saying, as far as the intel community sees it, why should they have
> to make every piece of intel gathered public.
When there is such controversy over it, don't you think it should? The government and intel are acting on behalf of us, the public. When there is such a huge level of public interest, and public mistrust of our government, wouldn't you agree that keeping even more secrets and only giving us half the story breeds more mistrust?
>
> I'm saying they didn't lie at all. I believe they saw the intel, and
> it pointed to Iraq having WMD.
Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. In my defence, I'd point to the fact that both Powell and Rumsfield of the US government have admitted to having doubts over the war intel.
>
> Yes, he didn't look at the validity of the intel, but, and i quote:-
>
> *Mr Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime
> Minister *that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to
> make as strong *a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by
> Saddam Hussein's *WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions
> to Mr Scarlett as to *changes in the wording of the draft dossier
> which would strengthen it. *But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr
> Scarlett that 10 Downing Street *recognised, that nothing should be
> stated in the dossier with which the *intelligence community were not
> entirely happy.
>
> So, everything there the intel guys were ok with.
Alistair Campbell has said that the intel people were okay with the changes? Can't say as I'm surprised. Is there anything from any of the intel agencies themselves saying explicitly that they're okay with changes made?
>
> Did the US and UK governments exaggerate the threat? Or were they
> themselves misled by available pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD
> capability?
>
> The intel may well have been wrong, but if all the intel pointed to
> WMD, how could Tony Blair just sit and do nothing?
That's a big if, and bearing in mind that no enquiry has looked at the validity of the intel it's not really possible for us to say yay or nay.
>
> Yes, thats what the new investigation is looking at, the Intel
> itself. Hutton sais that Downing Street didn't lie, but he doesn't
> know if they got it wrong. If the Intel was wrong, is that Blairs
> fault? No, just a screw up at MI6. And as i said a few weeks ago, i'd
> like to know if they got it wrong.
Except Hutton didn't clear the government about lying. He cleared them of embellishing the document used. But see my previous paragraph. Also it's worth noting that neither Hutton nor the next enquiry had within their remit anything about looking at the way the government used all the intel available. Hutton looked only at the document the government provided. It didn't investigate whether the government had dismissed the intel saying that Iraq had no WOMD.
>
> To sum up if i havn't made my views clear:
> I believe the Government didn't lie, just acted on the Inteligence it
> had.
M'kay. I disagree.
> I believe that if no WMD are found, that doen't mean they wern't
> there pre-war.
How does one dispose of WMD in the space of a couple of months with absolutely no evidence remaining, especially when there will have been so much satellite surveillance of Iraq that we could probably tell what people were having for breakfast on any given day?
> I believe if anybody made a mistake, it was the Inteligence
> community. Perhaps not even them. There are reports that Saddam
> himself was lied to by people claiming he had WMD.
IF anybody made a mistake? As no WOMD or evidence thereof has been found, why 'if'?
> I believe that Hutton clears the Government from 'sexing-up' stuff.
> And i still, and always will believe action in Iraq was the right
> thing to do, for other reasons as well as the WMD issue.
What other reasons? If it's pure humanitarian then I agree. But as has been argued many times, the humanitarian reason was the last one on the list. And if WOMD really are such a big concern, then why are North Korea (who have threatened to develop and use them) getting away so lightly?
We could go round on this all day, but I have to say this; I don't believe that you've come up with a single piece of evidence that gets round the simple fact that no WOMD have been found.
Skarra wrote:
> By the way, Light, you keep saying the UK is supporting other
> dictatorships all over the world. Might i be able to look at some
> links? I'm just not very well read in this area. Thx.
Sure; here's a link for the US support of dictatorships;
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
Here's a Friends of the Earth memo submitted to the Commons;
http://www.parliament.the -stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/ cmselect/cmintdev/uc79-ii/uc7911.htm
Here's one concerning Africa (though take with a pinch of salt; socialists have a tendency to exaggerate);
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/afri-f16.shtml
And here's another one about the US;
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/ m1132/6_53/80757272/p4/article.jhtml?term=
Let me know if you want any more.
> By the way, Light, you keep saying the UK is supporting other
> dictatorships all over the world. Might i be able to look at some
> links? I'm just not very well read in this area. Thx.
Sure; here's a link for the US support of dictatorships;
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
Here's a Friends of the Earth memo submitted to the Commons;
http://www.parliament.the -stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/ cmselect/cmintdev/uc79-ii/uc7911.htm
Here's one concerning Africa (though take with a pinch of salt; socialists have a tendency to exaggerate);
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/afri-f16.shtml
And here's another one about the US;
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/ m1132/6_53/80757272/p4/article.jhtml?term=
Let me know if you want any more.
Light hasn't even managed to understand large chunks of the Hutton Report so I fear anything else is beyond him.
I suspect these regimes we're supposed to be supporting will be the usual historical examples. At a guess, Indonesia (because we, along with other countries who are conveniently forgotten, sold a few weapons to them), Chile (because we gave medical treatment to Pinochet), Iraq (because we supplied weapons which, again conveniently forgotten, were destroyed by the allies or captured in 1991), probably manage to tie in China as well, probably we'll get Al Qaeda (by the usual flawed logic chain that links America to Al Qaeda)... Who've I missed? Light'll probably include the US as well (based on election junk).
I suspect these regimes we're supposed to be supporting will be the usual historical examples. At a guess, Indonesia (because we, along with other countries who are conveniently forgotten, sold a few weapons to them), Chile (because we gave medical treatment to Pinochet), Iraq (because we supplied weapons which, again conveniently forgotten, were destroyed by the allies or captured in 1991), probably manage to tie in China as well, probably we'll get Al Qaeda (by the usual flawed logic chain that links America to Al Qaeda)... Who've I missed? Light'll probably include the US as well (based on election junk).
By the way, Light, you keep saying the UK is supporting other dictatorships all over the world. Might i be able to look at some links? I'm just not very well read in this area. Thx.
Page: