|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: 45-minute WMD claim 'may have come from an Iraqi taxi driver |
 |
|
| Quote: |
An Iraqi taxi driver may have been the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today.
Adam Holloway, a defence specialist, said MI6 obtained information indirectly from a taxi driver who had overheard two Iraqi military commanders talking about Saddam's weapons.
The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war.
After the war the dossier became hugely controversial when it became clear that some of the information it contained was not true. An inquiry headed by Lord Butler into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war revealed that MI6 had subsequently accepted that some of its Iraqi sources were unreliable, but his report did not identify who they were.
Holloway, a former Grenadier Guardsman and television journalist who is now a member of the Commons defence committee, made his comments in a report he has written claiming that MI6 always had reservations about some of the information in the dossier but that these reservations were brushed aside when Downing Street was preparing it for publication.
In the report he wrote: "Under pressure from Downing Street to find anything to back up the WMD case, British intelligence was squeezing their agents in Iraq for information. One agent did come up with something: the '45 minutes' or something about missiles allegedly discussed in a high level Iraqi political meeting.
"But the provenance of this information was never questioned in detail until after the Iraq invasion, when it became apparent that something was wrong. In the end it turned out that the information was not credible, it had originated from an �migr� taxi driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard a conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier.
"Indeed, in the intelligence analyst's footnote to the report, it was flagged up that part of the report probably describing some missiles that the Iraqi government allegedly possessed was demonstrably untrue. They verifiably did not exist.
"The footnote said it in black and white ink. Despite this glaring factual inaccuracy, which under normal circumstances would have caused the reliability of the intelligence to be seriously questioned, the report was treated as reliable and went on to become one of the central planks of the dodgy dossier."
The report was published today on the first defence website. Holloway told the Guardian that he had not seen the intelligence report himself but that he had been told about it by two reliable sources. He said that, although he was not clear whether the footnote related to suspect information about 45 minutes or about missiles or both, he was "100% certain" that it existed.
Sir John Chilcot, the chairman of the Iraq inquiry, said at the opening of this afternoon's hearing that the Holloway allegations might be relevant to his investigation but that he would not be asking about them when he took evidence today from Sir John Scarlett, the former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
The September dossier did not specify what weapons Iraq could deploy within 45 minutes. Intelligence officials subsequently revealed that it was meant to be a reference to battlefield weapons, not long-range missiles.
But, when it was published, some British papers interpreted the dossier as meaning that British troops based in Cyprus would be vulnerable to an Iraqi attack. At the time the government did not do anything to correct this error.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/08/45-minutes-wmd-taxi-driver |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That would be bloody hilarious if it weren't so terribly sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: Iraq invasion justified: Tony Blair |
|
|
| Quote: |
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he believed it would have been right to invade Iraq even if it was known that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
In a BBC interview broadcast Saturday, Blair said he would have found other arguments to justify the U.S.-led invasion. He said it was right to remove Saddam from power because he was a major threat to the Middle East region at the time.
"I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously, you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat," he said.
"I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge," he added.
The former prime minister had advanced similar arguments since the invasion force found no weapons of mass destruction, which had been the leading justification for military action.
Britain is holding an exhaustive inquiry investigating the Iraq war, and Blair was due to give evidence in January.
The inquiry, which has been hearing evidence from former key military officials, diplomats and spy agency chiefs, won't apportion blame or establish criminal or civil liability.
It was expected to give recommendations by late 2010 on how to prevent mistakes from being repeated in the future.
|
Mr. Blair conveniently forgets the UN Charter and international law, which precludes attacking other countries unless first attacked or, under UN auspices, to prevent genocide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saddam used the threat of weapons of mass destruction as a primary component of his foreign relations strategy, not only as psych warfare against a potential American invasion, but primarily against Iran and its Shi'i allies in Iraq, and also the Kurds. He played cat-and-mouse with the United Nations and the United States from the Gulf war's settlement forward. The Clinton administration believed he had or was cultivating weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam had also made a serious play for majority control over Near Eastern oil, thus threatening a kind of energy blackmail over a range of people dependent on Near Eastern oil, from his attacking Iran to his attacking Kuwait and his then threatening Saudi Arabia, from 1980 forward.
Your sources, Catman, are nitpicking over trivialities. It is good to see that Britain's former prime minister is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Your sources, Catman, are nitpicking over trivialities. It is good to see that Britain's former prime minister is not. |
You mean that international law is a triviality? You must be American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, I did not mean that at all. I was not speaking of international law. Read what I wrote again.
But since you asked, international law is indeed effective for adjudicating some boundary disputes between friendly states, including, for example, clarifying fishing rights. It is also good for international collaboration on criminal matters -- such as when U.S. marshalls arrested Dog the Bounty Hunter for extradition to Mexico. Not very effective on too many other problems, however. Certainly not the kind Saddam posed. And not very effective in the Near East generally, either. Take the Iranians and the sanctity of contracts -- or the sanctity of embassies for that matter. Take the Syrians and assassinations of Lebanese leaders for another. The list goes on. Are there not international warrants out for Osama bin Laden, while we are at it? What has your international law produced on that front? Are you telling me the Pakistani authorities and especially ISI cannot locate, arrest, extradite him? Should be a simple affair, especially in such an international-law-abiding world as ours, no? Like Colombia and Pablo Escobar in the 1990s.
"International law," as I understand it, is mostly good for condemning the United States and Israel, Sleepy. It tends not to see and especially not to condemn much else, especially not in the esteemed United Nations.
And yes, I am an American. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| You mean that international law is a triviality? You must be American. |
The concept of international law, particularly with respect to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was an absolute joke.
There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, US, China, Russia and France, each having the power to veto a resolution put forth by any of the others.
Why France? Why not Germany, Japan, India, Italy, Brazil?
Why Russia? (per capita GDP: 52nd. Russian civilians killed by the Communist Party since World War II: 40 million and counting. Did you know that the Russians killed twice as many people in the Gulag in just 40 years than were killed in 400 years of the African slave trade?)
Come to think of it, why Britain?
Before I even begin to go any further, what kind of basis is this for international law? Anyone who has any semblance of respect for this abysmal farce is obviously, totally barking mad. It is an anachronism. Apart from China, all were on the winning side in WWII. And that's it.
Saddam realized his opportunity. He spent years agreeing lucrative oil deals with Russia and France - giving them a vested interest in his appalling regime�s survival (again, what kind of moral basis is that for international law?). Saddam also knew that his enemy, the Americans, had been constrained by the UN by signing up to the project and its respect for "international law".
So, 9/11 happaned, which Saddam had no role in, and Bush said he would attack any country he considers a threat (with or without the UN�s consent).
Good for him. Pity he didn't attack the UN itself.
| Quote: |
On November 24, 2008, the U.N. passed a draft resolution against the defamation of religion sponsored by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), where all U.N. members are being asked to pass domestic legislation against blasphemy.
http://www.meforum.org/2020/the-united-islamist-nations |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Saddam used the threat of weapons of mass destruction as a primary component of his foreign relations strategy, not only as psych warfare against a potential American invasion, but primarily against Iran and its Shi'i allies in Iraq, and also the Kurds. |
None of which the Anglo/American alliance cared about.
| Quote: |
He played cat-and-mouse with the United Nations and the United States from the Gulf war's settlement forward. The Clinton administration believed he had or was cultivating weapons of mass destruction. |
So?
| Quote: |
Saddam had also made a serious play for majority control over Near Eastern oil, thus threatening a kind of energy blackmail over a range of people dependent on Near Eastern oil, from his attacking Iran to his attacking Kuwait and his then threatening Saudi Arabia, from 1980 forward. |
Saddam was barely even a threat to his neighbours when the US invaded. He certainly wasn't a threat to the US or Europe. The "45 minute" threat was a lie.
| Quote: |
Your sources, Catman, are nitpicking over trivialities. It is good to see that Britain's former prime minister is not. |
The main reason going for war was based on lies. I don't consider that to be trivial. Blair is only interested in protecting his tarnished legacy. He wanted to be the next Churchill. He failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, there were many reasons for going to war. It was a preemptive war based on a possible and not implausible threat that Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction, that he might pass some of them to antiAmerican terrorists, or that he might simply lose control over at least some of them and they might end up with the same antiAmerican terrorists. It was also a war of choice meant to destroy a brutal dictatorship and then to implant a pro-Western, especially pro-American, capitalist democracy in the heart of the Near East. And it was also part of a larger, transadministration American effort, inheritted from Britain, France, and the Netherlands, to secure Near Eastern energy for Western (and Japanese) needs in an unstable, still forming age of post-Ottoman nationalism, in an age of complicated Arab-Israeli developments, and in an age of dangerous, antisecular Islamic identity-politics -- all of which threatened that energy and hence the global economy.
| George W. Bush, speaking at West Point, June 2002, wrote: |
| ...the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge...the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. |
Saddam, as I have said and as you have ignored, no relations or interest in having relations with Osama bin Ladin notwithstanding, carefully cultivated the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat from the Gulf war through 9/11. Read Cobra II. He did not even disclose that there were none remaining to his own general staff until weeks before the invasion 2003. The W. Bush administration thus decided to move preemptively and end the potential threat as part of its larger strategy to win the war on terror and further long-term Near-Eastern stability at the same time.
So you are completely wrong, and, further, you are in no position to judge Tony Blair's legacy. That will be up to future historians. You and others here continue this childish-like impulse to dictate to those future historians what they must think about persona A, B, or C. But they will evaluate the problem from an entirely different perspective, lacking this era's hatreds and animosities, and then reach their own conclusions, no doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
No, there were many reasons for going to war. It was a preemptive war based on a possible and not implausible threat that Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction, that he might pass some of them to antiAmerican terrorists, or that he might simply lose control over at least some of them and they might end up with the same antiAmerican terrorists.
|
Which turned out to be false. There was no AQ in Iraq before the invasion. Now there. is.
| Quote: |
| It was also a war of choice meant to destroy a brutal dictatorship and then to implant a pro-Western, especially pro-American, capitalist democracy in the heart of the Near East. And it was also part of a larger, transadministration American effort, inheritted from Britain, France, and the Netherlands, to secure Near Eastern energy for Western (and Japanese) needs in an unstable, still forming age of post-Ottoman nationalism, in an age of complicated Arab-Israeli developments, and in an age of dangerous, antisecular Islamic identity-politics -- all of which threatened that energy and hence the global economy. |
Yes, an extension of western imperialism.
As of antisecular Islam I believe the United States are still close allies with the Saudis. So no sympahty there.
| Quote: |
| Saddam, as I have said and as you have ignored, no relations or interest in having relations with Osama bin Ladin notwithstanding, carefully cultivated the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat from the Gulf war through 9/11. Read Cobra II. He did not even disclose that there were none remaining to his own general staff until weeks before the invasion 2003. The W. Bush administration thus decided to move preemptively and end the potential threat as part of its larger strategy to win the war on terror and further long-term Near-Eastern stability at the same time. |
........and has Hans Blix pointed out forced the inspectors out of Iraq and was not interested in their conclusions.
| Quote: |
So you are completely wrong, and, further, you are in no position to judge Tony Blair's legacy. That will be up to future historians. |
Wow. I guess they should cancel the Chilcot inquiry eh?
| Quote: |
You and others here continue this childish-like impulse to dictate to those future historians what they must think about persona A, B, or C. But they will evaluate the problem from an entirely different perspective, lacking this era's hatreds and animosities, and then reach their own conclusions, no doubt. |
How many years would that be now. 10? 50? 100? More?
Should we include Saddam in this category as well? How about Pol Pot? Enough time passed? Childish indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
