It's April 24, 2024, 10:31:52 PM
I agree on the Sistani point...I just don't understand the Shii'a right now... Do they have ANY sense of history? Under The British, they were doing the same shit back in the day, so the British put a Sunni "leader" in charge. If they really wanna cause trouble, why now? Why not wait untill the June 30th transfer of power to act up? It just really dosen't make any sense, and seems like they are repeating the past.
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
generals are saying they need more troops politicians ie rumsfeld think they know better. bush thinks everything is under control. Colin Powell a vietnam veteran says (in private) there was never an exit strategy and said he has always had doubts, plus in 1999 he was saying iraq didn't have the capability to pose a threatthings are looking very bad if you ask me everything is spiraling out of control
Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned. Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5. The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation. The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims. Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources. Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts. But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence. Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces". What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to. People circulating the transcripts call themselves "allied sources supportive of US war aims in Iraq at the time". The transcripts will fuel the controversy in Britain and the US over claims that London and Washington distorted and exaggerated the intelligence assessments about Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programme. An unnamed intelligence official told the BBC on Thursday that a key claim in the dossier on Iraq's weapons released by the British government last September - that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of an order - was inserted on the instructions of officials in 10 Downing Street. Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it wasn't corroborated". Speaking yesterday in Warsaw, the Polish capital, Mr Blair said the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the dossier was "evidence the truth of which I have absolutely no doubt about at all". He said he had consulted the heads of the security and intelligence services before emphatically denying that Downing Street had leaned on them to strengthen their assessment of the WMD threat in Iraq. He insisted he had "absolutely no doubt" that proof of banned weapons would eventually be found in Iraq. Whitehall sources make it clear they do not share the prime minister's optimism. The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to the UN security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and communications intercepts of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders, and held up a vial that, he said, could contain anthrax. Evidence, he said, had come from "people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam is really up to". Some of the intelligence used by Mr Powell was provided by Britain. The US secretary of state, who was praised by Mr Straw as having made a "most powerful and authoritative case", also drew links between al-Qaida and Iraq - a connection dismissed by British intelligence agencies. His speech did not persuade France, Germany and Russia, who stuck to their previous insistence that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time to do their job. The Waldorf meeting took place a few days after Downing Street presented Mr Powell with a separate dossier on Iraq's banned weapons which he used to try to strengthen the impact of his UN speech. A few days later, Downing Street admitted that much of its dossier was lifted from academic sources and included a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student. Mr Wolfowitz set up the Pentagon's office of special plans to counter what he and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, considered inadequate - and unwelcome - intelligence from the CIA. He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited "bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, he said. Earlier in the week, Mr Rumsfeld suggested that Saddam might have destroyed such weapons before the war.
COLIN POWELL AGAINST US RAIDS ON IRAQAn interesting revelation has been made in yesterday-s edition of the Spanish daily newspaper, El Mundo, which states that Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, raised strong objections against the bombing of Baghdad. The newspaper states that Powell supports economic sanctions but questioned the necessity of conducting a bombing campaign. It is stated that President Bush swayed more to the side of Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.. These positions were taken at an emergency White House meeting last Thursday, at which George Bush gave his permission for the raids. The reaction from the USA-s NATO allies at the time of the Gulf War should be highlighted v virtually all of them pronounced themselves against this attack and even in Britain, the other perpetrator of this act of aggression, the press was highly critical. France was particularly irritated, since it had not even been informed of the plan to attack, neither had Spain nor Turkey. As for Iraq, Foreign Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf stated in a letter to UNO Secretary-General Kofi Annan: ?This aggression happens at a moment in which Iraq prepares to organise a global dialogue with the Secretary-General of the UNO, which creates in the Security Council a greater responsibility to condemn this act¦. The Iraqi press has already coined a new nickname for George Bush: the new dwarf at the Black House. Britain and the USA will have a lot of explaining to do in the coming weeks.
Home
Help
Login
Register
Print
