Lies Lies all lies bush tells nothing but lies.

[Epidemic]

Yep the whole 45 minute thing was made up by Bush and Blair

Now I am pissed.

Maybe I should read it again to make sure I understood what it said.

The officer, identified only as Lieutenant Colonel Al-Dabbagh and said to be head of a frontline air defence unit in the western desert, told the Sunday Telegraph he warned MI6 that Iraqi forces could use chemical or biological weapons on the battlefield against invading forces in less than 45 minutes.

He claimed that the only reason the weapons were not used was because most of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

Perhaps he is not for real but I guess only time will tell. But at this point My thoughts are that the anti war people have been lying. Lying through there teeth

I guess this story can be read several ways.

1 that he is lying for personal gain
begging the further question did he or someone else lie
to MI6 and other intelligence services for some reason (makiing their intelligence appear to be sound)

Saddam did tell them to use these weapons and they were just conventional. None the less giving the appearance that they were WMD.

Finally Chemical weapons of the shoulder fire variety were deployed to the field.

I do not see any other alternatives at this point.

It is interesting though.

Hmmm I wonder if Bush and Blair actually believed that saddam had WMD and were not lying for personal gain.

[OuTpaTienT]

Liar!



uT

[Gomer]

If you had a point I missed it.

[Atomic Rooster]

Of course you did.

[Mike]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster
Of course you did.

Well since you're so hip, please explain...

[Creatures]

you sound like shahani, you scare me

Creatures

[Epidemic]

"Hmmm I wonder if Bush and Blair actually believed that saddam had WMD and were not lying for personal gain."


Well Gomer,

I guess my point needs spelling out for you.

Point being that contrary to anti Bush rhetoric, Bush and Blairs intel may not have been fabricated in house for their own evil gains.

[Gomer]

If that is the case we may be seeing some magic beanstalks shooting up in front of the Whitehouse any day now =)

[TOAD6147]

Good one, Gomer. BTW, Epidemic, there were a whole series of lies and fabrications used to justify his folly. This guy's intel was discounted numerous times before for either personal gain or to simply smoke-screen for Saddam. Besides, if Bush were so pure of heart he should look foolish for letting such a thing unfold on such questionable intel. Clinton was ridiculed for lack of intel in Somalia and such a wimpified military so what's Gdubya's excuse. BTW, did you people see him on the Larry King show lastnight trying to stay focused on the position he's gotten us into in Iraq? He acted like he was now trying to convince even himself. It was simply pitiful.

[MTAtech]

In ancient times kings used to get advice from fortune tellers. In modern times leaders are supposed to make decisions based upon intelligence and analysis.

The analysis is the most important part because there is usually conflicting intelligence. There was a vast amount of evidence showing that Iraq was not a threat to any other nation with little or no WMD. If one had a propensity to demonize Saddam, one could discount that evidence in favor of a single Lieutenant who claimed the opposite.

However, this is a deflection intended to take us off the trail. The issue for the anti-war people was not whether Iraq actually possessed ANY WMD. The issue was whether Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and whether that justified invasion.

Even if Iraq had WMD that could be used in 45 minutes wouldn't have mattered unless a country invaded it. So what? The U.S. has more deadly nuclear WMD that can be launched within ten minutes if attacked.

It still stands that Iraq was no threat to any nation, had no link to 9/11 and no nuclear program and was not intent upon harming the U.S. These were the Bush/Blair justifications for war and none of them were real. It should further cast doubt upon the decision making skills of these two leaders.

[TOAD6147]

I think MATech's analysis just about boils it down and puts it in an indisputable nutshell. To argue with that clear and concise evaluation of the way things are, is just plain foolish. There is no arguable position for what Bush and Blair have gotten us into.

[J-Excel]

You mean there is no arguable position that would change the closed minds of people who decided to be against anything Bush does or says starting on the day he got elected.

[Epidemic]

It still stands that Iraq was no threat to any nation, had no link to 9/11 and no nuclear program and was not intent upon harming the U.S. These were the Bush/Blair justifications for war and none of them were real. It should further cast doubt upon the decision making skills of these two leaders.


Unproven either way.

No solid links have been found. Does not mean they did not exist, nor does it prove that they existed either.

The reasons included

UN resolutions - (stating you must prove you have destroyed all programs and stockpiles of weapons of face war)
Cease fire - Required that he comply with un mandates and terms of surrender.
Intel analysis - loosely supported action. at least one Covert meetings with al-qaeda. Yellow cake uranium still supported by british intel (only flaw is one supporting doc appeared to be forged) [of course the forged document may have been part of the attempt hence it was not sanctioned by african nation], 45 minute thingy.

I would really like to know what you think the intel agencies get as a norm in hostile closed countries?

Intel by its very nature is hearsay, fragmented, and piece meal with disinformation abounding with in it. We do not live in the world of enemy of the state. we find sources and try to make heads or tails of what it all means.

The accuracy you think should have been used does not exist. Virtually every countries intel services came up with similiar damning information

That damning information all said saddam was not in compliance with either the cease fire or 1441. As such and coupled with Iraqs history of stalling, lying, and saddam's stated goals for the arab world, would lead any rational person to believe that he was a guilty of above.

as such it then boils down to your opinion of what to do about it. Your threat assessment and countries interests.

[MTAtech]

No solid evidence exists that I'm the Easter Bunny - doesn't mean that I'm not.

Bottom line, you don't invade countries because of 'maybe, perhaps, they might, someday.'

[Epidemic]

But you do when you have a cease fire which demands they prove that, they don't, they won't and can't.

The history is required for evaluation.

Even in American law once convicted, you may be forced to prove innocents for some time during probation and failure to follow rules will get you back in jail.

[TOAD6147]

UN resolutions - (stating you must prove you have destroyed all programs and stockpiles of weapons of face war)
Cease fire - Required that he comply with un mandates and terms of surrender.

That was between the UN and Saddam...PERIOD! We are not the global police and Bush and Blair are not the World Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff. There was no apparent or proved direct threat to the US or anyone else (except what was fabricated and manipulated) and, therefore, no justification for invasion...PERIOD!
Anything you posted below the line I quoted is meaningless and was a waste of cyberspace, a futile attempt to validate Bush and Blair's unilateral fupa.

[Epidemic]

False

Unilateral

Key being UNI meaning one.

You are lying when you say we acted unilaterally.

There was way more than one participant.

There was not 0 governments who participated above and beyond the USA.

So stop lying.

BTW could you please tell me what the consequences statement in 1441 referred to.

Were the consequences to be burried alive under resolutions

[nomaxim]

Looks like a few other nations were doing stuff from this.

Report from CJTF7 (HQ Vcorps) on 15MAY03

EDIT: CJTF = Coailtion Joint Task Force

[Epidemic]

edit

Point was clarified.

[MTAtech]

From a technical standpoint, it was a Coalition. From a practical standpoint, 95% or more of the troops are American or British (with the vast majority of those American).

The major point from Toad was that the U.N. never explicitly gave the U.S. the authority to invade Iraq.

The major allies, besides the UK, did not participate.

As Churchill said, "the only thing worse than having allies is not having them."