Excellent post msfe... the depths of depravity that America stoops to never ceases to amaze me 
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
From today's MSN Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079810/
The NYT fronts U.S. officials' charges that inspectors have discovered a number of rockets in Iraq apparently designed to deliver cluster bombs loaded with chemical and biological weapons. The Times suggests, but doesn't clearly say, that Blix's latest written reportâwhich the paper got ahold ofâbacks up that claim. The Times could have also lent more credence to the allegations if it had asked Blix or other inspectors their opinion of them. Instead, the paper only quotes unnamed American officials.
The LAT, which also got a copy of the inspectors' report, says it "includes several dramatic new charges suggesting that Hussein's potential weapons arsenal may be larger than previously believed." For example, the U.N. report says inspectors have a "strong presumption" that Iraq may still have 10,000 liters of anthrax. The inspectors report cited 110 instances in which Iraq has provided "insufficient information" about chemical or biological weapons.
This is big stuff, and obviously backs up Powell's assertion that Blix's presentation Friday essentially skipped the most damning data. But the LAT all but buries the revelations. Instead it headlines the report's assertion that in the first gulf war Saddam gave the OK to use chemical weapons if Baghdad was hit with nukes. Uh, is that supposed to be surprising?
Question: The LAT and NYT both preen about the fact that they "obtained" copies of the inspectors' report. How about an article explaining why the report hasn't been made public?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079810/
The NYT fronts U.S. officials' charges that inspectors have discovered a number of rockets in Iraq apparently designed to deliver cluster bombs loaded with chemical and biological weapons. The Times suggests, but doesn't clearly say, that Blix's latest written reportâwhich the paper got ahold ofâbacks up that claim. The Times could have also lent more credence to the allegations if it had asked Blix or other inspectors their opinion of them. Instead, the paper only quotes unnamed American officials.
The LAT, which also got a copy of the inspectors' report, says it "includes several dramatic new charges suggesting that Hussein's potential weapons arsenal may be larger than previously believed." For example, the U.N. report says inspectors have a "strong presumption" that Iraq may still have 10,000 liters of anthrax. The inspectors report cited 110 instances in which Iraq has provided "insufficient information" about chemical or biological weapons.
This is big stuff, and obviously backs up Powell's assertion that Blix's presentation Friday essentially skipped the most damning data. But the LAT all but buries the revelations. Instead it headlines the report's assertion that in the first gulf war Saddam gave the OK to use chemical weapons if Baghdad was hit with nukes. Uh, is that supposed to be surprising?
Question: The LAT and NYT both preen about the fact that they "obtained" copies of the inspectors' report. How about an article explaining why the report hasn't been made public?
It's been a good day for those opposed to American Terror... Russia and France have both guaranteed a veto, Blair just had one of his ministers threaten to resign and Kofi Anan suggested that the USA would be not acting legitimately without international consensus...
ROFL... yeeeeeehhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!
ROFL... yeeeeeehhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!
Iranian-backed militia moves into northern Iraq
Luke Harding in Banibee, northern Iraq
Monday March 10, 2003
Several hundred soldiers belonging to an Iranian-based Iraqi militia have set up a secret military camp deep in northern Iraq, in a move likely to alarm Washington.
The fighters, who include many deserters from Saddam Hussein's army, slipped into the opposition-controlled north from Iran late last month.
They have now established a series of military camps inside Kurdish-controlled territory, including a major base at the foot of a mountain, near the village of Banibee, decorated with flags proclaiming "Allahu Akbar", or God is most great.
The fighters' leader is Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, a senior Iraqi opposition Shia cleric who has spent the past 20 years in exile in Iran. His organisation, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), claims to represent Iraq's Shia majority - about 60% of the population.
It is funded and supported by the Islamic regime in Tehran and has close links with Iran's revolutionary guards. It was unclear last night whether the troops would take orders from the US military in the event of a war, or would launch their own freelance mission to liberate the south of Iraq, and the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala.
SCIRI officials have previously made clear that they will have nothing to do with the American military.
Kurdish sources last night confirmed that "a few hundred" soldiers had crossed into Iraq "over the past 10 days". More were on their way, and the figure was likely to rise to "just under" 5,000, they added.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution has had a tiny garrison in Kurdish-run northern Iraq since 1998. But this is the first time its armed wing, the 15,000-strong Badr brigade, has had a significant military presence there.
Yesterday we stumbled across two newly refurbished Al-Badr military compounds in the town of Maidan, decorated with Islamic flags and sayings from the Koran. Several soldiers in green fatigues had just turned up. A short drive away, next to the village of Banibee, more than 100 white canvas tents had sprung up on the hillside, 11 miles inside Iraq.
Local villagers said the troops had brought light weapons, including rocket launchers and submachine guns, and had held military exercises in the mountains.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution is an important part of the Iraqi opposition, and several of its leaders attended last week's opposition conference in Salahuddin. But in an uncompromising speech to delegates, Ayatollah Hakim said he was deeply opposed to a US-led attack on Iraq, which he described as "imperialism".
The prospect of Iranian-based fighters taking part in a freelance operation against President Saddam is likely to alarm the US, which dubs Iran part of the "axis of evil".
"We think any Iranian presence, or Iranian-supported presence, in that region is destabilising," said a state department spokesman, Richard Boucher, last month.
The Bush administration has still not managed to get any of its own troops into northern Iraq, because of Turkey's continued refusal to allow the American military on its territory.
Luke Harding in Banibee, northern Iraq
Monday March 10, 2003
Several hundred soldiers belonging to an Iranian-based Iraqi militia have set up a secret military camp deep in northern Iraq, in a move likely to alarm Washington.
The fighters, who include many deserters from Saddam Hussein's army, slipped into the opposition-controlled north from Iran late last month.
They have now established a series of military camps inside Kurdish-controlled territory, including a major base at the foot of a mountain, near the village of Banibee, decorated with flags proclaiming "Allahu Akbar", or God is most great.
The fighters' leader is Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, a senior Iraqi opposition Shia cleric who has spent the past 20 years in exile in Iran. His organisation, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), claims to represent Iraq's Shia majority - about 60% of the population.
It is funded and supported by the Islamic regime in Tehran and has close links with Iran's revolutionary guards. It was unclear last night whether the troops would take orders from the US military in the event of a war, or would launch their own freelance mission to liberate the south of Iraq, and the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala.
SCIRI officials have previously made clear that they will have nothing to do with the American military.
Kurdish sources last night confirmed that "a few hundred" soldiers had crossed into Iraq "over the past 10 days". More were on their way, and the figure was likely to rise to "just under" 5,000, they added.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution has had a tiny garrison in Kurdish-run northern Iraq since 1998. But this is the first time its armed wing, the 15,000-strong Badr brigade, has had a significant military presence there.
Yesterday we stumbled across two newly refurbished Al-Badr military compounds in the town of Maidan, decorated with Islamic flags and sayings from the Koran. Several soldiers in green fatigues had just turned up. A short drive away, next to the village of Banibee, more than 100 white canvas tents had sprung up on the hillside, 11 miles inside Iraq.
Local villagers said the troops had brought light weapons, including rocket launchers and submachine guns, and had held military exercises in the mountains.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution is an important part of the Iraqi opposition, and several of its leaders attended last week's opposition conference in Salahuddin. But in an uncompromising speech to delegates, Ayatollah Hakim said he was deeply opposed to a US-led attack on Iraq, which he described as "imperialism".
The prospect of Iranian-based fighters taking part in a freelance operation against President Saddam is likely to alarm the US, which dubs Iran part of the "axis of evil".
"We think any Iranian presence, or Iranian-supported presence, in that region is destabilising," said a state department spokesman, Richard Boucher, last month.
The Bush administration has still not managed to get any of its own troops into northern Iraq, because of Turkey's continued refusal to allow the American military on its territory.
Brother Candle,
I don't want to cut you in mid Yeeha but there is also a matter of unmanned aircraft, as well as rockets owned by Iraq. Both of which were not disclosed by Iraq but found by the inspectors. Unfortunately, Blix chose to burry those facts in a 1000+ page document, rather than voice them in his speech to the Security Council.
Don't get me wrong...I, like you, hope to see the world a peaceful place where we can all get along. But alas, tis not to be yet.
I don't want to cut you in mid Yeeha but there is also a matter of unmanned aircraft, as well as rockets owned by Iraq. Both of which were not disclosed by Iraq but found by the inspectors. Unfortunately, Blix chose to burry those facts in a 1000+ page document, rather than voice them in his speech to the Security Council.
Don't get me wrong...I, like you, hope to see the world a peaceful place where we can all get along. But alas, tis not to be yet.
Whoever regurgitated your name as "Candle-Twit," is in the money.Quote from candletrader:
It's been a good day for those opposed to American Terror... Russia and France have both guaranteed a veto, Blair just had one of his ministers threaten to resign and Kofi Anan suggested that the USA would be not acting legitimately without international consensus...
ROFL... yeeeeeehhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!
Brother Babak,
I respectfully take your comments on board, but somehow fail to believe that Blix would be complicit in taking sides with Iraq.
The most important thing here is where majority opinion lies globally. Global consensus, thus far, suggests that there is scope for the weapons inspectors to achieve their remit without the need for America (and its handful of lapdogs) to take unsupported military action.
Like you, I hope to see a peaceful world... but I fear that America will seek to unilaterally bomb Iraq, Iran and others, thereby legitimising counter-terrorist activities against what the civilized world would regard as nothing short of US gangsterism.
Although I don't like Islamic people very much, I would prefer not to see them butchered by American arrogance. For doing so would accentuate terroristic activities against us, and not hinder it.
Candle