You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Quote from max401:
Obviously, I'm biased against Galloway. However, that paragragh is an important part of the article.
Oh, right. I see, you were drawing attention to the paragraph. How silly of me not to notice! (Even though the other sections you highlighted run mid-sentence and fall at the end of paragraphs, in other words, not suggestive of drawing attention to paragraphs at all)
Anyway, all that paragraph was about was the paper defending it's claim that it's evidence is genuine, and, according to it, highly unlikely to be true. Yup, major importance there. Nice try though.
Well, I'm sure you wouldn't mind going at it for another three hours over just how important that paragraph really was, and how, yiseree, that was your original intent, but I'll leave you to it. I never meant to make so much of this.
Well, gollee, next time I'll spend a few hours agonizing over my "highlights" to make sure they are defensible to an extremely high degree. Sheesh!Quote from alfonso:
Oh, right. I see, you were drawing attention to the paragraph. How silly of me not to notice! (Even though the other sections you highlighted run mid-sentence and fall at the end of paragraphs, in other words, not suggestive of drawing attention to paragraphs at all)
Anyway, all that paragraph was about was the paper defending it's claim that it's evidence is genuine, and, according to it, highly unlikely to be true. Yup, major importance there. Nice try though.
Well, I'm sure you wouldn't mind going at it for another three hours over just how important that paragraph really was, and how, yiseree, that was your original intent, but I'll leave you to it. I never meant to make so much of this.
It is obvious that one of the most pressing tasks for the US and UK is to conduct an exhaustive forensic audit of the oil for food program. Ditto for Saddam's finances and that of the Iraqi government. Nodoubt fear of the results of such an examination accounts for the desperate manuevering at the UN to block termination of the oil for food fiasco.
We may never know the full extent of the corruption, and no doubt much of it will be covered up in secret quid pro quos to gain cooperation from our putative allies. The EU could be placed in a very awkward position however, as they have been pushing the abolition of bank secrecy to nail tax avoiders. That secrecy may be the only thing that preserves governments in half a dozen countries and the freedom of dozens of elected officials.
We may never know the full extent of the corruption, and no doubt much of it will be covered up in secret quid pro quos to gain cooperation from our putative allies. The EU could be placed in a very awkward position however, as they have been pushing the abolition of bank secrecy to nail tax avoiders. That secrecy may be the only thing that preserves governments in half a dozen countries and the freedom of dozens of elected officials.
Would anyone at all be surprised if it turns out that the story of France having passed on confidential information proves to be correct ?
If that is indeed the case then that clearly confirms that Chirac was good buddies with Saddam (as if we didn't know that already) and from this it wouldn't be such a big step to take to also conclude that it wouldn't be all that unlikely that France (read 'Chirac') would also have done other wrong things like selling weapons and other strategic material to Iraq in contravention with United Nations resolutions.
Just a thought : if that indeed were to turn out to be the case would this mean that we may well finish up seeing Chirac charged with war crimes in the International Court at The Hague ?
freealways
If that is indeed the case then that clearly confirms that Chirac was good buddies with Saddam (as if we didn't know that already) and from this it wouldn't be such a big step to take to also conclude that it wouldn't be all that unlikely that France (read 'Chirac') would also have done other wrong things like selling weapons and other strategic material to Iraq in contravention with United Nations resolutions.
Just a thought : if that indeed were to turn out to be the case would this mean that we may well finish up seeing Chirac charged with war crimes in the International Court at The Hague ?
freealways
Al-Qaida links still dubious
Richard Norton-Taylor and Ewen MacAskill in Baghdad
Monday April 28, 2003
Western intelligence officials are playing down the significance of documents appearing to show that Saddam Hussein's regime met an al-Qaida envoy in Baghdad in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden.
"We are aware of fleeting contacts [between Baghdad and al-Qaida] in the past, but there were were no long-term official contacts," a well-placed source told the Guardian yesterday. "The documents do not take things further forward"
British security and intelligence agencies have persistently dismissed attempts by hawks in the White House to link Saddam's regime with al-Qaida, a link which would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat.
According to the documents found by the Sunday Telegraph an envoy from al-Qaida went to Baghdad from the Sudanese capital Khartoum in March 1998 - two years after Sudan, under pressure from Saudia Arabia, ordered Bin Laden out and he returned to Afghanistan.
Intelligence officials acknowledge that al-Qaida and Iraq shared a mutual hostility towards Saudi Arabia and the US after the 1991 Gulf war, but they say Saddam distrusted the terrorist network and there was little love lost between Bin Laden, an Islamist fundamentalist, and Saddam's secular regime.
Intelligence sources also played down the significance of documents found by the Sunday Times in the Iraqi foreign ministry which suggest France gave the regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.
The sources described them as ordinary diplomatic traffic from the Iraqi ambassador in Paris.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,944752,00.html
Richard Norton-Taylor and Ewen MacAskill in Baghdad
Monday April 28, 2003
Western intelligence officials are playing down the significance of documents appearing to show that Saddam Hussein's regime met an al-Qaida envoy in Baghdad in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden.
"We are aware of fleeting contacts [between Baghdad and al-Qaida] in the past, but there were were no long-term official contacts," a well-placed source told the Guardian yesterday. "The documents do not take things further forward"
British security and intelligence agencies have persistently dismissed attempts by hawks in the White House to link Saddam's regime with al-Qaida, a link which would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat.
According to the documents found by the Sunday Telegraph an envoy from al-Qaida went to Baghdad from the Sudanese capital Khartoum in March 1998 - two years after Sudan, under pressure from Saudia Arabia, ordered Bin Laden out and he returned to Afghanistan.
Intelligence officials acknowledge that al-Qaida and Iraq shared a mutual hostility towards Saudi Arabia and the US after the 1991 Gulf war, but they say Saddam distrusted the terrorist network and there was little love lost between Bin Laden, an Islamist fundamentalist, and Saddam's secular regime.
Intelligence sources also played down the significance of documents found by the Sunday Times in the Iraqi foreign ministry which suggest France gave the regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.
The sources described them as ordinary diplomatic traffic from the Iraqi ambassador in Paris.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,944752,00.html
winning the hearts and minds of the "liberated":
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/i...00&en=10344ce7fd8c89b2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
New Policy in Iraq to Authorize G.I.'s to Shoot Looters
By PATRICK E. TYLER
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 13 â United States military forces in Iraq will have the authority to shoot looters on sight under a tough new security setup that will include hiring more police officers and banning ranking members of the Baath Party from public service, American officials said today.
The far more muscular approach to bringing order to postwar Iraq was described by the new American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, at a meeting of senior staff members today, the officials said. On Wednesday, Mr. Bremer is expected to meet with the leaders of Iraqi political groups that are seeking to form an interim government by the end of the month. "He made it very clear that he is now in charge," said an official who attended the meeting today. "I think you are going to see a change in the rules of engagement within a few days to get the situation under control."
Asked what this meant, the official replied, "They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around" that assaults on property, the hijacking of automobiles and violent crimes will be dealt with using deadly force.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/i...00&en=10344ce7fd8c89b2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE