World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Same
- Thread starter Nascar_James
- Start date
RE: World Intelligence (R
They aren't losing, Mog...they got their oil contracts. They don't care about dead people or the damage they've done, they just care about keeping those oil fields under the control of a US-friendly government.
They aren't losing, Mog...they got their oil contracts. They don't care about dead people or the damage they've done, they just care about keeping those oil fields under the control of a US-friendly government.
RE: World Intelligence (R
So now winning a war is by getting contract? What a shame? When is the American citizen going to rise and say enough oil for blood. Not only the American blood but the blood of innocent and not-so-innocent fighters?
Are these people asleep or are they happy with their comfy life that they don't give a rat's poo about anything except their oil guzzling SUV's and well-heated homes?
So now winning a war is by getting contract? What a shame? When is the American citizen going to rise and say enough oil for blood. Not only the American blood but the blood of innocent and not-so-innocent fighters?
Are these people asleep or are they happy with their comfy life that they don't give a rat's poo about anything except their oil guzzling SUV's and well-heated homes?
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
Oil is still what drives the larger geo-political game, Mog. It isn't about putting cheap gas in American SUVs so much as making sure that US corporations are highly profitable and that nobody else controls the oil or the oil money.
Consider the ramifications if OPEC switched to the Euro. The US dollar would drop like a stone.
What would happen if Russia and France controlled the second-largest oil supply in the Middle East? They would have huge political power and that would come directly at the expense of the Americans. Again, the US economy would take a hit but it would also be a potential military advantage for Russia.
Since the end of WWI, oil has been a strategic resource. It's as important to keep it out of the hands of others as to control it yourself, but one pretty much leads to the next.
Oil is still what drives the larger geo-political game, Mog. It isn't about putting cheap gas in American SUVs so much as making sure that US corporations are highly profitable and that nobody else controls the oil or the oil money.
Consider the ramifications if OPEC switched to the Euro. The US dollar would drop like a stone.
What would happen if Russia and France controlled the second-largest oil supply in the Middle East? They would have huge political power and that would come directly at the expense of the Americans. Again, the US economy would take a hit but it would also be a potential military advantage for Russia.
Since the end of WWI, oil has been a strategic resource. It's as important to keep it out of the hands of others as to control it yourself, but one pretty much leads to the next.
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
Of course it's disputed. All intelligence services were pretty sure that Saddam's aresenal had been effectively destroyed by 1999, with some questions remaining as to what biological weapons capacity might have remained.
International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."
Here's a timeline of more recent events (emphasis added):
November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.
November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.
December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration is supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998.
The resolution requires the declaration to be "currently accurate, full, and complete," but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.
December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.
2003
February 5, 2003: Powell briefs the Security Council in an effort to persuade members that Iraq is subverting the inspections process. He publicly presents intelligence for the first time to support Washington's claim that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and interfering with inspections. France, China, and Russia are not persuaded and support continued inspections.
[/quote][/code]
Of course it's disputed. All intelligence services were pretty sure that Saddam's aresenal had been effectively destroyed by 1999, with some questions remaining as to what biological weapons capacity might have remained.
International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."
Here's a timeline of more recent events (emphasis added):
November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.
November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.
December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration is supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998.
The resolution requires the declaration to be "currently accurate, full, and complete," but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.
December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.
2003
February 5, 2003: Powell briefs the Security Council in an effort to persuade members that Iraq is subverting the inspections process. He publicly presents intelligence for the first time to support Washington's claim that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and interfering with inspections. France, China, and Russia are not persuaded and support continued inspections.
[/quote][/code]
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
Finally, the President speaks publically in regards to the Democrats flip-flopping or changing their tunes on their position for the war. The President has revealed the Democrats for who they really are ... opportunists and flip-floppers who are willing to hop on board the popularity bandwagon with a blink of an eye. Doesn't matter the reason, as long as they are popular.
It's good that this came out publically, but why did the President wait so long to state this obvious fact?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175464,00.html
Finally, the President speaks publically in regards to the Democrats flip-flopping or changing their tunes on their position for the war. The President has revealed the Democrats for who they really are ... opportunists and flip-floppers who are willing to hop on board the popularity bandwagon with a blink of an eye. Doesn't matter the reason, as long as they are popular.
It's good that this came out publically, but why did the President wait so long to state this obvious fact?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175464,00.html
RE: World Intelligence (R
"W" is just trying to pass the blame for this. If it was going well, he would take all the credit.
"W" is just trying to pass the blame for this. If it was going well, he would take all the credit.
RE: World Intelligence (R
Let's be clear here. The other intelligence agencies of most other countries DID believe that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction. This is not disputed. For that reason, the UN Security Counsel had authorized Drs. Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradi to conduct on the ground inspections, interview Iraqs military, civilian, political and scientific leaders and authorized US aircraft to do both high level and low level recon flights unharassed over Iraqi airspace between January 2003 and late march when the US invaded.
Lets also be clear, that the absolute gold standard in intelligence - trained agents on the ground - human intel - at the time did not support the US contention. Iraq provided a disclosure in December of 2002 listing all of their previously declared and identified banned weapons and declared that they had been destroyed. THe US of course found the disclosure (which ended up being truthful) to be inadequate. The UNSCOM group under Hans Blix after 4 months of searching found nothing.
Additionally - ONLY THE US and its coalition of brown nosing carpet begars were prepared to go to war on the basis of this intelligence. The other countries which you have referenced, because of the discrepancy between what their intelligence agencies were saying and what the UN people on the ground were saying, without exception wanted to allow the UN inspections regime to run its course and were not prepared to resort to force before this had been done.
If there had been anything resembling a consensus on invading Iraq based on WMD intel, the US would have pressed for a final resolution at the UNSC. As it was, there were three vetos and a majority of both permanent members and elected members of the Security Counsel ready to kill any such resolution.
Let's be clear here. The other intelligence agencies of most other countries DID believe that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction. This is not disputed. For that reason, the UN Security Counsel had authorized Drs. Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradi to conduct on the ground inspections, interview Iraqs military, civilian, political and scientific leaders and authorized US aircraft to do both high level and low level recon flights unharassed over Iraqi airspace between January 2003 and late march when the US invaded.
Lets also be clear, that the absolute gold standard in intelligence - trained agents on the ground - human intel - at the time did not support the US contention. Iraq provided a disclosure in December of 2002 listing all of their previously declared and identified banned weapons and declared that they had been destroyed. THe US of course found the disclosure (which ended up being truthful) to be inadequate. The UNSCOM group under Hans Blix after 4 months of searching found nothing.
Additionally - ONLY THE US and its coalition of brown nosing carpet begars were prepared to go to war on the basis of this intelligence. The other countries which you have referenced, because of the discrepancy between what their intelligence agencies were saying and what the UN people on the ground were saying, without exception wanted to allow the UN inspections regime to run its course and were not prepared to resort to force before this had been done.
If there had been anything resembling a consensus on invading Iraq based on WMD intel, the US would have pressed for a final resolution at the UNSC. As it was, there were three vetos and a majority of both permanent members and elected members of the Security Counsel ready to kill any such resolution.
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
not at all.........The so called prez has revealed HIMSELF for who he is. the spin game is all that the bushcon supporters know.....having learned from the worst of their kind.
He is under serious pressure.........and speaking of "popularity"........ is dropping in the polls enough to warrant another phony terror alert... ( maybe even "red" this time) Why on earth would he be on a mission now to "improve his image".??? Not sure how he can begin to repair the strained relations he has created with other nations. No one trusts him. Silly man.......just does not get it.....as all the rhetoric /spin/ cosmetics in the world cannot cover the stench of this regime now. Once he lost credibility /integrity ........it ain't gonna be easy to get it back........as he now has to PROVE himself and prove that he did not fecking lie. The evidence points to the opposite and the world knows it.
If the Iraq thing was going as he naively anticipated.......he would be gloating like a bully rooster by now. He has created his own black hole.
what he is doing is called projection..... IE.. blaming others for the very characteristics he and his regime has. He is yet to take responsibility for any of his errors , misjudgments etc. but in U.S. politics .......he can get away with it.....and the sheeple let him. In fact they let him get away with murder.....as after all he is "the prez" a role /position to be worshiped. :roll:
(that old Hail Caesar , complex is alive and well states side now)
not at all.........The so called prez has revealed HIMSELF for who he is. the spin game is all that the bushcon supporters know.....having learned from the worst of their kind.
He is under serious pressure.........and speaking of "popularity"........ is dropping in the polls enough to warrant another phony terror alert... ( maybe even "red" this time) Why on earth would he be on a mission now to "improve his image".??? Not sure how he can begin to repair the strained relations he has created with other nations. No one trusts him. Silly man.......just does not get it.....as all the rhetoric /spin/ cosmetics in the world cannot cover the stench of this regime now. Once he lost credibility /integrity ........it ain't gonna be easy to get it back........as he now has to PROVE himself and prove that he did not fecking lie. The evidence points to the opposite and the world knows it.
If the Iraq thing was going as he naively anticipated.......he would be gloating like a bully rooster by now. He has created his own black hole.
what he is doing is called projection..... IE.. blaming others for the very characteristics he and his regime has. He is yet to take responsibility for any of his errors , misjudgments etc. but in U.S. politics .......he can get away with it.....and the sheeple let him. In fact they let him get away with murder.....as after all he is "the prez" a role /position to be worshiped. :roll:
(that old Hail Caesar , complex is alive and well states side now)
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
It is very clear. There was no international agreement that Iraq had any WMD after 1999, only vague suspicions about some conventional capability and possible bioweapons. Of course, no one in their right mind was ready to trust Saddam, particularly after the expulsion of inspectors in 1998, but all of this is irrelevant to the 2003 invasion by the US.
The facts are:
-The IAEA had dismissed the possibility that Iraq had a viable nuclear weapons programme in 1995.
-Both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell said that Saddam had virtually no military capability in 2001. (Why would they say this incontradiction of all the supposed foreign intelligence to the contrary?)
-UNSCOM had dsimissed any chemical weapons capability as of 1998, which was further assured by the work of Jose Bustani and the Organization on the Prohibtion of Chemical Weapons from 1997 until his removal by the US for being too effective and thereby removing a pretext for attacking Iraq .
-As the Downing Street memo confirms, plans for invading Iraq were made before and independent of any "material breach" of UN resolutions etc.
-Even Israel, whose intelligence on Iraq was second to none and who had thwarted his nuclear programme in the 1980's, could not substantiate the claims that he possessed WMD.
No one was worried that Saddam has WMD's, because no-one believed it, except for the gullible consumers of Bush administration propaganda.
Therefore, the whole issue of Iraq's WMD was a red herring to justify the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam for geopolitical , and (more important) corporate interests, with oil as a significant fringe benefit.
It is very clear. There was no international agreement that Iraq had any WMD after 1999, only vague suspicions about some conventional capability and possible bioweapons. Of course, no one in their right mind was ready to trust Saddam, particularly after the expulsion of inspectors in 1998, but all of this is irrelevant to the 2003 invasion by the US.
The facts are:
-The IAEA had dismissed the possibility that Iraq had a viable nuclear weapons programme in 1995.
-Both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell said that Saddam had virtually no military capability in 2001. (Why would they say this incontradiction of all the supposed foreign intelligence to the contrary?)
-UNSCOM had dsimissed any chemical weapons capability as of 1998, which was further assured by the work of Jose Bustani and the Organization on the Prohibtion of Chemical Weapons from 1997 until his removal by the US for being too effective and thereby removing a pretext for attacking Iraq .
-As the Downing Street memo confirms, plans for invading Iraq were made before and independent of any "material breach" of UN resolutions etc.
-Even Israel, whose intelligence on Iraq was second to none and who had thwarted his nuclear programme in the 1980's, could not substantiate the claims that he possessed WMD.
No one was worried that Saddam has WMD's, because no-one believed it, except for the gullible consumers of Bush administration propaganda.
Therefore, the whole issue of Iraq's WMD was a red herring to justify the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam for geopolitical , and (more important) corporate interests, with oil as a significant fringe benefit.
RE: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
The issue of oil keeps coming up.
No doubt it is of strategic importance not only to the US but also to France, Germany and Russia who wanted the embargo lifted, the north and south fly zones stopped in order to normalize trade relations with a country they hoped would model itself after the American-Saudi relationship.
The troika of business partners to Saddam (France Germany Russia) did indeed want their own "Saudi Arabia".
But whether they got Iraq business or the Americans got it, the truth about the oil is that no one is going to own that oil but the Iraqis.
You saw that with the Saudis.
No one else owns their oil, do they?
What's going to stop Iraq from owning their oil ?
America could not stop the Saudis, and they cannot stop the manifest destiny of Iraq.
To think otherwise is just convenient for the bias du jour.
The issue of oil keeps coming up.
No doubt it is of strategic importance not only to the US but also to France, Germany and Russia who wanted the embargo lifted, the north and south fly zones stopped in order to normalize trade relations with a country they hoped would model itself after the American-Saudi relationship.
The troika of business partners to Saddam (France Germany Russia) did indeed want their own "Saudi Arabia".
But whether they got Iraq business or the Americans got it, the truth about the oil is that no one is going to own that oil but the Iraqis.
You saw that with the Saudis.
No one else owns their oil, do they?
What's going to stop Iraq from owning their oil ?
America could not stop the Saudis, and they cannot stop the manifest destiny of Iraq.
To think otherwise is just convenient for the bias du jour.
RE: World Intelligence (R
It is true Jim that the Saudis own the oil but the Americans own and control the House of Saud. And now we see the same idea happening in Iraq. A government and a constitution written and created by the US.
So the bottom line: It is the OIL
It is true Jim that the Saudis own the oil but the Americans own and control the House of Saud. And now we see the same idea happening in Iraq. A government and a constitution written and created by the US.
So the bottom line: It is the OIL
RE: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
America does not own and control the House of Saud for the reasons below:
1. They don't always listen to our requests to control prices.
2. We did not favor the oil cartel of OPEC, which the House of Saud, western educated in macro economics.
3. We pay for this oil, we don't own it.
4. We did not favor many of the activities of the princes in the Saud family financing Wahabi fundamentalism and schools that teach hate.
5. The shi-ite majority and the Kurds will follow the model of the House of Saud and will own this oil and no one on this earth is going to stop that natural progression towards their manifest destiny.
America does not own and control the House of Saud for the reasons below:
1. They don't always listen to our requests to control prices.
2. We did not favor the oil cartel of OPEC, which the House of Saud, western educated in macro economics.
3. We pay for this oil, we don't own it.
4. We did not favor many of the activities of the princes in the Saud family financing Wahabi fundamentalism and schools that teach hate.
5. The shi-ite majority and the Kurds will follow the model of the House of Saud and will own this oil and no one on this earth is going to stop that natural progression towards their manifest destiny.
Re: RE: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was th
So why doesn't the US do something about this hate teaching schools. Why not remove the royal family as they did with Saddam?
Are they different? I think they are more dangerous than Saddam.
jimmoyer said:
So why doesn't the US do something about this hate teaching schools. Why not remove the royal family as they did with Saddam?
Are they different? I think they are more dangerous than Saddam.
RE: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
moghrabi, technically oil was not the principal motive. Of course, it's only a "technical" objection given the only things American troops were ready to risk their lives to defend: nothing so trivial as human lives or priceless antiquiities (Ministry of Oil ring a bell?).
If it had been principally for oil, Paul Bremer would not have excluded the oil business from the list of half a dozen "orders" he issued (and had legally endorsed) as head of the provisional authority . These contracts mandated the privatization of state-owned enterprises and allowed 100 percent foreign ownership of businesses except oil. The "orders", which have a legal lifetime of 40 years, give foreign firms the same privileges as domestic companies, and permit unrestricted, tax-free transfers of profits out of the country.
Virtually all the human and material capital of Iraq belongs to (mostly American) corporations, for the plunder and profit.
In any case, since any elected government that the US would allow will require US military aid (if not actual troops) to stay in power, I'm sure the nationalized Iraqi oil companies will supply their benefactor with the reliable supply of crude that the US liberators expect. They'll probably send a few (wink,wink) no-bid contracts to Halliburton and squeeze the French and Russians when required.
moghrabi, technically oil was not the principal motive. Of course, it's only a "technical" objection given the only things American troops were ready to risk their lives to defend: nothing so trivial as human lives or priceless antiquiities (Ministry of Oil ring a bell?).
If it had been principally for oil, Paul Bremer would not have excluded the oil business from the list of half a dozen "orders" he issued (and had legally endorsed) as head of the provisional authority . These contracts mandated the privatization of state-owned enterprises and allowed 100 percent foreign ownership of businesses except oil. The "orders", which have a legal lifetime of 40 years, give foreign firms the same privileges as domestic companies, and permit unrestricted, tax-free transfers of profits out of the country.
Virtually all the human and material capital of Iraq belongs to (mostly American) corporations, for the plunder and profit.
In any case, since any elected government that the US would allow will require US military aid (if not actual troops) to stay in power, I'm sure the nationalized Iraqi oil companies will supply their benefactor with the reliable supply of crude that the US liberators expect. They'll probably send a few (wink,wink) no-bid contracts to Halliburton and squeeze the French and Russians when required.
RE: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
Virtually all the human and material capital of Iraq belongs to (mostly American) corporations, for the plunder and profit.
--------------pastafarian-----------------------
This is false and misleading for several reasons.
1. As in America, the businesses that employ the most people are not the corporations but rather the small mom and pop places, the small businesses under 50 people are the ones that employ the most people --- not the corporations.
2. In addition the misleading quality of that ascerbic bias is that alot of expertise and infrastructure would not get accomplished without some of the knowlege of these corporations. Witness the Gaza Palestinians who were employed by the Israeli companies reknown for the horticulture gardens. Those gaza citizens regret the loss of intelligence and expertise of those companies and now the site of the business lies in ruin.
3. To bring investment into a bad area like a warzone, what do you have to do to attract interest to rebuild ? What incentive is there, except the righteous hatred of the mob? You gotta pay someone to take the risk and the interest to rebuild, employ people and offer knowlege.
Virtually all the human and material capital of Iraq belongs to (mostly American) corporations, for the plunder and profit.
--------------pastafarian-----------------------
This is false and misleading for several reasons.
1. As in America, the businesses that employ the most people are not the corporations but rather the small mom and pop places, the small businesses under 50 people are the ones that employ the most people --- not the corporations.
2. In addition the misleading quality of that ascerbic bias is that alot of expertise and infrastructure would not get accomplished without some of the knowlege of these corporations. Witness the Gaza Palestinians who were employed by the Israeli companies reknown for the horticulture gardens. Those gaza citizens regret the loss of intelligence and expertise of those companies and now the site of the business lies in ruin.
3. To bring investment into a bad area like a warzone, what do you have to do to attract interest to rebuild ? What incentive is there, except the righteous hatred of the mob? You gotta pay someone to take the risk and the interest to rebuild, employ people and offer knowlege.
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
What bullshit! Who layed Iraq in ruin, who dropped cookie cutter bombs on Iraq? who destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq?
What bullshit! Who layed Iraq in ruin, who dropped cookie cutter bombs on Iraq? who destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq?
Re: World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Sa
Ya, I guess you got that from the same book as "happy remembrance day" :roll: :roll:
Ya, I guess you got that from the same book as "happy remembrance day" :roll: :roll: