The long awaited dossier is finally out.
**Blair unveils Iraq dossier **
The UK’s long-awaited dossier of evidence against Saddam Hussein has been unveiled.
The 55-page document, based on intelligence reports, focuses on the alleged threat posed by Iraq’s weapons programmes.
Dossier can be read in .pdf format here
Read the dossier and found no sources or links for there claims. So they are accusations with no proof.
As for facts and truths yes indeed saddam killed his own people that was back in 1988 and this is 2002.
There is irrefutable evidence to show that the Unites States government provided and encouraged Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States Department of Commerce and The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) provided at least 80 shipments of biological agents that were not attenuated (or weakened) and were capable of reproduction. These shipments included such virulent agents as Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum (S.R.103-900, May 25, 1994, pg. 264).
The AGWVA also found it very disturbing to learn that on December 19, 1983, the Middle Eastern envoy who carried a handwritten note from President Reagan to Saddam Hussein, to “resume our diplomatic relations with Iraq” was none other than our present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
“ …the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC (National Security Council) advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters, officially for crop spraying. It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village Halabja, which killed 5000 people.”
If the use of chemical weapons was known in August of 1983, and Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq in December of 1983, he was on notice that this country was using and was going to continue to use weapons of mass destruction.
so basiclly all the claims for masscres and killings by saddam are linked directly back to american and british government.
If you want more links for american and british sponsorship of chemical and weapons of mass destruction supplied to Iraq
http://www.thepowerhour.com/american_gulf_war_veterans_assoc.htm
Good Chappy…this Blair…this is from BBC…
Of course the dossier is going to unveil the justification for attacking Iraq. That was the whole point of it.
From the above link:
**The Commons debate comes as an ICM poll for the Guardian newspaper suggests 37% of Britons would support military action, with 46% against and 18% undecided.
**
Here’s another astounding prediction: The British public will fall in line like sheep being rounded up to go back in their pens once the propaganda machine is ratcheted up in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Just watch and see 
Trying to be polite, it is possible that this dossier may best be described in one word: inaccurate.
In any scenario, for a country to pose a threat vis-a-vis its WMD, there is a requirement for two aspects: capability and intention. For an excellent counter-dossier prepared by a Cambridge Professor and British MP, read this link. It’s excellent.
It makes me sick to hear Blair prattling on about this dossier; if it contained conclusive evidence regarding Iraq’s WMD, then why did he wait until barely HOURS before there is to be a discussion in the UK’s House of Commons by MPs regarding Iraq? British MPs and parliamentarians are holding a debate today regarding whether or not to endorse an attack on Iraq; if Blair was so damn sure about the evidence in this dossier, then why didn’t he publish this dossier weeks ago - in order to provide MPs sufficient time to analyze and critique the document themselves? Blair, ever the American poodle, publishes this worthless piece of garbage barely hours before the debate in the House of Commons - in order to ensure that there is the least amount of time for MPs to verify the information in this dossier.
Dossier: Crap.
Blair: Jackass
Bush: Jackass with a whip.
Saddam: Jackass as well.
Like the dossier hate the dossier, if Iraq agrees to and obeys the upcoming Iraq UN resolution I believe the war clouds will dissipate. If they reject it (at any time) this gives the green light for action.
*...if Iraq agrees to and obeys the upcoming Iraq UN resolution I believe the war clouds will dissipate. *
Why does Cheney repeatedly state that, weapons inspectors or no, the US desires regime change in Iraq? What sort of incentive does that provide the Iraqi govt. for working with the UN?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Dossier: Crap.
Blair: Jackass
Bush: Jackass with a whip.
Saddam: Jackass as well.
[/QUOTE]
:) Now this is constructive debate!? Welcome back, young man. This forum has been slightly dead without you and Malik the 73'rd. Hope the family is well.
It is expected that Iraq won't comply with the resolution, we all know they have played this game in the past. Unfortunately it’s become apparent that the Saddam regime only acts if a knife is being held to their throat. Putting down the stick now will only bounce everyone back to square one.
A regime change is desired in Cuba as well and that's not going to happen.
>>It is expected that Iraq won't comply with the resolution, we all know they have played this game in the past.<<
So it's expected that Iraq won't comply, hence that expectation justifies threatening to oust the regime and derailing the chances of peace? Why not give the Iraqi govt. a chance and not threaten that there will be regime change in every speech? Why not just give Hussein and his cronies a chance just as we have been giving chances to Sharon and his cronies ? Afterall, no one is pressuring Turkey or Israel to disarm. If you threaten Hussein that you're going to topple him no matter what, whether or not he does everything by the book, then of course you have left him with no rational reason to comply; here's a (stupid) analogy, if you ask a child to do some thing when s/he doesn't want to, you should provide an incentive or at least an explanation for why you're making that request. You don't say, Well you better do it because i'm saying so, that sounds mean and doesn't make sense. You always provide explanations, and in the case of Iraq, the govt. has to sense some light at the end of the tunnel - there has to be an incentive. Why should they comply if, even after doing what the US is forcing them to, they'll be kicked out of power? It's like ordering someone, Hey do this for me but you get nothing for it and in the end, it will just harm you. (This is not a very apt way of explaining it, i realize, i'm Sorry, but i hope you get my drift).
I was at home today and watched the live parlimentary debate…if you can call it that. I’ve read key excerpts from the dossier. Read various other views from news websites around the world and can personally find no justification for an invasion.
The lasting impression I get from the situation is that we could be talking about a number of countries.
A huge number of countries are on the verge of developing WMD and have long range missile programs. Chemical and biological weapons can be bought on the internet.
The “specific information” has not materialised, uranium from Africa is not new news.
It's been shown that Saddam will not follow resolutions unless he is threatened. I agree with you, to threaten Hussein that you're going to topple him no matter what is asinine. But so is taking Saddam's word. Here's my (stupid) analogy, A terrorist has a hostage with a gun to his or her head, an officer sees this draws his own gun and tells the terrorist to put down his weapon and let the hostage go, the terrorist promises he will and the officer says ok and takes off before he does. Make sense?
hey Thap, any chance that that parliamentary debate is avail. online? CBC was not airing it.
UnderTheDome, darn your analogy is less stupid than mine. It makes sense. How 'bout this - after the officer tells the terrorist to put down his gun and release the hostage, what if the terrorist complies but the officer shoots the terrorist anyways? What sort of message does that send to other would-be terrorists lurking in the dark?
>>...Saddam will not follow resolutions unless he is threatened.<<
Credit where it's due: Hussein allowed weapons inspectors to go through diverse sensitive sites in Iraq (until 1998). The UNSCOM inspectors were successful in disarming or dismantling a substantial quantity of Iraq's WMD. i think this cooperation counts for some*thing. Don't forget, the only reason that the inspections in Iraq stopped, is due to the fault of those govts. that were using the inspectors as spies rather than letting them undertake their UN-mandated objectives. So at least in that **particular* regard, it wasn't Iraq's fault that the inspections stopped. They could jolly well be continuing right now if the inspectors hadn't been illegally engaging in under the table assignments. So there exists a pattern of cooperation albeit not widely recognized.
So we're at a quagmire - one of us doesn't trust Hussein's word, the other doesn't believe that a respectable opportunity to comply has been extended to the Iraqi govt. Why not, using Iraq's pledge to allow weapons inspectors in as the **basis of talks**, encourage continued negotiations between Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister, and Hans Blix? What's the rush in attacking Iraq ? It's not like it is going to attack the US tomorrow. Think about the situation thruout Muslim countries if the US were perceived NOT to be tackling this issue through the diplomatic channels ? Given the present state in Palestine and Israel, it would certainly spell regional (and perhaps even global) instability if the US attacked Iraq. No?
Old man you know me, i aim to please :D and cause havoc as requently as possible. Now if people wanted a constructive debate these are all reason to start a war. They want a war and will do anything to do so
Nadia I agree that a policy of shoot first ask later would be a dangerous way of going about things. The debate on what to do with Iraq has been ongoing in one way or another since 1998 when inspections stopped. The public debate started up again a short time after the September attacks over a year ago. I don't think it's fair to say anyone is rushing into war with Iraq but in fact quite the contrary is happening, options are being looked at and debated. I believe the point of all the on going rhetoric as well as war plans within the Bush administration is being done to make the Iraqi regime understand that the cat and mouse game is no longer an option.
As far as Iraq being corporative in the past let's not overlook that they started playing cat and mouse with the inspectors about a month into it, this is before the U.S. had set up any alleged spying network, which if they did perhaps it was justified since Iraq insisted on bending the agreement of the resolutions.
What talks should be had? Iraq should obey the resolutions that have already been laid out for them by the UN and the new one that is forthcoming.
Iraq has their chance now, war is impending but it is not a done deal.
This is the first time in a long time that i feel i am having a discussion that might go somewhere where we both learn something; (might actually be because i am not running away from the thread and am sticking around to give my responses). Thank you, UTD. Have to go pick up my bro from school, then do a couple other things so i'll reply as soon as i get home hopefully. (Not running away this time:D).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
It's been shown that Saddam will not follow resolutions unless he is threatened. I agree with you, to threaten Hussein that you're going to topple him no matter what is asinine. But so is taking Saddam's word. Here's my (stupid) analogy, A terrorist has a hostage with a gun to his or her head, an officer sees this draws his own gun and tells the terrorist to put down his weapon and let the hostage go, the terrorist promises he will and the officer says ok and takes off before he does. Make sense?
[/QUOTE]
Would you say the same about Israel? Yes, I know your snap back at my mention of Israel here, which may be misplaced, as per your assessment. But if we are to apply the law of the UN, then why not do it uniformly across the board?
Sharon and Israel are in defiance of a number of UN security council resolutions. Israel has WMDs that it refuses to declare or allow to be inspected. Israel has occupied and invaded its neighbors, and continues to retain that occupation, in full violation of UN resolutions.
Why not just simply say might is right, and end the discussion, rather than try and make a feeble and lackluster case of why Iraq should be attacked? G. Bush at times risks bursting out laughing at how weak his case his against Iraq, but still is hell bent on the attack, inspections or no inspections.
Im all for the removal of a person like Saddam Hussain, but not before bigger criminals are taken care of.
And more importantly, lets be more uniform and fair in imposing all UN security council resolutions, against ALL violators. If not, US should simply admit to using the might is right mantra. There is no other justification or sense to be made out of this.
And Blairs attitude is just downright hilarious. George Michael was so right.
me is back:D
Very smartly, i have managed to download a trojan virus into my computer, hence bit of a delay.
>>I don’t think it’s fair to say anyone is rushing into war with Iraq but in fact quite the contrary is happening, options are being looked at and debated.<<
i agree, perhaps that is wrong, it’s not fair to state that anyone is rushing into a war. i’m actually surprised that it hasn’t occurred yet.
Here’s a query - would you still endorse war if Congress approval was not granted?
>> this is before the U.S. had set up any alleged spying network, which if they did perhaps it was justified since Iraq insisted on bending the agreement of the resolutions.<<
i’m sorry. i can’t help noticing the word “alleged”
It is not alleged, it is by now even acknowledged openly; Annan has even done so (sorry, unable to find link at the moment). One of BBC’s Panorama reports was the first to break the news regarding the US’s spying.
Not to get on your nerves or anything, but, the US bent the agreement of the resolutions; irrespective of this fact, however, it wouldn’t justify Iraq spying on the US.
>>Iraq should obey the resolutions that have already been laid out for them by the UN and the new one that is forthcoming.<<
errm should Israel also be made to abide by UN Resolution 687 that calls for Iraq’s disarmament to occur in the context of regional disarmament? Should Israel obey this Resolution?
i want to reach some sort of a ‘conclusion’ in this discussion - not immediately, but eventually. If we can’t expect two individuals to resolve this issue between themselves, then what hope of governments.. If the US/UK are unsuccessful in mandating (by the Security Council) an attack on Iraq, then would you still support it? And IF yes, do you believe that the guaranteed loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives – every bit the innocent pawns in a political game between governments – will contribute further to regional and global stability? On the contrary, will it hasten a rippling backlash of anger and fundamentalism across Muslim countries against, what will be perceived of, as indifference towards civilian lives when they are Muslim? Will a war on Iraq contribute to global peace?
Another fine piece from Fisk. Here’s what you won’t see on mainstream media:
=============================================
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=336404
Robert Fisk: The dishonesty of this so-called dossier
If these pages of trickery are based on ‘probably’ and ‘if’, we have no business going to war
25 September 2002
Tony Blair’s “dossier” on Iraq is a shocking document. Reading it can only fill a decent human being with shame and outrage. Its pages are final proof – if the contents are true – that a massive crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq. For if the details of Saddam’s building of weapons of mass destruction are correct – and I will come to the “ifs” and “buts” and “coulds” later – it means that our massive, obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us – for nothing.
Let’s go back to 12 May 1996. Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, had told us that sanctions worked and prevented Saddam from rebuilding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Our Tory government agreed, and Tony Blair faithfully toed the line. But on 12 May, Mrs Albright appeared on CBS television. Leslie Stahl, the interviewer, asked: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” To the world’s astonishment, Mrs Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”
Now we know – if Mr Blair is telling us the truth – that the price was not worth it. The price was paid in the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. But it wasn’t worth a dime. The Blair “dossier” tells us that, despite sanctions, Saddam was able to go on building weapons of mass destruction. All that nonsense about dual-use technology, the ban on children’s pencils – because lead could have a military use – and our refusal to allow Iraq to import equipment to restore the water-treatment plants that we bombed in the Gulf War, was a sham.
This terrible conclusion is the only moral one to be drawn from the 16 pages that supposedly detail the chemical, biological and nuclear horrors that the Beast of Baghdad has in store for us. It’s difficult, reading the full report, to know whether to laugh or cry. The degree of deceit and duplicity in its production speaks of the trickery that informs the Blair government and its treatment of MPs.
There are a few titbits that ring true. The new ammonium perchlorate plant illegally supplied by an Indian company – which breached those wonderful UN sanctions, of course – is a frightening little detail. So is the new rocket test stand at the al-Rafah plant. But this material is so swamped in trickery and knavery that its inclusion becomes worthless.
Here is one example of the dishonesty of this “dossier”. On page 45, we are told – in a long chapter about Saddam’s human rights abuses – that “on March 1st, 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, riots (sic) broke out in the southern city of Basra, spreading quickly to other cities in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. The regime responded by killing thousands”. What’s wrong with this paragraph is the lie is in the use of the word “riots”. These were not riots. They were part of a mass rebellion specifically called for by President Bush Jnr’s father and by a CIA radio station in Saudi Arabia. The Shia Muslims of Iraq obeyed Mr Bush Snr’s appeal. And were then left to their fate by the Americans and British, who they had been given every reason to believe would come to their help. No wonder they died in their thousands. But that’s not what the Blair “dossier” tells us.
And anyone reading the weasel words of doubt that are insinuated throughout this text can only have profound concern about the basis for which Britain is to go to war. The Iraqi weapon programme “is almost certainly” seeking to enrich uranium. It “appears” that Iraq is attempting to acquire a magnet production line. There is evidence that Iraq has tried to acquire specialised aluminium tubes (used in the enrichment of uranium) but “there is no definitive intelligence” that it is destined for a nuclear programme. “If” Iraq obtained fissile material, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons in one or two years. It is “difficult to judge” whether al-Hussein missiles could be available for use. Efforts to regenerate the Iraqi missile programme “probably” began in 1995. And so the “dossier” goes on.
Now maybe Saddam has restarted his WMD programme. Let’s all say it out loud, 20 times: Saddam is a brutal, wicked tyrant. But are “almost certainly”, “appears”, “probably” and “if” really the rallying call to send our grenadiers off to the deserts of Kut-al-Amara?
There is high praise for UN weapons inspectors. And there is more trickery in the relevant chapter. It quotes Dr Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the UN inspection commission, as saying that in the absence of (post-1998) inspections, it is impossible to verify Iraqi disarmament compliance. But on 18 August this year, the very same Dr Blix told Associated Press that he couldn’t say with certainty that Baghdad possessed WMDs. This quotation is excised from the Blair “dossier”, of course.
So there it is. If these pages of trickery are based on “probably” and “if”, we have no business going to war. If they are all true, we murdered half a million Iraqi children. How’s that for a war crime?