Iranian Sniper Rifles Iraq

[ORAC]

Makes you think they set him up and he walked right into it....

The Times: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1376597.ece) February 13, 2007 - We have not armed Iraq insurgents, say Iranians

President Ahmadinejad has rejected American claims that Iran has supplied sophisticated weapons to militants to attack US forces in Iraq. He said that the allegations were unproven “pieces of paper” and claimed that Iran’s security was dependent on Iraq’s stability.......

The Daily Telegraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran313.xml) February 13, 2007 - Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran

Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned. More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year. The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon. Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported.......

The rifle can pierce all body armour from up to a mile and penetrate armoured Humvee troop carriers. It is highly accurate and fires a round called an armour piercing incendiary, a bullet that the Iranians manufacture.

The National Iranian Police Organisation bought the rifles allegedly to use them against drug smugglers in an £8 million order placed with Steyr in 2005.....

[Two's in]

Bit like the Barrett 0.50 that Paddy and Mick were using in Northern Ireland - where did those come from again?

[brain fade]

Twos in

Damn right!

[brickhistory]

But the key difference, gentlemen, is that the government didn't supply the Barretts.

[roll_over]

The IRA had Barretts? :eek:

[charliegolf]

They get much use out of them?

CG

[RileyDove]

A local lad here was a member of the Pioneer Corps who was killed by a IRA Barrett in one of a number of shootings attributed to them on the borders.
As for not being able to control the supply of a specialist sniper rifle to person's outside the U.S - ridiculous!

[The Helpful Stacker]

They get much use out of them?
Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was shot and killed at a VCP in Bessbrook in 1997 by a sniper using a Barrett Light 50.

Of course the funding for that rifle probably came from a Boston bar, where the 'orish-americans' still believe that Ulster is a place full of happy go lucky scallywags fighting the nasty imperialist Brits.

Unfortunately it took 9/11 to curb US sponsored terrorism when they finally realised that hey, perhaps various terrorist groups around the world might share knowledge.

[Green Flash]

http://www.impactguns.com/store/HS50.html

http://www.50calshooters.ca/Data/Sites/2/GalleryImages/SteyrHS50ShootingTracer.wmv

[Faithless]

:confused: Who's the IRA?

[charliegolf]

Thank God for the likes of Charlton Heston, without whom such things wouldn't remain openly available for any nutter to buy.

CG

[The Helpful Stacker]

Who's the IRA?

Well some say they are an American backed religious fundamentalist group responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, some say they are a group who uses a 'cause' to hide the fact they are extortionists and drug dealers and yet more people say they are the violent wing of Shinn Fein.

[brickhistory]

such things wouldn't remain openly available for any nutter to buy.


Or any law-abiding citizen either.

And that, sir, is one of the differences between our peoples.

However, as the thread was opened regarding the Iranians buying Austrian weapons, perhaps it can return to that subject? Or is it ok for the Austrians to sell such weapons but not us?

[West Coast]

Stay on task with this one boys, there's plenty of Brit dirt in NI so quit acting so pompous.

[Maple 01]

deleted pointless personal attack

Though edited to add another option to Stackers
'Jane's All the World Terrorist Organisations'

some do say the IRA are/were the remains of the Irish branch of radicalised left-wing hippy students of the 1960s (aka THE 68'ers) Remember their sister organisations The Red Army Faction, the Barder-Meinhoff gang etc? Basically just another Marxist-Leninist terrorist group ironically funded by the usual eastern block pinko-fag Commies and loyal right-wing Orish-‘Mericans

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Very predictable Westy but whats saddest is that there was at the time very strong evidence to support the theory that the triggerman in Stackers earlier post was in fact one of yours:(

[brickhistory]

the triggerman in Stackers earlier post was in fact one of yours

I don't know much about this issue (big picture, ok, but not what life was like or many of the specific acts, so that said....)

If so, then he's a murderer and a terrorist. What's your point? How does this relate to Iran supplying the bad guys in Iraq who are shooting at both our folks?

[Washington_Irving]

Just wondering:

1. Have the serial numbers been traced to the consignment sent to Iran?
2. Can they demonstrate a chain of acquisition from Steyr to the insurgency that passes through official Iranian channels? Is it impossible to rule out that the weapons were supplied by an arms dealer or even that this is part of a covert operation to implicate Iran?
3. As to why Austria shouldn't be selling Iran weapons- Exactly how many countries has Iran invaded since 1979? Wheras, in the same period of time, the US has used military and/or paramilitary force in (draws deep breath):

Angola, Iran x 3, Libya x 3, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, Bolivia, The Phillippines, Panama, Iraq x 3 (counting the unsanctioned no-fly zones), Somalia, Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan x 2, Sudan and Colombia.

(Note- yes, I'm aware the Iranians back terrorist groups, but I'd be here all night if I had to list the ones the US has backed/continues to back.)

[West Coast]

If you don't think there wasn't Brit (or her surrogate parties) atrocities in NI over the year, you're very uninformed.
I have no love for the IRA, nor the thugs who fought equally dirty against it.

[Maple 01]

Libya? Must have missed that one, when was the invasion?

[West Coast]

"triggerman in Stackers"

As mentioned by brick, a terrorist or murderer. I don't hold the UK or anyone else as the guilty party because Richard Reid, a Brit tried to blow up a US aircraft.

[vecvechookattack]

But the key difference, gentlemen, is that the government didn't supply the Barretts.


Exactly....and neither did they train them how to use them....Opppss:ugh:

[brickhistory]

Exactly....and neither did they train them how to use them....Opppss
?Que? Are you stating that the American government, not some Americans, but that official America trained some IRA gunmen for that purpose? If not, then I didn't follow your post.
I'd REALLY like to see some proof or even some legitimate news stories to that effect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
edited to add:

vvk, ah, I see your post below, dense skull on me, sorry.

[Washington_Irving]

Maple 01

Look up Op El Dorado Canyon.

Then remember the fun and games the F14s had in the Gulf of Sidra in the 1980s.

[vecvechookattack]

Noooo...I meant to say it was the British Govt that trained the Iranians.

[brickhistory]

Look up Op El Dorado Canyon.

Then remember the fun and games the F14s had in the Gulf of Sidra in the 1980s.

Also look up the Berlin night club bombing preceding El Dorado Canyon.

Admittedly, in my opinion, while the Gulf of Sidra event was designed to spank the Libyans, the principle was freedom of navigation in international waters. Seems no one else would do it.

F-14s 4, Su's 0.

[Washington_Irving]

Brickhistory- Op Attain Document III, March 1986.

All part of the Great Game.;)

[Tigs2]

This is all utterly pathetic.
Loads of OUR (i.e collective) boys and girls have been killed by munitions supplied by many forces (and none of them manufactured by the Iraqis). American guns and bullets, british guns and bullets, russian guns and bullets - get the picture!! We find stuff by the Iranians and its a big problem - BULL****! The super powers supply arms to everyone, and if they dont then the other ones will. Makes me real mad:mad: :mad: There are NO saints when it comes to arms and war, and the people on this thread should know better!! Believe me if our troops would have been killed in Iraq by biologocal or chemical weapons, they WOULD have been supplied by the Brits and Americans. Are we all living in cloud F*****g cuckoo land!!

[Load Toad]

We have to stop thinking in terms of Iran & Iraq etc and think of it as Shia / Sunni / tribe etc. Because post the removal of the evil Saddam and the Ba'ath party dictators that is what now exists.
So it isn't remotely surprising that the Iranian Shia will support their brethren in 'Iraq' and it is also not surprising that there is a unity evolving between the tribes to remove the foreign invaders.

[XV277]

Believe me if our troops would have been killed in Iraq by biologocal or chemical weapons,

More likely by the French or Germans, but the concept is the same.

[Maple 01]

Look up Op El Dorado Canyon.
Don't need to, I was working that night - how many F1-11s going external UK? Closely followed by 'Maple, pack a bag you're off to Cyprus', which then got canx at the last min :(
Still not an invasion, more a subtle hint, you'll have to do better than that if you plan to convince anyone that Uncle Sam is a force for world evil

We find stuff by the Iranians and its a big problem - BULL****!
I have to call your bull@hit there Tigs, the difference is that the UK and US didn't put much in the way of arms into Iraq (don't make me get my i-spy chart of weapons shipments 1970-2003 out) Nor did they supply them directly to 'insurgents' with a training package as our Iranian chums seem to have done. that makes them very naughty and eligible for a minor smiteing if they don't wind their necks in IMO

[Two's in]

The point of my post was simply to highlight the issue that Tigs also makes - some poor bastard gets wasted in a country he shouldn't be in, by a thug who doesn't even know where the USA is, using some spiffy munitions that came in through Iran via a bunch of Arms dealers for profit, and suddenly we have the evidence that it's an international conspiracy led by Mahmoud I'm-a-Loony.

The fact that CIA have sponsored/led insurgencies for the last 50 years in (insert name of Marxist Regime here) and have killed thousands and displaced millions, seems to have escaped the notice of these political commentators who so desperately want Iran's finger to be on the trigger of the smoking gun. By the way, the Brits, French, Germans, Russians etc, etc, are all at this game, we just don't seem to be as willing to make the facts fit our version of democracy as George's boys.

I personally don't give a fat rat's ass which bottom dwellers want to believe all this machiavellian horse ****e about who has supplied the particular means of death to the masses, but the least they can do is know when their chains are being yanked (no pun intended).

[Washington_Irving]

Still not an invasion, more a subtle hint, you'll have to do better than that if you plan to convince anyone that Uncle Sam is a force for world evil

Wasn't trying to do anything of the sort. I was just pointing out that nobody's whiter than white and to bleat on about Austria, Iran or whoever else being unreasonable is just hypocrisy. Good and evil are terribly subjective terms and to coin a phrase, where you stand on the issue depends to a large extent on where you sit.

[West Coast]

"depends to a large extent on where you sit"

And if you are sitting in the cross hairs of one of the Iranian supplied rifles....

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Westy,

"cross hairs of one of the Iranian supplied rifles...." Any chance this irrefutable evidence came from the same reliable source that took our countries to war over Saddam's WMD :rolleyes:

[Maple 01]

Shouldn't be too difficult if as Washington says, excuse my return to BASIC

10 IF serial numbers = Iranian export then GOTO 20
20 Smite bastards

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Shouldn't be too difficult if as Washington says".............and just remind us all what Washington told us all about the WMD threat.........some of you folks are way too gullible to be outdoors on your own :rolleyes:

[Maple 01]

I meant Mr Irving, now, are you saying there were no chemical rounds found in Iraq post invasion?

[Sunray Minor]

Brick,

Don't see why the Iranian's can't buy Austrian weapons. They and many other considerably more despotic nations were/are armed to the teeth by US/UK arms manufacturers (Saudi Arabia being one of them).

The hypocrisy is always intriguing. It seems it's ok to arm anyone so long as the people being killed aren't American. As soon as that happens then all hell breaks loose.

[Maple 01]

Are the Saudis as a matter of policy forwarding arms to insurgents? Seems the Iranians are, and that's the difference

[Sunray Minor]

So if it's a matter of policy rather than underhand dealing, that is the issue in question?

It seems like you're seeking a semantic means of discerning the evil-Iranian way of supplying arms from our own virtuous ways of supplying despots. Unfortunately an arms sale is an arms sale, it's the same thing regardless of whether it is BAe, Ollie North, the South African govt or Iran.

If weapons find their ways in to the hands of people we don't like then its a problem. If they find their way in to the hands of filth that happen to be our friends then it is all ok. It's hypocrisy. All else is rubbish.

[brickhistory]

SM,

Please point out where I said that the Iranians buying arms is wrong or a problem.

If they are supplying them to folks who are killing US/UK/Australian/Iraqi or any other troops or civilians as part of official Iranian government policy, then that is indeed a problem.

Please be judicious or at least accurate when throwing the 'h' word around.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Maple,

"are you saying there were no chemical rounds found in Iraq post invasion?"

No I am asking where the WMD are or where is the weaponry to support the 45 minute claim, both of which were the main premise for us following our cousins to war :=

"Are the Saudis as a matter of policy forwarding arms to insurgents? Seems the Iranians are, and that's the difference"

SEEMS is the key word and bearing in mind the US has been itching for months to step into a conflict with Iran do you not concede that this sort of "evidence" is all just a little too convenient :(

[M609]

Are the Saudis as a matter of policy forwarding arms to insurgents?

No, but they pay for them..... :uhoh:

[XXTSGR]

Maple, there is a (probably unintentional) error in your BASIC program, which is that the instruction at line 20 is executed (nice word, that) whatever the result of the condition in line 10.

Or perhaps it was deliberate? Because whatever is actually happening in Iran, it makes me extremely nervous that GWB seems to be lining himself up for something like:-10 IF youfeellikeit=1 THEN 20 ELSE 20
20 GOSUB smitethebastards
30 ENDIt is perfectly possible (indeed very likely) that arms for the Shia in Iraq are coming through Iran. We (the UK and USA) have set the world target for exporting arms to extremely dubious contries. It alarms me that some people here take this as incontrovertible evidence that Ahmedinadinnerjacket is personally responsible.

However, as has been announced already this week or last, I forget, the majority of insurgents in Iraq are actually Saudis. As far as respecting other religions and fundamentalism are concerned, both Shi'ia and Sunni are babes in arms (no pun intended) compared to Wah'habism. But peope don't want to look in that direction - after all, the Kingdom are our friends and allies - aren't they? :confused: :uhoh:

[Maple 01]

"are you saying there were no chemical rounds found in Iraq post invasion?"

No I am asking where the WMD are or where is the weaponry to support the 45 minute claim, both of which were the main premise for us following our cousins to war

Ah, but the fact that they had ANY chemical rounds was a contravention of UNSCR 687 (1991 ceasefire) which meant the war was back on, unless you know better?

SEEMS is the key word and bearing in mind the US has been itching for months to step into a conflict with Iran do you not concede that this sort of "evidence" is all just a little too convenient

So it's sub judice to speculate on the Iranian connection but OK to speculate that the US has already decided to invade? Double standards anyone? why don't those who dislike the US just decloak and get on with confronting their inferiority complexes?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Maple,

We went to war based on WMD and the 45 minute theory now show me proof of either.....................:ugh:

If you are trying to tell us that the subsequent discovery of a few chemical rounds is justification for where we are today, civil war with thousands being blown apart every month then, sorry but I for one will not buy into it.

As for your decloak and inferiority swipes I guess I must be the only one who has seen the US sabre rattling over previous months and interpreted it the wrong way............silly me:rolleyes:

[Sunray Minor]

Brick,

That's still very selective.

I assume you will also castigate the US for recent supplying of arms to Colombia, Uzbekistan, Angola, Chad and Ethiopia then?

Those arms consistently seem to fall in to the hands of certain groups within these nations. Ironically these groups seem also to conform to an ideology that coincides with that of the US at present, although even more prone to the use of force.

It is very rare that the protestations of those on the receiving end of said armed paramilitaries and insurgents get much airtime in the US, no less that arms shipments are suspended or that this is used as a pretext to bomb the USA.


Maple01,

Are you seriously suggesting that the stumbling across a few unaccounted for and largely time-expired nerve gas shells in Iraq constitutes the "smoking gun" of WMD that within 45 minutes could strike London, AND/OR, the WMD program Saddam had in progress?

[nigegilb]

We had chemical weapons in the Great War, they are very easy to manufacture. We all trained up in our noddy flying suits (for the first time), for GW2 because it was widely believed that Saddam had battlefield chemical weapons. A long, long way from WMD. WMD did not exist. Get over it. The war was fought under falsified pretences.

That said, this intel produced by the US has actually been provided by troops on the ground. I would expect a degree of cynicism after the jokers in SIS came up with a load of tosh last time round. I, for one, believe the US this time. They have not had to pay dodgy informants for the info, they have lost their own flesh and blood for the proof.

[Sunray Minor]

Nigel,


A confounding factor in this is that Iraq is largely lawless. If we have a group of people, particularly in the South, who are allied with Iran, would it not be fair for Iran to even provide them with weapons or even militias?

Fair enough, we don't like the militias and neither do a good number of Iraqi's, but simialr sentiment is also held towards our own provision of law and order.

The Shiites in Iraq are far closer related to Iran than the US and if Iraq is to fall under any puppet government wouldn't it seem fair that it was the one 750km rather than 10,000km away?

[nigegilb]

You raise an extremely valid point. The US and British Govt seem to think they can have a war in Iraq, in an extremely volatile region with massive effects on its neighbours. But somehow, the neighbouring countries are not supposed to get involved. Naive and idiotic.

At the same time, I do not support the pull out of troops because a totally destabilised Iraq will suck in the Iranians and Saudis and could lead to a strategic war.

The conceptual basis of this war was flawed. The long term impacts impossible to measure. I just wonder if the Iranians have been holding back with their military support until now.

[Sunray Minor]

Nige,

Well the Iranian's have been extremely active in Iraq with SCIRI and that dates back to the Iran-Iraq war. It would be true to say Iran has intervened in Iraq on behalf of the Shiia majority for decades.

It would seem odd for them to withdraw from the scene or to suddenly stop supplying arms at a point where security is at it's lowest.

[nigegilb]

Sadr is reported to be sheltering in Iran whilst the surge is happening. No idea if this is true, but the US believe that his death squads are supported by Iran. Sadr knows that he only has to sit it ouit for a few months because the surge cannot be maintained. If the US pulled out of Iraq, the House of Saud might feel obligated to fully enter the civil war on the behalf of the sunni minority who would be slaughtered by the shia majority. Interestingly the US might switch sides, also supporting the Sunnis, backed by Saudis and even the Israelis (Iran being a potential nuclear foe), against an Iranian supported Shia majority. A bizarre turn of events considering the US went to war against the largely Sunni Govt. Another indication of the childlike decision making that went into this war.

I think the Iranians have the upper hand and they know it. I travel to the US regularly and there is a growing belief there that they are losing this war. And yet nobody is talking about partition. Maybe that is because a partitioned Iraq would be more stabile but the South of the country with the majority of the oil would be heavily influenced by Iran. And across the way in Saudi, a Shia revolt could spell big trouble. I reckon you have to accept the influence of Iran and I would go with partition. But hey I am just a pundit and what I think counts for nothing. Either way Iran is going to continue to cause trouble. And there isn't much the US can do about it.

[Maple 01]

Are you seriously suggesting that the stumbling across a few unaccounted for and largely time-expired nerve gas shells in Iraq constitutes the "smoking gun" of WMD that within 45 minutes could strike London, AND/OR, the WMD program Saddam had in progress?

No, I'm saying it put Iraq in breach of UNSCR 687 which meant the war was back on, it was a ceasefire to permit compliance, which reserved the right to continue the war if ANY clause was subverted, it was not the end of hostilities. I didn't read the bit that said 'Ok Saddam, keep hold of a few CW rounds no one minds really, and about those rockets? That’s OK too, Bush is the new anti-Christ’ He dicked the inspection teams about and went out of his way to give the impression that he had the capability – his bluff was called and he ended up dancing the hemp fandango – I can’t work myself up to shed any tears for him.

As soon as the terms of the UNSCR were breached IMO Saddam should have been handed his arse on a plate, talk of anything else is a smokescreen. You of course may continue making excuses as to why the west should have done nothing

[Sunray Minor]

Oh, c'mon Maple.
It is accepted the record keeping of weaponry was appalling and ordinance was literally scattered far and wide. These were unusable, forgotten about and largely inert weapons. They couldn't constitute a threat as the Iraqi's themselves didn't know this crap was still sitting around on the shelves. Regardless, these findings weren't even known to us - so how could a war have been started when we didn't even know these weapons existed? They quite simply aren't the weapons we were looking for.

As for cooperation, we didn't exactly encourage Iraqi cooperation when UNSCOM teams were used as a cover to spy in Iraq. Regardless, in Sept 2002 the US/UK demanded that inspectors be let back into Iraq and the Iraqi's said yes they can come back tomorrow. The US then blocked this in the UN demanding a new mandate. This required a full and accurate disclosure of Iraqi WMD programs by Jan 2003. That was given and has proven to be complete and accurate. The US/UK response was that it was too detailed and it was not complete as it didn't confirm the fantasies that our "intelligence" agencies had drawn up - because the John Scarlet's of this world were too scared to tell their bosses the truth when it was unpalatable to their world views.

Hans Blix then set about trying to confirm things producing a series of reports saying more or less that Iraq was co-operating and that there were no WMD in Iraq - these were spun to try and maximise the delays into serious obstruction. In Feb 2003 Hans Blix gave a report to the security council when he finally told it like it was, saying US intel was as water tight as a sieve and that he was getting co-operation. French and Russian representatives said similar things.

Iraq co-operated and any impression that it didn't was one given by US/UK sources and by superficial readings of the inspectors reports. A series of demands was made on Iraq and we weren't going to take yes for an answer.

[Maple 01]

They quite simply aren't the weapons we were looking for.
Oh no! The old Jedi mind trick.....

largely inert

Sounds like my last 6000, however, tell the CW teams that have to make them safe that they are largely inert weapons and 'no big deal'

It is accepted the record keeping of weaponry was appalling and ordinance was literally scattered far and wide.

Oh, that's OK then, no wait a minute, no clause in UNSCR 687 saying 'don't worry if your stackers are cr@p, dispose of ALL chemical weapons doesn’t really mean what it says' ‘oh, and we won’t get upset if you can’t account for all the missing BW cultures – not a biggie, we know you’re a busy dictator’

how could a war have been started when we didn't even know these weapons existed?

But they did, therefore invasion justified - call it a calculated gamble. Before I was demobed I heard 500+ shells and rocket warheads, fair few for a bit of oversight isn't it? No Idea how many subsequently found, I suspect there may be more.

Consider this from the Maple School of Drama

UNSC 'So Mr Hussein, you're not allowed chemical weapons and we've found some, you've had those naughty long-range rockets 11 years longer than you should have, and your sons have been feeding people they don't like into wood chippers, say goodnight'

SH 'Oh go on let me off, it was only one or two that I'd completely forgotten about, look, they slipped down the back of the sofa, must have been while watching 'World's Funniest Mass murderers' on Sky (other satellite and cable services are available, terms and conditions apply) I won't do it again......look, I haven't killed hardly any Marsh Arabs this week, the Shias aren’t in unmarked graves, they've just popped out to the shops and when I said the Kurds were having a gas I think Chemical Ali must have misunderstood

Hans Blix (for it is he) OK, that's fine, carry on

Sounds of cheering from France and Russia off screen (remember them? SH's bigest traiding partners and crediters?)

IMO we stopped too soon in 1991 - but that's just the war-monkey I am

[nigegilb]

Hey war monkey, let's run with your dodgy version of International Law for a moment and ignore the legality or otherwise of this war. What the hell, let's say it was even legal.

How has this war improved the lot of the average Iraqi?

How has this war improved the stability of the region?

Has this war and US foreign policy in general contributed to a nuclear arms race in the region? Egypt, Saudi Arabia expressing an interest here.

What effect has this war had on the long term sustainability of UK/US Armed forces?

What has this war done for the standing and good name of the UK in the World?

What has this war done for the security of the British people here in the UK?

How has this war contributed to the security of the situation in Afghanistan?

Want me to go on. War mongering for the sake of it is a particularly stupid idea.

"Some British officials believe the Iranians want to hasten the withdrawal of U.S.-backed coalition forces to pave the way for Iran-friendly clerical rule.

Iranian influence is evident throughout the area. In one government office, an aide approached a Knight Ridder reporter and, mistaking him for an Iranian, said, "Don't be afraid to speak Farsi in Basra. We are a branch of Iran."

"We get an idea that (military training) courses are being run" in Iran, said Lt. Col. David Labouchere, who commands British units in the province of Maysan, north of Basra. "People are training on the other side of the border and then coming back."

British military officials suspect that the missile that was used to shoot down a British helicopter over Basra on May 6 came from Iran. Five British soldiers died.

"We had intelligence suggesting five surface-to-air missile systems being brought over from Iran only seven days before it went down," said Maj. Rob Yuill, a British officer based in Basra.

Yuill said that the information suggested that the missiles were destined for the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Bassem al-Samir, a senior official in the Sadr office in Basra, denied that his organization was involved in the helicopter attack.

Another Sadr official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from other Sadrists, said that while the Mahdi Army wasn't responsible, "the missile was shot by an Iranian-trained group."

American military officials in Baghdad often point to the relatively low number of attacks against British soldiers in southern Iraq as proof that much of the country is stable.

Last month, however, at least 200 people were killed in Basra, almost all of them by militia violence, according to an Iraqi Defense Ministry official there.

A week with British troops in Maysan and Basra provinces and three additional days of reporting in the city of Basra made it clear that Iraqis here are at the mercy of Shiite militia death squads and Iran-friendly clerics who have imposed an ever-stricter code of de facto Islamic law.

The city of Basra has largely come under the control of Shiite clerics, who have banned alcohol sales. A woman without a headscarf is a rare sight. Record shops have been replaced with stores selling Quranic recordings. It's difficult to purchase chess or backgammon sets; the games are frowned upon by hard-line clerics.

Iraq's top Shiites acknowledge that they want to set up a regional government in the south, but they insist that the provinces involved would remain loyal to the central government in Baghdad. But an Iran-friendly Shiite government in the south could have far-reaching effects on Iraq and the Persian Gulf region and on the strategic position of U.S. military forces in the country.

U.S. forces are dependent on a fragile re-supply line that runs from Kuwait north to Baghdad through southern Iraq. A regional government allied with Iran could pose a risk to that supply line.

Such a government also would further agitate Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish minorities, which could fragment the country, a development that Western analysts fear would destabilize the region.

A Shiite regional government might also greatly enhance Iran's regional influence by giving it a strategic Shiite partner with vast amounts of oil in a Middle East dominated by Sunni-run countries. Neighboring Kuwait's population is about one-third Shiite, and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's oil-rich Eastern Province are majority Shiite.

Already, there are signs that neighboring Sunni countries are pumping resources to small Sunni factions in Basra to combat Iranian influence, said a senior Iraqi Ministry of Defense official in Basra. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared for his life.

"Saudi Arabia is trying to counter the rising power of Iran in Basra by giving money and weapons to fanatical Sunni groups operating there," the official said.

In much the same way that Kurdish leaders and militia units in the north have made control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk a top priority for their region, Shiites have identified Basra as the economic engine of Iraq's Shiite south. Basra is near Iraq's largest oil fields, with billions of dollars in proven reserves, and is home to the only shipping port in Iraq.

While there are many signs that Iran is backing the Shiite push for control of Basra, it's not clear to what extent the Iranian government is formally involved, said Brig. Gen. James Everard, who commands the British brigade in Basra.

"Do we see weapons technology that has Iranian hallmarks on it? Yes, we do," he said. "Is it freelance work by Iranians or is it official policy? I don't know."

Some British officers also believe that Iran is working through Iraq's Shiite-dominated central government.".......

[brickhistory]

"They quite simply aren't the weapons we were looking for. "

Oh no! The old Jedi mind trick.....

Best laugh I've had all day!





And I agree with you that we are in Round 2 vice a new war.

[Maple 01]

How has this war improved the lot of the average Iraqi?

Lets see, Marsh Arabs are:
a. No longer being rounded up and shot as a matter of state policy
b. Slowly getting their marshes back, now that their destruction (state policy under Mr S Hussain) has been (or is in the process of being) reversed
c. No longer being lined up for mass graves - caveats apply - it's much more free-lance these days

Kurds are
a. No longer being gassed
b. Not dragged from their beds and tortured as a matter of course in pursuit of state sponsored pacification
c. No longer being lined up for mass graves

The Shia are
a. No longer being fed into shredders, blast furnaces, wild beasts etc
b. Not Starved
c. No longer being lined up for mass graves- caveats apply - it's much more free-lance these days
d. Not treated like dogs

The Sunni are
a. No longer getting to repress the majority of the Iraqi people
b. Not Lining up people for mass graves except in a mutual genocidal spiral of violence where anyone can play, not just the members of the Ba’ath party
c. Top dogs

Of course the ungrateful bastards above are running a minor civil war, but what the heck, we fU@ked the place up in 1919 to start with

How has this war improved the stability of the region?

Hello! Iran-Iraq war 1980-88? Arab-Israel wars 1947/67/74
Well at least we won’t see round two of the Iran-Iraq war, death toll somewhere in the reagion of 1,000,000

Has this war and US foreign policy in general contributed to a nuclear arms race in the region? Egypt, Saudi Arabia expressing an interest here.

Direct result of the Iraq war?

Silly me, I thought Mr Saddam Hussein, purveyor of genocide to the masses since the 1960s or indefatigable first son of .....Copyright G Galloway had a nuclear program in place before GW1.
Israel – went nuclear some time in the late 1960s,
Egypt showed an interest in the 1970s

Don’t tell me the India –Pakistan thing is GW’s fault too, they’ve managed nuclear programs without ‘imperialist Yankee interference’ or whatever the ‘Stop the War’ coalition buzz word is this week (note to ‘Stop the War Coalition’ the war is over, you can go home now, you might even like to go back to using soap now and again)naah, the technology has come of age and is freely available, mainly thanks to our Russian chums, even Rutland is thinking of going independant and getting the bomb

What effect has this war had on the long term sustainability of UK/US Armed forces?

Got me there, remember Farscape? The last few episodes when they knew the show was canceled were prefixed ‘we’re so screwed’ – having said that I’ve felt like that since ‘Options for Change’

What has this war done for the standing and good name of the UK in the World?

Let’s see, er nothing good and provides a convent stick to beat the US with, strangely the same people indulging in this sport are less inclined to speak out about Chechnya, Kashmir etc, but I suppose they are harder to spell on protest placards


What has this war done for the security of the British people here in the UK?

Nothing good, having said that those Islamic extremists hit the US before the invasion, their main beef seems that the US is too successful and not stuck in the 12th century – bloody Yanks, also they have got short memories – no cries of jihad against the infidel when we were saving the Kosovo Albanians I notice. We get the back-wash as guilt by association - to be fair without the UK there would have been no US

How has this war contributed to the security of the situation in Afghanistan?

Well, it’s better than it was when the Taliban were running the show, unless you’re less than keen on extending human rights to the 50% of the population that were previously on the same level as cattle or fixtures and fittings and you think it would be cute to let the entire place slip into a new and exciting form of religious nuttery including Islamic racialist brainwashing in the madrasas. OTOH the drug eradication program is pushing the farmers into the hands of the Taliban, HiB and er the other groups whose names I’ve forgotten, it’s stupid, buy the drugs and burn them or do whatever – got to be cheaper in the long-run and less expensive in lives

Want me to go on.
Please, don't let me stop you, the sound of self-righteousness in your postings suggests a job at the Guardian is imminent

War mongering for the sake of it is a particularly stupid idea.

True, but sitting around wringing hands whilst sitting on fences* doing nothing isn’t the best policy either, see Munich, Bosnia etc for more information.

And hindsight is, in the words of kid Creole and the Coconuts, a wonderful thing baby - or did you now what was going to happen all along and if so can you tell me who's going to win the 2.30 at Newmarket?

*Don’t over balance whilst doing this, it contravenes the HASAWA 1974

[nigegilb]

I am not a hand wringer. Nobody ever accused me of sitting on the fence either, til now. I was against the war in 2003 so at least I have been consistent.

I am pleased for the Marsh Arabs I really am, however, GWB went for his regime change but forgot about security first. Most of the Iraqi middle classes have gone. The Kurdish region was already semi autonomous and I would like to see them have full autonomy but you won't see our dear leader offering that one. As for the rest. Well, people tend to vote with their feet.

"The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says up to 50,000 Iraqis abandon their homes every month. “Iraq is the big one,” UNHCR’s regional representative Stephane Jaquemet said.

The agency estimates that up to 2 million Iraqis have moved to neighbouring countries, mainly Syria and Jordan, before and since the war, while 1.7 million are internally displaced.

Jaquemet said he feared Syria and Jordan, which each host anywhere between half a million and a million Iraqis, might eventually close their borders to the refugees—many of whom are fast exhausting whatever resources they brought with them."

Iran knows that if it joins the nuclear club the US will not invade. And so it hastens its nuclear plans. By invading Iraq in 2003 the US sent a message around the World.

" If Iran acquired nuclear arms, it would provoke a nuclear arms race in the region.

During the Iran-Iraq War, for example, the Saudis bought long-range missiles from the Chinese that it could arm with nuclear warheads. The Saudis could easily keep Pakistani nuclear warheads on these missiles and remain in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty by simply seeing that the Pakistanis had a key to the nuclear warheads.

The Egyptians might also decide that they want to match Iran's capabilities and undertake a nuclear program. Such proliferation would encourage other Arab countries to follow. Some in Turkey have already begun reassessing the country's position within the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iraq, too, may one day want to reassert itself."

General Dannatt has warned that the British Army could be broken by Iraq. The RAF is in no better shape and the Royal Navy is about to be sacrificed in part to pay for the war. The Taliban have been allowed to regroup whilst the West was distracted by the Iraq War and now Afg has to be fought for yet again. Meanwhile at home we have disaffected muslim youth ready to fight, having been heavily influenced by imagery of their "brothers" being slaughtered abroad. Oh and we have prevented another Iran/Iraq war from happening by kindly fighting it for them.

But hey, I should stop now before the self righteousness goes too far. I don't know about WMD but I do know that our forces should only be used as a matter of last resort. You cannot say that is what happened with Iraq.

[ORAC]

I don't know about WMD but I do know that our forces should only be used as a matter of last resort. I have a list somewhere, from a PJHQ brief, that names the military campaigns in which the armed forces have been involved since 1945. Korea, Malaysia, Aden, Oman etc. It contains well over 60 entries.........

[nigegilb]

How many of those were Tony's, the former CND member for Sedgefield?!

[Sunray Minor]

Maple,

You are a lost cause. Even George Bush and the Iraq Survey Group don't claim these scattered munitions were the "smoking gun", constituted any kind of threat or were even the weapons they were searching for.

You really are clutching at straws if you are using that as a justification. In fact, until you raised the point, not even the most rabid supporters of the war were claiming so. How does it feel to be in the insane minority?

[Maple 01]

I'm insane because I don't hold your world view? Nice, with such debating skills the Oxford Debating society must be holding a place open for you!

By the strict interpretation of UNSCR 687 ANY chemical round is a breach of the ceasefire - you don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.

It's rather like arguing with Neo-Nazis on other forums (not that I'm suggesting you are one) hard facts, which the UNSCR is, are dismissed as irrelevant, out of context or any other weasel words. Stage two is equivalence so I'll do the spade-work up front here, the argument usually goes

"Yer but, right, he might have killed millions (or hundreds of thousands in the case of Saddam) BUT the west/Bush/Blair/Israel/the Dagenham Girl Pipers were worse because (insert irrelevant facile comparison here)"

Saddam had thousands murdered on his orders, those killed subsequently to the 2003 war died as a result of the actions of 'insurgents' drawn from many sources and none as a US/UK policy of genocide - see the difference?

The anti Israeli lobby may now open fire with 'why should Saddam have to comply with UNSCRs when the land of the Red Sea pedestrians doesn’t' - conveniently forgetting there are several types of UNSCR ranging from 'mandatory' through to 'would you please, pretty please'. Saddam was under the first type.

Personally

a. I'm glad the bastard is dead, my only regret is we didn't get to him sooner but sadly we've had to live with real politick, AKA the politics of the possible - do you want him back?

b. We screwed Iraq in 1919, with the break-up of the Ottoman empire the Kurds should have been given Kurdistan, the Shia should have had their bit and the Sunni could have got on with what's left. Then they could have got on with their genocides and ethnic cleansing in the 1920s/30s. Oh no, Britain and France decided to divide up the region into protectorates. Wilson's plan for self determination got conveniently forgotten about and we ended up in the mess we have today

c. If we got our act together and weren’t so dependent on oil from the Arabian peninsula the world might be a better place

d. If the UN weren’t so cr@p the world might be abetter place - third-world peacekeepers anyone?

Apologies for thread hijack and lack of funnies

[Sunray Minor]

No Maple,

You are missing the hard facts.

It is physically impossible for Iraq to dispose of weapons it didn't know still existed, no less that the weapons found were not the ones inspectors were searching for and were no longer operational. No one other than a lunatic would invoke UNSCR 687 on such grounds to make an invasion....hmmmm, actually I suppose that makes sense now. Such fundamentalist interpretation of a document is the same justification used by religious fanatics for murder.

It would be like claiming the US is involved in selling nuclear weapons material since radioactive substances go missing from US installations every year; obviously this isn't the case, it is simply impossible to be 100% accurate, especially when you country has been bombed and sanctioned. Or likewise, claiming John Reid should be convicted and tried for the cannabis discovered in his home last year. Utterly ridiculous, but according to the black and white, "letter of the law" world you seem to live in, quite justified.

It is a false justification for the war and you would be much better off for your own credibility sticking to the secondary argument for war - to depose Saddam.

[nigegilb]

Furthermore there was no specific authorisation for war from the Security Council. Take this view from a team of well known International Lawyers.

We consider that it is far from clear that material breaches of a cease-fire agreement authorise the use of force in response. However, if such use of force can ever be justified, this is clearly a decision to be taken by the Security Council. The constitutional arguments considered above apply with equal force in this context. Given the purpose of the system of collective decision-making, the emphasis on peaceful resolution wherever possible, and the Security Council’s active management of the Iraqi situation to date, the better view is that neither breaches of the cease-fire agreement nor breaches of any other resolution authorise the unilateral use of force. Such use of force by the United Kingdom would therefore violate international law.


In summary, our opinion is that:
The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:
Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom’s assistance; or
an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or
the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.
Iraq has not attacked the United Kingdom, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack is imminent.
Our view is that current Security Council resolutions do not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Such force would require further authorisation from the Security Council.
At present the United Kingdom is therefore not entitled, in international law, to use force against Iraq.


Apologies for posting this again. But Maple, you are not a lawyer. Stick to the day job fella. Not even the dear leader came out with your arguments, even in his desperation to justify the war.

[Sunray Minor]

Nige,
I always found it amusing that we launched this war in violation of the security council under the claim of upholding the security council resolution.

Much like the mad dictator who dissolves parliament and take control under the claim that only he knows better.

If one thing came out of this, it certainly showed me how manipulation of the truth and the media can make invasion justified. I find it hard to hold any hatred for German or Japanese civilians who similarly supported their 1940s invasions - they were simply misguided in just the same way people here are.

[nigegilb]

Agreed. What is of interest to me is the responsibility of the invaders to uphold law and order in the country thay have invaded. US and UK singularly failed to do this. If the dear leader tries to duck out of Iraq now, and leave behind a blood bath, he really will have broken every rule in the book. Did not want to steer this thread into a legality question. My points were really about what have we achieved, aside from a disaster? The lack of strategic thinking is staggering. I'm just a comprehensive school boy from the Midlands but I managed to work it out!!

[Maple 01]

you are not a lawyer.

Nope, guilty of much but not that! But I do work for the Rozzers, and if the law says 'no class A drugs' and your house has some it's no defence to say 'oh, sorry, didn't know they were there' - ignorance is no excuse - now where have I heard that before?

no less that the weapons found were not the ones inspectors were searching for and were no longer operational.

I've already warned you off trying to use the force against a retired Storm trouper (Star Wars stylie rather than Waffen SS)

No longer operational? Tell that to the Yank EOD guys that were cas-evaced for exposure to phosgene. The gas shells from WW1 are still 'operational' as in they'll kill you given half a chance, the stockpile of BW stuff found at Spandau from WW2 was still viable, and chances are the lot that was dumped at Portreath are still 'live'. A six form chemistry student could recycle the contents. But hey, no biggie, right guys?

Look, twist it as you want, SH was in breach of UNSCR 687, look it up on tinternet and see if he had any wriggle room

[nigegilb]

Jesus Maple, you are not Lord Goldsmoth are you?


Resolution 686, para 4, which marked the provisional cessation of hostilities, expressly preserved the right to use force under Resolution 678. However, Resolution 687, which marked the permanent ceasefire, uses no such terms. This demonstrates a clear recognition that the right to use force requires express terms if it is to be continued. The absence of any clear terms in any resolution after 686 leads us to the conclusion that no such use of force was authorised.

Further, Resolution 687 states that the Security Council ‘[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.’ This clearly contemplates that the Security Council remains seized of the matter and will itself decide what further steps may be required for the implementation of that resolution.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has made it clear that Resolution 678 was directed at a unique and specific situation:
‘The Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait was the first instance since the founding of the Organisation in which one Member State sought to completely overpower and annex another. The unique demands presented by this situation have summoned forth innovative measures which have given practical expression to the Charter’s concepts of how international peace and security might be maintained.’ (The United Nations Blue Book Series Vol IX, The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990-1996 (1996), at 3)

Those ‘unique demands’ relating to the invasion and occupation are no longer in existence. The Secretary General’s remarks underline how exceptional the United Nations considers the use of force, and how dependent the decision to use force was on the fact that Iraq had actually invaded another Member State. No such action has been taken by Iraq since then.

[Sunray Minor]

Yeah Maple,

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

Try sticking one of those into a 155 and seeing where it goes. Then I suppose you would accuse the Iraqi red-legs of being suicide bombers though wouldn't you.

But if it makes you feel better about the invasion that has turned into a massacre, whatever floats your boat.

[Maple 01]

So I've got dyslexia! Sorry mate, Resolution 678, still valid though isn't it? Or has the Secretary General got the powers to overturn or interpret resolutions after the even as he sees fit?

I don't think he has without referring back to the permanent members of the UNSCR

BTW which web-site did you pick that up from? I'm guessing you didn't do it off the top of your head and we were always advised to 'show all working'

Edited to add
At least two sources found that match
peaceright.org
lawersagainstthewar.org

Hmmmm, unbiased untainted primary sources - not

Try sticking one of those into a 155 and seeing where it goes. Then I suppose you would accuse the Iraqi red-legs of being suicide bombers though wouldn't you.

If it's not in a ammo box and waiting to go it's not a risk? BTW the BM21 rounds were shiny and 'as new' in ammo crates, just waiting to be mated up to the propellant - did you ever read any of the int reports?

But if it makes you feel better about the invasion that has turned into a massacre, whatever floats your boat.

Play the ball old chap, not the man!

[nigegilb]

Neither of those and I am not disclosing. Reputable lawyers will suffice. Certain lawyers sought an opinion from recognised experts.

Why don't you try a search of your own and post some legalise from some pro-war lawyers? Apart fron the dear leader and his puppy the Attorney General. For some reason Lord Goldsmith will not disclose. Hmm guess it has something to do with WMD that never existed then.

My last post on this, don't wish to bore everyone else to death. I have given up trying to change your mind. No prob, damage is done anyway. Can't blame you for it.

BTW 678 no longer applies.

Resolution 678, at paragraph 2, authorised Member States ‘to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.’ (emphasis added) Resolution 660 had the sole aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. After that had been achieved, Resolution 687 imposed a formal cease-fire. That cease-fire was conditional on Iraq’s acceptance of certain terms. It did accept those terms. The Security Council’s current requirements of Iraq are contained in Resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions.

[Maple 01]

Ahhhh! you are so busted!

Don't fold up your tent and go away, just went you were winning! I mean, how can I compete with a cut-and-paste job from an undisclosed single source - hold on isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
Used to see the same thing from the Neo-Nazis posting links to 'Stormfront' as validation of their arguments - I'll give you that though - smart not telling me where you got if from - can't check for bias

Now questions you haven't answered, multi choice

Do you want Saddam back? Y/N
Were forbidden chemical weapons found? Y/N

[BillHicksRules]

Maple,
I suggest that you read the UNSCR (687) that you continue to quote.
For your info,
"Prior to the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 678, authorizing use of “all necessary means” to uphold UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait) and subsequent resolutions, and to “restore international peace and security in the area.” This was the basis for use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.
At the end of the Gulf War, the Security Council imposed obligations on Iraq requiring it to end its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, as a condition of the cease-fire declared under UNSCR 687. Because Iraq has materially breached these WMD obligations, which were essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under UNSCR 678."
Quoted from John Dillinger III, NSC in an article to the CFR, entitled "Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law"
Now the mistake that you make and the crux of the whole matter on the deposing of SH was that none of the UNSCRs were written with either the intention or desire to enable regime change in Iraq.
Hence the failed attempts by the "coalition of the willing" to get a UNSCR that would. When it became obvious that they could not they simply decided that the UN was irrelevant and did anyway. For this check the quotes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al on the matter. There are far too many to post here.
Now you come back and claim that the UN gave the US the right to attack when all the UN gave them the right to do was what it did in 1990.
In the above article John Dillinger actually makes the mistake of stating where, under US law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Lets see if you can find it.
Cheers
BHR

Edited to take in to consideration your recent edit, Maple.

It is sad to see you resorting to the old Bushism of "You are either for the war or want to see the return of Saddam Hussein".

It is actually possible to be both against the war and happy that SH is dead.

[Maple 01]

Hi Bill, didn't know you were in, are you having a nice day?

Do you want to fill in the second part of the multi-choice questionnaire too?

You wanted SH gone, how were you planning on doing it? Peace vigil or bed-in?

[nigegilb]

I know the sort of places you Int guys hang out on a night off.

Just remember that.

BTW the lawyer I got the gen from has represented many soldiers in high profile cases. Just to put your mind at ease.

That was definitely my last posting. For the moment!

[Maple 01]

If you mean 'The Blue Oyster bar' it's all true - see you there. But I'm ex now so not much chance of being followed by black Omigas

Anyway about these Iranian rifles.........

[nigegilb]

Hey Maple,
Here is the contact number for The Hague war tribunal. You can talk to anyone there, even the cleaner will tell you that the war was illegal. You can even send a postcard!

Cheers,

Nige


Postal Address
International Criminal Court
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands

+31 (0)70 515 8487

[Maple 01]

Are you back for more? Give up while you're behind! Unless you've got more words of wisdom from you unattributable legal source

Has either Bush or Blair been indited?
Even the cleaner knows the answer to that one

Hoping it was so isn't going to make it happen, enjoy your impotent rage!

Anyway about these Iranian rifles.........

[BillHicksRules]

Maple,
So the test is now that it will only be illegal if someone is brought to trial?
I am afraid not.
The invasion of Iraq is illegal under the UN Charter and the US Constitution.
The only reason that Bush has not been charged is the lack of spine of the rest of your so called government.
Clinton was hounded for years on the basis of a blowjob only because of the partisan nature of the House and the Senate.
Now the Democrats have turned that around they do not have the spine to go after a homegrown War Criminal because it might be seen as "partisan".
Bush has broken both state and federal US laws and multiple international treaties but the Democrats do not want to act since it might be deemed "unseemly" or "spiteful". To hell with the fact that justice is not being done.
The Democrats have had to make a choice between Justice and having a shot at the White House next year. So much for "for the people and by the people".
Now you may feel that this is Anti-American, and that is your right. However, I am not that. I am simply pro-Justice and pro-truth. Concepts that used to define the US but are now alien and "unpatriotic".
Many people say that the Kennedy Assasination in 1963 was the "end of the American innocence". I would say that the election of GWB was the death of the American soul and the end of democracy in the US.
Cheers
BHR

[brickhistory]

My dear BHR,

Please be good enough to tell me what US state and/or federal laws President Bush has broken? And how was the war illegal under the US Constitution? What charges would you have brought against him in a US court?

I'll pass on the international issues for now in an effort to narrow the scope of the question.

As an aside but to be accurate, while I agree that the impeachment of Clinton was ludicrous, he wasn't prosocuted for getting a hummer from a fat chick, but rather lying about it under oath.

I really do not seek to enter a mud-slinging match over the merits of Republicans or Democrats, both parties leave much to be desired. Any different for your lot?