American Intelligence
 

Thought the evidence against Iraq presented on the news yesterday (5th Feb) was very flimsy.

How are we expected to believe the radio conversations between 2 iraqi officers ever even happened.

I'm not terribly convinced by it all at the moment.

The Americans have nothing to gain and everything to lose by presenting false or manicured evidence.

Additionally everytime they reveal more evidence they uncover their sources which are now compromised.

The Intelligence staff of the USA will doubtless talk to the Intelligence staff of other countries and substantiate their information, these other countries Int. staff can then reassure their UN representatives. One thing you can be sure of is that the USA won't give away to Jo Public any more than they have to, for obvious reasons.

Personally I thought the new evidence was both credible and compelling.

I agree that these revelations - true or otherwise - are thin and unconvincing, and are not adequate justification for war. Presumably the US int folk would have made this stuff, and more, available to the various UN reps before letting Jo Public in on the act, so why are the USA and the UK still out on their own?

Was that it :confused:

Manicured evidence? You mean they hit the nail on the head or that it's got the NSA's fingerprints all over it? :O

If I had contol of the satellite joysticks, I would line them up to the Rep Guard units that those intercepts were from, count to 5 and watch the fun as the lose mouthed culprits are dragged off to the chopping block so their tongues can be ripped out! Now that would make good evidence.

Easy to argue that so far no convincing evidence has been presented but the weight of circumstantial evidence has been increased considerably this week and I for one cannot understand what there is for either the Americans or the Brits in either manufacturing or exaggerating the case for war. I accept that it could deflect attention from poor domestic economies but it is adversely affecting both at the moment because of the threat of war. It could also be argued that oil is the consideration but if that were the case you would have to expect that a war in the Gulf would stabilise the Middle East - I don't think so. It is very likely to destabilise both Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the long term especially if Saddam's party is replaced by democracy. Why then should either the Bush or Blair administrations want a war?

No, you cynics need to offer some logic and come up with something much more convincing to enable me to discount the information given by Colin Powell. It appears that we are taking the difficult path not the easy one, the motivation is honourable and devoid of selfish interest and we are fast approaching the time when loyalty and strength of purpose will be called for.

When we reach the point where conflict is inevitable I hope all the cynics will get off their current positions and offer solid support to those in the firing line. We are not far off that point now and I offer my good wishes to all those about to deploy in our National interests. Come back safely.

With particular reference to Dubbya, isn't ,American Intelligence, an oxymoron?

....what about Military Intelligence?

Or even "thats a nice pint of Keo."

...but why has it taken 12 fu****g years for the world to chat about this, and who really thinks that 'more time' is the go?.

Hopefully those dets to the sand will go away in the near??? future.

I guess we shall wait and see what the exit strategy is [& when].

Hidden Agenda?
 

Yes, given the extent of the evidence against Iraq now one must wonder why the USA and UK are out there alone. One is bound to think that despite the altruistic motives being paraded by France, China and Russia these three must have a hidden agenda.

France is easy to spot, having been a witness to their business methods in the Middle East since the early 1960s but China and Russia are not so obvious to me.

ORAC I never thought beyond cosmetic!:D

Presumably once we have finished with Iraq, we can pop down to get Robert Mugabe - then hop across the Irish Sea via Israel.... All countries with as much of a history of terrorism and with much clearer evidence.

What is the saying about three blind men and an elephant?

Kipling said it this way.....


For all we have and are,
For all our children's fate,
Stand up and take the war.
The Hun is at the gate!
Our world has passed away,
In wantonness o'erthrown.
There is nothing left to-day
But steel and fire and stone!
Though all we knew depart,
The old Commandments stand: --
"In courage keep your heart,
In strength lift up your hand."


No easy hope or lies
Shall bring us to our goal,
But iron sacrifice
Of body, will, and soul.
There is but one task for all --
One life for each to give.
What stands if Freedom fall?
Who dies if England live?

Kipling understood it !

Boots and Saddles has been sounded....time for Tommy to earn his pay.

Cyrus, there are cynics and there are sceptics in this matter; I am one of the latter as I still question that the evidence provided so far provides justification for war against Iraq. If you were able to watch Blair on BBC TV last night being taken apart by Jeremy Paxman and a studio audience you would know what I mean. He was not in the least bit persuasive. But if we do go to war, I shall certainly offer my solid support to those in the firing line as well as pray for a speedy solution.

And Lifeguard....act your age!

Zoom, I understand your scepticism and there are literally millions of unconvinced people in both UK and USA. However, despite our Tone having a hard time dealing with Paxman, we are getting the 'we've gotta sort out Saddam' message from both the Bush and Blair administrations. The aforementioned politicians are the visible faces putting the views forward but we have to understand that their views are formed in consulation with their colleagues and their intelligence services and military chiefs. If they are not putting forward the views of their administrations I would expect by now to have heard more dissent. I sincerely hope that before the first shots are fired they are able to release more convincing evidence without jeopardising our sources or forces but there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence already disclosed.

It is laughable the way we allowed this tyrant to dodge and weave for 12 years and avoid the undertakings with which he retained his freedom at the conclusion of the last war. It is despicable that the countries that have continued to trade with his regime despite sanctions should now be the main voices of dissent within the UN. If we let him off the hook this time we will reap what we have sown.

A dear friend reports the French are now complete with a live fire exercise in the Gulf Region, lots of tanks running about going boom bang...unmarked Mirages zooming about....AWACS operating in the area.....unless I miss my mark here....sounds like they might anticipate some combat and want to be trained up for the event.

When it happens....the French will be there too.

But then again, as someone else has so nicely put it....."Going to war without the French, is like going deer hunting without an Acordion."

T3,
That's a little strong, don't you think, old chap? Surely better to tone down the verbals, and reply with reasoning, heh?

T3, I have to agree with bootscooter. If we all stick to reasoned debate, we won't have any more threads shut down.

Just a thought.

tug3: Suck it.

Republicans don't waste words on children.

There are many saying that to 'go it alone' would be a slap in the face to the U.N. Where have they been for the last 12 years of Saddam's face slapping the U.N.? Now we (the west) are the bad guys? PLEASE! Unpalatable as the prospect of war is, George/Tony/others are right to be upping the ante, and NOW.
How does one show resolve if one does not deploy forces to the area in order to acclimatise/familiarise/train for the possible action, with or without U.N. sanction? To defer the preparations is to waffle gutlessly and only make the job harder in the long run.
Also, I can't believe 'it's really about oil'. If it was, the coalition could have held the oilfields in 1991, or even take them now for that matter.
And it's not about religion. People in the western democracies, of all faiths, are more free and accepted than, say, Christians in many Muslim countries. While democracies are not perfect, there are a lot of people moving around the world trying to get away from other systems, and that's enough proof for me.
I find the present appeasers and procrastinators disappointingly naive.