So...where are the weapons?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2972384.stm
No 10 admits dossier failings
The British Government wrote to the intelligence and security services to admit there were failings in its controversial second dossier on Iraq's weapons, it has emerged.
A Downing Street spokesman said Alastair Campbell, Prime Minister Tony Blair's director of communications, told the agencies "far greater care" would be taken in dealing with anything which might impact on their reputation and work.
February's dossier - the second on Iraq - was widely criticised when it emerged part of it was copied from a 12-year-old thesis by an American student.
The first document to make the case for war, published last September, is being investigated by MPs.
Downing Street has denied Mr Campbell's intervention amounts to an apology.
The prime minister is under increasing pressure over the way the government made the case for war in Iraq, with coalition forces yet to find weapons of mass destruction.
The Conservatives have repeatedly called for an independent inquiry into whether intelligence documents were changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for military action.
Meanwhile, intelligence officers are holding a "smoking gun" showing they came under pressure for evidence to use against Iraq in the run-up to the conflict, it is reported.
The Independent on Sunday says intelligence services were so concerned about demands made by Downing Street they kept detailed records of communications with the prime minister's staff.
The Sunday Telegraph reported Mr Campbell wrote a personal letter to Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).
The paper claims senior intelligence officers were furious the document had been made up of their own information combined with other sources.
'Excellent terms'
In response to the paper's story, a Downing Street spokesman said: "Like many other stories on weapons of mass destruction, this one is totally overblown.
"What happened in the wake of the controversy surrounding the second dossier was that Alastair Campbell spoke to those who had been responsible for its production to demand tighter procedures.
"He also assured the (intelligence) agencies that far greater care would be taken in dealing with anything that might impact on their reputation or their work."
The spokesman added: "Alastair is on excellent terms with the head of the Secret Intelligence Service."
Downing Street said it would not characterise it as a "letter of apology".
But a Conservative Party spokesman said: "We don't need an apology from Alastair Campbell - what we need is an independent inquiry into what was going on in Number 10 over the presentation of intelligence reports."
And Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme: "The government's credibility, the prime minister's credibility is on the line because nobody believes what he says anymore.
"The only way to clear that up, and to make sure that our troops and our intelligence services are trusted in the next few years during the reconstruction, is to have an independent inquiry."
'Honest appraisal'
Chancellor Gordon Brown insisted that "the evidence and history will prove that Tony Blair made a courageous and the right decision over Iraq".
"I believe that all countries, when we passed the UN resolution... believed that there were and are weapons of mass destruction," he told the programme.
Home Secretary David Blunkett said: "I think it would have been better if we hadn't published that dossier because it was about the background to Iraq - it wasn't about the identification of WMD."
The letter had been "an honest appraisal" by Mr Campbell, but a line should be drawn under the issue, he told BBC's The Politics Show.
'Not doctored'
The second dossier, entitled Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation, was distributed to journalists on Mr Blair's trip to Washington to discuss plans for war.
There was a furore when it was revealed parts were lifted from a thesis on the internet.
The Sunday Telegraph claims it was not first cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee before being published.
That committee approved the first dossier, published in September, which is now subject to an inquiry by the Commons foreign affairs select committee.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is also investigating that report, which the government denies was doctored in order to muster support for war.
A key point of contention in the first dossier was the claim that Iraq could launch a chemical attack in 45 minutes.
Downing Street is standing by the intelligence provided in that report. -
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,193858,00.html?
Exaggerated threats: Iraq's part of pattern
By FAREED ZAKARIA
NEWSWEEK
IT IS too early to conclude that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. A little history might provide perspective. Since 1991, United Nations weapons inspectors have found and destroyed weapons in Iraq that include a supergun, 48 Scud missiles, 500,000 litres of chemical-weapons agents, 1.8 million litres of precursor chemicals, and large quantities of equipment related to biological warfare.
Still, inspectors were sure large quantities of weapons were missing. In July 1998, for example, UN inspectors found a document showing that Iraq had deliberately overstated - by 6,000 - the number of chemical bombs it had used in the Iran-Iraq War. The 6,000 chemical bombs are still missing.
But it is also clear that the United States government overstated the threat posed by Iraq. It exaggerated what it knew and made definitive statements where the intelligence was murky. Mr Richard Butler, the UN's chief weapons inspector during the late 1990s and a supporter of the war, wrote last week in The Australian: 'Clearly, a decision had been taken to pump up the case against Iraq.'
This should not surprise us. For decades, some conservatives, including many who now wield great influence, have had a tendency to vastly exaggerate the threat posed by tyrannical regimes. It all started with the now famous 'Team B' exercise.
During the early 1970s, hard-line conservatives pilloried the Central Intelligence Agency for being soft on the Soviets. As a result, CIA director George Bush agreed to allow a team of external experts to look at the intelligence and come to their own conclusions. Team B - which included current Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - produced a scathing report, claiming that the Soviet threat had been badly underestimated.
In retrospect, Team B's conclusions were wildly off the mark. Describing the Soviet Union, in 1976, as having 'a large and expanding gross national product', it predicted that it would modernise and expand its military at an awesome pace. For example, it predicted that the Backfire bomber 'probably will be produced in substantial numbers, with perhaps 500 aircraft off the line by early 1984'. In fact, the Soviets had 235 of such aircraft in 1984.
The reality was that even the CIA's own estimates - savaged as too low by Team B - were, in retrospect, gross exaggerations. In 1989, the CIA published an internal review of its threat assessments from 1974 to 1986 and concluded that, every year, it had 'substantially overestimated' the Soviet threat along all dimensions. For example, in 1975, the CIA forecast that within 10 years, the Soviet Union would replace 90 per cent of its long-range bombers and missiles. In fact, by 1985, the Soviet Union had replaced less than 60 per cent of them.
In the 1990s, some of these same conservatives decided that China was the new enemy. The only problem was that China was still a Third World country and could hardly be seen as a grave threat to the United States. What followed was wild speculation about the size of the Chinese military and accusations that it had engaged in massive theft of American nuclear secrets. This came to a crescendo with the publication of the Cox Commission Report in 1999, which claimed that Chinese military spending was twice what the CIA estimated.
The Cox report is replete with speculation, loose assumptions and errors of fact.
The book it cites in its footnotes for its military-spending numbers, for example, does not say what the report claims.
Iraq is part of a pattern. In each of these cases, arguments about the threat posed by a country rest in large part on the character of the regime. The Team B report explains that the CIA's analysis was flawed because it was based on too much 'hard data' - meaning facts - and neglected to divine Soviet intentions. The Chinese regime is assumed to be a mortal danger because it is Leninist. Saddam Hussein was assumed to be working on a vast weapons programme because he was an evil man.
Let's never forget that these regimes are nasty, and that does matter greatly. But threat assessment must be based not simply on the intentions of an adversary, but on his capabilities as well. This is an important lesson as we move forward to deal with repressive regimes like those in North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. They are evil and may need to be confronted. But let us do so with a clear and accurate picture of the threat they pose, not some figment of our fevered imaginations.
What we discovered about the Soviet Union after the Cold War was that it was every bit as evil as we had thought - indeed more so - but that it was a whole lot less powerful than we had feared. That is what we will probably discover about Saddam's Iraq. -
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,193919,00.html?
Al-Qaeda 'refused to work with Saddam'
WASHINGTON - Two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al-Qaeda in American custody have told the CIA that the terrorist organisation did not work jointly with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence officials.
Abu Zubaydah, an Al-Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Saddam's government had been discussed among Al-Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals.
In his debriefing, Abu Zubaydah said Osama had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Saddam, said an official who has read the CIA's classified report on the interrogation.
Separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al-Qaeda chief of operations until his capture on March 1 in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that the group did not work with Saddam, officials said.
The Bush administration has not made these statements public, though it frequently highlighted intelligence reports that supported its assertions of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda as it made its case for war.
Since the war ended, and since the administration has yet to uncover evidence of nuclear or biological weapons in Iraq, the quality of American intelligence has come under scrutiny amid contentions that the administration selectively disclosed only those intelligence reports that supported its case for war.
Mr Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the agency, declined to comment on what the two Al-Qaeda leaders had told their questioners.
A senior intelligence official played down the significance of their debriefings, saying that everything Al-Qaeda detainees say must be regarded with great scepticism.
Spokesmen at the White House, State Department and Pentagon declined to comment on why Abu Zubaydah's debriefing report was not disclosed publicly by the administration last year. -- New York Times -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2970158.stm
Iraqis' cupboards still bare
By Anu Anand
In Iraq
The resumption of Iraq's food ration programme has been seen as a sign of returning normalcy after the US-led invasion. But for Iraqis, depending on handouts, even after 12 years of sanctions, is anything but normal.
The refrigerator was completely empty.
Not partially empty, with a few leftover eggs, a small block of sweating cheese, maybe a few soft tomatoes.
It was barren. All four shelves dark, cavernous and empty.
My host, Sanaa, looked embarrassed. "It shouldn't be this way," she said. "I'm educated. I'm a trained engineer. Still, we have no food."
A mother-of-four, Sanaa was a petite woman with large eyes and a stomach that curved inwards. She cut a forlorn figure in the darkened kitchen.
It was a sweltering Baghdad afternoon. But this middle-class neighbourhood, like the rest of the city, was suffering yet another electricity blackout.
Dressed entirely in black - black trousers, black blouse and headscarf - Sanaa said she was in mourning. Not for the destruction wrought upon her country. Her grief was far more personal.
"My father died a few weeks ago, during the war, as the bombs were falling on Baghdad," she said.
"He was old, yes, but he died from weakness. The sanctions and the wars killed him before his time."
But even in her distress, Sanaa was acutely aware of her duties as a hostess.
"I would offer you some coffee and biscuits," she said, looking around at the empty shelves. "But..." She trailed off, spreading her hands in a gesture of defeat.
Picnics and garden parties
Years ago, before sanctions, before Iraq's successive wars, the biggest health problem amongst Iraqi children was obesity. Hunger was never deeply felt.
Summer was a time of picnics and garden parties laid out with long skewers of grilled kebabs and platters of rice and lamb so large and heavy, it took two grown men to carry them.
Food was once at the heart of Iraq's culture of hospitality. Today, Iraqis are lucky if their potatoes last through the week.
Not that potatoes are even part of the government's ration programme.
Sanaa showed me the sheet of postage-stamp-sized coupons every Iraqi family uses to claim its monthly rations.
"We get sugar, a sack of flour, rice, cooking oil, soap, detergent, milk, lentils and beans," she explained.
"But no meat or bread or vegetables. It's very difficult. We can afford meat maybe once a week. But mostly, it's rice and potatoes. Rice I have left over from rations before the war. And potatoes - they're filling and they don't rot easily."
The resumption of rations means Iraqi families will have the basics once again. But it's hardly the same as eating well, feeling full and happy and able to cope with daily life.
So many Iraqis complained to me of their children going to school hungry; of their daily struggle in the summer heat, feeling weak and tired; of the sick dying for lack of proper food and clean water.
All this in a country potentially rich enough to feed itself and others.
Dose of humiliation
Today, even the wealthiest Iraqis are struggling.
The lucky ones employed in essential services, like electricity boards, schools and hospitals occasionally receive $20 handouts and a dose of humiliation.
They're lined up by their new paymasters and photographed by the world's media - all to prove that Iraq is returning to normalcy.
And what can you buy for $20? In the market, a scrawny chicken costs $2. A kilo of lamb $3. Vegetables are considered poor value for money since they rot so quickly in the heat.
And petrol - bubbling from the ground in Iraq, but suddenly as scarce as Saddam Hussein. Rather than queuing day and night for petrol many people have simply abandoned their cars. A taxi ride to and from work costs $4. Multiply that by five days, and your $20 salary may well have never existed.
Sanaa tells me of a relative who was first forced to sell all her jewellery, the pride of any Iraqi woman. Then the family's furniture: the couches, beds, wardrobes, chairs and tables, and finally, the rugs, even the books, to pay for her husband's cancer treatment.
He died, leaving the family alone and destitute.
"The Iraqis," she says, tears of frustration filling her dark brown eyes, "our spirit has been broken.
"The Americans promised us freedom. George Bush said he would liberate us. I want more than liberation. I want to buy my own food in the market. I want a decent job, a salary.
"I don't want to keep a gun in my house to shoot thieves and looters. My children want chocolate and biscuits. Why should we trust the Americans? They are hiding in the Ministry of Oil. They have no idea what our life is like."
Generosity
It was difficult not to feel Sanaa's frustration. I imagined my own life in London interrupted by armed gangs, and the lack of food and electricity.
Yet none of the Iraqis I met expressed even a trace of hatred or contempt for the West or for Westerners like me.
Despite the misery induced by a Western-led war, they were deeply friendly and hospitable.
If there is a measure of hope for Iraq, it lies in the generosity and skill of people like Sanaa. The doctors, teachers, engineers and technicians who have volunteered to keep Baghdad's limited services running.
As I left her empty kitchen, Sanaa gave me a motherly hug.
"Next time you come," she said. "Insha'allah, we will have more to offer you." -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2977114.stm
Saddam uncertainty 'fuelling resistance'
By Nick Childs
BBC Pentagon correspondent, in Lisbon
The failure to account for Saddam Hussein may be encouraging some of the continuing resistance in Iraq, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has said.
Mr Rumsfeld said the lack of information about the former Iraqi president "might give heart" to members of the Baath party who still hoped to take back the country
His remarks come a day after the latest attack on US forces, in which a soldier was killed close to the Syrian border.
Speaking on his way to Portugal at the start of a European tour that will include a Nato defence ministers' meeting, Mr Rumsfeld also said he was hopeful there would be a sizeable foreign contribution to peacekeeping forces in Iraq.
He said no-one thought the attacks on US forces were part of a well-organised, nationally directed campaign, but in some parts of the country there might be "an element of organisation".
Mr Rumsfeld again defended US intelligence on Iraq before the war.
He said it "will end up proving to be correct". And he insisted that any allegation that the intelligence was politicised was false.
The defence secretary said he was hopeful about getting a sizeable set of foreign forces in Iraq to help with peacekeeping, with the first ones likely to arrive in September.
The US was in various types of discussions with 41 countries, he said.
Mr Rumsfeld is on the first leg of a tour of Europe, which is still smarting from its divisions over Iraq.
He will be thanking Portugal and Albania for their support before travelling to Germany, an opponent of US policy.
He will then head to Belgium for the Nato meeting, to discuss changes to forces and command structures in the alliance.
The meeting comes at a time when the US is studying significant changes to its presence in Europe as part of a worldwide military reorganisation - perhaps scaling back traditional bases in Germany and using more facilities in former Soviet bloc countries. -
So, the score card for achieving American aims so far reads:
Getting rid of Saddam - 0.5 (Gone, but not totally gone)
Finding WMDs - 0 (a big fat one)
Giving Iraqis a better life - 0
Destroying an element of terrorism - 0 (Another big fat one)
0.5 out of 4. A great result indeed -
As for giving the Iraqis a better life... I dun see how that's possible... if the americans just left now and left them to their own devices, think they can build themselves up to a modern soceity? If the americans stayed like they did, think the Iraqis will be happy?
Either way, their way of thinking and life of the Iraqis is a cath 22, they'll never break out of their suffering as long as they contuine nto to wake up their idea. -
It is a Catch-22 for the Iraqi people isn't it, but then "giving the Iraqi people a better life" is just another of Dubyas hollow promises.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:As for giving the Iraqis a better life... I dun see how that's possible... if the americans just left now and left them to their own devices, think they can build themselves up to a modern soceity? If the americans stayed like they did, think the Iraqis will be happy?
Either way, their way of thinking and life of the Iraqis is a cath 22, they'll never break out of their suffering as long as they contuine nto to wake up their idea.
And BTW, they didn't like Saddam, but neither did they ask the Americans to come. Bush invited himself in, using "liberating the Iraqi people" as an excuse to advance his and his cronies' agenda -
The liberated Iraq will never be a free land if the rebuilding progress is done by the Americans. Though the physical infrastructures mat be re-established, the majority of the ordinary civilians will only continue to see themselves as being supressed.
I believe true national reconstruction and building can only be done thru a neutral and global bodies such as the United Nations and the Red Cross Organization. Such organization don't carry with them, a stigma on conflict of interests. -
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,194090-1055368740,00.html?
Singapore's support for action on Iraq prompted by wider concerns
I REFER to Mr Tan Tarn How's commentary, 'No sign of Iraqi weapons: How now Singapore?' (ST, June 7).
Mr Tan's article poses a number of questions about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Other people have asked similar questions. But the search for WMD is still ongoing. Nobody at this point in time can say conclusively that there was no WMD in Iraq.
Objectively, therefore, we should await the findings of the experts instead of passing judgment based on assumptions or beliefs. But the more disturbing assertion in Mr Tan's commentary is the implication that WMD was the sole reason which led Singapore to support the war on Iraq. This is not so.
Let me reiterate and elaborate on the Singapore Government's position. First of all, the Government is not embarrassed by what, in Mr Tan's judgment, is the so-called 'glaring failure' of the Americans to find WMD. We have taken a strong, principled and consistent position on Iraq based on Singapore's national interests.
Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar had set out Singapore's position clearly and comprehensively in his statement in Parliament on March 14, which may be accessed on the MFA website www.mfa.gov.sg He made it very clear that our support for action against Iraq hinged on wider concerns than just its WMD.
A key concern was the need for all United Nations members to scrupulously comply with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Hence, we insisted on the need for Iraq to disarm immediately and comply with all UNSC resolutions.
This position dates back to the First Gulf War when we joined the international community to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Since then, it had persistently defied the UNSC for more than 12 years, flouting 17 UNSC resolutions. Iraq obstructed the UN for many years, forcing the UN to withdraw its weapons inspectors, leaving a four-year hiatus without any inspections.
In November last year, the UNSC unanimously found Iraq in material breach of its obligations. UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002) gave Iraq a final opportunity to disarm voluntarily or face serious consequences.
Iraq failed to do so and, given its proven record of deception and defying UNSC resolutions, there was no way of being sure about what it may or may not possess without moving into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein.
Saddam made no secret of his desire to acquire WMD. He actually used chemical weapons against his own people. And the search for WMD in Iraq is not over. We should not prejudge the outcome.
Singaporeans cannot afford to strike postures fashionable with the oppositionist media in America and Britain at the expense of the security of Singaporeans.
Should we have waited until the Jemaah Islamiah exploded bombs in Singapore before acting against it? Similarly, should the US have waited until all its critics were convinced before acting against Saddam?
A small nation in terrorist-infested South-east Asia does not have this luxury of libertarian posturing.
TAN LIAN CHOO
Press Secretary
to the Foreign Minister -
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,194075-1055368740,00.html?
Govt did what was right to protect citizens
I REFER to the quote, 'Singapore stands by decision on Iraq' (ST, June 9), Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's response when asked about Singapore's support of the war on Iraq.
As PM Goh said, everyone has 20/20 vision now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
When the decision was made to go with the United States it was done conscientiously, in the name of prevention. For some, a situation is not real until it exists.
The 9/11 situation in America was predicted, by its intelligence agencies, as a possibility but no one paid too much attention to it because it was not real until it happened, and by then it was too late.
Singapore was right to go on the empirical knowledge it had about the dictator, as well as other available information.
To foresee a possible tragedy, or to discern one in the making, and not do anything would be a pretermission of grave responsibility to the people who voted the Government into power. Whether it is the arrest of one, or a group of subversives, who have not brought their destructive designs into reality, or to support the removal of a dictator whom history has shown will not hesitate to annihilate his relatives, own people (Kurds) or neighbour (Kuwait), this cannot be called a rash act, or one made to feather our nest, as implied.
The alternative is to do nothing, or fail to do anything, to prevent a possible disaster because others believe it is unjust to take preventive action before the event.
If this is so, in containing Sars we took unjust action in curbing personal liberty, to some measure, in anticipation of infection of others.
Singapore, therefore, did what was right and that was to protect its citizens from any possible harm.
We must make the effort to help ourselves before we can expect others to help us.
DUDLEY AU -
The Americans and the British Coalition Forces should employ the Archeologist to use X-Ray and penetrate the secret chambers that are built into the various Sadam Hussein palaces.
The archeologists have used various techniques to break into the secret chambers of the Egyptian Pyramids built by the ancient Egyptian Pharoahs.
Those mystery WMD are probably hidden in the many underground tunnels and bunkers on which the Grand Palaces have been built. -
i agreed totall with PM goh...
its not the first time saddam went berserk in the past.. and indeed.. he has a long long list of crimes against peoples and nations around him... even his own family members are not spared...
understandably... as long as saddam remains in iraq.. the US could not risk lifting the UN sanctions and give him the opportunity to rebuild his military, banned weapons project or even attempts to support actions against the interest of the US or iraq's people...and their neighbours...
An invasion of another country is a serious matter and cannot be taken lightly and certainly not based on a single reason (WMD)..
for that... saddam's fall could at least build a better life for iraqis in times to come.. though not immediately after the war... the US has asked the UN to lift the sanctions imposed on iraq, and perhaps sooner rather then later... we will see normalization of the lifes of the iraqi people...
by the way... where are the red cross, red crescent and the UN aid agencies??? there are many hungry iraqis in iraq you know...
and as long as the iraqi population is indebted to their iman for their daily food supplies... rest assured.. those fiery islamic radicals, shites and those imans supported by iran would continue to stir the hornets nest and provokes iraqis' to challenge american presence....
-
either way, i see iraq's iminent fall into the stone age. at least until the hysteria and political bickering stops.
-
Probably take a decade at least for Iraq to piece itself back today and enter the world. It's kinda interesting to know that the worst medical problem that plagued iraqi students before the gulf war was obesity.
I may disagree with the reasons for the war but i would agree that Saddam had to be removed. PM Goh made the politically wise decision, it would be stupid to disagree with War of Iraq. We couldn't afford America's vengence. -
you're impliying that the decision was not made based on any principles but was made under duress ?Originally posted by Stevenson101:I may disagree with the reasons for the war but i would agree that Saddam had to be removed. PM Goh made the politically wise decision, it would be stupid to disagree with War of Iraq. We couldn't afford America's vengence. -
principle of survival really. Are there any more important ones?
I won't say i know that's how exactly the pm think, but it's definitely something he had to consider before making his decision.
Your question make it sound like the pm was threatened by the Americans to agree ~_~ -
Well, the principal reason behind Singapore's support can be summed up in 1 word: Money
- Money from reconstruction opportunities in Iraq.
- Money from fast-tracking the US-Singapore FTA
- Money that will be pumped into the local economy when the US sees Singapore as an ally which allows use of facilities for stopovers and prepositioning of equipment.
Theres also the small matter of what we perceive as security by aligning with the lone superpower in the world. For Singapore's sake I hope we're hedging all our bets on the right horse.
The MFA reply does contain a few factual errors:
UNSC Resolution 1441 never allowed use of military action against Iraq. The specific language was "serious consequences" but it also specified a new resolution was required to declare war on Iraq. So 1441 doesn't authorise war on Iraq, neither did ANY other resolutions pertaining to Iraq's WMD
SEA terrorist infested? I'll admit SEA has a terrorist problem, but its not like you can't throw a stone in SEA without hitting a terrorist.
You can't compare action JI with Iraq, one is a terrorist group, the other a sovereign state, Saddam Hussein or not. Invading Iraq without UN mandate is a violation of the UN Charter, taking pre-emptive action against JI is not. -
I agree with the majority of Viper52's post above. Except that I believe that there would be a whole lot more hidden and classifed agendas that people like us will never know. And in addition to Viper52's list, I presume that the US-SG alliance on the issue is also an important strategic path for future weaponary acquisitions or other seemingly related technology transfers to take place.
-
Baghdad sniper kills US soldier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2995892.stm
An American soldier has been killed by a sniper's bullet while on patrol in Iraq, according to the US military.
The soldier was with the 1st Armoured Division in northern Baghdad when he was shot in the chest and collapsed.
He was taken to a first aid station but later died, said US military spokesman Major Sean Gibson. The gunman escaped.
The shooting came on the second day of a major operation by US forces to root out pockets of resistance and track down illegal weapons stockpiles.
Almost 400 people have been arrested since Operation Desert Scorpion was launched on Sunday, the day a two-week gun amnesty ended.
Soldiers stormed the homes of hundreds of sleeping families in and around the capital Baghdad and the northern cities of Tikrit and Kirkuk.
The US authorities said they were acting on precise intelligence to "isolate and defeat remaining pockets of resistance".
Hearts and minds
The raids follow a series of attacks on US forces since the end of the war, which has left more than 41 soldiers dead.
As well as rooting out insurgents, the mission's other stated aim is to provide humanitarian aid
The BBC's Chris Morris in Baghdad said troops were bringing in food and medicine, giving footballs to children and starting to rebuild roads in an attempt to win hearts and minds.
But the operation is proving deeply unpopular among locals, who say the raids are merely fuelling their hostility to the presence of the troops and making anti-American attacks more likely.
Our correspondent said even those who wanted to see the back of Saddam Hussein are now saying the Americans must go and let Iraq be run by Iraqis.
The main developments of Desert Scorpion so far:
Heavily-armed US troops were sealing off roads and searching homes in central Baghdad near to administration headquarters on Tuesday morning.
An investigation is under way into two car blasts in Baghdad on Monday in which a woman and young girl were reportedly killed and two Iraqis wounded. It is not yet clear what caused the explosions.
By late Monday troops had carried out 11 raids in the Baghdad area and detained 156 people. They also seized 121 rifles, two submachine guns, 19 pistols, 18 rocket-propelled grenades, four machine guns and 31 pounds of explosives.
Kirkuk and Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit has been subject to 36 raids leading to 215 arrests.
In the flashpoint town of Falluja, west of Baghdad, insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades at American patrols and have also reportedly targeted Iraqi officials co-operating with the US-led administration.
A civilian bus was hit by a rocket after it got caught in an ambush on two US military convoys north of Baghdad on Sunday, wounding 10 soldiers and an unknown number of Iraqis.
[/b] -
Former Iraq envoy 'condemns' Saddam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2993688.stm
Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations before the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime has said the missing leader should be brought to justice.
Mohammed al-Douri, in an interview with BBC World, added that the regime deserved to have been toppled by the Iraqi people, not the US-led "colonialist" forces.
Mr Douri, who represented the Iraqi Government until mid-April, said he believed the Iraqi people were glad the ousted president had gone but were angry at the continuing occupation.
On 1 May, US President George W Bush declared that the war, which had started on 20 March, was effectively over.
Graves regret
But US and UK troops are still in the country and Saddam Hussein and many of his regime's leaders have not been captured.
Mr Douri said: "The regime is over and now we have to tackle another problem, the American and British presence in Iraq as a colonialist power.
"We didn't ask you to come. I would have preferred that the Iraqi people did that."
When he was questioned about the mass graves of hundreds of executed Iraqis that have been uncovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Mr Douri said: "Those are Iraqi people, my brothers, so I regret that and I hope that all people responsible for these graves have to be presented to trial, to judgment and to be judged by Iraqi people, not by British or American."
Asked if that included Saddam Hussein, he replied: "Everybody. Iraqi, British, American - anybody in the world killing any person I think has to be prosecuted before the courts of their country."
BBC Hardtalk interviewer Tim Sebastian asked if Mr Douri was now prepared to condemn the regime that he served.
"I condemn always any kind of killing in Iraq or outside Iraq," he replied.
But the former ambassador said he was never ashamed of his role as he believed he was representing the country and people of Iraq and not the government.
"I defended my people under sanctions for 12 years which were killing more than 1.5 million people and for that I am proud that I am struggling against those two countries occupying my country," he said.
Weapons proof
During his time at the United Nations, Mr Douri repeatedly said his country no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
He told the BBC that he had little new information because he was "a lawyer not a scientist".
But he assumed his government was not lying as the US and Britain had yet to present evidence of the weapons
Mr Douri also told the BBC that right up until the last moment, Saddam Hussein's government did not believe the US-led forces would invade Iraq.
He said he advised Baghdad the threat of war was serious and still cannot explain why they refused to accept it.
Mr Douri was the first Iraqi official to concede publicly the fall of the Iraqi government.
He left New York on 11 April for Syria before travelling to the United Arab Emirates.
Mr Douri once said he hoped to return to Baghdad to teach law but his high profile as a representative of the ousted government may make this impossible. -
Iraqi oil flows again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2986118.stm
Iraq has concluded its first sale of crude oil since supplies were halted by the US-led invasion in mid-March.
A tender to sell 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil was awarded on Thursday to six companies, including ChevronTexaco of the US.
News that Iraqi supplies had finally resumed helped push oil prices lower in New York, with crude futures closing down 85 cents at $31.51.
Before the war, Iraq shipped about 1.7 million barrels a day, roughly 4% of world exports.
However, the country's export capacity is expected to remain well below pre-war levels for several months because of damage and looting at the country's oil facilities.
Fair deal
The other five companies sharing in the tender were Repsol and Cepsa of Spain, Tupras of Turkey, France's Total, and Italian oil firm ENI.
The even-handed distribution of contracts confounded expectations that US and UK firms would glean the lion's share of Iraq's first oil shipments, in recognition of the lead role that those countries played in toppling Sadam Hussein's regime.
"One would have thought that [Iraq's oil authorities] would have awarded more to US and British companies," an oil trader told the Reuters news agency.
"And given the French position in the war, people are surprised that Total has got in there with two million barrels."
About 5.5 million barrels are destined for the European market, with a further four million bound for the US, Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organisation said.
The remaining 500,000 barrels will be sold at the seller's discretion.
Physical deliveries are expected to start in about 10 days' time. -
Reason why I've went to the BBC for the majority of the articles posted here is because of my view that the BBCs news are less tainted by the editors opinions than the line spouted by the majority of the US News Networks, where most (even the liberal ones) views are tainted by their own political beliefs.
Of course, there will be bias one way or the other, but its my view that the BBCs is about as untainted as it can get.
Feel free to disagree...