 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Iraq Dossier
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: The Iraq Dossier |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Teribus Date: 27 Sep 02 - 02:40 AM GregF, please correct me if I am wrong, but in your first response on this thread you did say:
"Long on supposition, surmise, innuendo & short on factual matter of any kind. Verdict: Not Proven."
I then said,
To which you added the comment:
"You have the gift of second sight?! How wonderful for you"
Your "Not Proven" verdict having read the dossier leads me to believe that you would chose to ignore it - second sight doesn't come into it. If Scott Ritter is being vocal in the States he is not getting any coverage on this side of the Atlantic, hence my remarks on that.
PS - Since you specifically asked: "You are not going to win the lottery."
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Troll Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:30 PM Apparently, Saddam is now agreeing to allow the insoectors back into Iraq. Does anyone seriously believe that he would have done so if the threat of war had NOT been raised? If so, why? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 02 - 07:25 PM Then the best we can hope for is a United Nations excision. A Husseinectomy. As painless as they can make it. Unless some other magic displaces the current crescendo and modulates into a pianissimo :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Gareth Date: 26 Sep 02 - 06:57 PM Having started this thread I suppose my 2 cents/pennys worth can be contributed. 1/. Prooving a negative is always difficult. 2/. There exists evidence that the Iraqi "Government" is prepared to use Chemical and Biological warfare, for it has done so in the past. 3/. The pre 98 Weapons inspection team was not allowed free access or inspection, and was expelled. 4/. The super powers seem to be selective in what Un decisions they enforce. 5/. No intelligence report in the public domain can be unsanitised - vide the decrypting of the Japanese 'Purple' code, or 'Enigma'. 6/. There exists a school of opinion that whatever the US of A does is wrong. I don't know what the answer is - but it frightens me. My oppinion. As Wolfgang says, there ius an overwhelming case for complete inspection - and if that is refused ???? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Greg F. Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:36 PM Well, Mr. T., you're either incompletely informed or badly misinformed.
Ritter has not "changed his mind"- he's saying the same things now that he said in '98/99. Better re-check a few sources, or read them more closely. Smarmy innuendo about Ritter's motives doesn't help your case either- what's YOUR annual income and from what sources do YOU derive it?
What of the motives of the Bushite oil magnates? Have you conveniently forgotten that Veep Cheney & Halliburton were trading with Iraq & "The Evil Saddam" all thru the embargoes to considerable financial advantage? The U.S Government since Daddy Bush's war has consistently maintained that economic sanctions would NOT be lifted even were the United Nations mandates complied with- that only with 'regime change' would the sanctions be lifted. This announced U.S. policy was and is IN DEFIANCE OF U.N. RESOLUTIONS!br>
Ritter's a former Major of Marines , fer chrissakes, & I expect he's at least as knowledgeable about gathering and analyzing intelligence as the Bushite 'chickenhawk' [q.v.] clowns who never served a day in the military and who are now slavering after war. Does "The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" start a train of thought in your mind? What about Senator Joe McCarthy's "I have in my hand evidence..." They both should.
There are no new substantiated facts in the dossier, it contains nothing that Ritter hasn't discussed previously. Your 'strangely silent' crack simply shows, again, how badly misinformed you are: Ritter's been speaking up all along- e.g. his press conferences/talks at Middlebury College on the 23rd of this month and St. Michael's College on the 24th.
I say that because if what is stated in this dossier is true, you would chose to ignore it. You have the gift of second sight?! How wonderful for you. Can you tell me will I win the lottery, and all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Bagpuss Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:35 AM >Bagpuss, >Interesting article, particularly when you look at the dates. Highly selective with regard to the statistics it omits, due mainly to the fact that they don't support the sensationalised message the Guardian wants to put across. >With regard to the Guardian, the best description of which I quote below: >"description of the Guardian as a "subversive, institutionally racist, politically correct, anti-American, pro-Sinn Fein/IRA, anti-royalist, pro-EU, atheistic broadsheet, written by holier-than-thou sanctimonious prigs for others of a similar persuasion" Firstly, its not a Guardian website - although it does link to guardian articles. As to your opinion of the Guardian, that is your opinion (or perhaps the opinion of the person you quoted - and did not attribute...). However, many people here would disagree with you. It does have more leanings to the left than to the right, but most newspapers in the UK have political leanings - do you write off anything to do with them too? I would certainly say that the Guardian seems less racist than other papers I have read, so where the idea that it is institutionally racist comes from, I don't know. Oh, perhaps because they sometimes criticise the position of the Israeli govenment... that makes them anti-semitic doesn't it? Bagpuss
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:02 AM Bagpuss, Interesting article, particularly when you look at the dates. Highly selective with regard to the statistics it omits, due mainly to the fact that they don't support the sensationalised message the Guardian wants to put across.
With regard to the Guardian, the best description of which I quote below:
"description of the Guardian as a "subversive, institutionally racist, politically correct, anti-American, pro-Sinn Fein/IRA, anti-royalist, pro-EU, atheistic broadsheet, written by holier-than-thou sanctimonious prigs for others of a similar persuasion"
Steven,
You respectfully submit the following. Saddam would appear to be no more of a risk now than he was before. I appreciate that that's no argument for not doing anything. Depending on when the "now" and the "before" is/was - I would say that as he is no more of a risk is a perfect arguement for not doing anything - He's not going to anything is he, so best let sleeping dogs lie. "However...
There can be no justification for attacking Iraq because there is a suspicion that the regime may possess WMD(s), and that it may have the intent of using them..
Quite right there is no justification on those grounds.
"What is being proposed is that we declare war on a country which has not done anything that can be identified as an act of agression against either the US or the UK that would justify such a response."
Who exactly is proposing this?? As far as I am aware the International Community, including the USA, are standing by to see what the weapons inspectors inspection will reveal and to see that Saddam Hussein honours his promise with regard to unconditional and unhindered access with full co-operation of Iraq. The USA are in the process of tabling a draft resolution that will prevent the Iraqi's playing the same game they did before.
"Disarming Iraq is another matter. I am not so naive that I imagine that could be accomplished easily or without the use of force. Obviously should it be demonstrated that such capabilities exist in Iraq, they should be disabled... However difficult that may in the end, turn out to be.. but proof must come first."
Totally agree, but I would also add the proviso that action should also be taken if the Iraqi government blocks any attempt by the weapons inspectors to establish that proof.
"I do not suggest that anything within the reports is a "lie". However, much of it is a matter of interpretation and projection of likelihoods. We know from bitter and recent experience that many of the agencies operating within the "Intelligence" communities get it wrong frequently and sometimes with tragic results. Just ask the Chinese embassy in Belgrade..."
The report also contains fairly convincing evidence and the interprtation and projections are balanced on probability based on past history.
"Remember that few of the people involved in preparing the dossier can afford to allow "the benefit of the doubt". Particularly since the events of the 11th September last year, no-one wants to be the one to say "I doubt if Iraq has any such capability" - just in case the events of the next hour or month prove them to have been wrong."
The Institute of Strategic Studies and the Americans have actually said they think the Dossier prepared by the JIC understates the position.
"I can understand and sympathise with the impulse to control and neutralise the threat that is perceived from Iraq, and overall I think that the world as a whole will probably stand by and let the US/Airstrip One coalition do what it likes... this time." What makes you think so - I don't its too vital. Action will only result from Iraqi refusal to co-operate backed by UN agreement for military intervention.
"What I find very troubling is the role in which the US and UK will find themselves should they decide to intervene unilaterally. This is not the Falklands, or Grenada, nor even Afghanistan."
Don't believe that unilateral action is feasible - it is definitely not advisable politically or militarily.
"What has been proposed is "pre-emptive" action. This is wrong. It cannot be justified. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. That action has been rightly regarded as an act of "infamy". What is the moral difference between the Japanese "first strike" on the US and any "first strike" against Iraq if it occurs without the support of the UN and the international community, and in the absence of clear and unarguable evidence that Iraq does possess these weapons?" No moral justification at all, and no-one is proposing a "pre-emptive strike". Lets see what the inspectors come up with.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: GUEST,Scabby Doug Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:53 AM At the risk, and I appreciate it is a risk, of getting involved in flaming...
I would respectfully submit the following. Saddam would appear to be no more of a risk now than he was before. I appreciate that that's no argument for not doing anything.
Disarming Iraq is another matter. I am not so naive that I imagine that could be accomplished easily or without the use of force. Obviously should it be demonstrated that such capabilities exist in Iraq, they should be disabled... However difficult that may in the end, turn out to be.. but proof must come first.
I do not suggest that anything within the reports is a "lie". However, much of it is a matter of interpretation and projection of likelihoods. We know from bitter and recent experience that many of the agencies operating within the "Intelligence" communities get it wrong frequently and sometimes with tragic results. Just ask the Chinese embassy in Belgrade... What I find very troubling is the role in which the US and UK will find themselves should they decide to intervene unilaterally. This is not the Falklands, or Grenada, nor even Afghanistan. What has been proposed is "pre-emptive" action. This is wrong. It cannot be justified. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. That action has been rightly regarded as an act of "infamy". What is the moral difference between the Japanese "first strike" on the US and any "first strike" against Iraq if it occurs without the support of the UN and the international community, and in the absence of clear and unarguable evidence that Iraq does possess these weapons? If my "attempt" at humour earlier seemed flippant, it is simply that I resent the attempt by the PM of the UK to spin us into a course of action that may lead to many many long-term problems. For all of us. Cheers Steven |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Wolfgang Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:42 AM The dossier makes a convincing case for inspections but a far from convincing case for a war. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Bagpuss Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:18 AM Teribus: ""They've been bombing Iraqi targets for ten bloody years!" Well actually Boab they haven't - subsequent to the end of air operations called for during Desert Storm which ended early on in 1991, Iraq has only been subjected to bombing for a period of four days during Desert Fox 16th to 19th December 1998. Aircraft patroling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones have fired whenever acquisition radars have illuminated their aircraft, but as the armament fired in response to those occasions locks in on the radars, those targets are legitimate military targets." http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Bombing.asp
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: bob jr Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:58 AM Green man...considering that Saddam couldnt beat Iran in a ten year war (during which he recieved direct aid from the United States) it seems incredible to suggest he could somehow dominate the region. Also it is worth noting that Saddam is not considered very favourably by any of his Islamic neighbors. The scenario you suggest seems beyond improbable . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: GUEST,Green Man Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:17 AM Fellow Catters, there is more here than meets the eye. If you think that this is all of the information that our intel assets have generated over the past few months you are mistaken. There will have been covert ops going on for some time now (if they ever really stopped) to determine the extent of the threat. If confidence is high that Mr Hussein is going to mobilise in the light of the intel produced by these assets then actually publishing the information would probably compromise them. These assets are probaby humint sources who would face torture and death at the republican guards hands or the hands of Mr Hussein's secret police maybe even at his own hands. We know how he treats his own people should they oppose him. If he gains military ascendancy in the region he will threaten other Arab Nations. These nations are aware of the threat posed and while they publicly oppose military action would welcome the removal of this despot. The document submitted by Mr Blair is woefully short on beleivable hard fact however be assured no leader would contemplate a move like this unless it were to avert a serious threat. A stitch in time as we say.. I am an ex soldier and have a reasonable idea as to just what anyone would have to confront were this conflict to escalate to an NBC exchange. The alternative is an Eastern region dominated by Mr Hussein and the consequent control he woudl gain over our economies through threats to Opec countries. Mass slaughter on a scale that made ww2 attrocities seem insignificant and a possible nuclear exchange with Israel which would threaten all life on earth. GM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 02 - 07:26 AM To Guest Boab, Taken from your original Objective view of the Dossier presented to Parliament:
"See yon pictures of the nuke weapons establishment, and the missile testing site? From the vantage point of the camera, you could have blattered either with your eyes closed."
Just when could you have "blattered" them "with your eyes closed"??
"They've been bombing Iraqi targets for ten bloody years!"
Well actually Boab they haven't - subsequent to the end of air operations called for during Desert Storm which ended early on in 1991, Iraq has only been subjected to bombing for a period of four days during Desert Fox 16th to 19th December 1998. Aircraft patroling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones have fired whenever acquisition radars have illuminated their aircraft, but as the armament fired in response to those occasions locks in on the radars, those targets are legitimate military targets.
"Who the hell does that smarmy git think he's kidding? I'd be less enraged if they'd only tell the truth about Saddam Hussein, That he's an evil ratbag there is no doubt, but why sicken ordinary intelligent folks with stupid fairy-tales?" You mean you don't think that they are telling the truth about him at the moment?? And what is it you are actually enraged at?? Perhaps you believe that Saddam Hussein is really just a bit of a lad, havin' a bit of fun. He doesn't really mean anything by it even though he's an evil ratbag. What truth is it exactly, that you want told about Saddam Hussein?? - individual testimony from people who have suffered at his hands not enough!! And in what part of the Dossier are the sickening fairy tales detailed?
In your post above, you say:
"If there is one good thing to come out of the present crisis, it is the galvanising effect it has had on the UN."
What brought that about?? A sudden change of heart on the part of the UN - after all they've been sitting around for eleven years doing absolutely bugger all about the situation, swallowing every lie, prevarication and red herring that Iraq has thrown at them.
"In fact, as far as I can see, this is developing into a race between the UN, who are trying hard to get Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq. and what appears, in spite of your oft-repeated opinions, to be a determination on the part of Bush to ignore all attempts at diplomacy and all pleas for caution from other UN member states and go ahead willy-nilly to smash Hussein"
Boab the UN weapons inspectors are going back into Iraq solely because of the diplomatic efforts of George Bush. Look exactly at what he has done; brought to the UN's attention that Iraq has failed to comply with existing UN resolutions; highlighted the potential threat to the instability of the region and the world if Iraq's pursuit of WMD goes unchecked; Given clear indication of intented actions if the UN, for whatever reason, chose to ignore this matter.
"The United States of America is a member of the UN. That fact does not appear to deter them from showing apparent contempt for the organisation at almost every juncture."
Precisely when and how has the United States of America shown apparent contempt for the UN at almost every juncture??
"Perhaps if they were "paid-up" members they would carry more weight in its workings." Nice one - that I liked - factual and to the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: GUEST,Boab Date: 26 Sep 02 - 05:21 AM Aye, 'teribus"---I cannot be too indignant over your scorn and open insult regarding my opinion of Blair and co.,since I was pretty scathing myself when referring to the present manoeuverings . I would be surprised, however, if "scabby doug's attempts at humour" weren't as close to the truth as the extreme scenario being trotted out by Blair, Bush and others . At least scabby doug's assessment was deliberately and openly extreme, and obviuosly meant to be humorous. As I said, Saddam is without doubt an evil man. If there is one good thing to come out of the present crisis, it is the galvanising effect it has had on the UN. In fact, as far as I can see, this is developing into a race between the UN, who are trying hard to get Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq. and what appears, in spite of your oft-repeated opinions, to be a determination on the part of Bush to ignore all attempts at diplomacy and all pleas for caution from other UN member states and go ahead willy-nilly to smash Hussein [and a helluva lot of innocent men, women and kids]. I will believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and centres for their development if and when legitimate inspectors [not spies] have assured the world that they exist. Then, only then--and with some enthusiasm--will I support a UN-sponsored military incursion into Iraq. And just one more of my "inane" opinions---The United States of America is a member of the UN. That fact does not appear to deter them from showing apparent contempt for the organisation at almost every juncture. Perhaps if they were "paid-up" members they would carry more weight in its workings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 02 - 05:18 AM Donuel:
"It (Iraq) has a bio-war capability (first given to then by the USA)." WRONG - INCORRECT. When the conference was held to outlaw the use of such weapons, Soviet Russia said it would not renounce the use of such weapons. America and its fellow NATO allies did renounce the use of those weapons. The approach to deal with Russia's stance was different in various countries. Britain maintained Porton Down as a research facility to keep pace with chemical, bacteriological and biological technology in order to perfect effective counter-measures, the UK's arsenal of those weapons was destroyed. The Americans too continued research with the same objectives as the British, the Americans did not manufacture any more weapons, but elected to keep existing stocks as a deterrent to use by Soviet forces in the event of an attack in Europe. Their reasoning behind this was that it gave the west some form of counter without having to resort to tactical use of nuclear weapons (Horrendous thought, but that was the way the beam was balanced in those days - and it worked). During the "cold war" era Iraq received massive aid from the Soviet Union, this included assistance to start a nuclear programme and military equipment for the Iraqi army, navy and airforce. This military aid also included chemical and biological weapons. Could the Americans have given the Iraqi's chemical and biological weaponry from their existing stocks? What for? They would have been useless to the Iraqi's - wrong calibres.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:52 AM Greg, Your quote above from the reference I gave was incomplete. For others reading this thread I give below the complete sentence:
"BASED on the UNSCOM REPORT to the UN Security Council in January 1999 (less than a month after leaving Iraq) and earlier UNSCOM REPORTS, we assess that when UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:"
I would beg to differ on your contention. Their assessment is based on slightly more than GUESSING.
The reference on Page 19, again you quote selectively:
"Iraq has claimed that all its biological agents and weapons have been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim. In particular, Iraq could not explain large discrepancies between the amount of growth media (nutrients required for the specialised growth of agent) it procured before 1991 and the amounts of agent it admits to having manufactured. The discrepancy is enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax allegedly manufactured." Quoting the whole paragraph does I believe make a difference. This stuff has gone somewhere and it is up to the Iraqis to explain, document and prove where it has gone - nobody else can do that. From the drift of your post it would appear that you are prepared to believe, and take at face value, anything coming out of Iraq, while totally disbelieving anything said by the American or British Governments. There seems to me to be a lack of balance in that approach considering the parties involved. Another inbalance from your posting is the assumption that Scott Ritter, who contributed to the report of January 1999, is correct. Does that mean that all the others were wrong - he's the one who has changed his mind, not the others. That the specialists and intelligence communities are all wrong - I would very much doubt it on the balance of evidence. I look forward to hearing Scott Ritters rebuttal of the contents of the dossier, but there again, having sold his book and made his television apprearances, Mr Ritter has been strangely silent for the past few weeks.
You say that: "I don't give a crap what they "think", "surmise", "guess" or "assess"- I want to know what they can document or prove before people start dying on EITHER side. " For the general good, thank God you are not the one to decide. I say that because if what is stated in this dossier is true, you would chose to ignore it. You would then have to confront this madman in two or three years time with a much enhanced capability for causing mayhem. But there again, taking into account your criteria, there would be no confrontation, you would, in all probability, attempt to negotiate and appease him. Ask the Iranians about negotiating with Saddam Hussein, check with the United Nations his track record for agreeing to conditions and implimenting those conditions.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Greg F. Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM Teribus:
P.16 we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for
P.19Iraq has claimed that all its biological agents and weapons have been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:48 AM Iraq has no nuclear meat on its bones Donuel, that's one of the worst mixed metaphors I have ever seen!! :>) The point is not that they have nuclear capability now, but if their national strategy includes going for it as quickly and as covertly as Blair and W seem to think. It is distinctly unsettling to think of Saddam with a nuclear strike football in his office. Actually I think a regime change is a grand idea. I just do not think we are within our rights to kill in order to effect such a change, unilaterally and without clear-cut facts. The biowar capability data is equally unsettling. I think a fast thorough deployment of fully-empowered inspectors is essential. I am reminded of a slo-mo Wild Bill Hickock scenario -- Bush argues that Saddam is effectively slapping leather and wants to outdraw him. This argument is too simpleminded, IMHO, to carry the day. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:25 AM Iraq has no nuclear meat on its bones. It has a bio-war capability (first given to then by the USA) that can disable, deform and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans over the next 10 years whether they are attacked and defeated or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:35 AM Gareth, Thanks for the link and the Pdf File. I have read it On Page 16 subsection 13, and page 19 subsections 6 & 7, appear to be completely at odds with the Iraqi statement that it does not have any chemical, biological or bacteriological weapons. Considering that Iraq has no nuclear power plants and therefore no requirement for uranium as fuel - the Dossier asks the fairly relevant question regarding attempts by Iraq to covertly acquire equipment that could be used to produce weapons grade material. You specifically asked for OBJECTIVITY, responses so far only indicate that Boab (inane rubbish), Scabby Doug (flippant and poor attempt at humour) and anon Guest (can't be bothered to read or study it - I'll wait until somebody else tells me what to think about it) don't know the meaning of the word.
GregF - you say The first two specific references I have given above relate to discrepancies known to the UNSCOM Inspectors at the time of their departure from Iraq - what are your grounds for believing that they are lying - the documentation and data they were looking at was Iraqi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Guessed Date: 25 Sep 02 - 08:39 AM Now how long have you all been suffering Iraqnophobia then |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: GUEST,Scabby Doug Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:27 AM So there we are then, it's conclusive... Saddam has stockpiles of 23 pea-shooters, a huuuge bag of dried peas, 7 catapults, and a large pot of lentil soup that has went completely aff (but could be reheated at 10 minutes notice).. I see no further reason to delay.. Cheers Steven |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Troll Date: 25 Sep 02 - 06:46 AM The Dossier is, alas, inconclusive. Why alas, you ask? Because the bickering and divisivness will simply go on while Saddam- if he is actually building WMDs- will be given even more time to develop them. The UN, if it is not to become another League of Nations, must start enforcing the resolutions that it proclaims, no matter who they are against and no matter what the cost. Otherwise, it's simply a very expensive debating society, a paper tiger with no real power or authority. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: GUEST,Boab Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:46 AM Had I been one of the British MPs subjected to the over-50% tripe by Bushie-tail Blair, I'd have been mad enough to throw the mace at the bugger. See yon pictures of the nuke weapons establishment, and the missile testing site? From the vantage point of the camera, you could have blattered either with your eyes closed. They've been bombing Iraqi targets for ten bloody years! Who the hell does that smarmy git think he's kidding? I'd be less enraged if they'd only tell the truth about Saddam Hussein, That he's an evil ratbag there is no doubt, but why sicken ordinary intelligent folks with stupid fairy-tales? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: GUEST Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:57 PM Thanks, Greg. The same stuff Bush puts out, I guess. I won't bother. Later I will listen to the BBC News and tomorrow look at the Washington Post on line and see if they can make anything of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Iraq Dossier From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:09 PM Long on supposition, surmise, innuendo & short on factual matter of any kind. Verdict: Not Proven. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: The Iraq Dossier From: Gareth Date: 24 Sep 02 - 07:35 PM There has been a lot of discussion regarding the Iraq ( Saddam Hussain) problem in the 'cat of late. Fair enough I suppose - It's a major problem. In the interest of Objective debate you will find the public dossier published today by HM Government here in a Pdf file ( Download time by modem Circa 2 minutes ) You will need Acrobat - Sorry no time tonite to convert to HTML or Word file. I make no comment pro or con other than pointing out that all public security documents are sanitised to protect sources, and the abilities of sources. Debate - Objectivelly Gareth |