Author Topic: Who served?  (Read 3069 times)

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Who served?
« Reply #180 on: February 27, 2005, 07:14:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
. Mind you they lied to us about WMD instead.


Really?  When?

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #181 on: February 27, 2005, 07:22:36 PM »
That was the whole reason Blair gave us for getting involved.

And I quote (Its a long one)


29 August 2002

MI6 receives the 45-minute intelligence report - Lord Butler says it came "third hand" through a main well-established source via a second link in the reporting chain and originally an Iraqi military source - the middle link had since proved unreliable.

5 September 2002

The 45-minute claim first appears in a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment, with a request for comments.

The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes."

6 September 2002

The biological weapons branch in the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS) sends an e-mail to the JIC assessment staff saying: "The intelligence refers to a maximum time of 45 minutes, the average was 20 minutes. This could have important implications in the event of a conflict."

9 September 2002

New draft of assessment reads: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW weapons. Intelligence also indicates that chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 20-45 minutes."

10/11 September 2002

The claim appears in a dossier draft for the first time as it says Iraq: "Envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given.

"Within the last month intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so."

16 September 2002

New draft dossier's executive summary says intelligence allows the government to judge Iraq "has military plans for the use of chemical and biological, some of which could be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

The main text adds: "The Iraqi military may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so."

Concerns about the claim are discussed by the JIC assessment staff and the following day at a DIS meeting called by Tony Cragg, the deputy chief of defence intelligence, which decided the worries had been dealt with satisfactorily.

17 September 2002

A member of the Defence Intelligence Staff says in an email to the JIC assessment team that the wording of the 45-minute claim is "rather strong since it is based on a single source. 'Could say intelligence suggests...'"


Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell tells JIC chairman John Scarlett that the "may" in the main text wording of the claim is "weaker than the summary".

18 September 2002

Mr Scarlett tells Mr Campbell the language on the claim in the main text has been "tightened".

19 September 2002

Defence Intelligence Staff experts discuss the dossier, with questions raised about the 45-minute claim - Mr A told the Hutton inquiry they had not seen the intelligence on which the claim was based.

Brian Jones, a top DIS official in the Defence Intelligence Staff, writes to his managers relaying the concerns. He is later only thanked for his input.

24 September 2003

The dossier is published with a foreword from Tony Blair, which says: "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

The prime minister tells MPs the intelligence concludes that Saddam Hussein "has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population".

London's Evening Standard carries the headline: "45 minutes from attack".

24 September 2002 to 29 May 2003

During this period between the dossier's publication and Andrew Gilligan's reports, the Commons library has told Labour MP Peter Bradley, the 45-minute claim was mentioned only once in passing in the Commons and twice in more than 38,000 written questions.

25 September 2002

The Sun newspaper, Britain's biggest selling daily, has the headline: "Brits 45 mins from doom" about the threat to troops in Cyprus.

The Star newspaper has the headline "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war".

Other newspapers include the claim in their coverage of the dossier.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was abroad and says he never saw the newspapers and only became aware of the reports later.

5 March 2003

Then Commons leader Robin Cook's diary entry says he told Mr Blair: "It's clear from the private briefing that I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities.

"But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?"

Mr Cook says the prime minister replied: "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use."

18 March 2003

Tony Blair makes his eve-of-war speech to MPs, without mentioning the 45-minute claim.

29 May 2003

BBC Today programme defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan says his source, now known to be Dr David Kelly, had said the 45-minute claim was the "classic example" of how the dossier was "sexed up". No 10 especially objected when Mr Gilligan said Downing Street "probably knew" the claim was wrong when it was put in the dossier.


26 August 2003

Mr Scarlett defends the 45-minute claim at the inquiry, calling it "well-sourced intelligence" and says it concerned munitions, mortar shells or similar weapons, not missile warheads.

28 August 2003

Mr Blair tells the Hutton inquiry it is "absolutely wrong" to suggest he had not mentioned the claim after the dossier's publication because the government had doubts about it.

The JIC had been "perfectly happy" with the document, he said.

22 September 2003

Mr Hoon tells the inquiry it was suggested to him that the claim only referred to battlefield arms, not strategic weapons.

Asked about why he had not corrected newspapers' interpretation of the claim, Mr Hoon said it was hard to get the press to make corrections.

MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove says he was confident the intelligence was accurate but in hindsight, and given the way it was "misinterpreted", he acknowledges the 45-minute claim might have been given "undue prominence".

"It did come from an established and reliable source equating a senior Iraqi military officer who was certainly in a position to know this information," he adds.

3 September 2003

Dr Brian Jones, a senior DIS official, tells the inquiry: "We at no stage argued that this intelligence should not be included in the dossier. We thought it was important intelligence."

But he said he had thought the language used about the claim in the dossier's executive summary and foreword had been "too strong".

11 September 2003

The Commons intelligence and security committee (ISC) says about the 45-minute claim: "The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meeting. This was unhelpful to an understanding of this issue."

28 January 2004

Lord Hutton says the claim that the government probably knew the 45-minute intelligence was wrong before putting it into the dossier is "unfounded".

The JIC had approved the way the claim was worded in the dossier, he says.

3 February 2004

Downing Street, in its response to MPs' reports, says it understands concerns the wording of the claim could have led to speculation.

But it stresses the dossier never suggested it referred to ballistic missiles and denies suggestions it was given undue prominence.

4 February 2004

Tony Blair in the Commons debate on the Hutton report says he did not know before the war that the 45-minute claim only referred to battlefield munitions.

Mr Hoon says he found out the distinction when he asked his officials out of "curiosity" - but later explains this was after the dossier was published.

5 February 2004

Conservative leader Michael Howard says Mr Blair should resign after failing to ask "basic questions" before sending troops to war.

Downing Street accuses the media of "rewriting history" by over-egging the importance of the 45-minute claim at the time the dossier was published.

14 July 2004

Lord Butler's inquiry concludes that the 45 minute claim should not have been included in the dossier without explanations of what it referred to.

The report also reveals MI6 now says the intelligence report on the claim "has come into question", with doubts cast about one of the links in the reporting chain.

12 October 2004

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw tells the House of Commons that the head of MI6 has withdrawn the claim.

Ergo it was Bullsh*t and we were lied to.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Who served?
« Reply #182 on: February 27, 2005, 07:25:40 PM »
You realize that all of your copy 'n paste says "probably", "may have", "intelligence says", etc etc.

You do understand what a lie is, as opposed to just being wrong, don't you?

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Who served?
« Reply #183 on: February 27, 2005, 07:30:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
What gives the US the right to decide who's regime needs changing. Can't you see that is a very slippery slope. You are basicaly saying that the US has the right to tell other people how they should be governed and if they choose not to comply to force the change using military action. What in the hell gives your Govt the right to do that.

Our Govt was equaly at fault but rthey at least didn't have the arrogance to use Regime Change as policy. Mind you they lied to us about WMD instead.


AGAIN Zulu you wont stick to a subject....you make comments with reckless abandon and refuse to account for them or back them up.

THIS IS WHY WE THINK YOU ARE A TROLL.

I will post this one last time for you.


Quote

YOU:
it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism.


My Response:
I fail to see how the US/UK is/are at MORE risk BECAUSE of Iraq. The last major terrorist attack in Europe or the US was the Madrid train bombing (and they were pulling out of Iraq right?) I don't see how this makes anywere BUT Iraq more dangerous and most of them are foreign fighters from Syria and Iran (who have resorted to attacking Iraqis Vrs. coalition forces.

I love that quote "Yes the berlin wall has fallen, we can see it"


Quote

you:
I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work.




My Response:
Correct me if I'm wrong (wich does happen from time to time) but wasnt that a UN mission?

Because I'm pretty sure I'm correct I'm gonna move on to question 2: "wasn't the UN mission to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, NOT remove Sadam from power?"

PS in addition it has been US policy for regime change in Iraq since 1998



You want to ask what gives us the right???????   Well my answer would be National Security.  We are a Global world nowadays and one does not have to present a traditional threat on ones borders to actually be a threat.  

There's my answer.  I admit I was sold on the WMD thing, but I see the whole picture now.  This is changeing the face of the globe for the better so our Kids wont be fighting the same nonesensical war that we we are fighting now.

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #184 on: February 27, 2005, 07:31:10 PM »
Yes I realise that the Govt claimed that Saddam may have had the capability. I also know that there never was such a capability. That the threat of WMD was used by our Govt to justify going to war. That the senior Scientist responsible for the Dossier "commited suicide " yeah right! after admitting that the whole thing was "sexed up" Ie exaggerated in order to get us to go.

Where are the waepons of Mass destruction? As I understand it the US and Britain still have them! But Iraq doesn't.

Basicaly the British people were sold a crock to try and get us to support the war. We shouldn't have gone.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Who served?
« Reply #185 on: February 27, 2005, 07:34:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
Yes I realise that the Govt claimed that Saddam may have had the capability. I also know that there never was such a capability. That the threat of WMD was used by our Govt to justify going to war. That the senior Scientist responsible for the Dossier "commited suicide " yeah right! after admitting that the whole thing was "sexed up" Ie exaggerated in order to get us to go.

Where are the waepons of Mass destruction? As I understand it the US and Britain still have them! But Iraq doesn't.

Basicaly the British people were sold a crock to try and get us to support the war. We shouldn't have gone.


Do you have evidence to support that claim, or are you merely stating "your suspicions"?

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #186 on: February 27, 2005, 07:34:35 PM »
Gunslinger

"You want to ask what gives us the right??????? Well my answer would be National Security. We are a Global world nowadays and one does not have to present a traditional threat on ones borders to actually be a threat. "



Justification for the US doing exactly what it thinks is right or wants then regardless of any one else rights.

And you don't see whats wrong with that? Ask any German Born before 1945!

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Who served?
« Reply #187 on: February 27, 2005, 07:47:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
Gunslinger

"You want to ask what gives us the right??????? Well my answer would be National Security. We are a Global world nowadays and one does not have to present a traditional threat on ones borders to actually be a threat. "



Justification for the US doing exactly what it thinks is right or wants then regardless of any one else rights.

And you don't see whats wrong with that? Ask any German Born before 1945!


considering the Govts that were most vocally apposed to this happening had their hand in the cookie jar and didn't want to get caught......

BTW keep up the Nazi comparisons....they'll get you far.

last question euro-troll.......for the grand prize....name one country the Nazis invaded then held national elections in????????


tic toc tic toc tic toc tic toc

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #188 on: February 27, 2005, 07:56:27 PM »
OK forget the Nazis Use us as an example. The British empire. we spent a long time imposing our Govt system on African countries. What happened after we left? Chaos.

It realy works doesn't it? And I ask again what gives the US the right to make these decisions for us.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Who served?
« Reply #189 on: February 27, 2005, 07:58:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
OK forget the Nazis Use us as an example. The British empire. we spent a long time imposing our Govt system on African countries. What happened after we left? Chaos.

It realy works doesn't it? And I ask again what gives the US the right to make these decisions for us.


Heh.  Comparing 21st century free elections with 17th century colonization.  Nice.

The US didn't make the decisions.  The UN passed numerous resolutions, then a coalition of countries acted on them.

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #190 on: February 27, 2005, 08:00:52 PM »
The Coalition:rofl

You mean The US and our misguided PM.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Who served?
« Reply #191 on: February 27, 2005, 08:02:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
The Coalition:rofl

You mean The US and our misguided PM.


No, I'm talking about the 30+ nations that supported the enforcement of UN resolutions with either troops, materials, or money.

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #192 on: February 27, 2005, 08:06:23 PM »
Supported em because they were too spineless to stand up tio the US or had too much to lose by not doing so, you mean.

Now read my lips. Through all this debate remember, I do not hate americans. I don't agree with US foreign policy. These two things are different. OK? Comprenez vous?

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Who served?
« Reply #193 on: February 27, 2005, 08:08:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
Supported em because they were too spineless to stand up tio the US or had too much to lose by not doing so, you mean.


No, I mean joined the coalition because they realized the UN was too corrupt to act any further than resolutions and it was the right thing to do.

Offline Zulu7

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
Who served?
« Reply #194 on: February 27, 2005, 08:10:05 PM »
:rolleyes: :rofl :rofl :rofl

We aint never going to agree!