What's the US's rush?

[weed]

I've been trying to objectively watch the inspections process in Iraq but I keep seeing the US pushing harder and harder when the process seems to already be going according to the UN resolution which we agreed to.

We seem to criticize the inspections team frequently and refer to this knowledge we have that Iraq has WMD but don't come forth with this knowledge. As far as I know we have not given any evidence to the inspections team and if we had some I would think that would be the thing to do. So is this smoke meant to make them cough up some goodies for us quicker? If we had such evidence shouldn't we be going on to the inspections team and not the media?

Now we push the UN to change their minds about waiting to see the Iraq's Declaration. We instigate it and get the first copy to make copies for the 4 other permanent UN council members so that we can be ready for attack should we[/] determine a breech in the resolution has been made instead of waiting for the team to come forward with their complete understanding.

Is there a rush or is this just propaganda on our part to keep the warflame lit? How much of all of our pushing is merely psycho-manipulation of the process or do we really have an urgency to attack Iraq?

 

[Worm]

Only those guys in Washington know whats going on. I would speculate that by giving the media the evidence we have, if any, it would showcase the methods and procedures used to get that evidence. When we had spy planes flying over Cuba taking satellite pictures of Russian missiles it was kept secret for some time while the Russians denied it. We then exposed the satellite photos to the UN when we were ready to make our next move.

I imagine if there is strong evidence the same thing is going on here. We are still building up our military in the area. Why let the enemy know what we know when we aren't ready to go in and take that "evidence" out.

 

[Coolville]

Surprise, surprise, but I'll go with the "is this just propaganda on our part to keep the warflame lit?" option. Here's another good example of hyping up the war from The Guardian today:

Poisoning the Air

US reports of Iraqi stockpiles of nerve gas antidote should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism, warns Brian Whitaker

Monday December 9, 2002

One of the oldest tricks in the run-up to a war is to spread terrifying stories of things that the enemy may be about to do. Government officials plant these tales, journalists water them and the public, for the most part, swallow them.

On November 12, the New York Times reported that Iraq had ordered a million doses of a well known antidote to nerve gas. This information came from "senior Bush administration officials" whom the paper did not name, and was soon regurgitated by other news media across the US and beyond.

Although the New York Times made clear that the drug concerned, atropine, has some perfectly normal medical uses, the story pointed - as the officials who leaked it undoubtedly intended - to a far more sinister conclusion. It implied that Iraq not only possesses nerve gas but intends to use it in a conflict with the US - hence the need to protect its own forces from accidental injury.

For the benefit of anyone too dim to spot the "correct" interpretation, unidentified American officials spelled it out: the quantities of atropine ordered by Iraq, the officials said, far outstripped the amount it could conceivably need for normal hospital use. "If the Iraqis were going to use nerve agents," one explained, "they would want to take steps to protect their own soldiers, if not their population. This is something that US intelligence is mindful of and very concerned about".

This behaviour might at least be understandable if we could be sure that the American fears about atropine were justified, but we can't. There is one awkward fact not mentioned in the New York Times story - that Iraq has previously bought large quantities of atropine with the blessing of the security council. Six separate orders for the drug have been approved under the oil-for-food programme since 1997. Three of the approved Iraqi orders were comparable, in terms of the number of doses, to the million-shot order that is now causing so much controversy. One was for 1,000,000 doses, another for 964,000 and the biggest for 1,500,000.

Atropine is used for treating various heart and respiratory disorders. It is also the drug of choice in cases of organophospate (pesticide) poisoning, where massive amounts - up to 100 times the normal dose - may be needed to effect recovery. The UN sanctions committee, which of course includes Americans, took the view that the Iraqi orders were probably about adequate to meet the country's routine medical needs. But suddenly, as the US prepares to invade, along comes another order - seemingly very similar - which, according to American officials, far outstrips the amount Iraq could conceivably need for normal hospital use. Someone, somewhere, has clearly got it wrong.

There is also a lot that the US has not disclosed about the latest Iraqi order for atropine. For a start, there has been no public confirmation of the order from independent sources. The New York Times story said the supplies were coming mainly from a Turkish company, which US officials declined to name. But in Turkey, one manufacturer of atropine, Drogsan, said it does no business with Iraq and has not received any request. Another firm, Bousel, said it had not produced atropine for a long time. Their denials were backed up by two senior Turkish government health officials.

Although the figure of 1 million doses in the Iraqi order sounds impressive, the US has not revealed how much atropine is contained in each dose - a highly relevant fact which would help to determine whether the drug could be for military or civilian use. The standard battlefield dose to protect against nerve gas is 2.0mg, repeated every few minutes if necessary. Of the 3,502,000 doses ordered by Iraq previously, and approved by the sanctions committee, 3,464,000 were of 0.6mg. A further 35,000 doses were of 1.0mg, and just 3,000 of 2.0mg. No military-sized doses have been ordered under the oil-for-food programme since 1997.

The US has also linked the atropine order to Iraqi purchases of autoinjectors - devices that troops can use on a battlefield to self-administer drugs by jabbing themselves in the thigh. The number of autoinjectors ordered has not been disclosed but, since a large number would be worth mentioning, it may be fairly small. It's also unclear whether the autoinjectors are the right size for administering battlefield doses of atropine.

In the light of the current fuss, it is extremely odd that only a few months ago the security council decided let Iraq buy as much atropine as it wants without asking permission first. Until last May, all Iraqi imports needed approval from the sanctions committee. This was unwieldy, often leading to serious delays in acquiring medicines and other essential goods, so the rules were changed to let Iraq buy anything, without sanctions committee approval, so long as it was not on the "review list" of suspicious items.

The list of suspicious goods agreed last May, which is extremely long, was the result of 12 months' detailed negotiation among security council members. Many - probably most - of the items on the list were included at the behest of the US, but atropine was not among them. Under extraordinary American pressure, the security council has now agreed to review the list over the next six months, in exchange for US agreement to continuing the oil-for-food programme.

The atropine affair is just one of many accusations, apparently based on intelligence reports, that have been levelled against Iraq in the last few weeks. The difficulty with such reports is interpreting what they mean: snippets of information can be combined to produce all sorts of conclusions.

Saddam Hussein is a tricky customer, and it's certainly possible that the Americans are right in their assessment of what he intends to do with the atropine. But it's equally possible that they are wrong. The atropine story also serves to stir up war fever - and for that reason, if no other, it should be treated with suspicion until the US produces more evidence than at present it is willing to divulge.

 

[weed]

Only those guys in Washington know whats going on. I would speculate that by giving the media the evidence we have, if any, it would showcase the methods and procedures used to get that evidence. When we had spy planes flying over Cuba taking satellite pictures of Russian missiles it was kept secret for some time while the Russians denied it. We then exposed the satellite photos to the UN when we were ready to make our next move.

I imagine if there is strong evidence the same thing is going on here. We are still building up our military in the area. Why let the enemy know what we know when we aren't ready to go in and take that "evidence" out.

If we aren't ready to go in why do we say anything at all? Seems like we've been putting pressure on the inspectors and the UN to get this thing moving along by media propaganda looking for a reason to call Hussein out of agreement with the resolution so we can go in there asap. Makes me wonder if we really have any concrete evidence at all if we don't just cooperate with the process ourselves by sharing with the team. And if we're not going to share, why say anything at all.

I don't think the media needs to know ( or us ) if we aren't ready to do something about it.

Propaganda reeks of dishonesty to me and I don't even see a reason for it.

 

[busybody..]

Originally posted by weed In answer to you questions.....point by point


I've been trying to objectively watch the inspections process in Iraq but I keep seeing the US pushing harder and harder when the process seems to already be going according to the UN resolution which we agreed to.

It costs alot of money to keep the troops and material in a state of readiness. Iraq has hoodwinked the UN for the past 11 years and the US obviously does not trust the UN

We seem to criticize the inspections team frequently and refer to this knowledge we have that Iraq has WMD but don't come forth with this knowledge. As far as I know we have not given any evidence to the inspections team and if we had some I would think that would be the thing to do. So is this smoke meant to make them cough up some goodies for us quicker? If we had such evidence shouldn't we be going on to the inspections team and not the media?

In the past, the UN inspection teams have had Iraqi spies in them. Indeed, even now,there are many guides and interpreters that have been supplied to the inspection team that are Iraqi,thus the team CANNOT be trusted. Further, the UN has tipped the Iraqis off to where the inspectors will be coming to. Can the US trust the UN? NO!

Now we push the UN to change their minds about waiting to see the Iraq's Declaration. We instigate it and get the first copy to make copies for the 4 other permanent UN council members so that we can be ready for attack should we[/] determine a breech in the resolution has been made instead of waiting for the team to come forward with their complete understanding.

The UN wanted to expunge certain items in the files before it was turned over! Again, its a question of trust. The UN cannot be trusted

Is there a rush or is this just propaganda on our part to keep the warflame lit? How much of all of our pushing is merely psycho-manipulation of the process or do we really have an urgency to attack Iraq?

Once again, the troops and material that are being stockpiled and transported into the theatre cannot remain inactive forever. That Iraq is a danger is no question. There should be no delay, a delay just intensifies the danger. It is worth noting that this was the position of the Clinton administration.....and there was no debate about it then.

 

[p_p_man]

Only those guys in Washington know whats going on. I would speculate that by giving the media the evidence we have, if any, it would showcase the methods and procedures used to get that evidence. When we had spy planes flying over Cuba taking satellite pictures of Russian missiles it was kept secret for some time while the Russians denied it. We then exposed the satellite photos to the UN when we were ready to make our next move.

I imagine if there is strong evidence the same thing is going on here. We are still building up our military in the area. Why let the enemy know what we know when we aren't ready to go in and take that "evidence" out.

Hmmm...

Got my doubts there. I don't believe either the US or the UK has any evidence.

This is a concocted war in which many young lives are going to be lost forever for the sake of one man's profit and the other man's ambition...

ppman

 

[greybeard]

only washington really knows......

I have got to believe it all has to do with a larger master plan for the entire region that allows the US the influence it feels it needs and oil has a lot to do with it..........I have seriously over simplified things but..........I just wish the government would come clean with what it is they are really after...........many people will die in the course of these games....................

greybeard

 

[p_p_man]

Re: only washington really knows......

I have got to believe it all has to do with a larger master plan for the entire region

And if your belief is misplaced, what then?

ppman

 

[greybeard]

Re: Re: only washington really knows......

And if your belief is misplaced, what then?

ppman

then I have made a mistake............I really don't feel I am in a position to know what is going on and why.............we are all at the mercy of what is written and reported......and a lot of that is controlled in many ways............

greybeard

 

[Stout chap]

As the prospect of peace looms ominously, here's hoping war will break out by Christmas so lots of people can be collateral damage.

 

[Guest]

 

[greybeard]

just a little afraid.............

I agree with cool and ppm and greybeard. The government hints around and hints around but never shows us anything.

as much as I appreciate the need for a certain level of secrecy, my ability to trust the administration is seriously strained...........it's really very scary.................

greybeard

 

[weed]

Surprise, surprise, but I'll go with the "is this just propaganda on our part to keep the warflame lit?" option. Here's another good example of hyping up the war from The Guardian today:

Poisoning the Air

US reports of Iraqi stockpiles of nerve gas antidote should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism, warns Brian Whitaker

Great article, Coolville

I thought the atropine thing was pretty fishy. Atropine is pretty commonplace stock at the hospital I work in....in injectable syringe form.

It seems we're hurting our own credibility trying to pull off this kind of stuff. I know it's been common practice in previous war times but I would've hoped we could have evolved. Still, I guess a lot of people buy it.

BusyBody,

If we're so ready why don't we come out with our evidence and go to town on Iraq? If we have that evidence?

Instead we give Hussein a chance to act all righteous....his own propaganda feeding off ours.

I agree with ppman I don't think we have anything or we'd be using it.

Greybeard, I'm sure there is much we still don't know and shouldn't know. Unfortunately it is this very condition that allows for wheelings and dealings of various sorts that involve business, politics, resources and so much more to go on unbeknownst to the unsuspecting voter.

So, as Lioness puts it, if we are going to keep hinting around about this stuff but not coming clean with anything will the rational for secrecy be enough to keep the voter from falling incredulous to such tactics and the pressure on our international cohorts to bow to these same tactics?

 

[SINthysist]

I've been trying to objectively watch the inspections process in Iraq but I keep seeing the US pushing harder and harder when the process seems to already be going according to the UN resolution which we agreed to.

We seem to criticize the inspections team frequently and refer to this knowledge we have that Iraq has WMD but don't come forth with this knowledge. As far as I know we have not given any evidence to the inspections team and if we had some I would think that would be the thing to do. So is this smoke meant to make them cough up some goodies for us quicker? If we had such evidence shouldn't we be going on to the inspections team and not the media?

Now we push the UN to change their minds about waiting to see the Iraq's Declaration. We instigate it and get the first copy to make copies for the 4 other permanent UN council members so that we can be ready for attack should we[/] determine a breech in the resolution has been made instead of waiting for the team to come forward with their complete understanding.

Is there a rush or is this just propaganda on our part to keep the warflame lit? How much of all of our pushing is merely psycho-manipulation of the process or do we really have an urgency to attack Iraq?

We need them to hurry so they can get out before the bombs start falling...

 

[dickE]

Hell YES, there's always a rush!! There's always an election coming, dammit!..........and the unpopular stuff has to be accomplished in the first year of a new term so that the habitually-short-attention-span US population will predictably forget all about it before the next election..........the very first lesson the very first day in Political Science 101

{get the picture?}

 

[Coolville]

This just in... another embarrassment.

The radio news just reported that the Scud missles on the Korean ship boarded by Spanish marines in the Indian Ocean are actually property of Yemen and are earmarked for their army. It was an old, standing order that was being delievered.

Yemen has formally protested to the American and Spanish ambassadors.

Now sit back and watch the spin come out of the White House!

 

[Dantetier]

You all talk WAY too much. Simple facts are this. Saddam is a madman who kills indescriminately, has been known to posess and USE WoMD in the past. Clearly has agressive tendancies so out of control that he invaded a soverign country, has expressed extreme hatred for the United States, has always supported terrorism, and has time and time and time again completely ignored the UN resolutions levied against his country.

Due to those facts, we need to take Saddam out whether or not we find WoMD. Simple as that. the whole inspections thing is just a sham, becase we know either we will find the weapons, or Saddam will do something that goes against the UN resolution, and give us free leave to take him and his regime out.

 

[Coolville]

This just in... another embarrassment.

The radio news just reported that the Scud missles on the Korean ship boarded by Spanish marines in the Indian Ocean are actually property of Yemen and are earmarked for their army. It was an old, standing order that was being delievered.

Yemen has formally protested to the American and Spanish ambassadors.

Now sit back and watch the spin come out of the White House!

And, as expected, here's the spin!

THE high seas ambush of a North Korean freighter was intended as a warning shot to the regime in Pyongyang.
US authorities knew they risked upsetting Yemen, a valued ally, but the Bush Administration thought it more important to seize the 15 Scud missiles on board and teach the North Koreans a lesson.
Boy, those spin doctors were extra creative last night.

To demonstrate that this was an international operation, Washington let two Spanish frigates take the lead.
Not the way it's being reported in the rest of the world.

US diplomats said last night that there was no embarrassment at the end of this bizarre saga, which has seen America hand over a cache of missiles they spent months tracking.
Papers across the planet are calling it an embarrassment. Which it was. But that's what spin doctors are for.

 

[Coolville]

You all talk WAY too much. Simple facts are this. Saddam is a madman who kills indescriminately, has been known to posess and USE WoMD in the past. Clearly has agressive tendancies so out of control that he invaded a soverign country, has expressed extreme hatred for the United States, has always supported terrorism, and has time and time and time again completely ignored the UN resolutions levied against his country.

Due to those facts, we need to take Saddam out whether or not we find WoMD. Simple as that. the whole inspections thing is just a sham, becase we know either we will find the weapons, or Saddam will do something that goes against the UN resolution, and give us free leave to take him and his regime out.

Your people should have thought about this before:

The US government says that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal, a cruel military despot who has committed genocide against his own people. That's a fairly accurate description of the man. In 1988, he razed hundreds of villages in northern Iraq and killed thousands of Kurds. Today, we know that that same year the US government provided him with $500m in subsidies to buy American farm products. The next year, after he had successfully completed his genocidal campaign, the US government doubled its subsidy to $1bn. It also provided him with high-quality germ seed for anthrax, as well as helicopters and dual-use material that could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

It turns out that while Saddam was carrying out his worst atrocities, the US and UK governments were his close allies. So what changed?

In August 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait. His sin was not so much that he had committed an act of war, but that he acted independently, without orders from his masters. This display of independence was enough to upset the power equation in the Gulf. So it was decided that Saddam be exterminated, like a pet that has outlived its owner's affection.
From The Guardian

 

[April]

JMO, but there is no we in this. There is only Bush. He is the one pushing in this situation.

We don't have any say in how our country is run or in what direction the country goes. Bush is the one in charge and he is taking us along for the ride to war.

So when people say that the US, as a nation, is pushing for war, they are wrong. It is Bush, as president, who is disregarding the desires of the nation, and doing what he wants.

 

[p_p_man]

You all talk WAY too much. Simple facts are this. Saddam is a madman who kills indescriminately, has been known to posess and USE WoMD in the past. Clearly has agressive tendancies so out of control that he invaded a soverign country, has expressed extreme hatred for the United States, has always supported terrorism, and has time and time and time again completely ignored the UN resolutions levied against his country.

And Bush? Completely in control?
And America? Using its own troops as experimental guinea pigs to test a cocktail of drugs.
And Bush? Didn't he invade Afghanistan?
And America? Doesn't she, through Bush, express extreme hatred against any country she feels is in her way?
And America? Hasn't she supported many terrorist groups in the past?
And America? Doesn't she also ignore many UN Resolutions (as well as not paying the money she owes)?

What's the difference?

ppman

 

[busybody..]

So how long will YOU wait" How many DEATHS is enough?

Al Qaeda, Iraq Linked to Chemical Weapons Deal -Post
Thu Dec 12, 1:34 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has a credible report that Islamic extremists linked to al Qaeda received a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.



Citing two officials with first-hand knowledge of the report and its source, the newspaper reported that U.S. analysts suspect the transfer involved the nerve agent VX and that it was smuggled through Turkey.


The Post quoted knowledgeable officials, who spoke without White House permission, as saying the information about the transfer came from a sensitive and credible source whom they declined to discuss.


"The way we gleaned the information makes us feel confident it is accurate," one of the officials told the paper. "I throw about 99 percent of the spot reports away when I look at them. I didn't throw this one away."


The newspaper quoted one official as saying that the transaction involved Asbat al-Ansar, a Lebanon-based Sunni extremist group that has recently established an enclave in northern Iraq. Asbat al-Ansar is affiliated with al Qaeda and receives funding from it, but officials told the newspapers they did not know whether the group's pursuit of chemical weapons was specifically on al Qaeda's behalf.


PRINCIPLE SOURCE


The newspaper said other spokesmen, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the principal source on the chemical transfer was uncorroborated and that indications it involved a nerve agent were open to interpretation.


If the report is true, it would be the first known acquisition of a nonconventional weapon other than cyanide by al Qaeda or a member of its network, the Post said.


It also would be the most concrete evidence to support a charge by the Bush administration that al Qaeda received material assistance in Iraq, the newspaper said.


Iraq has asserted that it has no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.


The Post said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, was the only official authorized by the White House to discuss the reported chemical transfer on the record.

"We are concerned because of al Qaeda's interest in obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, and we continue to seek evidence and intelligence information with regards to their planning activity," Johndroe told the paper.

"Have they obtained chemical weapons?" Johndroe said. "I do not have any hard, concrete evidence that they have."

Pressed on whether the information referred to a nerve agent, Johndroe said "There is no specific intelligence that limits al Qaeda's interest to one particular chemical or biological weapon over the other."

 

[Coolville]

JMO, but there is no we in this. There is only Bush. He is the one pushing in this situation.

We don't have any say in how our country is run or in what direction the country goes. Bush is the one in charge and he is taking us along for the ride to war.

So when people say that the US, as a nation, is pushing for war, they are wrong. It is Bush, as president, who is disregarding the desires of the nation, and doing what he wants.

There was big coverage in the rest of the world of all the recent anti-war demonstrations in 120 towns and cities across America. so don't worry, 'we' know that it's Bush and the Capitol Hillbillies

 

[SensualMan]

Bush at War

It seems to me that everyone that is posting here is assuming that Bush wants to go to war. According to Bob Woodward in his new book "Bush at War", he is not even sure Bush has made up his mind. In an interview I saw with him about his new book he said that Bush still seems undecided if war is the best option or not.

As for the US not having any evidence....how do you think we managed to get a unanimous vote in the security council? We obviously were able to present sufficient evidence that Hussein is in violation of various UN Resolutions in order to get as much international support as we have.

Also, this isn't just Bush's war, according to the last poll I saw almost 70% of the American public support military action in Iraq. As for military build up, of course we need to get the war machine turning before the decision is made. You can't decide to go to war and then start fighting the next day unless proper preparations have been made. All Bush is doing right now is setting the stage, getting the US ready for what seems inevitable.

Ten years ago I recall the same fatalists telling us how Iraq I was going to turn into another Vietnam and tens of thousands of young American soldiers would lose their lives. Well as everyone knows, that never happened, the US walked through Iraq without a problem and what indication is there that we can't do it again? If we have to go into every city and town and hunt down Hussein it is true that it will be more dangerous and there will likely be more casualties, but these dramatic predictions of thousands of casualties are over the top. Avoiding thousand of casualties is the very reason we are considering action in Iraq.

 

[greybeard]

Re: Bush at War

It seems to me that everyone that is posting here is assuming that Bush wants to go to war. According to Bob Woodward in his new book "Bush at War", he is not even sure Bush has made up his mind. In an interview I saw with him about his new book he said that Bush still seems undecided if war is the best option or not.

this may be true.........but I think he has a whole lot of people around him that have no doubt that it needs to be done........I just wish I could trust what they tell us..................

greybeard