Black People : Iraq; If the Facts are Known, Why are the Troops not Home????

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by Ankhur, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. Ankhur

    Ankhur Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,710
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    owner of various real estate concerns
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Ratings:
    +3,014
    With full knowledge that the reason for invading Iraq was bull mess, Tony Bliar will fully met with Bush to colonize that nation

    Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs
    By Tim Shipman
    Last updated at 10:57 AM on 26th November 2009

    Comments (424) Add to My Stories
    No chemical weapons: Tony Blair speaks to British soldiers
    The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.
    The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.
    And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.
    On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.

    Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.
    Then, after the war, officials had to tell Mr Blair not to 'declare success too rapidly' in the quest to find WMD in Iraq as he continued to make misleading statements claiming that 'massive evidence' had been found.

    The revelations reinforce the case that intelligence evidence that Saddam was no threat was ignored by Mr Blair to take Britain to war on a false prospectus.
    Sir William Ehrman, former Director General of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, said that on March 10, 2003 - ten days before the start of the war - British spies reported that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had.
    He said: 'On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.'
    The evidence was summarised in a Joint Intelligence Committee report circulated in Whitehall on March 19.
    Sir William blamed 'contradictory intelligence' for the failure to put the brakes on.
    Blood on your hands: A protester dressed as Tony Blair outside the inquiry into the Iraq war
    But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter-proliferation between 2000 and 2002, also revealed that a month earlier, in February 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had made clear that he did not believe the mythical weapons existed.

    'He raised it at a meeting with ministers,' Mr Dowse said.

    More...What an insult to the dead: Brown accused of 'suffocating' Iraq inquiry by blocking incriminating evidence
    UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for
    British officials ruled against 'illegal' ousting of Saddam, Iraq inquiry told
    Defence Secretary blasts Obama for 'dither' over more troops for Afghanistan
    9/11 as it happened: Website releases pager messages sent on day of attacks

    The most damning testimony concerned Downing Street's decision to write the now infamous dossier in September 2002 to make the case for war.

    Both WMD experts made clear that 'huge gaps' in intelligence on Iraq were flagged up to ministers, leaving them with no excuse when the caveats were removed from the final dossier.

    Sir William said experts concluded that there never was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, describing it only as a 'clear and present threat'.
    Risk: Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il were of greater concern than Iraq
    He explained that intelligence knowledge of Saddam's weapons programmes was 'patchy' in May 2001, 'sporadic and patchy' in March 2002, and revealed that an August 2002 briefing note for ministers admitted 'we know very little' about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected.

    Both witnesses said that in the years before the war Iraq was not even seen as the main threat.
    Sir William said: 'In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq.' Mr Dowse added: 'It wasn't top of the list.'
    Saddam Hussein had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda


    The Government also tried to justify the war in Iraq because WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. But Mr Dowse said that Saddam had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda, had 'stepped further back' after the 9/11 attacks and had never passed WMD to terrorists.

    By September 2002, as the dossier was being written, Sir William said the intelligence about Saddam's WMD 'remained limited'.
    He added: 'The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists.'
    Yet in his foreword to the dodgy dossier, Mr Blair claimed 'beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce biological weapons'.

    That claim was condemned by the Butler Report into the intelligence in 2004 as 'not a statement it was possible to make' because 'intelligence does not have that degree of certainty'.
    Mr Dowse, who worked on the dossier, made clear he had not seen Mr Blair's foreword before publication and took aim at the former Prime Minister, saying: 'With hindsight the Butler committee made a fair comment.'
    Sir William admitted that weapons inspectors said that six out of ten intelligence reports proved inaccurate. 'Four out of ten as a strike rate is pretty good,' he said.

    But historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: 'Not when you are going to war.'
    Mr Dowse later cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr Blair's claims after the war, when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was in the process of exposing that there was no WMD in Iraq.

    Day one: Chairman John Chilcot (3rd L) speaks during the Iraq Inquiry in central London
    In December 2003, nine months after the invasion, Mr Blair was still insisting: 'The ISG has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories.'
    Mr Dowse said: 'I did not advise him to use those words', and admitted that officials had told ministers not to 'declare success too rapidly'.
    He said: 'My concern was that we should not announce things until we were absolutely certain of our ground because it would have been a disaster, frankly, in PR terms.'
    Last night LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey said: 'This new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.
    'A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case.'

    And 45-minute warning was misleading too...Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could hit British targets in just 45 minutes was misleading, the Iraq Inquiry heard.
    The claim was the centrepiece of the so-called dodgy dossier published by Downing Street in September 2002 to justify the case for war.
    But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter proliferation when the dossier was being drawn up, said that it only ever referred to short-range battlefield rockets, not long-range missiles.
    That crucial distinction was omitted from the dossier and encouraged the drift to war.



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...MD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y4UaQdN3


    Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair 'agreed to regime change' in meeting at George Bush's ranch
    Tony Blair and George Bush may have agreed the need for regime change in Iraq in private discussions at the US president's ranch, Sir Christopher Meyer has told the Iraq Inquiry.

    Published: 11:01AM GMT 26 Nov 2009


    Link to this video Sir Christopher, who was Britain's ambassador to the US between 1997 and 2003, said the April 2002 meeting in Crawford, Texas, appeared to be a major turning point.

    He said in evidence: ''I took no part in any of the discussions and there was a large chunk of that time when no adviser was there.


    Related Articles
    What will the Iraq inquiry achieve?
    Iraq inquiry: US pursued Saddam link after 9/11
    Iraq inquiry: Saddam 'was not on US radar' in 2000
    Iraq inquiry: WMD had been dismantled
    Who's who in the Iraq inquiry ''I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting but to this day I am not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch.''

    He said the change in stance was evidenced in a speech given by the Prime Minister the following day.

    ''To the best of my knowledge, I might be wrong, this was the first time that Tony Blair had said in public 'regime change','' Sir Christopher said.

    ''What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq. which led - I think not inadvertently but deliberately - to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

    ''When I heard that speech, I thought that this ......

    full article:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-change-in-meeting-at-George-Bushs-ranch.html
     
  2. Rahim

    Rahim Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    51
    Ratings:
    +51
    the troops are not home because this war has more to do with oil profits and protecting Afghan druglords than finding WMDs
     
  3. FASN8N1

    FASN8N1 Active Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +17
    Well it isn't hard to tell why the US is over there .It all comes down to three letters....N ,W ,O .And this is coming from someone that was there for a whole year ....Terrible man !Yeah I've been in the Army Reserve for like 19 years ,surprisingly .I never had anyone talk to me when I was a teen before going in .It took me a long time to see how things really work in the Military ,Especially for black people .

    I have medical conditions that prevent me from going back .Its sad to say ,but Troops don't know why they are even over there .The war was never meant to be won ,but only sustained .All you have to do is look at the US uniforms now .They are all catered to dessert climates .No more Green Camo .Dessert Camo is the weapon of choice now .Because thats where all our supposed conflicts are coming from .I've seen some real sad things happen over there .Some too sad to even mention .

    I'm at the 20 year mark ,and my medical conditions are a real concern of superiors now .I feel like they are trying to pull a fast one ,by asking me "What are you gonna do Sgt?" Oh I get the hint .

    It just goes to show .when you got money ,you can do anything and get away with it .And if you think Obama is going to lassle our troops out of Iraq ?Keep dreamin .Its much bigger than him .Besides the buzz is Troops would rather be in Iraq then be in Afghanistan .NOOOO ,they don't want no parts of that . Kind of like pick your Poison .
     
  4. Ankhur

    Ankhur Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,710
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    owner of various real estate concerns
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Ratings:
    +3,014
    I sincerely hope that one and all read your first had response, because it speaks volumes, and will wake up alot of minds that still think the NWO is just a conspiracy theory.

    Asante' sana
     
  5. Ankhur

    Ankhur Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,710
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    owner of various real estate concerns
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Ratings:
    +3,014
  6. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    With four out of five military aged Americans too obese to meet the military's fitness standards they won't be able to sustain this war too much longer. One day a president is going to call for a surge and it will be like poor Mother Hubbard.
     
  7. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    In fact, what the US is doing sending its few healthy people to die in Iraq is the same thing Africa did selling its strongest people into slavery. The day will come when there will be no one left but the weak. They should not get mad at me or think of me as a threat for saying it. It's going to happen whether I say anything or not. The greed for money and power that drives this country guarantees that it will happen.
     
  8. Ankhur

    Ankhur Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,710
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    owner of various real estate concerns
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Ratings:
    +3,014

    Published on Friday, September 24, 2010 by Reuters
    U.S. Troops Fight on Despite End to Combat in Iraq
    by Jim Loney

    BAGHDAD - Since President Barack Obama declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, U.S. troops have waged a gun battle with a suicide squad in Baghdad, dropped bombs on armed militants in Baquba and assisted Iraqi soldiers in a raid in Falluja.

    Obama's announcement on August 31 has not meant the end of fighting for some of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel remaining in Iraq 7-1/2 years after the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein. "Our rules of engagement have not changed," said Brigadier General Jeffrey Buchanan, a U.S. military spokesman.
    Obama's announcement on August 31 has not meant the end of fighting for some of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel remaining in Iraq 7-1/2 years after the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

    "Our rules of engagement have not changed. Iraq does remain from time to time a dangerous place, so when our soldiers are attacked they will return fire," said Brigadier General Jeffrey Buchanan, a U.S. military spokesman......

    ......Colonel Mark Mitchell, commander of a U.S. special operations training force, said Americans are routinely outnumbered by Iraqis two-to-one on such missions but the ratio can be as high as eight-to-one.

    Iraqis plan and lead the operation and conduct the assault, while Americans hold back, watching, coaching and supervising, entering the hideout only when the Iraqis have secured it.

    "We call it the Darth Vader model ... the imperial storm troopers, they'll go in, secure the target. Once it's all secure then Darth Vader can go in and walk through," Mitchell said.:10500:




    www.commondreams.org
     
  9. orenthal

    orenthal Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11
    It's awful what's happened over there. It's like the western countries want to colonize Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
Loading...