WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

by **TexasBlue** Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:32 am

WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Associated Press
Oct. 22, 2010

LONDON — The WikiLeaks website appears close to releasing what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history - hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

U.S. officials said Friday they were racing to contain the damage from the imminent release, while NATO top official told reporters he feared that lives could be put at risk by the mammoth disclosure.

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said any release would create "a very unfortunate situation."

"I can't comment on the details of the exact impact on security but in general I can tell you that such leaks ... may have a very negative security impact for people involved," he told reporters Friday in Berlin following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

A team of more than a hundred analysts from across the U.S. military, lead by the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been combing through the Iraq documents they think will be released in anticipation of the leak.

Called the Information Review Task Force, its analysts have pored over the documents and used word searches to try to pull out names and other issues that would be particularly sensitive, officials have said.

The task force has informed the U.S. Central Command of some of the names of Iraqis and allies and other information they believe might be released that could present a danger, officials have said, noting that - unlike the WikiLeaks previous disclosure of some 77,000 documents from Afghanistan - in this case they had advance notice that names may be exposed.

Once officials see what is publicly released, the command "can quickly push the information down" to forces in Iraq, according to Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan, a Defense Department spokesman in Washington.

"Centcom can jump into action and take whatever mitigating steps" might be needed, Lapan said Friday.

Wikileaks' previous release of secret war documents in July from Iraq and Afghanistan outraged the Pentagon, which accused the group of being irresponsible. Fogh Rasmussen said Friday that leaks of this nature "may put soldiers as well as civilians at risk."

But it appears that those fears - which the military has invoked in its appeal to WikiLeaks and the media not to publish the documents - have yet to materialize. A Pentagon letter obtained by The Associated Press reported that no U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the Afghan war logs' disclosure.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates reported the conclusions in an Aug. 16 letter to Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had requested a Pentagon assessment.

by **TexasBlue** Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:33 am

I can't begin to tell you what i'd like to do to this WikiLeaks organization.

by Guest Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:19 pm

TexasBlue wrote:WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Associated Press
Oct. 22, 2010

LONDON — The WikiLeaks website appears close to releasing what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history - hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq..

a true hero.. some one who should be given a noble peace prize.. some one who prove just unlawfully America behaved in their illegal Iraq war.. we can only hope these papers will lead to the much needed International War Crime Trial

by Guest Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:10 pm

TexasBlue wrote:I can't begin to tell you what i'd like to do to this WikiLeaks organization.

No, actually do tell us. Personally I'm not too sure where I stand on them.

by **TexasBlue** Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:59 pm

merkwurdigliebe wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:I can't begin to tell you what i'd like to do to this WikiLeaks organization.

No, actually do tell us. Personally I'm not too sure where I stand on them.

I can't say for obvious reasons.

But I can tell you that many people's lives will be put in danger because of this. Americans, Iraqi's, Europeans and Afghani's alike.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:44 am

This is wikileaks manifesto:

"[Our] primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."

They won an award from Amnesty international for "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances".

Other than that, their most notable actions to date have been releasing that video of those Iraqi civilians allegedly being killed by US soldiers on the Collateral Murder website, then there was the Afghan War Diary and then the Iraqi War Logs.

You have to ask yourself - are the claims that these leaks are putting people's lives at risk true, or is that just a smoke screen for governments to hide behind when things they wanted to keep buried come to light? Or even, a measure of both?

I want to know what my government has done - however unsavoury. The question is - at what cost. Are lives really being put at risk by these leaks? And what cost can you put on revealing the truth? If people are dying, are being tortured, and if laws are being broken - as wikileaks claims - then what cost can we put on bringing that illegal behaviour to light?

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:54 am

cable2 wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Associated Press
Oct. 22, 2010

LONDON — The WikiLeaks website appears close to releasing what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history - hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq..

a true hero.. some one who should be given a noble peace prize.. some one who prove just unlawfully America behaved in their illegal Iraq war.. we can only hope these papers will lead to the much needed International War Crime Trial

And what if a particular leak damages such a trial? Would you be so willing to shower them in glory then?

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:03 am

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
cable2 wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Associated Press
Oct. 22, 2010

LONDON — The WikiLeaks website appears close to releasing what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history - hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq..

a true hero.. some one who should be given a noble peace prize.. some one who prove just unlawfully America behaved in their illegal Iraq war.. we can only hope these papers will lead to the much needed International War Crime Trial
And what if a particular leak damages such a trial? Would you be so willing to shower them in glory then?

I understand what you're saying - and I do appreciate the harm the wikileaks could cause in this regard, but for there to even be an enquiry it requires people be aware of any illegal behaviour being carried out.

Really this is an issue of the freedom of press, how far should they be allowed to go, should there be restrictions on their freedom, what do we need to know and at what cost.

And wikileaks haven't been awarded the Peace Prize, but Amnesty did see fit to award them.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:56 am

Huge Wikileaks release shows US 'ignored Iraq torture'

Wikileaks has released almost 400,000 secret US military logs, which suggest US commanders ignored evidence of torture by the Iraqi authorities.

The documents also suggest "hundreds" of civilians were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003.

And the files show the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. The death toll was put at 109,000, of whom 66,081 were civilians.

The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history.

A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events.
<Bec: In that case - how can they be said to offer a potential threat to individuals?>

On allegations of abuse, he said it was policy always to report "potentially illegal abusive behaviour" so action could be taken.

At a news conference in London, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that those snapshots of everyday events offered a glimpse at the "human scale" of the conflict.

The deaths of one or two individuals made up the "overwhelming number" of people killed in Iraq, Mr Assange said.

The new documents and new deaths contained within them showed the range and frequency of the "small, relentless tragedies of this war" added John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, which worked with Wikileaks.

Speaking to reporters in Washington on Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she condemned the disclosure and suggested the leaks put lives at risk.

However, Wikileaks said it was confident that the documents - published in a heavily censored form - contain "no information that could be harmful to any individual".

Wikileaks says it expects to launch legal proceedings as a result of information contained in the documents.

'Nothing new'

The 391,831 US army Sigacts (Significant Actions) reports published by Wikileaks on Friday describe the apparent torture of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi authorities, sometimes using electrocution, electric drills and in some cases even executing detainees, says the BBC's Adam Brookes, who has examined some of the files.

The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked "no further investigation", our correspondent adds.

One document shows the US military was given a video apparently showing Iraqi Army (IA) officers executing a prisoner in the northern town of Talafar.

"The footage shows the IA soldiers moving the detainee into the street, pushing him to the ground, punching him and shooting him," states the log, which also names at least one of the perpetrators.

In another case, US soldiers suspected army officers of cutting off a detainee's fingers and burning him with acid.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the BBC that if abuse by the Iraqi security forces was witnessed, or reports of it were received, US military personnel were instructed to inform their commanders.

"And at the appropriate level that information would then be shared with the Iraqi authorities and the military for them to take action."

The documents also reveal many previously unreported instances in which US forces killed civilians at checkpoints and during operations.

In one incident in July 2007, as many as 26 Iraqis were killed by a helicopter, about half of them civilians, according to the log.

Another record shows an Apache helicopter gunship fired on two men believed to have fired mortars at a military base in Baghdad in February 2007, even though they were attempting to surrender. The crew asked a lawyer whether they could accept the surrender, but were told they could not, "and are still valid targets". So they shot them.

The helicopter - with the callsign "Crazyhorse 18" - was also involved in another incident that July in which two journalists were killed and two children wounded.

There are also new indications of Iran's involvement in Iraq, with reports of insurgents being trained and using weapons provided by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

Finally, the documents appear to show that the US military did keep records of civilian deaths, despite earlier denials that any official statistics on the death toll were available.

The logs showed there were more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009.

They included 66,081 civilians, 23,984 people classed as "enemy", 15,196 members of the Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 coalition troops.

Iraq Body Count, which collates civilian deaths using cross-checked media reports and other figures such as morgue records, said that based on an analysis of a sample of 860 logs, it estimated that around 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths would be identified.

The UK's Guardian newspaper also reported that the US military appeared not to have recorded any civilian deaths during its two major offensives on the city of Falluja in 2004.

Mr Morrell, of the Pentagon, told the BBC that the leak was a "travesty" which provided enemies of the West with an "extraordinary database to figure out how we operate".

He said the cache of documents contained "nothing new" with regards to fundamental policy issues.

And he once again asked Wikileaks to remove the documents from the web and return them to the Department of Defense.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggested the whistle-blowing website had blood on its hands in July after it published more than 70,000 secret papers about the war in Afghanistan.

The investigation into the Afghan leak has focused on Bradley Manning, a US army intelligence analyst who is in custody and has been charged with providing Wikileaks with a video of the July 2007 attack by a helicopter with the callsign Crazyhorse 18.

The release of the documents comes as the US military prepares to withdraw all 50,000 remaining troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Violence in the country has declined sharply over the past two years, but near-daily bombings and shootings continue.

Analysis

Adam Brookes
BBC News

The documents number in the hundreds of thousands. They take the form of reports written by soldiers after vicious firefights with insurgents, or after a roadside bomb has gone off, or the bodies of a family have been found murdered in an abandoned factory. Their language is military - hard and attenuated.

We found, with relative ease, reports of horrible abuse committed by Iraqi security forces on detainees - beatings, electrocution, the use of an electric drill on a man's legs. The Americans were aware the abuse had taken place. On some, not all, of these reports was marked "no further investigation", suggesting that American forces took no action on learning of the abuse.

The true lessons contained in these documents will take months or years to emerge. But an early question they pose is: why do Iraqi security forces appear to be continuing practices that might have died with the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime? And what has the United States done to end them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:38 am

TexasBlue wrote:I can tell you that many people's lives will be put in danger because of this. Americans, Iraqi's, Europeans and Afghani's alike.

WikiLeaks Puts Secret Documents on Iraq War in Spotlight
posted by: Suzi Parrasch

The Pentagon is bracing for the latest WikiLeaks data dump -- close to 400,000 pages of documents about the Iraq War that were released Friday. The New York Times -- one of the four news organizations to receive the documents, (the others are the British newspaper The Guardian , the French newspaper Le Monde and the German magazine Der Spiegel) -- calls it "a huge trove of secret field reports from the battlegrounds of Iraq [that] sheds new light on the war, including such fraught subjects as civilian deaths, detainee abuse and the involvement of Iran."

According to CNN, "a source close to WikiLeaks said the material covers the period from 2004 through 2009 -- nearly the entirety of the conflict, which began in 2003."

In the wake of WikiLeaks' release this past July of 70,000 pages of documents on the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has assembled 120 experts who are at the ready to sort through the documents, according to spokesman Col. Dave Lapan. Lapan told ABC News that "the Defense Department does not anticipate any big surprises from the document dump given its prior review of the documents." Nevertheless, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told ABC News "we strongly condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

CNN reports:
WikiLeaks called Friday's document drop "the largest classified military leak in history."

WikiLeaks editor in chief Julian Assange told CNN in an exclusive interview on Friday that the new round of field reports shows "compelling evidence of war crimes" committed by forces of the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government. Morrell rebutted that charge. "We vetted every single one of the documents, word by word, page by page," telling CNN the vetting began in July. "There is nothing here which would indicate war crimes. If there were, we would have investigated it a long time ago," he said.

In a news release, the group said the documents detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, encompassing 66,081 civilians, 23,984 insurgents, 15,196 Iraqi government forces, and 3,771 coalition forces, according to the classifications used by the U.S. military.

Assange said the documents contained more than 1,000 reports on the torture or abuse of detainees by Iraqi government forces and he expects that 40 new wrongful death lawsuits will be filed as a result of the new leaks.

According to new documents, the vast majority of slain civilians were killed by other Iraqis.

The U.S. military is notifying Iraqis named in the documents, said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.
There are 300 names of Iraqis in here that we think would be particularly endangered by their exposure," he said. "We have passed that information of to the U.S. Forces in Iraq. They are in the process right now of contacting those Iraqis to try to safeguard them."

The New York Times reports:
A close analysis of the 391,832 documents helps illuminate several important aspects of this war:
The deaths of Iraqi civilians — at the hands mainly of other Iraqis, but also of the American military — appear to be greater than the numbers made public by the United States during the Bush administration.

While the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Americans, particularly at the Abu Ghraib prison, shocked the American public and much of the world, the documents paint an even more lurid picture of abuse by America's Iraqi allies -- a brutality from which the Americans at times averted their eyes.

Iran's military, more than has been generally understood, intervened aggressively in support of Shiite combatants, offering weapons, training and sanctuary and in a few instances directly engaging American troops.

The war in Iraq spawned a reliance on private contractors on a scale not well recognized at the time and previously unknown in American wars. The documents describe an outsourcing of combat and other duties once performed by soldiers that grew and spread to Afghanistan to the point that there are more contractors there than soldiers.

The Guardian reports:
US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished.

A U.S. helicopter gunship involved in a notorious Baghdad incident had previously killed Iraqi insurgents after they tried to surrender.

More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and U.K. officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.

To allay fears that the secret information in the documents could make troops vulnerable, the Times, as it also did with the Afghan war logs, has redacted or withheld any documents that would put lives in danger or jeopardize continuing military operations. Names of Iraqi informants, for example, have not been disclosed. WikiLeaks said that it has also employed teams of editors to scrub the material for posting on its Web site.

WikiLeaks' first release of the Afghan war documents caused a whirlwhind of criticism and a critical look into the life of WikiLeaks' Australian founder Assange, including reports of two separate cases of rape and molestation. This new release will undoubtably cause a further investigation. There's no word yet on who could have leaked the latest round of documents.

As ABC News reports, "the investigation into the leaked Afghan war documents has focused on Army Specialist Bradley Manning, who worked as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. He is now under military detention in the Washington, DC area under charges that he a classified video showing an Apache helicopter attack in 2007 that killed civilians and two Reuters news photographers."

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/wikileaks-puts-secret-documents-on-iraq-war-in-spotlight/

the BBC said last night, that no one person had been recorded as killed in relation to the release of the Afghan papers by wikileaks and don't think such an argument abut the release of these Iraqi papers is justified

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:53 am

TexasBlue wrote:WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Associated Press
Oct. 22, 2010

LONDON — The WikiLeaks website appears close to releasing what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history - hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq..

cable2 wrote:a true hero.. some one who should be given a noble peace prize.. some one who prove just unlawfully America behaved in their illegal Iraq war.. we can only hope these papers will lead to the much needed International War Crime Trial

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:And what if a particular leak damages such a trial? Would you be so willing to shower them in glory then?

I don't think you could lessen the glory of such a hero.. just cos you could not use the information in the way you hoped.. the information will lead to other evidence and to the names of other criminals.. evidence to have Bush and others standing in the same dock as yet un-named Iraqis. no matter what one hoped for, you should not pre-judge to the finding of the court.. the important thing is to get those War criminals to court in the first place.. and that brings us right back to the release of these papers.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:07 am

Another point i wanted to raise here is that all of this was done by a US Army specialist using classified information that he had access to and transmitting it to WikiLeaks. The man broke an article of the UCMJ and will be punished.

That said... there are other ways to go about bring this stuff to light. What this kid did started all of this. I'm sure he's a hero to some but to many here in the USA, he's not.

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:06 pm

TexasBlue wrote:Another point i wanted to raise here is that all of this was done by a US Army specialist using classified information that he had access to and transmitting it to WikiLeaks. The man broke an article of the UCMJ and will be punished.

That said... there are other ways to go about bring this stuff to light. What this kid did stared all of this. I'm sure he's a hero to some but to many here in the USA, he's not.

the reason why he is the hero is cos.. he is willing to except his punishment to bring you the truth of just how badly behaved your military was in Iraq.. to bring the truth on just much the Pentagon and Bush's whitehouse lied to you... or just how many War crimes where done in your name and in the name of your country

what would these other ways to bring this stuff to light be.. do you really think the Pentagon would willing let this stuff see the light of day ????

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:18 pm

cable2 wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:Another point i wanted to raise here is that all of this was done by a US Army specialist using classified information that he had access to and transmitting it to WikiLeaks. The man broke an article of the UCMJ and will be punished.

That said... there are other ways to go about bring this stuff to light. What this kid did stared all of this. I'm sure he's a hero to some but to many here in the USA, he's not.

the reason why he is the hero is cos.. he is willing to except his punishment to bring you the truth of just how badly behaved your military was in Iraq.. to bring the truth on just much the Pentagon and Bush's whitehouse lied to you... or just how many War crimes where done in your name and in the name of your country

what would these other ways to bring this stuff to light be.. do you really think the Pentagon would willing let this stuff see the light of day ????

It is this sort of naked moral posturing, blatant America bashing, narrow-minded finger pointing ("Bush's whitehouse [sic]) and premature judgment (War crimes), that cheapens this debate and exposes your own political agenda.

Have you no perspective whatsoever cable? Is there no nuance in your world? Is everything black and white with absolutely no shades of gray? Have you read all 400,000 pages of this leak? Are you now the sole expert on all 400,000 pages?

Honestly, can you not make a single post (not counting the posting of articles devoid of personal comment) that doesn't make you appear as someone devoid of any subtlety whatsoever? Could you at least make an attempt at reason for the sake of civility?

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:35 pm

cable2 wrote:the reason why he is the hero is cos.. he is willing to except his punishment to bring you the truth of just how badly behaved your military was in Iraq..

It's BS like this that I abhor. You and others like you, think he's a hero. 80% of Americans would tell you he's a traitor.

Our military behaved badly? Please.

cable2 wrote:to bring the truth on just much the Pentagon and Bush's whitehouse lied to you... or just how many War crimes where done in your name and in the name of your country

Again with accusations of "lies." Why don't you back all of this up with some concrete evidence that Bush lied? Bring it on and i'll have a rebuttal to make your "evidence" look outlandish.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:37 pm

You know, Cable, it would help you and your reputation if you engaged in other posts and discussions. You solely concentrate on this subject here as if your life depends on it. You never have engaged in friendly banter with me or others with whom you routinely disagree with. That's very telling in itself.

by Guest Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:52 am

cable2 wrote:to bring the truth on just much the Pentagon and Bush's whitehouse lied to you... or just how many War crimes where done in your name and in the name of your country

Again with accusations of "lies." Why don't you back all of this up with some concrete evidence that Bush lied? Bring it on and i'll have a rebuttal to make your "evidence" look outlandish. [/quote]

O' Golly Gosh... where to start with Bush's lies... let's start with a simple one.

Bush's speech to the UN on 12 September 2002 “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.” a complete and known lie.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

by Guest Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:13 am

TexasBlue wrote:You know, Cable, it would help you and your reputation if you engaged in other posts and discussions. You solely concentrate on this subject here as if your life depends on it. You never have engaged in friendly banter with me or others with whom you routinely disagree with. That's very telling in itself.

O' I thought my reputation here had been set in concrete, by going on the way I keep getting described.. the reason why I feel this and related subjects is so important is cos.. the unlawful killing of over 1 million men, women and children in Bush's illegal wars should never be forgotten or forgiven until an International War Crimes court bring justice.. the reason why I feel this and related subjects is so important is cos.. Bush's world wide network of torture camps should never be forgotten or forgiven until an International Criminal court bring justice..

but it is not MY life that depends on it, but.. the lives of unknown millions.

"You never have engaged in friendly banter with me or others".. I have tried, I even added a Wink

to such posts but.. I found myself having to justify my posts and explain the Wink

, as others go off on another rant towards I .. banter go's both ways.

I can't be both the whipping boy.. and the joker.

by **TexasBlue** Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:59 am

cable2 wrote:O' Golly Gosh... where to start with Bush's lies... let's start with a simple one.

Bush's speech to the UN on 12 September 2002 “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.” a complete and known lie.

FAIL! It was a statement that IF Iraq SHOULD acquire fissile material, that it would be able to build a nuke. SHOULD is the key word here. Fail!

cable2 wrote:"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

FAIL!

From our governments own web site: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

by Guest Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:01 pm

cable2 wrote:O' Golly Gosh... where to start with Bush's lies... let's start with a simple one.

Bush's speech to the UN on 12 September 2002 “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.” a complete and known lie.

TexasBlue wrote:FAIL! It was a statement that IF Iraq SHOULD acquire fissile material, that it would be able to build a nuke. SHOULD is the key word here. Fail!

NO.. the key words are "would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year" mayhap you can show how this was not a Known lie by Bush. Wink

cable2 wrote:"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

FAIL!

TexasBlue wrote:From our governments own web site: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

and the World laughed when the Pentagon first to use the rusted shells they dug up, deep in the sands near the Iran boarder to justify so much butchery... you have use some thing more to justify Iraq then Bush's government papers.. the release of the American parers show just how far America went to hide the truth in their illegal war. and if you remember me old mate we debated the claim on the other site.. and you lost that exchange as well Smile

by **TexasBlue** Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:18 pm

cable2 wrote:NO.. the key words are "would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year" mayhap you can show how this was not a Known lie by Bush.

Bleh! Hussein had capable nuclear scientists and technicians. He had the physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon had he wanted to. Remember, he had almost finished a reactor in 1980 or '81 before your best friends, Israel, took care of that. WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents 376848

WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents 376848

cable2 wrote:and the World laughed when the Pentagon first to use the rusted shells they dug up, deep in the sands near the Iran boarder to justify so much butchery... you have use some thing more to justify Iraq then Bush's government papers.. the release of the American parers show just how far America went to hide the truth in their illegal war. and if you remember me old mate we debated the claim on the other site.. and you lost that exchange as well

You can't win something you don't possess.

The instance of a single chemical weapon in Iraq violates the terms that ended the first Gulf War. Even your WikiLeaks hero found so.

Plonk!

by **TexasBlue** Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:25 pm

By the way, since you're all about the "rule of law" and priase of the UN, the terms of Section 8 of UN resolution 687 that ended the first Gulf War state that

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Of course, it's only "rule of law" that you agree with. But since you find the UN relevant, this law must be relevant also? But since Iraq violated much of this resolution and others, the action taken against them was warranted. But then the UN didn't want the US to take action because many nations had shady deals going on in the background in the "oil for food" scam. But since that in itself was a violation the UN resolutions, those nations should be held in low regard.

Oh, the weird tales of the left.

by Guest Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:15 pm

cable2 wrote:NO.. the key words are "would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year" mayhap you can show how this was not a Known lie by Bush.

TexasBlue wrote:Bleh! Hussein had capable nuclear scientists and technicians. He had the physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon had he wanted to. Remember, he had almost finished a reactor in 1980 or '81 before your best friends, Israel, took care of that.

Iran is up to 10 years away from a bomb.. and it has all the equipment needed up and running.. while your Bush told the UN, Iraq would have a bomb "with in a year" with out any of the equipment at hand Wink

cable2 wrote:and the World laughed when the Pentagon first to use the rusted shells they dug up, deep in the sands near the Iran boarder to justify so much butchery... you have use some thing more to justify Iraq then Bush's government papers.. the release of the American parers show just how far America went to hide the truth in their illegal war. and if you remember me old mate we debated the claim on the other site.. and you lost that exchange as well

TexasBlue wrote:You can't win something you don't possess.

The instance of a single chemical weapon in Iraq violates the terms that ended the first Gulf War. Even your WikiLeaks hero found so.

Plonk!

the only trouble with you victory is NO one in Iraq knew those rusty "un-useable" shell where there.. and if the trooper had not tripped over no one would.. O' how do's a un-useable rusty shell long buried in the sand fulfills the term "Chemical Weapon" Wink

NO.. me thinks your tap dancing around with the words doesn't really answer Wink

by BecMacFeegle Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:25 pm

WMDs aside - do you the world needed to intervene with the situation in Iraq, and if so what do you think should have been done, Cable?

I'm just interested to hear your point of view on this.

by **TexasBlue** Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:33 pm

cable2 wrote:Iran is up to 10 years away from a bomb.. and it has all the equipment needed up and running.. while your Bush told the UN, Iraq would have a bomb "with in a year" with out any of the equipment at hand

Makes you happy, doesn't it? Seriously, Iran isn't part of this discussion but since you insist. They're capable of it right now. Anyone with nuke capability can make a bomb and put it in a box the size of a television.

cable2 wrote:the only trouble with you victory is NO one in Iraq knew those rusty "un-useable" shell where there.. and if the trooper had not tripped over no one would.. O' how do's a un-useable rusty shell long buried in the sand fulfills the term "Chemical Weapon"

NO.. me thinks your tap dancing around with the words doesn't really answer

Got any proof that nobody knew they were there?

Chemical weapons means what it says. They buried them. Are you that crazy to think that Saddam would've left everything sitting there for UN inspectors to find? For the US to find? No, he was mad but not insane.

I don't tap dance. I deal with reality and facts instead of hyperbole.

by Sponsored content

WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Wikileaks confident that no-one's safety put at risk by leaked Iraq war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents

Re: WikiLeaks near release of secret US war documents