Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Blair Told Saddam...

Discussion in 'International Forum' started by X-PASTER, Nov 26, 2009.

  1. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #1
    Nov 26, 2009
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    Blair Told Saddam Had No Chemical
    Weapons 10 Days Before Invasion

    By Doireann Ronayne and Alex Stevenson

    Tony Blair received intelligence that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had been dismantled just days before the invasion of Iraq, it has been revealed.

    Giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Sir William Ehrman, director general of defence and intelligence in the Foreign Office from 2002 to 2004, said: "On March 10th 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."

    Ten days later the invasion of Iraq began.

    Meanwhile, the inquiry heard that evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq was "pretty sparse".

    Tim Dowse, head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office from 2001 to 2003, told Sir John Chilcot's committee he agreed that a "particular mindset" about Iraq had been adopted and that more care could have been taken with the intelligence received.

    But he pressed that while most WMD were built for defence, Saddam's intention "with his history of aggression" was clearly offensive.

    Sir William emphasised that other Middle Eastern countries posed a greater threat than Iraq.

    "In 2001 Libya and Iran were ahead of Iraq in terms of being more threatening about WMD," he said.

    Sir William confirmed that contact between Iraq and al-Qaida existed but said Saddam was not "in any way responsible" for the September 11th 2001 terror attacks against New York.

    The Iraqi dictator's government supported Palestinian terrorist groups and the MEK terror group directed against Iran, however.

    Mr Dowse said Saddam Hussein's government had contacts with al-Qaida but Iraq and the terrorist organisation were not "natural allies".

    He also argued the infamous 45-minute deployment claim for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "didn't seem out of line".

    It had taken on an "iconic status" because of media reports, Mr Dowse argued.

    Committee member Lawrence Freedman concluded the 45-minute claim had got "lost in translation" because the public understood it referred to nuclear weapons, not chemical battlefield weapons.

    On the French proposal for a different type of inspection, Mr Dowse said that this would have been a "hiatus" and had little confidence it would have produced a different outcome.

    "The liar was telling the truth," Sir John concluded on the actual findings of weapons in Iraq.

    Ballistic missiles – that have a range well beyond 150km – were found, while chemical munitions were also discovered in small numbers in the south of Iraq. The chemical weapons appeared to be left over from the 1991 Gulf war, however.

    "What we had was a 20,000 piece jigsaw, of which 15,000 pieces had been hidden," Mr Dowse said.

    He was concerned that ministers should not declare success too rapidly on the discovery of weapons. Sir Roderic Lyne questioned whether the prime minister's statement in September 2004 that the Iraq Survey Group "had already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories" corresponded to that advice.

    Mr Dowse replied that he had not advised Mr Blair, before Sir William defended the response of the UK government.

    "We removed the long-term threat to Iraq by the action that was taken. We disrupted but did not remove the Al Quaeda threat in Afghanistan and we removed the treat to Iran through diplomatic action and an agreement to suspend enrichment activities," he said.

    The chair concluded by observing the lack of WMDs found in Iraq was a "rather embarrassing outcome” for the government.

    Tomorrow Sir Christopher Mayer – UK ambassador to Washington in 2003 - will speak at the inquiry on US foreign policy priorities and US decision-making.



    politics.co.uk
     
  2. MwanaFalsafa1

    MwanaFalsafa1 JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Nov 26, 2009
    Joined: Feb 26, 2008
    Messages: 5,566
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 135
    It is already an established fact that America and the U.K. went into Iraq under false pretenses. They really wanted to take out the dictator Saddam Hussein but sadly they took a by any means possible approach. Maybe they thought the end will justify the means.
     
  3. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #3
    Nov 26, 2009
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    that's your justification, kwa hiyo hayakuwa tena masuwala ya siraha za mahangamizi?
     
  4. Juma Contena

    Juma Contena JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Nov 27, 2009
    Joined: May 21, 2009
    Messages: 1,195
    Likes Received: 8
    Trophy Points: 135
    In the current UK public inquiry the finger of blame is pointing towards tony blair. its only the first week lakini all the evidence so far suggests that tony blair misled the public with false accusations.

    The intelligence proved at the time Iraq did not even have the capability of producing the nuclear weapon. And the evidence is backed by the end results, nothing of that nature was found to be existence in iraq even after Saddam was toppled.

    the intelligence said south korea and iran were much more dangerous than iraq. and we know so far Iran which was ahead of the race compared to iraq hasnt produced the full weapon fact verified by the UN. People are now questioning where did Mr blair got the fact that Iraq was capable of launching a missile within 45mins Lies lies lies.

    Its all a shame not to mention a senior UK member who sat in the UN council that argued the invasion also came out and attacked Mr Blair calling him an American puppet who contributed for the loss of innocent lives knowing the facts, that america had decided to invade iraq straight after the 9/11 with reasons known to them.

    However on the other side they insist it was necessary to invade, saddam was a dictator and he was killing is people. ask yourself who was the worst between Milokhovic and him. Ask your self why was one given the UN trial and the other a local trial.

    Human rights campaigners want to see tony blair made accountable for his role, some have asked for him to be taken of his current post as the ambassador to the middle east peace process because he represent racist views and not a true campaigner of human rights.

    Im waiting to see how they would explain the death of Dr.Kelly, the uk scientist who was spearding the search of WMD. He was the whistle blower who informed a leading news paper that, the war was not argent and in their work there was nothing to suggest Iraq had any WMD.
    The following week he was found dead his wrist cut therefore bleeding to death.

    Ps. this aint a religious post.
     
  5. MwanaFalsafa1

    MwanaFalsafa1 JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Nov 27, 2009
    Joined: Feb 26, 2008
    Messages: 5,566
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 135

    I'm not justifying anything. I'm merely agreeing that there was no weapons of mass destruction. I'm just pointing out that America & the UK might have had an end justifies the means mentality. Maybe we should start discussing what reasons they may have had to enter Iraq(Even though I know there are people who will rush to say it's religion because they prefer debating using emotions more than anything else).
     
  6. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #6
    Nov 29, 2009
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    Kwanza kabisa tulitangaziwa na kulazimishwa kuamini kuwa Sadam Hussein, ana makombora ya maangamizi na ana uwezo wa kuyatumia katika muda mchache sana labda chini ya dakika arobaini hivi.

    Ilikwisha julikana kuwa nchi ya Iraq haina hayo makombora, na hata baada ya wachunguzi wa kimayaifa kwenda uko Iraq wakaja toa taarifa kuwa Iraq hawana hayo makombora... Baadae ikaja kuonekana kuwa lengo la Amerika ni kumuondoa Sadam Hussein ili kujipatia nafuta ya bure kama si ya bei rahisi hii ni baada ya serikali ya Sadam Hussein kukataa kuuza mafuta yake kwa kutumia dola ya marekani na badala yake kuuza mafuta kwa kutumia Euro...

    USA na marafi zake wameonyesha kiburi kikubwa sana kwa kujiona kuwa wao ndio superpowers na wanataka daima kuogopewa na kusujudiwa na mataifa mengine.

    Hivi unavyodai kuwa Sadamu Hussein alikuwa ni Dikteta mwenye kudhurumu haki za raiya zake (Sina uhakika kama kweli unaifahamu serikali ya Sadam)... haya madai yamekuja baada ya wao kuuwa raiya wasio na hatia na kisha kujibaraguza kuwa lengo haswa ni kumuondoa dikteta, Je walisha omba msamaha kwa maafa waliyo yafanya kwa wananchi wa Iraq... Je kutakuwa na malipo yoyote kwa hao walio hathirika kwa njia moja ama nyingine?

    Kama tukichukulia madai yao ya udikteta wa Sadam Hussein kwa raiya wake kuwa ndio sababu, Nadhani hii ingekuwa kweli kama hawa jamaa wangedhamiria kuwaondo amadikteta wote wa hii dunia wakianzia na wao wenyewe...

    Hivi hawa nao wanasadikiwa kuwa ni madikteta Je hawapaswi kuondolewa!?

    Castro, Rais Chavez, Mugabe.... Orodha goes on and on. Madikteta ni wengi duniani, lakini hatusikii hata wakikemewa na hizo nchi zinazo jitia ubabe...

    Weka akili, ndugu yangu, nchi hizi zimekwenda kuuwa raiya wasio na hatia zaidi ya Nusu Milioni... Na yote hiyo ni kwa ajili ya mafuta tu hakuna kingine chochote.
     
Loading...