I am currently reading through the dossier of "evidence" supplied today by the British government, supposedly evidence against Iraq, indicating they have chem/bio/nuclear weapons and such. So far I'm up to page 20 of 55, and this is not an intelligence report. This is a public relations exercise, which, up to page 20, has yet to offer any evidence. I've read intelligence reports form various nations about various topics, and this is not at all like them. The method and tone are basically what I would expect from Blaire's speech-writers. So far, the closest it comes to offering evidence is: And that's not actual evidence, just claims.
Okay, it mentions the capacity to produce chemicals, and admits that those chemicals are used in a normal civilians manner: Some nice implications, but still no evidence...
Finished. Lots of "Intelligence claims that..." with no evidence, as though simply citing "intelligence" as a source makes it beyond doubt, and no actual evidence is required. Also a lot of "Saddam wants...", maybe to scare us all into ignoring the lack of evidence? Also I notice a lot of "Iraq imports these chemicals for use in its farming or petrol production [examples] but they could be used for building nukes!" Followed by a hell of a lot of history and bad press for Saddam, no doubt so we all say "Oooh, isn't he such a nasty man!" But still, no evidence. Really, this is crap. I'm sure it comes directly from the imaginations and internet research of Blaire's speechwriters.
Adam: "Really, this is crap. I'm sure it comes directly from the imaginations and internet research of Blaire's speechwriters." I normally ignore your posts, Adam but let me just say this. Revealing intelligence in many cases puts the intelligence gathers at risk. Why? Because the specific nature of the information can lead to a limited list of those in the know. If there is a requirement for more infomation from that source, what the source is suppling will not be revealed until it is safe to do so. Plus, when an enemy knows what you know about them they can take steps to suppress or eliminate further info in that area. I speak from experience.
Giskard Yes, there are risks in citing intelligence sources, but what about satellite imagery? There were two photos published, but none showing the reconstruction of facilities. Military satellites must be taking thousands of pictures, but none have been published. Why?
Captain Canada: "Military satellites must be taking thousands of pictures, but none have been published. Why?" Same reason. When an enemy knows what you know about them they can take steps to suppress or eliminate further info in that area. It is also common practice to start filling in bogus info with the good so the intelligence becomes unreliable.
i dont give a DAM if giving evidance risks the gathering of it if you say something is evidance then you PROVIDE evidance no court would accept that junk
Giskard I must admit, this is the first post of yours I've bothered reading. Let me also say that having worked in the military with Australian, USA, and British intelligence, among others, there's not a damn thing about publishing photographs by satellites or UNSCOM teams which would endanger anyone except Saddam Hussein and his military. They already know who the UNSCOM people are, and they have absoltuely no method of affecting the satellites which would be involved in such things. Now, if the supposed evidence was collected by special forces soldiers, again, publishing the pics does not endanger them, since the identification of such soldiers is not required for the publication of such pictures. The ONLY way publishing such pictures is dangerous to anyone is if they were taken by someone who has access to such a place where access is restricted to a small number of people, such as a power plant director. Now, the problem is not that the report contained no such evidence from people in dangerous positions within Iraq. The problem is the report contained no evdience whatsoever of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons.
It really all comes down to who you believe and who you don't. The fact that there have been no photographs, satellite or other, is really extraordinary. Let's face it: none of this stuff is going to matter in a few months anyway (if it exists) because it'll have been destroyed. Satellite photos would be extremely valuable though, because contrary to US propaganda (courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld) nuclear or biological weapons factories cannot be hidden without an obvious source of exhaust. They can't be hidden underground or in mosques or whatever they'll have you believe, they are extremely easy to find if they exist at all however not easy to hide.
Adam: "Now, the problem is not that the report contained no such evidence from people in dangerous positions within Iraq. The problem is the report contained no evdience whatsoever of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons." That's because evidence of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons most likely would come from people in dangerous positions within Iraq.
I agree with Adam. A very large documentation about evidence, with no evidence whatsoever. Then do not call it the evidence of a biological/chemical/nuclear threat. That is not all too difficult to do, is it?
Giskard So, what? You think "maybe" and "most likely" is good enough to go to war? Good enough for lots of death and destruction?
