UK accused of lifting dossier text (aka making up proof)

[zamboe]

I watched this on TV while I was having lunch today.

I like the part that Powell described the UK dossier as a "fine paper" in his U.N. speech a few days ago. (it was written by a 29 year california student and it was not classified as Powell stated),

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html

I wonder how some people can still believe the reasons that the US and UK give to start a war agaisnt Irak. When it's as clear as the water that their ONLY interest is Irak's oil, as Jeffrey Sachs said too.

After this I wonder about the veracity of the other proof presented.

[Khan]

Dude it's IraQ with a Q. :P

[Dunenewt]

Someone hasn't heard of Weapons of Mass Destruction...well you should know about all the trouble Chilean mines cause in 3rd world countries

[Edric O]

Nope, nothing to do with oil at all. ;D

[zamboe]

ROLF, Edrico ! you got it, I couldn't say it best myself.

[zamboe]

Someone hasn't heard of Weapons of Mass Destruction...well you should know about all the trouble Chilean mines cause in 3rd world countries

I know what you mean, now the main guy is a fugitive and some of his partners are in jale because of weapons traffic. But the industry has made some legal deals too.

What's your point ?, I just don't get it.

[Gobalopper]

Yep its all about oil, oil for Russia and France. :)

[zamboe]

Yep its all about oil, oil for Russia and France. :)

I don't agree completly. After some papers I read, I can tell you that France cares about Iraq's oil. Russia does not, on the contrary, being Russia an oil producer the less offer the better, so the prices can be as high as possible.

But don't forget that the main interest come from your southern neighbors (USA), they are the most interested in Iraq's oil, that's what they care for.

[SurlyPIG]

Wow you're right! Let's just leave those stupid Iraqis to suffer and die. ::)

[zamboe]

Wow you're right! Let's just leave those stupid Iraqis to suffer and die. ::)

lol, sarcasm is your only argument, kinda funny.

[rigel6669]

Someone hasn't heard of Weapons of Mass Destruction...

I have, it is a new emperor map made by slaphapy5 in the emperor fan made maps section :P

Using a paper of a kid and stating that this is evidence, i got no words for it ::)

I have seen Bush on the news today stating that with or without the agreement of the UN, he will attack iraq...

[VigilVirus]

Yep its all about oil, oil for Russia and France. :)

Yeah, Russia is one of the world's biggest oil producers, man ::)

What Russia cares about though is getting back all the money it loaned to Iraq a long time ago.

[Gobalopper]

On January 16, in direct contradiction of Blix's statements, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Iraqi government and praised "the positive spirit of cooperation from Iraq" on the weapons inspections.

On January 17, the Russian oil company Lukoil "miraculously" announced that it had "persuaded" Baghdad to reverse the decision made on December 8th to cancel the contract with Lukoil to develop the giant West Qurna oil field.

Later that day, it was announced that Iraq and Russia had signed three new oil accords to explore and develop oil fields in southern and western Iraq.

The first of the three new accords was to develop the Al-Rafidain oil field in southern Iraq by Russia's Sayunefte company. The second covers exploration and development of a concession in Iraq's western desert by Russia's Stroyangaz. The third provides for future plans and projects to be implemented by Russian companies in Iraq. One oil industry source described the deal as; Iraq holding out a what could turn into a $40 billion carrot for Russian oil exploration in Iraq's western desert.

[SurlyPIG]

LOL Edric my dad has worked for like 1/2 of those companies. The logos are out of date :P

Wow you're right! Let's just leave those stupid Iraqis to suffer and die. ::)

lol, sarcasm is your only argument, kinda funny.

Actually I was employing sarcasm to mock your arguement. And it isn't funny at all. Unless you think that people starving and being murdered is funny.

Why in hell would an Iraqi citizen care about the US's motive in liberating their country if it gets rid of Hussein and brings in a UN-established democracy that will honour human rights?

Essentially your arguement is that the war should not go on because you THINK, you INTERPRET the US as greedy for oil. I'm willing to bet that at least two will be murdered by Hussein's regime within the hour. You value keeping oil out of the hands of the US more than you value getting freedom into the hands of Iraqi citizens.

[zamboe]

Gob,

I couldn't find a translated version of the speech of Jeffrey Sachs, about the several reasons and historical reasons that prove that the main interest of US is the Iraq's oil. Jeffrey Sachs is "the most recognized and respected" (Fortune Magazine) economist in the world (Head of the economics department of Harvard University at Massachussets).

I can't translate it, is just too big, but I will tell you that the oficial gov report "Challenges of the energy stategic policy for the 21 century" states clearly that the Iraq's oil is "crucial" for the US national security. Here is the link if you are interested :

http://www.eldiario.cl/template.asp?noticia=45746&sec=0

[zamboe]

Why in hell would an Iraqi citizen care about the US's motive in liberating their country if it gets rid of Hussein and brings in a UN-established democracy that will honour human rights?

First, do not expect that an arab thinks the way western society does. The majority of the world (including myself) have a very different way to see, intrepret and live : freedom, democracy and rights. And yes they DO care about the motivation.

Essentially your arguement is that the war should not go on because you THINK, you INTERPRET the US as greedy for oil. I'm willing to bet that at least two will be murdered by Hussein's regime within the hour. You value keeping oil out of the hands of the US more than you value getting freedom into the hands of Iraqi citizens.

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. DON'T LIE.

I've never said that war shouldn't go on. I challenge you to quote what I said that, otherwise apologize to me. You are making up BS.

What I say firmly is that the US motivation is primary oil.

What I say firmly is that the existance of weapons of mass destruction is a secondary reason for the US.

What I said before and I say again is that Hussein must be replaced by force if necessary, but if it will be done, the right motivations must be declared.

[nemafakei]

"I have seen Bush on the news today stating that with or without the agreement of the UN, he will attack iraq..."

I heard Blair on newsnight the day before yesterday stating that with or without a UN Security council mandate, he would go ahead, if he thought it unreasonable that the Security Council does not opt for war. Even though the UK population is anti-war.

[number6]

I watched this on TV while I was having lunch today.

I like the part that Powell described the UK dossier as a "fine paper" in his U.N. speech a few days ago. (it was written by a 29 year california student and it was not classified as Powell stated),

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html

I wonder how some people can still believe the reasons that the US and UK give to start a war agaisnt Irak. When it's as clear as the water that their ONLY interest is Irak's oil, as Jeffrey Sachs said too.

After this I wonder about the veracity of the other proof presented.

Zamboe did you actually read the article that you posted? I have lifted some key points that you seemed to ignore:

A spokeswoman for No. 10 Downing Street told CNN: "This was a government briefing paper which was compiled from a number of sources including intelligence material.

"The first and third sections of the report went to the issues of Iraq's non-compliance with United Nations resolutions. This information was largely intelligence based.

"Section Two dealt with historical background on Iraq, and some of it was based on material written by Dr Ibrahim al-Marashi. In retrospect we should have acknowledged any references to material we used that had been written by Dr Ibrahim. We have learnt an important lesson.

"The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said.

They used the student's paper for historical information and did not site the reference. They plagiarised a work of another and that's why they pulled the document. While that shows poor judgement it does not in any way make the information less truthful. I am sure Colin Powell assumed that the paper coming from an official government office was well documented as to who authored what. The facts in the document are still true.

[Dude_Doc]

If it would be for oil, and really for oil, then a war would be on already. The government can if they want to, start a war with any reason there is. The US can't afford to have wrong, Iraq can't afford to have WoMDs.

[Anathema]

Wow you're right! Let's just leave those stupid Iraqis to suffer and die. ::)

Ah yes, let's go to Iraq and make a run through Bagdad, maybe get a few thoused civilians killed and have Sadam throw missiles (since you're so convinced he has them) at Tel Aviv. Much better.

[ordos45]

Ah yes, Bushy. Bush is quite an idiot.

Let's take a look at a few things.

We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology--from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.

On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God.

During that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.

At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty" while comforting the families of the shuttle astronauts during the Houston memorial service on Tuesday.

Bush has clearly seen a divine aspect to his presidency since before he ran.

For the full story I quoted pieces of, here's the link.

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/121/story_12112_1.html&storyID=12112&boardID=51717

[number6]

What do you propose we do Earthnuker? Continue to wait until he has full nuclear capability and threatens to nuke any of his neighbors if they don't join him in the destruction of the west. We have waited a long time for Sadaam to comply and he always does the same thing. He stalls until the last minute and does the least that he has to do to not have the UN declare war. He knows how to work the system. It's to the point where the system does not appear to work because some of the countries in the UN let their own self interest dictate their votes instead of the common good. At least Bush stands by what he says and does not let the public opinion dictate his policies. He is a strong president which the U.S. has lacked for a long time. The U.S. stands up for itself and other nations are now saying "you can't do that. We all have to agree what is best for the American people". The American people are under attack by terrorist organizations and our president has said he will protect us by attacking any country that protects or finances terrorists. Right now Iraq is the most powerful of these countries and thus poses the greatest threat to U.S. citizens. We have a right to protect our innocent civilains as well.

I think you also mentioned that Bush is responsible for the current economy problems in the U.S. That is simply not true. Bill Clinton is the reason that the economy is in the current trouble that it is by not bringing more scrutiny on those over inflated values of DOT com companies. Bush simply inherited Bill's poor management and he is trying to fix the problem. Some problems can't be fixed in a couple of years.

I know a lot of people from Holland and Denmark have their reasons for disliking Bush and from what I have heard you seem to have some legitimate complaints. I have not been able to confirm what I have heard so I will withold judgment until I can.

[Anathema]

[c]Er, Sadam has no ties with Al Quada. Bin Laden has expressed negative feelings about him more then once. And you helped both of them out in the past, and now you're confronted with the mess you made. There is no way he could have started a decent nuclear program in 2 years time, whatever some people may say. Last year, Bush yelled that Iraq has nukes, now he only says they have bio and chemical weapons, and at a much lower volume.

If you're really interested in my solution, then I'll explain it. Containment. Stop any shipment, save food and medicine that benefit the people (the current US embargo also applies to food, and thousends of people have died because of it), to Iraq- at this moment there are still quite a lot of companies that will break the embargo for a good price. It's important that every country participates in this new embargo. Keep conducting spy flights over Iraq and keep gathering whatever intelligence they can. Only intervene with force if there is any indication they have mass destruction weapons ready to use.

About the economy, it's debatable. There was no budget shortage during Bil Clintons term (in fact, quite big surpluses), while the budget shortages during Bush senior and Ronald Reagan were huge.

And about around 2010, when a little kid asks his father what he did during the war, daddy will have to answer "I got a huge tax cut and now you're going to pay for it". He's stealing money from the next generation, who will have to pay the bill. And the president that serves at that time will no doubt be blamed for all this.

He knows how to work the system.

He doesn't. He doesn't know a lot of things. Do you think he comes up with all the ideas he presents? What he's saying comes from his advisors and PR managers, and even those people screwed up.

[zamboe]

Zamboe did you actually read the article that you posted? I have lifted some key points that you seemed to ignore:

They used the student's paper for historical information and did not site the reference. They plagiarised a work of another and that's why they pulled the document. While that shows poor judgement it does not in any way make the information less truthful. I am sure Colin Powell assumed that the paper coming from an official government office was well documented as to who authored what. The facts in the document are still true.

number6, I thought I was in your ignore list. Why changed your mind ?.

About your remarks, I have read the article and watched the TV coverage about it, that mentioned a few things more. (including an interview to this student, he even was NOT 100% sure about his homework).

They used a student homework ( i am a student too) and other information the UK gov had to make conclussions. This is a matter of a WAR, this is serious "shit" (sorry for that) you know, it's not acceptable to make such a report that request a war based on that, when its about a such BIG issue like WAR. Besides it shows the lack of atention they put on the objective reports, given that they copied even the typos. That's why I wonder and doubt seriously about the other veracity of the other proof that Powell presented.

The facts in the document are now not easy to believe.

[zamboe]

What do you propose we do Earthnuker? Continue to wait until he has full nuclear capability and threatens to nuke any of his neighbors if they don't join him in the destruction of the west.

For me, a young person that lives in this world too (South America) it's a much bigger threat the 10000+ nukes the US have in it's territory and the 500+ nukes that has in submarines across the pacific ocean than the "possible" few nukes that some country in the other side of the world might have.

You think I am crazy ? Ok. No big deal.

I just don't understand a simple thing: Why the US can threat the whole world with 10000+ nukes ?.

We have waited a long time for Sadaam to comply and he always does the same thing. He stalls until the last minute and does the least that he has to do to not have the UN declare war. He knows how to work the system. It's to the point where the system does not appear to work because some of the countries in the UN let their own self interest dictate their votes instead of the common good.

Since when the US and UK interest is the "common good" of the world ?

That is simply ridiculous. Is it too dificult to understand that the rest of the civilized, free and democratic world DO NOT think the same way the US goverment does ?