Iraq Is On Track

SirRiff · November 1, 2003

Whatever. Iraq is in better shape than before.

better shape is relative if your daughter was abducted as a sex slave, your husband was blown up, and you cant leave your house.

and lets not forget, the US traded and armed saddam, so they had a part in making iraq so bad in the first place.

its not much of a feat to start a fire then put it out once its burned down the house.

SirRiff

KrustyKidd · November 1, 2003

Whatever. Iraq is in better shape than before.

better shape is relative if your daughter was abducted as a sex slave, your husband was blown up, and you cant leave your house.

and lets not forget, the US traded and armed saddam, so they had a part in making iraq so bad in the first place.

its not much of a feat to start a fire then put it out once its burned down the house.

SirRiff

My goodness Riff, this post of yours sounds like a rant. There is only one point in there and that is;

better shape is relative.....

and then to finish the sentence (so others can read it in context);

....if your daughter was abducted as a sex slave, your husband was blown up, and you cant leave your house.

Better shape is relative. It sure is. I should go on record here, this minute/second whatever as saying that this is one of the rare times I disagree with Craig.

Iraq is in better shape than before.

It is not. It is in chaos and a very dangerous place to be for all, both foreigners and Iraqis.

Now back to your one point. Better shape if relative. Relative to what and when? The bell curve on the settling of the violence and the rebuilding efforts is already happening and much to your chagrin sucesses are accelerating even if they are not being reported with the zeal of failures. Soon, Craig's statement will be true and the relative point will be moot. You seem to forget that it really does not take much to make Iraq better than it has ever been before. Three hundred thousand missing people in the last twenty four years, eight hundred thousand dead in wars and people unable to travel or speak their mind. No Riff, your statement is a very temporary one which will soon go into the file of meaningless nay sayers under R for rant.

theloniusfleabag · November 1, 2003

Dear KK,

Just for the sake of argument, (which has never happened on this forum before, lol), I was to say that Mr. Read may be correct, that Iraq is in better shape than before. Let us suppose (and I believe that this is Mr. Read's point) that potential US (or 'Western') control over the future of Iraq is a strong possibility, and Saddams future control over Iraq, a weaker one. Theoretically, this (according to Mr. Read) is the basis for the statement "Iraq is in a better position" for fomenting future democractic theology.

This would make his statement true in the present, and he would hope that reality would eventually confirm it.

Your statement, as well as SirRiff's, are also true. Iraq is a hell-hole, worse than before occupation, to be honest. The 'death toll' bandied about of 'hundreds being exterminated on a daily average' is a manipulation of statistics. Several thousand 'seccesionist Kurds' were killed in battle (brutal though it was) and their deaths were 'extrapolated' to fit the western media. For example, if 3,000 Kurds were killed (including Iraqi's killed for crimes against Islam, etc) then that would mean an average of almost 10 per day were 'ruthlessly exterminated ' by Saddam, and therefore none were killed in battle, only by 'pogroms'.

The US is making some of the biggest mistakes in Iraq (and Afghanistan) that should have, and have been, forseen by many others, including themselves. They just never learn.

KrustyKidd · November 1, 2003

Dear KK,
Just for the sake of argument, (which has never happened on this forum before, lol), I was to say that Mr. Read may be correct, that Iraq is in better shape than before. Let us suppose (and I believe that this is Mr. Read's point) that potential US (or 'Western') control over the future of Iraq is a strong possibility, and Saddams future control over Iraq, a weaker one. Theoretically, this (according to Mr. Read) is the basis for the statement "Iraq is in a better position" for fomenting future democractic theology.

This would make his statement true in the present, and he would hope that reality would eventually confirm it.

Your statement, as well as SirRiff's, are also true. Iraq is a hell-hole, worse than before occupation, to be honest. The 'death toll' bandied about of 'hundreds being exterminated on a daily average' is a manipulation of statistics. Several thousand 'seccesionist Kurds' were killed in battle (brutal though it was) and their deaths were 'extrapolated' to fit the western media. For example, if 3,000 Kurds were killed (including Iraqi's killed for crimes against Islam, etc) then that would mean an average of almost 10 per day were 'ruthlessly exterminated ' by Saddam, and therefore none were killed in battle, only by 'pogroms'.

The US is making some of the biggest mistakes in Iraq (and Afghanistan) that should have, and have been, forseen by many others, including themselves. They just never learn.

Bless you Lonius, you are a sport. So here I am wondering if I am the only one who can speak Bafflegab, and here you come!

So, after agreeing with everybody, I started to wonder if maybe you should get your butt to a Hari Krishna site then I read

The US is making some of the biggest mistakes in Iraq (and Afghanistan) that should have, and have been, forseen by many others, including themselves. They just never learn.

True and false. It's a sweeping statement and one that should be discussed without simple war/anti-war rhetoric.

Nobody can forsee the future. This is true for us and also those who lived in the past who's world we inherited. 20/20 and all we are still working with what is left us by past actions. Make the best of them and attempt to do right in the future. So many are saying and blaming what has happened, what should be done in the future considering where we are at now? That is the postion of the ball that is in play. Too late to kick for me so I'll leave it for you or another to start tommorow,

Craig Read · November 1, 2003

I am sure 30 years from now Iraqi's will commemorate their freedom. They will play the US anthem at services in Baghdad and US dignitaries will stand side by side with Iraqi politicians as both countries celebrate a just liberation. Iraq will be, in 30 years, the most relevant, powerful and rich country in the Middle East.

From its base in Iraq within 30 years the US will effectively have eliminated the terrorist elements that had threatened world stability.

But such a 30 year ideal shocks the Left. They can't understand self defense and bypassing inactive and turgid UNO processes. According to the left winning a war, any war, is bad. War shows a shocking lack of respect for Islam, for diversity and for the post modern view that force should never be used even if you are attacked by a knife wielding freak.

Better to die than to defend what made your country great.

Hey that sounds like a good new slogan for the Canadian armed forces. I will copyright that. ©

theloniusfleabag · November 1, 2003

Dear Mr. Read,

From its base in Iraq within 30 years the US will effectively have eliminated the terrorist elements that had threatened world stability.

These 'terrorist elements' are called 'muslims'. I am not sure 1 1/2 billion can be eliminated totally in that time frame.

The choices are:

1. confront Islam (telling muslims that Muhammed was wrong and religious [shari'a] law is not an acceptable to govern a country), and then do battle with those that oppose this notion.

2. Kill them all, Allah will know his own.

The US has chosen to implement only the second half of choice #1, and fail to realize that by ommiting the first part, they become a factor in the cycle of terrorism. Which will only lead them to #2.

As to the part of Iraq 'rejoicing at the liberation', that can only happen if they do not adhere to the teachings of he Koran. As it stands now, the most rejoicing being done is by the shareholders and executives of Halliburton.

cknykid · November 1, 2003

The case against saddam: US intelligence said it had evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a weapons of mass destruction programme and maintaining ties with al-Qaeda. The war was intended to put an end to this acute threat and, at the same time, free the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. The US troops would be welcomed as liberators. We know better by now. Not a trace of Saddam's notorious WMD machine has been found, President George Bush recently admitted there was no demonstrable link between the ousted Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda, and US troops on the ground have been pelted with grenades instead of flowers.

I am sure 30 years from now Iraqi's will commemorate their freedom.blah blah blah.Is this visionary statement of a statesman or pathetic attempt at comedy to put a smile on my face. That is hard to judge but daydreaming and pretending things are better than they are is not a solution to a problem.

righturnonred · November 1, 2003

Not a trace of Saddam's notorious WMD machine has been found,

Completely false, but not according to the mainstream media. Read the entire text of David Kay's recent report to Congress on the search for WMD in Iraq to get the accurate picture.

President George Bush recently admitted there was no demonstrable link between the ousted Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda

Who cares, going to war was never predicated on establishing this link, although there are known links between Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, Iraq's domestic terrorist organization. Besides, Saddam has been a longtime supporter of international terrorism in general.

Iraq is but a battle in the war on terrorism.

US troops on the ground have been pelted with grenades instead of flowers.

A ridiculas statement. The majority of Iraqis are clearly supportive of the occupation. It is a handful of Baathist remnants and foreign insurgents causing trouble, not ordinary Iraqis. A recent household survey of Baghdad conducted by Zogby concluded that nearly 2/3 of Iraqis want US troops to remain for a year or more. Their biggest fear is the reconstitution of Saddam's regime of terror.

These 'terrorist elements' are called 'muslims'. I am not sure 1 1/2 billion can be eliminated totally in that time frame.

This war is not against Islam, it is directed at the relatively small group of radical fundamentalists who have hijacked that religion. No one, except you apparently, has suggested that conducting mass genocide against 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide is the aim of this campaign against terror, or is for that fact, an idea even being entertained.

As to the part of Iraq 'rejoicing at the liberation', that can only happen if they do not adhere to the teachings of he Koran.

Where in the Koran does it say Iraqis cannot celebrate the liberation of their own country from an evil dictator? As with the Bible, or any other religious text, an individual can derive whatever "teachings" suit them. This phenomenon was responsible for the Christian Crusades centuries ago and it responsible for the Islamic jihad, or "holy war", that is occuring today.

And once again, here comes the sixty-four thousand dollar question: What course of action are liberals suggesting to rectify the situation? The American people have grown tired of baseless liberal accusations about the evil transgresions of Little King Bushy, or whatever you people refer to him as.

KrustyKidd · November 2, 2003

We know better by now. Not a trace of Saddam's notorious WMD machine has been found,

REPORT OF DR DAVID KAY

Here is the applicable exerpt, the remainder goes on to say how WMD themselves have not been found - yet

.

"We have discovered dozens of W.M.D.-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002," the statement said, referring to weapons of mass destruction.
"The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts has come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that I.S.G. has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N.," he said, referring to the Iraq Study Group by its initials.

Dr. Kay acknowledged, however, that his group had found very little evidence that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear program by the time of the war. The administration had argued before the war that Mr. Hussein was pursuing development of nuclear weapons, and that was a major reason Baghdad was said to pose an imminent threat to the national security of the United States.

"It clearly does not look like a massive, resurgent program, based on what we've discovered now," Dr. Kay said. "It is the program right now that we probably know the least about and have the least confidence in saying what it meant."

Dr. Kay said his group had found signs that Iraq was working hard to develop longer range and more effective missiles, including some that could travel up to 1,000 kilometers, or about 600 miles, far beyond the 150-kilometer range restriction imposed on Baghdad by the United Nations. The group has also come across evidence of clandestine attempts in recent years to obtain ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

In the biological weapons area, which was one of the areas of early focus by the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. Kay said there was evidence that Iraq's intelligence service was involved in retaining a covert research and development capacity. He added that debriefings of former Iraqi intelligence officials had "begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus."

These efforts were well hidden by Mr. Hussein's government, Dr. Kay reported. He noted that precursor biological agents are small and easily hidden, and that one example of an item that should have been reported last year was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B., from which a biological agent can be produced. This vial was hidden in the home of an Iraqi biological weapons scientist. Such remnants of biological agents could have allowed the Iraqis to produce biological weapons later, Dr. Kay observed.

Dr. Kay said his group had not reached a final determination about two trailers found in Iraq after the war, which the C.I.A. and Vice President male anatomy Cheney said were mobile germ weapon production units. "We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile B.W. production effort," Dr. Kay's statement said, referring to biological weapons.

Now, this doesn't seem like much but consider the UN resolution that said;

Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations.

And then Resolution 1441 that said;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

To me, "Serious Consequenses" mean different things to different peole. To a grade school child it may be understood to mean detention, or a loss of television viewing time. Saddam was a dictator who had invaded two countries, killed over a million and a half people, had allowed his people to starve in order to keep his WMD and even with over a hundred thousand troops ready to invade his country he still flaunted the first resolution. So what would "Serious Consequenses" mean to such a man?

I take it invasion and destruction of his rule.

cknykid · November 2, 2003

UN resolutions you say---hmm--did the UN Security Council gave the go ahead for this war??--what did the UN weapons inspectors said about the wmds—they didn’t find any. Hans blix must be laughing his ass off reading the report of dr David Kay. David Kay’s report is just a carefully worded spin job that tries to cover the administration’s ass for its failure to find any weapons. Translate that spin stuff and in simple English it means--no wmds — “what you got”. Dr Kay goes nothing but bs.How much time you need to find it-- 100 years.

SirRiff · November 2, 2003

Completely false, but not according to the mainstream media. Read the entire text of David Kay's recent report to Congress on the search for WMD in Iraq to get the accurate picture.

righturnonred- if you have read the entire report in detail and recall the specific findings of WMDs which were cited by george bush please mention it specificly. either you know something taht the entire worlds media doesnt, or in fact whatever has been found is NOT the cited WMDs. one or the other.

i believe that no weapons of mass destruction have been found AT ALL in iraq. however if kay found a single cell of bacteria, i may not know it. so what weapons did he find exactly?

in addition, the mere presence of toxic chemicals could not be any reasonable person be the justification for international warfare. canada has dangerous germs, so does france, germany, china, everyone. hell, the US has the among the worst bioweapons and nuclear arsenols ever made. every nation has conventional weapons, and many have non conventional. the US itself maintains a nuclear stockpile as deterence, thereby setting the very rule that non conventional weapons can be used for defence.

THUS, even though i know saddam is evil, the mere presence of weapons will not condemn every nation as evil. france is not evil. saddam was. so we must life the bar of reason a bit higher when discussing exactly what makes WMDs so 'evil' as opposed to other means, who can have WMDS, when can you use WMDs, and who makes the rules.

To me, "Serious Consequenses" mean different things to different peole.

KrustyKidd- i have two serious questions for you

1. where are the UN resolutions against comparable US military actions? Examples: sept 11 1973 US assisted coup in chile, funneling 3 Billion to osamas terrorists, supporting saddam as a dictator against Iran, supporting the iranian militant regime against saddam.

2. what would the lack of UN resolutions against the US in spite of these obviously violent, dangerous, indiscriminent, actions mean to the implicit moral authority of the above UN resolutions being cited against iraq?

SirRiff

KrustyKidd · November 2, 2003

KrustyKidd- i have two serious questions for you
1. where are the UN resolutions against comparable US military actions? Examples: sept 11 1973 US assisted coup in chile, funneling 3 Billion to osamas terrorists, supporting saddam as a dictator against Iran, supporting the iranian militant regime against saddam.

2. what would the lack of UN resolutions against the US in spite of these obviously violent, dangerous, indiscriminent, actions mean to the implicit moral authority of the above UN resolutions being cited against iraq?

SirRiff

I have no idea Riff. Better address that to the UN. In the meantime we will talk about how the US carried out action against Iraq for violating fourteen UN resolutions under chapter 13 of Resolution 1441.

BTW, you have a moral question that is founded on philosophical sense however it is not applicable here. Maybe Dear Abby or Dr Laura could answer it for you.

BTW, are you trying to sidetrack this becasue you have no argument why the US should not have attacked Iraq? If so I do, and I am for the action. However, in the meantime you might want to start a thread on other countries that have flaunted UN resolutions so your points could be addressed there in an organized format. I know it would be a lively thread too!

KrustyKidd · November 2, 2003

Is it a given that Iraq was not permitted to have undeclared WMD material in it's pocession? Note please that it is not WMD but rather WMD material that is the legal issue here. Bush was the one who was touting the weapons themselves but he is not the one that made the UN resolutions. If not let me know and I will give you the Resolutions again. In the meantime CK I will respond to you.

UN resolutions you say---hmm--did the UN Security Council gave the go ahead for this war??--what did the UN weapons inspectors said about the wmds—they didn’t find any. Hans blix must be laughing his ass off reading the report of dr David Kay. David Kay’s report is just a carefully worded spin job that tries to cover the administration’s ass for its failure to find any weapons. Translate that spin stuff and in simple English it means--no wmds — “what you got”. Dr Kay goes nothing but bs.How much time you need to find it-- 100 years.

UN resolutions you say---hmm--did the UN Security Council gave the go ahead for this war??

This to me is the most important issue both legally and morally. Although Iraq could legally be invaded who had the right to take it upon themselves to do it? It is kind of like there is a criminal in the neighborhood but no police. This may be looked upon as a citizens arrest?

--what did the UN weapons inspectors said about the wmds—they didn’t find any. Hans blix must be laughing his ass off reading the report of dr David Kay. David Kay’s report is just a carefully worded spin job that tries to cover the administration’s ass for its failure to find any weapons. Translate that spin stuff and in simple English it means--no wmds — “what you got”. Dr Kay goes nothing but bs.How much time you need to find it-- 100 years.

Well I would imagine that Blix would not be laughing as he knew what Iraq was up to. I however am laughing at your opinion that is based on nothing but the way you think things should be without llooking at facts. You remember facts CK? No, guess you don't considering there is a worldwide Jewish anti Muslim Conspiracy happening and you cannot provide ONE SINGLE FACT. Anyways, here is some of what Blix found, it kinda goes hand in hand with what Kay is finding. Blix is probably nodding and wishing that he had that amount of unfettered access. I scincerely wish it was shorter but there was so much bad shit there that even I cannot condense it.

Blix's Report To The UN

CLIKITY CLACK

Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few [metric] tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 [metric] tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

Biological Weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Missiles

I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.

Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.

The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Find Documents

When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.

This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.

Find Persons to Give Credible Information: A List of Personnel

When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These were the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with resolution 1441.

Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs as well as their missile programs were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list and some 80 additional names have been provided.

Allow Information Through Credible Interviews

In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of and interruption by Iraqi officials. This was the background of Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or location" of our choice, in Baghdad or even abroad.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say.

Anyhow, this was not new to Blix as he had been there before and knew that Iraq never had any intention of comming clean, here is the report from the nineties.

UNSCOMS REPORT

4.Iraq did not admit to its illegal unilateral destruction until March 1992, approximately nine months after the destruction activities, and even then only after the Commission indicated it had evidence that Iraq retained weapons after its supervised destruction. Iraq states that "The unilateral destruction was carried out entirely unrecorded. No written and no visual records were kept, as it was not foreseen that Iraq needed to prove the destruction to anybody." Such an approach also indicates that Iraq intended to pursue a policy of concealment in its relations with the Commission and the IAEA.
5.In 1992, the Commission examined the evidence of the unilateral destruction available at that time and to some extent found it consistent with the rest of Iraq's programmes as then declared by Iraq. What was not recognized at the time by the Commission, was that the unilateral destruction action itself was a determined measure taken to conceal evidence which would reveal retained capabilities. Only later, when the investigations by the Commission became more searching and the Commission received reliable reports of diversions from the unilateral destruction, did it become clear that thorough verification of Iraq's claims surrounding unilateral destruction was required.

6.Iraq undertook active deception measures, during the Commission's verification of the unilateral destruction, such as "seeding" warhead destruction areas with parts unrelated to special warheads to lead the Commission's team to believe it had accounted for all that was claimed to exist. At that time, Iraq also melted down weapons and components to make impossible accurate identification or quantification of them. Because of Iraq's false declarations, the Commission was not in a position in 1992 to question, fully, Iraq's accounts. It was only later, after 1995, that the Commission became aware of the concerted deception efforts and was forced to reexamine the 1991-1992 period.

7.The Commission has conducted extensive examination of Iraq's claims concerning the period, July 1991, when Iraq stated that so much of its weapons programmes were secretly eliminated. The material balance and verification of Iraq's claims concerning the disposition of weapons in all areas (missiles, biological and chemical weapons) rests on accepting Iraq's declarations at face value. The Commission has conducted extensive excavation efforts with Iraq at places Iraq declared to have been the locations of explosive demolitions of proscribed weapons and burials of destroyed remnants. Extensive interviews with Iraqi participants in the unilateral destruction have also been conducted. Analysis of overhead imagery of that period has been made. The results have been mixed with some evidence supporting Iraqi declarations. Other data raises serious concerns about the true fate of proscribed weapons and items.

8.One example concerns the destruction of launchers. Iraq claimed until August 1997 (including in its missile FFCD) that proscribed missile launchers were destroyed in July 1991. When the Commission attempted to confirm this by examining imagery, it found such claimed destruction did not take place. Only then did Iraq shift its claim and say that the destruction did not take place until October of 1991. Thus, Iraq changed the account given repeatedly to the Commission, for six years, without any credible explanation as to why it had deliberately given a false declaration in the first place. Two obvious consequences for the Commission's investigations are: the need to explore the reason for such deceptions; and, to demand more information in order to be able to verify other Iraqi claims.

9.Other elements of the unilateral destruction presentation by Iraq were also proved to be false. The precise locations of warhead destruction and the fill of warheads have been revised several times by Iraq. The movements of concealed warheads prior to unilateral destruction, claimed by Iraq, have been proven to be false. The explanations provided on concealment and movement of retained chemical weapons production equipment was likewise shown to be false. Iraq's admissions have only been made during 1997-1998. The Commission still does not know the precise meaning or significance of Iraq's failure to provide accurate data about proscribed weapons activities and it's provision of false information.

Am I the only one that sees a kind of pattern of deception here? And all this undeclared material everywhere, what could it mean? My favourite is the destruction of things but no supporting documents like requisitions for troops, earth moving equipment, nutralizers and such. Almost like the liar with no details. You go ahead though CK, for somebody that needs no evidence to make his mind up, don't let these stand in the way of your mistaken argument.

Craig Read · November 2, 2003

KK good post. Like most issues the Lie-berals on this site are wrong. They should whine about real events not fantasies.

WMD is about quantities of material that as Kay said 'can be stored in a 2 door garage.' Vitally it is more about intent and planning to use such material as opposed to finding WalMarts full of such stock with bright pink neon signs saying 'WMD sold here, come and get it'.

The main issue with WMD is not whether they existed or were going to be used, but what the intent of the regime was in regards to WMD.

It is no secret, and there is no doubt, that the Iraqi's had intentions of building WMD chemicals and delivery systems, and had every intention once the UN sanctions were lifted and when UNSCOM left or as they were in 1998, kicked out, to use Oil revenues to rebuild their military and WMD capability.

Many other posts outline why Hussein wanted this, including:

-Hegemonic control over the region's oil

-Ability to become the destabilising power in the region and thereby gain geo-political advantage

-Strength to resist any future US led or UN led occupation of any part of Iraq

-Become the Leader of the Arab world against Zion

-Potentially launch an attack against Israel

The odd part about Hussein's plan is that Iraq was bankrupt due to its 2 major wars. However as the corruption from the UN sanctions showed, Hussein and his inner circle, plus his supporters and investors from France and Russia, were still able to siphon off billions from oil contracts into personal and national accounts.

Once the sanctions were lifted then the rise in oil revenues would allow Hussein to begin implementation of plans in train for various weapons systems. Based on history, his psychology and his raving speeches there is no doubt about this.

This is basically the summary of the Kay report, plus the report concludes that WMD will be found at some point.

To state that UNSCOM, Blix, Kay, Butler, Ritter and others who have reached the exact same conclusions through various paths or analyses are ALL lying, paid off, incompetent, stupid or blind is nonsense. Even Blix who is no friend of the USA wrote in his reports many times that Iraq never complied with UN resolutions, was in the process of making and hiding WMD and at the very least desired program reconstitution including a nuclear capability.

But for the left wing facts should never interfere with the pleasure of their fantasies. In their compressed minds, Iraq and Hussein were 'stable', mudering 50.000 people per year is no big deal, starving children and women through a sham sanctions program is good, and making the US and Britain pay the costs of containment is noble, just so long as the Canadians don't need to have a military and don't need to become engaged in world affairs.

After all no one will attack Canada.

cknykid · November 2, 2003

[quoteWorland, Mo.There is no such thing as a "family" crisis here. Minutes after the family of Sgt. Jamie L. Huggins learned that he had been killed in combat, phones starting ringing across Worland, population 50. The Huggins boy had died. Time to start a collection. Fay Wehar, a neighbor, started banging on doors, trying to raise some gas money.” Everyone knew Jamie and everyone's reaction was about the same: it was a horrible thing," she said.Ms. Wehar collected $371, mostly crumpled bills and one check. She gave it to the Hugginses, who left a few hours later for the 20-hour drive from this prairie town of shuttered coal mines to Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne Division. Sergeant Huggins, a 26-year-old paratrooper, was killed during a patrol in Baghdad on Oct. 26, after his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb, the insurgency's weapon of choice. Danielle Huggins had just heard from her husband the day before. She said she asked him: "Why are you still needing to be there? You should be at home." His answer, she remembered, was, "We are doing good, Danielle; we are doing good.

Fort Hood, Tex.Andrea Brassfield's husband painted a different picture.” He told me: `They don't want us here. They throw rocks at us. They shoot at us. I don't know what we're doing here,' " she said. Specialist Artimus D. Brassfield, 22, a tank driver for the 66th Armored Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, was killed in a mortar attack in Samarra, north of Baghdad, on Oct. 24. His death has not changed his wife's opinion of the war. Ms. Brassfield was against it when it began. She is against it now.

Montpelier, Va.Capt. John R. Teal was coming home. The table was laid with cakes and cookies; there were flowers, too many flowers, blooming in the living room; his parents, Emmie and Joseph Teal, waited on the couch, hands knitted in their laps.” I need to see him, Joe," Ms. Teal said.Mr. Teal looked at his hands.Captain Teal, 31, Second Brigade, Fourth Infantry Division, was blown up by a bomb while riding in a convoy in Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, on Oct. 23. He had been working with Iraqi town councils.His remains were making the journey from Baghdad to a base in Germany to a funeral home in Montpelier, on the outskirts of Richmond. Army officers told the Teals their son "got the full blast" of the explosion.” I hope they fix him up good," Ms. Teal said.” No, no, no," Mr. Teal said. "What's in that casket is a cold, damp piece of shell.” Maybe they can crack the lid just so I can hold his hand," she said."Damn it, honey," Mr. Teal exploded. "That's not him, that's not the person who walked out of here, that's not John Robert!""O.K., honey, O.K.," she said.Rain beat against the windows. The living room grew gray. Both the Teals started to cry. "When I heard the news I felt almost, almost . . ." Ms. Teal paused, knowing the word but not quite ready to bring it into the room. "Relief.” I was dreading this every day of my life," she explained, between sniffles. "So when the Army finally came to the door and told us J. R. was dead, it was like this big thing hanging over my head just went away."

Tuskegee, Ala.Sgt. Aubrey Bell grew up poor. He was raised in the woods drawing water from a well and eating whatever his mother stuck between two slices of bread. Butter sandwiches. Mayonnaise sandwiches. Ketchup sandwiches. You name it. His life, as his friends tell it, was taking a little and making a lot.” He was just a cheerful, happy dude," said Eric Wingate, a childhood friend. Sergeant Bell, 32, didn't especially savor the intense Iraqi heat, or sleeping in tents with 100 men and 100 pairs of ripening combat boots. But he liked children. And in Iraq, the 280-pound soldier in the XXXL uniform drew them like a magnet. "I used to always ask him, why you let them get so close to you?" said his fiancée, Philandria Ezell. "And he'd say, honey, they're just kids.” On Oct. 27, Sergeant Bell, an Alabama National Guardsman with the 214th Military Police Company, was shot in the stomach in front of a police station, where he had been training Iraqi police officers. His family is furious. As they sat around on folding chairs in his mother's front yard, an ice chest of Miller Lite at their feet, they glared at the ground.” Why is it O.K. if he dies?" his cousin Vecie Williams asked. "The president don't care. You see him on TV. He says this, he says that. But show me one tear, one tear."Something that nags them is whether Sergeant Bell was wearing a bulletproof vest. In many of the pictures he sent home he is not. There is nothing between him and the enemy but a few layers of cotton."The Army people say he got shot," Ms. Ezell said. "But they don't say nothing more."

Bedford, Mass.Brian Hart is on a quest for answers. By night, he sends e-mail messages and posts notes on electronic bulletin boards. By day, he works the phones.Mr. Hart is haunted by the ambush that killed his son. Pfc. John Hart, a 20-year-old paratrooper with the 173rd Infantry Brigade, was hit in the neck and killed on Oct. 18 in Taza, near Kirkuk. It was the same late-night attack that took the life of Lieutenant Bernstein. Their unit was ordered to find the enemy. The enemy found them.But what happened after that, after the grenades ripped into the Humvee?"Did John bleed to death? Did he suffer?" asked Alma Hart, his mother.Mr. Hart is more critical.” The Army hasn't given us any more information than a three-sentence press release," he said. "It's awful.” An Army spokeswoman, Shari Lawrence, said what relatives are told about a soldier's death was sometimes incomplete "because we try to notify the family as quickly as possible."

]

Morgan · November 2, 2003

The Canadian and American media misconstrued and/or buried important points made by Blix, Kay, and David Kelley, the British scientist who recently committed suicide.

I will not re-visit reports by Blix because previous posts have covered this area well.

But here's an article relating the contents of David Kelley's unpublished article re: how he believed military intervention was needed to defuse the dangers posed by Saddam.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,385...-111577,00.html

"Revealed: How Kelly article set out case for war in Iraq"

Kamal Ahmed, political editor, August 31, 2003

The Observer

As well, David Kay and Brigadier Meekin have just published letters that challenge misreporting by Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

"The Hunt for Iraq's Weapons"

Saturday, November 1, 2003; Page A21

David Kay, Baghdad

The writer is special adviser to the director of central intelligence.

Stephen D. Meekin,Baghdad

The writer, a brigadier in the Australian Army, is commander of the coalition's Joint Captured

Materiel Exploitation Center in Iraq.

Craig Read · November 3, 2003

Good posting. I read the Kay report and other US investigations that together they make some key points:

1. Iraq had many programs in train to build on past WMD potential. All parties including the UNO were being duped.

2. 3rd party countries were involved in aiding the Iraqi's in delivery and weapons development [including France, Serbia, Russia, China and Germany.

3. Iraq sponsored attacks on US and Israeli citizens and assets.

4. Iraq sponsored training camps for terrorists.

5. Iraq was searching for material and 3rd country support, to rebuild its WMD raw material supplies .

6. Iraq was a humanitarian disaster.

The invasion was justified.

The point of criticism can be levelled as to the extent of the real WMD threat that was stated by the US and Britain.

Even here the evidence is in favor of the US and Britain, but they should not have made it the casus belli for the media.

Other issues should have taken the fore in the rationale for war.

righturnonred · November 4, 2003

CK,

Your post has touched my heart in all the right places and has convinced me that the war in Iraq has been, like Dick Gephardt said, a miserable failure. I never thought it possible, but those excerpts from a readers digest story about the greiving of loved ones over the needless death of American servicemen has fundamentally changed me. I see now that fighting for the security of the United States and, in fact, the future of mankind is not worth the loss of a minimal number of brave American Soldiers who chose to give the ultimate sacrifice to defend the country they love. I realize now that under no circumstances is war justified because it inevitably involves the destruction of property and the loss of human lives. No matter how brutal the regime or how dangerous the dictator, war is never the solution. It should be blatently obvious to anyone that the only way to effectively fight terrorism is to reason with the terrorists and to find out why we make them so mad and what it is we can do to make them happy. They're just human beings like everyone else. It's just that bombing innocent civilians is the only way they can get the rest of the world to pay attention to them, so its OK......right?

I'm with CK on this one. As for Craig, Morgan, Hugo, and the rest, you're all just a bunch of racist, ignorant, right-wing bigots.

SirRiff · November 4, 2003

1. Iraq had many programs in train to build on past WMD potential. All parties including the UNO were being duped.

not true. all iraqi officals to date have independantly said under interrogation there were no WMD programs active recently. only some ideas about extending the range of their missles to be able to hit thier neighbors just like they were able to be hit. no american gov official has ever said they have found programs, they skirt the issue and use vauge words and never claim they found anything. wonder why? because blix, and kay, and the current WMD search team have found NOTHING of interest.

2. 3rd party countries were involved in aiding the Iraqi's in delivery and weapons development [including France, Serbia, Russia, China and Germany.

the US sent 3 billion worth of weapons and training to osamas crew who helped to rape and pillage an entire nation for decades. the US is among the worst supporter of dictators so there is no argument to be made they can go around fixing the evils of the world.

3. Iraq sponsored attacks on US and Israeli citizens and assets.

on sept 11 1973 the CIA assisted a military coup in chile, in which lists were made of thousands of people who were executed. i woudl say that qualifies as attacking other nations citizens. lets not forget the US supported saddam while he killed innocents, so once again, no credability on anything here.

4. Iraq sponsored training camps for terrorists.

no, actually thats saudi arabia. just because a guy with a gun is in iraq and you dont like him doesnt make him a terrorist. remeber osama was a "rebel" when he killed russians, then a 'terrorist' when he killed americans. with such a hypocritical and arbitrary label, there were no terrorists in iraqi, just militants who never attacked the US or any other nation for that matter. they were pretty much useless. al queda and hamas are the active ones.

5. Iraq was searching for material and 3rd country support, to rebuild its WMD raw material supplies .

why dont we get some nice proof out in public like some nation supporting all these claims? aluminum tubes, niger yellow cake, and so on and so on, all just exxagerations of what ALL nations do, arm themselves. its certainly does not invalidate the sovereignty of a nation. by that defintion the US could be bombed and occupied because of iran-contra or something. it cant be a scandal when teh US does it but a war when someone else does. again, nothing here.

6. Iraq was a humanitarian disaster.

well the US supported iraq against iran which everyone knows helped to bankrupt iraq. then hussain went after his creditors, kuwait and saudi arabia, then the US couldnt risk its oiil so it went it. then 12 years of sanctions starved innocents because the US didnt have the balls to finish the job then. iraq is no more a disaster then most of africa, and you will NEVER see american troops there. the US only notices disasters when there is oil invovled it seems.

so all in all, there is no real truth to any of the arguments made for war by the US. it was all lies told by one of teh most violent nations on earth, then when it all failed, they pretend it was about the welfare of iraqis. um, no. nobody really cares about the iraqis.

SirRiff

Craig Read · November 4, 2003

You are an idiot.

All of the posts in this thread use documents, evidence and reports to back up the claims that the war was justified and contrary to liberal media screaming the occupation is not nearly as bad as it is made out.

Your postings add zero value and no evidence.

daniel · November 4, 2003

All of the posts in this thread use documents, evidence and reports to back up the claims that the war was justified

I guess you don't read the ones that prove it was unjustified.

cknykid · November 4, 2003

There seems to be a media blackout about the brave American soldiers dying in Iraq. There is no news coverage in the media about who they are, what their life before Iraq was like, how their families are doing without them, how they are taken care off and how do they feel about this war. I find it amazing that no news outlet is covering this side of the war. This is what real news is but the so-called news we are getting is about jlo and puff daddy. Is there a conspiracy to block out news about American soldiers dying in Iraq? So far I have read only one article in the New York Times about the soldiers and there family. I feel sorry for the soldiers and there family’s dying in this worthless war without any real objectives and goals. I would really like to see all these war mongers send at least one member of their family in the battleground. All the members of congress, senate and cabinet and only one family member of a senator’s family (son) is serving in Iraq. Quite odd.

KrustyKidd · November 5, 2003

All of the posts in this thread use documents, evidence and reports to back up the claims that the war was justified

I guess you don't read the ones that prove it was unjustified.

I'll read anything put in front of me provided it is either an official report or from the mainstream media. I will also consider Left or Right wing rags provided the info can be correlated by a reliable source. Please show me some of these articles and like the rest of us do, try and make it easy by giving logical formats and relevent comments along with it to show how it relates to your beleifs. Avoid the tmeptation for info overload so that issues cannot be addressed in detail with proper attention given to each point. This is the reason for threads.

Thanks and hope to have some good discussions with you.

cknykid · November 5, 2003

In the Battle of Algiers, French won that battle, but lost the war. The resistance in Iraq is following a familiar anti-colonial pattern. In Algiers anyone would have seen acts carried out by the Algerian’s almost half a century ago, which could have been filmed in Fallujah or Baghdad last week. Then, as now, the occupying power described all such activities as "terrorist". Then, as now, prisoners were taken and tortured, houses that harboured them or their relatives were destroyed, and repression was multiplied. In the end, the French had to withdraw. As American "postwar" casualties now exceed those sustained during the invasion (which cost the Iraqis at least 15,000 lives). Few can deny that Iraq under US occupation is in a much worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein. There is no reconstruction. There is mass unemployment. Daily life is a misery, and the occupiers and their puppets cannot provide even the basic amenities of life. The US doesn't even trust the Iraqis to clean their barracks, and so south Asian and Filipino migrants are being used. This is colonialism in the epoch of neo-liberal capitalism, and so US and "friendly" companies are given precedence. Even under the best circumstances, an occupied Iraq would become an oligarchy of crony capitalism, the new cosmopolitanism of Bechtel and Halliburton. It is the combination of all this that fuels the resistance and encourages many young men to fight. Few are prepared to betray those who are fighting. This is crucially important, because without the tacit support of the population, a sustained resistance is virtually impossible.

The Iraqi’s have weakened George Bush's position in the US and enabled Democrat politicians to criticise the White House, with Howard Dean daring to suggest a total US withdrawal within two years. Even the bien pensants who opposed the war but support the occupation and denounce the resistance know that without it they would have been confronted with a triumphalist chorus from the warmongers. Most important, the disaster in Iraq has indefinitely delayed further adventures in Iran and Syria.

One of the more comical sights in recent months was Paul Wolfowitz on one of his many visits informing a press conference in Baghdad that the "main problem was that there were too many foreigners in Iraq". Most Iraqis see the occupation armies as the real "foreign terrorists". Why? Because once you occupy a country, you have to behave in colonial fashion. This happens even where there is no resistance, as in the protectorates of Bosnia and Kosovo. Where there is resistance, as in Iraq, the only model on offer is a mixture of Gaza and Guantanamo. Nor does it behove western commentators whose countries are occupying Iraq to lay down conditions for those opposing it. It is an ugly occupation, and this determines the response the resistance is predominantly Iraqi--though I would not be surprised if other Arabs are crossing the borders to help. The key fact of the resistance is that it is decentralized--the classic first stage of guerrilla warfare against an occupying army. As for the UN acting as an "honest broker", forget it--especially in Iraq, where it is part of the problem. Meanwhile a beaming fraudster, Ahmed Chalabi, was given the Iraqi seat at the UN. The only norm recognized by the Security Council is brute force, and today there is only one power with the capacity to deploy it. That is why, for many in the southern hemisphere and elsewhere, the UN is the US.

Sooner or later, all foreign troops will have to leave Iraq. If they do not do so voluntarily, they will be driven out. Their continuing presence is a spur to violence. When Iraq's people regain control of their own destiny they will decide the internal structures and the external policies of their country. One can hope that this will combine democracy and social justice, a formula that has set Latin America alight but is greatly resented by the Empire. Meanwhile, Iraqis have one thing of which they can be proud and of which British and US citizens should be envious: an opposition.