THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

As usual Walter comes in with answer!

steve

Thanks. That the push came from some American shareholders was what my search turned up too. That's all I could find on that. That there had been earlier concerns regarding financial return, wasn't noted in what I found.

I forgot to get a link. This from the Australian.


Pullout plan in higher gear: report
From correspondents in London
May 17, 2004
LONDON and Washington were drawing up plans to pull coalition forces out of Iraq "as soon as possible", a senior British source was quoted as saying in The Times today.

"We are not about to cut and run. But the aim is to have a strategy which enables the Iraqis to take control as quickly as possible and allows us to leave as quickly, as soon as possible," the anonymous source told the British newspaper.

The "gear change" had been agreed by London and Washington, according to the source.

The Times also said that the deployment of additional British troops in Iraq was being delayed to avoid the impression that they were a direct replacement for Spanish troops.

The Spaniards are withdrawing following a change of government in Madrid.

here's the link

Just when I began to be convinced that no real sense would ever come out of Canada, the Prime Minister Paul Martin's statement was reported on May 11th by Stephanie Rubin of the Ottawa Bureau-Sun Media.

PM Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that they have fallen into terrorist hands. PM Martin said that the threat of terrorism is greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 because the terrorists had acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

PM Martin also indicated that he felt that the cuase of terrorism was not poverty, but rather hatred.

How refreshing to find some common sense coming from Canada.

Britain and US to 'speed up' withdrawal
By Kim Pilling, PA News
17 May 2004


Britain and the US have drawn up plans to withdraw coalition troops from Iraq as soon as possible, according to reports.

A briefing from Government sources indicated a greater urgency for the clear "exit strategy" to help Iraq develop its army, police force, civil defence corps and intelligence service.

Previously, officials in London and Washington have said forces could stay "for as long as it takes".

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Tony Blair and President George Bush had agreed to "speed up" the transfer of authority to help achieve the goal of handing full sovereignty to Iraq on July 1.

Downing Street said the aim was to have a strategy which would bring British troops "as quickly as possible - but as quickly as possible when we can leave behind an effective government and security apparatus".

Ministers are today expected to come under fresh pressure over Iraq as MPs debate the conflict in the Commons.

Thousands more soldiers are expected to be deployed shortly to help counter the spiralling violence.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday ruled out allowing MPs to vote on further deployments.

Mr Hoon stressed no decision had been made but said he already had a mandate to send whatever forces were required.

"Clearly if the commanding officer on the ground says at very short notice we require extra troops because of some significant deterioration in the security it would irresponsible of me not to agree to that request and agree to it very promptly," he said.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy agreed but said: "That is very different indeed from saying we will expand dramatically either the geography - the field of operations - outside where we are at the moment or that we place ourselves under the American control in those areas."

Labour left-wingers are expected to join the Lib Dems in arguing for a vote in the Commons debate, called by Mr Kennedy.

Fresh calls for Mr Blair to distance himself from President Bush are also likely.

Former foreign secretary Robin Cook, who quit the Cabinet over Iraq, yesterday said the Government should plan a way to pull out British troops.

"We really do need to get elections quickly, find a genuinely representative government of Iraq, recognise that frankly it's not going to be sympathetic to the coalition forces who are now so unpopular in Iraq," he said.

"And I personally think we need an exit strategy that says as soon as elections have been held, as soon as there is a democratic government to run Iraq, we're getting out."

Mr Hoon said he was "disappointed" with Mr Cook who was aware, from his former role, that "these decisions have to be taken in light of events on the ground".
17 May 2004 05:43

Well I don't agree with this opinion.
The country of Iraq was overflown by spy planes for years and if and transfer of any weapons took place unnoticed, it must have been box cutters or something very unobtrusive.

McT

I can't find a copy of Martin's speech...and all press reports on it seem to simply quote the original coverage at canoe, which is incomplete.

However, the following passage, if a correct and complete quote, is no less foolish for Martin being the Prime Minister...


That Martin believes SH had WOMD isn't much more compelling than that mporter believes it. Rather more compelling are the statements from Kay, Clarke, Powell and the UN inspections teams, not to mention the inconvenient fact of none being found (after perhaps a million man hours of highly motivated searching using the best technology in town). But, he can believe it anyway, that's ok.

The further leap to 'therefore the terrorists have them' isn't any more compelling, as there isn't evidence to support it.

The final claim to understanding cause is depressingly unthoughtful.

We'll see how Martin's strategy for relations with the US is going to evolve. He's a businessman/politician most fundamentally, which isn't terribly promising. These comments, if quoted correctly and without relevant ommissions, are the dumbest things out of the fellow's mouth that I've heard.

This is so Bush will started selling "Canadian Bacon" in the US again

Serin gas was detected in the recent roadside bomb that killed the Iraqi administrator.

According to the news, the bomb didn't detonate correctly for the deadly ingredients to mix properly and disperse.

Heard about the sarin gas being found in one weapon. Don't know quite how to interpret that one incident.

A link to bomb news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/international/middleeast/17CND-SARI.html

A second artillary shell has been found which contains Serin.

Link? I've cannot find on Google new search more than one bomb which was basically an out-of-date weapon causing only a minor threat.

I'm getting the info on ABC News radio.

We'll have to wait until we hear all the facts. I can see those who believe there were existing stockpiles of WMD in Iraq prematurally jumping on this one as conclusive evidence already.

Some mustard gas was found too, about 2 weeks ago but they said it had been stored improperly making it's effect weaker.

Apparently it's stuff Saddam had a while, we'll see as you say...

This could also be marked up to Hussein's obvious ineptness in managing -- I have no doubt he lost track of exactly what remnants of outlawed agents he did have.

The gas was put in devices that were meant to be fired (therefore, the reason they were not effective) - and of very old stocks.........