The US, UN & Iraq II

durn it
Ees bettor yes no maybe?

0 Replies

Yeah, looks like ya figured it out, Gel. Glad our PM exchange helped. There's another link back there that spreads things a bit, but its not yours, and besides, they'll soon be pages deep. Anytime you (or anyone else) has questions about The Bells and Whistles, lemme know.

0 Replies

This was sent to me on another list. What do you think of it?

How the Bush family is making millions from the war and reconstruction:

Anyone interested in the answer to this question can just google "Carlyle
Group" (one of the countries largest investors in companies making weapons
and other war-related equipment with Bush senior and several Bush insiders
on the board of directors) and learn some facts that will never appear in
the New York Times. Oh yes and, by the way, the Bin Laden family are major
investors in Carlyle as well. It was George Bush senior who first recruited
them to invest. Try
http://m27coalition.org/carlyle.html

Or here's something very recent:

Broadcast on Friday, April 4, 2003 by the The Portugal News (Portugal's
Weekend Newspaper in English)

US Arms Group Heads for Lisbon

Directors of one of the world's largest armament companies are planning on
meeting in Lisbon in three weeks time. The American based Carlyle Group is
heavily involved in supplying arms to the Coalition forces fighting in the
Iraqi war.

It also holds a majority of shares in the Seven Up company and Federal Data
Corporation, supplier of air traffic control surveillance systems to the US
Federal Aviation Authority. The 12 billion dollar company has recently
signed contracts with United Defense Industries to equip the Turkish and
Saudi Arabian armies with aviation Defense systems.

Top of the meeting's agenda is expected to be the company's involvement in
the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastructure after the cessation of current
hostilities. Along with several other US companies, the Carlyle Group is
expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to
help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by
Coalition aerial bombardments.

The Group is managed by a team of former US Government personnel including
its president Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA before
becoming Defense Secretary. His deputy is James Baker II, who was Secretary
of State under George Bush senior. Several high profile former politicians
are employed to represent the company overseas, among them John Major,
former British Prime Minister, along with George Bush senior, one time CIA
director before becoming US President.

The financial assets of the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) are also
managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin
Laden's family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win
petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil
company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family
millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Laden's brother, was represented on
Harken's board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath.

The connection between the Bush and bin Laden families can also be traced to
the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the
1990s. Members of the Anglo Pakistani bank's board of directors included
Richard Helms and William Casey, business partners of George Bush senior and
former CIA agents. During their time at BCCI both Helms and Casey worked
alongside fellow director, Adnan Khasshoggi, who also represented the bin
Laden family's interests in the US.

The Portugal News has been told by a reliable source that the Carlyle Group
meeting in Lisbon will discuss the relationship between the Saudi Binladen
Corporation (SBC) and Osama bin Laden. Many US officials claim that the SBC
continues to finance his political activities, and has done so for many
years. If true, this would place George Bush senior and his colleagues at
the Carlyle Group in an embarrassing position. As managers of SBC's
financial investments they might well be accused of indirectly aiding and
abetting the United States' number one enemy.

0 Replies

Perhaps this has already been posted. If not:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4646750,00.html

Blix: US was bent on war

Nicholas Watt
Saturday April 12, 2003
The Guardian

War against Iraq was a foregone conclusion months before the first shot
was fired, the chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has claimed.

In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of
planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against
Iraq to justify their campaign.

Letting rip after months of frustration, he told the Spanish daily El
Pais: "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance.
Sometimes this raises doubts about
their attitude to the [weapons] inspections."

Mr Blix said Iraq was paying a "a very high price in terms of human
lives and the destruction of a country" when the threat of banned
weapons could have been contained
by UN inspections.

The 74-year Swedish diplomat made clear that he believes he was misled
by President Bush. At a White House meeting last October Mr Bush backed
the work of
Unmovic, the UN inspection team.

But at the time Mr Blix knew "there were people within the Bush
administration who were sceptical and who were working on engineering
regime change". By the start of
March the hawks in Washington and London were growing impatient.

He said he believed that finding weapons of mass destruction had been
relegated as an aim and the main objective had become the toppling of
Saddam Hussein.

Guardian Unlimited ©
Guardian Newspapers

0 Replies

As you say. Lola ... "If true ... " As for the rest, Carlyle got to be a multi-billion-dollar concern by satisfying customers, US and otherwise. They're good at what they do, and I see no reason to expect that to change, no matter who does or did work for them. To be outraged that government figures would have "have connections" to entities that deal with governments is disingenuous. There is to the minds of many far less issue here than in the minds of others. As to SBC, they are the most capable and experienced construction firm in the region. Would you care to recommend an alternate with similar resources and familiarity with the specific concerns and conditions of the region? Montana's Highway Department doesn't have much to do with Tenessee's, other than that both paint their trucks Omaha Orange. Does that make for a conspiracy?

0 Replies

And then there's Rumsfeld, the pipeline, and Bechtel:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opinion/14HERB.html

Okay, many of us knew all about this, but the NYTimes, its gears running very slowly, finally prints it.

Timber -- your response to Lola's posts is a model of disingenuity.

0 Replies

I don't know, Timber. Just passing on information. It does seem to address the question of why attack Iraq now. It seems plausible to me, as a possible explanation, in any case. The Bush family and friends do seem to be getting richer from this war. I'm not sure what that means. But it seems significant to me.

0 Replies

Does it bother you, Timber, that "if it's true" what Blix says, then all of us (including us here at A2K) participated in a couple of months of a charade? I mean, "How long should inspections continue?", and "Is there a smoking gun?", and "Will we or won't we go to war?". Does it bother you at all if it's true that it was a foregone conclusion before, during and after all discussions with entities other than administration insiders that we would topple Bagdhad by force? If it doesn't bother you, why doesn't it? Do you at least understand how it contributes to the distrust some of us have for this administration?

0 Replies

Quote:

Whether the physical demise of Saddam Hussein has been achieved or not, his political destruction is nearly complete. Once the United States committed military force against him, Saddam's eventual defeat was never in doubt. But what follows in the wake of his unlamented dictatorship will determine the success of the war that ousted him.

For advocates of the war, the justification for this enormous expenditure of blood and treasure is the liberation of the Iraqi people and the establishment of democracy as a light unto the Arab world. And now those of us who opposed the war must hope that project succeeds?-or at least avoids disastrous failure. If we are perceived as imperialists who have installed a puppet regime, then the true victors will be the propagandists of Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately, signs are emerging that a puppet regime may be exactly what the war's intellectual authors have planned. The most troubling indication was the U.S. airlift into Nasiriya's smoking ruins of a gentleman named Ahmed Chalabi.

If that name isn't familiar yet, it will be. Although his recent return to his homeland is the first time he has set foot there since 1958, Mr. Chalabi is the dominant leader of the exile movement known as the Iraqi National Congress. Among his admirers in Washington?-where he has long been a favorite of the neoconservative right?-he is regarded as brilliant, selfless and courageous. Senator Joseph Lieberman has called him "a person of strength, principle and real national commitment." His friend Richard Perle, the influential Defense Department adviser, notes that Mr. Chalabi, a very wealthy man with an American education and British citizenship, "could have lived comfortably without spending a day on the effort to liberate Iraq."

That last remark is surely true. Just how Mr. Chalabi came to be fixed so comfortably remains a matter of grave concern in neighboring Jordan. Eleven years ago this week, he was convicted in absentia on more than 30 counts of embezzlement, theft and fraud after the mysterious crash of Petra Bank, a large financial institution he founded and ran in Amman. (In some profiles, this episode is described discreetly as his "controversial past.") By the time he fled, Jordan's central bankers were trying to uncover what had happened to about $300 million in missing deposits.

According to Mr. Chalabi and his defenders, the government of the late King Hussein framed him at Saddam's behest. Since he may well get his hands on his native land's vast oil wealth someday, let's hope he is indeed innocent. The problem is that many informed observers suspect otherwise.

Among the doubters is the impeccably conservative journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a thoroughly unflattering Chalabi profile for the Washington Times last December. Quoted in that article is the "widely respected" former governor of the Jordanian central bank, who said that after a full examination of Petra's books, he concluded that "they had been cooked and that Ahmed Chalabi was the master cook . Chalabi was one of the most notorious crooks in the history of the Middle East."

Not the best endorsement for the would-be Iraqi savior, but an all-too-typical description of past and present leaders in that region. If Mr. Chalabi is indeed guilty as charged, his ascent would continue a tradition that includes the late Shah of Iran and the greedy criminals who rule various emirates and monarchies in the Gulf region. Plus ça change, as the despised French might mutter.

Aside from all those musty details, Mr. Chalabi's critics in the C.I.A., the State Department?-and other groups who have shed blood fighting Saddam Hussein?-wonder how a figure with no visibility or known support among the Iraqi people is qualified to lead them. Among his pronouncements from exile, he has said that he would extend diplomatic recognition to Israel, a laudable idea that probably has very little support among the Iraqi public.

Apparently, Mr. Chalabi believes he will be best served by a long U.S. military occupation of his country. He told the CBS program 60 Minutes that he expects our troops to stay for two years. That is a dangerous notion, not only for American and British soldiers, but also for the stability of the Gulf region.

Meanwhile, at his Belfast summit, President Bush denied that the United States is seeking to install Mr. Chalabi or any other Iraqi in power to succeed Saddam. Other top U.S. officials have vowed repeatedly that only the Iraqis can choose their future leadership.

In affairs of state, denial is all too often the equivalent of confirmation. Let's hope that the White House is telling the truth this time?-and that the Iraqis themselves, rather than the Pentagon or the State Department, will render the final judgment on Mr. Chalabi's ambitions. Our own future as well as theirs may depend on it. Joe Conason, NYObserver, 4/13/03

0 Replies

http://www.iraqwatch.org/index.html

That link will provide hours of reading all by itself, and offers days worth of link chasing for any who care to inform themselves of the details surrounding Iraq's WMD activity. More can be found at www.fas.org

A perusal of the available documentation leads to but one conclusion.

0 Replies

a
Snood, I tried to point this out about 300 pages ago.

readme

0 Replies

A map from there to here

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=164484&highlight=#164484

0 Replies

Timber: Thanks for the link, the first article therein details very well, though several paragraphs deep, the smooth work of the (1988) Dept. of Commerce (US) in approving computer and chemical technology to the Iraqi government, this after the massive gassing of the Kurds in the north. So what is the one conclusion that one is drawn to?

That the Reagan/BushI administrations encouraged their little monster Saddam to grow and helped him develop, along with France, Switzerland, Germany and Russia, those WMDs that were the purported reason for this armed conflict. When Saddam decided, not altogether on his own, to invade Kuwait, George Bush was shocked wasn't he? As shocked as any other mafioso who gave a gun to a guy to kill a guy and he goes out and shoots some other guy.
This was, and is, an incredible mess of our (Reagan/Bush/Bush) own making, but that doesn't mean people ought not make a few bucks off of it at the same time, does it? I mean, despite the massive immorality of it all, the Schultz's, Kristol's and the Rumsfeld's of this world apparently sleep well while the rest can barely contain our disgust for such men as these.

I wager that now we will play "button, button, who's got the button?" because if we can't find the weapon stocks in Iraq, someone (Syria) must have them. Right? Soon you will be bringing us those latest moves on the map as you do so well, but you might try looking back at how we got to this point and do it without the blinders or you may start using words like "Untidiness".

Joe

0 Replies

Is Rumsfeld serious? Is Syria about to be attacked? And would you mind very much if the Brits sat this one out?

0 Replies

No.
No ..... that is to say there will be a battle but more like the US defending Iraqi territory as in 'oil fields.
Syria will not battle on Syrian ground.... look for the big toys to show up in this one.

0 Replies

I'm stunned by the way those officials spread an assuption like it is a proven fact.

Do they have any proof the Ba'ath elite fled to Syria?
Do they have any proof Syria has WMD?
And what was the answer of "Dubya and Rummy" about the Syria reaction to look for WMD in Israel?

0 Replies

Joe, you go prowling around in those two sites, and you'll find that out of some $50 Billion worth of Military or Dual Use trade with Iraq over the past 30 years, the US total comes to under $500 Million. Russia/Soviet Union, France, and Germany in the aggregate acount for some 80% of the total, and a hefty portion of that is post 1992. Much of embarrassment to the Big Three of Old Europe is coming to light as Iraqi documents are examined. Jordan, Syria, and Sweden have had more military trade with Ba'athist Iraq than has had the US.

Here are a few more crumbs for the interested ... very deep websites with much detaailed documentation:

http://www.security-policy.org/

http://www.csis.org/

http://www.cij.org/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

I have come across more than enough to convince me ... facts, figures, tables, requisitions, letters-of-inquiry and letters-of-confirmation, export documents, purchase orders, invoices, trans-shipping clearances and Bills of Lading, not the flowery prose of opinion pieces. The reading is pretty dry, in fact. Some of the spreadsheets, PDF files, and PowerPoint presentations take many minute to download with a broadband connection. The Ba'athist Regime of Iraq was quite clearly a rogue, and quite clearly received inappropriate consideration from many "Respectable" nations. If this material is readilly accessible on the web I imagine that yet more explicitly damning evidence and indications most certainly have been obtained though clandestine intelligence means. The question is not whether prohibited activity is discovered within Iraq, but when. They've had years of experience and success in hiding their programs from active on-scene inspectors. I'm not at all surprised that a couple weeks of poking around by combat troops with other priorities has turned up little as of yet. There are far, far more questions than for which suitable answers have been provided.

0 Replies

Timber, I know WMD was the given reason to invade ... are you saying weapons are the real reason?

0 Replies

No, Gel, I'm not. There is strong evidence Iraq produced, possesed, and concealed prohibited marial and programs. WMD will be found. As for WMD as a primary raison de guerre, I've long maintained that was a PR blunder of enormous proportion, and just one among many PR blunders The Current Administration has managed to drape over itself.

0 Replies

I think Joe Nation has nailed it.

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know