The US, UN & Iraq II

Normally when we and/or the UN go after bad guys, we get banks to freeze their assets. Freeze means just that -- make them inaccessible to their owners. More often than not, when the freeze is lifted, the money is used to make reparations to the victims of the bad guys.

However, this time -- on the Thursday evening when most Americans were glued to their TV's watching the start of the invasion -- Bush and the Treasure Department ordered -- ORDERED -- banks in the US AND overseas INCLUDING Britain CONFISCATED and TURNED OVER TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. How are they getting away with that? Read the Times (UK) article and the new use of the Patriot Act. Or was that what the Patriot Act was partially intended for all along.

Treasury plans to sequester Iraqi assets

URGENT plans to seize $648 million (£414 million) of Iraqi assets frozen in UK institutions were being drawn up yesterday by the Treasury. After John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary, launched what he called a "financial offensive" against Saddam Hussein's regime, the UK Government said it would also take steps to confiscate Iraqi funds. Millions in Iraqi investments have already been frozen in British banks as part of sanctions under United Nations resolution 661. But the confiscation of the money may be more difficult, with the Treasury set to face significant legal obstacles under British law. Officials said yesterday that discussions were under way with Treasury lawyers to overcome problems. But it refused to say whether the law would have to be changed to allow confiscation. "We are very much in sympathy with what the US are trying to achieve and we are considering our position as a matter of urgency. We hope to make a statement in coming days," a spokesman said. In addition to seizing Iraqi assets in the US, Mr Snow announced that American agencies were mounting a "worldwide hunt" for "blood money that Saddam Hussein and his cronies have stolen from the Iraqi people". The US is threatening to cut access to its financial system by institutions which fail to follow its lead and seize Iraqi funds. Mr Snow said that he reserved the right to take such "counter-measures" under the powers of the USA Patriot Act.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-619246,00.html

I'm going to look for more info on this inexcusable use of newly minted US law and will post here what I find.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

The next thing will be some propaganda about them not really being chemical weapons

How about some propaganda abut them not really having been used. Which they have not, of course.

0 Replies

Here's the BBC story I heard -- fuller than the Times report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2881389.stm

0 Replies

During the daily CENTCOM press briefing in Doha, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said Iraqi forces are using uncontrolled surface-to-air missiles against coalition aircraft to avoid turning on their targeting radars. Brooks said the explosion in Iraq March 26 that left several civilians dead was likely the result of an "old or stray Iraqi surface-to-air missile, not a coalition air strike". All missiles fired during that March 26 attack have been accounted for, with none apparently having failed to strike their intended targets, the closest of which was some 300 meters from the market area, sources say. Photographs of the scene show the cratering and the blast damage distribution to be "inconsistent with observed properties of US cruise missile effect". "Several" Surface-to-Air missile were launched from Baghdad during that attack, though they do not seem to have been under radar control and direction, but rather were launched "blind" in hope of obtaining a lucky hit without exposing the radars to Coalition countermeasures.

0 Replies

War Could Last Months, Officers Say

Despite the rapid advance of Army and Marine forces across Iraq over the past week, some senior U.S. military officers are now convinced that the war is likely to last months and will require considerably more combat power than is now on hand there and in Kuwait, senior defense officials said yesterday.

The combination of wretched weather, long and insecure supply lines, and an enemy that has refused to be supine in the face of American military might has led to a broad reassessment by some top generals of U.S. military expectations and timelines. Some of them see even the potential threat of a drawn-out fight that sucks in more and more U.S. forces. Both on the battlefield in Iraq and in Pentagon conference rooms, military commanders were talking yesterday about a longer, harder war than had been expected just a week ago, the officials said.

"Tell me how this ends," one senior officer said yesterday....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html

0 Replies

By all these arguments this one

Quote:

An MoD spokeswoman said recent finds of equipment such as gas masks could demonstrate that Iraqi forces have chemical or biological weapons. [BBC online]

always surprises me most.

From 1969 until 1985 I've been as conscript and later as reserve officer in the German Navy. A gasmask (officially called "respirator" because the connection gas<> III Reich was too significant when founding the Bundeswehr) was always amongst my stuff, even when joining just for sailing the 'Kiel week'!

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

During the daily CENTCOM press briefing in Doha, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said Iraqi forces are using uncontrolled surface-to-air missiles against coalition aircraft to avoid turning on their targeting radars. Brooks said the explosion in Iraq March 26 that left several civilians dead was likely the result of an "old or stray Iraqi surface-to-air missile, not a coalition air strike". All missiles fired during that March 26 attack have been accounted for, with none apparently having failed to strike their intended targets, the closest of which was some 300 meters from the market area, sources say. Photographs of the scene show the cratering and the blast damage distribution to be "inconsistent with observed properties of US cruise missile effect". "Several" Surface-to-Air missile were launched from Baghdad during that attack, though they do not seem to have been under radar control and direction, but rather were launched "blind" in hope of obtaining a lucky hit without exposing the radars to Coalition countermeasures.

Are you really buying this crap? They found missiles in Turkey and Iran. Those missiles went miles astray. So why is this missile different? Becaus it caused death and destruction in an urban area?

0 Replies

The one thing every combat commander pleads for most vigorously is "More Force".

There are credible reports that Kurdish units, apparently in coordination with US Special Operations Forces and recently arrived US Airborne elements, are pressing attacks on Iraqi positions near both Mosul and Kirkuk. Reports also indicate "significant" Turkish troop presence, though Turkish units are apparently staying near the Turkish/Iraqi border and there is no indication Turkish troops have been involved in combat.
The 173rd has established a wide perimiter around the airfield and does appear to be conducting reconnaisance-in-force quite some distance from the airfield. a "steady stream" of airlift activity at the field is also reported. Indications are that large quantities of men and materiel are being flown into the Western Airfields H1, H2 and possibly H3 as well. "Large numbers" of heavy-lift transport aircraft are in operation, but there is no way to determine with any certainty where these planes are going.

0 Replies

That's a fair point, Walter.

In my day, when the earth was much younger, we called them Field Protective Masks, or something like that.

0 Replies

frolic, the US is not reluctant to admit its errors, such as the missiles which have strayed into third countries. The damage to the area, as revealed in photographs widely available on the 'Net and the pages of newspapers around the world does not resemble the damage to be expected from a cruise missile. While evidence is scant and circumstantial, such evidence as does exist supports the US contention in this instance. You are welcome to draw any conclusion you wish. My conclusion, based on available evidence and past US practice in similar matters, is that the incident remains under investigation, and that if indeed it proves to have been a US cruise missile, that will be disclosed if and when determined to have been the case. At present it appears to me, and to many far more knowledgeable and informed analysts, unlikely, though of course possible, it was a cruise missile.

0 Replies

roger

Of course everyone was calling them gasmask - which ended in some sort of 'punishment' (like acting as steward in the officer's mess).
"Breathing Protection Mask" was the official 'title' of it, I remember now.

0 Replies

Yeah, Walter, that has occurred to me too. I don't dismiss the implications of such "Finds", but I would be more immediately alarmed were it to be shown that Iraqi troops had been issued the protective gear, as opposed to its merely being warehoused.

0 Replies

It was reported on MSNBC yesterday that one of BBCs field correspondents blasted the home office for the obvious bias against the war and that it was going badly. His experience in the field provided evidence that exactly the opposite was true.

0 Replies

"US is not reluctant to admit its errors.."

Timber, that's just not true. Over the years, the US military have been extremely reluctant to tell the truth, from medical experiments on troops, to Agent Orange and Gulf War syndrome, to even during this invasion a constant miscasting of how the attack is proceeding even during this invasion.

0 Replies

Perception -- I tried both MSNBC and Google to see if I could substantiate your post but failed. Could you give a link?

0 Replies

perception wrote:

It was reported on MSNBC yesterday that one of BBCs field correspondents blasted the home office for the obvious bias against the war and that it was going badly. His experience in the field provided evidence that exactly the opposite was true.

I've found that MSNBC quoted yesterday from a weblog, who reported such.

Could you please give the correct source of the above?

0 Replies

I've read in a Newsletter of Elsevier(IMO a rightwing magazine in Holland) that there is an internal Nota of the BBC saying that the reports of the war do not correspond with what's happening on the battlefield. The reports are much to negative.

0 Replies

Ahahaha, ohohohoho, I am listening to the press conference of Mr. President. He just said, after asked, why is it that the US does not have a wide support of its historic allies in this war: "we have plenty of western allies, a whole list of western allies. we have a vast coalition, and i am very proud of the countries that stand shoulder to shoulder with the united states"
that was just too good to pass.

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know