Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

The Hussein dossier

08:19 / 24.09.02

The British Government has released a dossier on Saddam Hussain designed to explode myth that he lacks weapons of mass destruction and build a consensus behind a move against the Iraqi leadership.

The Dossier is downloadable as a .pdf here

So what do people think of it?
Convincing, reason to move against Saddam?
Enough information to support invasion? or just a summary of what we already know?

Has anyone even bothered to download it, much less read the thing?

what do you think ?

08:42 / 24.09.02

Since I can't download the dossier, perhaps I shouldn't even be here, but I've been reading bit and bobs about it and what's striking me most is that if there is a real threat from Saddam Hussein, it's going to be fairly easy for many (including me) to dismiss it because the 'warnings' are coming from Bush and Blair, and I utterly distrust both of them. Releasing the dossier just before the debate in Parliament makes me very suspicious, too - there's not much time for MPs to read and digest it beforehand. And what's the debate for? To sanction a war with or without UN approval?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:42 / 24.09.02

I haven't read it yet, but there was a fairly long piece on it on the Today programme this morning- as far as I can make out, there's very little that's new, other than matters of tactics- he would conceivably delegate the control of WMDs to his generals and stuff, thus making the risk greater. But that's kind of circumstantial, considering they still don't appear to have given us evidence that he's GOT any of the fuckers.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:13 / 24.09.02

The Today Programme.

09:52 / 24.09.02

OK, I've skimmed it now. It isn't really that surprising. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but, factually speaking, it seems fairly plausible. However, one striking aspect of the analysis is that a desire to acquire weapons is equated with a probable possession. Perhaps I'm making a pedantic distinction, but the political slant is clear. Similarly, the lists of human rights abuses make no mention of Western approval. Also, IIRC, the previous UN inspection team was thrown out for spying. The report doesn't comment that this was in fact true. Funny, that.

The most worrying assertion (often repeated in the report) is that Saddam is too cunning for weapons inspections to be effective. Hence we know that he has has WMDs and no evidence is going to convince us otherwise. In fact, the only thing to do is to go to war. Very worrying.

Anyway, I'm not sure that the document tells us more than we already knew. Saddam is a nasty piece of work and Bush wants to kill him.

Morlock - groupie for hire

11:00 / 24.09.02

Still reading, but it struck me how you could replace all references to "Saddam" (funny how he's always been Saddam, never Mr Hussein) in the Foreword with "Bush" and still have a document that is correct in all but a few minor details. Cynical, moi?

Morlock - groupie for hire

11:47 / 24.09.02

"So far, gentlemen, this is not blowing my skirts up."

Fucking *nothing* document. Saddam Hussain is a bad man, in charge of nasty weapons. Big deal, this is 20 year old info. Sanctions have only delayed his acquisition of further weaponry. Who'd have guessed? Hussain will merrily break any restrictions imposed by others if he thinks he can get away with it. Genius...

Anybody see where that spleen landed?

Anyway, I'm encouraged somewhat by what the document cover. No mention that Iraq is planning to use its weapons right now, no mention of terrorism, in fact nothing which supports the sense of urgency in taking action that Bush et al are churning out. Even Tony's foreword is still pushing the diplomatic option.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

13:40 / 24.09.02

Only read half so far, not sure if Blair has the right to invoke the gassing of the Kurds when it was done in '88 with the damn near tacit consent of America and the UK.

But, although I'm willing to grant that Iraq is trying to build up it's weapons stock I'm afraid I don't see anything that indicates we should be more worried by this than the news that the French, for example, were buying missiles, or the US.

I'm sure, though I will need to reread this later on, that suddenly the weapons inspection team that was kicked out in '98 wasn't able to verify and deal with Iraq's weapons, whereas up until Bush wanted to bomb them the official line was they had. Of course, no mention is made of the real reason for them leaving being spies.

I really wanted to believe this document, I really didn't want to be seen as a traditional left-wing trouble maker, but there is genuinely nothing in there that suggests a war is needed. At best, there is nothing there to suggest that if there is going to be a war that Britain needs to get involved, if Saddam had a particular kind of missile he might be able to attack southern Cyprus. Certainly I see nothing worth risking out international standing for by siding with the American administration over this illegal action.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:18 / 24.09.02

The mastermind behind Iraq's bio-weapons programme is thought to be Dr Rihab Taha. She has been dubbed 'Dr Germ' by western media. It is of some embarrassment to the UK Government that she took her Phd in plant toxins at the University of East Anglia between 1981-84.

From a BBC Special Report.

Dr. Taha, of course, is mentioned in the dossier. Bear in mind that in 1981 Douglas Hurd was despatched to Iraq by the Thatcher goverment to facilitate trade (read 'arms sales') to Iraq, and that the Thatcher government maintained a policy of biased 'neutrality' which essentially meant backing secular Iraq against scary Islamic Iran. Saddam Hussein had by 1981 been in power for two years, during which time he had established his credentials as a total bastard quite effectively.

But then, we needed him.

So the real question which emerges from this, to my mind, is what bloody monster are we currently backing, what new disaster are we incubating, and how long do we have to put up with half-arsed, short-termist realpolitik bullshit before we can start dealing intelligently and honestly with the world?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:47 / 24.09.02

Nick- I think, unfortunately enough, that it's gonna be a long, long time (if we allow ourselves a long time, obviously) before the West as is (well... I'm probably being unfair there... the US and the UK, let's say) start dealing honestly and intelligently with the world.

Oh, and Morlock- I've always found that (calling him "Saddam") weird too. You don't get the news going on about Yasser, or George, or even Tony. And on a related point, the phrase currently fashionable seems to be "Prime Minister Blair"- sorry, it's a job, not a title. You may as well talk about "Actor Connery".

I think "Mr Blair", "Mr Bush" and "Mr Hussein" would be polite.

Still... back to the point, it looks like what we think isn't relevant. If our elected representatives are only gonna get a token time to check it out before voting, where're the rest of us?

Sorry... probably incoherent and largely off-topic. I'm just angry, 'sall.

Tryphena Absent

17:19 / 24.09.02

I was watching the news channel earlier and they were discussing this and it seemed that they were pretty much repeating all of the little snippets of information we all already knew anyway. I'm not going to have time to read it now and the network doesn't want me to save it on disc much as I'd like to. Basically I have to rely on what I've already heard and that has been rather unreliable.

Iraq has biological and chemical weapons - known that for years.
They could maybe have nukes - knew that.
They present some kind of minor threat - knew that.
Great, thanks, waste my time. I'm going to march.

17:48 / 24.09.02

...and that of course counts for a lot of states in the world, including the "bastard" factor of Mr Hussein (I agree that calling him "Saddam" is a little too cartoon-villain).

It's any evidence of intent to use these things that I find missing, and that would be required to justify a pre-emptive strike. I'd love it if no countries in the world possessed weapons of mass destruction (including cluster bombs) of course.

Point of law here - is there any suggestion that MPs will actually be able to do anything whatsoever about it? Aren't they just discussing it, but in the end will have no say over what happens?

17:59 / 24.09.02

My new name for Blair is "Howhigh."

Any future references to "Howhigh" (as in "It seems pretty clear Howhigh just knocked this together over the weekend to please his big buddy") should be read as referring to PM Blair.

19:29 / 24.09.02

It appears to prove precisely the most important reason for not going to war in order to oust "Saddam".

01:42 / 25.09.02

11 o'clock news here in Toronto did a piece on "Saddam, not Mr. Hussein"... their explantaion was that it is the custom in Iraq to refer to a leader by the first name, as a sign of respect and affection. I can't be bothered to verify; my gut feeling is that "cartoony super-villain" would be a more apt explanation. A war on Terrorism is just another brand choice, after all.

ahh, Canadian news. Answering questions you've just asked in a fluffy, hollow kind of way.