All Iraq conflict discussion in here plz

[ABCMan]

Originally posted by craig6928

TRUTH

and the weird thing is that all this fighting and
stuff
only started when the usa spilled blood on a holy land and secret land (years ago)
so hence they called the usa satan so hence
there is a lot of crack pots out there for sure

well since you cut and pasted that from another site i'll cut out the last bit

you say the usa spilled blod in the holy lands? now lets get this straight when we say holy lands i assume you mean what is called the holy land and therefore you must mean the islamic states spilling isreali blood in their quest to finish off what hitler started?

if however you mean the islamic holy places then i'm fairly sure the only blood spilled there was during accidents (fire and bad crowd control during the haj) and on one occasion a group of iranian terrorists opening fire with guns on the pilgrims.

now if go back a "little" further in history we'd find that mohammed and his band of pirates used to spill the blood of the merchents they used to rob around where he used to live (historicly not where the koran says but in the north west in what is now jordan or syria) or if we switch to the holy lands what was then judea was invaded by the sumairians (sp?) and the assyrians both of whom originated in south and north iraq respectively, so maybe iraq is the right place to spill blood after all.

Please dont think i'm having a go at islam, the locations of mohammed were traced by some islamic scholars many years ago, the koran was simply arabicised to give it further distance from its origins in judeism.


but this thread is about conflict and saddam is bad in any version of events and the iraqi people need freeing from his tyranny, if the rest of the world wish to stay out of it then so be it.

[4me2]

Taken from the Fox news site : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73712,00.html


JERUSALEM — Israel hopes a U.S. war on Iraq will eliminate one of its sworn enemies and chasten others -- but the cost could be very high if Saddam Hussein attacks the Jewish state with biological or chemical weapons, or his friends use the occasion to strike it on other fronts.


Israelis are eager to see the ouster of Saddam, who in 1991 hurled 39 Scud missiles at them in an effort to draw Israel into the war and drive a wedge between the United States and its Arab allies; Israel held back, and some say its prized deterrence was hobbled as a result.

Israel believes Iraq today has biological and chemical weapons, but there are many unknowns including whether it can mount them on missiles, whether Saddam would issue such an order, and whether it would be obeyed. There is also the possibility of a non-conventional bomb delivered by a plane or other means.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other leaders warn Israel will defend its citizens if attacked -- but a desperate Saddam would be difficult to deter if his very aim is to draw a counterattack to redefine the war and enable his regime, somehow, to survive.

Hundreds of U.S. soldiers are to arrive in Israel this week for joint exercises to integrate two different anti-missile systems that are part of final preparations for a possible Iraqi attack. Israeli soldiers also have reportedly been training with chemical agents, learning how to detect them to warn the public in case of an attack.

If Israel is hit, its decision on how to respond could be gut-wrenching.

Sharon, in almost two years in power, has shown a great sensitivity to the position of the United States, whose support has been critical in his struggle to crush the Palestinian uprising and sideline Yasser Arafat. U.S. pressure on Israel not to respond, or to use measured force, would certainly be a factor.

Israeli security officials say that since a nonconventional attack would expose the falsehood of Iraq's claims that it does not possess such weapons, Israel must also plan for the scenario of an attack with conventional weapons.

But many believe that even in such a case Israel will have to act in order to to preserve -- or reestablish -- its deterrence.

Shmuel Sandler of the Tel Aviv-based BESA Center for Strategic Studies said the deterrent capability -- which for decades helped Israel stave off the hostile intentions of an Arab world whose population is many times its own -- has been battered by two decades "in which Israel failed to win decisively on any front."

The list includes -- in addition to the non-response to Saddam's Scuds in 1991 -- an 18-year occupation of parts of Lebanon that ended in a unilateral and unconditional pullout in 2000; the first Palestinian uprising that led to a since-collapsed peace deal with the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1993; and the slow bleed of the current conflict with the Palestinians.

Few believe Israel would avoid retaliating to a biological or chemical attack that causes many casualties -- but no one can say how it would strike back.

Israel is reputed to have a significant nuclear capability -- but what kind of attack, with how many casualties, would justify using it? Beyond the unimaginable loss of innocent life, such an attack would break a taboo, expose Israel's nuclear hand and possibly invite similarly catastrophic retaliation.

For Israel to consider nuclear weapons, "it needs to be a very extreme situation (in which) there will a biological strike of such magnitude that Israel will have to respond," said Ephraim Kam of the Tel Aviv-based Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. Israel said it would decide in the coming days whether to inoculate the entire population against smallpox. The Health Ministry has already inoculated between 15,000 and 20,000 medical and rescue workers against the virus.

The experts say it is in Israel's interest to avoid being challenged to respond.

That means relying on the United States to quickly seize control of western Iraq, the only place from which Iraqi Scuds can reach Israel, depending on the new Arrow missile defense system to knock down anything that does get through -- and, essentially, hoping for the best.

Another danger Israel could face is an upsurge in Palestinian terrorism or an effort by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon to broaden the war by attacking Israel with missiles.

Of particular are the oil refineries in the northern port of Haifa, well within Hezbollah's range. An attack that hits them and spews poison all over the area, where a half-million people live, is one of the "mega-terror" scenarios Israelis dread.

Israeli military planners are looking into ways to eliminate that threat, a goal that would require not only an air and artillery assault against Hezbollah's positions but also a ground move, and the risk of drawing in Syria, which effectively controls Lebanon, as well.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Dec. 16 that, "if Hezbollah opens a second front against Israel by using long-range rockets against the northern part of the state of Israel we won't have much choice."

Would the removal of Saddam herald a new era of moderation in the region?

Kam said it might embolden moderates and persuade hardline regimes from Teheran to Damascus to stop funding and providing shelter to terror groups.

"It would send a clear signal to the radical elements ... that the United States is ready to use force to ensure its interests against those who threaten stability," he said.

But others warn of a political and terrorist backlash against what could be perceived as new effort at Western colonialism.

[4me2]

More from foxnews : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73910,00.html

Iraqi Army Prepares for War

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi army said Thursday it has been holding exercises in central Iraq aimed at countering an American attack, another sign that Saddam Hussein's government may believe war is inevitable.


The soldiers showed they were ready "to foil the schemes of America and its evil allies and to respond to the aggressors and bury their low schemes," Fadel Mahmoud Ghareib, in charge of the ruling Baath party's Babil province branch, was quoted as saying in the army's Al-Qadissiya newspaper.

The newspaper said troops had practiced fighting in rural and populated areas in Babil, and rehearsed techniques of "distracting the enemy in different directions by using light and medium weapons."

The newspaper did not say when the games were held, whether they were still underway or how many troops participated.

Meanwhile, Iraq continued to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, who on Thursday visited a technical university that employs a scientist interviewed earlier this week about Iraq's nuclear program.

If Iraq can persuade the inspectors it is not hiding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or the missiles to deliver them, it might avoid a U.S. strike. But the inspectors have said an Iraqi weapons declaration is wanting.

On Wednesday Saddam, in a speech read by a state television announcer, said Iraqis should be ready "to sacrifice their soul and life in defense of the nation."

Saddam added Iraqis should be shielded from foreign ideas that might shake their resolve. The statement followed a decision to maintain a ban on satellite television dishes in Iraq.

The United States and Britain have threatened war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. U.N. inspectors have been working in Iraq since Nov. 27 under a U.N. Security Council resolution that threatens serious consequences if Iraq is found to have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Thursday, the inspectors returned to Baghdad's University of Technology. The inspectors went to the chemistry, engineering and computer departments and several labs, where they checked equipment tagged during U.N. inspections years ago, university head Mazen Mohammed Ali told reporters.

In the first round of inspections in the 1990s, after Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War, the United Nations destroyed tons of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons and dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Inspectors do not believe they got all Iraq's banned arsenal, and that monitoring regime broke down in 1998 amid U.N.-Iraqi disputes.

At the university Thursday, Ali said the inspectors wanted to know how the institute was organized and what research it undertook for the government.

"They did not ask for specific names; they did talk with heads of departments and with staff of the university," he said.

Tuesday, inspectors interviewed a University of Technology professor, Sabah Abdel-Nour, who had worked in a nuclear program Iraq says is now closed down.

Abdel-Nour, who refused to be interviewed without Iraqi officials present, told reporters later he had been asked about any progress Iraq may have made since inspectors were last here in 1998. He said Iraq was not hiding any weapons of mass destruction.

[4me2]

Iraqi scientist gives 'key information'

UN weapons inspectors have said a key Iraqi scientist has given them details of a military programme that could be a "possible prelude to a clandestine nuclear programme".
UN spokesman Hiro Ueki said the information was obtained when International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors interviewed a "metallurgist from a high visibility state company".

In his daily report on inspections, Mr Ueki said that the scientist "provided technical details of a military programme".

The scientist in question has denied he gave such information.

Earlier, the UN had suggested that inspectors were also preparing to question the scientist for the first time outside the country. However, Mr Ueki later told the BBC that this had been delayed.

On Friday, UN inspectors visited three sites in Iraq, including a brewery, in search of weapons of mass destruction.

Baghdad has continued to insist that it has no programme to develop banned nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Ready for action

The United States insisted on Friday that Iraq was still in breach of the UN Security Council resolution demanding Iraq give up its weapons.
"We still have not seen the evidence that Iraq is willing to change, and... to comply with all the aspects of the UN resolution which seeks disarmament," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

In anticipation of possible military action the Pentagon has ordered two more aircraft carriers and two amphibious assault vessels to be prepared to sail towards Iraq.

If the order to sail is given, the USS George Washington battle group would be sent from the Atlantic fleets and either the USS Kitty Hawk or USS Abraham Lincoln battle group from the Pacific fleets.

'Possible prelude'

The UN inspectors have not identified the scientist they interviewed.

But the Iraqi Foreign Ministry named him as Dr Kazem Jamil, who worked at the al-Raya plant that produced aluminium for use in the manufacture short-range rockets.

Dr Jamil rejected the UN's claim that he had provided information about weapons programmes.

"I have nothing to do with any programmes... I'm a metallurgist working on restoring aluminium tubes," he told Iraqi television.

Dr Jamil was only the second Iraqi expert interviewed by the inspectors. The first one declined to be questioned in private and insisted on an Iraqi witness.

UN attempts to begin questioning Iraqi scientists outside Iraq - in accordance with the Security Council resolution - appear to have run into difficulty.

Mr Ueki has said details of what has caused the delay will be given at a press conference on Saturday.

Our correspondent says Baghdad fiercely opposes such moves, despite strong pressure from the US.

On Thursday, Iraq's chief liaison officer with the UN inspectors, General Hossam Mohammad Amin, said the teams had visited 188 sites but had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile - as both sides continue to prepare for a possible conflict - the head of the UN's refugee agency told the BBC that the international community should do everything to prevent a war.

The Iraqi Government has already begun helping its citizens stockpile food in case of a US-led attack and Washington is continuing its military build-up in the area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2610307.stm

strange The US cant identify the scientist but the Iraqis name him ! Something very strange here.

[4me2]

Saudis 'to let US use bases'

Saudi Arabia has reportedly agreed to make its airspace, airbases and an important operations centre available to United States forces should war with Iraq occur.

US military commanders told the New York Times newspaper they had been given private assurances that they would be allowed to use a command centre at Prince Sultan Air Base outside the country's capital, Riyadh.

They also said that allied refuelling, reconnaissance, surveillance and cargo planes would be permitted to fly from Saudi bases and to use the nation's airspace for missions in an Iraq war, the newspaper said.

Military officials told the newspaper they were confident that Saudi Arabia would ultimately permit airborne attack missions - the most politically sensitive military issue - to be flown from their soil.

Launch pad

If confirmed, the decision would mark a significant shift for Saudi Arabia, which has previously resisted permitting US troops on its soil.

"I firmly believe the Saudis will give us all the co-operation we need, and every indication I have is that we're getting pretty much what we've asked for," US Air Force chief of staff General John P Jumper said in an interview with the newspaper.

A Pentagon spokeswoman would not confirm the officials' assertions, stating only that Saudi Arabia remained a "strong ally", Reuters news agency reported.

Saudi Arabia was a launch pad for the US-led Gulf War in 1991 that drove Iraqi troops out of Kuwait after a seven-month occupation.

Washington could launch an attack on Iraq without using bases inside Saudi Arabia, but the air campaign would be more difficult if the US could not at least use Saudi air space.

Washington has already stepped up its preparations for a possible military offensive, ordering thousands more troops and dozens of fighter aircraft to the Gulf region in the coming weeks.

Relations thaw?

The officials' remarks appear to contradict comments last month by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, who said that Saudi Arabia would not permit US forces to use its airbases for any prospective attack on Iraq, even if the use of force was approved by the United Nations.

The US has examined possible alternative bases for a military assault on Iraq, with a centre recently set up in Qatar.

If confirmed, the Saudi move would also signal a considerable thaw in relations between the two countries, which became strained after it was revealed that most of the hijackers involved in the 11 September attacks came from Saudi Arabia.

There was further US anger when the wife of the Saudi ambassador to America was accused of indirectly financing two of the hijackers.

Saudi Arabia has often been accused by the US of not doing enough to combat international terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2612455.stm

[Rincewind]

The USA, and Britain (as Blair seems to want to drag us into this) are going to have to get used to some new tactics for war. We have seen these tactics in action before, and they're not really new. I am of course talking about Terrorism.

The USA are undisputedly the most powerful nation in the world, and Bush is on record stating "I will not allow any nation to challenge the military supremacy of the USA" (his very words).

So, faced with this "military supremacy", how does a nation tell the USA to mind it's own business?

Terrorism.

Iraq doesn't need weapons of mass destruction, in fact being caught in posession is detrimental to them, they are not the best weapon.

Most of the problems we are facing now were caused by the USA and Britain meddling in the first place. Saddam Hussain is in power in Iraq because the USA made it possible.

I say leave the war (when it comes) to the Yanks!!!!

[4me2]

3rd Infantry Division Gets Deployment Orders

WASHINGTON — The U.S. has ordered an infantry division from Georgia toprepare to ship to the Persian Gulf, Fox News has learned.

The troops, from the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), received prepare-to-deploy orders earlier this week, Army officials said. A defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed they were going to the Persian Gulf region as a part of the U.S. military's buildup of forces there.

It is the largest single ground force sent to the region since the Bush administration indicated its willingness to go to war against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein more than a year ago.

The division's 2nd Brigade -- several thousand soldiers based at Fort Stewart, Ga. -- is already in Kuwait on a regular troop rotation, officials said.

The division's 1st and 3rd Brigades, from Fort Stewart and Fort Benning, Ga., respectively, and its aviation brigade, from Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Ga., will begin moving to the region in the coming weeks. Officials declined to provide their precise destination. All told, between 15,000 and 17,000 soldiers from the division will go to the region, officials said.

The division includes a mix of tanks, attack helicopters and highly mobile infantry.

Last week, defense officials said the Pentagon ordered thousands of personnel, scores of combat aircraft and two aircraft carrier battle groups to prepare to go to Persian Gulf region.

Separately Tuesday, Navy officials said the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier will stay on deployment instead of returning to its homeport in Everett, Wash., next month as planned.

The nuclear-powered Lincoln and its battle group will remain deployed indefinitely in the Pacific Ocean and Arabian Gulf and "will be available as required to meet national security requirements," said Cmdr. Karen Sellers, a public affairs officer for the Navy.

The Lincoln left Puget Sound in July for a sixth-month deployment and was in Perth, Australia, for the Christmas holiday.

Defense officials said last week the Abraham Lincoln battle group was a candidate to be one of the two carrier battle groups the Navy was initially to provide for the war effort. The other will be the USS George Washington battle group. That carrier is based in Norfolk, Va.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74323,00.html

[4me2]

WASHINGTON — The Army said Thursday it is sending 800 engineering and intelligence specialists and about 300 air defense troops to the Persian Gulf over the next several weeks, as Iraq said U.N. inspectors' report to the Security Council should favor Baghdad.

The deployments are part of an accelerating buildup of U.S. air, land and naval forces in the Gulf area as President Bush contemplates a possible attack to disarm Iraq and remove the government of President Saddam Hussein.

The engineering and intelligence specialists, based in Germany, are from the 130th Engineer Brigade, the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, the 22nd Signal Brigade and the 3rd Corps Support Command. The Army said they would deploy before mid-February but was not more specific.

Meanwhile, Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, Iraq's chief liaison to the U.N. inspectors, said the inspections so far -- visits to 237 sites in five weeks -- gave credence to Baghdad's assertion it has no more banned weapons.

Amin said the inspections had been intrusive and included surprise visits.

"All those activities proved that the Iraqi declarations are credible and the American allegations and claims are baseless and they are lying for political reasons," Amin told a news conference.

He said he was certain the inspectors had found nothing so far since the liaison officers who accompany them "are scientists and engineers and they can, of course, notice anything abnormal."

The inspectors, however, said it's too soon to draw conclusions about whether Iraq has complied with U.N. demands -- as it must to avoid war with the United States.

At Fort Bliss, Texas, spokeswoman Jean Offutt said that about 300 soldiers from two Patriot air defense units -- the 108th air defense artillery brigade and the 35th air defense artillery brigade -- will head to the Persian Gulf region in the next few weeks. Their equipment was being shipped from Fort Bliss on Thursday.

Between 800 and 900 soldiers from Fort Bliss-based Patriot units are in Kuwait, including some who were scheduled to return home shortly but instead have been ordered to remain in Kuwait, Offutt said.

If Bush orders a U.S. attack on Iraq, Patriot air defense forces would be expected to play an important role in defending U.S. and allied forces in Kuwait and elsewhere from attack by Iraqi Scud missiles.

Already there are more than 50,000 American forces in the Gulf region, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week signed orders for the deployment of tens of thousands more troops in the next few weeks.

The U.S. forces are operating from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other countries near Iraq.

Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes dropped nearly a half-million leaflets Thursday on southern Iraq asking Iraqis to tune in to American propaganda radio broadcasts.

The U.S. planes dropped about 480,000 leaflets over Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, and An Nasiriyah at about 5:15 a.m. EST, U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

The leaflets tell readers the radio frequencies on which they can hear U.S. broadcasts from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. each evening. The broadcasts, part of the U.S. military's psychological operations in preparation for a possible war with Iraq, come from EC-130E Commando Solo airplanes flying over Kuwait.

The Arabic-language broadcasts urge Iraqi soldiers to turn against Saddam's regime, accusing him of using soldiers as puppets for his own nefarious purposes. The broadcasts say Saddam builds luxurious palaces for himself while Iraqi people are sick and starving.

The leaflets dropped Thursday were in the southern no-fly zone patrolled by American warplanes to keep Saddam from attacking Shiite Muslims.

Defense officials said Thursday that Rumsfeld is likely to order additional deployments and to mobilize tens of thousands more National Guard and Reserve forces. Some of those troops have already been notified that they will be called up.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently left the Gulf en route to its home port at Everett, Wash., is being held in the western Pacific for the time being in case Rumsfeld decides additional carriers are needed for war against Iraq.

Likewise, the USS George Washington, which returned home to Norfolk, Va., from the Mediterranean Sea shortly before Christmas, has been notified that it could be sent back into service in coming days, the officials said.

The carrier USS Constellation is now in the Gulf, and the USS Harry S. Truman is in the Mediterranean.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74472,00.html

[Chip2k]

Makes intresting reading. Taken from The Guardian website.
http://travel.guardian.co.uk/countri...852633,00.html

The mother of all package tours

With the world expecting an attack on Iraq any time now, no one in their right mind would take a holiday there - would they? You'd be surprised, says Johann Hari

Tuesday December 3, 2002
The Guardian

The suburbs of Baghdad. The night after Saddam's referendum. At last you have managed to sneak away from your ministry of information heavies and wander

the streets alone. Baghdad used to make you think of the mystical east. Hah! The buildings of this Paris of Mesopotamia sag into the ground like elderly men on life-support machines. Pavements end inexplicably in mid-flow, petering out into haphazard piles of rubble. Shops operate out of shells which wouldn't survive heavy rain. It doesn't even look like a place that was once beautiful: its porridgey concrete buildings would be an eyesore even if they were brand new. This isn't Aladdin's cave; it's Stevenage 50 years after a nuclear holocaust.
The wind is blowing so fiercely that you realise that something must be wrong. You notice that the streets have emptied as you walk; everyone seems to have retreated into their homes. The wind is really hurting you now; you realise it is a sandstorm. Just for effect, thunder claps in the distance. You decide to head back to your hotel. Now, was it that way at the roundabout or ...

A 1980 Oldsmobile pulls up and a bearded man in his 50s barks, "Meester. Get into the car." His car radio fills the street with the sound of referendum results from across the country. One hundred per cent, one hundred ... You remember that Baghdad is the city that finished off even Alexander the Great. The sand is burning your eyes. You have nowhere else to go. You cross your fingers, bid farewell to life and get into the car.

It is at moments like this that you question the wisdom of taking a package holiday in Iraq.

It all began with a phone call to a man called Geoff Hahn, who runs a firm called Hinterland Travel. "I am the only person now running tours of Iraq," he explained. "The Iraqi government allows me to bring people in because I've been visiting the country since the 60s. They know I love the people there, you see. Of course, I can't guarantee it'll be 100% safe ..."

I was rather miffed that nobody tried very hard to talk me out of going. The last time a war kicked off in the Gulf, all the western tourists were seized and had to be rescued by Ted Heath. It might seem foolish to place my life in his pudgy, liver-spotted hands, but my granny just sighed and said, "Oh, well. At least if you're taken hostage you might finally lose some weight." I asked my father if he would campaign for my release. He tutted and said, "I'm very busy at the moment you know ..." One of my best friends said, "You simply must go. I mean, who was Terry Waite before he got seized in the Middle East? Nobody. It's the best possible career move."

So it was in a somewhat sullen mood that I arrived in Heathrow for a 6am flight to Damascus, the easiest place from which to drive to Iraq. Twenty-two people had, it turns out, booked with Hahn to spend 18 days in sunny, relaxing Iraq. First, I met Julie and Phil. They seemed an almost comically suburban couple: polite, a little posh, all golf jumpers and floral smocks. But then Phil mentioned that his last holiday had been to North Korea. "Yeah, I've been twice since they opened the borders to tourists. I'm a bit of a celebrity there now. People come up to me in the streets and say, 'Why have you come to our country twice?'."

The group had a handful of people like Phil, risk-takers craving a change from Marbella and some amusing dinner-party anecdotes. Sean, a 36-year-old New York restaurateur and multimillionaire, was clearly in this category. He lives a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero and witnessed the attack on the Twin Towers, but he appeared to be America's biggest peacenik. "If I was going to Iraq to shoot a bunch of people, everyone back home would say I was a hero. But because I'm coming to hang out with the people and see what they're like, they think I'm a suspect character."

He believes that the US and Iraq are morally equivalent: "You can't say the US is any better than Iraq. We have no right to lecture anyone, ever," he insisted, chewing his gum.

Then there were the hardcore archaeology fiends. The whole trip was ostensibly a tour of Iraq's archaeology sites, because they don't let you in if you say you are only interested in stocking up on Saddam memorabilia. One Christian couple wanted to check out ancient biblical sites; another was retracing the footsteps of an archaeologist grandfather.

Then there was Hannah. How to explain her? A frightfully well-spoken Englishwoman in her early 50s. When we first met, she dispensed with the small talk to say: "I think Saddam is a great man and the USA is a great big global bully. My theory is that he should be given Kuwait. It's perfectly logical if you look at the map."

"I think he's rather handsome too," she went on. "Every woman does really. I'd rather like to inspect his weapon of mass destruction myself." Sorry, what was that you said about ... "Oh, people say how can you say that, but I say, how can you support Bush when he is about to murder so many Iraqis? Hmmm? We must show our solidarity with Saddam."

With this group of amiable maniacs, I boarded the flight to Damascus. I found myself sitting next to an elderly Syrian man. He asked where I was going and when I told him, and explained that we were tourists, he suddenly erupted, Vesuvius-like, into gales of laughter. His tiny frame shook and his eyes poured with tears. He turned to the other people on the plane and explained to them in Arabic. They roared with laughter too. Once the noise had died down, I asked what was so funny. The old man said, voice cracking again at the hilarity of it all, "You will die. You will all die." And the laughter burst forth again.

As you near the Iraqi border from Syria, you begin to get a sense of the land you are hurtling so foolishly towards. One guidebook describes the Iraqi desert as "so desolate and uninviting that even a rattlesnake would feel lonely there". The scenery is so utterly barren for so long that a sighting of a telegraph pole barely visible in the distance seems like an event on a par with the fall of the Roman empire. As you cross through into the no man's land between the Syrian and Iraqi border posts, there is a stark little green sign. It says simply, "Goodbye."

The first thing you see as you cross into Iraq is Saddam Hussein, smiling and striding purposefully towards you. The entire party suddenly rises as one, terrified. How can he possibly be here in person to greet us? But then you see another Saddam standing next to him, and another, and then you realise that Saddam appears to be everywhere. It's a classic Middle East phenomenon: the men carefully craft themselves to look uncannily like the leader. (There is one exception, which is just as well. If all Israeli men looked like Ariel Sharon, there would be a new six-minute war, in which the Israeli army failed miserably to waddle away from the incoming Arab hordes).

All the men under 60 are led off for an Aids test. Suddenly I have a vision of the doctor returning to me saying, "Well, there's some bad news and some good news. The bad news is, you are HIV positive. The good news is, that means you can't come into Iraq." But the clinic gives me my first taste of Iraq's administrative incompetence. The blokes enter in a random order, and the doctor doesn't even ask our names. The blood samples aren't even marked. So we pass peacefully through the border - and the rubble begins. Iraq is brimming over with rubble. For the first five minutes of driving, you assume that you are passing through a rubbish dump, but then you realise that two wars and endless poverty have turned the entire country into a rubbish dump. Even so, how many collapsed buildings can there be? I did not see a single patch of desert or a single street corner in two weeks that did not have its own pot-pourri of scattered brick, stone and dust. Where on earth has it all come from?

After another seemingly eternal drive, Baghdad finally appears as though rising by sheer force of will from the desert. It seems strange to see people hurrying about the streets carrying shopping, smoking water-pipes, laughing, dreaming - living life. The novelist Amos Oz once said of the Middle East that "even on the side of a volcano, life goes on", and he is right. But it's not quite life as normal. There are cars on the road that have bits literally dropping off of them. One of the effects of UN sanctions has been that it is impossible to get new car parts - so people are driving weird clapped-out wrecks that no longer fit the strict definition of cars; motorised prams, perhaps. The street art towers over the regulation neo-Arab brutalist architecture. A huge concrete symbol of unity looks rather like a malformed testicle. A whopping statue of Saddam dressed as the Muslim warrior Saladin seems a tad inappropriate because Saladin was a Kurd, and Saddam has a problem with Kurds.

Our first full day in Baghdad was pretty frustrating. The Baghdad Museum has begun to evacuate its most important exhibits, and clay pots are not my priority on this trip. I decided to buy a guidebook to the museum anyway. It turned out that they were locked in a glass cabinet. It took the staff 10 minutes to find the key for the key drawer, which contained the key for the cabinet in which the guides were - except the guides marked "English" are in German. Ahmed, one of our Iraqi security minders, wandered up and whispered, "Do not buy this book. You can buy it cheaper elsewhere." What, the same book? "No. Different. But the same." I began to wonder if Iraq was created not by Ballard but by Kafka.

As we darted from museum to ancient monument, I snatched every moment I could with "real" Iraqi people. As we stocked up with petrol, I wandered into a shop selling confectionery. When I said I was from England, the shopkeeper - in his early 30s, at a guess - hugged me. I think he thought our presence guaranteed that there would be no bombs that day. If only. I lied and said that his city is beautiful. "Ah, it was beautiful once. Before 1990 and sanctions. Now it is ..." He looked around him and shrugged. "Now we wait. November, December, the bomb come ... You go to work in the morning and you do not know if you will come home. But we work. What else can we do? We work and we wait for bomb."

At times like this, I began to experience what I quickly identified as my John Pilger moments. If I didn't know better, I would swear that Saddam Hussein had deliberately scattered the most dignified, stoical Iraqis and - especially - the cutest doe-eyed children in our paths, and trained them to say lines riddled with pathos about sanctions. As I looked at these kids on the streets, it was tempting to work up a satisfying rage about sanctions and piously denounce all this as the work of my own government. Instead I just took a valium and lay down for a few hours.

But the more time you spend in Iraq, the harder it is to take the Pilger line of blaming almost all the country's woes on sanctions. You only need to look at how the Hussein regime uses the resources presently coming into the country to realise that lifting sanctions would scarcely help Iraq's poor. In among hideous, uninhabitable shanty towns crammed full of people, Saddam's palaces (all 65 of them) glisten smugly like fat diamonds. We ate one afternoon in the Al Ghouta restaurant in Baghdad, a plush venue which could easily be in Britain were it not for the pictures of Saddam on the walls.

Saddam's westernised elite hang out here: un-chadored women mix with men in Savile Row suits, and nobody spares a glance for the hungry children outside.

In fact the two most hideous things we witnessed in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with sanctions and everything to do with Saddam. The first was the plight of the Marsh Arabs. For 5,000 years, the marshlands of southern Iraq were inhabited by these proud, self-sufficient people. They lived on islands constructed of reeds and survived by farming and fishing. Yet Saddam decided that the Marsh Arabs were politically troublesome, and that he wanted their ground for military purposes. He set about draining the life from the marshes, destroying the entire ecosystem and the way of life based on it.

Hinterland ran tours of the Marsh Arab lands in the 1980s; now there is nothing to see. In Sumawi in southern Iraq, we drove through the pitiful concrete slums into which the Marsh Arabs have been "relocated". This is where God would insert the tube if He was giving the world colonic irrigation. A couple and their four children invited us into their home for tea. It was impossible not to notice that they were living in a hut about the same size as my garden shed, in the middle of the desert.

Their traditional skills were now worthless, they had barely any money, yet they insistently refused to accept any cash compensation for the tea. As we left reluctantly, I noticed that they too had been forced to hang a picture of Saddam - the man who had destroyed their people - on their Spartan wall. The second most upsetting thing on our trip was a visit to a museum. I asked Mohammed - our other Iraqi minder - to take us to the museum in Basra marking Iraq's horrific eight-year war with Iran. The museum is called - in a David Irving-like parody of history - The Museum for the Martyrs of Persian Aggression.

As we wandered around, looking at the grim exhibits, one of the soldiers on duty guarding the museum told me that three of his brothers died in that war. Everybody in the country lost somebody - yet it is almost impossible to get anybody to talk about it. They speak in a small number of bloodless stock-phrases.

After more than 10 such encounters, it suddenly hit me that the people of Iraq are not even allowed to grieve their huge numbers of dead in their own way. They are permitted only a regulation measure of state-approved grief, which must be expressed in Saddam's language: that of martyrdom and heroism, rather than wailing agony about the futility of a war which slaughtered more than a million people yet left the borders unchanged and achieved nothing.

Saddam is a constant, everyday presence in Iraq. It is impossible to convey just how often you see his image, or the effect this has on your psychology - never mind the effect it must have on the relatives of the three million who have been murdered directly by the regime since Saddam's party came to power in 1964. In the areas of the south which rose in a failed attempt to overthrow Saddam in the early 1990s, the images of the president become markedly more threatening. He stands stern-faced against an inferno-like red backdrop. Bullet holes remain ominously in the sides of buildings, a constant reminder of the price of dissent.

It is obviously very difficult to get Iraqis to express their feelings about all this. For the first few days I was there, I blundered about asking fairly direct political questions, which caused people to recoil in horror. Only after this - and a blunt telling-off from Ahmed - did I realise that I had to speak more obliquely. Talking politics in Iraq is like a magic-eye picture, where you have to let your brain go out of focus, not your eyes. One very distinguished old man in a Mosul souk welcomed me warmly and told me how much he had loved visiting London in the 1970s. After much oblique prodding, he said warmly, "I admire British democracy and freedom." He held my gaze. "I very much admire them." He added, "We do not know what is coming. The news we receive here is ... unclear."

A group of students in a cafe in Mosul were eager to know - in hushed tones - if it was possible to "continue their studies" in Europe or America. Equally, many people asked quite genuinely "why your government hates the Arab world". Again and again, it was startling how little anger there was towards Brits and Americans. Sean walked about rather indelicately wearing a New York City T-shirt and Nike trainers, yet received nothing but friendly hellos and waves in Baghdad. In Basra, one person asked nicely where he was from, and when he said the US, the man recoiled and said "Goodbye, sir." That was the full extent of the aggression we received from the Iraqi people.

Except - I suddenly feared, looking up - now that I had clambered from the dust storm into an anonymous car, perhaps I was finally going to get the brunt of all that pent-up hatred. The driver was expressionless. Trees were falling like matchsticks across the town, and the radio still blared on: one hundred per cent, one hundred ... The driver lit up a fat cigar, and offered it to me. "What hotel, meester? Where would you like to go?" He smiled sweetly.

My shoulders finally unclenching, I asked him just to drive around the town for a while. The sandstorm probably made that unsafe, but - what the hell - I was in Iraq, and figured that a little more risk wasn't going to hurt much. I handed the cigar back and the driver merrily puffed at it. Baghdad is a city that smokes. The kids smoke. The adults smoke. The elderly smoke. And they don't go in for any low-tar rubbish either. After a while, the storm died down and the streets began to fill up again. If New York is the city that doesn't sleep, Baghdad is the city that dare not sleep. Even late into the night, people scurry around, smoking, always smoking.

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, Thursday December 5, 2002

The Ba'ath party, Saddam Hussein's party, did not come to power in 1964. It first came to power, but only for a few months, after a bloody coup in 1963. The Ba'ath regime did not really begin until it returned to power in 1968.

[craig6928]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ABCMan
[B]well since you cut and pasted that from another site i'll cut out the last bit

hi m8 for a start i did not copy this of any site
those are from what i have been told
as i work for high goverment private security
in the usa and all so canada

its all about oil for sure nothing more
but again there a lot of crack pots out there
that will follow on for sure

[4me2]

Western allies ready troops for Gulf


At least 50,000 US troops are already in the region

America's western allies are gearing up their troops for possible deployment to the Gulf in the event of a war with Iraq.
French President Jacques Chirac said soldiers needed to be prepared in case new areas of engagement opened up - his clearest reference yet to the prospect of French involvement in any military action in Iraq.


Also on Tuesday, the UK is expected to announce the deployment of a helicopter assault ship and the mobilisation of thousands of reservists to the Gulf later this month.

It comes as the United States presses ahead with a major military build-up in the Gulf.

Thousands of American soldiers are being deployed to the region this week, joining the 50,000 already there.

The White House has also ordered the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to abandon its voyage home and return to Australia, fuelling speculation that plans are being made to use the vessel in a campaign.

The giant US Navy hospital ship, USS Comfort, also left her home port of Baltimore on Monday and is thought to be heading to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The build-up has mounted as United Nations weapons inspectors continue to search Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction which Washington insists Baghdad possesses.

Nothing suspicious has yet been found, inspectors say.

Gulf veterans

Britain, America's ally on the issue of Iraq, is expected to confirm that it is sending the helicopter assault ship HMS Ocean in the middle of January with Royal Marines aboard.

It is also expected to mobilise 7,000 reservists.

In the US, at least 10,000 reservists have been told to prepare for possible overseas deployment as early as this week to support the build-up.

The US Army has also started deploying more than 11,000 soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division in Fort Benning and Fort Stewart in Georgia - specialists in desert warfare.

Correspondents say that many of these troops are veterans from Desert Storm, the US-led military operation to remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait over 10 years ago.

Taking to the water

The USS Tarawa has also set sail from San Diego with 4,000 marines and sailors on board in a six-month tour that will put them within striking distance of Iraq.

The USS Comfort, the medical boat, meanwhile left with about 300 of a total crew of more than 1,000 aboard from Baltimore on Monday.

Most staff will only be flown out to join the vessel if war looks imminent.

She can handle up to 1,000 casualties at a time, has 12 operating theatres and is equipped to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks.

The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon said her departure was the clearest signal yet that a new phase in the US build-up was under way.

But Pentagon officials insist the number of deployment orders issued so far still account for only about half of the 50,000 or so reinforcements originally expected at this stage.

Our correspondent says the Pentagon still seems to be pacing its preparations for war to increase the pressure on Baghdad on one hand, while keeping options open on the other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2634693.stm

[Mercedes1]

Sharon, in almost two years in power

Israel's Sharon Fighting for Survival

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Fights for Political Survival Over Corruption Allegation

The Associated Press
JERUSALEM Jan. 10 —
Israel's election campaign in just 72 hours this week went from flat to frenzied, with corruption allegations over a $1.5 million loan forcing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to fight for his political survival.

Sharon's damage control efforts led to more embarrassment a judge pulled him off the air during a news conference for breaking fairness rules by lashing out at his accusers. His critics said Friday the prime minister was increasingly losing his cool. Sharon's defenders said the prime minister was the victim of a witchhunt.

This week marked the first time that the taint of scandal which was haunting Sharon's Likud Party reached the prime minister himself. The party has been fighting off allegations of vote buying and organized crime entanglements in a December primary.

On Tuesday, the liberal Haaretz daily, citing a leaked Justice Ministry document, said police were investigating a $1.5 million loan from a longtime Sharon friend in South Africa, Cyril Kern, to the Sharon family on suspicions of fraud and breach of trust.

Two days later, four newspaper polls confirmed what only a week earlier seemed unthinkable: Sharon's re-election was no longer reassured.

Likud remained the strongest party, according to the surveys, but had lost a quarter of its support in just a month. Sharon might still be able to form a narrow right-wing government, based on those polls, but it would be unstable.

At the same time, the possibility of a so-called "blocking majority" of 61 seats in the 120-member parliament for the dovish Labor party, centrist factions and Arab legislators no longer seemed far-fetched. Such a constellation could deny Sharon the premiership.

Fighting back, Sharon called a news conference Thursday that was broadcast live by TV and radio stations. Sharon launched a broadside against Labor and the news media, saying they were behind "despicable slander" aimed at overthrowing the government "by force of a lie."

The head of the Central Election Commission, Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin, ordered the broadcasts stopped after several minutes. Cheshin ruled that Sharon, instead of addressing the specific suspicions against him, engaged in "political propaganda" which ahead of an election is permitted only in campaign commercials aired in certain time slots.

Sharon's confrontational style he pounded the podium with his fist and repeatedly said his accusers had "gone crazy" marked a dramatic departure from efforts to present himself as a grandfatherly leader and a centrist consensus candidate.

That relatively moderate image, coupled with the public's belief that only an experienced politician should lead Israel at a time of crisis, had been at the core of Sharon's popularity.

"For two years, Sharon was everyone's prime minister ... until last night," political commentator Nahum Barnea wrote in the Yediot Ahronot daily.

Responding to the corruption allegations, Sharon said his son Gilad arranged the loan to help Sharon repay what Israel's state comptroller decided was an improper campaign contribution from an earlier election, and that the loan was properly reported to the authorities. "I did not know exactly how the money was obtained," Sharon maintained. "Everything was done the proper way."

"It is unpleasant when the prime minister of Israel crudely tramples the law in front of the people of Israel," wrote Amnon Dankner, editor-in-chief of the Maariv daily.

Surveys in Maariv and Yediot on Friday suggested that the allegations are beginning to stick. A Maariv survey said 43 percent of respondents believe Sharon is involved in corruption, while 31 percent think he is not. A poll in Yediot said 61 percent believed Sharon knew of the loan by Kern. The surveys had margins of error of 3.2 and 4.5 percentage points, respectively.

[4me2]

Ark Royal sets sail for Gulf


The ship left Portsmouth to the cheers of relatives

The crew of the aircraft carrier Ark Royal have begun their voyage to the Gulf as part of the biggest British naval deployment for two decades.
The 20,000-ton flagship began leaving Portsmouth at 1230 GMT with a total crew on board of 1,100.

Officially the crew are heading for Malaysia to take part in joint exercises in June, in a voyage which will last at least six months.

But they could be used in any action against Iraq "if and as required", the government has said.

The troops were seen off by hundreds of relatives and other supporters, cheering and waving to show their support.

Susannah Black, whose 29-year-old boyfriend Lieutenant Richard Webster was on board, said she had "mixed feelings" about saying goodbye to him and was "trying not to cry".
"He'll be excited about the trip, he's on board a new ship, but I'm not sure what the future's going to bring - the next few months.

"But he's a tough boy. I'm sure he'll grab the situation with both hands and do his job to the best of his ability."

The ship will be joined in coming days by 15 surface vessels - including a frigate, a destroyer and two support vessels - and a submarine which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles.

In total, the number of UK troops in the Gulf region will reach 8,000 - 5,000 Royal Navy personnel and 3,000 Royal Marines.

Captain Alan Massey, commanding officer of the Ark Royal, described the mood on board as a mixture of excitement and nervousness.

Lieutenant Colonel Ben Curry, headquarters spokesman for the Royal Marines, said the crew were "chomping at the bit".

Liverpudlian Angela Scales, 18, a radar maintainer, and the youngest crew member on board, said: "Obviously you are aware of what is going on but no-one knows what is really going to happen and we could be back home in a few months.

"It is my first time at sea but I am not nervous."


Crew braced for war

The ship, after heading to Scotland to pick up supplies, will meet up with the others in the Mediterranean in a fortnight and await orders.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams, in Portsmouth, said that if it did come to action against Iraq, the Ark Royal would probably lead an amphibious assault on the south of the country.


But he said the troops may have to await orders in the Mediterranean for some time yet, and it could be well into February before the task force reaches the Gulf.

He said the number of UK troops in the region, although "significant", was "absolutely dwarfed" by the number of US troops being sent out in a "relentless ratcheting up of the pressure on Iraq".

"I get the feeling we are getting to the point now where the military build-up is getting beyond the point of no return," he said.

"This is not simply about sending messages to Saddam Hussein any more - this is about getting the military hardware and the men in place for a war which most people believe is going to happen."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2648049.stm

[4me2]

Over 100,000 US troops have been ordered to the Gulf

The United States has announced that it is sending tens of thousands of additional military personnel to the Gulf in the biggest deployment yet of its military build-up against Iraq.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed the order to send up to 35,000 reinforcements to the region, including more marines who would spearhead any possible invasion force.

The troops are being sent to the Gulf in three amphibious warfare ships.

They will raise the strength of US forces in the region to more than 120,000.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the US intention is to keep up pressure on Baghdad which, Washington says, has weapons of mass destruction.

"We are going to deploy forces and resources to be prepared," said a senior US official quoted by AFP.

The American deployment comes as the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal set sail for the Gulf in the biggest British naval deployment since the Falklands War.
The UK Ministry of Defence insists that the role of what will be 8,000 troops in the Gulf has not been decided, but it is clear that it could assist the US in some form of amphibious assault on Iraq.


Captain Alan Massey, commanding officer of the Ark Royal, described the mood among the 1,100 crew on board as a mixture of excitement and nervousness.

"We always hope for the best but plan for the worst," said Captain Massey.


Stance unchanged

The US general who will command any American-led attack, Tommy Franks, has been in Washington this week, briefing his political superiors on his plans.

Our correspondent says that with the latest deployment, the US military presence in the Gulf is getting close to the minimum size of force analysts believe would be needed to begin an attack.

Although, it is believed that the Pentagon is aiming for a force of a 250,000.

The US is still maintaining that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and says that its stance towards Baghdad remains unchanged.

The UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said that so far his teams have not found evidence to back the US claims.

But, he said, Baghdad had yet to answer many questions.

Delayed decision

On Friday, Turkey granted permission for US officials to inspect its ports and airbases, as part of preparations for a possible war.



The surveys are due to start on Monday and are expected to last about 10 days.

Correspondents say Washington has been keen to get Ankara on side in any military operations against Iraq, although the Turkish Government remains sceptical.

The move by Prime Minister Abdullah Gul to allow US teams to inspect Turkish facilities comes a month after Ankara first agreed in principle to the inspections.

The decision has been delayed over a disagreement on the legal status of the US personnel carrying out the surveys.

Any final approval for the stationing of US troops in Turkey in the event of a war against Iraq would have to be endorsed by parliament - where it is likely to face serious opposition.

During the Gulf War of 1991, Turkey's support was critical to the US-led coalition.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2647845.stm

[4me2]

Iraq arms inspectors 'need a year'

A spokesman for the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says the agency needs about a year to find out whether Iraq has dismantled its nuclear programme.

He told the BBC this was the long-held position of IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei, and UN chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix.

They are due to deliver a report on their progress to the UN Security Council on 27 January.

But the chairman of the United States' defence policy board, Richard Perle, told the BBC that he thought the inspectors had no chance of finding any weapons of mass destruction.

"Unless the inspectors know exactly where to go the chance that they'll find anything is practically zero," he said.

"They've been going back to sites they've visited previously because they don't know where else to go."

Time needed

Mr Perle said there were weapons, but they had been hidden, and warned that if Iraq did not hand over any weapons there would be war, in which the US would act alone if necessary.

"It seems to me that either Saddam will turn over these weapons at the very last minute or there will be military action," he said.

But BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Washington would rather act with allies and the explicit backing of the UN, so it needs to listen to the inspectors and organisations like the IAEA.

IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky insisted his agency must be given time.

"For a credible inspection process we believe we do need in the vicinity of a year," he told News Online's Talking Point programme.

"It's a very large country, there is a lot of terrain to cover, a lot of facilities to inspect," he added.

Mr Gwozdecky said that in many cases facilities had to be visited repeatedly to make sure they are not being used to make illegal weapons.

'Real role to play'
Weapons experts from the IAEA and the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) have made hundreds of visits since returning to Iraq in November.

Mr Gwozdecky said he was confident that IAEA inspectors would be able to uncover any banned nuclear programme:
"Given the fairly good access we've been given to date, we can - the longer we're there - have a real role to play in terms of detecting anything illegal," he said.

"Isn't a year worth the wait to get a sustainable, long-term peaceful solution to this problem?" Mr Gwozdecky added.



Building up

But as he spoke, the US administration continued to make preparations for a possible attack on Iraq.

A senior Pentagon official told the BBC that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was sending another of 27,000 troops to the Gulf.
This comes in addition to a deployment of 35,000 personnel announced on Friday.

The official said that the new reinforcements meant the Americans could have around 150,000 personnel in and around the Gulf by the end of next month.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the US intention is to keep up pressure on Baghdad .

The latest additions to the US build-up are thought to be mainly army and air force units.

The forces, which are not expected to leave immediately, will ultimately give US President George W Bush a wide set of military options.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2651567.stm

[4me2]

Washington talks up threat of war

A senior US official has bluntly warned Iraq that if it does not surrender weapons of mass destruction it will face military action.
The head of the US Defence Department policy board, Richard Perle, told the BBC that United Nations inspectors currently scouring Iraq had no chance of finding weapons because they had been hidden.

A senior US official has bluntly warned Iraq that if it does not surrender weapons of mass destruction it will face military action.
The head of the US Defence Department policy board, Richard Perle, told the BBC that United Nations inspectors currently scouring Iraq had no chance of finding weapons because they had been hidden.

"I don't see how the inspectors have a reasonable chance of finding a small object in a large space," he said.

"We are talking about stocks of chemical and biological weapons - possibly work on nuclear weapons - and this can all be done in any one of several million structures in Iraq.

"Unless the inspectors know exactly where to go, the chance that they will find anything is practically zero.

"It seems to me that either Saddam will turn over these weapons at the very last minute or there will be military action."

Mr Perle said the evidence against Iraq lay in the discrepancy between the amount of weapons known to have been produced and what has so far been destroyed.

"We must assume that what is unaccounted for is hidden," he said.

The Washington Post article quoted the senior US figure as saying that Iraq would not be in the clear even if inspectors failed to find banned material.

"What we're saying is that with the Iraqi record, there is a presumption of guilt and not innocence," the official said.

"The idea that the inspectors have to find something, or that we have to show them where to go to find something, is incorrect."

Inspections continue

Mr ElBaradei, speaking in Paris, was responding to an earlier statement from an IAEA spokesman that a credible inspection of Iraq would take about a year.

"We need to take a few months... how long depends on the co-operation of Iraq," he said.

"There is an understanding in the Security Council that 27 January is an update report."

He added: "There is a great deal of anxiousness that we need to finish our job, our mission, as soon as possible."

In Iraq, UN inspectors visited at least six more sites on Monday, including a missile factory at Faluja, west of Baghdad, and two science faculties in the capital.

Mr ElBaradei and chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix are due to visit Baghdad next weekend to discuss gaps in Iraq's arms declaration.

Weapons experts from the IAEA and the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) have made hundreds of visits since returning to Iraq in November.

Military build-up

The BBC's Pentagon correspondent, Nick Childs, say that the rapid acceleration of American military build-up in the Gulf gives the impression that war is a lot closer.

Large numbers of marines are included in the latest deployments - precisely the kind of forces needed to launch a rapid attack.

A senior Pentagon official told the BBC the US could have about 150,000 personnel in and around the Gulf by the end of next month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2652895.stm

[4me2]

Blair issues fresh Iraq warning

Tony Blair says Saddam Hussein will be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction - with or without a second United Nations resolution.
The warning came as the UK prime minister insisted the world had to send a message that trade in chemical and biological weapons would not be tolerated.


Mr Blair told his monthly televised news conference he was "quite sure" Iraq has such weapons and that there was the evidence to prove it.

Those weapons posed a "direct threat to British national security", he said.

It was only a matter of time before the problems of weapons of mass destruction came together, he said.

Mr Blair told how he received information every day of states trying to get hold of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Blair was speaking after cabinet minister Clare Short's plea for the British public to make sure America does not act without United Nations authority.

Ms Short does not want the UK to join any unilateral American military action against Iraq.

The prime minister said he understood public concerns about possible war but argued most people would back action if Iraq defied the UN.

He dismissed any suggestion of cabinet splits as "nonsense".

He said his preference and expectation was for a fresh UN resolution backing military action if Iraq was deemed to have breached UN rules.

But if any country put an "unreasonable or unilateral" block on such resolution, "we have said we can't be in a position where we are confined in that way".

"However, I do not believe as a matter of fact that will happen."

Mr Blair outlined his confidence in the weapons inspections team and said things would be clearer when the inspectors reported on 27 January.

But he said Iraq had last month made a "false declaration" about its weapons programmes.

Meanwhile, a senior US official has bluntly warned Iraq that if it does not surrender weapons of mass destruction it will face military action.

The head of the US Defense Department policy board, Richard Perle, told BBC News that United Nations inspectors currently scouring Iraq had no chance of finding weapons because they had been hidden.

Those words will increase unease among Labour backbenchers already worried about the prospect of war.

Anti-war Labour MP Alan Simpson said Mr Blair would lose his "democratic mandate and credibility" if he took action without support from the country.

On Wednesday, Mr Blair will address a private meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, something officials say he always does after the Christmas recess.

British troops have arrived in Kuwait in what is being seen as the first stage in the deployment of a full British army combat brigade in preparation for any war with Iraq.

About 20 members of 102 logistics brigade - including its commander - have arrived in the Gulf state to make "continency plans" for any deployment of frontline troops.

In a statement, a Ministry of Defence said: "It is not a deployment: the team will remain in Kuwait for a couple of weeks, after which on current plans they will return to base."

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram applauded Mr Blair for spelling out the Iraqi threat to the UK - something the Tories urged on Sunday.

"If we are going to have to take military action ... then people in this country must know that our forces are fighting to protect British national interests," said Mr Ancram.


Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair had deliberately tried to "stiffen the line" after a week where the government looked divided.

Mr Campbell added: "It is disingenuous to say we want to work through the United Nations but only if the UN does what we want to do."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2652033.stm

[4me2]

Iraq inspectors find 'suspect material'

Weapons experts in Iraq have found large quantities of illegally smuggled materials, chief inspector Hans Blix has said.
But they have not yet determined if they are related to weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs or chemical warfare, Mr Blix said in a BBC interview.


He said inspectors were spreading their net after receiving fresh Western intelligence - but needed more concrete information on the location of suspect sites.

Dr Blix is due to submit the first report on inspections to the Security Council on 27 January - and that could be a possible trigger for US-led war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The chief inspector said he would present to the Council a set of key remaining disarmament tasks by the end of March - unless his work was interrupted by war.

"There is a certain momentum in the [military] build-up and that worries a great many people including myself," he said.

"Yet I have to listen to what the president of the United States says, namely that the use of force is only the method of last resort."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2655629.stm

[4me2]

'Time running out' for Iraq

US President George Bush has warned that "time is running out" for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to surrender the weapons of mass destruction which the US insists he owns.

"So far I haven't seen any evidence that he has disarmed," said Mr Bush. "I'm sick and tired of games and deception."

In stark contrast, the European Union warned on Tuesday against an early intervention in Iraq, saying the United Nations weapons inspectors needed more time on the ground.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan agreed, saying the inspectors were "just getting up to speed", and should be allowed to continue their mission.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency which is providing the nuclear inspectors, said more co-operation was needed from Iraq.

"We need more information, we still need more interviews with Iraqis. We would like to see physical evidence of destruction of weapons of mass destruction," he told the Reuters news agency.

President Bush is also facing pressure closer to home. A new US poll suggests his approval rating has plummeted to its lowest level since the 11 September attacks.

His rating, which peaked at 90%, is now just 58% - a drop which the BBC's Washington correspondent Nick Bryant says can be blamed at least partly on a sluggish economy.

Voters seem unhappy the president has focused so much attention on Iraq at a time when most people are thinking about how much money they have in their pockets, our correspondent says.

Maintaining the pressure

The US president appears determined to keep up the pressure on Iraq, vowing on Tuesday to lead a "coalition of the willing" to disarm Baghdad by force if necessary.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Saddam Hussein could "not string the world along forever".

Mr Annan acknowledged that US diplomatic and military pressure on Iraq had been effective in helping to force it to comply with the UN.

"Without that pressure I don't think the inspectors would have been back in Iraq today," he said.

He also said he was still optimistic that, if the pressure could be maintained on the Iraqi leadership, then the country could be disarmed peacefully.

But he also said the UN was "extremely worried about the humanitarian consequences" of military action in Iraq, which "could be quite substantial and negative," notably in the number of refugees it would cause.

'More time needed'

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said if chief weapons inspector Hans Blix wanted more time to continue his work, he should be allowed it.

He also said a second UN resolution may be necessary before military action was authorised, a view echoed by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Mr Solana was speaking on Tuesday, a day after chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix expressed concern that his work might be interrupted by war, with thousands of United States and British troops deploying in the Gulf.

Mr Blix is due to submit his first report to the Security Council on 27 January - a deadline which could be a possible trigger for a US-led war.

"I don't think 27 January is the end. It is an important date but Blix has another date in March," said Mr Solana.

President Bush and his main European ally - UK Prime Minister Tony Blair - insist they have no set timetable for war.

But the White House also says 27 January remains important - even though it is not clear what might provoke military action short of a showdown or major discovery of banned weapons.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2655629.stm

[4me2]

US seeks Nato help on Iraq


Turkish troops are exercising near the Iraq border

The United States has formally asked for help from its allies in Nato in the event of a war against Iraq.

A Nato official said the alliance - which includes Iraq's neighbour Turkey - had received proposals for possible roles in any conflict against Baghdad, which the US insists possesses weapons of mass destruction.

But Russia, which does not belong to Nato but does sit on the United Nations Security Council, has warned against an early war, and has sent a senior envoy to Baghdad to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
The Red Crescent aid organisation has already begun preparations in northern Turkey for an expected wave of refugees who would flee if war began.


Suggested roles

The US proposal is reported to follow on from informal discussions with US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last month.

Among the suggestions put forward then for possible Nato participation were:


protecting Turkey from the threat of counter-attack from the Iraqis

using Nato's planning facilities to co-ordinate areas such as transport

using collective forces such as AWACS surveillance planes, minesweepers or naval patrol ships

providing peacekeeping forces and helping rebuild a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
Nato considers an armed attack against a member as an attack against all members, but it is unclear whether it will feel obliged to help the US attack a non-member, Iraq.

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the request to Nato did not mean that a strike against Baghdad was imminent.

"The president has made no decision to use force, but it does take time to plan, and just as we're planning with individual countries it seemed appropriate, to the extent Nato wished to, to begin that planning process," he told a news briefing in Washington.

'Dangerous consequences'

Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, told the visiting head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, that unilateral military action against Baghdad would have dangerous consequences for world peace.

Mr ElBaradei said Russia could help avert a war but urged Iraq to "shift gear from passive co-operation to active co-operation".
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to submit his first report to the Security Council on 27 January - a deadline which could be a possible trigger for a US-led war.

His report is to be considered by governments, before the council reconvenes in closed session two days later for a fuller discussion.

BBC News Online's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says this might be the key meeting at which positions become clear.

Britain, our correspondent says, might ask the Security Council to give the inspectors more time if nothing significant has changed before then.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is going to Washington for a meeting on Thursday 23 January with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected in the United States to see President George W Bush following the Security Council meetings.

Russian interests

Russia insists that any attack on Iraq must have the backing of the Security Council.

Its envoy to Baghdad, Alexander Saltanov, is being accompanied by the country's deputy energy minister, Ivan Matlashov.

Analysts say the mission has two aims: firstly to ensure a higher profile for Russian diplomacy, and secondly to secure the country's interests in Iraq.

Russia fears war could hinder its efforts to recover several billion dollars in debt from Baghdad, and jeopardise oil contracts won by its firms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2662197.stm