MortalWombat

Two things:

1: Ted Turner doesn't own CNN any more.

2: Care to give an example of "leftist spin" by CNN?

leonarde

Partial post by ex-idaho:Some suggestions:

1)Britain, Australia and the US share, on a regular basis, a VAST amount of intelligence. All three nations are "seeing" the same thing: non-compliance on WMDS for 11 and a half years with massive coverup of same.

2)Richard Butler, the last diplomatic head of the
arms inspectors (UNSCOM) was/is Australian. He let the Aussies know that Iraq never has given up on the weapons of mass destruction.

3)Britain knows from the Lockerbie incident in the
1980s, and Libya's misbehavior in their embassy in
the same time period that certain states just sponsor terrorism. Iraq is, and remains one of them.

4)Britain's experience with IRA terrorism from 1969 on gave it a good background for evaluating
the Islamic variety.

5)British and American interests in the region (Persian Gulf) are largely the same.

Cheers!

ex-idaho

What does Britain or more procisely Scotland being the unfortunate site for the wreckage of the Pan Am flight have to do with understanding terrorism?

There is not one single shred of evidence made public that Iraq has been directly involved in any acts of terrorism.

leonarde

Partial post by ex-idaho:1) It was a terrorist attack.

2) the guys who were implicated were Libyan agents.

3) after years of foot-dragging and lies by Khaddafi, they were
extradicted and tried (technically Britain should have had jurisdiction but I think the trial was in one of the Benlux countries).

4) They were convicted.

5) The US, British (and probably other intelligence agencies acted
in concert/cooperation on the case).

Cheers!

ex-idaho

You could almost say that Oklahoma is better prepared to identify terrorist threats than other states because of the Murrah building bombing. Totally irrellevant to the Iraq and any possible case of it being a terroist state.

leonarde

Partial post by ex-idaho:Yes, any help from Slovenia would be merely token. But that general situation obtained for MOST "allies" in 1991 as well: it was American and British Forces almost exclusively in the air, and the same nations spearheading the ground invasion of Desert Storm. Egypt and other nations were mostly for show. Do you really think this (the international consulting) is about the military necessity of help for GB and the US????? It's not. It's about solidarity. And in the case of a few nations, right of way and landing rights.

Cheers!

ex-idaho

no I agree that they are not seeking military assistance but in 1991 the participating nations pledged financial support. Aside from Britain and Australia the other countries are in no position to provide any financial support for a war that is estimated to cost anywhere from 60 to 200 billion dollars. Money we do not have I remind you.

leonarde

Partial post by ex-idaho:No, it's not: sharing intelligence on terrorism----which the US and
GB have done to a great extent since the 1980s--means that they
both know the same general info about which states are helping
which terrorist groups. Experience with terrorism is one of the best preparations for dealing with it. That you find this "irrelevant" I find totally baffling. Do you find experience in
car racing "irrelevant" to winning the Dayton 500 ?????

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by ex-idaho:If the Oklahoma state police had been the primary investigative
agency that would probably be the situation. But since it was a
FEDERAL BUILDING, and federal employees at work were killed
it was, quite literally, a "federal case'. And yes, it did give the
FBI some needed experience in dealing with home-grown terrorists.

Cheers!

ex-idaho

Leonarde I don't find shared intelligence irrelevant I find the Pan Am disaster irrelevant to this argument. Lybia bombed a plane in retaliation for Reagans bombings of Lybia in retaliation of the embassy bombing. It just so happened that the plane went down in Scotland. It could have just as easily gone down over the ocean but it fell on Scotland. The fact that if fell in Scotland does not make Britain more qualified to determine wheter or not Iraq is sponsoring terrorism.

So far the intelligence that Britain and the US has released regarding Iraq and its links to terrorist has been inconclusive and greeted with a great deal of skepticism internationally.

Yes, recent polls show that most Ameicans are in favor of war with Iraq but only with the support of the UN which it does not look like we are going to get. But at the same time other polls show more than 45% of Americans believe that atleast a portion of the hijackers on 9-11 were Iraqi which as you know is totally false. And I think the most interesting poll shows that only 24% of Americans trust Bush to make the case for war yet 76% trust Colin Powell.