Opinions on the latest Wikileaks revelations please.

[Vague_Boy]

The U.S. Government say the latest revelations are a threat to the lives of serving personnel...and the ConDems agree.

 

Sending serving personal to illegally invade and occupy two sovereign nations based on proven lies is surely the "threat to their lives"?

 

They don't want you to know what's going on and, to be fair, most of the general public would rather not know. It's a quid pro quo situation, spoilt only by annoying people interested in such pointless concepts as "the truth". They should be arrested under anti-terrorism laws and then we can all get back to watching X-Factor.

[Harleyman]

Saddam would still be running Iraq today if he hadn't denied access to the UN to inspect for WMDs. That was his biggest mistake and a foolish one since he had nothing to hide anyway as was later discovered.

 

The thought on Iraq today is that the country will eventually descend into a civil war of some kind. There has been no government since March and the Sunnis do not accept PM Maliki as an acceptable leader. Eventually the country will fall into the lap of Iran and for worse rather than better

[Lotusflower]

Saddam would still be running Iraq today if he hadn't denied access to the UN to inspect for WMDs. That was his biggest mistake and a foolish one since he had nothing to hide anyway as was later discovered.

 

The thought on Iraq today is that the country will eventually descend into a civil war of some kind. There has been no government since March and the Sunnis do not accept PM Maliki as an acceptable leader. Eventually the country will fall into the lap of Iran and for worse rather than better

 

That is incorrect Harleyman.

 

Hans Blix was Chief weapons inspector in Iraq before the war. Here is a link to an article from the New Statesman outlining the evidence he gave at the Chillcot Inquiry.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/iraq-blix-cooperation-thought

 

If any of your last paragraph becomes reality what does it tell you about Dubya posing under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished?"

[Harleyman]

That is incorrect Harleyman.

 

Hans Blix was Chief weapons inspector in Iraq before the war. Here is a link to an article from the New Statesman outlining the evidence he gave at the Chillcot Inquiry.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/iraq-blix-cooperation-thought

 

If any of your last paragraph becomes reality what does it tell you about Dubya posing under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished?"

 

 

I believe another reason for removing Saddam was that the US leaders were truly convinced that Saddam was more than just a "saber rattler" but instead a very real and dangerous threat to peace and instability in the middle east based on four of his past actions, the first being starting a war with Iran, the second murdering the Kurdish population by the use of gas, the third firing scuds at Israel during the first Gulf War and of course the invasion of Kuwait .

 

The thought in Washington may have been that Saddam was "an unexploded bomb" just waiting to go off sometime again in the future if and when the opportunity availed itself and this would have made sense in view of his past actions. However Bush may have been right if he was referring his "mission accompished" as it related to the removal of Saddam only but what it also seems to have accomplished is that Iraq will eventually fall into the Iranian setup of becoming a Muslim dictatorship run by the Mullahs with the possibility of widespread conflict between Sunnis and Shiites beforehand

[vResistance]

if youtube was ever shut down your life would end.

 

I could try and find the same news report on another site but what's the difference ? You just don't like owt that's not from the bias british mainstream media.

[Lotusflower]

I believe another reason for removing Saddam was that the US leaders were truly convinced that Saddam was more than just a "saber rattler" but instead a very real and dangerous threat to peace and instability in the middle east based on four of his past actions, the first being starting a war with Iran, the second murdering the Kurdish population by the use of gas, the third firing scuds at Israel during the first Gulf War and of course the invasion of Kuwait .

 

The thought in Washington may have been that Saddam was "an unexploded bomb" just waiting to go off sometime again in the future if and when the opportunity availed itself and this would have made sense in view of his past actions. However Bush may have been right if he was referring his "mission accompished" as it related to the removal of Saddam only but what it also seems to have accomplished is that Iraq will eventually fall into the Iranian setup of becoming a Muslim dictatorship run by the Mullahs with the possibility of widespread conflict between Sunnis and Shiites beforehand

 

With respect...

...all this belongs to another thread.

 

What do you think about the documents released by Wikileaks and the information they contain?

[Harleyman]

With respect...

...all this belongs to another thread.

 

What do you think about the documents released by Wikileaks and the information they contain?

 

To be truthful I dont intend to read any of them. Too many and too detailed but it will serve no doubt to give some satisfaction to the America-phobes.

 

That aside how much credit can we give for the fact that since 9/11 there has not been another well planned terrorist attack of major proportions and which could be due to intelligence gathering? I would say a lot of credit.

 

Wars of any kind including this war against Al Qaeda are always brutal with cruelty on both sides. It may sound callous but if extorting information from a captured terrorist using methods that could be described as cruel and which results in the saving of hundreds or thousands of other lives then this kind of intelligence gathering is justified IMO.

 

Every country down through history has used torture in wartime to gather vital intelligence even Britain during WW2 but that will never be made public in our life times or probably even afterwards.

 

Intelligence gathering can and often did in the past make the difference between winning or losing a battle or a war.

[HeadingNorth]

Sending serving personal to illegally invade and occupy two sovereign nations based on proven lies is surely the "threat to their lives"?

 

The threat gets bigger if you release sensitive information about their activities. That may not be a sufficient justification, but it is nevertheless true.

[HeadingNorth]

Wars of any kind including this war against Al Qaeda are always brutal with cruelty on both sides. It may sound callous but if extorting information from a captured terrorist using methods that could be described as cruel and which results in the saving of hundreds or thousands of other lives then this kind of intelligence gathering is justified IMO.

 

If we accept that, then al-Qa'eda have already won, so we don't need to fight them at all and nobody needs to die.

[Wildcat]

How come the people leaking and publishing these documents are not arrested under the official secrets act ?

 

Bradley Manning is in prison.