View Full Version : CIAs latest report from Iraq
Kind of surprised that no one has yet discussed the findings of the latest inspections......It turns out that Saddam did not and has not had WMDs since the early 90s, and that sanctions were working.
So weve spent 300 Billion dollars, and thousands of deaths have occured, fighting an utterly bungled war in a country that turns out was not an effective threat... thousands of US troops that could have been hunting Osama were diverted to Iraq, and the truest threat this nation currently has is still free, running around in an "allied" nation with near impunity. Iraq has become a gathering point for Islamic militants to attack US troops, and even the President was recorded as saying that theres no way to win a war with terrorists (a statment that was spun as quickly as humanly possible, but still a made statment)
No, nevermind, forget I brought up the CIA findings... GWBs kakistocracy remains quite the golden calf around here.
Well on this Board when something that makes Bush look dumb no one talks about it. But if Kerry did something bad everyone would be all over it. Its just a lot of people on this board is a Bush follower. I think this is bad real bad. How can some preisdent justify a war when the intelligence that he got was false. I feel bad for all the soldiers that died under false reasons. I dont why Kerry doesn't have a big lead since Bush has been an ineffective leader.
Joe, you've grossly oversimplified and spun the "results" of that report. For instance, within the report you will find that Saddam and his leadership themselves thought that they had WMD's, and discussed using them against us. This was immediately prior to OIF. Also, the report does not account for the whereabouts of the existing stockpiles of WMD's that have never been shown to have been destroyed. They know they existed. There is no record of their destruction. They cannot find them.
Also, the report notes that Saddam maintained the ability to quickly restart the WMD program at any time, pending relaxation of international pressure and inspections. Oh yeah, he DID throw the inspectors out, didn't he?
Did you read the entire report?
Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu
Good that you bring this up.
Some of the Bush supporters here are pretty sharp and know what they're talking about. I still won't vote GOP because I am still livid about the Florida voting debacle and the invasion of Iraq, but I've learned a lot from John & Cliff and they make me think more critically.
This is a great thing. So long as we keep our poise we can only grow from debating each other.
And Jeff, unless I'm mistaken (which I might be), I believe that the report's conclusions were that Saddam was unable to create or deploy WMDs and that his old stockpiles were not useable (for whatever reason). Also, that he would not be able to quickly restart his programs.
And I'm not sure this was an official "these are the final conclusions of the CIA" reports but instead by a specific investigator. I'm sure there will be much discussion about the validity of the report.
The truth about Iraq and WMD's arer still being figured out. I have not read the most recent report, but if past history is any indication, new facts will come out in a year or so. Hindsight is 20/20. The decision to invade Iraq was not based solely on WMD's. Saddam threw out the inspectors and refused to comply with the demands outlined by U.N. The U.N. passed resolution after resolution, each with dire consequences. Saddam thumbed his nose at the world, while he continued to torture and commit genocide inside Iraq. Did anyone doubt that he had WMD's prior to the invasion? Why did our troops find Iraqi chemical and biological protection suits. What was on the two tankers that left Iraq? They left either just before the invasion or just after. I remember the uproar at the UN when the USA said it was going to board them in international waters. Forget Iraq. How would we fight Korea now, Germany, Japan. A CIC has to make decisions based upon what he knows now, not 3 years from now. People still argue if Truman should have dropped the bomb. I hope our troops come home safe soon. I pray for the families of the dead.
Peace
Dennis
While I did heavily simplify the report, that was in no small part due to the fact that far better people than I am can and WILL wax philosophical long into the night on the report.
In my original post I didnt say anything that was untrue.
300 Billion USD
Over 1000 US deaths
Untold Iraqi deaths
Iraq is a cesspool of terrorist activity
And there is no plan for withdrawl from a "cakewalk" war
and what for??
No WMD and no ability to produce WMD.
While the report did say that Saddam was willing and able to go into production again as soon as sanctions were lifted, at the time of the invasion, and for the entire decade before, is was NOT possible for Saddam to produce WMD! And this isnt the first report to say this. Inspector David Kay resigned for the same reasons coming to similar conclusions - No WMD.
And lest anyone think this is a political post, fact is, I do NOT support either candidate, so effectively, Im pretty non-partisan here. They both scare the crap out of me... I guess I dont see the need of so many Americans to support this President in the face of so much countering evidence. At the beginning of the war, much of the intel showed some nasty stuff going on in Iraq, however Im not sure that it was enough to invade, and certainly no greater than other countries - countries with a stronger connection to international terrorism - and most of the original reasons for invasion have proven to be untrue... or at least far less of a threat than the President of the United States stood in front of the American people and claimed.
While I never supported the invasion of Iraq, now that were there, we need to finish the job. I dont deny that, and Im more than willing to be there myself getting dirty. (BTW Jeff, I contacted a Guard recruiter down at Ft Carson, well see how this goes from here, thanks) Now weve got a job to do and we need to do everything we possibly can to make it right! Then we need to get out, and think a whole lot harder before making a choice like this again.
While I did heavily simplify the report, that was in no small part due to the fact that far better people than I am can and WILL wax philosophical long into the night on the report.
In my original post I didnt say anything that was untrue.
300 Billion USD
Over 1000 US deaths
Untold Iraqi deaths
Iraq is a cesspool of terrorist activity
And there is no plan for withdrawl from a "cakewalk" war
and what for??
No WMD and no ability to produce WMD.
While the report did say that Saddam was willing and able to go into production again as soon as sanctions were lifted, at the time of the invasion, and for the entire decade before, is was NOT possible for Saddam to produce WMD! And this isnt the first report to say this. Inspector David Kay resigned for the same reasons coming to similar conclusions - No WMD.
And lest anyone think this is a political post, fact is, I do NOT support either candidate, so effectively, Im pretty non-partisan here. They both scare the crap out of me... I guess I dont see the need of so many Americans to support this President in the face of so much countering evidence. At the beginning of the war, much of the intel showed some nasty stuff going on in Iraq, however Im not sure that it was enough to invade, and certainly no greater than other countries - countries with a stronger connection to international terrorism - and most of the original reasons for invasion have proven to be untrue... or at least far less of a threat than the President of the United States stood in front of the American people and claimed.
While I never supported the invasion of Iraq, now that were there, we need to finish the job. I dont deny that, and Im more than willing to be there myself getting dirty. (BTW Jeff, I contacted a Guard recruiter down at Ft Carson, well see how this goes from here, thanks) Now weve got a job to do and we need to do everything we possibly can to make it right! Then we need to get out, and think a whole lot harder before making a choice like this again.
Agreed we need to make sure every thing we do is under the right pre tenses.
I have been for Bush for a long time. But, his response to this report and other reports have really made me upset with him.
To start with, Kerry was not just any senator which could have looked at the intelligence if he wanted to. Kerry was on the intelligence committee and it was his job to verify the info. He verified the info, and had been telling the president to go after that threat since 1997, when the president was Clinton. Well, Bush acted on it, on Kerry's advice and on Kerry's information which Kerry was responsible for varifying. I think Bush should state this clearly, but he does not.
Since the war started, I have read in many accounts of things found. The missiles found in the scrap yards, along with the plans to make those missiles ballistic missiles. ( this would be a delivery system ) They also found equipment for making biological and chemical weapons in these scrapyards, with the UN tags still on them from the Gulf war. Also, whole factories were torn down and scrapped in the last months and weeks before our invasion. This equipment most likely came from those factories. Why scrap them if there is no smoking gun? especially when you are preparing for war?
Many sources talked about large truck movements into Syria. Saddam even changed out the regular border guard to his special ops guys for the convoys to go through. The convoys were met by Syrian special ops and the contents buried. I would like to see what was buried there.
Many inspectors found huge stores of chemicals some in 50 gallon drums and some in similar containers ( different perportions ). These chemicals happened to be the same chemicals use to make nerve gas. All the equipment to make the nerve gas was found on site. One CNN news team was hospitalized with all the symptoms of the nerve gas. These stock piles were in fortified ammo dumps. But when they translated the labels on the canisters, it said "Agriculture." And we fell for it. "But officer, its not a fully automatic AK-47, its a back scratcher, can't you read the tag and its not even loaded....yet."
Then there was the artillery shell that they though had sarin gas in it. You are right, it didn't have sarin gas, see Saddam is innocent. If you read the bottom of the article, it said it was cyclo-sarin, which is ten times worse. But only one shell, it must have been left over. The next day their were reports that Saddam had suddenly sold off many artillery shells to this little known group called Al-Quada, for lots of money from the same place as that one shell was found. Yeah, looks like someone forgot one when they moved out.
But, no paper work was found supporting their WMD program. Give Enron 6 months notice, before you start collecting evidence and see how fast they shred.
All this stuff, I have seen from many sources, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronical, Newsmax, AP.... ( I don't include the drudge report at all, don't even read that ) I admit Newsmax has Bush ads, but the rest have Kerry ads.... And don't tell me CBS is fair..... nor the other stations backing Damn Rather. But I try to read through a good spread left to right. Were all these sources lying?
Why doesn't Bush have what it takes to stand up and tell us what our troops have died for and what we have paid for? Why doesn't Bush read the report just given to him and read the part aloud that says the weapons stockpiles are so big that they preclude looking at it all, instead we looked in a few of the most likely places...? Too me that sounds like, we can't get this report out before the election if we look through them all, and finish the job first.....
On top of that, Bush and Kerry have exactly the same plan for Iraq now, just like they have always agreed on Iraq. So, now I don't know who to vote for.
Cliff Hargrave
10-08-2004, 19:37
While William and I have disagreed many times here about martial arts, he is dead on with this post.
I predict: there will be a terrorist attack sometimes in the near future, with chemical or biological weapons, on US or interests/allies abroad. The weapons will be traced to Iraq via Syria. You heard it hear first.
Oh and the Demonrats will blame Bush for not starting the war sooner so Sadaam wouldn't have the chance to ship them to Syria.
While William and I have disagreed many times here about martial arts, he is dead on with this post.
I predict: there will be a terrorist attack sometimes in the near future, with chemical or biological weapons, on US or interests/allies abroad. The weapons will be traced to Iraq via Syria. You heard it hear first.
Oh and the Demonrats will blame Bush for not starting the war sooner so Sadaam wouldn't have the chance to ship them to Syria.
Im not too sure about that. If anything Al-Queda will attack the United States with car bombs or truck bombs.
Sooooo.... the logic here is Saddam gave up his weapons (chemical, biological, possibly even nuclear), weapons he wanted to use against us and had no qualms about using against or alongside his own people... then when the United States, The Great F'ing Satan, came knocking on his door, at the ideal opportunity to cause as much damage to US soldiers as he would ever be capable of otherwise, this megalomaniac, a man who would kill anyone to keep power, gave up his weapons to historical enemies, gave up his defenses, gave up all power, and went to go live in a hole? really? thats the logic? really?
:rolleyes: :eek: :laugh:
Mandeigh Wells
10-09-2004, 06:37
Sooooo.... the logic here is Saddam gave up his weapons (chemical, biological, possibly even nuclear), weapons he wanted to use against us and had no qualms about using against or alongside his own people... then when the United States, The Great F'ing Satan, came knocking on his door, at the ideal opportunity to cause as much damage to US soldiers as he would ever be capable of otherwise, this megalomaniac, a man who would kill anyone to keep power, gave up his weapons to historical enemies, gave up his defenses, gave up all power, and went to go live in a hole? really? thats the logic? really?
:rolleyes: :eek: :laugh:
you know I have wondered about that too......my own conclusions are..
he didn't use the weapons 'cause he was still hoping the rest of the world would stop the US lead war and as long as he didn't use them he may be able to get some sympathy...or he simpy didn't have them. I wouldn't even be surprised if he didn't boast about having them when he didn't.......
or the third thing was we (at home) all had suspicions about syria, that he has shipped out what he could for the first reason....he may get some sympathy if he was seen to have none..
its all very strange really...... :confused:
Sooooo.... the logic here is Saddam gave up his weapons (chemical, biological, possibly even nuclear), weapons he wanted to use against us and had no qualms about using against or alongside his own people... then when the United States, The Great F'ing Satan, came knocking on his door, at the ideal opportunity to cause as much damage to US soldiers as he would ever be capable of otherwise, this megalomaniac, a man who would kill anyone to keep power, gave up his weapons to historical enemies, gave up his defenses, gave up all power, and went to go live in a hole? really? thats the logic? really?
:rolleyes: :eek: :laugh:
Isn't that obvious then? Isn't that why Saddam had to go.
Im not too sure about that. If anything Al-Queda will attack the United States with car bombs or truck bombs.
What makes you think they would not deploy chemical, biological agents in car bombs or truck bombs? B/c they didn't wanna mess with your boyish good look huh? :D
Agreed we need to make sure every thing we do is under the right pre tenses.
Actually, we KNEW exactly what we are doing. The only thing is, YOU DON'T. lol . You see, much like your Kerry, we need to dumb things down to WMD blah blah blah, so simple people can comprehend. Had we told you the truth about America's global strategic interest in getting rid of Saddam in order to win the war against Al Qaeda, we may risk confusing you. This isn't the way we wanted to go about it, but your Kerry taught us that you need to dumb things down.... lol :D :D
Umm okay thats why over 1000 americans died fighting because Saddam had to go? Try telling that to the families of the fallen. The war on terror is such BS. We should be attackin Al-Queada and pressuring Iran to give up nuclear weapons. How bout instead of spending 200 billion in Iraq why dont we improve the life of Americans.
beungood
10-10-2004, 16:41
Being part of a large police motorcycle contingent who assisted in the DNC, It was in agrrement among all of us that Kerry was a stuck, snooty ,arrogant *******. Not one person who met him thought he was for real. He seeks the limelight for his own ego ,not to help out Joe average. He cannot even think on the same level as John Q Public. Im glad he is not in charge. Never did anything for us here in Mass.
Umm okay thats why over 1000 americans died fighting because Saddam had to go? Try telling that to the families of the fallen. The war on terror is such BS. We should be attackin Al-Queada and pressuring Iran to give up nuclear weapons. How bout instead of spending 200 billion in Iraq why dont we improve the life of Americans.
The brave souls who died, who gave their rights to us, knew what they signed up for. They don't need your sympathy nor approval. They knew freedom is not free. Those who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, knew that millions of people and their children are liberated. They knew they didn't die in vain.
Partisan soundbites do not make viable policies and do not win wars.
What makes you think we are not attacking 'Al Queada' on a global basis? What makes you think we are not pressuring Iran to give up nuclear weapons? What makes you think we are not spending hundreds of billions on well-fare and other social programs?
Just because you are NOT aware of the things that are actually going on on a global scale, does not mean they don't exist.
A very informative source of info : http://www.americassecretwar.com/
Soundbites do not make viable policy and do not win wars.
Just because you are NOT aware of the things that are actually going on on a global scale, does not mean they don't exist.
A very informative source of info : http://www.americassecretwar.com/
I do understand what is going on a global scale im just baffeled about why we are in Iraq. It seems pointless and stupid.
Being part of a large police motorcycle contingent who assisted in the DNC, It was in agrrement among all of us that Kerry was a stuck, snooty ,arrogant *******. Not one person who met him thought he was for real. He seeks the limelight for his own ego ,not to help out Joe average. He cannot even think on the same level as John Q Public. Im glad he is not in charge. Never did anything for us here in Mass.
That is the way Kerry has always been. That's the true Kerry.
I do understand what is going on a global scale im just baffeled about why we are in Iraq. It seems pointless and stupid.
I have explained that in another thread. Either you just post and don't read OR may be I failed to explain. In any case, go read the book then.
http://www.americassecretwar.com/ :up:
I have explained that in another thread. Either you just post and don't read OR may be I failed to explain. In any case, go read the book then.
http://www.americassecretwar.com/ :up:
So then why did we go after Saddam if it was deeper game. Oil? Or did Saddam plan on making something public about the American Government.
Cliff Hargrave
10-10-2004, 18:56
Being part of a large police motorcycle contingent who assisted in the DNC, ...
Wouldn't happen to be a Blue Knight would you?
Isn't that obvious then? Isn't that why Saddam had to go.
Uhhhh, no, its not obvious. Thats why I was MOCKING that line of thought. It makes no sense at all.
Hes supposed to have all these uber deadly weapons, but rather than deploy them even once against US troops, he runs scared for his life, leaves his sons to sort themselvs out, and finds himself a nice little rabbit warren to call home?
Sorry, I dont buy it.
Seems to me that hes such a psychopath (oh dont worry I agree with that!) that if he had the means to do so, he would have planted boobytrap B/C bombs in every hospital and school from Basra to Turkey. He would have deployed all of those missiles with B/C warheads, killed as many coalition soldiers (especially US) as he was capable of, and bragged from some palace about how he has struck some massive blow to "the Great Satan". If nothing else he would have acted SOMETHING like the Saddam of the original Gulf War (you know, the Saddam who was actually armed with WMD and wasnt afraid to use it)
But thats not what happened. No, he ran scared to some hidey-hole so he could pop his head up like a prairie dog and ask "is it over yet"?
His actions dont support the fact that he was some over the top threat.
I find it interesting that even the language of GWB in debates is shifting to indicate an admittance that there was no WMDs. Lots of "coulds and "mights". Not even GWB is saying "does" or "did" anymore.
No. You got it right. There was never any doubt that our troops were NOT expected to face Saddam's WMD. If we were expecting WMD, do you think we would have made the attack in such open, pre-announced method? We would have been sitting ducks to chemical and biological weapons. So, you got to ask yourself. Why did we conducted a conventional campaign, if we were going after a WMD armed Saddam? Well, of course it is because he ain't got WMD that he could use against us!
It may seem like I am plugging this book, http://www.americassecretwar.com/
but it is a very informative work that details the behind-the-scene horse-trading and fighting in the global war against Al Qaeda and why toppling Saddam is an integral part of the total against Al Qaeda. It has all the details that you wouldn't find reported in the media.
Putting a pro American regime in charge of Iraq would accomplish a laundry list of strategic goals.
The most important goal : Demonstrating to all hostile muslim nations, as well as those sitting on the fence in the international war against Al Qaeda, the American resolve in fighting and defeating Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was allowed to grow because the muslim world didn't believe America has what it takes to fight and win the war against Al Qaeda. Not only we bailed out of Vietnam, we also bailed out of Lebanon, Somalia. Al Qaeda has undertaken probing attacks and Clinton never responded with anything more than a token show of force. So, they have not only historical proof, but also real-time proof that America will run and hide when the going gets tough.
After we took down the Taleban, which no one thought could be done, Saddam became the next target. Saddam was flaunting it in the face of the Americans. He was telling the UN to get lost and shot at the American planes at will. He was telling the muslim wolrd that America was impotent, just as America needed to convince the muslim world that nobody f*&^ with us and get away with it. The reason we so desperately need to convince the muslim world of our resolve is because there is NO effective way we can defend against a WMD attack by Al Qaeda. In light of such strategic disadvantage, our only choice is to eliminate Al Qaeda before it gets to us with WMD. Al Qaeda must not be allowed to have access to WMD. In order to eliminate an international terrorist organization, we need the muslim nations to go after Al Qaeda in their midst if possible but at the very least NOT to arm Al Qaeda with WMD. The axis of evil were not scared of America's empty words. And the governments of the friendly muslim nations are not willing to risk pissing off their constituents if they think the Americans are going to cut and run and leave them hanging out to dry. Given the bad situation America was in, Saddam inserted himself as the mark on the game. He had the means, motive and was waiting for the opportunity to mass produce WMD. He had not only defied but hostile to the US. People say Saddam and Osama hate each other. Not even the biggest moron would be dumb enough to believe that would keep Al Qaeda from getting WMD from Saddam once he got UN sanction lifted. Bear in mind that France, Russia and China wanted the UN sanction lifted!
Saddam may not have provided Al Qaeda with WMD, but it would be foolhardly to HOPE that his bad feeling against Osama was sufficient to keep Al Qaeda ever from getting WMD from him. Some people are naive enough to believe in such wishful thinking.
Saddam was undermining America's strategic effort in convincing muslim countries that we are not pussyfooting around when we tell them NOT to supply Al Qaeda with WMD. Al Qaeda operates on the premise that since they have defeated the Soviet, they can also defeat the Great Satan. Saddam was telling the Great Saddam to go f%$# itself. And we are royally screwed once Al Qaeda has WMD, as there is no possible way to defend against it.
So that is why Saddam has to be eliminated, Iraq liberated and deadenders liquidated. Despite naysayers' gloom and doom, Iraq is on course to be pacified. Daily bombings that kills mostly Iraqis have turned Al Qaeda and foreign infiltrators into the most hated people in Iraq. More people are enlisting and joining the Iraqi police and armed forces, despite the daily bombing of police recruits. More tips are sent to the coalition and hence more precision bombings.
The violence has increased and will not subside until at least after the US election. The deadenders want to make it appear that Iraq is an absolute Bush disaster. They want to replace Bush with Kerry, because they know Kerry will do what Kerry advocates ie cut and run. Al Qaeda has tasted the blunt of Bush's resolve in Afghanistan and over the world, as it lost it bases in Afghanistan and has its cells eradicated all over the world. With Kerry, they know he will pandle to Chirac. Al Qaeda would be doing a lot better with Kerry. And the Democrats are helping the deadenders and Al Qaeda, by painting a gloom and doom picture over Iraq.
Well, I see what your saying, and might agree with it except theres still one massive logical disconnect.
We took on an "impossible" enemy, in their own "impossible" terrain, and you want me to beleive that Saddam did the math and came to the conclusion that the US couldnt possibly touch him? That we were weak? and he could just throw us the finger and get on with his games?
While Saddam may be utterly insane, Im not sure hes THAT stupid!
You also make the case that we attacked knowing that there was no threat of WMD, yet the President stood up in front of the American people and told us that Saddam had them, and that that was why he was a threat... In otherwords, lying to the American people on why we should go to war. We spent how many billions looking for WMD that apparently the govt knew all along wasnt there? We lost how many American lives on this premise? And your position is that Saddam was bad because he called us names and WANTED to make WMD? So take out Iraq, a possible threat, and leave nations like Iran, an al Qaeda corridor KNOWN to have our worst nightmare AND willing to give it away, to go play with impunity? Even allowing Iran to have OPEN trade of weapons materials with North Korea, another group thats not Americas best pal.
You dont have to sell me on why Kerry is a bad choice for President, but Im really missing why Bush and his administration is any better.
You also make the case that we attacked knowing that there was no threat of WMD, yet the President stood up in front of the American people and told us that Saddam had them, and that that was why he was a threat... In otherwords, lying to the American people on why we should go to war. We spent how many billions looking for WMD that apparently the govt knew all along wasnt there?
WMD is not really an issue. I don't think the Gov. knew he DID NOT have WMD. Just about every single major US leader (House, Senate etc..) thought he had WMD based on intel. The very same intel the President saw. Saddam himself was making out to have these weapons as a deterent to Iran. Going to war because he had WMD as a premise was justified in every possible way. Get rid of the issue of WMD, all sides thought he had them and he was a threat. End of issue. Hindsight is assinine. Hindsight only serves good for future issues and actions. The President makes a decision, and those that don't have any responsibility for that decision (but support it) later say..... hey, he didn't have any WMD.... wrong war etc...... What a crock.
Now, without the actual weapons, was hi still a threat. Could we justify going into Iraq if we knew he did not have WMD? That is the question. The answer, for me is yes. The latest report says he did not have any WMD. However it did say that he wanted them, and wanted to pursue aqquisition of WMD just as soon as he was clear to do so. He did have know terrorists using his land and a base of operations. Kerry himself, said he would hunt terrorists down where ever they are and kill them. I would assume he meant even if they were in Iraq.
Robert Barkus
Well, with exception of a few individuals here, I think everyone including the President agrees that the intel used to support an invasion was faulty. However the choice to go in is a crucial point and in this case its not a matter of hindsight, but rather msking a point based on the WAY things were handled. A case based upon what people have done as a reference for people are likely to do is a valid one... remember Bush's whole "you can run but you cant hide" thing??? Or does that only apply to Democratic Senatorial voting records?
Now, Im not going to argue the quality of the intel recieved, what I am arguing is that poor choices were made.
In your second paragraph your trying to spin it away from WMD, with the question "Could we justify going into Iraq if we knew he did not have WMD? That is the question." When infact thats not the question at all. The question is, "Did the President of the United States mislead the American people when attempting to justify an invasion of Iraq?" If the answer to this question is yes he did mislead Americans, then how can his past and current actions NOT be considered a violation of the public trust? How can his massive spending not be seen as theft from the American people? How can the deaths we have sustained not be seen as blood on the Presidents hands? How can a conscienses voter consider re-electing him? If the answer is no he did not mislead Americans then how can ANYONE in the current national government up to and including the President, as well as Senator Kerry, not be keelhauled for the acceptance of faulty intel? Other nations present no less of a DEMONSTRATED danger to the US population. Many present a FAR greater threat. Iraq may have been armed, MAY have, but many other countries ARE armed. Why wernt they invaded? Why wernt nations with MUCH stronger al Qeada connections delt with first?
Now, Im not going to argue the quality of the intel recieved, what I am arguing is that poor choices were made.
In your second paragraph your trying to spin it away from WMD, with the question "Could we justify going into Iraq if we knew he did not have WMD? That is the question." When infact thats not the question at all. The question is, "Did the President of the United States mislead the American people when attempting to justify an invasion of Iraq?" If the answer to this question is yes he did mislead Americans, then how can his past and current actions NOT be considered a violation of the public trust? How can his massive spending not be seen as theft from the American people? How can the deaths we have sustained not be seen as blood on the Presidents hands? How can a conscienses voter consider re-electing him? If the answer is no he did not mislead Americans then how can ANYONE in the current national government up to and including the President, as well as Senator Kerry, not be keelhauled for the acceptance of faulty intel? Other nations present no less of a DEMONSTRATED danger to the US population. Many present a FAR greater threat. Iraq may have been armed, MAY have, but many other countries ARE armed. Why wernt they invaded? Why wernt nations with MUCH stronger al Qeada connections delt with first?
Poor choices..... again in hindsight. Just about every major political leader in the US agreed with the choice. Did Saddam need to be dealt with? Did he not have 11 years of sanctions? Given that he was not going to comply with the UN resolutions, did not the Iraqi people suffer enough of the sanctions?
No spin at all. It is just that I have not seen any evidence that shows THIS President MISLED the nation/people. Based on the WMD issue being a wash in that all agreed he had them.... and knowing that he had known terrorists in his country and our past history and the 11 years of non-compliance with the UN resolutions...... I would have and do support being in Iraq.
Some do present a greater threat in some compacity, but then again, the world collectively has not taken issue with these other entities. How many current US resolutions have been brought forth against Korea (north) and Iran with respect to the most recent projects???? Eleven years worth? No. Diplomacy is warranted in this situation. Multi-lateral talks would seem to be a good starting point. After 11 years of resolutions and santions maybe I'll feel it neccessary to enter those countries also. I don't know as I won't know about that until things have run the course.
Robert Barkus
Pre-war: Iraq & Al Quaeda = enemies to each other. Secular dicataorships and fundamentalist religious terrorists are arch-enemies and do not work together. That's one of Bush's big lies.
WMD = Weapons of Mass Distraction.
But now this is spillt milk.
We should be discussing how to get out of this situation.
There is this permeating wishful thinking that somehow Osama and Saddam are such arch enemies that they would never cooperate. That only betrays the lack of understanding of the nature of how nations and organizations function in the global arena. Make no mistake, Al Qaeda or any terrorist organizations,or parties, will cooperate, and HAVE cooperated, if it is in their self interest to do so. The Syrian Baathists and the Iraqi Baathists are arch-enemies, yet they cooperate whenever it suits them. Saddam and the Iranians are arch-enemy, but he has no qualm about sending his warplanes to hide in Iran at the on set of the first Iraqi war. Saddam has sent his WMD to Syria for hiding. The Syrians have just begun liquidating the agents they used for the smuggling. The Iranian mullahs hate the Great Satan, yet, they helped us to attack the Talebans when it was in their interest to liquidate the Talebans. The Shiite Iranians hate the Sunni Al Qaeda royally, and that feeling is mutual. But that does not stop the mullahs from giving refuge to key Al Qaeda operatives.
Don't be so naive. Terrorists cut deals ALL THE TIME!!
It is one thing to engage in self-deluding wishful thinking in the safety of your own home. It is another when such wishful thinking brings death to hundreds of thousands or millions of lives.
Well, I see what your saying, and might agree with it except theres still one massive logical disconnect.
We took on an "impossible" enemy, in their own "impossible" terrain, and you want me to beleive that Saddam did the math and came to the conclusion that the US couldnt possibly touch him? That we were weak? and he could just throw us the finger and get on with his games?
While Saddam may be utterly insane, Im not sure hes THAT stupid!
You also make the case that we attacked knowing that there was no threat of WMD, yet the President stood up in front of the American people and told us that Saddam had them, and that that was why he was a threat... In otherwords, lying to the American people on why we should go to war. We spent how many billions looking for WMD that apparently the govt knew all along wasnt there? We lost how many American lives on this premise? And your position is that Saddam was bad because he called us names and WANTED to make WMD? So take out Iraq, a possible threat, and leave nations like Iran, an al Qaeda corridor KNOWN to have our worst nightmare AND willing to give it away, to go play with impunity? Even allowing Iran to have OPEN trade of weapons materials with North Korea, another group thats not Americas best pal.
You dont have to sell me on why Kerry is a bad choice for President, but Im really missing why Bush and his administration is any better.
I totally agree with you I lost all trust in the Bush adminastration.
.....We took on an "impossible" enemy, in their own "impossible" terrain, and you want me to beleive that Saddam did the math and came to the conclusion that the US couldnt possibly touch him? That we were weak? and he could just throw us the finger and get on with his games?
While Saddam may be utterly insane, Im not sure hes THAT stupid!
No. As I have said, Saddam as well as the terrorists, calculated, based on historical pattern and on real time probing attacks, that America did not have the stomach to take casualties, that America would quit as soon as the going get tough. He said so himself, repeatedly. He believed that America would never have the stomach to deal with the casualties he could inflict upon us in an urban warfare. He doesn't care how many civilian casualties. The more the better for him. More propaganda value. He couldn't careless if half of Iraq burned to the ground. He figured his Republican Guards, his Fedayeens and his Baathist thugs would cause enough havoc on the Americans, that the American lefties would pull the rug underneath the troops. Saddam would emerge victorious, shoots off his pistols at the balcony and he would tell the world that he was right and the Americans were still full of s@#$.
Why wouldn't he think that way? We have done exactly all that, repeatedly!
They look at the left-wing media and thought they could just inflict some carnage and the lefties would do the rest for them.
And so it seems, his counting on the lefties to come to his aid, is right on the money.
You also make the case that we attacked knowing that there was no threat of WMD, yet the President stood up in front of the American people and told us that Saddam had them, and that that was why he was a threat... In otherwords, lying to the American people on why we should go to war. We spent how many billions looking for WMD that apparently the govt knew all along wasnt there? We lost how many American lives on this premise?
"...Senator McCain: Every intelligence agency in the world, US, British, French, Israeli, came to the same conclusion that Iraqi had WMD. How do you account for that? Only Saddam knows the full truth of his WMD. ..."
We knew he had WMD programs, equipments etc. His sons-in-law gave us the info. Saddam himself handed over tons of papers. We knew he didn't have readily assembled, good-to-go, WMD. At least not in quantities that would impact the out come of the war.
Every intel service knows Saddam has WMD. We know the WMD was smuggled out to Syria and hid in the dessert. The French intelligence helped the Syrians. The objective is to demonstrate that there was no WMD in Iraq.
Now, we can't go public with the fact. Because there will be outcry over not doing anything about Syria. Obviously we can't open another front without pacifying Iraq first. But, I am sure the lefties would so understanding of such cold reality.
A lot is being done behind the scene to put the screws on Bashir. Bashir is walking on thin ice because he is screwed in between the coalition pressure and his domestic enemies.
And your position is that Saddam was bad because he called us names and WANTED to make WMD? So take out Iraq, a possible threat, and leave nations like Iran, an al Qaeda corridor KNOWN to have our worst nightmare AND willing to give it away, to go play with impunity? Even allowing Iran to have OPEN trade of weapons materials with North Korea, another group thats not Americas best pal. .....
Al Qaeda and Iran? while heaven help us!! Haven't you heard the argument that we don't have to worry about Al Qaeda cooperating with its arch-enemies? Don't you see? The Iranians are Shiite and Al Qaeda are Sunnis and they don't like each other! :rolleyes: :laugh:
But I digress.
The reason that we resorted to using the WMD as cover because if we explain to the people that toppling Saddam is sending the required military message to the axis of evil rogue states as well as to the fence sitting muslim nations that America WILL ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY KILL you sons of bitches, if you even dream of providing WMD to Al Qaeda. That is the message and resolve the muslim nations wanted to see before they got off the fence. That is the message we want the Bashirs and the Ayatollahs to get. We had to go to this extreme because we have a long record of chickening out and we have a throng of domestic lefties, practically giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Thanks to the well-meaning lefties, the enemies despise us as weaklings. That has invited Al Qaeda to attack us.
But of course , Bush couldn't go on TV and say that out loud, could he? Imagine the indignation from the self-righteous lefties! More over, you would have people who hear but don't listen, and they jump to the conclusion such as "so you wanna take him out because he taunted us and called us names?" blah blah blah.
Plus, there are other strategic goals that you simply cannot speak out publicly. Putting a pro American regime in charge of 25% of the world's proven reserve will put America in control of oil price stability. That will enhance America's global strategic levelage and allows it to protect its global interest. Having a pro American Iraqi regime, will give us military leverage directly against Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. And it is all good if along the way, we also liberate the Iraqi people at the same time!
That is how nation thinks, plans and operates. Don't kid yourself for one nano second that other nations don't operate EXACTLY the same way. And every nation needs a sound cover to package its self-interest in a righteous wrap.
Al Qaeda or any terrorist organizations,or parties, will cooperate, and HAVE cooperated, if it is in their self interest to do so.
Don't be so naive. Terrorists cut deals ALL THE TIME!!
It's not the terrorists who won't cooperate. It's the secular dictatorships who won't because it is not in their self-interest to do so. The fundamentalist movements stem from the desparation caused by despotic regimes held in power by foreigners (like the USA and UK in Iran's example from the 1970s) - religion is all that gives them hope in the face of said regimes.
Go read Foreign Policy magazine, the January issue before the war started. It's the issue cynically entitled "Five Wars We're Loosing".
Meersch and Waldheimer (I forget the exact names) argue this point better than I can.
For the record - I studied this kind of thing for 5 years, got my BA in Political Science (International Relations and Comparative Politics) and did a year of post-graduate studies, as well. My regional specialty was the Middle East.
I am fully aware of that line of argument. Unfortunately it does not fly in the face of reality.
Al Qaeda don't like Bashir of Syria too. They carried out terrorist attack there too. But they don't have a problem having bases in Syria, with cooperation from the Syrian intel. The Syrian dictotor, like his father before him, will and have cut deals with just about anyone. Saddam have even cut deals with his arch-enemies the Iranians. Did the Iranians refused weapons from the Israelis during the Iran-Iraq war? Heck NO! Shiite Iranians helped bringing down Sunni Taleban. Sunni Al Qaeda don't like Shiite Iranians. But that didn't stop them from running over to Iran to hide, did it? THe Iranians turned some of them over to the coalition and continued to protect some of them.
It is pure absolute, unadulterated naivety to believe in the silly notion that secular dictators will not cut deals with Al Qaeda, when in fact they have done so with just about any one as long as it suits them. Not even children would buy into this silliness. Sure, Osama and Saddam are not going to run off to MA to get marry anytime soon, that does not mean they wouldn't cooperate when it fits their self-interest.
It is even sillier to pretend that arm-chair quarterbacks know what secular dictotors think is or is not in their interests. To be brutally honest, these 'experts' couldn't find earth even when they go skydiving, when it comes to figuring out what secular dictotors think is or is not in their best interest. To suggest that we should bet the lives of millions on what these 'experts' know? HA! Good grief! I was bornt at night. But I wasn't bornt last night.
P.S. What makes you think secular dictators would agree with your experts when it comes to deciding what their best interests are?
kiLLeR_B
10-11-2004, 20:27
The Iraqi jet, an advanced Russian MiG-25 Foxbat, was found buried in the sand after an informant tipped off U.S. troops.
I bet nobody would find my WMD's if I had that much sand in my backyard!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.