AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where are the WMD? Well....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where are the WMD? Well.... - Page 4  

post #121 of 190
3/28/05 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I recently met an individual that has close ties to the so-called intel community. Former spec-ops.

I asked him about the war in Iraq and specifically if he thought that we were justified. He immediately said "yes"

He then said that the intel was very shaky and anyone could have made of the intel what they wanted. He conveyed that Bush knew what needed to be done with SH, saw the opportunity and took it.

I asked him if he thought bush lied. He said no.

He said he had err on the side of the president. Plain and simple.

There was an article about this subjecti in Time magazine one year ago. They said basically the same : some Pentagone's Hawks wanted to see reports showing WOMD, and they've got it. In fact this reports showed signs that there was WOMD in Iraq, but like all secret reports, it should have been taken with a grain of salt.
This is not blattant lie, but partiality : they wanted to believe
post #122 of 190
3/28/05 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The failures that led to the war in Iraq weren't in the intelligence community, they were in the Bush administration. Namely, Bush himself.

You cannot shove that off on the intelligence community. The US intelligence community was conflicted and the International intelligence community was saying the weapons weren't there.



No, it's not like saying that at all.
It's like saying, "There are oranges in Florida, there are Democrats in Florida, so Democrats could get a lot of oranges."

The fact that terrorists are in Syria doesn't prove they have Iraq's moved WMD, you're right, and I never said it did.

Here was my question:
If they are in Syria, wouldn't they then be within reach of terrorists? Wouldn't the war, then, have achieved the goal we were most afraid of?

Syria is home to many international terrorists.
Iraq was home to no international terrorists (it is now, of course).

If the WMD were moved from Iraq to Syria, they moved from a no-terrorist area to a lots-of-terrorists area. Am I wrong in saying that?

Convoys of trucks left Iraq BEFORE the war. If they were not full of banned materials what was in them?

If you can answer definitively that question, then I will concede the point. If you can't that means ANYTHING could have been on those trucks. ANYTHING.

Also, the entirety of Iraq is still not under complete control of coalition forces. So for you to claim that it was just weeks after the invasion is wrong.
post #123 of 190
3/28/05 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Convoys of trucks left Iraq BEFORE the war. If they were not full of banned materials what was in them?

Was this behavior odd? Do you have any kind of proof?

Quote:
If you can answer definitively that question, then I will concede the point. If you can't that means ANYTHING could have been on those trucks. ANYTHING.

Alien bones, perhaps?

Quote:
Also, the entirety of Iraq is still not under complete control of coalition forces. So for you to claim that it was just weeks after the invasion is wrong.

What on earth are you talking about, dear heart?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #124 of 190
3/28/05 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, that's the point, isn't it? Bush (and the rest of the NeoCons in the administration) needed/wanted/wished to/desired/had a boner for doing something about SH and with Iraq. For a variety for reasons. The problem is that they needed an excuse.

And that's what the WMD argument was.

I can't believe you guys are still discussing this.

No, my friend, the argument is that ANY weapons or technology SH may have had could easily be passed onto terrorist groups, that have vowed death to America.

This is STILL an issue until it is proven that Syria is not harboring those very same weapons. There are serious questions that need to be answered before that possibility can be dismissed.

Fell free to dismiss if you must, though.
post #125 of 190
3/28/05 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Convoys of trucks left Iraq BEFORE the war. If they were not full of banned materials what was in them?

Man. You're hysterical.

Ok. I'll bite.

Here is a list of 10 things that might have been on those trucks:

1) bananas
2) condoms
3) recycles six-pack rings.
4) christians
5) penguins
6) hamburgers
7) Hall and Oates albums from the 80s
8) iBooks
9) Bibles
10) wmd

they might have been carrying sailboat fuel
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #126 of 190
3/28/05 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No, my friend, the argument is that ANY weapons or technology SH may have had could easily be passed onto terrorist groups, that have vowed death to America.

This is STILL an issue until it is proven that Syria is not harboring those very same weapons. There are serious questions that need to be answered before that possibility can be dismissed.

Fell free to dismiss if you must, though.

Once again however this is all speculation with no substance. Also for Saddam to have gotten rid of them so completely there couldn't have been much. But I think it's much more likely that there was nothing to find.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #127 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No, my friend, the argument is that ANY weapons or technology SH may have had could easily be passed onto terrorist groups, that have vowed death to America.

This is STILL an issue until it is proven that Syria is not harboring those very same weapons. There are serious questions that need to be answered before that possibility can be dismissed.

Fell free to dismiss if you must, though.

I don't think you understood my point. It goes like this:

1) Bush and the NeoCons want to control Iraq because if they can install a democracy in Iraq, other countries in the region will play nice.
2) Oh, and there's shitloads of oil.
3) But we can't just go storming in there. We need an excuse.
4) 9/11 happens.
5) About 10 minutes after invading Afghanistan, Bush starts talking about Iraq.
6) They try all kinds of arguments to see what gets traction and finally settle on WMD.

Now here's the brilliant part:

7) WHO'S GOING TO ARGUE AGAINST IT? Anyone who says "Nah. Let's just let'em be" will be shouted down by the legions of paranoid people! The terrified populace will make the arguments for them!

8) Start making all kinds of wild claims about WMD in Iraq.
9) Invade Iraq.
10) Control Iraq just like you wanted. Forget about WMD for the most part. If pressed, say "Oops! But the world is a safer place blah blah blah" and sleep soundly in the knowledge that legions of faithful terrified people will still be making your argument for you.

It's simple. You got lied to for what the admin felt was the greater good of controlling Iraq, and even the administration has stopped talking about this.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #128 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Convoys of trucks left Iraq BEFORE the war. If they were not full of banned materials what was in them?

If you can answer definitively that question, then I will concede the point. If you can't that means ANYTHING could have been on those trucks. ANYTHING.

Also, the entirety of Iraq is still not under complete control of coalition forces. So for you to claim that it was just weeks after the invasion is wrong.

I expect this is not true. Because if it was the case, it will mean that US secret services and the people who rule US are very bad professionals.

They go to war on a technicallity(the WOMD) and just before they enter in Iraq, they let fade away the WOMD. That will mean that US secret services are a collander, a collander of trucks and WOMD.
post #129 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:07pm
I recently met an individual that has close ties to the so-called intel community. Former spec-ops.

I asked him about the war in Iraq and specifically if he thought that we were justified. He immediately said "no"

He then said that the intel was very shaky and anyone could have made of the intel what they wanted and YET we still invaded anyway. He conveyed that Bush knew what needed to be done with SH, saw the opportunity and took it irregardless of everything else.

I asked him if he thought bush lied. He said DUH.


Give me a break.

Is this the next big thing with the Bush "Fans"? Make up meaningless annecdotal claims?

My imaginary friend "Phillip" once beat Jordan one-on-one.
post #130 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
I recently met an individual that has close ties to the so-called intel community. Former spec-ops.

I asked him about the war in Iraq and specifically if he thought that we were justified. He immediately said "no"

He then said that the intel was very shaky and anyone could have made of the intel what they wanted and YET we still invaded anyway. He conveyed that Bush knew what needed to be done with SH, saw the opportunity and took it irregardless of everything else.

I asked him if he thought bush lied. He said DUH.


Give me a break.

Is this the next big thing with the Bush "Fans"? Make up meaningless annecdotal claims?

My imaginary friend "Phillip" once beat Jordan one-on-one.

You don't believe me, fine.

But I would respectfully ask that you stay away from attacking my character, if you expect the same courtesy be afforded to you.

It was an account of an actual conversation that i had with someone "in the know" to some extent. They were his opinions, obviously.

His statements were not exactly all flattering to the intel community or the president. So you implying that I am a blind "Fan" is wrong. I could have left that out more easily than taking the time and effort to type it.
post #131 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You don't believe me, fine.
But I would respectfully ask that you stay away from attacking my character, if you expect the same courtesy be afforded to you.

Lighten up. I didn't attack your character. Please stop insulting our intelligence with posts like the previous one. Thanks.
post #132 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Once again however this is all speculation with no substance. Also for Saddam to have gotten rid of them so completely there couldn't have been much. But I think it's much more likely that there was nothing to find.

You think, I think, we all think things.

Perhaps, you are 100% right. In which case I am glad. You should be working for the CIA. But things are not that simple, are they?

Let's state some FACTS:

1.) SH had WMD at some point.
2.) SH USED WMD in the past.
3.) SH vowed publicly to attack the US by any means possible.
4.) When confronted by the world, he lied and deceived about the true state of WMD in Iraq.
5.) Tons of Iraqi government paperwork was destroyed immediately prior to the invasion.

These facts should raise red flags with any of you, unless you hate the US or don't care.

Now here are the things that are much harder to prove and are still in question:

1.) SH fully disclosed the full status of WMD in Iraq.
2.) SH moved WMD into Syria.
3.) SH dismantled his whole WMD capacities before the War.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. (I mean, I really hope), and the point is;

There are legitimate questions STILL about WMD and WMD technology in Iraq. It would be foolhardy to just dismiss all but the possibilities that happen to align with your political world view.

For example, I have stated many times that lack of WMD will not influence my stance on the invasion of Iraq. There were PLENTY of other reasons to topple him.

You however, will have to reevaluate your stance, to one extent or another, if they do find WMD attached to Iraq. Lack of WMD is really the only thing left for the left, unless you are a "all war is bad" activist.
post #133 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:46pm
Naples, I am totally digging your techniques.

Let me try:

Just before the US invasion of Iraq, phone calls were made. Many, many phone calls. What was discussed?

We know about some of the conversations, but there were millions of phone calls that went unrecorded. Literally anything could have been discussed, including plans to move weapons of mass destruction to Syria.

Gentlemen, here we have the crux of the matter. Untill you can show me conclusively that moving weapons of mass destruction to Syria was not discussed in any of the millions of disturbingly undocumented phone calls made just prior to the invasion, it seems clear that we will have to provisionally give our assent to the possibility, if not actual likelihood, that that was in fact what happened. To say nothing of the complete lack of proof that they are not there.

Now, moving on to the still not proven to be false disproportionate presence of time travelers holding upper management positions with the DMV........
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #134 of 190
3/28/05 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Lighten up. I didn't attack your character. Please stop insulting our intelligence with posts like the previous one. Thanks.

What's wrong with saying something like "I don't believe you."

To the point and you avoid that childish name calling, and innuendoes and any confusion whatsoever.

Just saying.
post #135 of 190
3/28/05 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX What's wrong with saying something like "I don't believe you."
To the point and you avoid that childish name calling, and innuendoes and any confusion whatsoever.
Just saying.

Nothing wrong at all. Except the amount of time wasted in pointing out the obvious. You believe whatever you want about Bush and WMDs and the invasion of Iraq....against all common sense and against all facts.
Quote:
These facts should raise red flags with any of you, unless you hate the US .

I'd address that nonsense with the merit it deserves, but I'd probably get banned.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill
post #136 of 190
3/28/05 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I recently met an individual that has close ties to the so-called intel community. Former spec-ops.

so-called is right, because 'spec-ops' guys only know what they need to. I have coworkers, family and multiple friends that have been or are currently rangers and seals and it's a whole different world than analysts. Even the computer folks in my family who worked with intel while serving only dealt with tactical intel. As far as analysts go, there's a reason why the bush admin has been trying to flush the CIA and that's because the analysts overwhelmingly had more insight. Hence all of the leaks and outspoken CIA guys.

As far as policy and WMD intel, the US relied on UN inspectors for virtually everything. All hard numbers came from the inspections. Even when not explicitly stated, everything of value can be traced back to the inspections and everything else, like the forgeries and powell presentation, turned out false.

Repeating your false beliefs over and over doesn't make them any less wrong, naples.
post #137 of 190
3/28/05 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You think, I think, we all think things.

Perhaps, you are 100% right. In which case I am glad. You should be working for the CIA. But things are not that simple, are they?

Let's state some FACTS:

1.) SH had WMD at some point.
2.) SH USED WMD in the past.
3.) SH vowed publicly to attack the US by any means possible.
4.) When confronted by the world, he lied and deceived about the true state of WMD in Iraq.
5.) Tons of Iraqi government paperwork was destroyed immediately prior to the invasion.

These facts should raise red flags with any of you, unless you hate the US or don't care.

Now here are the things that are much harder to prove and are still in question:

1.) SH fully disclosed the full status of WMD in Iraq.
2.) SH moved WMD into Syria.
3.) SH dismantled his whole WMD capacities before the War.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. (I mean, I really hope), and the point is;

There are legitimate questions STILL about WMD and WMD technology in Iraq. It would be foolhardy to just dismiss all but the possibilities that happen to align with your political world view.

For example, I have stated many times that lack of WMD will not influence my stance on the invasion of Iraq. There were PLENTY of other reasons to topple him.

You however, will have to reevaluate your stance, to one extent or another, if they do find WMD attached to Iraq. Lack of WMD is really the only thing left for the left, unless you are a "all war is bad" activist.


Nappy, Nappy, Nappy..........

I love the U.S.!

That's why I'm so disturbed about this war being started on a false premise. The fact that Saddam was a minor thorn in the side ( among many ) isn't the issue here. This war would not have happened if it hadn't been for the weapons issue. That's how it was sold to everybody that went along. There wouldn't have been enough support without it.

That is what the crux of the matter is.

If they find weapons that without a doubt came from Iraq that posed a threat to the U. S. I'd feel better about it. I really don't think that's a real possibility however.

By the way I'm not surprised that paper work was destroyed in an invasion and that there were lots of phone calls. That stuff happens in every invasion.

Also I have no doubt that Saddam had some WMD at one time but how long has it been since he used them? Also how were they a threat to us over here?

By the way lots of angry leaders have threaten to attack us.

At this point there really isn't proof needed because when we got into Iraq there was nothing to find. The inspectors before and after the war said there was nothing to find.

That's really where it sits right now and I don't think it has much chance of changing. So using deductive reasoning which is the more likely possibility? Right now and for the forseeable future it looks like he didn't have any WMD and that this war was started on a falsehood.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #138 of 190
3/28/05 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
By the way lots of angry leaders have threaten to attack us.

Really? Who? (Outside of terrorists.)

I've heard angry leaders threaten to turn the field of battle into flames of blood, blah blah, but that was all in reply to an American invasion. Some leaders have actually threatened to invade or attack us? That's some crazy talk there.
post #139 of 190
3/28/05 at 8:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Really? Who? (Outside of terrorists.)

I've heard angry leaders threaten to turn the field of battle into flames of blood, blah blah, but that was all in reply to an American invasion. Some leaders have actually threatened to invade or attack us? That's some crazy talk there.


Pounding his shoe on the table : " We will bury you! ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #140 of 190
3/29/05 at 4:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The failures that led to the war in Iraq weren't in the intelligence community, they were in the Bush administration. Namely, Bush himself.

You cannot shove that off on the intelligence community. The US intelligence community was conflicted and the International intelligence community was saying the weapons weren't there.



No, it's not like saying that at all.
It's like saying, "There are oranges in Florida, there are Democrats in Florida, so Democrats could get a lot of oranges."

The fact that terrorists are in Syria doesn't prove they have Iraq's moved WMD, you're right, and I never said it did.

Here was my question:
If they are in Syria, wouldn't they then be within reach of terrorists? Wouldn't the war, then, have achieved the goal we were most afraid of?

Syria is home to many international terrorists.
Iraq was home to no international terrorists (it is now, of course).

If the WMD were moved from Iraq to Syria, they moved from a no-terrorist area to a lots-of-terrorists area. Am I wrong in saying that?

Ahh, now we get to it. While you're talking about my blind polarization, you're making statements like in sentence #1 above. The fact is that you don't know what Bush knew. You didn't see what he saw. You didn't have the Clinton appointed CIA director telling you that the case for Saddam having weapons was a slam dunk. Imagine for a second that you were George Bush in the days after 9/11. You know Saddam is hostile in a region of the world that s a hotbed of terrorism and general instability. You know that Saddam has violated UN resolutions for years. He's violated the 1991 ceasefire. He's tortured his own people. He's openly praised 9/11, and in the very least he tolerated terrorist operations within his country. So you push for weaspons inspections to resume (the same ones that Saddam basically ended by frustrating inspectors). Saddam then violates the UN's final mandate by not cooperating fully. Now goverat, what do you do? These were intel failures, plain and simple.

To answer your question, well yes, you might be right. However, as I've said many times, there were a lot of good reasons for the war IMO, so I don't think it would invalidate the whole operation just because the weapons were in a country where terrorists operate.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #141 of 190
3/29/05 at 4:37am
Quote:
Now goverat, what do you do? These were intel failures, plain and simple.

What do I do? I follow the recommendation of UNMOVIC and press for further inspections and I work with my allies.

What a crazy notion that is, eh?

It was not a failure of intelligence, it was a leadership failure. Powell trotted out a huge pack of lies to the US. He may have believed them, but I doubt it. Not ONE of the USs claims was found to be true when they gave information to inspectors. Blix repeatedly asked for all the WMD intelligence he could get and all he got were wild goose chases. And this was before the war.

Youre telling me that it is reasonable for a president to commit to a war based on intelligence that was consistently turning up nothing?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #142 of 190
3/29/05 at 5:27am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ahh, now we get to it. While you're talking about my blind polarization, you're making statements like in sentence #1 above. The fact is that you don't know what Bush knew. You didn't see what he saw. You didn't have the Clinton appointed CIA director telling you that the case for Saddam having weapons was a slam dunk. Imagine for a second that you were George Bush in the days after 9/11. You know Saddam is hostile in a region of the world that s a hotbed of terrorism and general instability. You know that Saddam has violated UN resolutions for years. He's violated the 1991 ceasefire. He's tortured his own people. He's openly praised 9/11, and in the very least he tolerated terrorist operations within his country. So you push for weaspons inspections to resume (the same ones that Saddam basically ended by frustrating inspectors). Saddam then violates the UN's final mandate by not cooperating fully. Now goverat, what do you do? These were intel failures, plain and simple.

To answer your question, well yes, you might be right. However, as I've said many times, there were a lot of good reasons for the war IMO, so I don't think it would invalidate the whole operation just because the weapons were in a country where terrorists operate.

Except the reason that the war happened at all was because of something that didn't exist. Pure and simple


No threat = not enough support. Get it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #143 of 190
3/29/05 at 6:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What do I do? I follow the recommendation of UNMOVIC and press for further inspections and I work with my allies.

What a crazy notion that is, eh?

It was not a failure of intelligence, it was a leadership failure. Powell trotted out a huge pack of lies to the US. He may have believed them, but I doubt it. Not ONE of the USs claims was found to be true when they gave information to inspectors. Blix repeatedly asked for all the WMD intelligence he could get and all he got were wild goose chases. And this was before the war.

Youre telling me that it is reasonable for a president to commit to a war based on intelligence that was consistently turning up nothing?

OMFG!

More inspections!?!?

Why in the name of GAWD would you do that? Saddam never cooperated with weapons inspectors fully. Why would he do it "now", even after a "last chance" round of inspections? I think you, and a lot of other folks out there misunderstand the purpose of weapons inspections. The purpose is not to have a scavenger hunt for weapons. The purpose to to confirm the voluntary disarmament of a nation.
The weaspons inspections were also backed by a little thing called resolution 1441, which threatened "serious consequences" of Saddam did not comply fully. there isn't much question that he violated it. In light of recent sanctions, limited military strikes, etc, what else do you think "serious consequences" meant?

And really, you'd work with our allies? Which ones? The ones that had ongoing business with Saddam? Or the ones that had ongoing business with Saddam AND may have been helping him defeat the inspectors? Or, the ones that had ongoing business with Saddam, were helping him defeat the inspectors and were potentially arming him as well?

Finally, the intelligence was not turing up "nothing". He was being told that there was no question. How do you explain Tenet's comment? It all points to intel failure and nothing more.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #144 of 190
3/29/05 at 7:03am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Except the reason that the war happened at all was because of something that didn't exist. Pure and simple


No threat = not enough support. Get it?

Oh really? It didn't exist? that's what the whole thread was based on. The possibility that the weapons did exist, even right up to the point of invasion.

And as for the war, it was not sold on the sole basis of WMD. It was a major part, but Iraq was also amsassing a laundry list of other violations, such as the final UN resolution, firing on our aircraft, attempting the asassination of a former president, tolerating if not aiding terrorism, etc. If you ask me, the real mistake the Bush administration made was focusing too heavily on WMD, because there were a ton of other reasons to go in there.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #145 of 190
3/29/05 at 7:07am
Quote:
Why in the name of GAWD would you do that? Saddam never cooperated with weapons inspectors fully.

His full cooperation wouldn't be necessary to get a solid evaluation of the WMD situation in Iraq.

Read the UNMOVIC reports.

Quote:
Why would he do it "now", even after a "last chance" round of inspections?

What does "last chance" mean? Who said it was "last chance"?

Quote:
I think you, and a lot of other folks out there misunderstand the purpose of weapons inspections. The purpose is not to have a scavenger hunt for weapons. The purpose to to confirm the voluntary disarmament of a nation.

When did I say the purpose was a "scavenger hunt for weapons"? Not once. It is straw man after straw man with you.

Quote:
The weaspons inspections were also backed by a little thing called resolution 1441, which threatened "serious consequences" of Saddam did not comply fully. there isn't much question that he violated it. In light of recent sanctions, limited military strikes, etc, what else do you think "serious consequences" meant?

I remember the build-up to war. I was the pro-war person on this board that actually took time to read the resolutions and UNMOVIC reports, remember? Think carefully.

Show me where in 1441 war is authorized. It's not there.

1441 calls for the Security Council to meet again when UNMOVIC and IAEA reports on Iraq are delivered. You might want to read it before trolling condescendingly.

Quote:
And really, you'd work with our allies? Which ones? The ones that had ongoing business with Saddam? Or the ones that had ongoing business with Saddam AND may have been helping him defeat the inspectors? Or, the ones that had ongoing business with Saddam, were helping him defeat the inspectors and were potentially arming him as well?

We agreed with 1441 and we should have lived up to our end of the bargain. We didn't.

Quote:
Finally, the intelligence was not turing up "nothing". He was being told that there was no question. How do you explain Tenet's comment? It all points to intel failure and nothing more.

There were piles of reports and evidence and testimony and you only have a third-party account of one phrase from Tenet. That's all you have.

The US has had endless opportunities to show any kind of evidence. It's coming up on 3 years later, and nothing. Nothing.

And loyalists like you still try to keep it alive with threads like this. There is a mountain range of evidence against you and you cling to one second-hand quote.

Here's what I make of Tenet's comment: That was Bush offering Tenet up as a scapegoat.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #146 of 190
3/29/05 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Pounding his shoe on the table : " We will bury you! ".

A reference to Kruschev 40 years ago? Anybody more relevant to the times?

Just want to make sure you are framing the argument correctly. No nation, no leader of a sovereign nation would be stupid enough to "attack us" or even make statement to the effect. Just wondering who the crazy guys were in your comments. Maybe I missed something.
post #147 of 190
3/29/05 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Except the reason that the war happened at all was because of something that didn't exist. Pure and simple


No threat = not enough support. Get it?

Am I the only one that understands that "perceived threat" is often different than "actual threat"?

You guys seem to be stuck on the fact that GWB made an executive decision. Groverat, UNMOVIC's suggestions are just that, suggestions. The US is not tied to follow UN suggestions when it comes to it's own national security. SDW laid out the circumstances as they were then, in an easy to understand way. There was a definite "perceived threat" by GWB, Arguing using the benefit of hindsight is disingenuous. It may be that you were right. But a leader confronts threats as they present themselves. They don't have the luxury of "let's wait and see if this materializes." 9/11 put an end to that way of thinking.

I don't see too many leaders that would disagree with the fact that SH needed to be dealt with in one manner or the other. GWB made the difficult decision to just deal with him now. Executives are there to make the difficult decisions, that's what we put them there for.

Yet another report on Iraq states that intel was bad, not that Bush lied. It looks more and more that he just made decisions based on info that he had available to him. It's hard to fault a guy for doing his job. (I know, I know, not for you)

So, perhaps, both sides are right - SH's WMD threat was less than originally thought and GWB made his decision based on the original assessment.
post #148 of 190
3/29/05 at 1:02pm
The Army is struggling to meet enlistment quotas as we speak. Just a few days ago the Army increased the enlisting age to 39 for that same reason.

Now is your chance to show your love for your country and the current administration.
Put your money where your mouth is.

You question the "anti-war" people's patriotism. Show them yours!

Show them what they would be doing if they didn't hate their country!
Here's your chance to be "true" patriots!

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

Any takers? Hello? Hello?
post #149 of 190
3/29/05 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
The Army is struggling to meet enlistment quotas as we speak. Just a few days ago the Army increased the enlisting age to 39 for that same reason.

Now is your chance to show your love for your country and the current administration.
Put your money where your mouth is.

You question the "anti-war" people's patriotism. Show them yours!

Show them what they would be doing if they didn't hate their country!
Here's your chance to be "true" patriots!

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

Any takers? Hello? Hello?

You went from WMD to enlisting the Army...

Is that an attempt to derail the discussion or perhaps stop it altogether?

You sound like a very coherent and reasonable person there...
post #150 of 190
3/29/05 at 2:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
His full cooperation wouldn't be necessary to get a solid evaluation of the WMD situation in Iraq.

Read the UNMOVIC reports.



What does "last chance" mean? Who said it was "last chance"?



When did I say the purpose was a "scavenger hunt for weapons"? Not once. It is straw man after straw man with you.



I remember the build-up to war. I was the pro-war person on this board that actually took time to read the resolutions and UNMOVIC reports, remember? Think carefully.

Show me where in 1441 war is authorized. It's not there.

1441 calls for the Security Council to meet again when UNMOVIC and IAEA reports on Iraq are delivered. You might want to read it before trolling condescendingly.



We agreed with 1441 and we should have lived up to our end of the bargain. We didn't.



There were piles of reports and evidence and testimony and you only have a third-party account of one phrase from Tenet. That's all you have.

The US has had endless opportunities to show any kind of evidence. It's coming up on 3 years later, and nothing. Nothing.

And loyalists like you still try to keep it alive with threads like this. There is a mountain range of evidence against you and you cling to one second-hand quote.

Here's what I make of Tenet's comment: That was Bush offering Tenet up as a scapegoat.

"Saddam's full cooperation wasn't necessary"

What? How can you make that statement? Saddam toyed with inspectors for years. He denied them access, delayed them, and did everything he could to appear to be complying while not actually complying. His cooperation was needed and mandated.

Last chance: Um, resolution 1441 itself did say that: Here:

Quote:
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;

Scavenger Hunt: You're right, you didn't use that term. But can you argue effectively that this is not how you feel about the situation? It certainly seems you do. Your arguments were, in part, based on the fact that inspectors had not found anything and that there was not anything to find. Correct?

1441 Authorizing War: It doesn't explicity state it, and I would also disagree that the UN has the moral authority to authorize war anyway. It's more like "sanctioning". In any case, the implication of this statement is clear:


Quote:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Let that entire statement sink in for a second. In all seriousness, I think you're one of the few people here I disagree with that can comprehend it. Look at it: "In that context...the council has repeatedly warned...will face serious consequences of it's continued violations of its obligations. That statement carries unbelievable meaning and weight. The council is saying that Iraq has been hit with every punishment other than full out war. Sanctions, resolutions and even limited military strikes. Yet, it threatens serious consequences this time. I ask you...what else could that possibly mean?

As for us not living up to our end of the bargain, that doesn't make sense. IRAQ had to live up to international demands. It was no bargain, and it certainly wasn't our obligation to live up to it.

As for your analysis of me being a loyalist, that's really laughable. What you fail to understand is that from my viewpoint, "finding weapons" was never the standard for war. Saddam's cooperation was, in addition to the other reasons that I have listed. There is no question he didn't cooperate. Game over.

That being said, I still think that there is a good possibility that Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion. It's not about justifying anything. I'm not sure what motive I would have in that. The election is over, after all.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #151 of 190
3/29/05 at 2:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
The Army is struggling to meet enlistment quotas as we speak. Just a few days ago the Army increased the enlisting age to 39 for that same reason.

Now is your chance to show your love for your country and the current administration.
Put your money where your mouth is.

You question the "anti-war" people's patriotism. Show them yours!

Show them what they would be doing if they didn't hate their country!
Here's your chance to be "true" patriots!

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

Any takers? Hello? Hello?

Yeah really, that's off topic and a pretty sleazy tactic to boot.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
post #152 of 190
3/29/05 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You went from WMD to enlisting the Army...
Is that an attempt to derail the discussion or perhaps stop it altogether?
You sound like a very coherent and reasonable person there...

I'm not surprised at your lame reaction to "derailing the discussion". You must know cause you're pretty damn good at it as you've been told quite a few times in here by other members.

Here's the deal Naples. Earlier on you implied that if we didn't agree with your take on some "facts" you provided, we either didn't care or we hated the US. Do I need to quote it to you?

By your reaction to my previous post I'm sure that it's pretty obvious you already enlisted. I have no doubt about it since, unlike those who disagree with you, you love our country. Am I right?
post #153 of 190
3/29/05 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
]Yeah really, that's off topic and a pretty sleazy tactic to boot.

Yeah, very sleazy. Did you enlist yet SDW? No doubt you and Naples were the first in line.

We've been off-topic for a few pages now.

The topic was a whacky "theory", that was throughly debunked in no time, that WMDs were moved by special Russian forces prior to the invasion. Coincidentally, Naples had already posted links to similar articles by the same tools Mauro and Shaw.

Well, I guess trying to help the country's armed forces recruit brave men is sleazy.
post #154 of 190
3/29/05 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Am I the only one that understands that "perceived threat" is often different than "actual threat"?

You guys seem to be stuck on the fact that GWB made an executive decision. Groverat, UNMOVIC's suggestions are just that, suggestions. The US is not tied to follow UN suggestions when it comes to it's own national security. SDW laid out the circumstances as they were then, in an easy to understand way. There was a definite "perceived threat" by GWB, Arguing using the benefit of hindsight is disingenuous. It may be that you were right. But a leader confronts threats as they present themselves. They don't have the luxury of "let's wait and see if this materializes." 9/11 put an end to that way of thinking.

I don't see too many leaders that would disagree with the fact that SH needed to be dealt with in one manner or the other. GWB made the difficult decision to just deal with him now. Executives are there to make the difficult decisions, that's what we put them there for.

Yet another report on Iraq states that intel was bad, not that Bush lied. It looks more and more that he just made decisions based on info that he had available to him. It's hard to fault a guy for doing his job. (I know, I know, not for you)

So, perhaps, both sides are right - SH's WMD threat was less than originally thought and GWB made his decision based on the original assessment.


Funny I seem to remember Bush being pretty specific about the " Threat " part. Yet do to " Security concerns " vague enough to leave room for speculation. Neither proved true.

It remains however that without the threat aspect this war wouldn't have hasd enough support to get off the ground. It's what sold everyone. And now it appears there was no threat to us in the continental U. S.

This is what everyone thought and if that wasn't what Mr. Bush meant then he should have clarified it. It was clear enough that's what everyone was thinking. That is except for those of us who knew it was very unlikely.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #155 of 190
3/29/05 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
A reference to Kruschev 40 years ago? Anybody more relevant to the times?

Just want to make sure you are framing the argument correctly. No nation, no leader of a sovereign nation would be stupid enough to "attack us" or even make statement to the effect. Just wondering who the crazy guys were in your comments. Maybe I missed something.

What it showed is you don't attack a braggard without more reason. The times are irrelavent in this instance.

By the way it was crazy enough back then. In the early 60's we ( and the Soviets also ) already had enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy all life on the planet many times over. So what makes it more crazy today?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #156 of 190
3/29/05 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh really? It didn't exist? that's what the whole thread was based on. The possibility that the weapons did exist, even right up to the point of invasion.

And as for the war, it was not sold on the sole basis of WMD. It was a major part, but Iraq was also amsassing a laundry list of other violations, such as the final UN resolution, firing on our aircraft, attempting the asassination of a former president, tolerating if not aiding terrorism, etc. If you ask me, the real mistake the Bush administration made was focusing too heavily on WMD, because there were a ton of other reasons to go in there.

" possibility " and not very likely without more evidence.

This war would not have had the support it needed to get by all the nay sayers of the time. I know that and what's more Bush knew that. All the other stuff wouldn't have made it possible without large repercussions. People were protesting this if you'll remember. People in government also. And yes they made a mistake using a fact that wasn't ( and probably isn't ) verifiable. It's the only thing that tipped the scales. The other stuff wouldn't have done it. That's why Bush used it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #157 of 190
3/29/05 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
By the way it was crazy enough back then. In the early 60's we ( and the Soviets also ) already had enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy all life on the planet many times over. So what makes it more crazy today?

With the Cold War over, no other sovereign nation is capable of destroying us. It's more crazy today because they are assured to be destroyed by us and we would be safe and sound. No leader in their right mind would really say this.

The Soviet Union during the peak of the Cold War could say it without it being seen as a lunacy.
post #158 of 190
3/29/05 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
With the Cold War over, no other sovereign nation is capable of destroying us. It's more crazy today because they are assured to be destroyed by us and we would be safe and sound. No leader in their right mind would really say this.

The Soviet Union during the peak of the Cold War could say it without it being seen as a lunacy.

Excuse me????????

When there is clearly no winner possible how is it even approaching sane? That's what kept things in check or maybe you haven't heard of MAD?

Back to the original point : We didn't attck him for saying it. Attack was a real possibility however when they moved their missiles into Cuba. There unlike Iraq we had a clear threat to the U.S. Get the difference?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #159 of 190
3/29/05 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
With the Cold War over, no other sovereign nation is capable of destroying us. It's more crazy today because they are assured to be destroyed by us and we would be safe and sound.

Don't be so sure Superman. China is coming big way.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
post #160 of 190
3/29/05 at 5:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, very sleazy. Did you enlist yet SDW? No doubt you and Naples were the first in line.

We've been off-topic for a few pages now.

The topic was a whacky "theory", that was throughly debunked in no time, that WMDs were moved by special Russian forces prior to the invasion. Coincidentally, Naples had already posted links to similar articles by the same tools Mauro and Shaw.

Well, I guess trying to help the country's armed forces recruit brave men is sleazy.



So, let me get this straight: Your position is that since Naples and I are not in the military, we are not able to discuss matters of war and peace? And by further implication, we are cowards who love to see other people die but would not risk our own skin? And by yet further implication, this applies to all people who support the war but are not in the military?

Points above put aside for a moment, you apparently understand both my and Naples' personal circumstances that would allow or disallow our entry into the military, correct? For example, you realize that because of two herniated discs in my spine and the three years of treatment associated with them, I would never be allowed to join. Oh, and you also apparently are aware that my skill set is more valuable to the civilian sector than it is to the military at the present time. I hear that they're really hurting for trumpet players over in Iraq! I really should "sign up" as to better serve my country. Come to think of it, you should join too

It's a cheap and slimey argument, not to mention a stupid one.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where are the WMD? Well....