The Iraq Thread 2

[booradley60 0]

Uh-oh, momma jokes.  The mods are going to go crazy.

Seriously guys, I'd like to stray from the same old arguments but can we please bring up new Iraq-related debates and not turn this valuable thread into a flame war?

[FSPilot 0]

Something the should of done a long, long time ago.

Great work guys, I think this thread is sufficiently derailed.

[denoir 0]

and if you want to know what my current position on things is, read what i've been saying.

When you were asked to explain what evidience you refered to you pointed at the old Iraq thread thinking that nobody would have the energy to go through it.

Now, instead of avoiding the issue and vaguely refer to your previous statements, can you please say what evidence you are refering to. The Powell speech? You don't have to provide any links, just stop dodging the issue and tell us what evidence you are refering to.

[SpecOp9 0]

uhhh ohhh, somebody agrees with Tex

COUGH*ME*COUGH!

Damn allergy season...

[FSPilot 0]

When you were asked to explain what evidience you refered to you pointed at the old Iraq thread thinking that nobody would have the energy to go through it.

Now, instead of avoiding the issue and vaguely refer to your previous statements, can you please say what evidence you are refering to. The Powell speech? You don't have to provide any links, just stop dodging the issue and tell us what evidence you are refering to.

Considering the deluge of links I got about the uranium issue I think it was fair.

I'm referring to every shred of evidence the US, UK, and just plain history has shown us in the past. It's all be extensively gone over in the Iraq thread.

[booradley60 0]

*refer to my previous post

[Placebo 28]

I think I'll give you all some time to clear your heads, perhaps when you've cooled down this can be opened tomorrow, in the mean time remember that despite your differences on this forum you're all equal, whether all or none agree with your opinion, speak to each other in a civil manner or not at all.

BN880 I was tempted to give you a PR for the comments you made to FSpilot, on this occasion I will give you a second chance because of your normally good behaviour, tolerance can only go so far.

[denoir 0]

I'm referring to every shred of evidence the US, UK, and just plain history has shown us in the past.  It's all be extensively gone over in the Iraq thread.

It has, when it was presented, but none of it has come true. Then you and others blamed the lack of sucess on Saddams deception and on the incompetence of the UNMOVIC. Now Saddam is gone and the coallition have been in Iraq as long as UNMOVIC this year. And it is this year. It's not 12 years as you try to make it out to be. From 1991 to 1998 UNMOVIC helped dismantle the Iraqi WMD programs and actual weapons. In 1998 there was still stuff unaccounted for and the inspectors felt that they could not continue their work because Saddam was obstructing it.

In 2003 with the threat of war, Saddam agreed to let the inspections continue, without any condition and interference on the Iraqi side. UNMOVIC could quiclkly determine that the stuff that they had put under UN seal in 1991 was still there. Then they started the WMD search for the stuff that was unaccounted for in 1998. They could not find it although they were given full cooperation from Iraq. During this process Iraq showed the UN inspector sites where large quantities of WMD were allegedly destroyed. The war started before all claims could be verified. Two very open possibilites were at the time that 1) the UN estimates of the unaccounted weapons were wrong. 2) Iraq destroyed the unaccounted WMD during 1998-2003.

The war was started because the US and UK governments claimed that the UN inspections were inefficient, too slow and obstructed by Saddam.

Either way, no weapons or evidence of any active WMD program were found. The Bush and Blair governments claimed they had clear evidence. They presented it through a set of reports and the Powell UN presentation. None of their claims have so far been validated, although they have been in Iraq for over three months, with no Saddam in the way, with endlessly more resources and no "incompetent biased" UNMOVIC in the way.

That "evidence" you refer to is not "evidence" nor "proof" since it has not been validated in any way. They are "claims", yet to be verified.

[bn880 5]

Ok it's back up again:

Sorry FSPilot I was a little out of line there, however you know very well no one will stand by as you make them seem like electronic stalkers or worse, furthermore without due reason. I had extremely good reasons for spending an hour collecting your quotes, for a day like today and for the quote fight (I really had nothing better to do at that hour). Can we leave it at that?

Also, when I was saying be quiet and BS I was talking about the accusation that it was stalking and crazy or whatever, not your opinions on the war. I really didn't post that clearly with quotes etc. so it looked much worse than it was.

EDIT: And sorry to everyone for getting the thread closed for a day, I hate to be the dupa.

[FSPilot 0]

Denoir, all I'm saying is that they need more time.  They've been fighting a war and rebuilding a country.  Yes, WMDs is a priority, but not compared to getting the country back up and running.

bn880, this is my fault too and I'm sorry.  It's not like I haven't said stupid things in the past anyway.  I have to admit some of those were funny.

Quote[/b] ]Yes and no.  At least IMO.

[FSPilot 0]

Anyway, back on topic

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92068,00.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON — Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were grilling CIA Director George Tenet (search) Wednesday in a closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill.

Maybe this is the guy who dropped the ball?

[FallenPaladin 0]

Hehe, I didn`t know before that to grill means to ask lots of nasty questions. I thought they made a barbecue with poor Mr. Tenet.

[Akira 0]

Anyway, back on topic

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92068,00.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON — Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were grilling CIA Director George Tenet (search) Wednesday in a closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill.

Maybe this is the guy who dropped the ball?

At least that is who they are saying dropped the ball...publically.

My guess is that it goes way beyond one man just failing to speak up. With a mix of crappy intelligence and Heinrich Rumsfield pushing for war war war...I think there is a lot more to it.

[denoir 0]

Maybe this is the guy who dropped the ball?

Not likely. Intelligence agencies are just tools. Since after the cold war they have not been powerful enough to push their own agendas.

Tenet is just being a good supporter of the administration and takes the blame. As far as the Niger uranium claim, the CIA notified the administration twice about their doubts about it. The Bush administration ignored it. So it's very unfair to let the CIA take the blame for the administration's refusal to listen to their warnings.

In other news: one more US soldier killed today. Pentagon has for the first time acknowledged that the US troops face guerilla warfare.

[Akira 0]

Saw interesting interviews on the news last night. They were interviewing elements of the 3rd Infantry who had just been told that their return stateside had been pushed back....again.

One soldier said he would demand Rumsfield resignation. One said he used to care to help the Iraqi's, but now he just doesn't, he doesn't care about them anymore. One said rather bluntly when asked how morale was "It sucks." One wanted to know why they were still there.

The the Pentagon today in reference to those interviews on the evening news and more on the morning shows, said

Quote[/b] ]In Washington, a Pentagon spokeswoman said she understood the frustration, but said morale was still high. "It's obviously a frustrating situation for some of them, but it does not represent the entire 3rd Division."

She added: "When you get down to the individual soldier level, you can clearly see the dedication."

What planet are they on? You're saying from Washington that their isn't a morale issue? These people don't have a clue. Sinking morale has been highlighted since the day the war ended.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

This is straight out of Good Ol' Boy Politics 101, people. The White House either A) made a mother of a mistake or B) intentionally lied about Iraq in order to start a war. Suddenly someone finds out about it, the media smells blood, and the White House is in deep shit. So what do you do? You find a convenient patsy- in this case, the CIA (who have been a favorite whipping boy ever since the Bay of Pigs). You go to George Tenet, who already had his ass in a crack over the September 11 snafu, and tell him: "Look, you have two choices: either you take the fall for us and continue to enjoy your paycheck and the support of the President, or we make you the biggest pariah in American government since Tricky Dick Nixon, in addition to you losing your job".

Tenet, who is a career beauracrat and has spent most of his life in public service, will of course choose to keep his job and ride out the temporary firestorm that he'll be engulfed in (again). I mean- hey, it beats going down in history as the worst CIA director ever.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Bush has anything but the vaguest idea of what's going on- he's probably better at plausible deniability than even Reagan was. He's got a team of sharp political operators led by Rove who know what it takes to beat a political scandal like this one, while keeping any requisite boat-rocking to a minimum. Hence the equivalent of political gangrape being committed against Tenet, who, despite his failings, has done an okay job given the circumstances.

The key for the White House now, is to convince the media that it was an honest mistake- unfortunately, most sharp Washington reporters right now feel like they're on to something even bigger than Watergate. No administration ever just admits to making a mistake- they will always try to spin it, and this administration has been no exception. So, when an administration does give a wide-open 'mea culpa' like the one that just occurred, the Beltway's little scandal alarm bells start going off. The only reason an administration ever admits to a mistake is when the truth is even more damaging.

So what could be even more damaging at this point than a critical mistake that might have landed us in a war? Why, the possibility that the White House intentionally manufactured a false case in order to go to war in Iraq- a war, by the way, which has cost us and will continue to cost us billions of dollars, and hundreds of American military casualties.

That's instant impeachment material right there. In addition, the US would lose an enormous amount of credibility throughout the world, the war on terror would probably be damaged irrepairably, and Denoir would never let me hear the end of it ( ).

So of course they're hanging Tenet out to dry, but in the nicest and gentlest way possible- maybe because Tenet could turn around and burn them by testifying in front of Congress about how the Bush Administration forced a war? I don't know, and the only people who do know are Tenet and senior Bush Administration officials.

I have no evidence of any of this other than pure circumstantial stuff and my own observations. But the fact that as shrewd an operator as Karl Rove would willingly accept the credibility hit that admitting a mistake would mean to his boss tells me that there is something a lot more sinister going on.

[denoir 0]

What planet are they on? You're saying from Washington that their isn't a morale issue? These people don't have a clue. Sinking morale has been highlighted since the day the war ended.

Let's hope that those attacking US forces don't start taping their attack or there will be a pullout.

While the number of troops killed isn't consequential at all from a military point of view, there is a psychological problem.

The Iraqis were supposed to be liberated and to be happy about it. Right now Saddam nostalgia is growing stronger and stronger in Iraq. People would gladly exchange their political freedom (though not that they have any yet) to have electricity and water. Who can blame them? Who gives a damn about freedom of speech when your family doesn't have food on the table?

When the war ended there was a system wide breakdown in Iraq. Just a couple of days before Baghdad fell, electricity and water was functioning. Now, three months after the war ended, it has still not been restored. And it's not getting better.

I saw an interview yesterday with a man from Baghdad who was occupied by removing telephone cables from the ground. He could sell them and buy food for his family. The US troops are occupied by protecting themselves and have no interest in stopping it. Things are not getting better in Iraq, they are getting worse. There could however not be a worse thing than a US pullout. That would be disasterous to Iraq as the country is in total chaos.

The current activity of the US troops is however not nearly enough to restore the country.

[denoir 0]

@ July 16 2003,23:08)]This is straight out of Good Ol' Boy Politics 101, people. The White House either A) made a mother of a mistake or B) intentionally lied about Iraq in order to start a war.

Option A) had perhaps been possible (although very unlikely considering the magnitude of mistake that would have been necessary) had the prelude of the war been clean and by the book.

It was anything but clean. We were shown badly forged documents, a 12 year old grad student thesis plagiarized and presented as "current evidence". UN inspectors were criticised for not finding anything and then sent of on wild goose chases. UN officials were bugged. Etc etc etc

The campaign for war was in no way fair and clean, so it is not very much of a surprise that the pre-war claims have not been confirmed.

[SgtBarnes 0]

Baghdadis polled

Quote[/b] ]Baghdad is on a knife-edge. Three in four of its residents say the city is now more dangerous than when Saddam Hussein was in power.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Let me reiterate if the US and UK administrations don't come up with the proof of WMD it does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour) or were stupid (criminal neglegence) both are resignation matters in a true democracy and if they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

I feel the adminstrations have until the end of September to come up with proof of WMD or their legitimacy as administrations is lost.

I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitamacy if they atempt to remain in power without finding the WMD. So we will have to lose these lame duck administrations in that case.  It is a cheaper option than having them continue on unable to govern.

At the very least Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the adminstrations. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an adminstration that fails to come up with proof of WMD have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before I pay for it.

We then come to the matter of investigating a possable war crime this would be for the future Iraqi government or better a referendum of the Iraqis to decide. It may well be that such a government decides that the removal of Sadam was worth while venture.

They have to pull their fingers out and find that WMD to stand a chance of staying in power and prevent our taxpayers from having to cough up for their (mistakes or lie) does not matter which.

Kind Regards Walker

[FSPilot 0]

That's a very interesting survey they did.

The Iraqi people think Iraq is more dangerous than it was under Saddam Hussein, but most of them think the US/UK should stay.

[ralphwiggum 6]

That's a very interesting survey they did.

The Iraqi people think Iraq is more dangerous than it was under Saddam Hussein, but most of them think the US/UK should stay.

because without current Coalition force, it could get worse. it is volatile as is, and if US/UK pull out, there is a big vaccum in public law enforcement.

[Schoeler 0]

Tex. I think your dead on. There are already impeachment rumblings in Washington, and with the election year coming up, I think the democrats smell the possibility of winning oh say about the next six administrations in a row, if they can prove the President and his henchmen lied to the American people. This is not going to go away. Also, they have to be somewhat nice to Tenet, imagine how badly he could burn them all, and not just on the war issue. Like good old J. Edgar, any CIA or FBI director worth his salt, probably has a nice little collection of personal portfolios on everybody important. And, then there's the whole issue of what happened the last time a President fucked with the CIA. Sure we all believe it was a lone gunman, right!

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's hope Tenet is not a crossdresser

true. CIA can be a servant of administration, but also can be the one that tells dirty little secrets like a servant.

[FSPilot 0]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]because without current Coalition force, it could get worse. it is volatile as is, and if US/UK pull out, there is a big vaccum in public law enforcement.

Nah, it's because we're so charming.

Shoeler

Quote[/b] ]Tex.  I think your dead on.  There are already impeachment rumblings in Washington, and with the election year coming up, I think the democrats smell the possibility of winning oh say about the next six administrations in a row, if they can prove the President and his henchmen lied to the American people.  This is not going to go away.  Also, they have to be somewhat nice to Tenet, imagine how badly he could burn them all, and not just on the war issue.  Like good old J. Edgar, any CIA or FBI director worth his salt, probably has a nice little collection of personal portfolios on everybody important.  And, then there's the whole issue of what happened the last time a President fucked with the CIA.  Sure we all believe it was a lone gunman, right!

At the same time keep an eye on the democrats.  All of the ones who supported warring with Iraq when Clinton was in office are now doing a 180 and criticising the president.

Typical washington stuff.  But you just know rush limbaugh is eating it up.