The Iraq thread 4

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary, it is documented that Saddam, a secular dictator had a mutual loathing for the religiously extreme AQ.

I guess he would of been a excellent leader in the war against terror....

Yes he would have. He would have been a great partner. Ruthless as hell and could do various dirty work. In realpolitik terms, he's ideal.

I think they got Islam Karimov working in that department at the moment.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]You invaded their country. If Russia invaded the US, would you not be defending yours?

People talking about me posting BS...

Care to elaborate? You think that Americans have right to defend their country, while Iraqis don't?

Yes, that's obviously what Billybob is thinking.  But God forbid we should call Billybob a racist.

Afterall, how could someone studying criminal justice be a racist?  :rolleyes:

[theavonlady 2]

I see Avon still thinks Islam is whatever Bin Laden or every Muslim villian that crossed this planet is ....

I see you still cannot read English properly. Go through my responses to Ralph and you'll see that I did not say what you accuse me of.

Quote[/b] ]ah well some people never change.

Indeed you haven't.

[Balschoiw 0]

Bush aides built Iraq case on disputed facts

Quote[/b] ]New York Times

10/03/2004

National security adviser

Then-CIA director

They were aware that experts were bitterly divided on any nuclear threat, but they still sounded alarm.

WASHINGTON - In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of President George W. Bush's administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they said Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program.

In a speech to veterans that August, Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam could have an atomic bomb "fairly soon." Bush, addressing the United Nations the next month, said there was "little doubt" about Saddam's appetite for nuclear arms.

The U.S. intelligence community had not yet concluded that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. But as the vice president told a group of Wyoming Republicans that September, the United States had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

"Smoking gun"

The tubes quickly became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States had of Saddam's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, said on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But before Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. As early as 2001, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and a senior administration official, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.

"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that these tubes were for centrifuges."

Rice's alarming description on CNN was in keeping with the administration's overall treatment of the tubes. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

The result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

Tenet comments

In response to questions last week about the tubes, administration officials emphasized two points: First, they said they relied on the repeated assurances of George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the tubes were in fact for centrifuges. Second, they noted that the intelligence community, including the Energy Department, largely agreed that Saddam Hussein had revived his nuclear program.

Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." Regarding the tubes, Tenet said that "alternative views were shared" with the administration after the intelligence community drafted a new National Intelligence Estimate in late September 2002.

But the estimate as a whole, particularly its sections on the tubes and Iraq's nuclear programs, has been largely discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee. After a yearlong investigation, the committee unanimously concluded this summer that most of the estimate's findings about the tubes were either unsupported, overstated or incorrect.

Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources.

Debate over tubes

Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and congressional investigators, reveals a different failure.

Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one congressional investigator described it. That debate, which started in April 2001, produced two competing theories about the tubes. One, championed by the CIA, suggested a new nuclear menace. The other, advanced by the Energy Department, suggested a regime replenishing its rocket supply.

But in the months after 9/11, as the nation moved to war footing, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the CIA assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and even among Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions. That momentum gave urgency to the call for action against Iraq.

"We have a tendency - I don't know if it's part of the American character - to say, 'Well, we'll sit down and we'll evaluate the evidence, we'll draw a conclusion,'" Cheney said as he discussed the tubes on NBC's "Meet the Press" in September 2002.

"But we always think in terms that we've got all the evidence. Here, we don't have all the evidence," he said. "We have 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. We don't know how much. We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."

Additional reporting came from William J. Broad and Jeff Gerth.

In short: Made up !

but still:

CONDI: BAGHDAD WAS A NUKE RISK

Quote[/b] ]October 4, 2004 -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday defended her view of Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities before the Iraq invasion.

She made her remarks as published report said government experts had been doubtful at the time.

Rice said in 2002 that the Iraqi president was trying to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes.

"I stand by to this day the correctness of the decision to take seriously an intelligence assessment that Saddam Hussein would likely have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade" if action wasn't taken.

A newspaper story yesterday quoted officials as saying that Rice's staff were told in 2001 that experts believed the tubes were probably for small artillery rockets — not nuclear weapons.

AP

Funny, huh ?  

And Poland has made a decision:

Poland to pull troops from Iraq by end of 2005: defense minister

Quote[/b] ]Poland will pull its troops out of Iraq (news - web sites) by the end of 2005, when UN resolution 1546 endorsing the timetable for political transition in Iraq expires, Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski says.

"The final date (of our military presence in Iraq) should be that of the expiry of the UN Security Council resolution," in December 2005, the minister said in an interview with Polish public radio.

His comments marked the first time a Polish official has set a precise timetable concerning the withdrawal of Polish troops from Iraq.

Until now the Polish government had said it would reduce its military presence in Iraq in 2005.

Poland sent 2,500 troops to Iraq last year in the wake of the US-led invasion and heads up a multinational division of 6,000 soldiers, including 2,500 Poles, in south-central Iraq.

But amid strong popular opposition to the Polish troop deployment and violent unrest in the embattled country, the government in Warsaw is under domestic pressure to bring to an end Poland's military involvement in Iraq.

Seventeen Polish nationals have died in Iraq -- 13 soldiers and four civilians -- including three soldiers killed in an attack last month near the central Iraqi city of Hilla.

According to the latest poll, more than 70 percent of Poles are opposed to the presence of their country's troops in Iraq.

"I hope that the situation in Iraq will allow us to carry out our plan to withdraw our units," said Szmajdzinski.

"We do not have such a major army as the United States or Britain to allow us to have limitless possibilities," he added.

[theavonlady 2]

having Khomeini as the representation of Islam is like having me represent Springfield.

I'm watching you, Ralph!

Quote[/b] ]Missouri Mosque In Center Of Homeland Security Controversy

10/3/2004

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -- Members of a mosque are fighting to keep their place of worship as the federal government probes a link between the Islamic Center of Springfield and a benefactor accused of financing terrorism around the world.

[theavonlady 2]

In short: Made up !

No. In short - poor assessment and clashes of opinions in US security agencies. Nowhere in the articles you quoted and in the words you put in bold is there an indication that anyone made up their assumptions.

Keep trying.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]No. In short - poor assessment and clashes of opinions in US security agencies.

Aha.

You could expect a bit more if you are planning to go for a war with 10 thousands of deads, right ?

The only one who selectively used the wrong conclusions were the TBA. For sure they did that because they knew of their responsibility towards the lives of 10 thousands, right ?

And this Rice statement was not totally wrong according to any input the US had at that time ?

Quote[/b] ]The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, said on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Quote[/b] ]"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that these tubes were for centrifuges."

Poor, poor Condi...she was blindly led into this....

Do you actually believe that Avon ?

Or wasn´t it more like the TBA tried to use anything they had, even if it was wrong, not true and not backed up to go for the war they wanted so badly ?

Responsibility is one thing you haver to think of when you are leading a country. Where has been the initiative to FIRST countercheck informations and THEN go for the war.

In the Iraq war case it was the other way round. They FIRST went for the war and THEN unfortunally realized that none of their war-reasons turned out to be true.

I don´t think a serious government acts like this. At least that´s not what I would expect from mine.

Either it was methology (wich I believe) or they were working not precise enough before the war. Both isn´t especially qualifying for leading a country.

Quote[/b] ]Keep trying.

Don´t have to. The truth has a tendency to surface and it does that daily now.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Missouri Mosque In Center Of Homeland Security Controversy

10/3/2004

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -- Members of a mosque are fighting to keep their place of worship as the federal government probes a link between the Islamic Center of Springfield and a benefactor accused of financing terrorism around the world.

Who's the benefactor?  Cat Stevens?  

Hey I know!!  The feds can call their surveillance operation: Moon Shadow.

As in, "I'm being followed by a... "

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that these tubes were for centrifuges."

And what if the article read as follows?

Quote[/b] ]"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that Mohammed Ata and his 18 friends truly wanted to become airline pilots."

I wonder if Avon could so easily forgive TBA's "poor assessment and clashes of opinions in US security agencies" if the mistake cost 3,000 American lives instead of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

[theavonlady 2]

Who's the benefactor?  Cat Stevens?  

Had you bothered clicking on the article link, the 2nd paragraph says:

Quote[/b] ]The center is owned by the Saudi-based Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which U.S. authorities accuse of diverting donations to support a web of terrorist activities. The Saudi government dissolved the foundation this summer.

But I really didn't post this article for any other reason than Ralph Wiggum's claim to uber domination of Springfield and the mention of Khomeini.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that these tubes were for centrifuges."

And what if the article read as follows?

Quote[/b] ]"She was aware of the differences of opinion," the senior administration official said in an interview authorized by the White House. "She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that Mohammed Ata and his 18 friends truly wanted to become airline pilots."

I wonder if Avon could so easily forgive TBA's "poor assessment and clashes of opinions in US security agencies" if the mistake cost 3,000 American lives instead of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

It wasn't just TBA's assessement. It was an assessment that went back years into the Clinton administration and possibly before.

All sorts of such mistakes indeed did cost thousands of American lives, all in one day. The mistakes did not begin with Bush and did not end with Clinton.

[theavonlady 2]

Who's the benefactor?  Cat Stevens?  

You can keep him.

[Bernadotte 0]

I wonder if Avon could so easily forgive TBA's "poor assessment and clashes of opinions in US security agencies" if the mistake cost 3,000 American lives instead of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

It wasn't just TBA's assessement. It was an assessment that went back years into the Clinton administration and possibly before.

But the Clinton admin didn't kill anyone on the basis of those poor assessments, did they?  TBA did.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It wasn't just TBA's assessement.

TBA went to war for those.

Others didn´t.

Don´t you get a bit suspicious that 100 percent of the reasons why the US went to war (except Saddam of course)

have turned out to be unfounded or untrue. Some of them made up so bad that they were nothing but a big laughter (Powell UN PP presentation)

So you say it was a big pile of errors and misinterpretations that led to the war and the deaths of 10 thousands ?

Great !

Come on Avon. Errors do occur, but so many errors in a row with such consequences worldwide either show that the TBA is completely incompetent, or they intentionally flexed the facts to fit their line. As I said, a 100 percent failure rate is extremely bad. Not to mention that several countries shared intel with them that directly opposed theirs. How can you say that they were "not sure" then ? They had multiple chances to check the intel, but they just didn´t do it. You tell me why.

It´s like Rumsy saying we can invade with 15000 soldiers and topple the regime....

Funny, he had to be convinced by Pentagon in a very hard way that his plan may have some "minor" flaws.

Either incompetence or willingly ignoring the real facts, the TBA doesn´t seem to be fit to lead a country. Especially when they take their own people to war and make the US citizen a hunted species on this planet.

[theavonlady 2]

I wonder if Avon could so easily forgive TBA's "poor assessment and clashes of opinions in US security agencies" if the mistake cost 3,000 American lives instead of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

It wasn't just TBA's assessement. It was an assessment that went back years into the Clinton administration and possibly before.

But the Clinton admin didn't kill anyone on the basis of those poor assessments, did they?  TBA did.

No, they let it slide. Then came 9/11.

However, my point is not to point a finger at this admin or another. It's a serious malady where all are to blame, in the executive, administrative, miltary and security branches of the US government.

[theavonlady 2]

Don´t you get a bit suspicious that 100 percent of the reasons why the US went to war (except Saddam of course)

have turned out to be unfounded or untrue. Some of them made up so bad that they were nothing but a big laughter (Powell UN PP presentation)

So you say it was a big pile of errors and misinterpretations that led to the war and the deaths of 10 thousands ?

Great !

Come on Avon. Errors do occur, but so many errors in a row with such consequences worldwide either show that the TBA is completely incompetent, or they intentionally flexed the facts to fit their line. As I said, a 100 percent failure rate is extremely bad. Not to mention that several countries shared intel with them that directly opposed theirs. How can you say that they were "not sure" then ? They had multiple chances to check the intel, but they just didn´t do it. You tell me why.

It´s like Rumsy saying we can invade with 15000 soldiers and topple the regime....

Funny, he had to be convinced by Pentagon in a very hard way that his plan may have some "minor" flaws.

Either incompetence or willingly ignoring the real facts, the TBA doesn´t seem to be fit to lead a country. Especially when they take their own people to war and make the US citizen a hunted species on this planet.

I fully agree with your use of the word "incompetence". The only difference between you and me is that I do not limit it to Bush, Powell, Rice, TBA, Clinton, Tennet or anyone or any group in particular.

As for US despisement, in my opinion, it would have happened eventually IMO.

[Bernadotte 0]

Who's the benefactor?  Cat Stevens?  

You can keep him.

A folk singer who attended a fund-raiser in 1998 for a Canadian organisation linked in 2000 to a group not outlawed until 2002 deserves to be put on an American "impossible-to-appeal" terrorist watch list??

Are you on drugs?

[theavonlady 2]

Who's the benefactor?  Cat Stevens?  

You can keep him.

A folk singer who attended a fund-raiser in 1998 for a Canadian organisation linked in 2000 to a group not outlawed until 2002 deserves to be put on an American "impossible-to-appeal" terrorist watch list??

Are you on drugs?

No - just green tea.

I wasn't pointing out whether he should or shouldn't be put on the list.

He's just not my cup of tea.

But frankly, his public support for the death of author Rushdie back in the late 80's is enough for me to hope that such people are uninvited tourists to the US. Add in his support for Hamas and other terrorist front-end charities and I really couldn't care less about him.

Again, you can keep him.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes he would have. He would have been a great partner. Ruthless as hell and could do various dirty work. In realpolitik terms, he's ideal.

Again, the nazis hated the commies badly. They would of been an excellent for doing the dirty work. Even Patton wanted to use captured german solders (SS and regular) in case a war happened right after WWII....

Quote[/b] ]Care to elaborate? You think that Americans have right to defend their country, while Iraqis don't?

erm.... Like I have said before, if there was no insurgency, Iraq would of been way better than now. Reconstruction of another country by United States has been successful in the past. Granted, they were bombed in to the stone age....

Quote[/b] ]Yes, that's obviously what Billybob is thinking.  But God forbid we should call Billybob a racist.

Afterall, how could someone studying criminal justice be a racist?  :rolleyes:

ok... care to elaborate.....

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Reconstruction of another country by United States has been successful in the past.

Are you referring to Germany ?

Germany was rebuilt by a whole hard working generation of Germans. If it was like you intented to go we would live in a low tech - agricultural country without any permission to do anything.

There were allied plans to castrate every grown up male in germany with a military history and the projected "colletive guilt" may also ring a bell.

The only thing that made you go for the Marshall plan was the uprising communist threat, nothing else.

Edit: Oh and by the way the expression of "collective guilt" could once slap back on you and your country if you go on like that. Welcome to 2004.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes he would have. He would have been a great partner. Ruthless as hell and could do various dirty work. In realpolitik terms, he's ideal.

Again, the nazis hated the commies badly. They would of been an excellent for doing the dirty work. Even Patton wanted to use captured german solders (SS and regular) in case a war happened right after WWII....

Does Werner von Braun ring a bell? And before the start of the cold war, which was after WW2, the commies were your trusted allies.

Stalin was a ruthless dictator as well (actually Saddam was a typical stalinist), but there was no problem being friends with him when fighting a greater evil (Nazism).

The same way here - beween Saddam and AQ, Saddam is the lesser evil.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Care to elaborate? You think that Americans have right to defend their country, while Iraqis don't?

erm.... Like I have said before, if there was no insurgency, Iraq would of been way better than now. Reconstruction of another country by United States has been successful in the past. Granted, they were bombed in to the stone age....

And I ask you again: If Russia invaded the US, would you fight the invaders or conclude that the US would be better off not fighting and accepting Russia dictating the terms.

As for past nation building - it was 50 years ago, involved completely different cultures and in a different context.

Quote[/b] ]

ok... care to elaborate.....

You think that Americans have right to defend their country while the Iraqi's don't. You don't think they have the elementary human right of self-defence - becuase they are Iraqis and not Americans.

[Balschoiw 0]

And once again for DOR :

You had doubts that US snipers shoot people who are moving on the street or tried to pull woundeds of the roads ?

US claims to have 'pacified' rebel stronghold in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]The Americans insisted that the estimated 125 killed in the storming of the city were all insurgents. However, doctors and local people reported women, children and the elderly among the dead, and that bodies were still being brought into hospitals.

There also appeared to have been discord over the military action between members of the US sponsored Iraqi interim government.

Interior Minister Falah Naqib echoed the American line that no civilians had been killed and only "bad guys and terrorists" had suffered. It was, he said, a "great day for Samarra".

But the Human Rights Ministry, in a letter to the Iraqi Red Crescent, described what happened in the city as a "tragedy" and called for urgent emergency assistance.

Local people in Samarra claimed that many of the 1,000 insurgents the Americans had targeted had escaped before the attack began, and the civilian population had borne the brunt of the casualties.

Families trying to bury the dead found the road to the cemetery blocked off by American soldiers. One man, Abu Qa'qa, claimed he had seen dogs picking at corpses in the street.

Abdel Latif Hadi, 45, said " The people who were hurt most are normal people who have nothing to do with anything."

Another resident, Mohammed Ali Amin, said, "There were American snipers on roof of houses who were shooting people trying to get to their homes. Even at the hospital the Americans arrested injured boys of 15 saying they were insurgents."

CNN television was told by one man that his sister-in-law and her six daughters were killed when the vehicle they were travelling in was hit by a US air strike.

Aid organisations said there was acute concern about continuing lack of water and electricity in Samarra and the difficulties faced by people attempting to seek medical treatment. More than 500 families had fled the city and needed to be returned to their homes.

Little hint for you DOR. You can take the fingers out of your ears. In case you don´t want to know this you have to put your hands on your eyes. That should do the trick.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

You think that Americans have right to defend their country while the Iraqi's don't. You don't think they have the elementary human right of self-defence - becuase they are Iraqis and not Americans.

Erm... hmmm.... When the hell did I say the Iraqis do not have a right of self-defense? I do not agree with the insurgency and this makes me racist? I do believe in the Iraqi police, national guard, and etc are ones fighting for self-defense. Against who you may ask.... the insurgency, which is fucking up that country. You may point to the report of the coalition killing more civilians than insurgents and well the civilians death toll is always the higher than "bad guy" toll. It is just a sad fact. Why are civilians dieing now and the causes of the prolbems, now? Lets see...the INSURGENCY

So, please do not call me a racist again because I'm fucking sick and tired of certain people (like you) calling me names (racist; coward; and etc.) using baseless bullshit..... And no, I'm not having a bad day.... just airing out some dirty laundry...

[Bernadotte 0]

When the hell did I say the Iraqis do not have a right of self-defense? I do not agree with the insurgency and this makes me racist? I do believe in the Iraqi police, national guard, and etc are ones fighting for self-defense. Against who you may ask.... the insurgency, which is fucking up that country. You may point to the report of the coalition killing more civilians than insurgents and well the civilians death toll is always the higher than "bad guy" toll. It is just a sad fact. Why are civilians dieing now and the causes of the prolbems, now? Lets see...the INSURGENCY

How confused can a person be?  

If a foreign power occupied the US and installed an interim authority and security forces, those taking up arms against that occupation would be called insurgents. Right?  Would you agree with or perhaps even support such an American insurgency?  Or would you rather believe in the occupation authority installed police, national guard, etc?

[denoir 0]

You may point to the report of the coalition killing more civilians than insurgents and well the civilians death toll is always the higher than "bad guy" toll. It is just a sad fact.

No no no, you are reading the report wrong. It's not that there are more civilians killed than insurgents.

It's that the US led forces kill two times more civilians than the resistance forces do. If the insurgents killl 50 civilians, US forces kill 100 civilians. Get it? And I don't know about you, but that seems like a fairly good metric on who is "fucking the country up".'

Not to mention who fucked it up in the first place by throwing it into complete chaos.

Quote[/b] ]Why are civilians dieing now and the causes of the prolbems, now? Lets see...the INSURGENCY

And why is there an insurgency? Because you occupied their country. The civilians are dying now because you invaded Iraq. The insurgency is a consequence of your actions - namely that the Iraqis excresise their right of defending their country against foreign invaders.