The Iraq thread 4

[EiZei 0]

There have also been instances of US soldiers driving around in Hummvees, breaking Coke bottles over the heads of Iraqi kids for fun. I posted a link in here a long time ago.

It seems to me like a massive cop out that "War is stressful, what do you expect" mentality, regarding this kind of disgraceful behaviour. Big tough bad arse soldiers should have the trainning to deal with stress, or have the sense to seek help if they can't.

But I guess things have chnaged for the better, in Iraq its Coke bottles over turbans and a bit of pest control. In Vietnam it was Mi Lai. I wonder how soon it was in the Vietnam war that 2000 US soldiers died? I imagine there wasn't the strong pro peace sentiment that's gathering pace now, so early in the Vietnam War.

The circumstances are getting very similar. The My Lai occurred when the american forces were getting extremely frustrated with the uncooperative civilians who were helping the vietcong. One platoon managed to shoot hundreds of civilians, you have to be really fucked up to do that. Who knows how many would have died if the brave helicopter pilot had not intervened.

[Ironsight 1]

Bullshit if you ask me.....

Quote[/b] ]US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq

Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices.

Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas in the insurgent-held city.

The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

Transmission of the documentary comes a day after the arrival of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on a five-day official visit to Italy.

It also coincides with the first anniversary of the US-led assault on Falluja, which displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

The documentary was shown on Rai's rolling news channel, with a warning that the some of the footage was disturbing.

The future of the 3,000-strong Italian peacekeeping contingent in Iraq is the subject of a political tug-of-war, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome.

'Destroyed evidence'

The documentary begins with formerly classified footage of the Americans using napalm bombs during the Vietnam war.

It then shows a series of photographs from Falluja of corpses with the flesh burnt off but clothes still intact - which it says is consistent with the effects of white phosphorus on humans.

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

Last December, the US state department issued a denial of what it called "widespread myths" about the use of illegal weapons in Falluja.

"Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters," the US statement said.

However, the Rai film also alleges that Washington has systematically attempted to destroy filmed evidence of the alleged use of white phosphorus on civilians in Falluja.

Italian public opinion has been consistently against the war and the Rai documentary can only reinforce calls for a pullout of Italian soldiers as soon as possible, our correspondent says.

Both the Italian government and opposition leaders are talking about a phased withdrawal in 2006.

President Talabani and the US say the continued presence of multi-national forces in Iraq is essential.

Source: BBC.com

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bullshit if you ask me.....

Just seen the documentary.Very gory,I could barely watch to the end of it.I am still in shock and can`t really express my emotions otherwise I would probably get bannned.

It basicly showed the confession of two US soldiers of killing civillians,using chemical weapons in Fallujah and lots and lots of indiscriminate civillian targeting.The images were chilling.Satellite images of a city effectively burned to the grown so much it was a blackened image,about 5 minutes of showing melted bodies of with their clothes intact among other severly and oddly desfigurated bodies and planes pouring fire continously with a white substance at night.

From my point of view I really don`t edit:care what they used.The level of destruction in the city,the number of civillians deaths,maimed children,mutilated women and men is apaulling and should teach some lessons to all US citizens.

[Tovarish 0]

...so....now it seems chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, I guess TBA was right after all.

[billybob2002 0]

...so....now it seems chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, I guess TBA was right after all.  

WP is not considered to be a "chemical weapon" but you knew that right. It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol.

[Tovarish 0]

...so....now it seems chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, I guess TBA was right after all.

WP is not considered to be a "chemical weapon" but you knew that right. It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol.

it's a chemical, which burns when it comes into contact with human skin, blisters the lungs when breathed, and was apparently used as a weapon...but try to split hairs if you want...I'm sure it's more pleasant than being gassed

*edit* Anyways, legalities aside, am I the only one thinking someone missed the "hearts and minds" memo? or is an APC supposed to drive by later, blaring from loudspeakers:

"I't's allright - that was WP, which is not considered to be a "chemical weapon". It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol - You are still better off now than when Saddam "He who sould be hit with shoes" Hussein was gassing you - Allah Bless Democracy"

[billybob2002 0]

...so....now it seems chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, I guess TBA was right after all.  

WP is not considered to be a "chemical weapon" but you knew that right. It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol.

it's a chemical, which burns when it comes into contact with human skin, blisters the lungs when breathed, and was apparently used as a weapon...but try to split hairs if you want...I'm sure it's more pleasant than being gassed

*edit* Anyways, legalities aside, am I the only one thinking someone missed the "hearts and minds" memo? or is an APC supposed to drive by later, blaring from loudspeakers:

"I't's allright - that was WP, which is not considered to be a "chemical weapon".  It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol - You are still better off now than when Saddam "He who sould be hit with shoes" Hussein was gassing you - Allah Bless Democracy"

I'm not splitting hairs but that is what WP is considered under the 1980 convention and international known has. TNT is a chemical weapon! Anyway, yes, the US is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the people but something had to be done about Fallujah. The coalition and Iraqi govt. gave those citizens 90 days to get the feck out that city (even allowed people to leave during the seige too) and during the first siege allowed citizens to leave. It is horrible that innocent civilians died but what did you expect?

[chops 111]

It is horrible that innocent civilians died but what did you expect?

Sadly exactly that. No WMD? Oh let's say were here to spread democracy and save them from Saddam, while we butcher, burn, torture and murder them.

The fact that the US didn't sign that treaty is a disgrace, not an excuse.

[Ironsight 1]

...so....now it seems chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, I guess TBA was right after all.

WP is not considered to be a "chemical weapon" but you knew that right. It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol.

it's a chemical, which burns when it comes into contact with human skin, blisters the lungs when breathed, and was apparently used as a weapon...but try to split hairs if you want...I'm sure it's more pleasant than being gassed

*edit* Anyways, legalities aside, am I the only one thinking someone missed the "hearts and minds" memo? or is an APC supposed to drive by later, blaring from loudspeakers:

"I't's allright - that was WP, which is not considered to be a "chemical weapon". It is a "incendiary weapon" in which its usage was banned when there is a concentration of civilians under 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). However, the United States did not sign on to that protocol - You are still better off now than when Saddam "He who sould be hit with shoes" Hussein was gassing you - Allah Bless Democracy"

I'm not splitting hairs but that is what WP is considered under the 1980 convention and international known has. TNT is a chemical weapon! Anyway, yes, the US is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the people but something had to be done about Fallujah. The coalition and Iraqi govt. gave those citizens 90 days to get the feck out that city (even allowed people to leave during the seige too) and during the first siege allowed citizens to leave. It is horrible that innocent civilians died but what did you expect?

Agree with Billybob on that. I know the effects of WP bombs are horrible but won't it basically have the same destructive effect as a 500lb bomb (not speaking as a weapons expert)

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is horrible that innocent civilians died but what did you expect?

Good to see the apathy of the Bushite's haven't changed.

We invaded a country under false pretenses, bombed their infrastructure into non-exsistance then failed to rebuild it, failed to secure borders and allowed an untold amount of terrorists and fighters into the country, promised to win their "hearts and minds" and instead seiged their cities and internationally embaressed citizens, and killed untold thousands "protecting" them.

Oh well. What did you expect.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]It is horrible that innocent civilians died but what did you expect?

Good to see the apathy of the Bushite's haven't changed.

We invaded a country under false pretenses, bombed their infrastructure into non-exsistance then failed to rebuild it, failed to secure borders and allowed an untold amount of terrorists and fighters into the country, promised to win their "hearts and minds" and instead seiged their cities and internationally embaressed citizens, and killed untold thousands "protecting" them.

Oh well. What did you expect.

Exactly what I'd expect from BDS patients.

Quote[/b] ]COMMENTARY

December 2005

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

Norman Podhoretz

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Much too long to be pasted.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hehe !

Gave me a good laugh to view his other COMMENTARIES on other issues...

Archive

In short : Gays are evil and we definately need more wars.

Great source...

[theavonlady 2]

Hehe !

Gave me a good laugh to view his other COMMENTARIES on other issues...

Archive

In short : Gays are evil and we definately need more wars.

Great source...

Yeh.

He's got everything wrong.

Haha. I'm laughing, too.

[SpongeBob 0]

Not sure if it was talked bout here, but has anybody seen Occupation: Dreamland.

Quote[/b] ]Occupation: Dreamland is an unflinchingly candid portrait of a squad of American soldiers deployed in the doomed Iraq city of Falluja during the winter of 2004. A collective study of the soldiers unfolds as they patrol an environment of low-intensity conflict creeping steadily towards catastrophe. Through the squads activities Occupation: Dreamland provides a vital glimpse into the last days of Falluja. The film documents the citys waning stability before a final series of military assaults began in the spring of 2004 that effectively destroyed it.

Filmmakers Garrett Scott and Ian Olds were given access to all operations of the Armys 82nd Airborne. They lived with the unit 24/7, giving voice to soldiers held under a strict code of authority as they cope with an ambiguous, often lethal environment. The result is a revealing, sometimes surprising look at Army life, operations and the complexity of American war in the 21st century.

Trailers can be seen here

Its playing here this weekend and next, gonna check it out.  Kinda looks a bit like Gunner's Palace, which i liked as well.

[Akira 0]

Norman Podhoretz

Wiki

Quote[/b] ]Norman Podhoretz (born January 16, 1930) is considered to be a prominent neo-conservative writer. From 1981-87, Podhoretz served with the U.S. Information Agency. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is connected with the Project for the New American Century. He served as Editor-in-Chief of the American Jewish Committee's monthly magazine Commentary from 1960 until his retirement in 1995. He is the father of John Podhoretz.

[chops 111]

Exactly what I'd expect from BDS patients.

Forgive me for stating the painfully obvious, but it appears that it needs to be done. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!! Or is that some kind of subversive, left wing propaganda?

What is a BDS patient?

[quicksand 0]

Exactly what I'd expect from BDS patients.

Forgive me for stating the painfully obvious, but it appears that it needs to be done. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!! Or is that some kind of subversive, left wing propaganda?

What is a BDS patient?

Yet another distortion, misrepresentation, and outright falsification that has emerged from the debate over Iraq.It`s simply laughable to claim Iraq had no WMD.Nevertheless, I want to take a shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is,in short paragraphs if you may,Avonlay has already masterfully presented the same arguments already in this thread yet in front of irrefutable evidence people still stubbernly deny their existance.

1)Saddam used it on his own people in the `80s.

2)Last year insurgents fired a shell with sarin gas that made a puff!!

and of course the real smoking gun of them all:

3)Saddam moved all the stockpiles to Syria right before the war was launched.

If people insist on whinning and nitpicking with arguments such as "But this war was about if Saddam had WMD in 2002 not the `80s" or "That useless shell fired by insurgents could have been a leftover from the destroyed stockpiles or imported from another country even the military admited it proved nothing" yeah and "Saddam couldn`t hide his pathetic self,how in the hell could he have moved his entire stockpiles of WMD in convoys of trucks without being spotted by one satellite?" I`ll leave it to you Avonlady to explain in detail if that is your wish,I really don`t have the energy right now to try and enlighten the misfortunate.

[Balschoiw 0]

Good morning :

CIA Report summary on Iraq´s WMD capability

There were no WMD´s in Iraq with a capable delivery system. The british 30 minute claim was blatant bullshit. Most of the dated C agents were destroyed by UNSCOM personel.

I will gladly forward you to the official US Senate report on US prewar intelligence assesments on Iraq.

Senate report

The report deals with the reasons that US and UK initiative cited for the war. It goes from mobile labs to delivery systems to agents to the Nigeria papers and on and on.

It doesn´t hurt to read.

You also may check the Duelfer report on his search for WMD´s in Iraq.

To sum it up: They found none.

Duelfer report

From the report :

Quote[/b] ]While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally

destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad´s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Next on the list of misinformation is the Iraq - Syria WMD move claim:

Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms

Quote[/b] ]U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war, according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday.

Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

The Iraq Survey Group's main findings -- that Hussein's Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons and had only aspirations for a nuclear program -- were made public in October in an interim report covering nearly 1,000 pages. Yesterday's final report, published on the Government Printing Office's Web site ( http://www.gpo.gov/ ), incorporated those pages with minor editing and included 92 pages of addenda that tied up loose ends on Syria and other topics.

U.S. officials have held out the possibility that Syria worked in tandem with Hussein's government to hide weapons before the U.S.-led invasion. The survey group said it followed up on reports that a Syrian security officer had discussed collaboration with Iraq on weapons, but it was unable to complete that investigation. But Iraqi officials whom the group was able to interview "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria," the report said.

Another myth that still circulates but is simply untrue.

Maybe you should check the facts first and then jump on the Avon - train.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe you should check the facts first and then jump on the Avon - train.

Balschoiw come on,I`ve been debating on this thread ever since Iraqi thread number one when things were really heated up over here.I consider myself as stunch of a critic of this war as you are,I thought my position was clear by now.

Read my post again,the sarcasm should become blatantly clear

[Balschoiw 0]

Yeah, I´ve been wondering if you enjoyed the pleasures of a handmade lobotomy lately

[theavonlady 2]

Keep barking, Bals. No bite.

Quote[/b] ]The Case For War

Kevin Drum responds to Norman Podhoretz's essay detailing the case for war in Iraq:

<ul>Nor does Podhoretz apply himself to the entire period before the war. He stops his investigation at the end of 2002. But that's not when we went to war. We went to war in March 2003, and by that time UN inspectors had been combing Iraq for months with the help of U.S. intelligence. They found nothing, and an increasing chorus of informed minds was starting to wonder if perhaps there was nothing there. In response, President Bush and his supporters merely amped up their certainty that Saddam was hiding something.

Let's go back, look at the record and see if we can't refresh our memories a bit. The issue, as it stood throughout all of 2002, started with this declaration by the President in his State of Union address in late January of that year:

<ul>

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives.  First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice.  And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

We all know Bush explicitly singled out Iraq:

<ul>

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.  The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.  This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.  This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

The first four sentences of the above paragraph represent uncontested fact. The last is a reasonable, logical, and prudent conclusion flowing from the previous four.

The implication of Bush's words were clear and supremely significant: in the aftermath of 9/11 America would no longer tolerate Iraq's deception, its cat-and-mouse games, its flouting of international authority.  The burden of proof on WMD, which for so long had rested on the international community's ability (or lack thereof) to make a case, shifted directly to Iraq. It was Hussein's responsibility to come clean once and for all, to open up to inspections and make a full and complete accounting to the world.

Eight months later (a pretty pathetic rush to war, if you ask me) Bush made the same cogent, powerful argument directly to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. The UN Security Council responded by unanimously approving Resolution 1441 on November 8 which gave Iraq "a final opportunity" to "provide accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of its past and present WMD activities.

Almost three weeks went by before inspections resumed in Iraq on November 27, 2002. At this point there was still a general consensus among intelligence agencies around the world - not to mention policy experts and politicians from both sides of the aisle in the U.S. dating back nearly 10 years - about what type of WMD Iraq was potentially concealing.

Yes, we now know there were some dissenting opinions in the mix of intelligence, but that only serves to highlight a point that cannot be overstated: our ability to know exactly what Saddam had or didn't have depended almost exclusively on his willingness to cooperate with the inspection and disarmament process.  Everyone, including Hans Blix, knew this and stated it openly and repeatedly, often citing South Africa as the model for full, accurate, and complete disarming of WMD.

The record shows that is not how Saddam behaved. On December 7 Iraq submitted a 12,000 page weapons declaration which both the U.S. and the U.N. found to contain "gaps" and "inconsistencies" which Iraq either could not or would not explain.  Inspectors gained access to sites but were accompanied by groups of Iraqi "minders" in ratios as high as five to one.  Iraq initially refused to allow inspectors to interview its scientists under conditions set by the UN. And on and on.

Far from being open and cooperative, what little compliance the UN received from Iraq came at the point of the gun. Saddam became a bit more responsive as the first U.S. soldiers began massing in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, but even after eight full weeks of inspections Hans Blix opened his status report before the U.N. on January 27, 2003 by saying:

<ul>

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

At the point Bush made the decision to go to war in March 2003, Saddam had had more than four months worth of opportunities after the passage of Resolution 1441 (and another 12 years and 15 resolutions before that) to make a meaningful display of cooperation on the issue of WMD disarmament to the US and the UN. He never chose to do so.

We now know one of the reasons Saddam never felt pressured to cooperate is because he had been running a multibillion dollar bribery scam through the U.N. itself. Support for sanctions was on the verge of crumbling.  And everyone knew maintaining a huge U.S. military force on the Iraqi border to force continued inspections was untenable for any serious length of time.

In the end, the story of the run-up to the Iraq war is about intelligence, but not in the way most people think.  Intelligence is always flawed and imprecise, even more so when you're dealing with a closed, paranoid and authoritarian regime like Hussein's. It's foolish to suggest Bush should have bucked consensus estimates on Iraq WMD built from more than a decade of intel, and it's even worse to suggest he lied for not doing so.  

What President Bush did instead was put an end to the decade-long guessing game and place the burden squarely on Saddam Hussein by saying in front of the world: "This is what we think you have. It's now your responsibility to prove us wrong." In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in the history of America, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

[denoir 0]

Well Avon, the obvious flaws of that argument are:

1) Both UNMOVIC and IAEA said in their last report before the invasion that Iraq was cooperating and that there was no evidence of any active WMD programs.

2) The 1441 resolution did not by any means authorize force against Iraq in the case of non-compliance. This was a major sticking point when the resolution was drafted. The US originally demanded that in the resolution, but it was removed after negotiations with the rest of the security council. At the time the resolution was drafted the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions.". (source)

Only until a few days before the invasion, the UK's position was that a second resolution authorizing an invasion was an absolute legal necessity - and this was said by the UK attorney general Lord Goldsmith.

3) The argument "we didn't know, so we had to act" - i.e the blindly preemptive policy does of course not hold up one second to scrutiny. The obvious example to show there is the Iraq Story vs the Iraq Reality. The current mess in Iraq is the result of such a blind action, and something I think most by now agree isn't exactly a success story.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The deception that Avon and others labour under is cleared up by some simple indisputable facts:

There was no WMD

There was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda

There was no link from Iraq to 9/11

The deception that Avon and others labour under was achieved by what, in my opinion, can only be described as a deception deliberately perpetrated by TBA and TBA2

No WMD was left in Iraq when TBA and TBA2 were calling for war and TBA and TBA2 ignored the intel evidence that countered an already existing policy to invade Iraq.

TBA and TBA2 deliberately arranged for tainted evidence to be placed before themselves, congress, parliament and the people while at the same time made sure that any evidence that said otherwise did not reach congress, parliament and the people.

We have ample evidence, I feel, for investigations leading to criminal charges to be brought against those who actively engaged in deceiving congress, parliament and the people and I feel it is now time to start the process leading to indictments for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The factors that need to be investigated preparatory to such indictments being brought are:

The actions of the Office of Special Plans who we all remember did the following:

I think now would be an opportune time to remind people that TBA was not listening to its Intel neither CIA or Pentagon

There has been no failure of intelligence that is a myth put out by TBA and TBA2 to blame someone else for the war on Iraq.

TBA had not been listening to intelligence they have been listening to The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service.

The CIA, Pentagon and other professional intelligence analysts have not been able to speak to the US President for all that time that the OSP was in power. Instead they have to go and speak through a filter; in meetings with The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service who often don't want to hear their reports as they don't jell with what TBA wants to hear.

You all need to read this article 3 pages in a US Republican magazine:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski retired from the U.S. Air Force at the time of the OSP. Her final posting was as an analyst at the Pentagon. Hence I believe it to be the most honest and verifiable of sources.

We have to look at the end results who benefited from this war?

Not the Iraqis tens of thousands of them were killed and hundreds of thousands of them were maimed and wounded. There economy, industry, eduction and society ruined and roiled in chaos and daily destruction.

Not the American and other coalition people or their armed forces; there name and moral standing has been been besmirched by a dirty little war, their Armies have lost thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded and maimed, their economies have had to bare a massive burden that has raised taxes, increased the cost of fuel and left them in debt.

Not the middle east now with a cancerous sore of terroism left to fester at its heart. We were warned about this risk by all those coutries who told us not to start a war in Iraq. Now we may see the day when Israel and most of the major Middle Eastern cities are piles of smoking radio active ash. I remind you all that Pakistan has nukes as well as Israel and that Pakistan is now one of the heartlands of Al Qaeda.

I also remind you all that TBA and TBA2, having been caught crying wolf in the case of Iraq, have not the political capital nor probably even the military capability of threatening Iran if it wishes to pursue a Nuclear Arsenal.

I also remind you that the CIA Non Official Cover (NOC) agent Valerie Wilson nee Plame cover was blown by the traitors who named her as petty politicaly motivated revenge on those who pointed out the Iraq WMD intel was fake.

With the removal of Valerie Wilson nee Plame the head of the WMD section of the CIA as an agent and the blowing of her cover and of her contacts and assets, and the blowing of the cover of her cover company and all the NOC agents employed by it and their assets and contacts too. As a Result of these traitorous actions, which according to the special prosecutor point to the office of the vice president of the United States, that the CIA anti WMD section is essentialy blind when we most need it.

In fact the only people I can see who has done well out of this are the Oil Barrons and Dodgy Dick Cheyney who arranged for his firm Haliburton to get the worlds biggest social security cheque, of 6 billlion dollars, after he had ran the company on its way into bankruptcy.

I shake my head in disgust.

Kind Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Keep barking, Bals. No bite.

You can´t list any more detailed reports like official US reports on the issue.

So who´s the puppy ?

You may want to list the WMD´s found in Iraq.

I keep it literally when it comes to reasons for a war that ALL turned out to be blatant bull. Be it 9/11 connection, WMD´s, that funny UN presentation Powell is so ashamed of today, or the british claims.

All nonsense, as we know now.

Who´s the puppy again ?

[guyguy1 0]

If you want to attack a country with WMD that is actually a  threat, go for North Korea. It's closer to us than Iraq is, they have a much more powerful military, AND they opress their people much worse than saddam does. We have influenced an entire generation of Iraqi Sunnis, and are creating more terrorists by being in Iraq than we are killing in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.