Yeah there’s lots of kinds of Christianity too. I get that they hate each other but they’d fall in line to the superpower or they’d get dealt with.
Mind you this would take 50 years to pan out. But nothing else has worked.
20 Years Later
- Thread starter IUCrazy2
- Start date
Mind you this would take 50 years to pan out. But nothing else has worked.
Saying they hadn't found them when Saddam was believed to be actively hiding them doesn't exactly prove he didn't have them. Once again, our intelligence agencies, along with nearly every other intelligence agency in the world was convinced he did have them. This is a fact, not an opinion.
The Christians quit killing each other (over religion) just a few hundred years after their big split. The Muslims have had a thousand.
I'll never be convinced that the intel wasn't shaded to give the politicos the justification they needed. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.
We have an active embassy and troops in Iraq. We're not enemies with Iraq at the moment. If it weren't for us they'd have been overrun by ISIS and they didn't want that. There is some gratitude there.
How much money did out "intelligence" agency make from 30+ yrs of war? I am really shocked that they haven't gotten the proper credit for their success of this and even more so, their same type exercises ON American soil recently.
It was a a huge mistake for US but a huge success for them, and we keep feeding them more power every day. Putin aint got sh!t on us.
Isn't there very reliable intel that Saddam Gassed some people a few years before we went in? I think he did have some, but hell, who doesn't at this point, right?
Remember yellowcake? The strong implication was they were talking about nuclear weapons when they said WMDs. Everyone knew they had chemical weapons for decades.
It's also false to say we never found any. We found many. Troops were wounded by many. We kept it quiet more than we should in my opinion, but it didn't really prove that they had the active WMD programs we thought they had.
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons (Published 2014)
The Pentagon kept silent as munitions left over from Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran found new targets from 2004 to 2011: American and Iraqi troops.
I don't recall yellow cake at all, I'll have to go back and research. I agree that Nukes were a part of WMD's but that wasn't all, Gas and biologic s were in there and gas had already been proven.
NOW, that doesn't mean that I agree with that war now. I feel that the WMD's were a convenient easy sell that our Intelligence "community" (which will follow the lead dog (US) if they are rewarded properly) didn't plan this for their own gains.
It's odd that we would hide any, since that was the #1 piece of evidence used to gain approval to go in, in the first place. MAybe alphabet divisions fighting one another?It's also false to say we never found any. We found many. Troops were wounded by many. We kept it quiet more than we should in my opinion, but it didn't really prove that they had the active WMD programs we thought they had.
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons (Published 2014)
The Pentagon kept silent as munitions left over from Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran found new targets from 2004 to 2011: American and Iraqi troops.www.nytimes.com
Like Others, I was all for it at the time. Now it's just another reason to start with "they are lying to me" and belief must be proven, 3 fold before I sign off. (not that I have any sign off auth).
Because they knew that these twenty year old caches of discarded mustard gas weren't what they had sold everyone on and they exposed the lie.
Once again, not a lie. We also found sarin gas shells and destroyed them. The fact is that Saddam wanted the world to believe Iraq had WMD and we believed it.
Damn you old coger, yellow cakes, mustard... You're bringing it all back.
I'd be ok if Tenet & Brennan (potentially Penetta) were placed naked, in chains, in public square.
You just keep teaching through all of the noise. I don't know how you do it. (I bow and set down).
only the idiocracy would conflate Iraq and Afghanistan with what's going down in Ukraine.
that said, only the idiocracy bought the total and complete BS Bush, Cheney, and Powell, were selling.
you passed the test for full membership by getting 2 out of 2.
or perhaps i'm mistaking a total lack of being able to figure out things that are hardly rocket science, with a total lack of honesty.
idiocracy vs dishonesty, which is it really?
therein lies the real dilemma today.
You are an angry little socialist aren't ya fella?
like discontinuing the antibiotics before you finish the bottle.
that said, the real mistake in Afghanistan was labeling it a war against terror, instead of a war to liberate women.
that said, Pubs were doing the labeling, thus we got what we got on the labeling side.
They saw what happened when we let women vote.
And I didn't even have goats back then.
What do you call a two headed goat
Moderator.
What did he say? Never mind, there’s a reason I scroll past his nonsensical posts - they’re not worth the effort to read.
I believe that you believe this, Aloha. But I believe otherwise.
I firmly believe it was a lie.
I literally left some blood in both countries. I met some awesome people in both but I really never had a lot of hope that Afghanistan would ever become a modern Democratic country. The people were too uneducated and the religious zealots were too many. I had hopes for Iraq and still do. They're more educated and a lot less of them are religious zealots and don't want to have a religious autocracy. A lot want democracy to work.
We've discussed this and I agree with you because I've seen the intel. We really believed he had active WMD programs but I think Bush admin overemphasized some of the intel to drum up support for the invasion. That's not lying but it is using the intel in a propaganda way. The difference between us is that I did not believe we should invade Iraq at the time. Of course I'm glad that Saddam is dead and so are his two sons but we shouldn't have invaded to do it. I know you've changed your mind about the invasion since then.
I agree too that the debate should have been about whether or not to invade but too many were on the band wagon to invade to stop it probably.
Last edited:
I’ve never understood how you believed it was a lie. It just never seemed logical to say it’s a lie to repeat what the intel told them. By saying what President Clinton also believed. Every military person going to the Middle East trained in bio-chem defense for a reason. Believe me, those masks and suits weren’t fun to wear in the heat!
No worries. We didn’t agree then and won’t agree now.
You gonna pull that old trope about Clinton? You're the second to do so today, and I'll give you the same link I gave to the other guy.I’ve never understood how you believed it was a lie. It just never seemed logical to say it’s a lie to repeat what the intel told them. By saying what President Clinton also believed. Every military person going to the Middle East trained in bio-chem defense for a reason. Believe me, those masks and suits weren’t fun to wear in the heat!
No worries. We didn’t agree then and won’t agree now.
Meme says Bill Clinton, George W. Bush had basically the same policy on Iraq
As Hillary Clinton makes a second bid for the presidency, the record of her husband -- former President Bill Clinton --
www.politifact.com
Have at it.
Other than that, I'll just quote Bing regarding the WMD situation:
I think Bush admin overemphasized some of the intel to drum up support for the invasion.
Whether it was a lie was immaterial. The W administration likely overemphasized some of the intel to drum up support for the invasion. To me, that's a lie.
I didn't say they had the same policy. I'm saying they both believed the intel about Saddam having WMD.You gonna pull that old trope about Clinton? You're the second to do so today, and I'll give you the same link I gave to the other guy.
Meme says Bill Clinton, George W. Bush had basically the same policy on Iraq
As Hillary Clinton makes a second bid for the presidency, the record of her husband -- former President Bill Clinton --
Have at it.
Other than that, I'll just quote Bing regarding the WMD situation:
I think Bush admin overemphasized some of the intel to drum up support for the invasion.
Whether it was a lie was immaterial. The W administration likely overemphasized some of the intel to drum up support for the invasion. To me, that's a lie.
Bing also said it wasn't a lie, and he's right, it wasn't.
And there we are yet again.
Yes we are. S'ok.I didn't say they had the same policy. I'm saying they both believed the intel about Saddam having WMD.
Bing also said it wasn't a lie, and he's right, it wasn't.
And there we are yet again.
I think a lot of us believed it was a lie, or at minimum overstated to drum up support for an invasion, as Bing said, because Bush’s counter terrorism guy, Richard Clark, painted Bush as obsessed with blaming 911 on Iraq, facts be damned.I didn't say they had the same policy. I'm saying they both believed the intel about Saddam having WMD.
Bing also said it wasn't a lie, and he's right, it wasn't.
And there we are yet again.
Looking back I wonder if we’d just been entirely transparent about our intentions vis a vis Iraq and haters be damned, would that have been the better play?
that you were suckered in, doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.
it was a lie, and they had far less reason to believe otherwise than so.
and due to the quid pro quo between the govt and the media, the media were enlisted to sell the lie.
as was the legislature.
and for the record, i remember the media selling that lie and showing satellite images of buildings and trucks as their so called "proof", that showed nothing but buildings and trucks, and saying WTF, those pics don't show anything but buildings and trucks.
they all lied their asses off.
i said so at the time, as did a very few brave public servants who put country over politics.
Just to clarify I didn't say they lied. Everything was supported in the intel but intel estimates are given confidence levels and some of what was emphasized was in mid to low confidence levels. Some was in high level confidence levels too. I just didn't think going to war over what we thought he had or did wasn't the right answer. I was only a boot 2LT so don't blame me!
I didn't say they had the same policy. I'm saying they both believed the intel about Saddam having WMD.
Bing also said it wasn't a lie, and he's right, it wasn't.
And there we are yet again.
How much of that was due to Curveball? The argument seems to me that he was the glue that held the Intel together and he was lying.
Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi let imagination run wild and became main source for Colin Powell's case for war in 2003
Meanwhile Scott Ritter should have been considered part of the Intel. So what we had was far from unanimous.
They didn't lie, they chose to believe what fit their preconceived ideas and Ritter was treated as persona non grata.
Official Secrets (film) - Wikipedia
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: Marvin the Martian
