| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2004 03:48:10 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by jab119:
I read ... |
Wow, you're pushing the post boundary there James! When the DPC database craps out I'm holding you personally responsible. ;-) |
wouldnt be the first time I crashed a web site due to posting TOO much junk ;)
but serriously, if its an issue I will remove it.
James
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 04:12:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by darcy:
why the bush administration decided that iraq was a top priority in the middle of an al queda crisis is beyond me, and no one has ever been able to give me an explanation to satisfy my confusion in this matter.
|
Er, I think its something called OIL, a failing economy at home, a bad guy (Sadam) who did not do what he was told. A good 'war' always takes peoples minds of problems closer to home. Libya has learnt the 'lesson' so no need for anything nasty to be sent over there except oil/water/gas/electric company reps.
Oil - its what makes the world go round, if you dont control it your up sh*t creek without a paddle
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 05:27:11 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
was Australia supporting Japan during WWII? I don't remember that in my history lessons. Strange |
You've almost got it....
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 05:28:33 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Its no secrete that the US government does not like Saddam and wants him out of power.
Back in 1991 there was "Operation Desert Storm" where the US tried to get Saddam out of power, but failed. So this most recent event was used to make another attempt to get Saddam out of control, and it worked.
|
I wouldn't say 'failed'
Here's a quote
from , "A World Transformed" (1998)
Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
It's a quote from George Bush Sr.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 05:31:20 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Also, a few years ago everyone in the world agreed Iraq had WMD. If they are no longer in Iraq, where did they go? Just as we have not found any yet, we have also not found where they went. |
As far as I can tell, all the security services are now blaming each other and have generally come to the conclusion that all of their intelligence was wrong, and that there were no WMD.
This was quite widely reported last week.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 05:41:07 PM · #31 |
| I don't think it's oil, and I think if you go looking for it to be oil you won't find it either. I think it's was the effect of two other lobby's, defense contracters and now the reconstruction industry. If it could be proven or disproved, I would gamble that both industries have donated heavily to both political parties in every significant election over the last four years. War is very profitable if you're in the right business. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 05:52:52 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by louddog:
Also, a few years ago everyone in the world agreed Iraq had WMD. If they are no longer in Iraq, where did they go? Just as we have not found any yet, we have also not found where they went. |
As far as I can tell, all the security services are now blaming each other and have generally come to the conclusion that all of their intelligence was wrong, and that there were no WMD.
This was quite widely reported last week. |
(emphasis mine)
Really? ALL security services have come to the conclusion that ALL their intelligence was wrong?
If that really was "quite widely reported last week" could you be so kind as to provide just one link to support that statement?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:25:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by chinstrap:
Oil - its what makes the world go round, if you dont control it your up sh*t creek without a paddle |
ya thats pretty much it cut and dry. saddam didnt wanna play nice w/ his oil. if saudi arabia wasnt allready in bed w/ the united states, it would have been them we would have targeted. after all, allmost all the hijackers were saudi's.. wouldnt have been hard to convince the american sheeple that saudi's were our immidiate threat. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 09:49:45 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
ya thats pretty much it cut and dry. saddam didnt wanna play nice w/ his oil. if saudi arabia wasnt allready in bed w/ the united states, it would have been them we would have targeted. |
oy vehy, the brain washing and the lack of thinking with logic... |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 11:18:29 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If that really was "quite widely reported last week" could you be so kind as to provide just one link to support that statement?
Ron |
Could you provide one link to deny it ?
Could you provide one link to show the prior existance of the now missing WMDs ?
Strange that.
Actually it was widely reported - the fact that it doesn't appear much in the US press is interesting in its own right.
Mossad have decided that their intelligence gathering in the middle east was a farce. The majority of the axis of good intelligence services base their middle east intelligence on mossad. This was widely reported.
Message edited by author 2004-04-07 23:20:30.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 11:29:43 PM · #36 |
I think we should get out of Iraq... Those people are living like savages in the 700th century and apparently want to remain that way, so let 'em.
As far as I'm concerned our mission is over there. There's no longer a threat from Iraq to our national security, there are no more WMD's, so let's bring our boys (and girls) home, and let those savages fight it out amongst themselves. If there's cival war, oh well, it's apparently what they want.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 12:10:24 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I think we should get out of Iraq... Those people are living like savages in the 700th century and apparently want to remain that way, so let 'em.
As far as I'm concerned our mission is over there. There's no longer a threat from Iraq to our national security, there are no more WMD's, so let's bring our boys (and girls) home, and let those savages fight it out amongst themselves. If there's cival war, oh well, it's apparently what they want. |
This is rude, but I can only requote my self:
oy vehy, the brain washing and the lack of thinking with logic... |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 12:57:45 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I think we should get out of Iraq... Those people are living like savages in the 700th century and apparently want to remain that way, so let 'em. |
At this rate, I expect we will all have indeed descended into savagery in another 680 centuries ... although I do hope we're out of Iraq by then. |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 02:13:26 AM · #39 |
| For some reason I'm feeling generous tonight, so I'm going to simply hide your posts so you can start over, and not "bust" you for violating site TOS. |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 02:16:06 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Could you provide one link to deny it ?
Could you provide one link to show the prior existance of the now missing WMDs ?
|
lets start HERE
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 09:17:58 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
If that really was "quite widely reported last week" could you be so kind as to provide just one link to support that statement?
Ron |
Could you provide one link to deny it ?
Could you provide one link to show the prior existance of the now missing WMDs ?
Strange that.
Actually it was widely reported - the fact that it doesn't appear much in the US press is interesting in its own right.
Mossad have decided that their intelligence gathering in the middle east was a farce. The majority of the axis of good intelligence services base their middle east intelligence on mossad. This was widely reported. |
Can you provide one link that denies that you beat your wife every night? Give me a break.
The fact that it doesn't appear in the U.S. Press is interesting - because if it WAS true then it would obviously be screaming from the headlines in the NY Times, a paper that loves to print anything that would undermine the Bush administration.
FWIW, I WILL accept a link to a foreign press report - that is if you can find one.
I'd be interested, too, in a link that quotes Mossad as saying that they "decided that its intelligence gathering in the middle east was a farce".
Ron |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 09:19:37 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Could you provide one link to deny it ?
Could you provide one link to show the prior existance of the now missing WMDs ?
|
lets start HERE |
The fact that they were used 11 years ago isn't exactly the most meaningful proof that they existed prior to the invasion about a year ago. The Israeli government just published an 80 page report, saying that their intelligence efforts failed, and based their reports on speculation. There is an increasing belief that there were no WMD. (the fun logical part of it is that its impossible to prove a negative, quite handy for removing all that egg on the face)
Just because the politicians used the lack of proof either way to force various countries to go to war, doesn't mean there ever actually was a reason to do it.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 09:28:50 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Can you provide one link that denies that you beat your wife every night? Give me a break.
|
Well done. You get a prize for getting the point. Disproving the existance of something that doesn't exist is not possible. So why keep using the fact that no WMD were found as an indication that they exist ?
FWIW, I WILL accept a link to a foreign press report - that is if you can find one.
I'd be interested, too, in a link that quotes Mossad as saying that they "decided that its intelligence gathering in the middle east was a farce".
Ron [/quote]
Report slams Israel spy failures
Military intelligence and the Mossad spy agency wrongly played up the risk from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, said the report by a Knesset committee.
The inquiry also criticised the secret services for their inability to establish whether Iraq had WMDs.
It said they did not succeed in providing "inarguable indications" that Iraq had non-conventional weapons, nor did they manage to allay concerns by proving evidence to the contrary.
The committee, headed by the Likud party's Yuval Steinitz, said there had been a "serious intelligence failure that must lead to house-cleaning and reorganisation".
"The report concluded that Israel did not deliberately mislead Britain and the US about Iraq's military capability"
Key word, being deliberately.
This was also reported in a several other press sources, including the Australian press, who's government has largely come to similar conclusions that the basis for war was incorrectly stated.
Some quotes from their investigations
"Our conclusion was that the assessments of the Australian intelligence community were more moderate and cautious than those of the partner agencies in the US and the UK," committee chairman David Jull told parliament.
"However, despite their caution, it's possible they overstated their case," he added.
It is interesting that both the Israeli government (who are obviously best placed to gather intelligence in this case) and some of the less involved partner governments in the invasion have both come to the same conclusion that the intelligence was false. Yet as you point out, no mention of that in the US media.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 09:59:38 AM · #44 |
Some more quotes, this time from a Republican senator
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday for the first time that Saddam Hussein’s alleged mobile germ factories and labs probably “did not exist,” and he sharply criticized prewar U.S. intelligence about Iraq’s suspected weapons.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who typically is a strong supporter of the CIA and the Bush White House, said the administration’s use of flawed intelligence regarding the alleged mobile bioweapons facilities is “embarrassing for everybody.”
The Boston Globe also reported on the Mossad failures
//www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/03/25/report_israel_wrong_on_iraq_weapons/
Last December, a former Israeli intelligence officer charged that Israel produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British prewar assessments on Iraq.
Message edited by author 2004-04-08 10:06:40.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 11:20:08 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Can you provide one link that denies that you beat your wife every night? Give me a break.
|
Well done. You get a prize for getting the point. Disproving the existance of something that doesn't exist is not possible. So why keep using the fact that no WMD were found as an indication that they exist ? |
????? Who is using the fact that no WMD were found as an indication that they exist?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, I WILL accept a link to a foreign press report - that is if you can find one.
I'd be interested, too, in a link that quotes Mossad as saying that they "decided that its intelligence gathering in the middle east was a farce".
Ron |
Report slams Israel spy failures
Military intelligence and the Mossad spy agency wrongly played up the risk from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, said the report by a Knesset committee.
The inquiry also criticised the secret services for their inability to establish whether Iraq had WMDs.
It said they did not succeed in providing "inarguable indications" that Iraq had non-conventional weapons, nor did they manage to allay concerns by proving evidence to the contrary.
The committee, headed by the Likud party's Yuval Steinitz, said there had been a "serious intelligence failure that must lead to house-cleaning and reorganisation".
"The report concluded that Israel did not deliberately mislead Britain and the US about Iraq's military capability"
Key word, being deliberately.
This was also reported in a several other press sources, including the Australian press, who's government has largely come to similar conclusions that the basis for war was incorrectly stated.
Some quotes from their investigations
"Our conclusion was that the assessments of the Australian intelligence community were more moderate and cautious than those of the partner agencies in the US and the UK," committee chairman David Jull told parliament.
"However, despite their caution, it's possible they overstated their case," he added.
It is interesting that both the Israeli government (who are obviously best placed to gather intelligence in this case) and some of the less involved partner governments in the invasion have both come to the same conclusion that the intelligence was false. Yet as you point out, no mention of that in the US media. |
In other words, NO, you cannot provide a link in which Mossad uses the word "farce" to describe their own intelligence gathering efforts in the middle east. You didn't even provide a link in which a reputable news agency uses the word "farce". So that statement appears to be just another in a long string of misrepresentations.
Ron
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 11:44:14 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In other words, NO, you cannot provide a link in which Mossad uses the word "farce" to describe their own intelligence gathering efforts in the middle east. You didn't even provide a link in which a reputable news agency uses the word "farce". So that statement appears to be just another in a long string of misrepresentations.
Ron |
You have a real talent on focusing on the non-issues and expending a lot of energy avoiding the point. It must be an enjoyable diversion. I hope it serves you well.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 12:06:54 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You have a real talent on focusing on the non-issues and expending a lot of energy avoiding the point. It must be an enjoyable diversion. I hope it serves you well. |
I would be more than willing to focus on issues, if you would be willing to limit your postings to issues of legitimate debate instead of political posturing through use of innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric. Or is that so ingrained in your psyche that you cannot avoid it?
If it hasn't dawned on you yet, the majority of my responses, at least thus far, have been to counter such innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric by pointing out that they do not represent the truth. I don't care where on the political spectrum you fall, I will acknowledge that which is true. I will decry and point out that which is false. Mostly, though, I haven't been challenged to respond to legitimate postings. Perhaps you can change that?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 01:15:40 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=Gordon] Mostly, though, I haven't been challenged to respond to legitimate postings. Perhaps you can change that? |
I certainly won't! I have far too much distain for you at the moment to engage you on any level beyond meaningless name-calling - so I'm opting out.
Just thought you should know...
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 02:06:02 PM · #49 |
I was reading about the Rice testimony and a thought came to mind.
People are saying George Bush should have done something to prevent 9/11 (forget about the guy that had that job the 8 years prior). What would that have been? Since we didn't know exactly how we were going to be attacked, preventative measures would have been ineffective (anyone that can say they foreseen planes being hijacked with box cutters and used as missiles should quit wasting their time here and join the CIA). Doing something would have meant invading terrorist camps, killing people, taking prisoners, dropping bombs... and would have involved the deaths of American soldiers all before the 9/11 attacks. Hmmm attacking an enemy before they attack us. Good idea.
Now, these same people say we shouldn't be attacking Iraq. Should we or should we not do something before we are attacked? Make up your mind. The same people that would have criticized Bush for attacking terrorist camps before 9/11 are now complaining that he didn't and they are also complaining that he is doing it somewhere else.
(edited for bad spelling)
Message edited by author 2004-04-08 14:07:41. |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 02:17:46 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by darcy:
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=Gordon] Mostly, though, I haven't been challenged to respond to legitimate postings. Perhaps you can change that? |
I certainly won't! I have far too much distain for you at the moment to engage you on any level beyond meaningless name-calling - so I'm opting out.
Just thought you should know... |
Thank you for sharing that. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
I don't understand why you have too much distain for me, unless it's because I pointed out a false statement in your previous post. Whatever your reasons, though, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. FWIW, I do not regard you in a like manner, at all.
Ron |
|
