DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/03/2005 12:31:54 PM · #151
Seems to me that the US takes the role of enforcer without the approval of most other governments and as such is arrogance to the extreme. Isn\'t it possible that if the US takes unilateral action against more countries that they will be mistaken in the same way that they were mistaken with Iraq? Isn\'t it also possible that the US has \"cried wolf\" now too often and will not be heeded by the rest of the world? It\'s the responsibility of the US to provide the proof that these other countries are the threat to our interests and values, as well as, to define what those interests are and have a consistent foreign policy too all countries. They do not have that consistency. Eg...Saudi Arabia. They have dismal human rights history but I don\'t hear any condemnation by Bush against that regime. So I cannot help but assume that the members of both PNAC and the Bush administration have morally corrupt reasons for the countries they choose to confront.

Originally posted by RonB:


...that the PNAC holds as principle that we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values. The interests and values are not specifically delineated, but one must assume that they are not morally corrupt ( e.g. it's NOT about the oil ). If you find evidence that they ARE, then we can have futher discussion.
02/03/2005 12:35:03 PM · #152
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Here's a big difference between conservative analysis and liberal analysis. Conservatives say that the intelligence was amiss which resulted in our invading Iraq. Liberals say that the intelligence was manipulated by the administration to further their aims and agenda of invading that country. I believe the latter, of course, as a number of people within the Bush admin spoke about the Bush's desire to invade Iraq, prior to 9/11, among other reasons.

I have publicly stated my oppositon to the high tax rates that I am required to pay. But I have never "manipulated" the reports of my income to thwart the system. Just because Bush may have indicated his desire to invade Iraq does not mean that he would manipulate intelligence reports to convince others to approve doing it. Of course, you believe otherwise because you have been exposed to liberals who have no integrity for so long that you are conditioned to accept and believe the worst about anybody if it furthers your agenda.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

You also make it sound like the CIA was unanimous in agreeing that Iraq was an immediate threat, but to the contrary, there were many within that organization that dissented. Many of them are gone now in the CIA's reorganization that's taking place, especially with Porter Goss as the new head.

I never thought that there was unanimity in the CIA's interpretation of the intelligence data. But decisions were made based on a preponderance of the evidence, by a majority of the agency heads.[/quote]

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Claims by the administration that there existed a link between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda were ludicrous and also shows that what was really going on was more public relations to persuade the American public that an invasion was to our best interests.

That's your story, and you're sticking to it. Unfortunately, your story fails when the truth is exposed. There WAS a LINK between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda. The administration never claimed that there was a link between Sadaam and the attacks on 9/11.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So either Bush and company was amiss for not heeding all of the available intelligence, or they chose to ignore that part which didn't fit with their agenda.

So, you're saying that they were amiss for not giving more credence to the MINORITY report than to the MAJORITY report? I guess that YOU would have rather put the US national security at risk than ignore a MINORITY of the CIA analysts - is that right? By the way, wouldn't that fit YOUR agenda - i.e. you would have ignored that part which didn't fit with YOUR agenda?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The CIA's new role in the government is going to be lessened and they will probalby be taking more of a role in domestic intelligence gathering. The Pentagon will be replacing them and this probably means more and more of a militaristic approach to dealing with foreign policy and less and less diplomacy. Bad approach in my opinion. A good example of this happening now is with Iran. The European countries that have been negotiating with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear enrichment program have been begging the United States to get involved with the negotiating process, but the US has refused. Why is that? Shouldn't the US be interested in diplomacy and avoiding more militaristic actions that could destablize the world even more?

I think that the US is NOT getting involved so that it becomes painfully clear that no matter how many other nations negotiate with Iran, or how hard they negotiate, their efforts will completely and utterly fail. That is the only way to show that diplomacy is not the answer when dealing with some powers. The only reason the others want US involvement is because of the military might that the US brings to the "negotiating" table. Without that military power, negotiations have no teeth.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Liberals ARE looking towards the future, Ron, but it seems to me that the conservatives are the ones looking back, constantly referring to 9/11. Liberals were the ones looking forward all along, even before that fateful day.

So, please summarize for me what the Clinton administration did about the terrorist attacks in the 8 years HE was at the helm.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

In my opinion, and many other, as well, Bush and the neocons and the corporations were fearful of what the left wanted because it represented a lot of what the people on this planet wanted and they feared that their plans would have to be changed. The WTO demostrations in Seattle of late '99 and the demonstrations in Geneva of 2000 and the demonstrations in NY against the World Economic Forum all showed unity by the left of opposing corporate globalization and greed and of a desire by the left to redefine the economics of our times.

What a lot of people on this planet want is to see the downfall of the United States. They are jealous of our power in the world ecomomy and in our military superiority. And, you're right - that is just what the left wants too - to see our downfall. And you're right, too, that Bush, the neocons, and the corporations are fearful of that agenda.
02/03/2005 01:35:23 PM · #153
No Ron, I'm not conditioned, it's what I truly believe. I'm also not swayed by the propaganda and public relations that the Bush administration puts out. The monies that the Bush administration put out for those purposes, are a drop in the bucket compared to the resources of the left. Has always been that way and always will. But the minute that the conservatives and the corporations get an inkling that their fnancial and power structure interests are questioned by a large contingent of people they get scared and act scared. They rule by fear and their actions are governed by fear...and they seek to instill this fear in the rest of the country.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Here's a big difference between conservative analysis and liberal analysis. Conservatives say that the intelligence was amiss which resulted in our invading Iraq. Liberals say that the intelligence was manipulated by the administration to further their aims and agenda of invading that country. I believe the latter, of course, as a number of people within the Bush admin spoke about the Bush's desire to invade Iraq, prior to 9/11, among other reasons.

I have publicly stated my oppositon to the high tax rates that I am required to pay. But I have never "manipulated" the reports of my income to thwart the system. Just because Bush may have indicated his desire to invade Iraq does not mean that he would manipulate intelligence reports to convince others to approve doing it. Of course, you believe otherwise because you have been exposed to liberals who have no integrity for so long that you are conditioned to accept and believe the worst about anybody if it furthers your agenda.


****

Was the preponderance of timely CIA intelligence evidence showing that Iraq was a current threat? Or did the administration choose to ignore the intelligence that showed Iraq's threat had been dismantled just like they choose to ignore Richard Clark's dire warnings of terrorist threats in the US?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

You also make it sound like the CIA was unanimous in agreeing that Iraq was an immediate threat, but to the contrary, there were many within that organization that dissented. Many of them are gone now in the CIA's reorganization that's taking place, especially with Porter Goss as the new head.

I never thought that there was unanimity in the CIA's interpretation of the intelligence data. But decisions were made based on a preponderance of the evidence, by a majority of the agency heads.


****

The administration DID claim a link between SH and aQ. Colin Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003 spoke at length about it and Dick Cheney spoke about it as well. Seems you have selective amnesia. Can you please detail the link that you say existed?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Claims by the administration that there existed a link between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda were ludicrous and also shows that what was really going on was more public relations to persuade the American public that an invasion was to our best interests.

That's your story, and you're sticking to it. Unfortunately, your story fails when the truth is exposed. There WAS a LINK between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda. The administration never claimed that there was a link between Sadaam and the attacks on 9/11.


****

What do you think my agenda is, Ron?

Can you provide proof that there were minority and majority reports in the CIA? Just the fact that there were major differences of opinion within the intelligence and foreign communities should have caused Bush to NOT rush into a war that they weren't prepared for, especially given the fact that we were already fighting in Afghanistan! It is the Bush administration that has put our national security more at risk, not the left. They left us open for a 9/11, and they have created more terrorists by our invasion of Iraq. We have less friends in the world now and they think we can eradicate terrorism through militarism...a big mistake.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So either Bush and company was amiss for not heeding all of the available intelligence, or they chose to ignore that part which didn't fit with their agenda.

So, you're saying that they were amiss for not giving more credence to the MINORITY report than to the MAJORITY report? I guess that YOU would have rather put the US national security at risk than ignore a MINORITY of the CIA analysts - is that right? By the way, wouldn't that fit YOUR agenda - i.e. you would have ignored that part which didn't fit with YOUR agenda?


****

Negotiations worked very well with the N. Koreans when Clinton negotiated a treaty with them to put a halt to their nuclear weapons program. It's the Bush administration that has caused North Korea to renew their need for producing nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The CIA's new role in the government is going to be lessened and they will probalby be taking more of a role in domestic intelligence gathering. The Pentagon will be replacing them and this probably means more and more of a militaristic approach to dealing with foreign policy and less and less diplomacy. Bad approach in my opinion. A good example of this happening now is with Iran. The European countries that have been negotiating with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear enrichment program have been begging the United States to get involved with the negotiating process, but the US has refused. Why is that? Shouldn't the US be interested in diplomacy and avoiding more militaristic actions that could destablize the world even more?

I think that the US is NOT getting involved so that it becomes painfully clear that no matter how many other nations negotiate with Iran, or how hard they negotiate, their efforts will completely and utterly fail. That is the only way to show that diplomacy is not the answer when dealing with some powers. The only reason the others want US involvement is because of the military might that the US brings to the "negotiating" table. Without that military power, negotiations have no teeth.


****

You refer back to the Clinton administration but that's in the past. Haven't you already said you want to look to the future and that we shouldn't be looking back at the past?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Liberals ARE looking towards the future, Ron, but it seems to me that the conservatives are the ones looking back, constantly referring to 9/11. Liberals were the ones looking forward all along, even before that fateful day.

So, please summarize for me what the Clinton administration did about the terrorist attacks in the 8 years HE was at the helm.


****

The left does not want the downfall of the US...don't you think that's a rediculous statement since we live here too? If we stay the Bush admin's course then we will surely have a downfall, especially economically. The dollar is greatly devalued, we have a record enormous deficit and no more security than we had before 9/11.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

In my opinion, and many other, as well, Bush and the neocons and the corporations were fearful of what the left wanted because it represented a lot of what the people on this planet wanted and they feared that their plans would have to be changed. The WTO demostrations in Seattle of late '99 and the demonstrations in Geneva of 2000 and the demonstrations in NY against the World Economic Forum all showed unity by the left of opposing corporate globalization and greed and of a desire by the left to redefine the economics of our times.

What a lot of people on this planet want is to see the downfall of the United States. They are jealous of our power in the world ecomomy and in our military superiority. And, you're right - that is just what the left wants too - to see our downfall. And you're right, too, that Bush, the neocons, and the corporations are fearful of that agenda.


******************

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 23:56:43.
02/03/2005 01:47:10 PM · #154
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

...that the PNAC holds as principle that we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values. The interests and values are not specifically delineated, but one must assume that they are not morally corrupt ( e.g. it's NOT about the oil ). If you find evidence that they ARE, then we can have futher discussion.
Seems to me that the US takes the role of enforcer without the approval of most other governments and as such is arrogance to the extreme.

My read of the PNAC principle says "CHALLENGE regimes hostile to our interests and values", not "take the role of enforcer without the approval of most other governments". While I respect your opinion on what the image of the US is, the point of discussion is neither US Policy nor US actions - rather it is the principle outlined by PNAC. Bringing what the US does or doesn't do into the discussion is completely irrelevant ( but typical of liberal argument ).

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Isn\'t it possible that if the US takes unilateral action against more countries that they will be mistaken in the same way that they were mistaken with Iraq? Isn\'t it also possible that the US has \"cried wolf\" now too often and will not be heeded by the rest of the world?

Certainly, ANYthing is possible. It may even be probable. But, so what? Are you willing to ignore the risk of a North Korean nuclear buildup because our cries might not be "heeded by the rest of the world"?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It\'s the responsibility of the US to provide the proof that these other countries are the threat to our interests and values, as well as, to define what those interests are and have a consistent foreign policy too all countries. They do not have that consistency. Eg...Saudi Arabia. They have dismal human rights history but I don\'t hear any condemnation by Bush against that regime.

While I agree that the US has been soft on human rights issues, and do not excuse them in any way ( neither the government nor the abuses), I don't think that, in and of themselves, human rights abuses rise to the level of being a "threat to ur interest and values". I, too, would like to see a more consistent foreing policy in dealing with those countries who are guilty of human rights violations.
That being said, I repeat - what the US does or doesn't do is immaterial vis-a-vis the stated principle of PNAC.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So I cannot help but assume that the members of both PNAC and the Bush administration have morally corrupt reasons for the countries they choose to confront.

You are entitled, as always, to assume what you want. But as for me, I'd like to see some kind of factual evidence to support your assumptions.
02/03/2005 02:14:35 PM · #155
I'll respond to your earlier post once you have corrected the quotation attributes. In a number of places you show what I posted as being attributable to you and what you posted as being attributable to me. I could correct the attributions but wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of twisting your post or mis-quoting you.
02/03/2005 02:29:40 PM · #156
Originally posted by Olyuzi:


Negotiations worked very well with the N. Koreans when Clinton negotiated a treaty with them to put a halt to their nuclear weapons program. It's the Bush administration that has caused North Korea to renew their need for producing nuclear weapons.



You are so misinformed. Look at Madeline Albright's recent quotes about N.Korea lying to the Clinton Administration. It is that administration that got us to where we are with them. Look at this report from when she left N.Korea: Report

More M. Albright quotes using Bush's "lies" :

"Iraq is a long way from the U.S., but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -Madeleine Albright

"Saddam's goal is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeleine Albright

What more dems said about WMD using Bush's lies many even before he was in office. Go to snopes.com for full context. Each quote has been verified as true:

more quotes

Use the following search and ask yourself if WMD's still exist. We are just looking in the wrong place. Thank them dems for buy Saddam more time before the war started:

//search.yahoo.com/search?p=Iraqi+weapons+scientists+working+in+syria+and+iran+&sm
=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=21



Message edited by karmat - fixing links and dividing bottom one .
02/03/2005 04:01:45 PM · #157
As this is moving to the realm of truly pointless I will just post a declassified US government document from 1962, Operation Northwoods, where the US plans to invade Cuba but in a way that looks like Cuba pre-empted the US, to rally support in the US for a war. Operation Northwoods declassified documents (Specifically starting on page 10)

"A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces." - as one example, there are many more.

History is the key. Unfortunately those in power erase history they do not approve of from the masses. One has to look deep and hard to find the truth.

This is not about hating America or any other propaganda like that. It’s about the Truth.

"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead..."
-Thomas Jefferson

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 16:07:37.
02/03/2005 05:01:18 PM · #158
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

As this is moving to the realm of truly pointless I will just post a declassified US government document from 1962, Operation Northwoods, where the US plans to invade Cuba but in a way that looks like Cuba pre-empted the US, to rally support in the US for a war. Operation Northwoods declassified documents (Specifically starting on page 10)

"A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces." - as one example, there are many more.

History is the key. Unfortunately those in power erase history they do not approve of from the masses. One has to look deep and hard to find the truth.

This is not about hating America or any other propaganda like that. It’s about the Truth.

"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead..."
-Thomas Jefferson

I assume that there is a purpose for your posting other than a strong desire to post links to all sites that show "the Truth". So, perhaps you could articulate the reason for posting it? Or would you rather have us read your mind, or worse, make our own inferences.
02/03/2005 05:05:51 PM · #159
An example of US foreign policy and history of aggression, manipulation and lies.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 17:08:16.
02/03/2005 05:12:08 PM · #160
Originally posted by bbower1956:

We are just looking in the wrong place.


I could not agree with that more.
02/03/2005 05:30:32 PM · #161
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

An example of US foreign policy and history of aggression, manipulation and lies.

Ahh. That clears that up. Now perhaps you could relate it to somethng in this thread?
02/03/2005 05:50:04 PM · #162
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

An example of US foreign policy and history of aggression, manipulation and lies.

Ahh. That clears that up. Now perhaps you could relate it to somethng in this thread?


Iraq? WMD's? Known intent to invade Iraq prior to 9/11? Needing a "new Pearl Harbour" as is written in PNAC to rally support? PNAC mentality being in great power in US Government?

Connect the dots..

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 18:01:58.
02/03/2005 06:08:19 PM · #163
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

An example of US foreign policy and history of aggression, manipulation and lies.

Ahh. That clears that up. Now perhaps you could relate it to somethng in this thread?


Iraq? WMD's? Known intent to invade Iraq prior to 9/11? Needing a "new Pearl Harbour" as is written in PNAC to rally support? PNAC mentality being in great power in US Government?

Connect the dots..

Actually, I'd rather have you connect the dots. For just once, I'd like to see one of you liberals actually have the guts to state exactly what it is you mean, instead of just constantly spewing unfounded accusations and innuendo laden oblique references. Be a man and make a stand. If you actually believe that Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq, as it seems you are implying, then come out and say so. If you dare. And if you don't dare...then I wouldn'd be surprised in the least.
02/03/2005 06:15:37 PM · #164
Originally posted by RonB:

If you actually believe that Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq, as it seems you are implying, then come out and say so. If you dare. And if you don't dare...then I wouldn'd be surprised in the least.


I think GW Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq. I think They did it and it worked. And I think they are still obviously fooling some people with their lies.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 18:17:40.
02/03/2005 06:22:10 PM · #165
The US government manufactured reasons and consent to go to war in the Middle East for strategic geopolitical and military control of the #1 source of the world’s energy and to project US power on the world.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 18:22:58.
02/03/2005 06:24:37 PM · #166
Originally posted by ericlimon:

I think GW Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq. I think They did it and it worked. And I think they are still obviously fooling some people with their lies.


What kind of evidence do you have of that, it sounds more like you just don't like GW to begin with. And what lies would those be that they are using to fool us with? It's supposed to obvious right?
02/03/2005 06:31:42 PM · #167
Originally posted by radiman:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I think GW Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq. I think They did it and it worked. And I think they are still obviously fooling some people with their lies.


What kind of evidence do you have of that, it sounds more like you just don't like GW to begin with. And what lies would those be that they are using to fool us with? It's supposed to obvious right?


Actually, I was responding to RonB, when he said "f you actually believe that Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq, as it seems you are implying, then come out and say so."

I believe GW Bush Lied and pulled this country into this war. And i think it was pre-meditated. And i hope he gets impeached for it. The facts are out there, I don't need to prove my beliefs to you, I stated what i THINK.

You try to prove to ME that I'm wrong. good luck.
02/03/2005 06:34:43 PM · #168
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

If you actually believe that Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq, as it seems you are implying, then come out and say so. If you dare. And if you don't dare...then I wouldn'd be surprised in the least.


I think GW Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq. I think They did it and it worked. And I think they are still obviously fooling some people with their lies.

I congratulate you on two fronts:
1) Unlike many of your liberal cohorts, you had the guts to clearly state what you think. No innuendo; no vague implications.
2) You actually made your statements in such a way as to clearly inform us that they were OPINION, and did not attempt to pass them off as FACT.

I respect you for doing both. I also think that you are wrong, of course. But I respect your opinion.

Now, if you would - what evidence can you offer to support your thinking? I'd be interested to know
1) Do you think that Bush coerced his intelligence agencies to provide false documents about Iraq's WMD programs? Documents that were sufficient to convince the UN to impose further Sanctions, and sufficient to convince members of the Senate and House to authorize the use of military force to enforce those sanctions? If so, what leads you to believe that?
2) Do you think that the satellite images that Powell provided in his speech before the UN were fake? If so, what leads you to think so?
3) Do you think that the recorded phone conversations that Powell provided in his speech before the UN were fake? If so, what leads you to think so?
4) If this was a pretext, how did Bush get Sadaam Hussein to play into the plan? It would seem that Sadaam could have easily thwarted the pretext by merely opening up to unfettered inspections. Do you think that he was in on the Pretext? If so, what leads you to believe that?

Answers to those questions would help to convince me that you have at least a basic foundation for thinking the way you do.
02/03/2005 06:39:42 PM · #169
I'll get back to your questions in a little bit.
02/03/2005 06:46:08 PM · #170
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

The US government manufactured reasons and consent to go to war in the Middle East for strategic geopolitical and military control of the #1 source of the world’s energy and to project US power on the world.

Not too shabby. The only problem is that it's not derogatory enough. The IMPLICATION from your linking and connect-the-dots implication is that the runup to the war was a PRETEXT. You have obviusly backed off of that bit of innuendo and are now only saying that the reasons were manufactured, not that the evidence BEHIND the reasons was manufactured. Even so, one would think that "manufactured reasons" would not have been sufficient to fool all those UN delegates plus 77 US Senators and 296 US Representatives. If Bush & company are really THAT good, then I haven't given them full credit. Also, didn't the pre-war agenda have more to do with getting revenge on Sadaam because of Bush Sr.? If so, the latter part of your rationale doesn't jibe. Are you changing horses in mid-stream.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 18:56:23.
02/03/2005 06:54:25 PM · #171
Originally posted by ericlimon:

I'll get back to your questions in a little bit.

No rush, Eric. I'd appreciate more than a "rushed" response - these are weighty questions and I really would like reasoned responses. While you construct your responses, if you would like to have me clarify my position, or defend it, just ask. Just don't ask me to "prove a negative". If by chance I ask you to do so, it would not be by intent, just a momentary lapse - feel free to correct me immediately.
Regards
02/03/2005 06:58:11 PM · #172
Originally posted by RonB:

Now, if you would - what evidence can you offer to support your thinking? I'd be interested to know
1) Do you think that Bush coerced his intelligence agencies to provide false documents about Iraq's WMD programs? Documents that were sufficient to convince the UN to impose further Sanctions, and sufficient to convince members of the Senate and House to authorize the use of military force to enforce those sanctions? If so, what leads you to believe that?


Originally posted by RonB:

2) Do you think that the satellite images that Powell provided in his speech before the UN were fake?


I don't actually believe they were fakes (as in forged), although i'm sure it is possible for images like that to be forged. What i DO know, is those "decontamination vehicals" (which were associated with chemical weapons) were actually firetrucks (as explained by Norwegian inspector Jorn Siljeholm ). yes, i guess those satellite images can probably be a little tough to read, and mistakes happen. and since the inspector anounced this, NO contrary evidence has ever been found. Powell also said defectors had reported "bio-weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. These "factories" actually turned out to be weather balloon fueling stations.

02/03/2005 07:20:35 PM · #173
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Now, if you would - what evidence can you offer to support your thinking? I'd be interested to know
1) Do you think that Bush coerced his intelligence agencies to provide false documents about Iraq's WMD programs? Documents that were sufficient to convince the UN to impose further Sanctions, and sufficient to convince members of the Senate and House to authorize the use of military force to enforce those sanctions? If so, what leads you to believe that?


Originally posted by RonB:

2) Do you think that the satellite images that Powell provided in his speech before the UN were fake?


I don't actually believe they were fakes (as in forged), although i'm sure it is possible for images like that to be forged. What i DO know, is those "decontamination vehicals" (which were associated with chemical weapons) were actually firetrucks (as explained by Norwegian inspector Jorn Siljeholm ). yes, i guess those satellite images can probably be a little tough to read, and mistakes happen. and since the inspector anounced this, NO contrary evidence has ever been found. Powell also said defectors had reported "bio-weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. These "factories" actually turned out to be weather balloon fueling stations.

Furthermore, we know, again in hindsight, that at least SOME of the defectors lied.
I think that we can agree that 1) satellite images are difficult to read, 2) they can be misinterpreted ( and depending on the individual, in a way that edges toward support of the interpreters pre-conceived theories, and that 3) some of the interpretation was based on lies ( but yet again, in a direction that supports pre-conceived theories ).
My take on it is: honest error - not doctored photos, not "manufactured" reasons, no intended misdirection. Just human error.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 19:21:50.
02/03/2005 07:41:23 PM · #174
Originally posted by RonB:


4) If this was a pretext, how did Bush get Sadaam Hussein to play into the plan? It would seem that Sadaam could have easily thwarted the pretext by merely opening up to unfettered inspections. Do you think that he was in on the Pretext? If so, what leads you to believe that?


Why would he be in on this? Sure, the administartion benefited from the fact that sadam didn't work with the inspectors. It LOOKED like he was hiding something. we all can agree on that. But do you really think sadam would work with the UN on demand from the US? maybe being an evil dictator makes you think you can thumb your nose at the rest of the world. He probably also suspected that the US's cooperation with the UN was just a ruse and the US intended to declare war no matter what action sadam took, short of resigning or going into exile. I doubt he would resign or go into exile very much. even IF it meant the US wouldn't attack Iraq.
02/03/2005 07:55:47 PM · #175
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:


4) If this was a pretext, how did Bush get Sadaam Hussein to play into the plan? It would seem that Sadaam could have easily thwarted the pretext by merely opening up to unfettered inspections. Do you think that he was in on the Pretext? If so, what leads you to believe that?


Why would he be in on this? Sure, the administartion benefited from the fact that sadam didn't work with the inspectors. It LOOKED like he was hiding something. we all can agree on that. But do you really think sadam would work with the UN on demand from the US? maybe being an evil dictator makes you think you can thumb your nose at the rest of the world. He probably also suspected that the US's cooperation with the UN was just a ruse and the US intended to declare war no matter what action sadam took, short of resigning or going into exile. I doubt he would resign or go into exile very much. even IF it meant the US wouldn't attack Iraq.

No, I certainly don't think Sadaam was in on any pretext. I'm glad you agree. My point is that if the build-up for the war WAS a pretext, as you said you think it was, then the pretext was absolutely dependent on Sadaam NOT granting unfettered access to the inspectors. I don't see why the administration would spend the kind of time, effor, and money to create the pretext knowing that its success was completely dependent on someone over whom they had no control, not to mention that if Sadaam HAD granted unfettered access then their pretext ( if, indeed, it was a pretext ) would have been exposed. I don't think that the administration would have taken that degree of risk.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 09/22/2021 11:13:01 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/22/2021 11:13:01 PM EDT.