No, only the US was duped into that line of thought and the US and "the West" are NOT synonymous.
On Jul 20, 8:15 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > Once again your facts are NOT facts. > > >>> Of course Bush never ignored tons of intel from a variety of sources > > The fact is the consensuses of Western Intel was that Saddam had/ or > could have WMD ( including poison gas).. > > >>> based on what good marines and intel officers who have been ther 4+ times > >>> since before 2002 have told me > > Of course you ignore the effects of the intel bureaucracy which gives > the President and Congress a intel summary... The CIA has given bad > information to our leaders for decades... This is one problem your > line of reasons ignores and refuses to suggest any solution... > > >>> Oh, and some people would say we should invade every country that isn't > >>> nice. > > Ah the generic "Some People" smear.... Some people who were anti > Iraq were anti-American... Some type of generalization... > > On Jul 18, 2:39 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your point of view is yours. Of course Bush never ignored tons of > > intel from a variety of sources, in order to follow an agenda and thus > > followed ONLY the intel bought and paid for from a guy I guess you > > would call a "reliable source". Okay. If you say so. And they'll > > welcome us with open arms. Absolutely. > > Oh, and my point of view is based on what good marines and intel > > officers who have been ther 4+ times since before 2002 have told me. I > > really never knew squat about the region until recent years. I still > > wouldn't hold myself out as any kind of expert. > > But the fact is, they appreciate nothing and will celebrate our > > laeving. They are spitting in our face every day and have been for > > over a year. > > > Oh, and some people would say we should invade every country that > > isn't nice. Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers made it crystal > > clear, that is not our role. I'm kinda big on that Constitution thing. > > Even when it doesn't support my agenda. > > > On Jul 18, 10:58 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> f there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did > > > > I use the UNSC's definition of WMD... And by that standard he had > > > WMD... Second the CIA has been all too often wrong since the > > > 60's... The claim Bush alter intel info is bogus and only used by > > > partisans wishing to politicize the CIA, as Pelosi is doing right > > > now... > > > > >>> Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but > > > >>> again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey > > > > WMD also includes chemical and biological... But you know that... > > > And frankly they are the bigger threat as attacks by stateless groups > > > have already occurred using WMD... > > > > >>> They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate what > > > >>> we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress > > > > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. Iraq has > > > already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of > > > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But > > > you believe what you want to believe. > > > > Of course you ignore what I said > > > > >>> The question here is not fighting the outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... > > > > And to Arab Iraqis, Iranian Shia and AQ Sunni are far more dangerous > > > outside invaders... Given a choice, choosing America over Iran or AQ > > > is VERY rational.... Shocking to many in the Moslem world and to our > > > Left, but once the shock is over it is why the AQ role model and the > > > Iranian role model are now in decline for ordinary Moslems throughout > > > the world on the whole... > > > > Your POV is quite explainable if one assumes an closed minded Western > > > (LW) missionary mindset that is so insisted on by our media... > > > > On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. Large, > > > > tight formations are easy targets and we know that. Not to mention > > > > that we would have sent a least one division to sweep and search the > > > > area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual (or any other) > > > > evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one peek. I'm former > > > > navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush screwed our Humint > > > > network fro some time to come, we still would have been able to find > > > > evidence - if believed it was ever there. > > > > But I get it. You really, really, really want to believe there were > > > > WMD's there. Okay. > > > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but > > > > again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey. > > > > > Talk about wanting to believe lies. > > > > > I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them Psy-Ops and a couple Force > > > > Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate > > > > what we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress > > > > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. > > > > Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of > > > > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But > > > > you believe what you want to believe. > > > > > On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >>> We also had the certainty that there really were no WMD's > > > > > > Not true. > > > > > > >>> Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting people they > > > > > >>> viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > > > > Once again you show little understanding... Both AQ and the > > > > > Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh form of Radical Islam... > > > > > As is the lowland Pakistani... The question here is not fighting the > > > > > outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit strategy? Stability and a > > > > > non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear nation-state... > > > > > > >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. > > > > > >>> They had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & > > > > > >>> technology have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been > > > > > >>> successful only at blowing up weddings and killing civilians. > > > > > >>> Lots of them. It's a mess > > > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > > > > Tactics and technology make a huge difference... As the fact the our > > > > > WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term occupying power is far less > > > > > than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a difference... The > > > > > Russian border aided in supplying their troops but harmed the "Soft > > > > > Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying power... > > > > > > >>> The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we > > > > > >>> have truthful cause to go after. > > > > > > Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... > > > > > > On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many sanctions on Iraq before > > > > > > invading, they couldn't import dental equipment (because it could > > > > > > possibly be modified for weapons use - go figure). We also had the > > > > > > certainty that there really were no WMD's. So it was nothing to > > > > > > storm > > > > > > right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting there. It was afterward > > > > > > the > > > > > > problems started. Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting > > > > > > people they viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > > > > I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They > > > > > > had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology > > > > > > have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at > > > > > > blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > > > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > > > > The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we > > > > > > have > > > > > > truthful cause to go after. > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Iraq was [almost] a cake walk, compared to what we face in > > > > > > > Afghanistan. Even with enough troops (500,000 +/-), it'll take a > > > > > > > generation to pacify Afghanistan - a mountainous moonscape the > > > > > > > size of > > > > > > > Texas covered with 70-million ants (nomads, warring tribes - > > > > > > > barefoot, > > > > > > > illiterate villages). There's nothing there to "rebuild," it's all > > > > > > > from scratch. The people are suspicious of everything, even a > > > > > > > simple, > > > > > > > local hydro-pump to generate electricity. > > > > > > > > Then there's Pakistan, blood-brother to Afghanistan; we'll never > > > > > > > subdue one without subduing the other. And by that time we'll be > > > > > > > broke, no longer a viable nation - which makes the whole surge- > > > > > > > strategy a lethal mistake.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
