Mark, England, Israel, France and Germany.. and to a degree, even the Russians thought Saddam had WMD's. Most did not believe he had nuclear capability and most did not believe the threat was urgent or even imminent. But it's clear that most of the major foreign intelligence agencies believed to some degree that Saddam had WMD's. Of course, Saddam's own admission that he intentionally mislead the world community on his WMD capability to keep Iran honest can help explain why so many may have believed he had at least some capability.
I agree only the US and Britain expressed concerns over an imminent threat from Iraq, but to suggest only the US and Britain believed Iraq had any kind of WMD program at all is not correct. On Jul 20, 3:21 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > show me any proofs profered by anyone else that is not from a USA source.... > I'll wait here. > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Only the US thought Saddam had WMDs? ROTFLMAO!! True willfull > > ignorance. > > > On Jul 20, 10:54 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
