*intelligence*.*senate*.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
