I read it.... yet another inspector that heard rumors but has no proof of anything other than ...to poarphrase... the US fucked it all up...
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html > > Scott Ritter before he got bought out. > > Mark wrote: > > *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 >> >> >> > > > -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
