Which of course the other European powers ignored... You like 20/20 hindsight proof... Does not work that way in life except for missionary moralists...
You ignore the uncertainty of Saddam lack of WMD pre 2002... That is your basic logical flaw... The chemical precursors were declared by Saddam that "explained away" by saying we got rid of them without documentation... To you that constitutes certainty while it is in fact a state of uncertainty..... On Jul 20, 6:05 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, there was absolute incontovertible proof of Hitlers build up..... > where was that diligence under Bush when his OWN inspectors were saying it > was not so.... this is such a tired arguement from your "side" you had and > have NO proof to sustain your opinion. > > If you do have PROOF, please offer it now or simply go away. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And in the context of chemical WMD, it takes only weeks or a few > > months to make, deliver, then employ WMD using non state actors as > > AQ... In this context, define "imminent"... Mark would demand all > > "trust" Saddam's word... Not unlike Hitler in the mid to late > > 30's... > > > On Jul 20, 5:07 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
