[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Nobody, but nobody, actually believed that Saddam was capable of telling the truth. *
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, in my earlier rant, i missed this.
Subsequent to this debacle, i hope no rational individual will actually believe that Dubby is capable of telling the truth on any significant policy issue.
Iraq had also dragged on too long without resolution, and while Saddam could have morphed into a Qaddafi-like benign but let's-hold-our-nose-he's-not-bad-enough-for-military-action, type leader, instead he played silly games with the inspectors for the better part of a decade.
When the Dem's decided not to fight the concept, particualrly the ones that had been on the intelligence committees for decades, not just the Bush years, it was a done deal.
Iraq WAS used as a whipping boy, a very deserving, strategically important whipping boy. As far as Europe, the continent constantly on holiday, the countries that had recently been freed from totalitarian rule were strongly for removing Saddam.
Bush is far more interested in China/Japan/Singapore/Korea than Europe. All of those countries have huge and growing market based economies, and they all are just as dependent on oil. China in particular has it's own problem with Radical Islam, and they make our "Patriot Act" look like child's play. The Russians, despite a lot of debt to Iraq are very interested in selling oil and getting rid of radical Islam. A strong world economy puts Russia on it's feet again. Their objections are pretty faint these days, Huh? Oil prices are up, and they are happy. The Saudi's need the world economy to flow to pay off a whole generation of trustfund babies who are too good to take real jobs, and remain on the state dole.
So let's not conclude that the vocal quasi-socialist European countries spoke for every country. Saddam was a fire-cracker in the oil field. He was flushed before he exploded and ignited the whole thing.
If you're interested in discussion rather than just a forum to blow off steam, consider this.
Intelligence agencies gather bits and pieces of raw intelligence. Then, they have a bunch of cerebrally oriented guys and gals who take the bits and pieces of raw intelligence and make assessments based thereon. Political leaders then devise policies based upon the assessments.
Apparently, the cerebrally oriented guys and gals who have been making assessments regarding Iraq for the last 14 years (encompassing three different Presidential administrations) have been pretty consistent in their assessments regarding Saddam's WMD arsenal and programs. Keep in mind that many of these guys and gals are civil service employees who aren't dependent upon their jobs by who occupies the white house. Thus, George II got assessments similar to Clinton I (??) who got assessments similar to George I.
The raw intelligence wasn't dummied up nor was the assessment dummied up once George II became President. To be sure, the white house response to the same raw intelligence and assessments was entirely different with the George II white house. Does that make George II a liar? No. The intelligence photos and communications intercepts disclosed by Powell to the UN were similarly not dummied up. The conclusion/assessments could be wrong without Powell ever being a "liar."
I have always and consistently maintained that if we never found stockpiles of WMD, then that would be an intelligence failure of deep concern to me. Further, that intelligence failure could cause some significant long term damage to the credibility of our intelligence services and therefore our government. (It doesn't however lead me to conclude that the war on Iraq should never have happened. I'd have supported it just as much for the reasons often advocated by OG.)
Intelligence failures happen. If they didn't happen, the WTC would still be standing.
I support an investigation (a private one) that will attempt to find out how our cerebral guys and gals apparently made assessments regarding Iraq that were off base. But you are off base, IMO, with your rants of "Liar, Liar" directed at GW and his administration. If George II is a liar on this issue, so to is Clinton before him and so to is George I before him.
As to the outcome, I am reminded by the Shakespearean quote "hoist by his own petard." If Iraq had no WMD and no WMD programs, Saddam's tactical decisions and obstinence which left the very strong appearance that he had same are the petard on which he was ultimately hoist.
MV,
I think you are exacly right about the intelligence issues.
The smart people extrapolated a line based on a decade of experience. They figured the line would extend to the horizon until they absolutely knew otherwise. What they did not know was that the line dropped to 0 and stayed there. It is like an engineer who sees a strange reading on a gauge. The first thing they do is tap the gauge, believing that the gauge is really wrong, not the information. They concluded that Saddam was behaving as he always had, and that he was adapting his methods, and that when they saw ice on the water they presumed to know how big the iceburg was underwater.
It would have been irresponsible, and without historic basis to conclude that Saddam DID NOT have WMD.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Subsequent to this debacle, i hope no rational individual will actually believe that Dubby is capable of telling the truth on any significant policy issue.
[/QUOTE]
Well they are still believing him when he tells American's that the mission in Iraq was long ago (May 1 2003) accomplished, despite the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of American body bags have been flown back to states, and thousands upon thousands injured have returned home. Maybe they will slowly bleed this information to the US public as well?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Iraq WAS used as a whipping boy, a very deserving, strategically important whipping boy. *
[/QUOTE]
When you say "Iraq" in that statement, remember that the 'very deserving, strategically important whipping" was borne upon the backs of INNOCENT C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.
[quote]
....when they saw ice on the water they presumed to know how big the iceburg was underwater.
[/quote]
huh ???? You don't PRESUME when innocent civilians' lives are at stake. Good God people, we are not playing a chess game here. Enough with the proverbs and euphemisms and Shakespearean quotes. Your government deliberately lied to you and engaged in an invasion against INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
That's the bottom line. Petard or no Petard.
From some people’s favorite source, when it suits them…
War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention - HRW](Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention)
Btw, can someone tell us who has killed more Iraqi civilians (some 10,000 plus) in the last 10 months than any other group or regime?
Malik, can you tell us who threw out (in a time span of two weeks) a brutal dictator who's regime killed hundreds of thousands?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
When you say "Iraq" in that statement, remember that the 'very deserving, strategically important whipping" was borne upon the backs of INNOCENT C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.
huh ???? You don't PRESUME when innocent civilians' lives are at stake. Good God people, we are not playing a chess game here. Enough with the proverbs and euphemisms and Shakespearean quotes. Your government deliberately lied to you and engaged in an invasion against INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
That's the bottom line. Petard or no Petard.
[/QUOTE]
When I posted, I knew the odds were against you wanting to seriously discuss the issue and in favor of blowing off steam. What is the D-E-L-I-B-E-R-A-T-E lie Nadia? Was it one continuous DELIBERATE lie told for 14 years by GHWB, Clinton and GWB???
Do you know the difference between something being WRONG and something being a LIE ??? Unless you KNOW for a fact that the intelligence assessments given to the last three Presidents were different from what they told the public, then you have no basis for making the claims you are. Since you don't KNOW those assessments, you are wrong. Since you are wrong, should I call you a LIAR?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
....
[/QUOTE]
So can you tell us who has killed more Iraqi civilians (some 10,000 plus) in the last 10 months than any other group or regime?
Btw, do you know if a pair of golden spurs was found in any of Saddam's palaces or holes, when the US military moved in?
underthedome... do you want a list of all brutal dictators around the world, so you can throw them out too?
MV... we can harp upon the SOP of intelligence data gathering till cows come home just to prove that Powell technically never lied.. however, there is enough 'smoke' that has come out of Washington in the last many months, which suggests that intelligence community (those civil servants you refer to) were being pressurized to taint their intelligence conclusions to prove Iraq must have hidden stashes of WMD's just so these reports tie-in with White House's view of the middle east expansion plan.
Conspiracy theories don't interest me much. I am usually a follower of Occam's razor. And if for a moment, you assume, and I know thats a big assumption for you, that Saddam's scientists were saying the truth that Iraq had no WMD's or any plans to develop them either post '95, and you also assume that Osama never liked Saddam and vice versa.. then the whole case of war pretty much falls through... cz as a general rule, what would US care about brutal dictators when her best friends in the middle east are the unelected Sheikhs even right now.
[QUOTE]
When you say "Iraq" in that statement, remember that the 'very deserving, strategically important whipping" was borne upon the backs of INNOCENT C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.
[/QUOTE]
That's your best argument Nadia, but unfortunately it falls flat once you recognize that Saddam was far more effective Iraqi civilian killing machine than the US led coalition. The US got rid of a thorn in it's side that would have gladly given any WMD to OBL given the chance. An additional bonus is that this war ended the UN sanctions. The net-net is that we are saving lives, hence no outrage.
Everyone already knew that Bush was dumb. This might go a ways to re-confirm that knowledge but it doesn't make him a liar.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
That's your best argument Nadia, but unfortunately it falls flat once you recognize that Saddam was far more effective Iraqi civilian killing machine than the US led coalition.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, after killing over 10,000 Iraqi civilians in just 10 months, the American's are even outdoing Saddam in brutatlity against the Iraqi people.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
that would have gladly given any WMD to OBL given the chance
[/QUOTE]
When exactly do you plan to give up this position, cz its been exposed as completely bogus. Your peers are now bandishing a "brutal dictator" line... atleast go along with that, and not insult the collective intelligence of the readers here.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Actually, after killing over 10,000 Iraqi civilians in just 10 months, the American's are even outdoing Saddam in brutatlity against the Iraqi people.
[/QUOTE]
You need to go to the images gallery and watch the video of Saddam's henchmen blowing up their fellow Iraqis with hand grenades in their pockets.
Or maybe revisit the pictures of Iraqis without tongues, ears and other body parts removed by your heroes.
simple
[thumb=B]corrigan.JPG[/thumb]
The removal of Saddam served the interest of the United States, as a bonus if helped the majority of Iraqi's too.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The removal of Saddam served the interest of the United States,
[/QUOTE]
Finally. Just stick with that and get off the moral high horse of WMD, defending America's freedom (oxymoronic) and brutal dictator BS.
It was just to serve the interests of United States... and shortly you will realize that these interests have nothing to do with morally pure policies of getting rid of brutal dictators or suspicions of WMD trading hands in Baghdad. All it had to do with was to put a stamp of authority smack in the middle of oil-rich middle east, even if it had to come at a huge cost of human life.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**The removal of Saddam served the interest of the United States...*
[/QUOTE]
That we know, no need to go any further.
Now could you tell us who has killed more Iraqi civilians (some 10,000 plus) in the last 10 months than any other group or regime? Was that a "bonus" for the Iraqi people?
Btw, I was wondering do you know if a pair of golden spurs was found in any of Saddam's palaces or holes, when the US military moved in?
**
ah yes. Let’s start the personal insults shall we. Yes you know me so well, you looked inside my brain and figured out that i just wanted to blow off steam. :k: Sorry, MV, i am honestly sorry for blowing off steam and not wanting to discuss this issue “seriously” *. Next time, i’ll post a serious answer and i’ll talk about how much i love Georgey every time he opens his mouth and spouts another lie…er i mean statement. If the intelligence assessments were based upon genuine evidence that the admin possessed first-hand knowledge of, then i would assume that that evidence would have manifested itself by now in the form of actual biological warfare mobile units [the ones that i believe Powell showed ‘pictures’ of in his Security Council speech].
If the evidence was genuine, then by now we would have seen published pictures, independently verified by the UN, of all the diverse types of WMD sites that were so prominently discussed by Powell in his speech. i have yet to see any genuine evidence whatsoever despite the fact that Bush has mentioned this issue numerous, numerous times on diverse occasions throughout the past twelve months especially leading into the invasion. If you are naive enough to still believe in the credibility of this ‘administration’, then your heart possesses far more capacity for forgiving than mine does. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
You can call me a liar or whatever you want, i honestly don’t care. i have my beliefs, and i stick by them. Of all the numerous statements that were made regarding Iraq’s supposed arsenal of WMD, not even one tiny, itty bitty shred of evidence has yet to manifest itself. In my books that is called being deceived, whatever angle you approach it from.*