THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

The Bush Administration didn't press the CIA for what? Bush and Co. took George Tenet's word for the information being a slam dunk. They didn't ask for the details and how much verification was done. It makes them look like they didn't want to know because it could put a monkey wrench in their plans. George Tenet resigned due to personal reasons. Personals reasons that he was about to be made the scapegoat and he had no choice. He can, of course, now protect himself about those intelligence details in that, "Well, nobody asked to see them." In intelligence there is no such thing as a "slam dunk." Never in the past and likely never in the future.

Pre-emptive : pre-emptive like the pre-cognition in "Minority Report." Exactly what Philip K. Dick was writing about in the original story.

0 Replies

When you say "defending this country," how does our involvement in Iraq exactly accomplish that? Saddam was contained. He had no WMDs. He had no missiles to deliver it to the US. What boogy-man fairy tail are you trying to sell? Ever hear of North Korea? Syria? Russia? Probably not, because they all have WMDs and the capability to do harm, and you're willing to chase a paper tiger.

0 Replies

And it is my opinion that the United States has embarked on a programme of adjusting the world order to suit itself. Its doing this because it must do so, specifically because oil is peaking, and secondly because it can; there being no countervailing power to stop it.

It is my opinion that Bush came into office with a plan to attack Iraq. It is also my opinion that 911 is being exploited by the American regime as justification (in the guise of the so called war on terror) for military action wherever and whenever it is deemed necessary in furtherance of those objectives.

It is also my opinion that Bush is an incompetent fool who is only dimly aware of what he is doing.

0 Replies

Fact: The purpose of the UN Inspectors was not to find proscribed assets, programs, and capabilities, but to determine and verify, through Iraq's unconditional cooperation in the matter, that Iraq had divested herself of such.

Fact: 12 years and 14 Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions came and went while Iraq defiantly failed to cooperate in the matter of verifying her divestiture, while maintaining a beligerant posture and failing to satisfy numerous other provisions of The Gulfwar Ceasefire Agreements.

Fact: To persist in a repeatedly failed course of action with expectation of improved result is stupid.

Opinion: Those are all the facts needed to mandate the course of action taken.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Moishe, I guess you didn't hear about the bi-partisan senate intelligence committee report that came out this week. "IT WAS A MATTER OF INTELLIGENCE FAILURE." If we want to defend ourselves from terrorism and terrorist tyrants, we better make damn sure that our intelligence is accruate. Not half ass; before we go and kill thousands of innocent folks.

Cicy, I quess you don't understand that the intelligence failure was a failure to find conclusive evidence of a "formal relationship." I previously quessed that meant they could find no record of the equivalent of a marrige certificate between Osama and Saddam. Laughing

But they did find evidence that Saddam failed to provide proof that he destroyed (and did not hide them for another day) his toxic chemical and biological agents and the means for delivering them.

Yes, we have had and continue to have significant intelligence failures. If we wait as you recommend to

Quote:

make damn sure that our intelligence is accruate. Not half ass; before we go and kill thousands of innocent folks

, we will probably cause many more thousands of innocents killed than were killed.

OK, we lucked out! For the wrong reasons and/or intentions we managed to stumble and bumble and crumble into accomplishing the right thing: removal of Saddam and the execution or imprisonment of hundreds of Al Qaeda. So inspite of our incompetence more of us are alive and not maimed today than would otherwise be.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Fact: The purpose of the UN Inspectors was not to find proscribed assets, programs, and capabilities, but to determine and verify, through Iraq's unconditional cooperation in the matter, that Iraq had divested herself of such.

Fact: 12 years and 14 Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions came and went while Iraq defiantly failed to cooperate in the matter of verifying her divestiture, while maintaining a beligerant posture and failing to satisfy numerous other provisions of The Gulfwar Ceasefire Agreements.

Fact: To persist in a repeatedly failed course of action with expectation of improved result is stupid.

Opinion: Those are all the facts needed to mandate the course of action taken.

Except for the fact that Hans Blix asserted Iraq was fully co-operating in November effectively negates your argument.

0 Replies

I had looked through the various Iraq threads yesterday and today.

Interesting, who, when and how often articulated that
- the WMD were the reasons for the war (and when those changed clandestine their argumentation),
- UN resolutions were valid re Iraq, not valid (other county/countries)
- UN should do, could not
... ... ...
:wink:

Interesting as well, who didn't change there opinion. Laughing

0 Replies

If Bush had made the same mistakes whether one wants to characterize them as lies, sins of omission or whatever, in the private sector on a corporate strategy of any kind he would not have a job.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When you say "defending this country," how does our involvement in Iraq exactly accomplish that? Saddam was contained. He had no WMDs. He had no missiles to deliver it to the US. What boogy-man fairy tail are you trying to sell?

The FACT that cicerone imposter doesn't believe Saddam posed a threat to anyone doesn't make it a FACT. The FACT that Saddam is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, has attacked other nations in the past, has sent money to the families of suicide bombers makes it REASONABLE to assume he is a threat. You don't, I do. Like it or not, both are reasonable opinions.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ever hear of North Korea? Syria? Russia? Probably not, because they all have WMDs and the capability to do harm, and you're willing to chase a paper tiger.

Surely you jest. Do you respond to me without reading anything I write? I challenge you to find a member that expresses a desire for NK to be addressed more often than I do. Syria is on the list too along with a lot of other countries... why Russia though? I crossed them off my list a long time ago. Were I in charge I'd do everything in my power to get closer to Russia.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Moishe, I guess you didn't hear about the bi-partisan senate intelligence committee report that came out this week. "IT WAS A MATTER OF INTELLIGENCE FAILURE." If we want to defend ourselves from terrorism and terrorist tyrants, we better make damn sure that our intelligence is accruate. Not half ass; before we go and kill thousands of innocent folks.

Well, okay.
But do you really think that condemning the intelligence of all of the Democrats for the last 12 years is going to help anything?
I mean have some pity on the poor schlubs.
Just because Clinton and Gore's whole administration was a matter of Intelligence Failure doesn't mean his heart wasn't in the right place?
Does it?
Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Blix: Iraq not cooperating

By Associated Press
Published: Friday, January 24, 2003

UNITED NATIONS -- Preparing for a crucial report on the work of his inspectors in Iraq, Hans Blix said Thursday his teams are gaining access to sites but Baghdad still isn't fully cooperating with the inspectors ...

Hows that again, ILZ?

0 Replies

Timber, please, when quoting than correctly:

Baghdad still isn't fully cooperating with the inspectors :wink:

Walter died
nearly, when he read this

0 Replies

...and in March 2003:

Blix: Iraq Actively Cooperating to Disarm

Excerpt:

Blix noted that Iraq is now providing inspectors with pro-active cooperation, something he had asked for repeatedly through the winter.

"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament," Blix said. "We are not watching the destruction of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/webguide/article.asp?ID=730

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Quote:
Blix: Iraq not cooperating

By Associated Press
Published: Friday, January 24, 2003

UNITED NATIONS -- Preparing for a crucial report on the work of his inspectors in Iraq, Hans Blix said Thursday his teams are gaining access to sites but Baghdad still isn't fully cooperating with the inspectors ...

Hows that again, ILZ?

I meant February. Not November. My Bad. It was February 14th I believe when Blix reaffirmed to the UN that Hussien was co-operating. We invaded anyway, only a few weeks later. So, again, your argument is moot.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

And it is my opinion that the United States has embarked on a programme of adjusting the world order to suit itself. Its doing this because it must do so, specifically because oil is peaking, and secondly because it can; there being no countervailing power to stop it.

It is my opinion that Bush came into office with a plan to attack Iraq. It is also my opinion that 911 is being exploited by the American regime as justification (in the guise of the so called war on terror) for military action wherever and whenever it is deemed necessary in furtherance of those objectives.

It is also my opinion that Bush is an incompetent fool who is only dimly aware of what he is doing.

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT

Let's agree that you are probably correct in your opinions. In short, let's agree that Bush is probably no damn good and dumber than Kerry.

Yes, we want and seek oil to fuel our various enterprises. And your and your neighboring governments don't. Shocked

Yes, none of us here in the states are really afraid of another 911 happening to us personally. We want that damn oil whether we survive to enjoy it or not. Shocked

Yes, Bush is a dimwit only smart enough to deceive but not perceive. Crying or Very sad

BUT THEN AGAIN

Maybe, just maybe, it is all those who think like you do who are the dimwits. Perhaps it is you who are devoid of a modicum of ability to rationally deduce and induce, because of the possession of the very traits you opine Bush possesses.

Can that be true? Is that a really possibility? Perish the thought!

0 Replies

Quote:

Fact: The purpose of the UN Inspectors was not to find proscribed assets, programs, and capabilities, but to determine and verify, through Iraq's unconditional cooperation in the matter, that Iraq had divested herself of such.

Blix said he was "satisfied on process but not on substance". What do you think he meant by this?

0 Replies

Blix, on Feb 7, said:

Quote:

... "I think it seems as they are making an effort." But he added: "We want to see a lot more this weekend," when he and head nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei meet with senior Iraqi officials ...

Source

However, one week later,

Quote:

Report: Blix won't give UN a firm answer

Published 2/14/2003 1:03 AM

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Hans Blix was scheduled to deliver his latest report on Iraq's level of cooperation with United Nations weapons inspectors to the Security Council and an anxious world Friday, although Blix was not expected to declare firmly that Baghdad was or was not fully cooperating.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Blix would tell the Security Council starting at 10 a.m. EST that he was "not impressed" with Iraq's cooperation, but would most likely stop short of accusing Baghdad of being completely non-cooperative ...

I'm "not impressed" with your argument, ILZ.

Addendum: "not being entirely uncooperative" in no way meets the clear mandate of unconditional cooperation.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

...and in March 2003:

Blix: Iraq Actively Cooperating to Disarm

Excerpt:

Blix noted that Iraq is now providing inspectors with pro-active cooperation, something he had asked for repeatedly through the winter.

"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament," Blix said. "We are not watching the destruction of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/webguide/article.asp?ID=730

0 Replies

Blix, as quoted on February, 1, 2003:

Quote:

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
...and in March 2003:

Blix: Iraq Actively Cooperating to Disarm

Excerpt:

Blix noted that Iraq is now providing inspectors with pro-active cooperation, something he had asked for repeatedly through the winter.

"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament," Blix said. "We are not watching the destruction of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/webguide/article.asp?ID=730

Eh, ...That proves he hadn't complied for 12 years LW. Thanks.

I'm sure he was going to from now on though... Laughing

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know