|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Secret Source of Phony Iraq Intel Outed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155416,00.html
They ought to rename it the "gullible-ment". Either the administration is full of malleable pigeons for fast-talking shills or it's full of craven individuals willing to seize on any excuse, no matter how specious, to take the course of action they want to take. Either way they don't look too good. |
||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale  |
Umm, Auntie? Popsiq beat you on this story several hours ago, with a different source.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml Have a good day!~!   |
|||
|
|
Member |
Eh, I've actually seen it around before. It just tickles me to point out the administration's idiocy. It's a small comfort in the face of appalling and costly boneheadedness.  |
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale |
I do see the point, but, I do believe the irony will be lost on the crusaders. Crusader rabbit, perhaps??
 Have a good memory and day!~! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Report states he came forward with all the abundant of phony news in 1999 at least a full year before the present administration was sworn in. It Really doesn't matter. I've got a close relative still fighting Gulf Syndrome from Iraq I and at that time no one discounted Saddam's capability of fielding bioweapons as he did on Iran and the Kurds. Have a nice laugh. |
|||
|
New Member |
I think biased individuals like to mix hind-sight with the information that was available at the time. Forget whether you support Bush, or not, for a moment if you can.
1. Sadaam Hussein refused mandated, unrestricted access to the UN inspection team in Iraq (too many times) That gives the appearance of something to hide. 2. His admistration had demonstrated that Iraq had the ability and will to use chemical weapons in the past. 3. An alleged insider confirmed that chemical weapons existed. How many times has the US intelligence community and executive branch taken a black-eye for not acting on information that was in their hands? It seems that intelligence efforts may be a waste of time if we don't have the resolve to act on a most probable/maybe. The UN had the legal rights to intervene with force, but time and time again chose not to. Usually by the time information is confirmed to be concrete, it is too late to affect an efficient/nominal solution. |
|||
|
Member |
I'll add one more to that list ... what happened to the damn WMDs they had? The UN inspectors had a very detailed list, confirmed in prior inspections, of items that are now not accounted for. That's a question that noone can answer, and proves that there is a possibility that they can still be anywhere, including in Iraq. As long as that possibility still exists, I for one wont close the door on reason.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: SFC_SOF_Intel, "The Mind, Like a Parachute, Functions Only When Open" |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I echo SFC_SOF_Intel's point.
But, the UN had all of the right they needed to go in much earlier, and prove/dispel everyone's fears. If the dude wasn't living up to the letter of the UN resolution, then move in. Instead we had to beat down the whole country, and now have the unstable mess on our hands. When you are in a position of enforcement (the UN), you enforce the law/resolution, not worry about the cost or whether you will be popular. This guy was given more than ample time to comply. He just chose to be defiant to his and his country's demise. I don't like the cost to the US anymore than the next person, but someone had to get a pair and stop the precedent that was being established. I doubt the UN has learned a thing. |
|||
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Of all the support Saddam has been given on not having WMD and then one of his last threats on earth was having "a secret weapon" and would use them.
Late March 2003 Saddam implies to military leaders that he has secret weapon. But the one that always been outstanding in my mind was in September 2002 he puts in a rush order to Walgreens: Sep 02 Over 900,000 nerve agent antidote autoinjectors had been purchased. that should make you stop and take notice that he had something in up his sleeve. And Mr. sanjacpatriot was right, Saddam refuse access to many building even up to the very last he refuse entry to the palaces. On top of that there were the catacombs under Baghdad and a thousand other hidden area's no one knew about until after the bombing. Video security surveilance was dismantle at warehouses that contained weapons of mass destruction and inspectors were in the dark about site they had already sealed, and questioned the whereabouts, but to late. Whatever. U2 operations had to get special permission, to fly only on Tuesday and not between 4 and 5 O'clock so his watching Oprah wasn't distrubed. UK and US pilots dodge sams missles on a daily basis and all these things led up to March 19 2003. Timeline: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/i...Timeline_Events.html |
|||
|
Member |
1. Sadaam Hussein refused mandated, unrestricted access to the UN inspection team in Iraq (too many times) That gives the appearance of something to hide.
This is a flat out lie. There were inspectors IN COUNTRY right up until the start of the war. I do not disagree. I have, however, heard that there was a 'secret meeting' with Sadaam by some senior Gulf War generals who stated to him that IF nuclear or biological weapons were used against us that Bagdad and certain other Iraqi cities would be nuked back to the stone age. Don't know weather it is true or not but if it is that might explain why there were no WMD's used in GW1 or found in GW2. Just a thought. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I guess that we are in so deep into this illegitimate war, that outing the truth on CBS will be met with no more than a shrug of the shoulders and an exaggerated Yawn.
Today, I was shocked one more time by the gross disdain for Iraqi national pride, and deliberate ignorance of the ruin we have put upon Iraq, by our President when he said: "Iraq is beginning to get its country back!" From whom? After all, we so often and so proudly remind them that "We" still "own it", because we broke it! |
|||
|
 |
^Brought to you by CPUSA, and SWP working for a Better form of Marxism in America
|
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Have you ever read the Duelfer report of the activities of the Iraq Survey Group? I suggest you do. In a nutshell, the report states that there was nothing of any militarily significant threat in Iraq. The 2005 addendum reported on the unlikelihood of transfer of WMD to Syria (though they could not prove it). They also concluded that he effectively ended his nuclear program in 1991. Here's the whole report. Take the time to get the facts. |
|||
|
|
Member |
"And Mr. sanjacpatriot was right, Saddam refuse access to many building even up to the very last he refuse entry to the palaces. On top of that there were the catacombs under Baghdad and a thousand other hidden area's no one knew about until after the bombing. Video security surveilance was dismantle at warehouses that contained weapons of mass destruction and inspectors were in the dark about site they had already sealed, and questioned the whereabouts, but to late." Quote by rayevinsonsr
Hmmm, lets say that was true and the president was being bullied around up untill the war began... I think Clinton's bomb em till they drop and his get the world on our side policy was a much better apporach than tearing the nation apart with a costly war, which both have brought about the same effect (in certain ways...)(I did not think that at the time however, I was to young and naive, However, hind sight is 20/20... What my point is is this, smarter gentleman, not harder... |
|||
|
|
Member |
Wow. So much love. I have read them, which is where I remember the information from. I suggest you do the same Sir, and when you take pot shots at someone, at least have the courtesy to make sure you're on target before your fire. Here's an excerpt from the report ... /dulfer3_c.pdf -- page 60:
So "in a nutshell" to quote you, does that sound to you like the kind of information that the President would ignore? Remember, this is what was reported in 2003. Two years later they reported that is was unlikely they went to Syria. I said they hadn't found them. They said they haven't found them. What about that strikes you as ... hmm .. how did you put it? ... a failure to get the facts? "The Mind, Like a Parachute, Functions Only When Open" |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
LOL You think I took a "pot shot"? Really? Wow. Secondly, you've merely echoed what I was saying. But you don't see that...oh, well. Unless you believe that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." LOL |
|||
|
|
Member |
My original post wasn't aimed at you. You refuted my post and told me to read the report and get the facts. That my friend is a "pot shot." pot·shot also pot shot (ptsht) n. 1. A random or easy shot. 2. A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack. Then you minimalize my response by saying you already said it. You said "nothing of any militarily significant threat", they said "are of particular concern." You paraphrased and I quoted. So who am I to believe? Them or you? "The Mind, Like a Parachute, Functions Only When Open" |
|||
|
|
New Member |
A nuclear strike would have been more horrific, although may have been more effective. Sanjaya, ha. That was funny. As I said. It is easy after the fact, to manipulate facts to support whatever position you may want to take. I'm not saying I'm in agreement with all of the US actions concerning Iraq. I was pointing out that the facts we now know were not facts at the time a decision was made. Some people don't believe any armed action is justified until the enemy is on our soil. |
|||
|
|
Member |
This seems very simple. "He who has the gold rules." The rest is pure dripping Bull Chit!
This article just confirms my suspicions about this Administration all along. The only thing worse for me then being wrong is being right because I have a tendency to crow about things when I'm right! So, I won't this time. However, for the holdout 30% of right wing American's, I can only suggest to you to rethink your position and in this upcoming election consider voting for people that won't send us to war to make money from it! |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Secret Source of Phony Iraq Intel Outed
