IMHO: The truth about Iraq's WMDs
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
I'm sure that part of the problem was with Iraqis telling the US what they thought the US wanted to hear. Some of this was from Iraqi opposition forces who wanted the US to attack and hence told the US the things that they thought would maximise the chance of an invasion. But equally the US wanted to attack Iraq regardless of whether it had WMD or not. Witness the way the US latched onto any reason that seemed like it would fly. "Iraq has defied UN resolutions" --- what a joke that is in retrospect given the attitude of the US toward the UN. What is clear is that the intelligence information received by the US (and British) administration was far more equivocal than the Bush administration was leading the public to believe. John Carson
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
i think what you write is plausable. however, i think Taka has a good point - that not only was the CIA in a frenzy about the intel, but GWB and his cabinet have been aching to get a war going with Iraq since GHWB failed to "finish the job" in '91. Bush's war cabinet: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney et al, mostly former Reagan and Bush I people, have all had well-documented hard-ons for bombing Iraq for more than a decade. They wrote letters to Clinton urging him to take out Saddam, in the late 90's. They set up think-tanks planning the US's new military dominance. They combined idealism about a happy democratic middle-east with pananoia about mid-east terrorism and oil supply interruptions, and decided that Iraq was the key. GWB took these people and put them in his administration. They came into office with a desire to take out Saddam - and they'd been planning it for years. Then 9/11 happened and obviously, the country was nervous. The intel organizations, and the GWB administration were under tremendous pressure to avoid another 9/11, so they increased their efforts to find patterns, connections and leads anywhere they could that could help them prevent another attack. But, the guys at the top were already looking at Iraq. And 9/11 opened the door wide open for their plans. So, 9/11 happens, they already have Iraq in their sights and they start trying to build a case against Iraq. Wolfowitz has even been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Iraq was behind this" on 9/12/01 - without evidence of any kind. They take old intel about what Saddam had in the 90's, and start adding al-Q angles and "dirty-bomb" scenarios and pretty soon they prove to GWB and themselves that there could be something there. People from the CIA admit that the stuff that they had wasn't conclusive, and they doubted the validity of the stuff coming from the Iraqi defectors like Chalabi since he obviously had big plans for a Saddam-free Iraq. Colin Powell also thought it was "bullshit", but he's a good soldier and did his job as best he could. But, the rest of guys at the top, guys like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the think tank guys like Perle were insisting that Iraq was the big problem, an immediate threat and the key to a new middle-east. They set up their own intel group to refine and re-analyze what was coming out of the existing intel organizations because they didn't think those organizations were making the right connections. But they already knew the conclusion they wanted. When
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. have you looked at this... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm[^] we might have blown everything up, so there is nothing left to find? I don't know. I still think the possibility exists (because I have written a research paper in '93) that Saddam is partially funded by the CIA and the Bush's use him as a patsy. Daddy Bush used him in the first gulf war to steal the media away from the savings and loan scandal of his son, and probably tried thought it would stimulate the economy at the same time. I have analyzed this to death. Everything makes sense if you look at things this way. I remember Chris L posted a link about some popular criminal saying the Bush's are like a second family. Well now you know why, using this theory. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "Dream as if you'll live forever; live as if you'll die tomorrow." - James Dean(ISTP) -
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. Saddam did everything in his power to delay and deny the inspectors the chance to destroy those stock piles - then kicked the inspectors out of the country. Do you beleive that after he kicked them out he went about destroying those stockpiles anyway? Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. Saddam did everything in his power to delay and deny the inspectors the chance to destroy those stock piles - then kicked the inspectors out of the country. Do you beleive that after he kicked them out he went about destroying those stockpiles anyway? Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: . Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? yeah... but saddam doesnt leave radioactive radiations behind which the hi-tech detections devices can find...
-
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. have you looked at this... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm[^] we might have blown everything up, so there is nothing left to find? I don't know. I still think the possibility exists (because I have written a research paper in '93) that Saddam is partially funded by the CIA and the Bush's use him as a patsy. Daddy Bush used him in the first gulf war to steal the media away from the savings and loan scandal of his son, and probably tried thought it would stimulate the economy at the same time. I have analyzed this to death. Everything makes sense if you look at things this way. I remember Chris L posted a link about some popular criminal saying the Bush's are like a second family. Well now you know why, using this theory. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "Dream as if you'll live forever; live as if you'll die tomorrow." - James Dean(ISTP)Thanks Good link :-) JoeSox wrote: we might have blown everything up, so there is nothing left to find? True but the US didn't have to blow everything up, as Iraq capitulated too fast for that to happen. :-) JoeSox wrote: Saddam is partially funded by the CIA and the Bush's use him as a patsy. From the early days of the Baath party maybe the CIA infiltrated and paid a few people off. But being a dictator in a place like Iraq is the next best thing to being the owner of the country. Any CIA money would have been peanuts for him in the last 25 yrs. "Please prove me wrong" Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
I agree with your general assessment but some details I would modify. 1) I agree with Mike on to many think getting the oil is over stated. If the last figures I saw (hey this is memory time) shows only about 16% from the Middle East. We get a lot more from South America. We definitely do have concern for Middle East oil due to the impact on the world economy and hence ours also. 2) In the US's effort to be above the rest I feel our Intel has tried to be clean (and most are not.) That has lead to your scenario being very believable since our own assets were not as entrenched as they should have been. And hence dependant on what we were told. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree with Mike on to many think getting the oil is over stated. The Oil is actually a two sided arguement to me. Conventional Oil reserves are far more limited than we like to believe. However there will still be a lot of fossil fuels around after the normal shale oil is used up. Sticky stuff like tar sands will be extractable in the future, however they will be a lot more expensive to obtain. Iraq represents a lot of easy to get oil. IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We get a lot more from South America. This is currently very true, internal politics in Venuzalea have been shown to effect the US economy sharply in the last year. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: In the US's effort to be above the rest I feel our Intel has tried to be clean (and most are not.) My guess is thats true. I'm actually kinda upset that no real WMDs have been found as I supported Bush believing he must find them to justify his actions. I bet he believed that as well, and was expecting to come out of this smelling a lot better. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: That has lead to your scenario being very believable since our own assets were not as entrenched as they should have been. Yeah, the "assets" on the ground would have been payed informants rather than US operatives. Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a contiuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Dave Huff wrote: . Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? yeah... but saddam doesnt leave radioactive radiations behind which the hi-tech detections devices can find...
No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. BBC news report[^] Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
-
Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. Saddam did everything in his power to delay and deny the inspectors the chance to destroy those stock piles - then kicked the inspectors out of the country. Do you beleive that after he kicked them out he went about destroying those stockpiles anyway? Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. I think they documented that materials were unaccounted for rather than that Iraq definitely had them. Dave Huff wrote: Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? It is possible that they were smuggled to Syria --- in which case the risk of their use by terrorists has increased since the materials are now harder to trace and hence can be given to terrorists with less risk of US reprisal. But I doubt it. If Iraq had a significant WMD program, then a lot of people would have known about it. Anyone with information on it has a huge incentive to come forward to the US authorities. The US is so desperate to find WMD, that an informant could name their own price. The fact that no-one has apparently come forward with solid information suggests to me that Iraq did not have WMD at the time of the invasion. Dave Huff wrote: The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? No, it doesn't. The US had a list of wanted people, represented in its pack of cards. It has found a lot of them, though not all. If it had found a lot of WMD, though not all, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It has found none. John Carson
-
No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. BBC news report[^] Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
Michael P Butler wrote: No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. i know that and i never supported that bum (saddam), and he had to be removed. i was commenting on Dave's logic about WMD...
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree with Mike on to many think getting the oil is over stated. The Oil is actually a two sided arguement to me. Conventional Oil reserves are far more limited than we like to believe. However there will still be a lot of fossil fuels around after the normal shale oil is used up. Sticky stuff like tar sands will be extractable in the future, however they will be a lot more expensive to obtain. Iraq represents a lot of easy to get oil. IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We get a lot more from South America. This is currently very true, internal politics in Venuzalea have been shown to effect the US economy sharply in the last year. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: In the US's effort to be above the rest I feel our Intel has tried to be clean (and most are not.) My guess is thats true. I'm actually kinda upset that no real WMDs have been found as I supported Bush believing he must find them to justify his actions. I bet he believed that as well, and was expecting to come out of this smelling a lot better. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: That has lead to your scenario being very believable since our own assets were not as entrenched as they should have been. Yeah, the "assets" on the ground would have been payed informants rather than US operatives. Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a contiuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Yes any non-renewable source does have it's influence. As for just energy we do have options. Do you know that most of the entire state of Illinois has a 6 to 12 foot layer of coal under it. You strip mine the entire state if worst came to worst. Colin Davies wrote: Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a continuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Well, that is changing. My support for the war was the reaction of the Iraqi (and Bosnian) refugees we have in my neighborhood. They were all for it and praise Bush as a hero. But that is back to for the good of the Iraqi people, different thread. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. BBC news report[^] Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
Sadly there are mass graves all around the World. Human Rughts are violated wildly, and not in Iraq only. Just in today news, have a look: Congo: Over 500 badly mutilated bodies have been found in a number of mass graves in recent weeks following heavy fighting between the rival Lendu and Hema groups in the Ituri region" Myanmar: the country's intelligence chief and third-ranked leader Gen. Khin Nyunt lashed out at "internal destructive elements" - a reference to Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. He said they were undermining Myanmar's peace and stability. Zimbabwe: "A doctor who belongs to an underground network that treats activists who are assaulted - many doctors have been threatened for this work - said he had treated more than 60 victims of political violence last week. Over half were women, and most were beaten by soldiers at night." I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Just came across this in the WaPo by Robert Kagan regarding "The absurdity of these accusations is mind-boggling..." Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Thanks for the link. My opinion. If the above link is justification for the war then the war is justified if they find anything or not. If it is not justification then will my leadership please provide that justification. Even if it is not given to the public and bipartisan congressional team (with some French and German delegates sworn to secrecy) could review the justification and then report that the info was known. If that is not possible then this line should not have been used as justification. There was plenty of other reasons. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Sadly there are mass graves all around the World. Human Rughts are violated wildly, and not in Iraq only. Just in today news, have a look: Congo: Over 500 badly mutilated bodies have been found in a number of mass graves in recent weeks following heavy fighting between the rival Lendu and Hema groups in the Ituri region" Myanmar: the country's intelligence chief and third-ranked leader Gen. Khin Nyunt lashed out at "internal destructive elements" - a reference to Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. He said they were undermining Myanmar's peace and stability. Zimbabwe: "A doctor who belongs to an underground network that treats activists who are assaulted - many doctors have been threatened for this work - said he had treated more than 60 victims of political violence last week. Over half were women, and most were beaten by soldiers at night." I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
KaЯl wrote: I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one Agreed. It is to late to say this was the primary justification for Iraq, even if I personally feel it was the primary justification. Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Interesting analisys. However, it seems that all intelligence agencies weren't convinced of an immediate iraqi threat, according to a DIA report from September 02. We can then consider the possibility the US administration was selective in its information sources as high. Why? IMHO, because the process was inverted: The US administration wasn't warned by informations then decided to go to war, but decided to go to war then searched for the informations it needed to justify it. Your analysis also supposes the US administration was honest on its belief in a WMD threat. I'm affraid it's just an hypothesis. IMHO WMD were just a mediatic coup to put the opinions on the side of the neo-cons, but the real motivations were elsewhere. Oil is probably one. Not only the iraqi ressources for themselves, but also the oil terminals, the place where the tankers take their load. These are strategic places, so justify an occupation. Occupy Iraq also enables to put a bigger pressure on Iran, now bordered by two US occupied countries. Having a favorable/submitted iraqi government in a part of the World where love of the USS is not really high is also interesting. It could also be a way to restore the US economy, first by increasing the military expenses and put money in the system, then by giving contracts to US firms to rebuild Iraq and pay them with the benefits from the iraqi oil.
Shake, Courage. Shake.
-
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Yes any non-renewable source does have it's influence. As for just energy we do have options. Do you know that most of the entire state of Illinois has a 6 to 12 foot layer of coal under it. You strip mine the entire state if worst came to worst. Colin Davies wrote: Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a continuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Well, that is changing. My support for the war was the reaction of the Iraqi (and Bosnian) refugees we have in my neighborhood. They were all for it and praise Bush as a hero. But that is back to for the good of the Iraqi people, different thread. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Do you know that most of the entire state of Illinois has a 6 to 12 foot layer of coal under it. WOW that is a lot of coal !! Personally I think that we should be able to grow energy via "BIOMASS" type projects, and this would become competitive with the idea of strip mining Illiois. And at some stage though extracting fossil fuels will not give a decent return on investment. But the statistics on what oil reserves the world has are highly blurred, for a number of reasons. For example NZ is rumoured to have some decent oil pockets in the ocean, however due to national security the information from drilling results cannot be published. {I guess they think we will be invaded if it becomes known we have oil} or maybe its all BS. Then other countries might not it to become known that their oil reservs are running low, so as to not run the risk of losing International investment. Plus public and private companies also keep this information secretive. To top it off, many geologists etc clearly admit that there science is far from exact. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
KaЯl wrote: I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one Agreed. It is to late to say this was the primary justification for Iraq, even if I personally feel it was the primary justification. Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
KaЯl wrote: I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one Agreed. It is to late to say this was the primary justification for Iraq, even if I personally feel it was the primary justification. Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? A consistent policy of promoting democracy and human rights, backed by force where necessary, is certainly one that I would support. But I can't see it happening in my lifetime. John Carson
-
Just came across this in the WaPo by Robert Kagan regarding "The absurdity of these accusations is mind-boggling..." Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
R. Kagan: "The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building" Hum...some apparently knew more: GW Bush: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Shake, Courage. Shake.