U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2007, 01:12 AM
 
294 posts, read 398,350 times
Reputation: 39

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
Yeah you are enlightened all right.

In an article published on Friday in the journal Foreign Affairs, Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, called the relationship between U.S. intelligence and policymaking "broken."

"In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made," Pillar wrote
As to whether Iraq pursued nuclear weapons, intelligence reports had concluded Iraq was years away from developing them and was unlikely to use such weapons against the United States unless cornered, Pillar said.

The biggest discrepancy between public statements by the Bush administration and judgments by the intelligence community centered on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, he said.

"The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed."

Rather, "the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the 'war on terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood," Pillar wrote.

The Bush administration "used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made," Pillar wrote. "It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."


CNN.com - Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence - Feb 10, 2006


That too skewed for you...? How about this from your President.

and yes considering the source


“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,” the president told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq’s first permanent, democratically elected government.

Bush: Iraq intelligence was faulty - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com



So what you have is intelligence that was shared with the American people and the Congress that was admitted by the President to be wrong, despite the claims of some that the mystery WMD is still under a rock somewhere.

what part of preexisting inventoried weapons that were not accounted for do you not understand. despite the intell...

All that is left to be debated is how much of that faulty intelligence was the result of the President cherrypicking to suit his agenda as several senior former intel and administration officials have suggested, and how much was just bad intel.

we may never know, but from what i have seen and heard it wsnt that faulty

Neither case excuses the President from precipitously invading another country without being extremely sure of the facts first. War should be an absolute last resort.

why should it be a last resort?
10 years of UN violations bout covered that.
does not change the fact that there were WMD there and not accounted for, and yes they were still there in 2005....

again i am aware of these articles, but from what I and others saw on the ground, it makes me wonder what some of these peoples agendas were..

fame, money???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2007, 01:22 AM
 
Location: somewhere between Florida and New England
333 posts, read 348,456 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar31 View Post
Great list - though I can add many more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 01:22 AM
 
294 posts, read 398,350 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
Whatever Smackie.

What I am suggesting to you is he told the country these things! "WMD" can mean all kinds of things smackie

I know this definition probably alot better then you, not being spiteful, but speaking from experiance

, obviously it does to you if you are suggesting American troops were attacked by WMD in this war,

were gas filled artillery shells not considered WMD's ?that were prohibited by the UN resolution and unaccounted for by the saddam regime?

but show me where we found any nuclear weapons or stockpiles or uranium or aerial weapons or... oh, never mind.

Aerial weapons...check, nuclear weapons..nope, stockpile....LOL go north of Ar rutbah Iraq...cant say they were WMD stockpiles, but there were enough stockpiles we didnt have the capability to even check them, and somehow sarin gas artillery round were used by insurgents in IED's (they most likely didnt know what they were when they stole them from the stockpile)

And maybe you could not keep up with current events while you were over there scouting around, but many of the senior intel officials from that time have come forward and stated Bush was interpreting the intel provided to suit his predetermined agenda to attack Iraq...ie not being straightforward...ie LYING to us.

and they know this how? some of that intel still stands. is intel awlays right? no, can it be interpreted in many different ways..yes. the little bit of higher level intel i saw painted a pretty descent picture, but still proved to be wrong, simply becasue we didnt act fast enough on it....some is still out there and we cant follow up on it...why do you think syria has gotten so ballsy lately?

6 months to hide and move stuff?.....

but i cant prove that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 01:30 AM
 
294 posts, read 398,350 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar31 View Post
are these lies too?

Informed Comment

and?
almost right..but not, so lies for the most part.
does a wonderful job of taking some facts and twisting them to sound bad and imply things that arent true. so yes lies...

skewed liberal perspective, if you want a more adept,unbias study of that time frame and the history, read " the looming tower, Al-queda and the road to 9/11" by Lawrence wright

gives it more from the Muslim side....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 01:42 AM
 
294 posts, read 398,350 times
Reputation: 39
I guess i offended somebody by using the word "retard" in my first response post to this thread....not ashamed of myself as someone said i should be, but i do feel bad for insulting retarded people inferring the author of the original article was the same as them.

I do sincerely apologize, most people with retardation may take longer to learn, but are good people who can and will understood things.... much better then this guy (the author).

please mentally take the offensive word retard out of my original post and replace with Dumb***

again i do apologize, i have worked with mentally retarded people and have relatives with slight mental retardation and i have nothing negative to say about them.

Sincerely
smackie

p.s. no that wasnt sarcasm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,396 posts, read 7,051,777 times
Reputation: 1197
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie94 View Post
and they know this how? some of that intel still stands. is intel awlays right? no, can it be interpreted in many different ways..yes. the little bit of higher level intel i saw painted a pretty descent picture, but still proved to be wrong, simply becasue we didnt act fast enough on it....some is still out there and we cant follow up on it...why do you think syria has gotten so ballsy lately?

6 months to hide and move stuff?.....

but i cant prove that...
Smackie, pls drop the implied condescension with the "hey I am over there man, you dumbies back in the States just don't get it. "

Look kudos to you, I respect your service. I am a vet, was over there for the first gulf war, and I have a brother just came back from Iraq and another on his way soon. I still talk to guys in the service that have spent time there, they have different views on what is going on. You might be surprised that some of them feel they are stuck in a mission with no defined objectives and no long term strategy. So please don't think this makes you now an expert on what "WMD" is and what the real situation is in Iraq.

Why is Syria getting so ballsy? I would imagine it is more because they are realizing , as is Iran and the rest of the world, that our military is stretched to it's limits and can't handle an extended conflict with another country at the moment. We have had no time for training or regular equipment maintenance for years and are barely able to keep the tour rotations going. Unless you take issue with this fact as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:21 AM
 
16 posts, read 34,439 times
Reputation: 21
Default Thank you for the film

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
Here is a video starting in 1998 about WMD and it is the Dems talking about it! Bill Clinton too!

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (broken link)

The film literally proves that he had them maybe lost or destroyed them and had every intent to build them back. You read anything into it, the fact remains this man was a monster who turned chemical weapons ( qualifies as weapons of mass destruction } on his own people.

Being in Iraq and staying is not a decision of of conveinence it is a must.
The United States is the most powerful nation in the world along with Japan also the richest.

Our very presence in the middle east is at the very least a deterrent to even more and much worse bloodshed here and abroad. Do not be fooled by the liberal position, this country is under threat by many directions. Simply because we are free and we do tolerate and welcome religious freedom. The radical muslims not the muslims in general want to control the world. Look at it like a thugocracy in countries practicing theocracy.

Oil prices are continuing to rise and wages remain stagnant, there is a 10.5 month supply of house empty, money is being loaned because banks aren't being paid. Foreclosures and bankruptcy's are at an all time high.
This is simply due to liberal views and a refusal to react.
Bill Clinton signed into law, a favored nation trading status with China, one that would have eventually happened simply because we can not manufacture at a competitive cost, the problem is he spanned over five years and should have done so over 20 to 30, giving the economics time to equilibrate.
That is what happens when you want to be a hero and say as president look at what I did instead of behaving like a brave man like President Bush who does not cave to the populace nor a liberal congress, he stands for what he believes regardless of the whining.

Troy Stanley
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:30 AM
 
16 posts, read 34,439 times
Reputation: 21
Default What would I cut and paste that would convince you that you should be worried

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkshires413 View Post
Actually, Teeroy, you too - should think about cutting and pasting in the future. It might help you.

And trust me, man. I'm so freakin' ready for an attack on American soil from invading ground troops. I've got my boy watching the front window 24/7, while the wife guards the back of the house.

Me? I'm all about watching the last 10 years of NASCAR that I've recorded on VHS. And if I'm sleeping in my waterbed, and the sh*t starts to go down - They'll let me know.... if I have to get my can of whoop ass out on someone.
Read and think where we are and maybe you will understand we are truly in a world war most of it is just talk right now my friend but it will escalate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 20,149,427 times
Reputation: 6482
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
There was some indication they were developing a nuclear program... they had some localised chemical and biological agents...and Saddam was a bad guy...that is all true....
Those were not the reasons why Iraq was attacked by US/UK forces in 2003. Those are the reasons why the attack against Iraq was given a higher priority. The reason why Iraq was attacked by US/UK forces in 2003 was because of Iraq's government sponsored terrorism. Nobody ever linked Saddam or Iraq to the events on 9/11/01, but there are links of Iraqi sponsored international terrorism since 1977. Public Law 104-40 authorized the President to use whatever force he deemed necessary to assure that another attack like 9/11/01 never happened again, and no country was specifically named.

As of 09/12/01 there were four very well documented governments providing financial, training, and a safe haven to international terrorist organizations: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. As of today, only two of those governments remain in power.

The only way a war against terrorism can be won is by first eliminating those governments that sponsor international terrorism. Once that has been accomplished then it ceases to be a military operation and becomes a criminal operation to round up the various terrorist cells. Once those cells have been cut off from their government funding, they will be much less of a threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
but if those are your qualifications to attack, let's go after Pakistan and North Korea and China and Russia and Egypt and Libya and Syria while we are at it, eh?
Syria is on the list of terrorist sponsoring governments that will ultimately need to be removed from power, one way or another. Musharraf is actually very much against any form of terrorism, even though he is a tyrant. I have seen no credible evidence to indicate that the governments of North Korea, China, Russia, or Egypt sponsors international terrorist organizations. Even though they do support other nations (like former Iraq, and currently Iran) who do have terrorist sponsoring governments. In fact, except for North Korea, China, Russia, and Egypt have been attacked by terrorists funded, trained, and harbored in either former Afghanistan, Iran, former Iraq, or Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
The only reason we signed up for this as a country is because of the alleged bogus connections to al qaeda, the implication being some direct threat to the US.

Of course, now that we have created a terrorist haven in Iraq and a convenient place to kill Americans it has become a center for terrorism. It sure as heck wasn't before though. Don't believe me, check the latest intelligence reports on terrorism. Can't find them, I'll cut and paste for you.
There was never any connection made between Iraq and the events that occurred on 09/11/01. But to say that there was no Iraq and al Qaeda connection would be a mistake. According to the 09/11 Commission Report, Iraq did provide medical and travel assistance to al Qaeda members. Iran and Syria also provided assistance with travel to al Qaeda members. Nobody has ever claimed Iran or Syria was involved in the attack on 09/11/01 either, but there still is an al Qaeda connection.

As of 09/12/01 there were 50 known international terrorist organizations based in 27 nations. Of those 27 nations, only 4 had governments that actively financed, trained, and harbored those international terrorist organizations. This isn't a war against just al Qaeda. It is a war against terrorism, and at this point in time, the governments that sponsor international terrorism. I'm not going to quibble about the order the President decides to take them out, as long as the end result is all 4 of those terrorist sponsoring governments are wiped off the face of the planet. Two are currently history, only two more remain.

Last edited by Glitch; 11-18-2007 at 11:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:29 AM
 
4,740 posts, read 8,757,339 times
Reputation: 4071
bily4 - "let's go after Pakistan and North Korea and China and Russia and Egypt and Libya and Syria while we are at it"

How about Syria next (from your list)? You call your Congressman, I'll call mine. Once we get Congressional approval and the President signs it, we can send in the Marines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top