Saddam's execution

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

but if they build 1 nuke israel would be very worried b/c 1 nuke on israel there goes the the jewish state.

 

Umm... yeah, let's see... the complete nut/"leader" of Iran publicly expressed his want of the destruction of the Jewish populace. I wonder what he might use a nuke for...? If I was living in Isreal, I would be kind of afraid too. DUH.

 

Ever hear of the Cuban Missle Crisis?

 

Seriously, what is it that you have against the Jews?

 

No kidding.

[Moonlapse]

Iraq was choked by sanctions, then invaded on the WMD pretense. North Korea developed WMD and we don't dare invade while they have them. The message seems to be that once you have nukes, the USA doesn't turn your country into the next Iraq. At least, this is how I think other countries see it.

[Titus001]

but if they build 1 nuke israel would be very worried b/c 1 nuke on israel there goes the the jewish state.

 

Oh hey, guess what, if Iran could threaten Israel, then who is to say that they can't threaten us and our allies when they are finally armed with intercontinental ballistic missle technology.

 

And also, did you not know that Israel has a preemptive nuclear strike plan?Link to article

 

Seriously, what is it that you have against the Jews when the irony is that Jewish-Americans are pretty damn liberal and has the same amount of hate for Bush as you do?

I dont think iran would threaten my country or israel with nukes b/c it would not benefit there country to be occupied for years,and i dont care if isreal used nukes on iran as long as they dont bring big brother in the war to shead blood for them.I have nothing against jewish people,i just dont like my country's middle east policy to israel and the whole region.And i know most jewish people are liberal and i liked how they were apart and led the anti-war movement during the vietnam war.but isreal should not use nukes for a preemptive strike,what logic is that?iran is going to build nukes so we must nuke them before they get it.

 

The only country that benefits by the usa having its boots on the ground in the middle east is israel,they are the country that benefits from chaos in the middle east and now they have nothing to fear by having big brother in the region,and now the fake republicans=neo cons are already talking about iran b/c they might build a nuke and we are in such danger from iran, but in reality if they dared to nuke my country they would be wiped off the map,but if they build 1 nuke israel would be very worried b/c 1 nuke on israel there goes the the jewish state.Its all propaganda just like iraq and the same spin doctors are doing the same thing on iran.Corporation's benefit also since the best thing to profit off is war and death,so who does this war benefit any clues?

Why is it when people criticize isreal you have people saying what do you have against jewish people?

Edited January 7, 2007 by Titus001

[Gaius Octavius]

"Why is it when people criticize isreal you have people saying what do you have against jewish people?"

 

Unfortunately, because it generally turns into an irrational diatribe.

[The Augusta]

Iraq was choked by sanctions, then invaded on the WMD pretense. North Korea developed WMD and we don't dare invade while they have them. The message seems to be that once you have nukes, the USA doesn't turn your country into the next Iraq. At least, this is how I think other countries see it.

 

Then are you saying, Moonlapse, that the US KNEW there were no WMDs when they went into Iraq?

[votadini]

Then are you saying, Moonlapse, that the US KNEW there were no WMDs when they went into Iraq?

 

IMO it doesn't matter really if the US government knew there were WMDs or not, that's not why they invaded anyway.

[Moonlapse]

Then are you saying, Moonlapse, that the US KNEW there were no WMDs when they went into Iraq?

That is besides the point for the countries that are distrustful of the USA. I certainly don't think that the intelligence community is so incompetent that it would honestly make that kind of mistake. I do know that there were plans to take down Saddam long before the events of 2001. WMD really was the most effective pretext for invasion, and its hard to dispute the benevolence of spreading democracy.

 

But, of course Saddam had WMD. He used them in the 80's. As far as Saddam creating WMD and giving it to terrorists who are completely outside his control or using it against the US, I am positive that he was not that stupid.

[Virgil61]

Then are you saying, Moonlapse, that the US KNEW there were no WMDs when they went into Iraq?

That is besides the point for the countries that are distrustful of the USA. I certainly don't think that the intelligence community is so incompetent that it would honestly make that kind of mistake.

 

Believe it. The intel community, specifically the CIA, was that incompetent if only at the highest levels on this issue. There are a lot of stories of high-priority wild-goose chases to track the stuff down in 2003 and it remained high on everyone's list when I left in early '04.

 

I do know that there were plans to take down Saddam long before the events of 2001. WMD really was the most effective pretext for invasion, and its hard to dispute the benevolence of spreading democracy.

 

A pretext assumes some sort of competent planning on the Bush administration's part. They shouldn't get that sort of credit as the post-invasion scenario they were warned about by both the Army Chief of Staff and State Department reports shows.

 

It's not conspiracy as the central facet of the invasion, the sad fact is this was and is an administration blinded by ideology to the point of stupidity and willful disregard of useful intelligence and advice. Think a creationist equivalent of foreign policy.

[Moonlapse]

That is besides the point for the countries that are distrustful of the USA. I certainly don't think that the intelligence community is so incompetent that it would honestly make that kind of mistake.

 

Believe it. The intel community, specifically the CIA, was that incompetent if only at the highest levels on this issue. There are a lot of stories of high-priority wild-goose chases to track the stuff down in 2003 and it remained high on everyone's list when I left in early '04.

Is that what you consider honest mistakes? If the incompetence is at the highest levels, then whats to say that it can't be manipulated or is due to manipulation?

 

I do know that there were plans to take down Saddam long before the events of 2001. WMD really was the most effective pretext for invasion, and its hard to dispute the benevolence of spreading democracy.

 

A pretext assumes some sort of competent planning on the Bush administration's part. They shouldn't get that sort of credit as the post-invasion scenario they were warned about by both the Army Chief of Staff and State Department reports shows.

Assuming that the Bush Administration actually wanted immediate peace, you have a point.

 

It's not conspiracy as the central facet of the invasion, the sad fact is this was and is an administration blinded by ideology to the point of stupidity and willful disregard of useful intelligence and advice. Think a creationist equivalent of foreign policy.

I think it all depends on what they were really trying to accomplish.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Is that what you consider honest mistakes? If the incompetence is at the highest levels, then whats to say that it can't be manipulated or is due to manipulation?

 

Aren't you asking for evidence of a negative? Evidence that the intelligence failure was NOT manipulation? No one can provide evidence that the CIA (or a Flying Spaghetti Monster) did NOT manipulate intelligence, but the onus of proof is on the person who asserts the positive claim. If we're going to abandon this principle, then I'd like evidence that Angelina Jolie is NOT secretly in love with me, evidence that Cookie Monster is NOT secretly Big Bird, and evidence that Moonlapse has NOT killed the real Saddam Hussein with a poison cod-fish. (Come to think of it, demanding evidence of negatives is fun!)

[Moonlapse]

Thanks for the extravagant correction, Cato. Pardon my incorrect approach at trying to find out why Virgil does not believe that the highest levels of the CIA cannot be manipulated.

 

Let me rephrase. Virgil, how do you know that the CIA is honestly incompetent, if only at the highest levels?

[Virgil61]

...

Let me rephrase. Virgil, how do you know that the CIA is honestly incompetent, if only at the highest levels?

 

I said the CIA was incompetent at the highest levels on the issue of WMD. Tenet endorsed the WMD in Iraq theory himself, Bob Woodward publically reported as much in "Plan of Attack" and it's also echoed in "Cobra II" and "Fiasco". The later being the book I consider the most reliable recording of the first two years of the war at the theater level. I don't believe it to be manipulation but probably negligent selective favoring of information supported by intel from some NATO assets. I have other first and second-hand knowledge I'd rather not go into, but that's my position.

 

Thanks for the extravagant correction, Cato. Pardon my incorrect approach at trying to find out why Virgil does not believe that the highest levels of the CIA cannot be manipulated.

 

I don't believe I said that. I said it was incompetent on the issue of WMD. One would have to ask why the 'manipulator' would then send over special assets, different services and Fed agencies send search teams and CENTCOM divert whole companies of soldiers, Marines, Seabees and EOD to search for what they knew was non-existent.

[Gaius Octavius]

Moon., MPC, Lord Peter Whimsey does it all the time.

[Moonlapse]

...

Let me rephrase. Virgil, how do you know that the CIA is honestly incompetent, if only at the highest levels?

 

I said the CIA was incompetent at the highest levels on the issue of WMD. Tenet endorsed the WMD in Iraq theory himself, Bob Woodward publically reported as much in "Plan of Attack" and it's also echoed in "Cobra II" and "Fiasco". The later being the book I consider the most reliable recording of the first two years of the war at the theater level. I don't believe it to be manipulation but probably negligent selective favoring of information supported by intel from some NATO assets. I have other first and second-hand knowledge I'd rather not go into, but that's my position.

 

Thanks for the extravagant correction, Cato. Pardon my incorrect approach at trying to find out why Virgil does not believe that the highest levels of the CIA cannot be manipulated.

 

I don't believe I said that. I said it was incompetent on the issue of WMD. One would have to ask why the 'manipulator' would then send over special assets, different services and Fed agencies send search teams and CENTCOM divert whole companies of soldiers, Marines, Seabees and EOD to search for what they knew was non-existent.

 

Thanks. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. I have not had the chance to read "Fiasco".

 

I just find it suspicious that the CIA analyst 'Joe' provided his report on the aluminum tubes less than three months after Bush supposedly told members of his administration to find him a way to remove Saddam. Or that there were were warnings from the CIA about Curveball's information, and requests not to use it. Why would the CIA wrestle away al-Libi from the FBI in order to use interrogation techniques that the CIA itself says produces what detainee thinks you want to hear, in order to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq? What about the Downing street memo commenting that intelligence and fact were being fixed around the policy of military action in Iraq? What about when Cheney and Libby started meeting directly with CIA analysts and subsequent CIA resistance to back weak intelligence?

 

I'm just finding it hard to accept that it was all just incompetence and no manipulation. I appreciate your opinions on the subject.

[Gaius Octavius]

Let's not forget the Italian intel hoax, and the 'yellow cake' fraud.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Gaius Octavius