Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 1:50 AM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,887 Year: 8,923/19,786 Month: 1,345/2,119 Week: 105/576 Day: 6/99 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Violent propaganda
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 121 of 135 (205300)
05-05-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by contracycle
05-05-2005 9:32 AM


Over the course of the SRP, UN-HABITAT received a total allocation of US$ 520 million. During that period, the Agency awarded 1,372 contracts to local contractors for a total of US$ 461 million. By November 2003, when the SRP was handed over to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq , total disbursements amounted to US$ 353 million.

UN habitat handed the mission over to the CPA in 2003.

Where did the 520 mil come from?

But thank you for finally posting where the UN has spent money on reconstruction, even if it was before 2003 when no reconstruction was going on.


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by contracycle, posted 05-05-2005 9:32 AM contracycle has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 122 of 135 (205303)
05-05-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by contracycle
05-05-2005 9:42 AM


Sure, that is what US officials WANT the public to think. Undeniably. That doesn't mean its TRUE, does it?

ROFL!!!

I'm done with this thread unless anyone else has anything meaningful to input.


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by contracycle, posted 05-05-2005 9:42 AM contracycle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 6:03 AM Tal has responded

    
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 135 (205510)
05-06-2005 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by contracycle
05-04-2005 5:38 AM


Re: On responses and reaction to terrorism
Wow this thread seems to have really fell apart fast. Im gonnna have to get quicker :/

quote:
simple example: giving in to all of a bankrobber's demands and letting them get away simply because they have a hostage may be good for that hostage, but probably would lead to copycat crimes and endanger more people.

Thats reasonable enough, but is that a valid scenario? If people are fighting for their freedom, acceeding to some of their demands shows you are not a tyrant. The dogmatic refusal to even discuss the demands and aims of the violent movement confronting you can only escalate the conflict.

its valid in the original context. The point I was trying to make being that response to individual terrorists acts, hostages and threats in particular, by giving into demands (especially ones that would lead directly to more violence) overall has a negative net effect, even if it helps in a particular situation.

(what I belive the people Tal was quoting were saying)

Addressing polictical concerns that are shared by a large populations like in the case of the IRA is very different.

Secondly, the reason for the decline in violence was becuase the IRA's political strategy was working. It's political wing, Sinn Fein, stood for and won elections (thus demonstrating the IRA had a genuine constituency) and moves by the British government toward a power-charing agreement. In other words, precisely the mature, negotated strategy that Mick was pointing to.

To me it seems like the IRA and the Sinn Fein were the ones that took the largest steps to achiveing peace, and they did so before the negotiations, I intrepret Mick as saying the British govenment succesfully responded to terrorism simply by entering into talks, however, from a 3rd party perspective it seems like the talks were succesful only becuase alot of non British government controled factors entered the picture.

from Wikipedea

The split was over the decision of a majority of Sinn Féin members to abandon abstentionism (i.e., the refusal to accept the legitimacy of, and to participate in, the parliament of the Republic of Ireland). While the policy of abstentionism towards the Westminster British Parliament was continued, it was dropped in relation to Dáil Éireann. Under the presidency (from November 1983) of Gerry Adams, Sinn Féin leaders sought to explore wider political engagement, following what was called the Armalite and the ballot box strategy of political agitation and the use or threat of violence.

Surely the decision to become involved in the parliament of the Republic of Ireland came more from a decision made by the Sinn Fein.

Quite clearly, negotiation does work. It does work because the combatants do have grievances that can be met.

Negotiation is more of an effect than a cause.

And it only works when both sides can reach an aggrement due to giving up some of the original ideals they held before the arguement.

I quoted the peace talks in the 70s and 80s because its supports my claim. The peace talks did not work not simply because the British government was to stubborn to give into demands, but becuase both parties were unwilling to give up enough to satisfy the other.

what changed was not that they tried to negotiate, but other factors like the ones I previously listed most namely the Sinn Fein's move torward political legitimacy. Im not going to deny that the negotiations were a factor, in fact they were an important part of the chain of events that, just not the first step.

it went (very simplified)

actions -> talk -> solution

what mick suggested was

talk -> solution

but talk won't lead to solutions without the nessicasry actions taking place first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by contracycle, posted 05-04-2005 5:38 AM contracycle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by StormWolfx2x, posted 05-07-2005 2:25 AM StormWolfx2x has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 124 of 135 (205518)
05-06-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Tal
05-05-2005 1:44 PM


I'm done with this thread unless anyone else has anything meaningful to input.

I had some meaningful input back in post #30 (or was it 31?). As usual, your cited article contradicted your position. Do you care to comment?

Oh yes, and you do know the US gov't is now publicly saying it is doubtful anything went to Syria? Comments?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Tal, posted 05-05-2005 1:44 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 9:58 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 126 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 10:22 AM Silent H has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 125 of 135 (205548)
05-06-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Silent H
05-06-2005 6:03 AM


Allow me to pull a contracycle on you.

Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.

The weapons were smuggled in large wooden crates and barrels by Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, known for moving arms into Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions and for sending recruits to fight coalition forces, said the U.S.-based Reform Party of Syria.

Source

Now I can sit here, jump up and down on my soapbox, and say, "I'm right, your wrong, sit and spin."

By the way, I haven't heard much about worldnetdaily. Does anyone think they are legitimate?

Or we can go with

Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

That's newsmax.

These sites don't hold water with me unless they are confirmed by Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or BBC.

Let's see what they have to say about it.

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his country is looking into reports that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has transferred to Syria weapons he wanted to hide -- a claim Syria denies.

"We have such reports," Sharon said in an interview Tuesday broadcast on Israel's Channel 2 television.

"We are in the process of verification of these reports," Sharon said. "What we assume -- and again I say, we have not yet finalized the reports -- is that weapons that he (Saddam) wanted to hide -- chemical weapons, biological weapons -- were indeed transferred to Syria."

CNN. There is another Syria denail story in 2003.

Uh oh....I found something from the Washington Times.

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

Not I bolded "but is not proof." My objective in all of my posts is not to slant things in favor of my argument, but to put forth objective facts, instead of, say, highlighting ONLY "Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered."

Now for my 2 cents.

We (Military/State Dept in Baghdad) KNOW there are different forms of WMD in country. We also know some went to Syria. We know it was smuggled back. Its all still classified for safety reasons, but I assure you you'll hear about them later.

Now my little paragraph up there doesn't mean anything to anyone on this board, and I realize that. But I'm putting it there so that when this information comes out, I can say, "See I told you so."

:)

This message has been edited by Tal, 05-06-2005 10:01 AM


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 6:03 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 12:32 PM Tal has responded
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2005 4:19 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 126 of 135 (205556)
05-06-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Silent H
05-06-2005 6:03 AM


Holmes

Fight on WMDs boasts global backing
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The war in Iraq has set the United States at odds with some allies, but the international community is strongly supporting a U.S.-led initiative to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

More than 60 nations — including Russia and France, two key opponents of the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq — are supporting the 19-month-old Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The global effort to halt arms proliferation has also gained favor from the United Nations.

Washington Times

Saddam threat 'greater than feared' Oct 6 2004

A key report on Saddam Hussein's weapons shows he was an even greater threat than previously thought, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.

The group hunting for the dictator's weapons of mass destruction is expected to announce it has found no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

But Mr Straw said the Iraq Survey Group report proves "in terms of his intention", Saddam was an "even starker" threat than thought.

Mr Straw said Saddam would have built up WMDs if he had not been ousted from power.

Speaking on a trip to Baghdad, he said: "I personally am in no doubt whatever that had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region than before."

BBC

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

The source of the documents

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other

You can learn how to shorten links using Peek

I'm not familiar with CNS news either, so take this one with a grain of salt.

This message has been edited by Tal, 05-06-2005 10:23 AM

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-06-2005 09:32 AM


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 6:03 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 12:45 PM Tal has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 127 of 135 (205595)
05-06-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tal
05-06-2005 9:58 AM


Now I can sit here, jump up and down on my soapbox, and say, "I'm right, your wrong, sit and spin."

All of your articles are old and you certainly didn't put much analysis into it. Most claims came from biased sources.

That first one was a doozy, in that one the claims are from a group just like Chalabi's. You may remember Chalabi, who after we invaded admitted his group lied but figured the ends justified the means. He who does not learn from the past is condemned to repeat it.

I have no idea about worldnetdaily, but you need to analyze what you read even more than just checking for corroboration.

As far as your last citation goes, which makes inuendo off of an ISG finding, it is time for you to catch up to speed. This is what the ISG is saying in their final report and it is opposite from your position.

We (Military/State Dept in Baghdad) KNOW there are different forms of WMD in country. We also know some went to Syria. We know it was smuggled back. Its all still classified for safety reasons, but I assure you you'll hear about them later.

Not WMDs, you mean WMD related materials. You keep equivocating between the two. I might also add the rather obvious point, even if your current position is true, that would only prove how harmless Saddam was. His threat was in using, not in shuffling around, WMDs. This was the final battle for him, he didn't use anything, and the official investigation has come up with nothing even ready to have been used.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 9:58 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 1:12 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 135 (205599)
05-06-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tal
05-06-2005 10:22 AM


Your first citation (the washington times) was completely irrelevant. I'm for stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction... so what? Nothing in this indicated that your position on who has them or had them or how they got shuffled to make Bush look bad when he kicked Saddam out of power had any merit.

Your second citation (BBC) only confirms what I have said. I could completely agree with Jack Straw's factual commentary and not have a bit of inconsistency. This suggests he had NOTHING except for INTENTIONS. If wishes were fishes I guess the Iraqi economy would have been thriving on fish exports. This is why there was no question that Iraq should not have been left on its own. Maybe you can tell me who was calling for Iraq to be left to its own devices.

The idea that it was invade ala Bush or do nothing is simply a stock dilemma.

Your last link is a laugh. It has been countered by US gov't findings on the subject. I still love ya for not having bothered to read what the official line is on all of these subjects. It makes it even funnier when you then claim that the gov't actually knows the exact opposite but is just hushing everything up to the tune of massively funded investigations with abundant materials released to the public.

If this is true, then that only tells me I no longer have any reason to believe anything the US gov't says. But let me ask you something, if they were going to hide all of this info afterward, why did they use it as the pretext for war in the first place?

None of this is passing the common sense test, is it?

By the way, I also like how we're concerned with WMD proliferation and spreading democracy, while letting a dictator prevent elections and let his friend go with a warning after spreading WMD tech to the very countries we didn't want getting it, and so invaded Iraq. You have any position on Pakistan?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 10:22 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 1:18 PM Silent H has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 129 of 135 (205613)
05-06-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Silent H
05-06-2005 12:32 PM


The group also said it had been unable to complete its investigation because of security concerns and couldn't rule out an "unofficial" transfer of material.

I'm up to speed.


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 12:32 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2005 3:42 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 130 of 135 (205615)
05-06-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
05-06-2005 12:45 PM


If this is true, then that only tells me I no longer have any reason to believe anything the US gov't says.

Do I need to remind you that was EVERYBODY's intel, not just ours. Do I need to break out the quotes from Ted, John, Nanci, and Bill?

You have any position on Pakistan?

Pakistan seizes 'al Qaeda No. 3'

LAHORE, Pakistan (CNN) -- The alleged No. 3 man in al Qaeda -- believed responsible for the terror group's global operations -- has been captured in northwest Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan, Pakistani and U.S. officials said Wednesday.

CNN

Looks like we are working just fine with Pakistan. Lybia too if I'm not mistaken. We have given these countries the chance to turn things around. Some have taken us up on it, some haven't.

This message has been edited by Tal, 05-06-2005 01:21 PM


Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2005 12:45 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2005 4:31 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2005 3:53 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 135 (205660)
05-06-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tal
05-06-2005 9:58 AM


Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.

The weapons were smuggled in large wooden crates and barrels by Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, known for moving arms into Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions and for sending recruits to fight coalition forces, said the U.S.-based Reform Party of Syria.

Congratulations, government geniuses. Wasn't this why we went to war? To keep Iraq from handing out WMD's to terrorist organizations and other rogue states?

Oh, what a surprise. Like most of the administration's policies the result was exactly what they set out to prevent. It's like Midas in reverse. Everything they touch turns to shit.

Now I can sit here, jump up and down on my soapbox, and say, "I'm right, your wrong, sit and spin."

That's always what it's about for you people, isn't it? Fuck the real-world consequences, as long as you can stick it to some hippie liberal. Of course, the joke's on you - this is exactly what we said would happen before the war - that going to war would put more WMD's in the hands of terrorists, not less. So, spin away. You've earned it.

Congratu-fuckin'-lations. What is it going to take, out of curiosity, to get you and your ilk to begin taking the War on Terror and our nation's security seriously? This isn't fun and games time. This isn't Open-Phones day on Rush Limbaugh. These are people's lives. And people like you are putting them at risk just so that you can play pundit on the "internets".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 9:58 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 135 (205664)
05-06-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Tal
05-06-2005 1:18 PM


Do I need to remind you that was EVERYBODY's intel, not just ours. Do I need to break out the quotes from Ted, John, Nanci, and Bill?

No offense, but if our hearalded "intel" couldn't tell us something that I heard from the greasy hippies on my street corner, all our "intel" isn't worth two shits.

Don't give me that crap about "the best knowledge we had at the time." That wasn't the best knowledge. How do I know that? Because they were fuckin' wrong!There's no excuse for that failure, and far too many people failed for it to be coincidental stupidity.

C'mon. That doesn't pass the smell test. Our intel guys are good, we recruit the best and we pay them a lot of money. If they were that wrong it was on purpose. And whose purpose? Well, who had the most to gain? Look it doesn't take a genius. It just takes a willingness to look at the facts, and moreover, to stop treating this stuff like some kind of game. Our lives are at risk. When is that going to dawn on people like you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 1:18 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 135 (205797)
05-07-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by StormWolfx2x
05-06-2005 5:17 AM


Re: On responses and reaction to terrorism
I think mick and contra just gave up on this thread because its wasn't going anywhere

does anyone else have some input on the discussion we were having, (negotiating with terrorists, & how negotiating worked in relation to the IRA)

tal: since this sprung off a reply of your earlier do you have anything else to add

admins: is there any way to take the several posts we've had on this topic and put them into a new thread. (and would this make a good new thread?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by StormWolfx2x, posted 05-06-2005 5:17 AM StormWolfx2x has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 134 of 135 (205803)
05-07-2005 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tal
05-06-2005 1:12 PM


I'm up to speed.

How can you be up to speed if you cite a quotation from the ISG which supports my position and refutes yours. This clearly indicates that weapons were not the issue... at most "material" was. As Crash has already pointed out, even if a transfer of material (or lets say weapons) occured, that supported our arguments not to go to war.

But in any case, what you failed to do was continue reading PAST the quote you cited. See you quotemined to pull out something which suggested material might have been transferred, but IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING that quote was a caveat by the ISG...

The report said that 12 years of international sanctions against Baghdad after the Gulf War had left Iraq's scientific community decimated and these experts' skills in a state of "natural decay."

The group added it was unlikely that scientists were capable of re-creating the destroyed weapons programs, meaning Iraq would have possessed little, if anything, to transfer.

"It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found," the report said.

Instead, the report said, detainees interviewed by the group "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."

Charles Duefler, head of the Iraq Survey Group, recommended that many of the detained scientists could be released because they had been cooperative, were no longer a security risk and had no more information to share.

Get up to speed Tal, your position was overrun a while ago.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 1:12 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 135 of 135 (205804)
05-07-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Tal
05-06-2005 1:18 PM


Do I need to remind you that was EVERYBODY's intel, not just ours. Do I need to break out the quotes from Ted, John, Nanci, and Bill?

First let me point out that you are trying to talk about intel before the war and I was discussing afterward. Second the spin that it was "everybody's" intel is simply not true.

What was everyone's intel is that there were stocks which were unaccounted for. Our own CIA reported, until it had a change of heart before the drive to war, that it was unlikely to have actual weapons. That is in addition to its not having any real connections to AQ.

Remember many countries argued against our intel conclusions. Its sort of hard to pretend the world was with us on that when it was well documented. Especially embarassing were the intel gaffes regarding nuclear material which had been refuted before the President even mentioned it. If you don't understand that this was the factual case regarding intel, then you need to stop listening to FOX and start reading actual reports made at the time.

Looks like we are working just fine with Pakistan.

Let me get this straight... We are having wars to spread democracy and prevent the spread of WMD and WMD technology, and Pakistan is "just fine" because it captured AQ's #3 guy who is an enemy to them at this point anyway. That is despite the fact that it is a dictatorship which has dismissed elections and when caught redhanded transferring the exact WMD tech whose threat of transfer we said was enough reason to invade Iraq, went completely unpunished (literally less than a slap on the wrist)? That's your position? Good luck.

Lybia too if I'm not mistaken.

Lybia had been trying to change its image and standing for years. Thus, you are mistaken. Correlation or coincidence does not equal causation.

Are you with the ministry of propaganda or something, floating out excuses to see if they will fly? So far they are weak.

{edited in due to coincidental discovery of intriguing topical item}...

I remember you quoted Jack Straw and made the statement that everyone shared our intelligence assessment of Iraq. Here is an article that suggests not even Britain was on board. I think it's early to say if this memo is factual or not, but if so has an interesting quote by Straw:

the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the memo reported he said.

If this turns out to be true, what would you say then?

This message has been edited by holmes, 05-07-2005 04:16 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Tal, posted 05-06-2005 1:18 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019