To war, or not to war......that is the question

[Michael Tee]

<<And he intel was nearly unamimous in it's conclusions about Saddam's WMD disposition. >>

Bullshit.

<< THAT'S A FACT . . . >>

Because you say so?  Because you say so IN CAPITAL LETTERS?  Because all of the intelligence agencies of all the countries on the face of the earth share their intelligence conclusions with you?

<<Actually, the LIE is trying to persuade the folks here that the intel conclusions were being generated to determine if we all should go to war with Iraq and not.>>

The intelligence was originally simple intelligence and nothing more, as you suggest.  When the Bush administration wanted to use it to justify the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't good enough for that purpose.  So Douglas Feith and his boss, Cheney, using Feith's office, started a new group to interpret the intelligence PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFYING A WAR ON IRAQ.  That is the "intelligence" that Bush and his criminal gang used to justify invading Iraq and it was in fact manufactured to order for their nefarious purposes.

[Plane]

"
<< THAT'S A FACT . . . >>

Because you say so?  Because you say so IN CAPITAL LETTERS?  Because all of the intelligence agencies of all the countries on the face of the earth share their intelligence conclusions with you?


"...interpret the intelligence PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFYING A WAR ON IRAQ.  "

fROM NOW ON ALL OF MY OPINIONS WILL BE MADE MANEFEST WITH CAPS LOCK ON.

[Michael Tee]

<<If we attack Iran we will be forced to use Air Power to reduc the Iranian ability to fight  befre we use any other tactic , so for the first part , the well to do will be more exposed than any other class.  The attempt to disunify the country alon class lines is not a good thing to do , the welthy include the same purortion of Barbra Strisand and Rush Limbaugh as the rest of us.>>

Ludicrous.  In air war, you minimize your casualties to the point of non-existence.  That's why it's your weapon of preference.  The bulk of the casualties in every war from and including Viet Nam have been from the underclass - - the dumbest, the poorest, the most desperate.  Nasty trick, my ass.  That's FACT.

[Michael Tee]

<<fROM NOW ON ALL OF MY OPINIONS WILL BE MADE MANEFEST WITH CAPS LOCK ON.>>

CAPS LOCK IS FOR WIMPS.  REAL MEN USE CAPS LOCK AND RED.

[Plane]

<<If we attack Iran we will be forced to use Air Power to reduc the Iranian ability to fight  befre we use any other tactic , so for the first part , the well to do will be more exposed than any other class.  The attempt to disunify the country alon class lines is not a good thing to do , the welthy include the same purortion of Barbra Strisand and Rush Limbaugh as the rest of us.>>

Ludicrous.  In air war, you minimize your casualties to the point of non-existence.  That's why it's your weapon of preference.  The bulk of the casualties in every war from and including Viet Nam have been from the underclass - - the dumbest, the poorest, the most desperate.  Nasty trick, my ass.  That's FACT.

Yep.

Iran isn't and ,can't be, prepared for the mess they are begging for , the only choice we have if we must fight Iran woud be to bomb heavyly and probly set records for the weight of bombs.

The single biggest reason for us to be reluctant is the human feeling we have to be reluctant to cause such carnage .


[][][][][][][][][][]
BTW please do not think of our poor as stupid, a large purportion of them are not deficient in any respect other than cash.

[sirs]

<<And he intel was nearly unamimous in it's conclusions about Saddam's WMD disposition. >>

Bullshit.

LOL....Let's not let facts get in the way of one's predisposed made-up-mind

<< THAT'S A FACT . . . >>

Because you say so?  Because you say so IN CAPITAL LETTERS?

Actually, because FACTUALLY, the intel services say so, not sirs 

Because all of the intelligence agencies of all the countries on the face of the earth share their intelligence conclusions with you?

No, not all, and and not to me personally.  Just to the each country's leadership, which in turn releases what they know, to the general public via news reports, press releases, and committee conclusions.   Unlike you, I don't use Tee-leaf logic when I post a fact

<<Actually, the LIE is trying to persuade the folks here that the intel conclusions were being generated to determine if we all should go to war with Iraq and not.>>

The intelligence was originally simple intelligence and nothing more, as you suggest.  

Well, what do ya know, a small concession.  I'm impressed

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL....Let's not let facts get in the way of one's predisposed made-up-mind>>

FACTS?  Oh, you got facts that say the intelligence was nearly unanimous?  Mind sharing them with us?  (If the world intelligence agencies that share their stuff with you don't object, of course.)

<<No, not all, and and not to me personally.  Just to the each country's leadership, which in turn releases what they know, to the general public via news reports, press releases, and committee conclusions.   Unlike you, I don't use Tee-leaf logic when I post a fact>>

No, no, of course not.  You just simply make up the fact, from whole cloth.  My compliments.  I'm impressed.

[sirs]

<<LOL....Let's not let facts get in the way of one's predisposed made-up-mind>>

FACTS?  Oh, you got facts that say the intelligence was nearly unanimous?  Mind sharing them with us? 

If Ami, nor Plane, nor Bt, nor anyone else has had a chance to do so for you, I'll endeavor to do some googling for you later tonight. 

Quick question though.  What difference does it make to you.  You've already moved on to the new tact of trying to claim it was intel being generated to illicit war.  So what if the vast majority were in agreement that Saddam had WMD.  According to you, it wasn't enough for them to throw the war switch.

 

<<Unlike you, I don't use Tee-leaf logic when I post a fact>>

No, no, of course not.  You just simply make up the fact, from whole cloth.

Must have learned from you, the master I guess

[_JS]

Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?

No. It was an unjust war regardless of the outcome.

Iran isn't and ,can't be, prepared for the mess they are begging for , the only choice we have if we must fight Iran woud be to bomb heavyly and probly set records for the weight of bombs.

It is amazing to me that even after Vietnam and Iraq, that Americans are still wrapped in this myth of invincibility and continual underestimation of their opponents and complete misunderstanding of foreign societies and cultures. Don't be so sure that bomb tonnage and the power of the US Air Force (and more likely Navy) is going to cripple Iran so easily. Don't be so sure that the Iranians cannot withstand warfare probably far better than Americans.

[Plane]

Although we here have no special access to hidden knoledge , public knoledge is not that much less correct most of the time.


That is the purpose of haveing free press and no monopoly of power in one party.


The press is rewarded monetarily for finding facts for us and there needs to be enough competition to make them good at it .

The differing partys in power nationally and internationlly release the infrmation to the public that is good for their own faction, most of the time this amounts, in composite , to everything.

It is notoriously difficult for Washington to keep a secret, things that are known in several capitols are pretty special if they stay secret long.
But what is known and what is true can be quite diffrent .

Saddam ought to have been very proud of his accomplishment in keeping his WMD dearth  secret .

[Plane]

Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?

No. It was an unjust war regardless of the outcome.

Iran isn't and ,can't be, prepared for the mess they are begging for , the only choice we have if we must fight Iran woud be to bomb heavyly and probly set records for the weight of bombs.

It is amazing to me that even after Vietnam and Iraq, that Americans are still wrapped in this myth of invincibility and continual underestimation of their opponents and complete misunderstanding of foreign societies and cultures. Don't be so sure that bomb tonnage and the power of the US Air Force (and more likely Navy) is going to cripple Iran so easily. Don't be so sure that the Iranians cannot withstand warfare probably far better than Americans.

By "withstand" what do you mean?

If we ruin their ability to attack us , do we need to do more?

Iran has made itself extrodnairiay vunerable by placing radioactive stuff all over their country , after we bomb that, we have converted whatever potential for threat there may be to a problem with refugees.

[Michael Tee]

<<So what if the vast majority were in agreement that Saddam had WMD.  According to you, it wasn't enough for them to throw the war switch.>>

Well, that's a good question.  It's even, in its own way, an intelligent question.  I believe that at one point Saddam did have WMD.  Then he came under a lot of pressure to destroy them, and - - to the best of his ability - - he did.  Then he had to give an accounting of his WMD to the UN, which he also did, two or three days prior to the expiration of the deadline.  And it was, by all accounts, a massive accounting.

Most of the intelligence that you refer to dates to before the accounting, which was more or less accepted by most UN members.  It would be a surprise to me if any of the intelligence agencies were giving the opinion you claim for them after the accounting was delivered to the UN by Saddam.

But I still think you're missing the point.  Regardless of the "intelligence," the decision to invade has to be based on more than simply what the intelligence report says.  For example, intelligence would definitely report WMD exist in China, Pakistan and Israel.  None of this triggers an automatic "attack" response.  Israel not only refuses to account for its WMD, it denies their very existence.  The decision to attack - - supposedly - - was based on the intelligence conclusions that Iraq did possess WMD and the political judgment that such possession constituted an intolerable and immediate threat to America's existence.  So it's still a judgment call that can't be blamed on "bad intel."

[Plane]

<<So what if the vast majority were in agreement that Saddam had WMD.  According to you, it wasn't enough for them to throw the war switch.>>

Well, that's a good question.  It's even, in its own way, an intelligent question.  I believe that at one point Saddam did have WMD.  Then he came under a lot of pressure to destroy them, and - - to the best of his ability - - he did.  Then he had to give an accounting of his WMD to the UN, which he also did, two or three days prior to the expiration of the deadline.  And it was, by all accounts, a massive accounting.

Most of the intelligence that you refer to dates to before the accounting, which was more or less accepted by most UN members.  It would be a surprise to me if any of the intelligence agencies were giving the opinion you claim for them after the accounting was delivered to the UN by Saddam.

But I still think you're missing the point.  Regardless of the "intelligence," the decision to invade has to be based on more than simply what the intelligence report says.  For example, intelligence would definitely report WMD exist in China, Pakistan and Israel.  None of this triggers an automatic "attack" response.  Israel not only refuses to account for its WMD, it denies their very existence.  The decision to attack - - supposedly - - was based on the intelligence conclusions that Iraq did possess WMD and the political judgment that such possession constituted an intolerable and immediate threat to America's existence.  So it's still a judgment call that can't be blamed on "bad intel."

Perhaps not immeiadiate , but definately intolerable.

There was no deadline for Saddam to worry about before Presidnt Bush made him beleive that there could really be an invasion.

[_JS]

By "withstand" what do you mean?

"Withstand" - able to recover from quickly.

If we ruin their ability to attack us , do we need to do more?

I don't recall Iran attacking the United States.

Iran has made itself extrodnairiay vunerable by placing radioactive stuff all over their country , after we bomb that, we have converted whatever potential for threat there may be to a problem with refugees.

Not really. It wouldn't be that difficult for Iran to recover and rebuild a nuclear facility in a much more remote location. Also, Iran could intensify their work in Iraq, something we aren't doing a very good job of handling as it is. They could theoretically make our soldiers' lives much more miserable than they already are.

Also, bombing Iran and killing civilians will only help to strengthen the hardline mullah's positions in Iran. They can point to the American air strikes and say, "look, what did we tell you about the Americans? Didn't we say they'd attack us? Didn't we tell you that they'd kill innocent women and children?" So even moderate and liberal Iranians would have a difficult time refuting that. Iranians with pro-western views would either have to retract those views or likely be purged.

Pro-Iranian Shi'a in Iraq would likely become much more inflamed. People who weren't anti-American before would suddenly become so. Why? Because they don't view Iran as a terrorist state or some ridiculous theocracy as you might. They see Iran as the answer to these unholy secularist states like Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and formerly Iraq. They see Iran as a state that is willing to follow Koranic law despite what world opinion thinks about it. And the Americans just had the outrage to bomb it!

So yeah, you make it out like it is a nice and tidy little undertaking by some warplanes. That's our problem in this country. Somewhere along the way we decided that it was unmanly to think before you acted. We're a superpower and we have to show people that we use our force to make other countries do what we say.

Unfortunately that doesn't mesh with the realities of the world.

[Plane]

Iraq has ben attacking Americans since the Shah left.

They have killed hundreds , have been for years , and they want expantion of the effort,why are we tolerateing it?