Broken Army

[Michael Tee]

<<You'd actually have to show validated evidence of how such intel was "shaped".  Not just your opinion, or the opinion of other ABB nut jobs, but documented referencing of how the intel was actually shaped. >>

Well, I guess the word of Richard A. Clarke, security adviser to three presidents including Bush Jr. isn't "validated" evidence.  And because it proves that Bush himself, personally, DID try to shape the evidence, that makes Clarke an "ABB nutjob."  But I'll tell you what, sirs - - THAT evidence is good enough for me.  And for a lot of sane, normal, straight-thinking people.  It's good solid evidence and whether you like it or not, it ain't going away.  So argue that you don't believe it.  Argue that Clarke has an agenda (if you can demonstrate it.)  But just don't argue that there is "no evidence" because that IS evidence, and very strong and credible evidence.

<< Because, currently the FACTS say other wise.  >>

Bullshit.  I quote facts, you quote bullslhit.  "The facts say otherwise."  You don't HAVE any facts.  Just the word of a bunch of political hacks all feeding from the same troughs.  The same schmucks who were dumb enough to fall for Bush's BS in the first place protecting themselves by trying to prove that they weren't really dumb and spineless after all.

<<And yea, last time I looked messers France, Russia, & Germany were all in agreement that Saddam did posess WMD stockpiles. >>

Not true.  When did they all agree, when (according to what you say they agreed on) did they agree that Saddam was last in possession of WMD and why if they were all so much in agreement did they not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq?

<< I realize facts to you is like Kriptonite to Superman,>>

How would you know?  You haven't presented one single relevant fact in any of your crypto-fascist rants.

<< but that's not my problem>>

THAT'S for sure.  I know what your problem is.  Or more accurately, what your problems are.

<<As Pooch has made clear on countless times in the old saloon, the Intel services take their best guess, with the information they have gathered.  They take it all up, and make conclusions based on their information gathering. >>

Yeah, maybe in some ideal world or better-run administration.  What Pooch failed to make clear that this was an administration with a plan, and when the intelligence didn't fit the plan, as Richard Clarke makes so abundantly clear, the intelligence had to be tailored to fit the plan.

<< So, subtracting all the irrelevent and pathetic efforts to imply some Zionist conspiracy, . . . >>

i.e., IGNORING the well-known Zionist connections of Perle, Wolfowicz and/or  Feith and their involvement (and Cheney's) with PNAC, IGNORING their prior attempts to get the Clinton administration to invade Iraq, and IGNORING the fact that Israel (together with Iran) are the principal beneficiaries of the invasion and occupation . . .          

<<the FACT remains that the intel agencies from nearly every country, concluded that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD, prior to our going into Iraq.  >>

Bullshit.  Which ones and where do you find that crap?  Even if you could find one or two who DID believe it, one (Britain) was deliberately faking the evidence and cooking the books and the others were probably lied to by the USA.  But come on, Mr. Fact Man , where are those facts?  WHAT intelligence agencies other than Britain and the USA claimed to believe this crock of shit?  Where's your proof?

<<A sticky FACT for you, I understand, but still a FACT, and not some emotionally bent charge of how the intel was shaped>>

It's not a sticky fact, it's just plain old bullshit.  Capitalizing the word doesn't change a thing.

<<Specifically, newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper, that went back and looked at the election results, and recounted every vote, in every way possible, had Bush winning the election.  In only 1 scenario in 1 newspaper, I do believe, did Gore actually win, when the entire state was recounted, and all multiple votes for President (invalid ballots) were counted >>

None of them dealt with the suppression of the black vote, outlined in great detail in Vanity Fair - - which was the key mechanism of rigging the vote and whcih was repeated in OHIO in 2004.

[_JS]

That's just your opinion, and since when do we make military decisions based purely on how "just" war is?

Interesting point Sirs. Wouldn't having such criteria separate the civilized nations from the "rogue" states?

Again, I appreciate your opinion, but we didn't enter into this war, with sectarian intentions.

Intentions are irrelevant to reality. I'm sure Britain and Israel never intended to deal with the situations with which they were presented.

We're dealing with the after effects of our taking out Saddam & his WMD threat of offloading/selling them to terrorists.  How that is in anyway similar to Northern Ireland or Israel, is beyond me.

Both the UK and Israel have their tales of how they got where they are. The fact we got there more quickly and through more bizarre circumstances does not deny the similarities of the situations.

What we currently have our terrorists & insurgents, being fueled by the likes of Syria & Iran, to destabilize Iraq.  Again, I fail to see anything similar in Northern Ireland, but you could definately see the same 2 countries trying to do the same to Israel.  And why are they doing so?  You've already answered that, the hopes of filling any power vacuum left by any Iraq failure in bringing forther a free democratic country.  Again, not sure how that compares to Northern Ireland

What we have is a large segment of society (the majority in fact) that has been oppressed for years with the blessing of both the East and the West, or don't you remember our good friend Saddam fighting off the evil forces of the Ayatollah and shaking hands with special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld? The Shi'a and the Kurds aren't stupid Sirs. We have a history of ignoring them, or blatantly stabbing them in the back, or letting them stick their necks out only to have their heads removed by their enemies. People here are sometimes amazed that we aren't considered great liberators and saviors in Iraq. It isn't anything amazing, the Shi'a and Kurds just know their history. They know they have to fight for themselves because at any given moment the United States may just leave, or start supporting the Sunni, or something equally ridiculous.

The flipside to the coin is that the smaller, but historically more powerful segment of Iraqi society has suddenly lost all of its power. For them, it is no choice but to fight. They know the evils they allowed to take place in order to keep a Sunni-dominated society. They expect retribution. We came in and turned their world upside down, stripped them of their power and put them out into the streets. For some Sunni it is fight, or live under Shi'a rule.

I could easily do a similar look at the power struggles inside Northern Ireland and Israel. And no, not every member of each nation belongs to a militant faction by any means, but they all tend to have strong opinions.

You pawn this off on Syria and Iran. Quite frankly, that is absurd. Anyone can supply the weapons. Iraq is a factional tenderbox and we provided a hell of a spark.

Well, considering how I shot that notion out of the water, in my previous paragraph, the point of how naive it is to think that we simply need to "talk" to these folks, make nice nice to them, be "Christian" to radical muslims, and then all will be just swell, remains similarly valid

Right, being Christian isn't necessary for a Christian except on Sundays at church. And what are you "shooting out of the water" exactly?

And I suppose the turning the other cheek by recommending --> "I'm saying that Christians should act like Christians." is some form of military manuever?

Did you make a funny Sirs?

My apologoes if you took that as making that claim just about you.  True, you've never made direct characterizations of such, merely implied similar sentiments.  There are others on your side who have weakly made such claims, when the substance of their debate is found to be sorely lacking, but you're not one of them

To my knowledge I don't have a "side."

Strange, I coulda swore we were talking how to deal with Terrorists, Insurgents, & their enablers, bent on killing innocent men, women, & children.  Preferrably Jews & "Western Christians"

You act like that is something new. The insurgents in Iraq kill far more Muslims (and target more Muslims) than they do Jews or Christians, therefore that assertion is completely false. I'm not sure who you define as terrorists, so you'll have to be more specific. If it is the same as the insurgents in Iraq, then the same would hold true.

Why would acting like a Christian be detrimental to "Jews and Western Christians" or even Muslims for that matter?

[sirs]

In my view...One thing is for certain, however: withdrawal will save more American lives.

In the immediate short term perhaps.  We do need to look at the big picture, however domer

[Amianthus]

The decision to go to war is far different than the procedure used to enact such a decision.

In this country (a republic) the decision is in the hands of the representatives. Congress, in this case. The procedure is in the hands of the President, via the Pentagon.

[Michael Tee]

<<stabilize, if we can, the Iraqi government -- assuming it represents the will of the electorate -->>

What if it represents the will of a Shi'ite majority of the electorate to do things that a Sunni minority won't accept?   Is that "the will of the electorate" and if so, should it he stabilized?  Or should the Sunnis be allowed to destabilize it until something more favourable to their interests evolves?

related question  << help that government provide security and services necessary for their commonweal . . . >> assumes that that government actually IS providing security and services necessary for their "commonweal," doesn't it?  What is their concept of "commonweal" and how far if at all does it diverge from your own?

You've got a made-in-America solution to the problems of an artificial nation superimposed on an ancient culture that you know next to nothing about and have the God-damn fucking arrogance to think that you now have an obligation - - your ass-hole "President" probably thinks of it as a right - - to go in there and straighten them out accordingly at the point of a gun, having probably already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them with no let-up in the slaughter.  

Despite all the high-sounding but tortured verbiage that accompanies your agonized "solution" it is actually pure insanity.  International law could not be clearer:  you have no right to be there.  For ANY purpose.  Their problems are not your problems to solve.  The simplest solution is the only solution in this case:  get out.  Leave them alone.  They will sort out the problems of their country, you should sort out the problems of yours.

[_JS]

So once Congress and the President take the nation to war Ami, people should never discuss it again? I still don't see where your statements invalidate my point. I am well aware of the procedures this country has for going into armed conflict. Yet, that does not a just war make. Otherwise you are arguing that simply because a war happens (and thereby follows some semblance of protocol) it is justified.

I don't agree with that. It is the same distinction that a legal action is not necessarily moral simply because it is legal just as an illegal action isn't necessarily immoral just because it is illegal.

[Amianthus]

So once Congress and the President take the nation to war Ami, people should never discuss it again?

When did I say that?

I seem to recall explicitly saying that the people's representatives have the power to remove that authorization as well.

[domer]

Your simplisms only rankle, Michael, not enlighten. And so while you're in this avenging angel, holier than thou mode, I will not engage you in conversation. I do note, however, that I think your basic conception of the problem we now face is seriously flawed.

[sirs]

<< Because, currently the FACTS say other wise.  >>

Bullshit.  I quote facts, you quote bullslhit.  "The facts say otherwise."  You don't HAVE any facts.  Just the word of a bunch of political hacks all feeding from the same troughs.  The same schmucks who were dumb enough to fall for Bush's BS in the first place protecting themselves by trying to prove that they weren't really dumb and spineless after all.

The art of projection rearing it's irrational face, yet again

When did they all agree, when (according to what you say they agreed on) did they agree that Saddam was last in possession of WMD and why if they were all so much in agreement did they not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq?

At the time we went into Iraq, nearly the entire global intelligence community, the UN, messers France, Gernamy, & Russia all still believed Saddam possessed his stockpiles.  That's a FACT.  This wasn't that they all got togehter to form some unanimous position, simply taken on a country by country basis.  And that FACT isn't going to go away.  You may have isolated folks who didn't believe it, but no one is claiming that 99% of the world believed it, but Tee was right.  Only that the folks in charge believed it, and common sense, not to mention the intel conclusions are on their side.

<< I realize facts to you is like Kriptonite to Superman,>>

How would you know?  You haven't presented one single relevant fact in any of your crypto-fascist rants.

Still playing that game where you get to play fool yourself?

<<As Pooch has made clear on countless times in the old saloon, the Intel services take their best guess, with the information they have gathered.  They take it all up, and make conclusions based on their information gathering. >>

Yeah, maybe in some ideal world or better-run administration.  What Pooch failed to make clear that this was an administration with a plan, and when the intelligence didn't fit the plan, as Richard Clarke makes so abundantly clear, the intelligence had to be tailored to fit the plan.

Ahhhh, what would ever do without Tee being able to read those dots and tell us what moron Bush and pure evil Cheney really had in mind.   Minus of course the bipartisan commissions that debunked that nonsense

[Michael Tee]

<<At the time we went into Iraq, nearly the entire global intelligence community, the UN, messers France, Gernamy, & Russia all still believed Saddam possessed his stockpiles.  That's a FACT. >>

Bullshit.  It's a FACT that you post and claim is a fact but it's a fact in no other way.  It did not happen.  They did not convince their own leaders that Iraq was dangerous enough to warrant an invasion.  They KNEW Bush's claims were bullshit.  You haven't produced one source to back up your absurd allegations.  Why would they all believe that Saddam had these dangerous stockpiles of weapons, yet not be able to convince their own leaders and how could they all have come to the same "mistake" including (in your ridiculous version) as Bush?

 

[Amianthus]

MT, why don't you use the "Quote" buttons? They make following the threads back easier, when you can click on the link generated and see the actual post you're responding to?

[Amianthus]

You haven't produced one source to back up your absurd allegations.

Actually, a number have been produced and posted here. Here is another:

Analysis
41. The JIC Assessments, which are based on all sources of information including secret intelligence, are the consensus view of the UK intelligence community. Based on the information available, the JIC13 judged that Iraq had the capability, including raw materials, to produce chemical agents within weeks and biological agents within days, together with the capability to weaponise these agents – a process that did not take long if empty munitions were available. The JIC also judged that Iraq had retained chemical and biological agents and weapons, together with up to 20 al Hussein ballistic missiles from pre-1991 production. The JIC reported that intelligence indicated that the production of chemical and biological weapons was taking place. Iraq also had a ballistic missile programme that was producing missiles with a range in excess of the 150km allowed by UNSCRs and a nuclear programme.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/isc/iwmdia.pdf

[sirs]

You haven't produced one source to back up your absurd allegations.

Actually, a number have been produced and posted here.

But Ami, it's all BS.  After reading the "Tee leaves", Richard Clarke apparently said the intel was tailored, end of story.  Those apparent "few folks" (read: the entire global intelligence agencies, and a horde of World leaders) that believed that Saddam had WMD were all snookered, except of course for the pure evil administration of Bush Co.  Any and all facts demonstrating the contrary are to be labeled BS and CYA's

[Michael Tee]

Ami the report you quoted from was from Bush's partner in crime, the British government, NOT coincidentally the former colonial power in Iraq and its present co-invader.  The committee issuing the report was hand-picked by Blair himself "in consultation with" the opposition parties.  Naturally they are going to back up their leader.  It's meaningless.  Furthermore, the quote in paragraph 41 is not even the Committee's findings, it's the opinion of the Chairman of the JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) about the "concensus" opinion of the British establishment.  This one has "whitewash" written all over it.

Further, if you read back on sirs' posts, he is alleging that all the major intelligence agencies of the world bought into this BS.  It hardly bolsters his case to show the report of the major partner in the same criminal enterprise.  You'd EXPECT both of them to claim the same excuse. 

BTW, I'll try using the quote buttons next time.   Thanks for the suggestion.

[Michael Tee]

MT, why don't you use the "Quote" buttons? They make following the threads back easier, when you can click on the link generated and see the actual post you're responding to?

Test of the quote button