Man. I got a tear in my eye. I don't even trust the government but that's deep man. I like the message he was trying to get acrossed. He's right. heproblems and answers aren't over there, but they're all here.

The problem still exists. Americans don't want to work and build a better country, they'd rather buy it from someone else.

~Rico

Rico,

Your America and my America are worlds apart.

Jimro

I'd do the "you have a right to be wrong" thing you always do. But I don't like to start fights.

Honestly the reason im in the military isnt because i wanted to fight. It was because of the job, and being a mechanic on the worlds top aircraft is something i can take pride in. Weather or not i agree on the political issues or the wars we are made to fight in the name of america, i know that in my decition to join i sacraficed my own freedom that that others can enjoy theirs. Granted the air force gives me back alot of my freedom, but i still cant live a life as everyone else can who isnt in the military. Everyone thinks life is so hard, and that its all our fault, well shut up. this country gives everyone any opertunity to make a good life for themselves, and if you think its too much of a burden on your mind then you need to be slaped and shown what other 3rd world countries are going through. those of us in the military are living a life that isnt free so that all of you on the outside can enjoy your lives, as hard as you might make them to be. i know veterans can be obnoxious sometimes (and i know, theyre everywhere on base and plus my step-grandfather is one) but they do deserve the respect of heroes, because without them you wouldnt be able to play playstation or use your computers today. you wouldnt be able to voice your opinion, and you probably wouldnt have alot of things you take for granted now.

before i joined the military i didnt care about it. i thought people in the military deserved to die if they were stupid enough to join. well, now that im one myself, the respect has turned around completely. granted i still think everyone in the political govenrment needs to be replaced with someone new, because i dont have much faith in our government as far as taking care of its OWN people and its OWN country, but other than that the respect fot the military is one in its own. I know what its like. if you ever have a problem with the way things are going, dont look at the military, look at the people sitting at a desk telling us what to do in "your behalf".

I hate the army. But I respect the HELL out of people in it. I may hate they destroyed my best friend, but in order for him to do what he needed to do in the army, they had to do it. It was his choice. But I'm still mad.

Regardless of the way I feel about it, I respect all people in the armed forces. Everyone else should to. Well expect Fex, he doesn't count.

~Rico

It's hard for me to respect -- as a whole, now -- a group of people who are currently best known for piling up naked POWs and raping them in the ass, shooting dogs, beating up kids, pissing on holy books and dropping bombs on their allies. Sympathy? They've got it. Respect? Case-by-case basis.

Of course, but I don't auto-assume people act like tards just because they're in the armed forces. Well, expect Jimro, but he's a special case. XD

~Rico

Rico,

Quote:

---

Of course, but I don't auto-assume people act like tards just because they're in the armed forces. Well, expect Jimro, but he's a special case. XD

---

Did you mix up expect with except?

Jimro

Cycle,

Quote:

---

It's hard for me to respect -- as a whole, now -- a group of people who are currently best known for piling up naked POWs and raping them in the ass, shooting dogs, beating up kids, pissing on holy books and dropping bombs on their allies. Sympathy? They've got it. Respect? Case-by-case basis.

---

I'd like sources on the holy text pissing, and beating up kids.

Mainstream media does not tell the stories of soldiers and units making a difference and impacting Iraq and Afganistan in a positive manner. I often wonder why.

Hopefully after this is all over the Iraqi people will tell stories of American kindness that outnumber American brutality.

Jimro

yes, yes I did. Put the joke was still there, I didn't typo that.

I remember reading about the beating up kids too. And I don't doubt it. Jimmy's been to Ft. Sill, so I'm sure he can back me up that some of those guys would have no problem kicking around defenseless kids.

Other paw, you get that everywhere. I had guys in highschool that lived to torture younger people. Considering a lot of enlisted are still highschool age, why should it be any different? If we don't want it to happen, stop sending kids overseas with guns and licenses to kill.

I doubt more than a few soldiers stoop to that anyway. The disrepect should be an a case-by-case basis, not the respect.

~Rico

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/04/world/main699665.shtml

I considered using the same AP story hosted on Fox News, but they tampered with it considerably. As far as I can tell this is the original, cut-and-paste version as submitted by the AP.

Last time I saw my cousin, which was a couple of months ago, I asked him about the things I'd heard about kids being abused in Iraq. He has seen it firsthand, though he refused to comment on how many marines participated. Basically he said he saw "a bunch of guys", and not the same guys, physically assaulting someone who was clearly younger than 18 on several occasions in the space of nine months. He also tells me that he was never educated on the Geneva Convention and other laws of war to which the United States is a signatory.

There have also been rumblings about the US using chemical weapons. The Italian public network RaiTG24 aired a documentary yesterday in which a former US soldier claims US forces dropped massive amounts of chemical weapons on Iraqi civilians during a November 2004 bombardment. "I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorous was being used on Fallujah," he said. The documentary claims that US forces randomly dropped massive amounts of the chemical across Fallujah during aerial bombardments. Military officials in Iraq denied using the burning material in civilian areas, but did admit marines used MK77 firebombs in Iraq between March and April 2003.

The documentary can be viewed at http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv

Excerpts from Cycles link.

Quote:

---

Hood said that of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed. He could not determine conclusively whether the other four took place.

Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for the detainees' motives.

---

That is not a bad ratio in my opinion. Not too many people up in arms over those detainees defiling the Quran...

Now about that webcast...

As far as use of white phosphorus being used in Fallujah, check out the source, this Jeff Englehart character doesn't get his facts straight. Willie Pete ignites on contact with air and/or water and burns straight through clothes, it does not burn skin and leave the clothes intact as Jeff says. WP is not even considered a WMD like Sarin, Tabun, Phosgene, etc. WP is a chemical, but so is the lead in bullets.

The italian journalists can't tell the difference between bullet wounds and drill bit torture, nor do they realize that those bullet wounds are approximately 30 caliber, or 7.62 mm, the same diameter fired by the AK-47. The American 30 caliber weapons are much more powerful and leave telltale exit wounds.

Most of Jeff's testimony is hearsay, and most of the evidence is BS, showing illumination starburst shells for a "WP attack". And the "Timeline we were told by the Pentagon" bit is just complete BS, there is not a specialist in the Army that hears orders direct from the Pentagon.

Anyways, if anyone takes that propopanda at face value they need to improve their critical thinking skills.

Jimro

Cycle, you listen to Fox news? o.O

~Rico

Ha, no. It's just the only news source I can be sure Jimmy won't label as "propoganda".

There are news sources, then there is propaganda.

An italian webcast that has such shoddy reporting even NBC won't touch it? That's propaganda.

Quote:

---

Ha, no. It's just the only news source I can be sure Jimmy won't label as "propoganda".

---

I guess you need to redifine "sure" for yourself.

Anne Coulter puts forth a lot of what I consider propaganda.

I'm conservative, but that does not mean that words spewed by conservative pundits are automatically gospel truth. There are too many folks, both liberal and conservative, that don't effectively use their BS filter.

You might want to increase your critical reasoning skills and start thinking for yourself instead of believing at face value a webcast that looks like a Michael Moore production.

Jimro

Frankly I don't know what to believe these days. If you read my post you'll notice I was simply pointing out that the Italian network ran a documentary about white phosphorous. The only thing I know for sure is that if something came out of the White House, it's probably a lie.

You'd do well not to lecture people about their critical thinking skills, as a self-professed realist who, by definition, believes that there is no more to deciding what is "really real" than accepting his perspectives at face value, and who not twelve months ago was still buying into the idea that Iraq posed a threat to the security of the average American.

You write as tho Iraq under Saddam was not a threat to western security. I guess that puts me in the same boat as Bill Clinton and a lot of others.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
-Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
-Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-33 , which stated, It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration."
-Sen. Jon Kyl, March 12, 2004

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"
-From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
-Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."
-Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

There are a lot more quotes from liberal leaders, foreign and domestic, to the same effect.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

The fact that evidence has come to light since then that points towards Saddam bluffing on WMD capabilities to intimidate Iran. Also Israeli and some Syrian sources indicate that at least some Iraqi WMD components are being stored in Syria. At least if the intel on Syria is true the Iraqi WMD's are in the hands of Syrian military forces, which means that availability to terrorists is reduced somewhat. The Syrian military will probably hold on to them for the next round of military action against Israel.

So yes, I believe that Iraq was a threat to western security, same as North Korea and Iran. I am so glad that a Canadian teenager has better intel than the Clinton administration, the UK and France, have you considered contracting your services out?

Jimro

All quotes from 1998 or about 1998 do not reflect the situation as present in 2002 or 2003 and don't make sense in context of this thread at the moment. Those are also horrible uses to justify anything that occurred in 2003.

Most of the other quotes don't support the case for invading Iraq as long as there were inspectors in Iraq, which when not taken out of context is basically what all the so-called "liberal" people you quoted did say. Until the inspectors were run out of Iraq due to the impending invasion, there were inspectors in Iraq in 2003 attempting to do the job of assessing and removing any possible security threat that may have existed.

The few other quotes that talk about "knowing" were based mainly on what we all know now to be suspect or overstated evidence along with ignoring other evidence to the contrary in terms of presentation to lawmakers. That combination makes some quotes look dumb in hindsight though not as stupid as the ones about an attack within 45 minutes--it's those quotes that lead me to believe that the members of the Bush administration & Tony Blair are either complete idiots or love to engage in fear-mongering that they know many people will eat up to support anything that they want to do.

Personally, I felt they were fools back then (quotes about 45 minute attacks solidified my doubts big time) and said as much on this very message board on several different occassions leading up to the Iraq invasion. The information I was getting (based on what was accessible to anyone looking online in terms of WMD) and people saying that Iraq is not a threat after Bush was in office but suddenly changing their tune in 2002 was particularly alarming (they had access to all of Clinton's stuff--which they conveniently ignored anyway until it suited their purposes).

Oh and one quote... ;p

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11." Rumsfeld (Jul 9, 2003)

I don't think those who work in intelligence are so incompetent that they'd for 10+ years not notice what was going on in Iraq and become so blindsided that a complete 180 had to be made conveniently after September 11, 2001 (comments I didn't feel the need to post as I'm sure you know them). Rumsfeld's comment in 2003 basically highlighted why I felt things were so stupid. If 2+2=4 yesterday, 2+2 is still going to be 4 tomorrow. It doesn't change because it was sunny yesterday and it'll rain tomorrow. If we're going to use Clinton as the reason, let's not forget the other things he said as well. Clinton told them that Osama Bin Laden was the biggest threat to the U.S. and that's where the focus should stay before anything else, which would include Iraq as long as there were inspectors--and there were inspectors in Iraq. So, if we're going to use Clinton's opinions, use his stuff in complete context of the situation.

In any event, two things I find interesting. You switch from saying WMD components to WMD's. Was that supposed to be contraction of sorts? I also find it interesting that you seemingly believe that Syria is less likely to hand over weaponry to terrorists than Iraq under Saddam Hussein, particularly since Syria's handing over of weaponry is supposedly well documented. Despite the big deal over "intelligence failures" lately, the CIA and other agencies usually do get the correct information and it's just a matter of whether it's used correctly.

Three things:
1) Just because you see someone as liberal does not mean I see them as liberal, or agree with them, or even like them.
2) The fact that I was eleven years old in 1998 and didn't even know what "Republican" meant pretty much makes anything that occurred back then irrelevant in the context of this tangental discussion. I don't think they were right now, I didn't know what they were talking about then, and nobody can say whether or not I would have agreed with them had I been born 7 years earlier.
3) The fact that you're still flogging it just proves my point even further. Good critical thinking skills, there.

True Red,

Discounting all the quotes from 1998 there are plenty from 2002 and newer, Clintons, Kerry, etc, if you want to find out where people stood and where go right ahead. However, the quotes from 1998 are important to understand the political climate prior to 9/11. Leaders who had access to evidence that we don't, who called for review when things didn't happen as planned.

Quote:

---

In any event, two things I find interesting. You switch from saying WMD components to WMD's. Was that supposed to be contraction of sorts? I also find it interesting that you seemingly believe that Syria is less likely to hand over weaponry to terrorists than Iraq under Saddam Hussein, particularly since Syria's handing over of weaponry is supposedly well documented. Despite the big deal over "intelligence failures" lately, the CIA and other agencies usually do get the correct information and it's just a matter of whether it's used correctly.

---

From a military standpoint WMD components and WMDs are interchangeable. What other uses are there for unloaded chemical warheads except filling them and using them? Don't forget that the weapons inspectors couldn't find in 2002 things that they had already seen in 1998, where did they go?

As far as Syria giving WMD's to terrorists, I said the risk was somewhat lessened since the Syrian military is reported to have control, not that the risk is non-existant. Every military officer I know would rather hold those type of weapons up his sleeve instead of handing them over to terrorists. Terrorists who have no problem attacking muslims as shown by events in Jordan and Iraq.

As far as your Rumsfeld quote, he is exactly correct 9/11 switched US priorities towards security, however, if those liberals had not stated their stance in 1998 do you really believe that Iraq would have gone to the top of security concerns?

As far as using intelligence correctly, are you implying that it was used incorrectly?

Ask yourself, is it likely that GWBush manipulated evidence, bamfoozled all of congress so that even democrats believed, and then took us to war knowing that we wouldn't find WMD's? Considering the low opinion most folk on this board have for GWBush's intelligence it makes more sense that the US acted on the best intelligence available which indicated that Iraq was a priority threat to security. I have not paid attention to UK politics as closely, but it is political suicide to manipulate intel, lie to parliment, etc. What did MI5/MI6 know that lead Blair to support Bush?

Clinton may have believed OBL to be the biggest threat, but he didn't act on it when he was president, even with multiple opportunities. When Clinton made that quote he was voicing his opinion, an opinion shared by many.

Cycle,

I've already addressed the intel issue, which strongly indicates that my critical reasoning skills are working just fine.

That you are willing to dismiss recent history in this tangental discussion demonstrates you need to do your homework. Current events are the direct consequence of prior events. Clearly you know this, you are an intelligent person. But just because a person is intelligent does not mean that they arrive at the correct conclusion. Often intelligent people arrive at a conclusion and then defend it intelligently without considering that other conclusions are equally or more valid.

Of course, my conclusion is based on the actions and statements of elected leaders whom I know have better intelligence sources than I. Your conclusion is based on an Italian webcast that is not being repeated by NBC, CNN, or the BBC.

Jimro

Your conclusion is based on an Italian webcast that is not being repeated by NBC, CNN, or the BBC.
I repeat: I simply mentioned it for the sake of discussion.

I have an idea! Lets beat all the horses until they're dead and buried, then dig up the bones to make into a xylophone.

~Rico

Quote:

---

I have an idea! Lets beat all the horses until they're dead and buried, then dig up the bones to make into a xylophone.

---

Oh silly little Rico. You and your crazy old common sense.

Why whatever will we do with you?

Quote:

---

Oh silly little Rico. You and your crazy old common sense.

Why whatever will we do with you?

---

Uhmmm, throw a party? Go on with life?

Is this multiple choice?

Jimro

Quote:

---

Discounting all the quotes from 1998 there are plenty from 2002 and newer, Clintons, Kerry, etc, if you want to find out where people stood and where go right ahead. However, the quotes from 1998 are important to understand the political climate prior to 9/11. Leaders who had access to evidence that we don't, who called for review when things didn't happen as planned.

---

All the evidence they (re: CIA) had was not seen by all the lawmakers. Their comments would have been much different if they had--which you and I both know. Also, those comments reflect the situation prior to September 11, 2001 but NOT the situation as it stood in 2003. Cycle's comment, which started this current rehash of history, is clearly based on the situation as it stood in 2003. Besides, you were one of the few people who seemingly agreed with me that Bennet's comment about aborting Black people shouldn't be taken out of context. I'm reminding you that those comments by "liberal" people (though I agree with Cycle's assessment that many of those people aren't liberal) are being taken out of context the way you presented them. That is all.

Quote:

---

From a military standpoint WMD components and WMDs are interchangeable. What other uses are there for unloaded chemical warheads except filling them and using them? Don't forget that the weapons inspectors couldn't find in 2002 things that they had already seen in 1998, where did they go?

---

1) Military standpoint is not the same as a political standpoint or even what I'd necessarily consider a practical standpoint. There's a huge difference between having components and having weapons.

2) Probably not many, but the desire to do something and the capability to do something are also two entirely different things, which should be accounted for.

3) As for where things went, either destroyed, expired (we are talking about chemicals that have shelf-lives), or placed elsewhere. I personally believe the inspectors should've been given more than 3 months (if it even was that long) to find the answers to those questions, particularly since I believe it was Rumsfeld that said Iraq is the size of California--which means it would take awhile.

Quote:

---

As far as Syria giving WMD's to terrorists, I said the risk was somewhat lessened since the Syrian military is reported to have control, not that the risk is non-existant. Every military officer I know would rather hold those type of weapons up his sleeve instead of handing them over to terrorists. Terrorists who have no problem attacking muslims as shown by events in Jordan and Iraq.

---

I didn't say you said it was non-existent. I'm asking for clarification concerning why you believe Syria which to my knowledge has much more documented history of helping terrorists than Saddam Hussein did would actually lessen the risk. That's my point. Basically this comes down to your belief toward military personnel. It'll have to do for now since I don't have the time to spend on pressing the matter.

Quote:

---

As far as your Rumsfeld quote, he is exactly correct 9/11 switched US priorities towards security, however, if those liberals had not stated their stance in 1998 do you really believe that Iraq would have gone to the top of security concerns?

---

Considering the people within the Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq ever since Bush #41 refused to invade Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in 1991/1992, I do not believe the quotes of any "liberals" caused Iraq to move ahead in priority within the administration. It was already there, but a reason was needed to convince enough of the public that it needed to move up in priority.

Quote:

---

As far as using intelligence correctly, are you implying that it was used incorrectly?

---

No, I wasn't implying it. I basically said it.

Quote:

---

Ask yourself, is it likely that GWBush manipulated evidence, bamfoozled all of congress so that even democrats believed, and then took us to war knowing that we wouldn't find WMD's? Considering the low opinion most folk on this board have for GWBush's intelligence it makes more sense that the US acted on the best intelligence available which indicated that Iraq was a priority threat to security. I have not paid attention to UK politics as closely, but it is political suicide to manipulate intel, lie to parliment, etc. What did MI5/MI6 know that lead Blair to support Bush?

---

1) Bush doesn't have to manipulate the evidence, particularly since he doesn't supply the evidence. Any evidence manipulation occurred before it got to him. The blatant ignoring of evidence is basically the same thing as "evidence manipulation" due to having the same effect.

2) The overstating of evidence, which we all happened, is also the same thing as "evidence manipulation" due to having the same effect.

3) Congress, Republicans & Democrats, can all agree that between the ignoring and overstating of evidence that their opinions on the matter were possibly incorrectly influenced.

4) The problem with your statement is that you assume that I'm holding Bush accountable for something he didn't control directly. The only way Bush "controlled" anything was due to the relatively known "fact" that when Bush wants to do something, he doesn't like stuff happening that might derail it. It's that attitude that has been a part of his administration from the get go that is the root of many problems Bush has had, and the "intelligence failures" are a part of it.

5) As for UK politics, I'm sticking out of it unless I have time later to comment.

Quote:

---

Clinton may have believed OBL to be the biggest threat, but he didn't act on it when he was president, even with multiple opportunities. When Clinton made that quote he was voicing his opinion, an opinion shared by many.

---

1) Clinton told Bush in 2001 when they were changing office that Osama Bin Laden should be Bush's main focus.

2) Besides the fact that Clinton did do some things to attempt to get Bin Laden, though obviously he made mistakes, too. Please inform me how Clinton should act when the Congress is controlled by the opposition party and we all know in the U.S. that the opposition party (whether it's Democrat or Republican) loves to do anything it can to weaken or render the other party as President ineffective. That attitude has not changed and isn't changing anytime soon. That's what makes Bush different from Clinton in one regard. His party is in control of Congress, so if Bush did things in a manner that didn't kill him so much he doesn't have a reason not to get things done.

Quote:

---

Uhmmm, throw a party? Go on with life?

Is this multiple choice?

---

Oh Jimro! You and your wacky shenanigans! **pinches your cheeks and gives you a lollipop**

Why whatever will we do with you, you mischevious little scamp!

I'd suggest something with whipcream and a spoon but you know how Kat gets.

~Rico

Red, if you want to rehash this more we need a new thread.

Quote:

---

1) Military standpoint is not the same as a political standpoint or even what I'd necessarily consider a practical standpoint. There's a huge difference between having components and having weapons.

---

War is politics by other means. A military standpoint is a political standpoint. I've already listed the weapons components that aren't the extensive list of dual use tech and chems. Having a warhead, a missile to put it in, and a chem/bio agent ready to arm the warhead is exactly the same as having an armed missile.

Quote:

---

All the evidence they (re: CIA) had was not seen by all the lawmakers. Their comments would have been much different if they had--which you and I both know. Also, those comments reflect the situation prior to September 11, 2001 but NOT the situation as it stood in 2003. Cycle's comment, which started this current rehash of history, is clearly based on the situation as it stood in 2003. Besides, you were one of the few people who seemingly agreed with me that Bennet's comment about aborting Black people shouldn't be taken out of context. I'm reminding you that those comments by "liberal" people (though I agree with Cycle's assessment that many of those people aren't liberal) are being taken out of context the way you presented them. That is all.

---

What you say is mostly true, but also a lot of supposition. We cannot know what liberal lawmakers would say had they seen all the evidence.

Since you and Cycle seem to be the deciding factor on who and who isn't liberal I'll remember to ask before labeling Democrats as liberal in the future. As things stood in 2003 directly the result of events pre and post 9/11. Why don't you point out whose position changed between 1998 and 2003?

Quote:

---

I didn't say you said it was non-existent. I'm asking for clarification concerning why you believe Syria which to my knowledge has much more documented history of helping terrorists than Saddam Hussein did would actually lessen the risk. That's my point. Basically this comes down to your belief toward military personnel. It'll have to do for now since I don't have the time to spend on pressing the matter.

---

I'm referring to where the weapons are, not where the weapons were. Had the weapons stayed in Iraq it would have been much easier for terrorists/insurgents to get their hands on them, as it stands what intel is available points to stockpiles in three Syrian military sites. This is a much better situation than having those weapons in no ones hands in Iraq, or in civilian hands in Syria.

Quote:

---

Considering the people within the Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq ever since Bush #41 refused to invade Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in 1991/1992, I do not believe the quotes of any "liberals" caused Iraq to move ahead in priority within the administration. It was already there, but a reason was needed to convince enough of the public that it needed to move up in priority.

---

Once again you are guilty of supposition on members of the Bush administration wanting to attack Iraq, but that's ok, I'm guilty of the same assumption. But check out Clintons Iraq Liberation Act www.library.cornell.edu/c...libera.htm

I agree that the stances of those people did not affect the priorities of the GWB administration, but I maintain those same stances allowed the priorities of the administration to procede. Political stances made on intel gathered by the previous administration.

If you don't mind gleaning through propaganda for fact, try these www.lewrockwell.com/frank/frank15.html www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php www.wsws.org/articles/200...-o08.shtml and a much more balanced view en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200...on_of_Iraq

Quote:

---

No, I wasn't implying it. I basically said it.

---

Isn't "basically saying" something the same as implying? I disagree, I believe that the intelligence was faulty, not misused, mainly because of the actions of the Clinton admin.

Do you think that if everyone had access to all this info they would have made a different decision than the ones they made? Over two different administrations? Two different countries?

Quote:

---

3) Congress, Republicans & Democrats, can all agree that between the ignoring and overstating of evidence that their opinions on the matter were possibly incorrectly influenced.

4) The problem with your statement is that you assume that I'm holding Bush accountable for something he didn't control directly. The only way Bush "controlled" anything was due to the relatively known "fact" that when Bush wants to do something, he doesn't like stuff happening that might derail it. It's that attitude that has been a part of his administration from the get go that is the root of many problems Bush has had, and the "intelligence failures" are a part of it.

---

Your point three, under TWO administrations? In both the US and the UK?

As far as your assessment of Bush's "attitude" pardon me for not agreeing. As far as "when _____ wants to do something, he doesn't like stuff happening that might derail it" Substitute in ANY name and the statement becomes relatively true. And what that has to do with anything is beyond me...

Quote:

---

1) Clinton told Bush in 2001 when they were changing office that Osama Bin Laden should be Bush's main focus.

Quote:

---

And we invaded Afganistan first. Bush and Clinton had the same intel sources, I don't expect any President to take orders from his predecessor.

Quote:

---

2) .....That's what makes Bush different from Clinton in one regard. His party is in control of Congress, so if Bush did things in a manner that didn't kill him so much he doesn't have a reason not to

---

---

---

You admit that Clinton made mistakes yet expect Bush to "get things done" simply because Republicans are the congressional majority. Don't forget that Clinton enjoyed a Democratic majority the first two years of his administration, and I don't have universal healthcare...

Have you not noticed the Democratic Party, and now Hard Core Republicans blocking judicial nominations? How about minority filibusters? Politics is politics, and expecting Bush to do everything Clinton could not simply because of congressional makeup is unrealistic.

Jimro

Quote:

---

War is politics by other means. A military standpoint is a political standpoint.

---

war = open armed conflict between fractions
politics = the science and art of government
military = armed forces
political = concerned with government
standpoint = a position from which something is viewed

Based on those definitions, no war isn't politics by other means, nor is a military standpoint a political standpoint. You can decide to engage in war for political reasons, you can decide that your politics is based on the military, but that doesn't make them the same.

Quote:

---

I've already listed the weapons components that aren't the extensive list of dual use tech and chems. Having a warhead, a missile to put it in, and a chem/bio agent ready to arm the warhead is exactly the same as having an armed missile.

---

Ah, see that's where the problem lies. The best anyone could say is possibly having a warhead and missile. No one could verify any chem/bio agents--and the chem/bio agents that had be given to Iraq would have expired in terms of usefulness due to shelf-life.

Quote:

---

What you say is mostly true, but also a lot of supposition. We cannot know what liberal lawmakers would say had they seen all the evidence.

---

It's not really supposition considering many of those people you quoted have already said as much or as I noted already, you took their quotes out of the larger context of their overall opinion.

Quote:

---

Since you and Cycle seem to be the deciding factor on who and who isn't liberal I'll remember to ask before labeling Democrats as liberal in the future.

---

Good idea since I don't make the assumption that you consider who I might consider to be conservative/liberal to be conservative/liberal. I do make the assumption that you will consider those who call themselves Republicans/Democrats to be Republicans/Democrats. I also understand that there are such things as "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans" in terms of beliefs (let's not forget moderates). Party affiliation doesn't necessarily translate into having conservative/liberal/moderate beliefs.

Quote:

---

As things stood in 2003 directly the result of events pre and post 9/11. Why don't you point out whose position changed between 1998 and 2003?

---

Things did not stand in 2003 due to events pre-September 11, 2001. Things stood in 2003 due to events post-September 11, 2001. Basically every Democrat you quoted who was even remotely for possibly invading Iraq from 1998-2002 (largely due to the inspectors being kicked out) did not share that view by the time early 2003 came around due to the start of the inspection process. But you know that as much as I do.

Quote:

---

Isn't "basically saying" something the same as implying?

---

It could be, but I figured taken with everything else I had said that it was clear enough to express my view.

Quote:

---

I disagree, I believe that the intelligence was faulty, not misused, mainly because of the actions of the Clinton admin.

Do you think that if everyone had access to all this info they would have made a different decision than the ones they made? Over two different administrations? Two different countries?

---

Obviously I do believe that if everyone had access to all the info that different decisions would have been made. Some people have already said that they would've made different decisions if they had access to information that they didn't. The reason I disagree with the "faulty" argument is that there was good information that existed that was completely ignored because it didn't fit in with a desired pattern: proving that Saddam Hussein must have working WMD. Police dectectives can botch cases sometimes with that kind attitude toward their work on cases, and this was no different other than being on a grander stage.

More than two different countries had access to the same information. More countries rejected it than embraced it.

Quote:

---

Your point three, under TWO administrations? In both the US and the UK?

---

Yes, under both administrations. Considering the UK actually experienced people resigning due to disagreeing with Blair (though I won't claim expertise on the matter), they were much more doubtful than the US lawmakers in the first place. So, the UK would pretty much be an easier "yes" than the US.

Quote:

---

As far as your assessment of Bush's "attitude" pardon me for not agreeing. As far as "when _____ wants to do something, he doesn't like stuff happening that might derail it" Substitute in ANY name and the statement becomes relatively true. And what that has to do with anything is beyond me...

---

You mean you haven't heard about how staffers really hate upsetting Bush compared to any other President in the past several decades? You mean you don't know the difference between "listening" to opposing viewpoints that may be right versus "accepting" opposing viewpoints that may be right? You mean you agree with me that people within the administration wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, but don't see how providing information that may not support the action would be "bad?"

Quote:

---

And we invaded Afganistan first. Bush and Clinton had the same intel sources, I don't expect any President to take orders from his predecessor.

---

No we didn't "invade" Afghanistan. We just sent some troops over. If we "invaded" Afghanistan, the troop levels would've been much higher and we would not have let other forces do work for us. Afghanistan would have been much more similar to what has happened in Iraq with regards to troops.

Quote:

---

Have you not noticed the Democratic Party, and now Hard Core Republicans blocking judicial nominations? How about minority filibusters? Politics is politics, and expecting Bush to do everything Clinton could not simply because of congressional makeup is unrealistic.

---

Blocking judicial nominations? Happens to everyone, it actually hasn't happened all that much. Minority filibusters? There haven't been many and usually they've been surrounding the judiciary anyway.

Considering Bush has pushed through most of his agenda save stuff that could cause moderate/liberal Republicans in Congress to be voted out, no I don't consider it unrealistic. Clinton managed to do the same thing for a little over a year between 1993-1995. The only reason Clinton didn't get the healthcare reform in is the same reason Bush hasn't been able to get the social security reform in--fear by lawmakers of being voted out of office. In 1994, it didn't save the Democrats anyway. In 2006, I think it will save the Republicans unless something major happens between now and November 2006.

There is no reason for Bush not to have been more aggressive in getting Bin Laden, and he wasn't worrying about saving his Presidency a la Clinton due to impeachment or dealing with an in-party insurrection at the time.

Red,

Read "On War" by Gen Von Clausewitz, he coined the phrase "War is politics by other means." Argue with him if you like, but considering your rather pedestrian understanding of military issues and deployment,

Quote:

---

No we didn't "invade" Afghanistan. We just sent some troops over. If we "invaded" Afghanistan, the troop levels would've been much higher and we would not have let other forces do work for us. Afghanistan would have been much more similar to what has happened in Iraq with regards to troops.

---

Invade:
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

We did not enter for conquest or plunder, but did spread into as if invading, definition 3a. I have plenty of experience playing the definition game, cycle can give witness to that effect.

As far as Iraq, we are not there alone, other forces are doing work "for us" as you so adroitly put it.

I'm glad that we "just sent some troops over" to Afganistan, pray tell me what did they do? Were they INVITED to have tea and cookies? Knit afgans? Or did they hunt down and kill terrorists, topple the Taliban, and otherwise engage in the interests of American security against the wishes of the reigning government?

Afganistan was invaded, by the US and allies, it is as simple as that. Numbers have nothing to do with it.

You talk about chemical half lives, the point at which half of the compound is no longer remaining. This is all fine and dandy if there is no way around it.

Sarin has a short half live as a compound, but it can exist as a binary agent indefinately. VX, Tabun, pretty much all the organophosphate acetocholinesterases can exist indefinately as binary agents.

Mustard gas has a LONG half life, just ask the French.

Here's a little trip down memory lane...
www.wnd.com/news/article....E_ID=31228
www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1

Jimro

Quote:

---

Read "On War" by Gen Von Clausewitz, he coined the phrase "War is politics by other means."

---

Why would I agrue with him considering he's not posting here? However, you are and you said it. You can either defend your view or not, but passing the buck to someone else I obviously can't debate is silly.

Quote:

---

As far as Iraq, we are not there alone, other forces are doing work "for us" as you so adroitly put it.

---

Nope, no one is doing work for us in Iraq. Forces are doing work for the Iraqis.

Quote:

---

Afganistan was invaded, by the US and allies, it is as simple as that. Numbers have nothing to do with it.

---

Numbers have plenty to do with it or else I would not have put "invade" in quotes as I did. It's due to our lack of numbers in Afghanistan that other forces needed to be used to do things that we could've done ourselves. That does matter. If you are doing a real "invasion" (like Iraq), the forces should be sufficient to do the job--though one could argue that even the numbers in Iraq weren't sufficient from the get go (as Colin Powell and many others did complain on that front).

Quote:

---

You talk about chemical half lives, the point at which half of the compound is no longer remaining. This is all fine and dandy if there is no way around it.

---

You forget one important thing. You have to have the capability to get around it. There's no evidence that anything existed in Iraq to alter any of the chem/bio agents into forms that could get around the natural uselessness of stuff in 2002/2003. Iraq is not the United States in terms of resources and had been devestated. Stuff true in 1995 wasn't necessarily true in 1998 and definitely not in 2002/2003.

Red,

Quote:

---

Why would I agrue with him considering he's not posting here? However, you are and you said it. You can either defend your view or not, but passing the buck to someone else I obviously can't debate is silly.

---

I'm not passing the buck, I'm appealing to a recognized authority. Since you won't take my word as a professional soldier I can only point to a recognized authority on the subject. So use that library card and educate yourself on military affairs.

Quote:

---

You forget one important thing. You have to have the capability to get around it. There's no evidence that anything existed in Iraq to alter any of the chem/bio agents into forms that could get around the natural uselessness of stuff in 2002/2003. Iraq is not the United States in terms of resources and had been devestated. Stuff true in 1995 wasn't necessarily true in 1998 and definitely not in 2002/2003.

---

And the HUMINT pointed to the development of stable binary chemical weapons systems. HUMINT means "HUMan INTelligence" or data gathered from a spy, as opposed to ELINT or "ELectronic INTeligence" such as satellite suveillence or spy plane photographs.

Do a search on how US ELINT couldn't pinpoint Soviet nuke factories, another thing to do at the library.

But let me post my resume, I have served in the US Army for eight years, the last five and a half of which were spent as a noncommissioned officer, NCO, in leadership positions. I completed SFAS, (Special Forces Assessment/Selection) and in three weeks finally finish my BS in Biochem which will allow me to earn a commission, continuing my career in positions of greater responsibility and leadership.

So when I talk about military affairs, I've been there and done that. When I talk about chemistry, been there done that too.

So, get thee to a library.

Jimro

Wow, when they say the army teaches confidence they weren't just whistlin' dixie. Even I wouldn't be stu- er confident enough to fire off something like, "Network Security? Been there, done that."

~Rico (Life? Been there, done that.)

Rico,

The Army doesn't teach confidence, it provides an environment where confidence has an opportunity to grow. That environment is mainly the opportunity to fall flat on your face. If you don't have the freedom to fail, you don't have the freedom to learn.

However, if I were to start lecturing you on the experience of being Native American, I think you might want to take a look at my credentials. I could read enough books, talk to enough people, listen to enough stories that I might be able to understand the Native position enough to teach an anthropology class on it, but it wouldn't make me a Native.

But just like reading a Haynes manual doesn't make you a mechanic, it is a step in the right direction. I don't expect anyone to devote their life to martial endevors, but I do expect them to be familiar with the basics.

Some things that those discussing military/political affairs should probably have a grasp: the difference between tactics and strategy, what is logistics and why they are important to modern warfare (and how they are affected by international law), what seperates modern warfare from classical warfare, what seperates postmodern warfare from modern warfare, what is a "limited engagement", assymetric battlefield, what are the differences between just and unjust war, why urban fighting is difficult, what exactly are rules of engagement, how the Geneva and Hague conventions affect the prosecution of war and military operations other than war (MOOTW), what are the differences between physical and political geography, what is the proper use of scouts and spies, etc.

Of course we get to chemistry, but if you have no idea how a serine side chain irreversibly binds to an organophosphate (irreversibly bound only in the absence of a strong nucleophile, specifically 2-Pam, a xenobiotic compound) then we probably can't talk about splitting that organophosphate up into two precursors for long term storage. Nor could we talk about the specific structures for such agents and how they can be synthesized from insecticides.

Anyways Rico, if you give a lecture on Network Security, I would attend if at all possible.

Jimro

The point was over there Jimro.

~Rico

Quote:

---

I'm not passing the buck, I'm appealing to a recognized authority. Since you won't take my word as a professional soldier I can only point to a recognized authority on the subject. So use that library card and educate yourself on military affairs.

---

That could work if I hadn't already read most of the book you suggested years ago. Re-reading it isn't going to make me change my position. ;p

So, I repeat: Military affairs != Political affairs

Job creation, as one very simple example, is a political affair, yet has nothing to do with the military. There are so many things that aren't military-related but are political. As I said earlier, you can decide to engage in war for political reasons, you can decide that your politics is based on the military, but that doesn't make them the same. It's basically as you're taught in beginning logic, the converse of a true statement isn't always true.

Quote:

---

And the HUMINT pointed to the development of stable binary chemical weapons systems. HUMINT means "HUMan INTelligence" or data gathered from a spy, as opposed to ELINT or "ELectronic INTeligence" such as satellite suveillence or spy plane photographs.

---

Besides the fact that I already know the difference between HUMINT & ELINT, remember my issue has always been the intelligence between 1998-2003, which could (and in some cases did) negate stuff from the early 1990s. Why is it that I was able to find out online that some of the intelligence being used to make a case for war was discredited by foreign intelligence services (which was basically our only source for HUMINT anyway) prior to 2003, but we are only having some papers start talking about it now? Why is it that not all the members of Congress were not provided the same information that the select got who also wouldn't be allowed to discuss the info with others due to security clearance reasons at the time? We all know that it would be a crime to discuss that kind of info. Some of it has since been declassified so it's not a big deal in 2005 as it was in 2002. I don't blame the Bush administration for the lack of reading of the reports by the members--though I can't find the link at the moment as I believe less than 10 even read the provided info (edit: found one source with the info).

Quote:

---

Do a search on how US ELINT couldn't pinpoint Soviet nuke factories, another thing to do at the library.

---

That's nothing new and would be a waste of my time. ;p

Quote:

---

So when I talk about military affairs, I've been there and done that. When I talk about chemistry, been there done that too.

---

That's totally fine, but keep in mind that not everyone is totally ignorant of the military nor chemistry (which was required for me in college). Remember, it's not required that people agree on things that are based on opinion.

I believe Bob Dylan said it best: you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

lol, very true ^_^

What Cyke said.

~Rico

Ditto. Tritto. And Quadritto.

Quadritto? Isn't that a boardgame?

~Rico

The Army doesn't teach confidence, it provides an environment where confidence has an opportunity to grow.
What exactly does the army teach? That is, other than how to kill a man without feeling like you just destroyed a part of your soul?

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
I love this:
Those grievances were also perhaps illustrated by comments that Vice President Cheney himself wrote on one of Feith's reports detailing purported evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In barely legible handwriting, Cheney wrote in the margin of the report:

"This is very good indeed Encouraging Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."

The Army teaches discipline, teamwork, computer skills, land navigation, marksmanship, managerial skills, logistics, water and power distribution, aviation mechanics, diesel engine mechanics for generators and vehicles, sports medicine, first aid, ethics, equal opportunity, tactics, leadership, problem solving, etc.

Nowhere does the Army teach how to kill without feeling. It is very important that we DO feel, for only sociopaths can kill without feeling. Some feel that it is a regretable but necessary act, some go numb for a bit, some cry uncontrollably, some feel relief that they are alive.

Did you form your opinion on your own or did some liberal journalist spoon feed it to you along with the rest of your rhetoric?

Jimro

I think it's funny how Jimro's views vary wildly between being "logical" and "emotional", depending on whichever suits him best at the time.

Did you form your opinion on your own or did some liberal journalist spoon feed it to you along with the rest of your rhetoric?
No, I just thought it'd push your buttons.

Ladies and gentlemen boys and girls children of all ages its time, once again, for the MAIN event.

He's the undisputed champion of all things physical, scientific, AND psychological. That mammoth of men, bred in the army and wrapped in the flag. It's the genius patriot... Jim-ro!

And the challenger! The master of cynicisim and canadian nationalism. That god of gaming, software, and american bashing. The liberalist smartass.... Cycle!

Are you READY?

Then lets get ready to *SUED*

Wait, where was I? Oh yeah. Back to topic! Lets about my dress. No, wait, hang on.

*reads note card*

Please refrain from sniping directly at each other. *changes card* It does not promote a fun atmosphere and is a very not nice thing to do. *changes card* Your fly is open.

...

Eep!

~Rico (*Ziiip*)

Quote:

---

Please refrain from sniping directly at each other. *changes card* It does not promote a fun atmosphere and is a very not nice thing to do. *changes card* Your fly is open.

---

**notices an open and dissected fly sitting on a sterilized medical table**

**puts away mad scientist type medical gear and screams with a crazy look in his eye**

I DIDNT DO IT IT WASNT ME YOU CANT PROVE A THING!!!!!!

I've read everyone's comments, and I really only have one thing to say:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stewart Mills

Too late, Jimro's already used it like eight times already. And he's much more entitled to do so, being that he's served in the military and you haven't. Besides which, what relevance does it have in the context of this discussion?