A: We have to make this bet! B: But...you're talking about gambling all we've got! And besides, you've always said that gambling is wrong...heck, you wouldn't even let me use 5 bucks of company money on a lottery ticket, and now you're saying we bet it all!?!? A: But this isn't really gambling...it's a sure thing! Believe me, if it were just a gamble, I'd never suggest it. But I have sure thing information. B: What information? A: I can't tell you that, it's confidential, but trust me...it's a lock. B: How can it be lock? It's gambling...isn't the nature of gambling that there are no sure things? A: Normally, yes. But in his case...given how good my sources are...this is an exception. This is a move we just have to make. Don't you trust me? B: What if this information you say you've got is wrong? We'd be risking everything. How can you be so sure? A: Because I've seen the information...you haven't. It's rock solid, guarenteed. Which one of us is more qualified to say whether this is reliable information, you who haven't seen it, or me, who has? It's a sure thing, there is no doubt. Trust me...would I ask you to risk this...would I risk this is it weren't? B: Well...I want to trust you...but it still seems like a gamble to me...and you've always said not to gamble with company money... A: How many times do I have tell you...it's NOT a gamble. Would I risk everything on a gamble? What am I, an idiot? B: Well...I guess...if it's a sure thing... A week later.... B: We lost everything!?!?!? But you told me you had sure thing information! You said there was no risk! I wouldn't have agreed otherwise! A: Hey, hey, hey....don't lay this on me! Blame my sources! It's not my fault. They just gave me a bad scoop. B: But you said your information couldn't be wrong. You said it was a lock! A: But, come on..there are no locks. That's the nature of gambling... One of the greatest ironies to develop in recent months regarding the war in Iraq is that those supporting the war, and the initial decision to go to war...are now trying to come off all sage and sigh at our complaints about WMDs, 9-11, etc. and lecture us on the imperfect nature of intelligence. What makes this so interesting is that those of us opposed to the war in the first place said exactly the same thing before the war as a reason not to go. We pointed out that among the huge problems with pre-emptive or preventative warfare was that you are taking the greatest risk...war...based on an imperfect at best basis, intelligence. Interestingly, when we said this at the time, those currently citing the imperfect nature of intelligence would respond to our saying this by asking who we'd rather believe, Saddam or our intelligence services, or calling us conspiracy theorists, or bleeding heart liberals, etc. Anything but acknowledge the veracity of what we were saying about intelligence, and thus the tenous basis for war. We were asked if we really were suggesting that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES would possibly go to war without being damned sure, where we got off thinking we knew more than the intelligence community etc. Forget for a moment that the NIE report, among other things show that the intelligence the White House said it was recieving and what it was really being told were not the same thing, and just concentrate on the " Nature of Intelligence" argument currently popular in here among war apologists, and ask yourself, if they in fact acknowledge the imperfect nature of inteligence, how do they reconcile that with their pre-war responses to our similar claims, and more importantly, how could they ever have supported the idea of pre-emptive war, contrary to global opinion, based on an admitedly imperfect supposition? ANd don't they feel just the slightest bit hypocritical now adopting the same position about intel that they mocked and dissmissed pre-war?
Nuclear WMDs were but part of the formula for going to war. Has intelligence been wrong about chemical/biological WMDs or about the patent vicious tyranny with which Saddam ran Iraq for his own good? Did he or did he not invade Kuwait, etc?
Iraq is like an anthill. they wont bite you until you go finger it. If we hadn't fingered Iraq, we wouldnt have caused the deaths of so many of our soldiers. And the loss of 87 billion dollars, all because of Bush's dads personal rivalry. I dont see any WMD, and personally think this war is not legit. on the other hand going after Korea should have been a priority, esp after Kim has been hollering at the US that they have "NUCULUR" warheads. Its like we went into Iraq just to punish for something they did 10 years ago, or something they might to 10 years later.
1) Nukes were the main part, but you are correct, WMDs in general were cited. 2) In that no evidence of chemical/biological weapons have been found, let alone the hundreds of tons of same we were told intel said were there, and in that intel said that orders were issued to military commanders, along with chem WMDS, to use during the war, and finally in that we cited intel to state that we knew exactly where the WMDs, chemical, biological, whatever you like, then yeah, I would say it's a pretty safe bet that the intelligence we said we had...which does not necessarily mean the intelligence we actually had, as we have seen...was wrong about chem/bio WMDs too. 3) Patent tyranny, etc. was not, repeat, NOT a cause for war...hell, back in the 80s it wasn't even a cause to not support the bast*rd. It was an added benefit, but was never cited as the cause for war. WMDs were. We needed no intel to tell us that he was a viscious tyrant; we knew that from the years when we were supporting his tyranny. 4) Uh...what does Kuwait have to do with anything? That was dealt with, peace treaties signed, UN designated by both sides as ruling body on treaty, compliance, repercussions, etc. I mean, if we invade Germany tomorrow, are you gonna bring up the Buldge?
I think the environment makes a big difference when it comes to intelligence, but let's not discount genetic factors.
Macbeth: 1/2. Isn't the real issue here that Saddam had previously used bio/chem WMDs and according to inspection reports had much of it that was unaccounted for. Isn't that the logical reason for supposition/prepartion that his generals were/could be ready to unleash it? Didn't our troops were protective gear for just such an event? Is that just American Playhouse on the part of Rumsfeld et al or was there a real concern? 3. Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm not familiar enough with Saddam's "early years" to know if what you say is true. Can you provide evidence that he was the same brutal dictator in the 70's and 80's? I don't have much doubt that his pathology got worse and it was time to call a halt to the madness. 4. What does Kuwait have to do with anything? It reveals something about his good neighbor policy and, don't forget, all the treaties he has continually violated grew out of his being forced out of Kuwait a dozen years ago. You can make a case for this being continuous military action since the First Gulf War.
1/2. In terms of the unaccounted portion of WMDs, this has been dealth with; it was all based on our intel to begin with, and when his current numbers failed to match up with our intel estimates, or former numbers, we dismissed allowing for corrosion, loss, inproper papaer trail etc. I admit that at the time I dismissed it as well, but then I heard the statistics on how many tons the US loses each and every year to the same factors. It wasn't supposition, it was fact, according to intel > It wasn't like our operatives were pasing along their opinion that it seemed logical that Saddam would deploy WMDs to his troops with subsequent orders...as A) ops don't have opinions, analysts do, professionally, and B) In this case we were told that this was information, not supposition. 3. Evidence? Ok...I'll try, although you know that internet research is not a particular strength of mine...I am sure that others in here, rimmy, woof, FB, etc. would be better at it. But Saddam came to power and preserved his power in the same fashion, and that was no different at all when we were supporting him; in fact many of the gorssest atrocities of which he is accused, vs. Iran and his own people, occured during that period. And our support for him was mostly throughout the 80's, not the 70's. However, this statement is naive: "I don't have much doubt that his pathology got worse and it was time to call a halt to the madness." Simply put, there is no historical basis whatsoever to support the cliam that our decisions to support/remove support from dictators is in any was assosciated with the extent of their tyranny. There are simply too many examples if us supporting brutal, murderous dictators for decades, quelling popular non-tyranical leftist movements, helping with death squads, assassinations, and WMD capabilities. Pinochet, the Shah, Saddam, Noriega, Marcos, etc. etc. The standard for our support has never ever been the extent of their atrocities, but whether or not they leaned to the left or right, and could serve our interests. What happened between the Saddam we supported and the Saddam we warred against was in no way a worsening of his actions; many of his biggest 'purges' happened in the 80's...what happened was that, for a combination of reasons, he no longer served our purposes; the Cold War ended and his anti-Communist stance wasn't as valuable, he decided to use European economic basis for the Iraqi economy rather than the American one, etc. 4. I don't get the good neighbour policy thing. Saddam reigned for over a quarter of a century, and during that time engaged in exactly two offensive operations. The first, Iran, was at our behest. The latter, Kuwait, was possibly approved, but certainly not overly discouraged by us, and was repelled. Compared with the military record of many, many other nations during that time, including the U.S., Egypt, England, China,and Israel, 2 offensive engagements in 30 years, only one of which was even fully his idea hardly seems like an unstable element. And you can in no way make the case for this being a continuation of the Gulf War, especially in that many of our claims that he was defying the treaty terms were based on, you guessed it, our intel about all the WMDs he was stockpilling, which seem more and more to have been completely false, and more and more Saddam's claims that he was basically disarmed seem to be beared out. But, this is the biggest point, and I have made it several times. The cessation of hostilities treaty signed following the first Gulf War, and agreed to by all parties, including the United States, specifically designates the ruling body which would determine A) If there was a breach of treaty terms, B) The extent and seriousness of the breach, C) The repercussions of the breach, and D) The form those repercussions would take.[ That body would be the UNSC, NOT individual nations from within the UN/I] The United States signed this treaty, and agreed to those terms. We broke that treaty at least as much as Saddam did by deciding that we could resume hostilities ourselves, irrespective of the designated body's decision, and condemnation of said actions. We are still in breach of same. If you are arguing that we are in the same war, then we are guilty of war crimes. You can argue that this was a seperate war, and that we were, as such, and facing the imminent threat Iraq's WMD's represented, not accountable to the conditions of the first war...of course there you fall short on the WMD problem, and the imminent threat assesment but that is the only way you can not regard our actions as an illegal breach of a treaty to which we were willing participants. But you can't argue both sides, ie same war, but we're in the right. If you view this as the same war, we stand guilty of war crimes without question. If you argue that this is seperate, we get back to the discussion here, ie intel.
Saddam is responsible for his own demise because he miscalculated the response to his "defense by deception". The US apparently did not put in the work to distinguish misinformation from information, but... If I call the police and tell them I've got a gun, I've already used it to terrorize my family and I'll defend myself with it in my own house. If the SWAT team breaks down my door and shoots me it's hardley the police's fault. Also, the US may have helped Saddam in his war with Iran because at the time they were holding US citizens hostage and calling us the great satan but I hardly think it was at our "behest". The Shiites and Sunni's don't need us to foment their hostilities. WMD's or no WMD's there comes a time when it is the responsibility of free peoples to sacrifice themselves to overthrow murderous tyrants. Our inarticulate president may fumbled the justification but he did summon the will to do what needed to be done. The shame to me is that , like Churchill and the nazi's, it takes a maverick to lead a complacent world to do what needs to be done.
A) people keep saying he was being deceptive, but in that he has been claiming he was disarming for quite a while, and in that what we have found so far backs that up, why do we keep stating that he was being deceptive about WMDs as a fact? B) No, he never called us and said " Ive got a nuke, and I intend to use it!" That Kim, or at least Kim is a closer parallel. I don't see the analogy; he said he had disarmed,based on intel, we didn't believe him. He kept saying it up till tehe war...Now that it appears he was telling the truth, we say it was his fault because we didn't believe him!?!? C) There is a ton of documented evidence to support the claim that Saddam was pushed into invading Iran by the US. But, in the end, we are sort of getting off topic here...this wasn't a thread about whether or not the war was justified, but about the curious reversal of position re: intel by those who have supported it down the line.
MacBeth, I would be much more comfortable looking backwards as much as you do if the damn world didn't change so much! You are holding the US accountable to standards which were responses to conditions which now exist but didn't at the time those standards were set.
So what conditions have changed which alter the definitions of freedom, patriotism, or self-determination?
A. That is simply not true. Why continue to employ all those scientists? Why continue to attempt to purchase centrifuges and precision tubing? B.How are you supposed to believe someone whose intel services went to unbelievable extremes to foil the efforts of the inspectors since after the Gulf War and during the final round of inspections? If you don't have anything to hide, why do you need to stage wrecks, follow the inspectors constantly and attempt to get in their way at every turn? How do I know this went on? A shipmate of mine in the Marines was assigned to the inspection team (as a civilian, he was on "loan" to some agency) and he told me of how the Iraqis constantly harassed and impeded inspectors every single day. Where there's smoke, there's fire. C. Totally untrue. We did not have close ties with either state for obvious reasons, in fact, one high placed Reagan official once said that he wished that both sides could lose this time! How did we push a state that we did not have a lot of ties with to invade another nation, even an enemy as big as Iran? I don't see it happening, especially since we did not supply them with any arms (the Sovs and Frogs did) and maybe some vague intel info at best. MacB, I'm very disappointed that an intelligent, verbose guy such as yourself would first of all believe Saddam over the U.S. government and act as an apologist for a dictator who slaughtered thousands to keep his corrupt regime in power.
Sure Neville, go ahead and stand on the sidelines and complain rather than do anything about it. I guess responsibility is a lost cause on people who think like you. DD
Actually, it is those claims that are simply untrue. He was purchasing tubing for conventional weapons, not for centrifuges. Read the NIE report. If what you say is true, why did Hans Blix claim that the inspection teams could have finished their jobs if they had been given 3 more months? Why do you follow foreigners that have been assigned to legally spy on you? Because they are spies. Are you crazy??? We sold intelligence to Iran and then sold intelligence AND arms to Iraq. We were vested in BOTH sides of that war and had ties to Saddam from the beginning. I don't believe Saddam, but I DO believe Hans Blix.
Andy, Lets get one thing straight. Hans Blix was an incompetent bungler who couldn't have found money in a bank, food in a grocery store or trees in a forest, much less WMD in Iraq. He had to be kidding when he said that they needed but three more months! We were there for years after the Gulf War I and yet we had difficulty keeping track of anything during that span. And as for the Iran/Iraq war issue, we had nothing to do with it. We did supply weapons (through Israel) to Iran covertly, but as far as Iraq was concerned, our help was minimal at best.
And despite his resemblence to a certain Mr. Magoo, he found as much evidence of WMDs as we have so far. BTW, there is a whole report out about the WMD issue and how the intelligence was overblown. Were the people who wrote that report inept bunglers, too? IIRC, we are the ones who set Saddam up in power in the first place. We prodded him to start the war with Iran, and then sold him weapons, including many that he used on the Kurds among others. How is that support "minimal?"
