Is 3rd world war close?

[Jibril]

Now hold on there Jibril. On this issue of why there was no insurgency with SH in power???? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Saddam heaped economic (and other) rewards on the Sunnis (especially the Tikrit homeboys) in order to engender their loyalty in helping him suppress (often by eradicating whole villages, flooding out the Marsh Arbs, etc etc) the more numerous but politically powerless Shia. After GWI, there was indeed a significant Shia uprising (ie, insurgency) in the South. He killed them all, flattened a few villages...et voila...no insurgency. Ditto the Kurds...that was what the anfal was. Shia/Sunni antagonism isn't really the fault of the Ottomans or the colonial British or the Americans or the UN or cosmic rays. I beleive the schism goes back many centuries and, though somewhat mysterious to me, seems to have something to do with intellectual property rights.


Of course, there was no Sunni insurgency in Iraq with Hussein in power...why should there be..they were the grand Poobahs at the time.

Ok as a Sunni, let me tell you that this Sunni-Shia rivalry thing is way overblown. Look throughout the 1400 year history of Islam and you will see that clashes between the groups have been relatively few, and only in connection with a political struggle of some sort (e.g. the Safavid dynasty versus the Ottomans).

Saddam Hussein lavished his own tribe the Al BuNasr and related tribes, which happened to be sunni. But many in the Baath power structure were also shia.The army was majority Shia. Many high profile thugs of Saddam were Shia. Obviously the Shias suffered most under Saddam because they presented the only viable opposition to him. It had nothing to do with them being Shias he would have done the same thing to Sunnis who threatened him. Not to mention, Shias and Sunnis mixed marriages made up an estimated 20-30 % weddings. Hardly an indication of antagonism between the 2 groups.

 

[Cognescenti]

Ok as a Sunni, let me tell you that this Sunni-Shia rivalry thing is way overblown. Look throughout the 1400 year history of Islam and you will see that clashes between the groups have been relatively few, and only in connection with a political struggle of some sort (e.g. the Safavid dynasty versus the Ottomans).

Saddam Hussein lavished his own tribe the Al BuNasr and related tribes, which happened to be sunni. But many in the Baath power structure were also shia.The army was majority Shia. Many high profile thugs of Saddam were Shia. Obviously the Shias suffered most under Saddam because they presented the only viable opposition to him. It had nothing to do with them being Shias he would have done the same thing to Sunnis who threatened him. Not to mention, Shias and Sunnis mixed marriages made up an estimated 20-30 % weddings. Hardly an indication of antagonism between the 2 groups.

On this I suspect we can agree:

Saddam Hussein was a murdering sociopath who cowardly let his own grandson die in a shootout while he hid out in his stinking spider hole letting others do the fighting. He was a Sunni muslim only by accident, had a clan attachment only for expediency and even murdered two of his own son-in-laws. he murdered numerous Sunni political rivals...just perhaps for sport or to make a point. He was somehat pragmatic..his UN envoy was even a former Christian who changed his name to seem more Islamic. I don't think he could give a rip about historical divisions in Islam (other than from a poltiical alliance standpoint).

Here is where we disagree:

The overwhelming bulk of his mass murders were directed against the Shia and Kurds. They represented a far greater threat to his regime. They were his insurgency. He was just far better at suppresing insurgency than the US.

1) He had superior intelligence of oppostion groups
2) His agents were accomplished torturers...making the few sadistic US prison guards at Abu Ghraidb look like boy scouts.
3) He had absolutely no reservations or external checks on his methods which included the liberal use of mass killings, group punishment, ethnic cleansing, appropriation of whole villages or regions and, of course, aerial nerve gas attacks on civilians.

As far as intermarriage between Sunni/Shia..living together in Bagdhad..yada yada yada...yes that is true, but a similar thing was also true in a remarkably parallel fashion in Bosnia. Look what happened when Tito was gone in Yuogoslavia. When the strongman was gone, nationalist hotheads began to rise in power. They had kept their mouths shut for decades..but as soon as the cork was loosened, it was only a matter of time.

Ditto Iraq...there was a somewhat arbitrary and unnatural joining of the Shia and Sunni based on historical accident, kept together by a tyrant with absolute control of a military machine. In fact, this is the very reason SH was not ousted after GWI. If the idiot had only behaved himself or even remotely cooperated on verifiable disarmament, he might still be in power. He didn't cooperate becasue he wanted to look like a big man to his Arab buds. The US isn't the only one who miscalcualted.

 

[S_87]

no actually they cant which is part of the reason the US is there in the first place, how could civilians stop a brutal armed militia (Taliban) from doing whatever they want?


i bet you think like Iran that the US has just used all of it military might in one spot dont you? Perhaps you should research the US military, there are still plenty of troops, battleships, aircraft and submarines to go around, Iran would take maybe one good slap from the us before it collapsed like a card house

they may have enough to go to war again but can they AFFORD to? i dont mean material wise only.
the civilians could stop the 'brutal armed militia' by not welcoming into their towns as they are doing? theyve realised the 'freedom' they were promised..their land taken over by warlords...

 

[MTAFFI]

I'm not justifying anything nor do I need to. There was no insurgency under Saddam because there wasn't a 145,000 strong foreign army in Iraqi territory. Dictators are all bad but they are a reality of the world we live in. That doesn't give America the right to go around acting like boyscouts and remove any dictator they want without thinking of the consequences. Americans are responsible for the killings because as an occupying power, the security of the Iraqi people fell on their shoulders. And they failed because of incompetence. PERIOD FULL STOP!!!

First off, Saddam wasnt ousted just because he was a ruthless dictator, he also posed a threat to the US national security, or at least he made himself seem that way. Second, the US is not responsible for people killing other people just because we are the occupying power, they are responsible for stopping it, which is why we are still there. So make up your mind should the US leave or stay?

Success is measured in terms of what your goals are. The insurgency's goals were to disrupt the occupation, thwart the new Iraqi government whom they viewed as colloborators, and establish a wedge between the different sects. In all 3 areas they have succeded quite well. So they have had success everyone and their dog knows this I don't know why you grasp that they insurgency has been successful.

You basically did a good job here of summing up the insurgency. They are murderers who want anarchy and a division of the Iraqi country. But what disruption have they actually caused to the occupation? Are they successful because they manage to kill hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis? WOW what a goal!! They want to topple a government, but it is still in place, so how have they been successful there? And Iraq is still Iraq, some worse than others so how have they divided it? They havent, so what have they been successful at, KILLING A BUNCH OF IRAQIS AND STARTING CIVIL WAR, WHAT A SUCCESS! I wonder what the reward for this success is, I wonder what people in 100 years will say of their fruitless efforts?

I never once supported the insurgency's methods nor even their goals. You're just assuming I do. Maybe you should learn to actually read my posts.And the insurgency has not killed hundreds of thousands, its all evenly spread between the Americans, the death squads, and the insurgents and all three groups have been butchering people left and right.

Oh, right I guess I shouldnt assume what you imply, sorry my mistake. As far as your ridiculous claim that the US has killed as many as the insurgents (or that it is evenly spread), I think your statement looks ignorant enough for me not to bother responding to it.

Good lord man!!! How naive are you? You think its so easy to kill 100,000 US troops? Are you nuts? They've killed over 3,000 and counting. They've injured 20,000 troops,....of these, it is estimated that about 10,000 had wounds so severe that they would not have survived only 15 years ago. The Iraq War so far has produced more amputees than Vietnam and World War 2 put together. Who do you think is doing all this? Jeez. Talk about me being blind.

What is your point, I believe I said they arent fighting the US they are fighting each other, so OK what 100,000 Iraqis were in between the insurgent and US troops. WRONG, they kill indiscriminately, the US can only fire if fired upon. What does that tell you, let me explain, it mean the majority of kills the US has made are against the enemy and not the civilians.

No. The insurgents don't want to be marginalized, thats why they are fighting. You are completely ignoring the dynamic of Shia domination and the fact that as soon as the war ended, the US occupation totally marginalized the Sunnis. The De-baathification program is a good example of that.


Keep living in a dream where the US is not responsible for the collapse of Iraq. Thats not how I see it, and thats not how 95% of the world sees it.

So here you are saying that the Sunnis are being marginalized and 3 posts up you say that the Sunni Shia thing is overblown, make up your mind and stop changing your opinions to support your argument. The De-Baathification program was put into effect because of the people Saddam surrounded himself with, what would be the point of taking him out if you left his successor to take his place?

I didnt realize I was speaking with 95% of the world, so I apologize for my arrogance, or is it 95% of your world? The US is not responsible for the people causing the deaths of thousands, as you said yourself it is their PLAN, so why is that the US's fault. These people could have had a wonderful new beginning free of oppression and mass killings, but unfortunately some people seem to find this alternative unsettling or against their own sick interests.

So go ahead Jibril blame everything on everyone else, because after all if everyone would just be OK with dictatorship, mass graves, poison gas, religous and ethnic persecution, assasination, threats about having WMD, and going to war with every country around you then Iraq could still be a wonderful place to live.

 

[MTAFFI]

they may have enough to go to war again but can they AFFORD to? i dont mean material wise only.

I dont see why not, if it means stopping a maniac from obtaining WMD's, many wars have been much more bloody and last longer than this war in Iraq.
**Also please know that I do not wish to fight Iran if it is unnecessary, however it seems this is what Iran wants

the civilians could stop the 'brutal armed militia' by not welcoming into their towns as they are doing? theyve realised the 'freedom' they were promised..their land taken over by warlords...

Who welcomes them, or rather who wouldnt say "Yeah come on in" when someone has a machine gun pointed at your face, as far as the warlords, I do not know what to say other than it is utterly ridiculous for the US and UK to support these people. All support should be for Karzai and Karzai and his government alone. The warlords are no better than the Taliban.

 

[Bittersteel]

the Iraqis that choose to kill other Iraqis

its the US which created the power vacuum.they are not directly but indirectly responsible IMO.I am not blaming the US for the sectarian fighting.I just blame for starting the **** whole war in the first place.stuff like rape,murders,looting,sectarian fighting happens when there's no law or order.Saddam didn't give justice to his people but he kept the country in order somewhat.
the Iraqi military was destroyed when it was most needed.It will take decades(at least 2 or 3) to form a fully capable,though average, military.

 

[Jibril]

First off, Saddam wasnt ousted just because he was a ruthless dictator, he also posed a threat to the US national security, or at least he made himself seem that way.

Apparently you're the last person on earth who doesn't know that the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war. Saddam didn't make himself "seem" like he was a threat, thats preposterous. Everyone knows that the Bush administration was fixated on going into Saddam since before September 11th. Richard Clark, the former counter terrorism czar will tell you the same thing.

. Second, the US is not responsible for people killing other people just because we are the occupying power,

The reason people are killing each other in the first place is precisely because the US failed in their responsibilities as an occupying power. So yes the US is responsible.

Are they successful because they manage to kill hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis? WOW what a goal!! They want to topple a government, but it is still in place, so how have they been successful there? And Iraq is still Iraq, some worse than others so how have they divided it? They havent, so what have they been successful at, KILLING A BUNCH OF IRAQIS AND STARTING CIVIL WAR, WHAT A SUCCESS! I wonder what the reward for this success is, I wonder what people in 100 years will say of their fruitless efforts?

Are we arguing whether there goals are good or whether they are successful? Make up your mind? Regardless of the nature of their goals,..they have been successful. As for them not toppling the government, it took 15 years for the North Vietnamese to topple the American backed government in Saigon. Don't you read history? Especially your own? This current government in Iraq is much more precarious than the one in Saigon (they were atleast firmly in control of their own capital). And the government has been on the verge of collapse many times and have been rendered almost useless. So yes I would say the insurgency has been pretty d.amn successful at undermining the government.

Oh, right I guess I shouldnt assume what you imply, sorry my mistake. As far as your ridiculous claim that the US has killed as many as the insurgents (or that it is evenly spread), I think your statement looks ignorant enough for me not to bother responding to it.

I didn't imply a d.amn thing. I guess being Muslim is implication enough for the likes of you. And you can roll your eyes all you want, but US troops along with US airstrikes have killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians.

What is your point, I believe I said they arent fighting the US they are fighting each other, so OK what 100,000 Iraqis were in between the insurgent and US troops. WRONG, they kill indiscriminately, the US can only fire if fired upon. What does that tell you, let me explain, it mean the majority of kills the US has made are against the enemy and not the civilians.
.

You don't even know what the rules of engagement are. I assure you the Americans are not *only* allowed to fire when fired upon. If they see someone digging a hole to plant a bomb, they can fire, if a car approaches a checkpoint at a fast speed, they can fire, if a guy looks suspicious with a gun, they can fire, if someone resists arrest, they can fire. They can fire pretty much whenever the hell they feel in danger. As for the majority of US kills being against the *enemy*, I personally believe thats a load of bull.

So here you are saying that the Sunnis are being marginalized and 3 posts up you say that the Sunni Shia thing is overblown, make up your mind and stop changing your opinions to support your argument. The De-Baathification program was put into effect because of the people Saddam surrounded himself with, what would be the point of taking him out if you left his successor to take his place?

The sunni/shia thing is way overblown. That doesn't mean the 2 sides don't come into conflict, it only means the reasons and the intensity of their disagreements are misunderstood. These news reports will have you believe that Sunni hate Shia (and vice versa) because of something that happened 1400 years ago. Thats not true, they hate each other because they are competing for resources and political power today!! The religious difference doesn't mean anything to the vast vast majority of them. Most are probably ignorant of the exact reasons of the split.

The debaathification program was used by Shias as an excuse to purge ALL sunnis. Even the ones that had nothing to do with Saddam. Most people had no choice but to join the Baath party inorder to have any career and support their families. The program is supposed to weed out the real baathists from the people who joined up only for practical reasons. The Baath party had millions of members in a nation of 25 million. You can't blacklist all of them.

The US is not responsible for the people causing the deaths of thousands, as you said yourself it is their PLAN, so why is that the US's fault. These people could have had a wonderful new beginning free of oppression and mass killings, but unfortunately some people seem to find this alternative unsettling or against their own sick interests.

It is the US's fault because this *plan* only came about because of an immoral US invasion based on lies and half-truths, followed by a half-as.sed occupation that practically begged for an insurgency.

So go ahead Jibril blame everything on everyone else, because after all if everyone would just be OK with dictatorship, mass graves, poison gas, religous and ethnic persecution, assasination, threats about having WMD, and going to war with every country around you then Iraq could still be a wonderful place to live.

No one is ok with the above. But you seem to be ok with death squads, suicide car bombs, IEDs, kidnapping, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, threats of regional war, terrorism, Al qaeda in Iraq, Iranian hegemony,...shall I go on? Iraq was much better off under Saddam, that isn't an opinion it is a fact, and most IRaqis agree in recent polls.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Who offered this "safe passage" in the first place? Who has the authority to even negotiate with the U.S. about the future of Iraq besides the elected government? The U.S. military doesn't need "safe passage", what they need is a concrete goal to achieve. That is what is missing in this conflict.

The ISI offered one month of safe passage during the draw-back.

BUSH asked for negotiations with them, but they refused to "negotiate" with people who had Sunni blood on their hands. I was unhappy to hear that, but...

Concrete goal? The U.S. had no idea how complex the situation is, which is why they say: "Civil War" is too simplistic a term to use for the current situation in Iraq. At this rate, so many other countries have been dragged into the dispute over government (both above board and below the belt), it would make your head spin... so your opinion on the situation, while correct from a purely military perspective, accomplishes nothing more than an escalation of what's already been going on these past four years, and if that continues, there won't be any civilians left to defend - from anyone's side!

Ninth Scribe

 

[Cognescenti]

Apparently you're the last person on earth who doesn't know that the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war. Saddam didn't make himself "seem" like he was a threat, thats preposterous. Everyone knows that the Bush administration was fixated on going into Saddam since before September 11th. Richard Clark, the former counter terrorism czar will tell you the same thing.

Uh oh. Apparently MTAFFI and I are the only two retards on the planet that don't know that "the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war". Now, if you want to change your claim to "utilized intelligence subsequently proven to be false" then I wouldn't be in such an awkward spot of disagreeing with 4.5 billion people.

Saddam deliberately deceived any number of western intelligence agencies with his obfuscatory tactics designed to raise suspicions of WMD's and maintain his street cred in the Arab world. He made a very serious mistake and now he is dead. :'(

No one is ok with the above. But you seem to be ok with death squads, suicide car bombs, IEDs, kidnapping, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, threats of regional war, terrorism, Al qaeda in Iraq, Iranian hegemony,...shall I go on? Iraq was much better off under Saddam, that isn't an opinion it is a fact, and most IRaqis agree in recent polls.

On balance, that is true. There was less total suffering in Iraq at the start of the Coalition invasion...of course...one needs to deliberately steer away from such awkward historical realities as the Iran/Iraq war which "everyone knows" caused > 1 million casualties ..and he was certainly not done with mischief-making. Iraq was deliberately and inexorably escaping the sanctions regime. Iraq was a festering abscess. Now it is suppurating.

 

[MTAFFI]

Apparently you're the last person on earth who doesn't know that the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war.

Here we go with you and your view on everyone elses in the world again

Saddam didn't make himself "seem" like he was a threat

Really? Saddam never attempted to aquire WMD's? Did he allow anyone to fully inspect suspected facilities?

The reason people are killing each other in the first place is precisely because the US failed in their responsibilities as an occupying power. So yes the US is responsible.

Really? What are these responsibilities that would drive someone to kill another?

Are we arguing whether there goals are good or whether they are successful? Make up your mind?

I dont know are we? I simply made a statement about what a great goal it was, I never asked what you thought about it, think before you type

Regardless of the nature of their goals,..they have been successful. As for them not toppling the government, it took 15 years for the North Vietnamese to topple the American backed government in Saigon. Don't you read history? Especially your own?

Are we talking about history or present times?

This current government in Iraq is much more precarious than the one in Saigon (they were atleast firmly in control of their own capital). And the government has been on the verge of collapse many times and have been rendered almost useless. So yes I would say the insurgency has been pretty d.amn successful at undermining the government.

How do you figure, what have they undermined? Is the government still there? YES it is so it is not toppled, so are we talking about undermining as a goal or toppling? You tell me since you know so much about the goals of the insurgency. (Personally I dont think they have any real goals)

I guess being Muslim is implication enough for the likes of you. And you can roll your eyes all you want, but US troops along with US airstrikes have killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians.

I personally dont care if you are Muslim, either way you are human. As far as airstrikes, there are always going to be some collateral damage, however I wouldnt say the number is in the thousands as far as Iraqis civilians go being killed by Americans

You don't even know what the rules of engagement are. I assure you the Americans are not *only* allowed to fire when fired upon. If they see someone digging a hole to plant a bomb, they can fire, if a car approaches a checkpoint at a fast speed, they can fire, if a guy looks suspicious with a gun, they can fire, if someone resists arrest, they can fire. They can fire pretty much whenever the hell they feel in danger. As for the majority of US kills being against the *enemy*, I personally believe thats a load of bull.

It seems you dont know the rules of engagement, all of the above is incorrect except the resisting arrest part. That is all a threat to a soldiers life, so unless a soldiers life is threatened they may not fire. This keeps civilian deaths to a minimal. The "Dont shoot unless shot at" is just one of these, however I doubt a civilian would do any of what you are talking about above. You can think that the kills being majority enemy is bull but that is just you, thank God you didnt speak for the whole world this time, I just dont know if i would have been able to bear it..lol

The sunni/shia thing is way overblown. That doesn't mean the 2 sides don't come into conflict, it only means the reasons and the intensity of their disagreements are misunderstood. These news reports will have you believe that Sunni hate Shia (and vice versa) because of something that happened 1400 years ago. Thats not true, they hate each other because they are competing for resources and political power today!! The religious difference doesn't mean anything to the vast vast majority of them. Most are probably ignorant of the exact reasons of the split.

Earlier it was the American screw ups, now it is political (which by the way is what I originally said) so it looks like we have come full circle on this, thanks for finally agreeing. Also just so you know the news doesnt make me think sunni hate shia or vice versa, actually the news tells me that they are fighting for political control, which is partly where I got my original info from...lol..

The debaathification program was used by Shias as an excuse to purge ALL sunnis. Even the ones that had nothing to do with Saddam. Most people had no choice but to join the Baath party inorder to have any career and support their families. The program is supposed to weed out the real baathists from the people who joined up only for practical reasons. The Baath party had millions of members in a nation of 25 million. You can't blacklist all of them.

Really, all Sunnis? You again show your ignorance. Ghazi Mashal Ajil al Yawir and Kamil Mubdir al Kaylani are both Sunni and both part of the Iraqi government, there are more including some from Saddams days, so you are wrong. You are right about people joining the Baathist party, which is why they arent all blacklisted, just the ones who need to be.

It is the US's fault because this *plan* only came about because of an immoral US invasion based on lies and half-truths, followed by a half-as.sed occupation that practically begged for an insurgency.

Now blame their plan on everyone else So if the insurgency is based on fighting the US troops why blow up a Shia shrine? why direct a suicide bomber to blow himself up outside of a major Iraqi college? Why threaten teachers that you will kill them if they continue to teach? Is that all part of this master *plan*?

No one is ok with the above. But you seem to be ok with death squads, suicide car bombs, IEDs, kidnapping, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, threats of regional war, terrorism, Al qaeda in Iraq, Iranian hegemony,...shall I go on?

Really? Where did you pull that one from, I am saying that the US needs to stay until all those who want what you are speaking of are dead, what are you saying?

Iraq was much better off under Saddam, that isn't an opinion it is a fact, and most IRaqis agree in recent polls.

never said it wasnt, how about you poll the people (since you represent at least 95% of the world) and see what they would think if there was no Saddam or insurgency, what would Iraq be like then? If there was no insurgency, there is no need for US troops, and if the insurgencies goal is to drive them out, then why continue the killing?

 

[MTAFFI]

Uh oh. Apparently MTAFFI and I are the only two retards on the planet that don't know that "the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war". Now, if you want to change your claim to "utilized intelligence subsequently proven to be false" then I wouldn't be in such an awkward spot of disagreeing with 4.5 billion people.

Saddam deliberately deceived any number of western intelligence agencies with his obfuscatory tactics designed to raise suspicions of WMD's and maintain his street cred in the Arab world. He made a very serious mistake and now he is dead. :'(



On balance, that is true. There was less total suffering in Iraq at the start of the Coalition invasion...of course...one needs to deliberately steer away from such awkward historical realities as the Iran/Iraq war which "everyone knows" caused > 1 million casualties ..and he was certainly not done with mischief-making. Iraq was deliberately and inexorably escaping the sanctions regime. Iraq was a festering abscess. Now it is suppurating.

you really should start a radio show..;D

 

[Cognescenti]

you really should start a radio show..;D

You know what they say about people in radio......too ugly for television:smile:

 

[MTAFFI]

You know what they say about people in radio......too ugly for television:smile:

LOL

 

[Jibril]

You know what they say about people in radio......too ugly for television:smile:

You really think the Bush administration didn't deliberately skew and even "cook up" intelligience to support their war? This just in today, a very d.amning report by the Pentagon acknowledges that Pentagon officials deliberately manipulated evidence to support Bush's cause for war. Enjoy and next time I hope you're not so naive. I'll give you 2 sources.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/ap/politics/mainD8N67L6O1.shtml

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003543976

 

[Cognescenti]

You really think the Bush administration didn't deliberately skew and even "cook up" intelligience to support their war? This just in today, a very d.amning report by the Pentagon acknowledges that Pentagon officials deliberately manipulated evidence to support Bush's cause for war. Enjoy and next time I hope you're not so naive. I'll give you 2 sources.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/ap/politics/mainD8N67L6O1.shtml

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003543976

What I think is people, even if they are angry, need to be a bit more careful before they start to accuse their government of lying in order to justify a war. That is a very big claim. Saying they "cooked up" intel to me implies fabrication. Again..a very big claim.

Now..the Pentagon IG report.

Note:

1) The reporter from either source has not seen the report (I presume it's classified)
2) The words "very ****ing" come from Carl Levin, a partisan hack....NOT FROM THE REPORT. How convenient, eh? Describe it as very ****ing knowing it is not releasable...hmmmm?
3) The Senate inquiry into this issue absolved the Pentagon and Admin once already.

It seems I am not the only gullible one.

I would be very interested to read the report, it may have something new, it may not. BTW, You know, I hope, when the CIA issues intel reports, there is almost always dissent that doesn't make it's way into the reoprt? That's the way it is with consensus documents.

Over to you

 

[Jibril]

What I think is people, even if they are angry, need to be a bit more careful before they start to accuse their government of lying in order to justify a war. That is a very big claim. Saying they "cooked up" intel to me implies fabrication. Again..a very big claim.

Now..the Pentagon IG report.

Note:

1) The reporter from either source has not seen the report (I presume it's classified)
2) The words "very ****ing" come from Carl Levin, a partisan hack....NOT FROM THE REPORT. How convenient, eh? Describe it as very ****ing knowing it is not releasable...hmmmm?
3) The Senate inquiry into this issue absolved the Pentagon and Admin once already.

It seems I am not the only gullible one.

I would be very interested to read the report, it may have something new, it may not. BTW, You know, I hope, when the CIA issues intel reports, there is almost always dissent that doesn't make it's way into the reoprt? That's the way it is with consensus documents.

Over to you

I think you're nitpicking my post and not refuting the meat of my argument. Ofcourse the report has not been released, but the findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated. The fact that the Bush Administration is not playing it down also adds credence to its veracity. For the purposes of my argument I think thats proof. And while reporters haven't read the report they have sources that have.

Senate hearings and inquiries are political exercises, if they absolved the Pentagon and Admin it means absolutely nothing. If its not politcally expedient to condemn the admin they won't. The fact that in the 4 years of the Iraq war there hasn't been a single Senate hearing looking into its conduct speaks volumes as to the utter uselessness of the Senate and House for that matter.

As to the CIA intellegience reports. Please research how the CIA handled the NIE on Iraq and how they cherrypicked information regarding Iraq. In my mind this alone stands as proof of direct manipulation by the Bush admin.

Cognescenti, there are just too many indications of foul play to not come to the conclusion that my government, our government, deliberately skewed, manipulated, doctored, however you wanna put it, the intelligience regarding Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and WMD's.

 

[Cognescenti]

I think you're nitpicking my post and not refuting the meat of my argument. Ofcourse the report has not been released, but the findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated. The fact that the Bush Administration is not playing it down also adds credence to its veracity. For the purposes of my argument I think thats proof. And while reporters haven't read the report they have sources that have.

I am "nitpicking" because you are, in essence, alleging a crime. Who is the source other than Carl Levin? This claim: "findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated", has not, to my satisfaction been established. Fife was on NPR this AM. He claimed the Pentagon presented contrasting intelligence estimates to the White House. These estimates differed, at times, from the CIA, which were in themselves consensus documents...but the President got both estimates.

Senate hearings and inquiries are political exercises, if they absolved the Pentagon and Admin it means absolutely nothing. If its not politcally expedient to condemn the admin they won't. The fact that in the 4 years of the Iraq war there hasn't been a single Senate hearing looking into its conduct speaks volumes as to the utter uselessness of the Senate and House for that matter.

I will remind you there is no shortage of opponents of the war in the Senate. BTW...the same allegation you are making was made in the UK agaisnt a Labour Govmt....and found lacking.

As to the CIA intellegience reports. Please research how the CIA handled the NIE on Iraq and how they cherrypicked information regarding Iraq. In my mind this alone stands as proof of direct manipulation by the Bush admin.

Again, I will remind you that CIA intel estimates are consensus documents. There is almost always dissent that is not included in the final report. Some times the dissenters are right, often they are not.

BTW...while we are on the subject of the CIA..is it really fair to call the CIA part of the Bush Administration leading up to the attack on Iraq???? Where do you think 007, super-secret agent licensed to kill, Valerie Plame worked? The CIA director was a Clinton appointee. 99% of the staff are lifers.

Thiokol engineers warned that very cold weather might be dangerous for the Space Shuttle tanks. The head of NASA overruled them. You saw what happened. Does that mean he "cooked the books"? He arrived at a decision with imperfect or incomplete information.

Cognescenti, there are just too many indications of foul play to not come to the conclusion that my government, our government, deliberately skewed, manipulated, doctored, however you wanna put it, the intelligience regarding Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and WMD's.

DOCTORED...nope, not proven, not even close
SKEWED....nope, not proven, again implies changing facts or figures.

Attempted to make the strongest case they could?...duh...of course they did.
What do you expect Colin Powel to do in the UN? Allow the Iraqi Ambassador rebuttals in the middle of his speech?

That is a far cry from deliberate lying.

 

[Woodrow]

I'm just about convinced that we have slowly slipped into WW3 and because the form of warfare has changed we have not recognized it and there is no clear cut distinction as to who is enemy or friend at any given moment.

I think the only question is: Will somebody initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[Jibril]

I am "nitpicking" because you are, in essence, alleging a crime. Who is the source other than Carl Levin? This claim: "findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated", has not, to my satisfaction been established. Fife was on NPR this AM. He claimed the Pentagon presented contrasting intelligence estimates to the White House. These estimates differed, at times, from the CIA, which were in themselves consensus documents...but the President got both estimates.

I am alleging a crime, but this isn't the court of law. The burden of proof when it comes to my own opinion (or any discerning person's opinion) about whether manipulation occured is much lower than it would be in court. Someone may be acquitted in a criminal court only to be found responsible in a civil court precisely because of differing burdens of proof requirements. For my own purposes of deciding whether or not I believe they are guilty,...I think I've seen enough evidence to declare them guilty as hell.

I will remind you there is no shortage of opponents of the war in the Senate. BTW...the same allegation you are making was made in the UK agaisnt a Labour Govmt....and found lacking.

Yes, these were all the same *opponents* of the war that voted for the use of force in 2002. As I said, political expediency is king in Washington. It doesn't matter what these legislators believe, it only matters what they can afford to believe. The same can probably be said for our ally across the pond.

BTW...while we are on the subject of the CIA..is it really fair to call the CIA part of the Bush Administration leading up to the attack on Iraq???? Where do you think 007, super-secret agent licensed to kill, Valerie Plame worked? The CIA director was a Clinton appointee. 99% of the staff are lifers.

While the CIA is not part of the administration per say, their actions were only in response to intense political pressure from this administration. Which is why I hold the Bush administration responsible for the CIA's misteps.

Thiokol engineers warned that very cold weather might be dangerous for the Space Shuttle tanks. The head of NASA overruled them. You saw what happened. Does that mean he "cooked the books"? He arrived at a decision with imperfect or incomplete information.

I would have to know more about this specific incident to comment. Did the head of NASA pressure his people to play down the threat of cold weather? Did he knowingly submit dubious evidence to support his pre-determined decision? If so I would say he did cook the books.

DOCTORED...nope, not proven, not even close
SKEWED....nope, not proven, again implies changing facts or figures.

Attempted to make the strongest case they could?...duh...of course they did.
What do you expect Colin Powel to do in the UN? Allow the Iraqi Ambassador rebuttals in the middle of his speech?

That is a far cry from deliberate lying.

They deliberately accepted, dug for, and provided dubious intelligience to support their war. They inlisted confidential Iraqi "informants" without vetting them and accepted their intelligience without questioning. This was/is totally against the standards of the intelligience community and constitutes clear manipulation I think.

Cognescenti, in the next 30 years I suspect we will learn a lot more about the inner workings of the Bush administration and their decision to go to war. Especially after certain documents are declassified. I am sure I and many others will be vindicated when this happens.

We may never agree, but that is not because I am wrong,.that is because we simply have different standards for what constitutes proof of manipulation. I honestly believe that the Bush administrations' manipulation and dishonesty is clear as day.

 

[Cognescenti]

Cognescenti, in the next 30 years I suspect we will learn a lot more about the inner workings of the Bush administration and their decision to go to war. Especially after certain documents are declassified. I am sure I and many others will be vindicated when this happens.

We may never agree, but that is not because I am wrong,.that is because we simply have different standards for what constitutes proof of manipulation. I honestly believe that the Bush administrations' manipulation and dishonesty is clear as day.

Its a date then! LI Islamic Forum...Feb 2037 :smile: