Alastor said:
I see you suffer from the media frenzy... bad news... just as many U.S. companies were involved (roughly speaking) in that kind of behavior as in those nations. No... I remain fairly certain that those nations knew there was no credible evidence to support the notion of a live WoMD program in Iraq just as they claimed at the time, and just as has turned out to be the case.
False...
Sunday September 15, 2002
The German intelligence agency, the BND, has already made public its assessment. For all the opposition to war on Iraq by the German political classes, the BND in February said it had gathered hard evidence that Baghdad was stepping up its efforts to produce chemical weapons and had increased buying abroad of the material needed to make biological weapons.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,792518,00.html
David Kay's testimony before Congress...
Let me begin by saying we were almost all wrong. And I certainly include myself here. Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war. That my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support
this war -- certainly the French -- President Chirac, as I recall, in April of
last year referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The Germans, certainly the
intelligence service believed that there were WMD. It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/kaytestimony.pdf
Right or wrong is not the issue here...what IS the issue is that it wasn't JUST the US (& Britain) that believed Saddam had WMD...Even the ones that were against the war believed it also...
Also may I throw THIS tidbit for your consumption?
Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country...
..."After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. "American President George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he regarded as very important," the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html
Alastor said:
If by "agreed" you mean they agreed that the photos we had were legit. The interpretation of those photos (and other information) is what we differed on if I recall right.
You're under the assumption that only US Intelligence was used and dissected...you would be wrong...
Alastor said:
Our allies made it painfully clear (though they hedged their words carefully) that they did not support an invasion of Iraq, and didn't feel he was an imediate threat. And no... I'm not going to dig through piles of web sites to find you quotes of it. It was common knowledge and appeared daily in a great many newspapers and on web sites for the better part of a year.
I have already alluded to this statement in an earlier post...
The people you mentioned were opposed to the war...for what we've found out to be nefarious reasons...BUT...
At least German & Russian intelligence agreed with the US intelligence...I don't know about France(who ever does?)...BTW - The UN agreed also...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=133074&postcount=6
So we have countries that had their own intelligence agencies that have said they have information that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction...BUT THEN said he wasn't an "immediate threat"...And that doesn't sound fishy to you?...
Maybe they had alterior motives for saying that...Oh yeah...We found out
THEY DID...
Alastor said:
Absolutely false. No. A great many nations agreed he was a threat, but I don't recall a single nation (other than the US's closest allies) that said they believe Saddam had WMD.
And name one country that isn't a "close US ally" that would be best served to make that claim...
Would you expect a country like Syria or Iran to stand up and say, "We hate the US, but Hey!...They're right this time!...We'll help them out by publicly declaring what they assert"...:roll:
Alastor said:
Well.. I definitely see your point here. However, the UN member nations were indeed taking actions, and there's evidence to support that they were actually serious about enforcing the sanctions this time around. You make a valid point of course - and this is one reason I feel the UN is in a great deal of danger of making itself irrelevant... but in this case I disagree. I think the actions of the member nations does suggest that they were rather serious this time if for no other reason than to avert a war.
And if you want to believe that the "658th time's a charm", you go right ahead and think that...
Alastor said:
Uh.... because 95% of the casualties are our. Because we constitute something like 80% (or more) of the forces in the nation, because we're putting up something like 80+% of the costs...
Country Total(Military Deaths...Not counting US & UK)
Bulgaria 13
Denmark 2
El Salvador 2
Estonia 2
Hungary 1
Italy 27
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 1
Netherlands 2
Poland 17
Slovakia 3
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
http://icasualties.org/oif/
You know all of those people that whine how one death is too many?...I guess these countries don't agree...:shrug:
Alastor said:
The fact that Britain has ... what is it... ten thousand guys? And Polland has 2,000 compared to our 100,000... and their guys aren't in the hot-zones nearly as often makes us a "coalition?"
The fact that Britain has...what is it...60 million people?...We have 300 million...They are one-fifth our size in population...They have 12,000 troops there right now...That would be equivilant to having 60,000 troops if their country was our size...so what their bringing in relation to their population ain't chump change...
And the other counties are even smaller...with smaller militaries...
Do you know how may combined troops we have in the world?...Over 2 million...How many relating to Iraq?...less than 200,000...>10%...
If another country has only 2000 troops AVAILABLE, and they send them ALL, I'd consider that significant even if you don't...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
Alastor said:
Come on now. Let's be honest with each other. This is a bone our allies threw us so we could sell the notion that we didn't go it alone. But let's get beyond spin and just acknowledge this as what it is, a VERY unilateral war.
Wow...You really know how to insult our own allies...I suggest you don't go into public relations anytime soon...You'd make Bush look like the appeaser the last President was...:roll:
Alastor said:
The UN passed two measures shortly before we invaded Iraq. One that laid out tougher rules for Iraq, and one that increased their penalties and threatened use of force for non-compliance. Again, this was common knowledge for months before we invaded.
oooohhhh....Tougher rules....going to bed without desert?...won't let him play any reindeer games?...Saddam's been wiping his butt with UN resolutions for over a decade...You think more resolutions would change that?...
Alastor said:
And... so on and so forth. I think your view is pretty biased, and it harms your ability to sell an otherwise credible argument on the points you made that might be legitimate.
Because I correctly pointed out the hypocracy of the other nations, I become biased?...I guess from here on out, I should keep quiet and continue to pretend nothing happened...
I'm sorry...I don't even LOOK like Kofi Annan...