Why does Iraq inteligence matter? (1 Viewer)

[SPLOGAN]

I have always wondered why pre-war Iraq intelligence is important.
If I recall correctly, the 1991 Gulf War was ended on the condition that Iraq cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. For ten years Iraq defied the inspectors, even kicking them out of their country on more that one occasion. The UN did virtually nothing in response. Apparently, the US is one of the few countries in the UN that actually believes in the rule of law. How can the UN remain credible if it simply allows countries to defy its mandates when it's convenient? (war is not convenient)
As far as I can discern, the Iraq invasion should have been a UN invasion (and it was justified). It seems to me that the WMD intelligence is, and always was, irrelevant.
The only question may have been the timing. (Perhaps it the invasion should have happened several years before.) In fact, WMDs were already used by Iraq in the Gulf War. What were we supposed to make of their perpetual defiance of UN inspectors? Was that just for sport?

Perhaps I am forgetting something. Please enlighten me.

 

[Volker]

Perhaps I am forgetting something. Please enlighten me.

Rich people in the US wanted to make money with weapon sales and lobbied for a war, even though there was no reason. They found enough simple minded people to buy their lies and some of them still don't get it.

 

[akyron]

The only question may have been the timing.

You have it pretty firmly.

The decades of lethargy within the UN and previous US administrations have emboldened the Islamic militants into thinking we will never wake up. The shock of losing two terrorist support regimes in a short span of time is still setting in. We have a long way to go.
Prewar intel is important for future elections and to learn from mistakes.
Intel gathering units have gotten more streamlined and cross agencies MUCH more freely than before. Take any self defense class and the first thing they say is "Be more alert". That alone can make you safer than before.

I think you are right and we needed to have taken out saddam immediately after Kuwait. Unfortunately once again we allowed our politicians to f**k that up too and instead of coming out of a problem we are now in the stages of heading into one.

 

[SPLOGAN]

Rich people in the US wanted to make money with weapon sales and lobbied for a war, even though there was no reason. They found enough simple minded people to buy their lies and some of them still don't get it.

Is this serious, or is it satirical humor?

 

[Doremus Jessup]

In fact, WMDs were already used by Iraq in the Gulf War.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Joby]

Rich people in the US wanted to make money with weapon sales and lobbied for a war, even though there was no reason. They found enough simple minded people to buy their lies and some of them still don't get it.

Are you seriously asking, or has the brainwashing you've gotten really worked?

 

[Joby]

Please enlighten me.

Yeah. Let's get this staight one last time before the history books are re-written

 

[akyron]

Yeah. Let's get this staight one last time before the history books are re-written

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

They found them being used in conjunction with IEDs as recently as 2 years ago but then again they dont exist right? They were all destroyed right? Hans and Deulfer made sure they got them all right?
As if WMD was the only reason to remove Saddam.

 

[Volker]

Is this serious, or is it satirical humor?

This is serious, no smileys there.

 

[Volker]

Are you seriously asking, or has the brainwashing you've gotten really worked?

I have never got brainwashing.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Because the GWoT is a fight againsta global insurgency. The primary goal is to separtes the insurgents from the population they reside in. All the ins need is apathy from that population.

Winning over the population to the side of the US is a crucial, critical goal if we are to win against Islamist, salafist, jihadis.

Because the invasion of Iraq played into the narrative told by the jihadis, we have to counter that message. The way to do this is to admit ouir errors and make attempts to rectify them.

Until folks in the Muslim world get sick of violent, Islamist jihadis the GWoT won't be won. We can't get them on our side until we regain our standing in the intl community. To do that we have to come clean and fix where we screwed up. We must regain the moral high ground that we have lost through the effed up case for war and the subsequent, immoral and un-American fiascoes we spawned since then.

 

[Vader]

I have never got brainwashing.

Sure you have. You're a typical german do nothing. Classically speaking, Germany has always supported genocide. Why would they bother helping the good guys stop it from happening?

 

[akyron]

Sure you have. You're a typical german do nothing. Classically speaking, Germany has always supported genocide. Why would they bother helping the good guys stop it from happening?

Supporting free speech doesnt seem to be a priority either.
Capitulation seems to be the operative dogma.


German Who Created Koran Toilet Paper Convicted


"the judge told the 61-year-old retired businessman that the sentence was one year because of the international political rioting and unrest in the past month over cartoons that Muslims regard as offensive

The accused told the court he had spent about 15 years of his life in Islamic nations such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and had developed a fierce antipathy towards Islam.

He claimed he devised the plan in response to the terrorist attacks by Islamists on London public transport last year and the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by an Islamic fanatic.

He told the court he had wanted to raise a monument to the victims of Islamist terrorism and believed he could raise donations with the paper.

Angry Muslims in Germany have sent him threatening messages for several weeks and the man said he feared for his life and was being protected by police bodyguards."

Why did he need bodyguards? Islam is the religion of peace right?

 

[Volker]

Sure you have. You're a typical german do nothing. Classically speaking, Germany has always supported genocide. Why would they bother helping the good guys stop it from happening?

This is nonsense. If I say, I did not get brainwashing, who are you to quetion it. What do you know?

We do a lot to help the good guys from stopping bad things to happen.
We are not always successful.

Warmongers are not the good guys.

 

[Volker]

Supporting free speech doesnt seem to be a priority either.
Capitulation seems to be the operative dogma.

Yes, this more useless propaganda.

Blasphemy is punishable in Germany. The paragraph § 166 StGB has been changed last time in 1969. Rules like this have been existing since 1851.

What they do is apply German laws.

 

[SPLOGAN]

Because the invasion of Iraq played into the narrative told by the jihadis, we have to counter that message. The way to do this is to admit ouir errors and make attempts to rectify them.

This assumes that we have equally valid narratives.
I believe that any compelling lie contains a lot of truth. The jihadist narrative is a compelling lie, but it is basically satanic and deadly. I know you think violence will not persuade jihadists, but pacifism will not persuade them either. They rightly see pacifism as weakness with no principal. This is exactly how the Japanese assessed the US when they bombed Pearl Harbor. That is why we must defeat them, not "feed the beast" to show compassion. We must "kill the beast" in order to show compassion to the victims of the beast.

I do think that compassion/grace and freedom can ultimately defeat the jihadist's false narrative. However we MUST FIRST STOP THE TERRORISM with whatever force it takes.

I'm sure we have some errors to admit. Everyone does. However, that is a mute point. There is a basic philosophical difference here. Christian and Jewish fundamentalists are not going throughout the world randomly blowing themselves up in order to kill whatever people they can to earn God's favor.

 

[SPLOGAN]

Warmongers are not the good guys.

Who are the warmongers?

Warmongers are those who, by policy, intend to start war.
The question is who starts wars? What type of actions are warmongerous?

In case you were implying that the US has "warmonger" leadership, the US would contend that it did not start any recent wars, but was forced into them.

Would Al Qaeda make the same contention?
I don't think so.

Would Saddam contend that he was forced out of office?
Probably, but if you believe in the rule of law above human tyranny, than you could discern that Saddam forced himself out of office by defying international law (under which he espoused to be subordinate).

Also note that the US military is 100% volunteer based- and recruitment tends to increase when wars are provoked. Tell me if I am mistaken, but I believe that we have the World's only all-volunteer army. Many of our people are willing to give their lives voluntarily for the cause of our country. That says a lot. So if you feel justified in calling us "warmongers" then you must direct that accusation to the American people who freely chose to "monger war" on their own backs.

 

[Volker]

Who are the warmongers?

Simple, all these people who publicly supported starting a war against Iraq are warmongers.

Warmongers are those who, by policy, intend to start war.
The question is who starts wars? What type of actions are warmongerous?

What type of actions could this be? Hmmm, let's see, placing soldiers in airplanes and ships to move them half around the world to start a war is one of them. Publicly trying to find reasons to justify the war in Iraq is another one.

In case you were implying that the US has "warmonger" leadership, the US would contend that it did not start any recent wars, but was forced into them.

This is simply wrong.

Also note that the US military is 100% volunteer based- and recruitment tends to increase when wars are provoked. Tell me if I am mistaken, but I believe that we have the World's only all-volunteer army.

There are a lot of them, the UK and France have all-volunteer armies for instance.

Many of our people are willing to give their lives voluntarily for the cause of our country. That says a lot. So if you feel justified in calling us "warmongers" then you must direct that accusation to the American people who freely chose to "monger war" on their own backs.

Not all Americans are warmongers, but many are.
Not all warmongers are American.

 

[SPLOGAN]

Simple, all these people who publicly supported starting a war against Iraq are warmongers.QUOTE]
Iraq started it's own war when it invaded Kuwait.

The war was simply paused for several years to see if there was an alternative to removing Saddam from office.

There proved to be no alternative. Saddam was utterly defiant to the international community.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

This assumes that we have equally valid narratives.

Nope not at all. Has nothing to do with validity. only with what folks will believe- which, quite obviously, isn't limited to what is correct or what makes sense.

The jihadist narrative is a compelling lie, but it is basically satanic and deadly.

So? These insubstantial qualities you have assigned it have no real world practical implications as to its effects.

I know you think violence will not persuade jihadists...

I don't think it will. They need to be killed. They're most likely beyond persuasion.

This idea of "persuading jihadis" is YOURS not mine. If you'll reread what I wrote you may note that there's absolutely no mention of it. It's entirely YOUR creation and addition to this conversation.
I can't help but wonder if you're talking about what you think I'm supposed to be sayin rather than what I actualy write. But that's neither here nor there. Just note that the persuading jihaid thing is yours and not mine. So you can defend it if you like, but I see no need to.

... but pacifism will not persuade them either.

But this issue isn't about persuading jihads. It's about separating jihadis from the population they live in. I thought I mentioned that already. There's a major difference betwen these concepts. The two are markedly different on numerous counts. If you wish to talk about persuading jihadis, you'll have top find someone who thinks we should do such and discuss it with them.

I do think that compassion/grace and freedom can ultimately defeat the jihadist's false narrative. However we MUST FIRST STOP THE TERRORISM with whatever force it takes.

And the force that it takes is that we must separate the terrorists from the population that they live among.
Cuting off their recruits and supplies has to happen for the killing of jihadis to amount to much. W/o that we'll just keep treading water- making more as we kill more. It's better to kill them w/o making more. Unless you're a war-profiteer and terrorist supporter like Richard Perle.

I'm sure we have some errors to admit. Everyone does. However, that is a mute point.

To you perhaps, but not to the populace that the Salafist jihadis live among.

 

[Volker]

Iraq started it's own war when it invaded Kuwait. The war was simply paused for several years to see if there was an alternative to removing Saddam from office.

No, this were two different wars. Otherwise Mr. Powell did not have to make his poor show at the UN.

There proved to be no alternative. Saddam was utterly defiant to the international community.

The alternative would have been not starting a war.

 

[SPLOGAN]

At least we're getting to the heart of the debate here.

No, this were two different wars. Otherwise Mr. Powell did not have to make his poor show at the UN.

Powell had to make his "poor show" at the UN because the UN is basically unwilling to enforce its own mandates unless there is a dire emergency. Therefor Powell had to sell position that Iraq was dire threat. Most people knew Iraq as a dire threat but they knew that the US would do the dirty work for them. No one could argue with the fact that Iraq perpetually defied and sought to manipulate the UN to hide it's weapons program. That was out in the open for everyone to see.

When Saddam saw that the US was resolved to enforce the 1990's UN resolutions by removing him from power, he knew that his leadership was doomed. He therefor sought to create a resistance militia to fight any US lead coalition after it takes control of his country. He also waged a political spin war to turn World public opinion against the invasion. Saddam did this by first "donating" all of his WMDs to Syria through a food donation program- so that the invasion would appear unjustified when no WMDs would be found. He knew that that was a safe move because the US would never formally accuse Syria of harboring his WMDs because Syria is officially a US ally. By doing this, he probably sought to shift world opinion against the US and to portray his Party in a better light so that eventually his Party might regain control.

His strategy has, thus far, been somewhat effective. It was Saddam's only real option.

The truth is, the WMDs never really mattered anyway. It was the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, coupled with Saddam's unwillingness to abide by the terms of that agreement, and the UN's unwillingness to enforce it's own mandates that justified the invasion.

The alternative would have been not starting a war.

The war was Saddam's decision.

 

[Volker]

At least we're getting to the heart of the debate here.

We do.

Powell had to make his "poor show" at the UN because the UN is basically unwilling to enforce its own mandates unless there is a dire emergency. Therefor Powell had to sell position that Iraq was dire threat.

He had to bring made up stories because the reality did not give reasons.

Most people knew Iraq as a dire threat but they knew that the US would do the dirty work for them.

The US did not do a job, they started a war.

No one could argue with the fact that Iraq perpetually defied and sought to manipulate the UN to hide it's weapons program. That was out in the open for everyone to see.

I can argue with it, simply because there was no weapon program.

When Saddam saw that the US was resolved to enforce the 1990's UN resolutions by removing him from power, he knew that his leadership was doomed. He therefor sought to create a resistance militia to fight any US lead coalition after it takes control of his country. He also waged a political spin war to turn World public opinion against the invasion.

The world opinion was against the invasion, he did not have to do something about.

Saddam did this by first "donating" all of his WMDs to Syria through a food donation program- so that the invasion would appear unjustified when no WMDs would be found.

Did you notice, that we have a conspiracy theory board here?

He knew that that was a safe move because the US would never formally accuse Syria of harboring his WMDs because Syria is officially a US ally.

It must be so, this is why Syria is one of half a dozen countries the US has sanctions running against :roll:

By doing this, he probably sought to shift world opinion against the US and to portray his Party in a better light so that eventually his Party might regain control.

His strategy has, thus far, been somewhat effective. It was Saddam's only real option.

He could have resigned, he could have admitted a weapon program, which did not exist, there were some options.

The truth is, the WMDs never really mattered anyway.

This is how I see things, too.

It was the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, coupled with Saddam's unwillingness to abide by the terms of that agreement, and the UN's unwillingness to enforce it's own mandates that justified the invasion.

No, the reasons to start the war against Iraq can be found in the US, not in Iraq.

The war was Saddam's decision.

This is completely wrong.

 

[SPLOGAN]

I can argue with it, simply because there was no weapon program.

Because we seem to living in alternate realities here, all I know to do is to try to reference some substance.
White House - Saddam Hussein’s Deception and Defiance
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
U.N. condemns Iraq's refusal to cooperate with inspectors
Inside Saddam's secret nuclear program
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq experts: Saddam pushing ahead with weapons program

It must be so, this is why Syria is one of half a dozen countries the US has sanctions running against :roll: .

Granted. I went too far in what I said, but the US has sought to build better relations with Syria and to consider them an ally in the War on Terror. It would not help to accuse them of harboring WMDs. Syria would simply deny it.

He could have resigned, he could have admitted a weapon program, which did not exist, there were some options.

He was a cult of personality. He never had a thought about what was best for the people of Iraq. He was like Kim Jong Il, or any other cult of personality figure, his pride would never allow him to resign or admit doing anything wrong. He new he would be defeated one way or another with Bush as the US president. He'd rather be seen as a victim than a defeated tyrannical dictator- so tried to sell the victim narrative. He is still trying to sell it to this day.

Saddam is a savvy politician.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

When Saddam saw that the US was resolved to enforce the 1990's UN resolutions by removing him from power, he knew that his leadership was doomed. He therefor sought to create a resistance militia to fight any US lead coalition after it takes control of his country. He also waged a political spin war to turn World public opinion against the invasion.

The story youre selling here seem to be at complete odds with the story these folks are telling.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/iraqdocs.pdf

Why should I buy your story rather than believe the story told by Brigadier General Anthony A. Cucolo III, USA, Director, Joint Center for Operational Analysis, United States Joint Forces Command and Lieutenant Colonel Kevin M. Woods, USA (Ret.), Project Leader and Principal Author of Iraqi Perspective Project, United States Joint Forces Command?

These fellas seem to be under the impression that Saddam didn't think the US was actually going to invade. Do you have some insight that these fellows don't have? A Stephen Hayes article or something?

Saddam did this by first "donating" all of his WMDs to Syria...

The US INtel COmmunity finds this idea to be improbable and has uncovered no evidence to support it.
Jack Shaw, the well connected crook who pimps the WMD to Syris via Spetsnaz story said that the Defense Intel Agency told him that the story was Israeli disinformation. Btw, Mr Shaw said that he received his info about the transfer from a friend of Cheney's.

So should we believe, the USIC or should we believe a crook?

It's been reported, you decide.