Green Zone

[Rani]

So I'm having a movie weekend, and right about now I'm getting outraged - again. So much so, I had to pause the movie and begin this discussion. I'm watching Green Zone, and it brought up something into which those of us who are non-military probably don't think of . When no WMDs were found in Iraq, we mostly shook our heads and thought the CIA was stupid, our then President had his head up his ass, etc. But I don't think it totally sank in that we sent in de-con units to sites where intelligence said there were WMDs, only to find, well, not a damn thing. Personnel died to secure access for the de-con troops to get into places where intelligence says WMDs were stored. I don't think the average citizen has any real concept of what it took to find out there was nothing to be found. And I've got a WTF mental situation going on.

I'd really like to understand this more, so i'm looking for you military and ex-military to weigh in and explain from your point of view how this might have happened. Was the intelligence bad to begin with, was it fabricated, WTF????? I mean this is sooooooooo beyond "oops!" How common is this, really? I'm just aghast, because I've finally got some idea of how big a cluster-fuck it really was. Clue me in, along with the rest of the voting public who don't have a concept of the price. Please.

'Rani

[Click]

My professor addressed this in class. He is among the world's foremost experts on American foreign policy in the Middle East, so I trust him to know more than we get on the news.  

You gotta look at Saddam and his admiration of WMDs with a historical view.  He used chemical agents against his own people and Iran starting in the 80s.  Flash forward to the Persian Gulf War. The US set up a special commission, UNSCOM, to inspect Iraqi weapon facilities.  They first discovered a stockpile in 1991 and  Saddam said the program had been shutdown and claimed to be following their guidelines and cooperating. In 1995 Saddam's son-in-law who defected to Jordan told the US that Saddam still had weapons and was hiding them.  Sure enough, they found an expanding inventory of weapons.  They discovered that 100+  chemical bombs and 60+ chemical warheads were produced.  They found that Iraq was purchasing special microorganism cultures to produce biological agents.  They made discovery after discovery.  In 1991, '95, '96, and I think the last was in '97.   In 1998, UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq and with them left a majority of our intelligence gathering capabilities, as members of the CIA were undercover in UNSCOM.  The last word from UNSCOM and indication was that Saddam was carrying on with the WMD program.  

From '98 to '02 there was a blackout on inspections.  Late '02, IAEA inspectors were invited back.  They didn't find shit and told the Bush Administration just that.  Colin Powell gave a speech the month before the March '03 invasion, stating that he there was no doubt in his mind that Iraq had WMDs.  We all know how that played out.  

The issue is why we thought Saddam was hiding WMDs even after the IAEA said he was not.  One of Saddam's advisors/generals said after the Ba'athist regime was removed, that Saddam made it seem like he still had WMDs and used it as a political power play to make his opponents (Kurds, Iran, etc) think that he was dangerous and could use them as a bargaining chip for agreements.  He mentioned that Saddam thought that the United States knew this and would never actually invade Iraq.  Saddam was flat out surprised that the Bush administration disregarded the IAEA reports.  After all, it was Saddam who invited the IAEA inspectors back into his country after a four year absence.

So, the question is whether or the Bush administration really did think Saddam was hiding something given his past lack of cooperation and transparency.  That is something we won't actually know until somebody from the Bush administration opens their mouth.  

[Rani]

[quote name='Click' timestamp='1283651401' post='481250']
So, the question is whether or the Bush administration really did think Saddam was hiding something given his past lack of cooperation and transparency. That is something we won't actually know until somebody from the Bush administration opens their mouth.


[/quote]

Deep into the movie it becomes apparent that a White House Special whatever the fuck he was, knew there were no WMDs at the time and falsified the information. Miller, Matt Damon's character confronts him and says the only thing he wanted to know was whether the White House knew he was making it up and didn't care. I know it's fictional, but it's scary how easily I can see it actually happening that way. When you have a President who doesn't question, who doesn't dig deep, or set up some kind of communication outside the "select few", this is the kind of situation you get. One man with a couple dozen "advisors" all on their own agenda telling him what they want him to hear so he'll do what they want him to do. I do understand why the military must be under the control of the civil authorities, because you never want the guys with the all fancy armament having no one controlling them, but God the politicians look like they are literally destroying the world and every freedom in it. Or am I being paranoid?

The movie was based on a book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Which I'm going to check out, because I'm totally and completely fed up with all our major sources being American media and controlled out of Capitol Hill.


'Rani

[TheScotsman]

What do you call a WMD?
1.75+ tons of enriched uranium, and more than 700 chemical shells/warheads found (500 between 2003, and 2006 alone!!). I call that possessing WMDs, even if PMS-nbc doesn't. Trying to stand on the principal that a shell without a bursting device and fuze, is nothing more than an armored storage container is completely stupid on a level only the UN can achieve.


After the initial entry into the country, there were large caches of binary components, and delivery device components. Technically not yet a WMD, but just when are you willing to call it a WMD? As the component chemicals, the term "dual use" is used by both a nation trying to hide possession of NBC devices, and a liberal-biased media suffering from bush derangement syndrome. I guess we don't get to call them a WMD until they are airborne, and inbound by their standards, personally, I would call that "too late to call them anything"

Just how many do you want found before we decide to realize the UN report is a lie, and the likes of PMS-nbc have been feeding us a line?
Global Securities confirms 120+ cyclosarin loaded devices have been found. Only Iraq has ever been known to have manufactured cyclosarin, so there is no blaming that on the bomb-Gennie (incidentally it's around 5x as toxic as Sarin, LD-50 is achieved at around 1700 micrograms dermal contact, and as little as 25 micrograms orally is an LD-100. Does that qualify as a WMD in your book?)

Last year IED's were showing up with binary cyclosain, and mustard shells attached. Unfortunately for the Islamic extremists, they didn't understand that a binary weapon that is not fired, is not mixed, and little more dangerous than cabbage-farts.

If Saddam didn't posses B/C agents, I guess all those kurds rotting in the desert sun really weren't gassed... they were faking it????
Saddam used those non-existent B/C weapons on his own people, and Iranian soldiers. There is absolutely no way for a sane person to debate that fact. What would make anyone believe they magically vanished? Maybe the chemical faerie came and hauled them off? Aliens? Big foot took them? Or, more likely, they were dispersed and most hauled off to Syria.

Personally I think the single reason that nutjob didn't deploy them against Coalition units is a result of the fact the GW was prepared to answer any such attack with a 500-million-degree sunburn for Baghdad.

[Chreees]

My question is who are we to police the world? That's the reason they hate us over there; we meddle in their affairs...

[Rani]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' timestamp='1283657591' post='481260']
My question is who are we to police the world? That's the reason they hate us over there; we meddle in their affairs...
[/quote]

I agree with the meddling, but there's an incredibly fine line. Someone certainly needs to police WMDs. Including ours. Think about it for a moment. We have hundreds of nuclear warheads. And we have a great number of submarines roving around the world that are equipped with long range nuclear warheads. And who's got their hands on the button? Our politicians! Knowing what we know about our own government, anybody here feeling all safe and secure? No? Me either.

If I'm a foreign power and I'm facing a super-power who not only likes to meddle in my affairs, but has nuclear warheads to enforce their meddling and actually has a historical record of using them against a civilian population, what am I going to want to do? I'm thinking I'd want a few nukes of my own to deter the "evil empire" from continuing to meddle. So yeah, somebody needs to be policing all these idiots with their hands on buttons that can turn the earth into a smoking cinder.

'Rani

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1283654723' post='481256']
What do you call a WMD?
1.75+ tons of enriched uranium, and more than 700 chemical shells/warheads found (500 between 2003, and 2006 alone!!). I call that possessing WMDs, even if PMS-nbc doesn't. Trying to stand on the principal that a shell without a bursting device and fuze, is nothing more than an armored storage container is completely stupid on a level only the UN can achieve.


After the initial entry into the country, there were large caches of binary components, and delivery device components. Technically not yet a WMD, but just when are you willing to call it a WMD? As the component chemicals, the term "dual use" is used by both a nation trying to hide possession of NBC devices, and a liberal-biased media suffering from bush derangement syndrome. I guess we don't get to call them a WMD until they are airborne, and inbound by their standards, personally, I would call that "too late to call them anything"

Just how many do you want found before we decide to realize the UN report is a lie, and the likes of PMS-nbc have been feeding us a line?
Global Securities confirms 120+ cyclosarin loaded devices have been found. Only Iraq has ever been known to have manufactured cyclosarin, so there is no blaming that on the bomb-Gennie (incidentally it's around 5x as toxic as Sarin, LD-50 is achieved at around 1700 micrograms dermal contact, and as little as 25 micrograms orally is an LD-100. Does that qualify as a WMD in your book?)

Last year IED's were showing up with binary cyclosain, and mustard shells attached. Unfortunately for the Islamic extremists, they didn't understand that a binary weapon that is not fired, is not mixed, and little more dangerous than cabbage-farts.

If Saddam didn't posses B/C agents, I guess all those kurds rotting in the desert sun really weren't gassed... they were faking it????
Saddam used those non-existent B/C weapons on his own people, and Iranian soldiers. There is absolutely no way for a sane person to debate that fact. What would make anyone believe they magically vanished? Maybe the chemical faerie came and hauled them off? Aliens? Big foot took them? Or, more likely, they were dispersed and most hauled off to Syria.

Personally I think the single reason that nutjob didn't deploy them against Coalition units is a result of the fact the[b][color="#0000FF"] GW was prepared to answer any such attack with a 500-million-degree sunburn for Baghdad.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

That's got to be the best indictment for GWB I've ever heard. And the dumb ass would have done it too. Apparently Washington learned nothing from Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

'Rani

[Chreees]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283658839' post='481261']
[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' timestamp='1283657591' post='481260']
My question is who are we to police the world? That's the reason they hate us over there; we meddle in their affairs...
[/quote]

I agree with the meddling, but there's an incredibly fine line. Someone certainly needs to police WMDs. Including ours. Think about it for a moment. We have hundreds of nuclear warheads. And we have a great number of submarines roving around the world that are equipped with long range nuclear warheads. And who's got their hands on the button? Our politicians! Knowing what we know about our own government, anybody here feeling all safe and secure? No? Me either.

If I'm a foreign power and I'm facing a super-power who not only likes to meddle in my affairs, but has nuclear warheads to enforce their meddling and actually has a historical record of using them against a civilian population, what am I going to want to do? I'm thinking I'd want a few nukes of my own to deter the "evil empire" from continuing to meddle. So yeah, somebody needs to be policing all these idiots with their hands on buttons that can turn the earth into a smoking cinder.

'Rani
[/quote]

Exactly... why are we allowed to have nukes while they cannot?

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283659044' post='481262']
[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1283654723' post='481256']
What do you call a WMD?
1.75+ tons of enriched uranium, and more than 700 chemical shells/warheads found (500 between 2003, and 2006 alone!!). I call that possessing WMDs, even if PMS-nbc doesn't. Trying to stand on the principal that a shell without a bursting device and fuze, is nothing more than an armored storage container is completely stupid on a level only the UN can achieve.


After the initial entry into the country, there were large caches of binary components, and delivery device components. Technically not yet a WMD, but just when are you willing to call it a WMD? As the component chemicals, the term "dual use" is used by both a nation trying to hide possession of NBC devices, and a liberal-biased media suffering from bush derangement syndrome. I guess we don't get to call them a WMD until they are airborne, and inbound by their standards, personally, I would call that "too late to call them anything"

Just how many do you want found before we decide to realize the UN report is a lie, and the likes of PMS-nbc have been feeding us a line?
Global Securities confirms 120+ cyclosarin loaded devices have been found. Only Iraq has ever been known to have manufactured cyclosarin, so there is no blaming that on the bomb-Gennie (incidentally it's around 5x as toxic as Sarin, LD-50 is achieved at around 1700 micrograms dermal contact, and as little as 25 micrograms orally is an LD-100. Does that qualify as a WMD in your book?)

Last year IED's were showing up with binary cyclosain, and mustard shells attached. Unfortunately for the Islamic extremists, they didn't understand that a binary weapon that is not fired, is not mixed, and little more dangerous than cabbage-farts.

If Saddam didn't posses B/C agents, I guess all those kurds rotting in the desert sun really weren't gassed... they were faking it????
Saddam used those non-existent B/C weapons on his own people, and Iranian soldiers. There is absolutely no way for a sane person to debate that fact. What would make anyone believe they magically vanished? Maybe the chemical faerie came and hauled them off? Aliens? Big foot took them? Or, more likely, they were dispersed and most hauled off to Syria.

Personally I think the single reason that nutjob didn't deploy them against Coalition units is a result of the fact the[b][color="#0000ff"] GW was prepared to answer any such attack with a 500-million-degree sunburn for Baghdad.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

That's got to be the best indictment for GWB I've ever heard. And the dumb ass would have done it too. Apparently Washington learned nothing from Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

'Rani
[/quote]

I just wanted to confirm a case of bush derangement syndrome. I figured that the initials GW would touch off a case of twitching, and typing. Strange you start going off about GWB, without even thinking about the facts of the statement. funny as hell, and rather telling. The threat of nuclear retaliation actually came in beginning phases of [u]desert shield[/u]. In case you missed recent history... that was Aug 1990. you missed your "bush" by nearly a decade!

It's easy for someone to sit in the safe USA and talk stupidity about how bad DC was to use the threat of nuclear strike (a WMD) as a response to a WMD. It gets allot different when it's you doing the NBC drills in 120 degree temperature, or wondering if it's a drill, or a real attack as you watch patriot batteries launching into the night sky. Gives you a different perspective really fast.

As far as policing the world, Did we forget saddam invaded Kuwait, then the gov't of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia requested US and UK assistance? Oops... that detail slipped your mind, eh?

Frankly, turning the place to a giant glass parking lot would have saved any debate about WMDs at a later date.

As for Iraqi WMDs all being a plot by Bush jr, one would need to ignore these fine examples of Democrat statesmanship in action: [size="1"]Some of my personal favourites are highlited for your reading pleasure.[/size]
[size="1"][color="#ff0000"] "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998[/color] <br style="font-family: Verdana;"> <br style="font-family: Verdana;"> "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."<br style="font-family: Verdana;"> --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998<br style="font-family: Verdana;"> <br style="font-family: Verdana;"> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."<br style="font-family: Verdana;"> --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998<br style="font-family: Verdana;"> <br style="font-family: Verdana;"> [color="#ff0000"]"[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 Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">Letter to President Clinton, signed by:<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998[/color] <br style="font-family: Verdana;"> [/size][size="1"]<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"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."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">[color="#000000"]"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999[/color]<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">[color="#ff0000"]"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">Letter to President Bush, Signed by:<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001[/color]<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">[color="#ff0000"]"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002[/color]<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"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."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">[color="#ff0000"]"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002[/color]<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;">[color="#ff0000"]<br style="font-family: Verdana;">"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 ... 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."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002[/color]<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">[color="#ff0000"]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."<br style="font-family: Verdana;">[/color][/size] [size="1"][color="#ff0000"]-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[/color][/size]

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1283665819' post='481272']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283659044' post='481262']
[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1283654723' post='481256']
What do you call a WMD?
1.75+ tons of enriched uranium, and more than 700 chemical shells/warheads found (500 between 2003, and 2006 alone!!). I call that possessing WMDs, even if PMS-nbc doesn't. Trying to stand on the principal that a shell without a bursting device and fuze, is nothing more than an armored storage container is completely stupid on a level only the UN can achieve.


After the initial entry into the country, there were large caches of binary components, and delivery device components. Technically not yet a WMD, but just when are you willing to call it a WMD? As the component chemicals, the term "dual use" is used by both a nation trying to hide possession of NBC devices, and a liberal-biased media suffering from bush derangement syndrome. I guess we don't get to call them a WMD until they are airborne, and inbound by their standards, personally, I would call that "too late to call them anything"

Just how many do you want found before we decide to realize the UN report is a lie, and the likes of PMS-nbc have been feeding us a line?
Global Securities confirms 120+ cyclosarin loaded devices have been found. Only Iraq has ever been known to have manufactured cyclosarin, so there is no blaming that on the bomb-Gennie (incidentally it's around 5x as toxic as Sarin, LD-50 is achieved at around 1700 micrograms dermal contact, and as little as 25 micrograms orally is an LD-100. Does that qualify as a WMD in your book?)

Last year IED's were showing up with binary cyclosain, and mustard shells attached. Unfortunately for the Islamic extremists, they didn't understand that a binary weapon that is not fired, is not mixed, and little more dangerous than cabbage-farts.

If Saddam didn't posses B/C agents, I guess all those kurds rotting in the desert sun really weren't gassed... they were faking it????
Saddam used those non-existent B/C weapons on his own people, and Iranian soldiers. There is absolutely no way for a sane person to debate that fact. What would make anyone believe they magically vanished? Maybe the chemical faerie came and hauled them off? Aliens? Big foot took them? Or, more likely, they were dispersed and most hauled off to Syria.

Personally I think the single reason that nutjob didn't deploy them against Coalition units is a result of the fact the[b][color="#0000ff"] GW was prepared to answer any such attack with a 500-million-degree sunburn for Baghdad.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

That's got to be the best indictment for GWB I've ever heard. And the dumb ass would have done it too. Apparently Washington learned nothing from Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

'Rani
[/quote]

I just wanted to confirm a case of bush derangement syndrome. I figured that the initials GW would touch off a case of twitching, and typing. Strange you start going off about GWB, without even thinking about the facts of the statement. funny as hell, and rather telling. The threat of nuclear retaliation actually came in beginning phases of [u]desert shield[/u]. In case you missed recent history... that was Aug 1990. you missed your "bush" by nearly a decade! [color="#FF0000"][b]I didn't go off about GWB - you brought him into the discussion. I have repeatedly said I have only one problem with GWB, the fact that he was never his own man and was too easily controlled by his daddy's cronies. Well, two problems actually, because he never could see that about himself and by admitting the error become his own man. Other than that, he was no better or worse than many presidents who held office before him.
[/b][/color]
It's easy for someone to sit in the safe USA and talk stupidity about how bad DC was to use the threat of nuclear strike (a WMD) as a response to a WMD. It gets allot different when it's you doing the NBC drills in 120 degree temperature, or wondering if it's a drill, or a real attack as you watch patriot batteries launching into the night sky. Gives you a different perspective really fast. [color="#FF0000"][b]Which is why I asked for military personnel to weigh into this discussion. [/b] [/color]

As far as policing the world, Did we forget saddam invaded Kuwait, then the gov't of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia requested US and UK assistance? Oops... that detail slipped your mind, eh? You defend an invaded country from within it's borders. [color="#FF0000"][b]You don''t need to turn invader yourself in order to defend a border. All you have to do is stay on "your" side of it. Assistance could well have been rendered without ever crossing the border. And how do you explain that in 1999 I was told by a fairly high ranking military intelligence officer I was dating at the time that the plans were laid already for an invasion of Iraq and that it was currently being "arranged"? Not that I believed him at the time, but funny how he turned out to be the Cassandra in my bedroom, isn't it?
[/b][/color]
Frankly, turning the place to a giant glass parking lot would have saved any debate about WMDs at a later date. [color="#FF0000"][b]Yes, worked soooooo well at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, didn't it? And now Japan dominates the international economy and whose left holding the bag? I believe that would be us. And that doesn't even address the moral issue of incinerating civilian women and children, which would never be countenanced by the rest of the civilized world. Great way to rush to revolution. Hear the sound of one hand clapping? It would be yours.
[/b][/color]
As for Iraqi WMDs all being a plot by Bush jr, one would need to ignore these fine examples of Democrat statesmanship in action: [color="#FF0000"][b]Scotsman, you have this near hysterical tendency to ignore what people actually write here Do you think you might get over it anytime soon, so the rest of us can take your intellectual comments seriously? Please, because your opinions really do have value, at least to me, when you're doing more than just frothing at the keyboard. In my original post, I never remotely stated it was some plot by GWB. I was commenting on a MOVIE and asking for opinions by military personnel who have served in similar situations and how it could have come about. Could you please contribute to that conversation?[/b][/color][size="1"][color="#FF0000"] [/color][/size][/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]'Rani[/b][/color]

[Click]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283667221' post='481274']
[color="#FF0000"][b]And how do you explain that in 1999 I was told by a fairly high ranking military intelligence officer I was dating at the time that the plans were laid already for an invasion of Iraq and that it was currently being "arranged"?  Not that I believed him at the time, but funny how he turned out to be the Cassandra in my bedroom, isn't it?[/b][/color]
[/quote]

That is entirely correct btw.

[mustafabey]

First off, the desired results of war are victory,however the victor chooses to define it. War is horror beyond most people grasp. Somehow,after the carnages of wars got people concerrned. They made rules! Its OK to kill this way, but not that way. Now,once the rules got applied, then lawyers got involved. I served with the U.S. Marines in Vietnam in the 60's and some of the rules of engagement passed down to us were ludicrous. Obviously formulated by people who were not there. So why is Saddam not allowed WMD's and America can have tons of them? Why does Israel get to have illegal nukes but not Iran? Ahmedinijad is surrounded by enemies, so naturally he wants the best. We rightfully deplore things like the Holocaust but turn our backs on the moral validity of Hiroshima. The real rules of engagement in war are "kill or be killed" You are never going to find a way to kill that doesn't slaughter innocents, unless you get Obama and Osama out on the street at high noon with Colt's revolvers..
Secondly, Saddam was a fairly lousy general but a great politician, and he used those missing WMD's to cover himself.. Its like thw Confederates painting logs and putting them in gun emplacements to scare the yankees. For awhile it worked. His mistake was not knowing when to end that game.
So now you get into the politics of intelligence. Once Bush and co. decided to invade, those WMD's became America's asset. We searched for intelligence to confirm that. We they too zealous, did they use possibly bogus intel(Nigerian yellowcake) to give the White House what they wanted. Was Tenet a tool? I will never forget the expression on George Tenet's face when Colin Powell gave his little dog and pony show at the UN. Tenet knew. Powell, well i reckon they conned him. He seems like the guy who might have a conscience.
Did Bush know? Tony Blair painted Bush is a person of great simplicity. He had a job to do,a grudge to settle with Saddam and when his trusted aids gave him info, he believed it. He had no idea he was being used. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz etc, they knew, they didn't care, they had a war to fight I've always felt sorry for old W, he was way out of his league.
War is horror. There is no way to rationalize any of it.

[Click]

Another interesting thing to point out is that the Bush Administration was surely getting two sides of the intelligence.  One side that said there were WMDs and a side (including the UN) that said there were none.  They suffered from selective attention and chose to ignore intelligence that did not support their mission.  I'm sure cognitive dissonance affected GWB's decision.  On one hand, he had the belief that Saddam is a conniving man who has every intention to maintain a WMD program due to his past actions.  And on the other, the belief or acceptance of an action (in this case a non-event) that Saddam had dissolved the WMD program and no longer was the threat he had been for the previous decades.

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283718778' post='481355']
Tony Blair painted Bush is a person of great simplicity. He had a job to do,a grudge to settle with Saddam and when his trusted aids gave him info, he believed it. He had no idea he was being used. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz etc, they knew, they didn't care, they had a war to fight I've always felt sorry for old W, he was way out of his league.
War is horror. There is no way to rationalize any of it.
[/quote]

Yeah, I actually felt sorry for the poor sap myself. He was so, well, pitiful. Befuddled, and unless he was heading off on vacation always had a least a faint deer-in-the-headlights expression. You just know he was the kid everybody beat the crap out of in 3rd grade , and probably never personally wanted to go into politics, but "Shut the fuck up GW, we're building a dynasty here!" overruled. He was totally and completely unequipped for the job intellectually and emotionally, and I'm sure it haunts him he ever let himself get sucked into it. Poor SOB never knew what hit him.

'Rani

[3uphrat3s]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283734668' post='481366']
[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283718778' post='481355']
Tony Blair painted Bush is a person of great simplicity. He had a job to do,a grudge to settle with Saddam and when his trusted aids gave him info, he believed it. He had no idea he was being used. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz etc, they knew, they didn't care, they had a war to fight I've always felt sorry for old W, he was way out of his league.
War is horror. There is no way to rationalize any of it.
[/quote]

Yeah, I actually felt sorry for the poor sap myself. He was so, well, pitiful. Befuddled, and unless he was heading off on vacation always had a least a faint deer-in-the-headlights expression. You just know he was the kid everybody beat the crap out of in 3rd grade , and probably never personally wanted to go into politics, but "Shut the fuck up GW, we're building a dynasty here!" overruled. He was totally and completely unequipped for the job intellectually and emotionally, and I'm sure it haunts him he ever let himself get sucked into it. Poor SOB never knew what hit him.

'Rani
[/quote]

I have lurked these forums a long time, and before I start I just want to say that I respect you, and your opinion. I truly do, but this is completely false. Bush Jr. was never, not once in his presidency the victim. He instigated the war with the help of his right hand man Cheney and CIA. I am a firm believer that the US perpetrated the 9/11 attack, with the motive of being able to invade the Middle East with little resistance from the American politicians and people. History has shown that fear is a dangerous and persuasive tactic, so when our president dangled the notion of WMD's and terrorists that are willing to blow themselves up on command, we as a nation bought it. I don't feel sorry for Bush and I never will. It is because of him and his corrupt regime that the Twin Towers do not exist today and why thousands of Americans have died overseas, oh yeah let's not forget about the Iraqi's and Afghani's. Many here would disagree with me, but as an Iraqi myself I can say with full confidence that my country was better before the invasion, Saddam and all. Saddam was an evil, insane, and down right nasty man; but he did one thing right, kept the muslims in line. If it weren't for him terrorist militias would have overrun the country long ago, but through his crackdowns and power mongering he kept them in line. He also kept the Christians safe, being an Iraqi Christian this was important to me and my family. He treated my people with respect and he dared not threaten us.

[Rani]

[quote name='3uphrat3s' timestamp='1283738934' post='481370']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283734668' post='481366']
[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283718778' post='481355']
Tony Blair painted Bush is a person of great simplicity. He had a job to do,a grudge to settle with Saddam and when his trusted aids gave him info, he believed it. He had no idea he was being used. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz etc, they knew, they didn't care, they had a war to fight I've always felt sorry for old W, he was way out of his league.
War is horror. There is no way to rationalize any of it.
[/quote]

Yeah, I actually felt sorry for the poor sap myself. He was so, well, pitiful. Befuddled, and unless he was heading off on vacation always had a least a faint deer-in-the-headlights expression. You just know he was the kid everybody beat the crap out of in 3rd grade , and probably never personally wanted to go into politics, but "Shut the fuck up GW, we're building a dynasty here!" overruled. He was totally and completely unequipped for the job intellectually and emotionally, and I'm sure it haunts him he ever let himself get sucked into it. Poor SOB never knew what hit him.

'Rani
[/quote]

I have lurked these forums a long time, and before I start I just want to say that I respect you, and your opinion. I truly do, but this is completely false. Bush Jr. was never, not once in his presidency the victim. He instigated the war with the help of his right hand man Cheney and CIA. I am a firm believer that the US perpetrated the 9/11 attack, with the motive of being able to invade the Middle East with little resistance from the American politicians and people. History has shown that fear is a dangerous and persuasive tactic, so when our president dangled the notion of WMD's and terrorists that are willing to blow themselves up on command, we as a nation bought it. I don't feel sorry for Bush and I never will. It is because of him and his corrupt regime that the Twin Towers do not exist today and why thousands of Americans have died overseas, oh yeah let's not forget about the Iraqi's and Afghani's. Many here would disagree with me, but as an Iraqi myself I can say with full confidence that my country was better before the invasion, Saddam and all. Saddam was an evil, insane, and down right nasty man; but he did one thing right, kept the muslims in line. If it weren't for him terrorist militias would have overrun the country long ago, but through his crackdowns and power mongering he kept them in line. He also kept the Christians safe, being an Iraqi Christian this was important to me and my family. He treated my people with respect and he dared not threaten us.
[/quote]


I really want to thank you for coming forward and giving your opinion about something you know best having been there. I disagree about Bush, but not about the regime. The only disagreement we have is who was controlling whom. I think certain money/power people took over most of our nation some time ago. I honestly feel Bush was a puppet more than anything else. And because he was such a sap, he was the perfect puppet. I don't have an proof to support it, but I suspect Cheney actually more tangible power than Bush did. Bush I think was a buffoon, Cheney continues to be a snake in the grass.

There are any number of people who believe 9/11 was at least allowed to happen by our own government. I will say that though that logically I think it would be very hard to pull it off without someone spoiling the show either out of fear beforehand or guilt afterwards. But I will admit I find it an incredible coincidence that here's this guy, elected under a cloud which nobody trusts, and suddenly we have this very convenient unifying event. So when confronted with the conspiracy of the Bush administration being responsible for 9/11, my response will always be "unlikely but not impossible".

We have this huge conflict that exists throughout all the world. Governments are powerful because we give them power to take care of all those things we don't want to do personally ourselves. Nobody wants to buy the asphalt and go repair the street in front of their house, and nobody wants to financially support their retired grandparents who didn't save for their own retirement. So you have a government that takes over all these little details of our lives so we can get back to watching Reality TV and playing basketball with the kids on Saturday mornings without having to wonder who's keeping the electricity on back at home while you're out playing around. But when a government becomes powerful, it becomes it's own entity. But it does so without conscience or morality or integrity.

In the Eastern philosophy it's said that everything is illusion. And while people often said that was a reference to metaphysical or supernatural theories, in reality it's just the opposite. Everything we know is based on our agreement. Take the chair you're sitting on. It's got a name. It's a chair. It's an accepted thing. But we call it a chair because we've agreed to call it a chair. If we do not agree, then it's not a chair. Everything is subject to our agreement and therefore everything as we perceive it is an illusion that can be changed at any moment. We could for instance now agree that this thing we're sitting on is a noggershlang. It being a chair was only a passing illusion. How does this impact political view? Because we have agreed. We have accepted what has been told to us, and we do not disagree. We buy into the illusion.

Of all the people on the earth fewer than 1% of them are politicians that control our daily lives. When you stop and think about that, it's frightening that we give over so much power and control over our daily lives to the government system and the few who control it. All governments everywhere. None of them are essentially more moral or compassionate than another, because they cannot be. The are an entity, without morals, compassion, integrity, or conscience.

Maybe we should be out fixing our own streets. Maybe it's the only way compassion and humanity are going to be forever a part of our lives.

'Rani

[Barnaby]

I don't think Bush is the sap you take him for. Have you ever seen him in debate, before he was president? [b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVilAlCBYc&feature=related

[/b]Sounds pretty articulate, and educated to me. The difference? Easier to get away with shit, when everyone thinks you're a dumbass simpleton.

[mustafabey]

Interesting Barnaby, its all just packaging the product. Curious about his book, its been two years in the writing. I'm sure he's going to try to influence his legacy in history. Look at Nixon, another liar and war criminal, but years later its the opening of relations with China that history remembers, rather than Cambodia and Watergate.