100's of WMD's found in iraq

[DinoTrainer]

It's called selective intellgience. It's a trap many people fall into. If you start with a belief, then you embrace the information that conforms with that belief and ignore the information that contradicts it.

Then what about the Clinton Admin? it was them after all who set the policy of regime change there, to get rid of Saddam
. It was also them who claimed he was reconsituting WMD programs. It was them who sent a crusie missle (mortar, whatever, something that explodes) at them.

Like I said, I am not attacking you for being aganist this war. But when I hear people say that Bush just wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 happens, and he just wanted to attack Iraq, didnt even want to go after Afghanistan, and Richard Clark had to bring Bush back from insanity and convince him to attack Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden. I doubt that is how it all went down. That is the kind of stuff that makes me think where you guys are really coming from.

We totally forget this was a big thing in the Clinton admin also.

 

[DinoTrainer]

yeahright, thank you for the link to the documents. I will look at them tomorrow.

 

[yeahright]

Like I said, I am not attacking you for being aganist this war. But when I hear people say that Bush just wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 happens, and he just wanted to attack Iraq, didnt even want to go after Afghanistan, and Richard Clark had to bring Bush back from insanity and convince him to attack Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden. I doubt that is how it all went down. That is the kind of stuff that makes me think where you guys are really coming from.

It is hard to believe isn't it?....but people who were there keep saying it and their stories mutually reinforce one another. It's quite bizarre but the evidence is quite strong that this is precisely what happened. (shakes head)....and we never even did a good job in Afghanistan. We tried to do that war on the cheap and it's still dragging on (85 Taliban killed today). People forget that we're still at war there (and I support that war).

 

[yeahright]

yeahright, thank you for the link to the documents. I will look at them tomorrow.

Not a problem, reasonable people can have different positions on these things.

 

[CDB]

Now of course there's the problem that several other intelligence agencies also believed Saddam had WMDs... That the president chose evidence and this administration misused intelligence is I think obvious, I just don't see the problem. They're not the first administration to get overly involved in the intelligence community and push them from analysis to policy advocates. One or two issues of Foreign Affairs ago there was a documentation of this and about eight other such misuses of intelligence to shift foreign policy to a certain end in our history. I see the problem let's say, I don't see why Bush is somehow particularly evil for doing so. Eliminate the foreign policy aspect of things and liberals are guilty of picking and choosing evidence to support their preconceived notions on a whole host of issues, gun ownership and global warming most prominently, and their policy decisions are likely to cost just as many if not more lives if allowed to go through. Instead of gunning people down they'll let them rot in poverty to support stupid environmental policies like banning trade and effective pesticides. So why the vitriol against Bush, as if the Democrats would be somehow less full of ****? And while the policy recommendations from other countries were to not invade, once again one has to explain the conclusions of other intelligence agencies that Saddam had WMDs.

It all basically boils down to BS. Saddam did have WMDs, did have the capability to make them, and would have resumed that process at the first opportunity. And given his symbolic status as an anti American force in the middle east it's not too far from reality to suggest a link between his regime and terrorists, if it didn't exist yet would likely have developed.

Once more I don't necessarily support the war, but the objections to Bush I don't get. He is not evil, he is not some historic anomoly whose policy decisions are somehow out of the ordinary, he is nothing extraordinary or out of the ordinary when it comes to presidents. I think the only people who object so virulently against Bush are those who either don't get the historical context of this type of leadership as it has existed before right here in the US, or who are so blinded to the other side's foibles that they think the Democrats would somehow be sunstantially better leaders which is rubbish. They'd like **** up, just in some other way. Instead of alienating the world perhaps we'd be too focussed on keeping it happy at the expense of our own security. Instead of ****ing the world in the ass we'd be too busy sucking its ****, I don't see the appeal of either position. Dealing with terrorists in a law enforcement context is I think a dismal failure, and that was the Democrat's advocated approach until very recently, if it isn't still. Dealing with leaders like Saddam from an appeasement approach is also I think a dismal failure. It doesn't leave many options, and we were fighting a low grae war there for ten years already, maybe it was time someone ended it.

 

[brk_nemesis]

....and we never even did a good job in Afghanistan. We tried to do that war on the cheap

not to rag but....

considering most do not know that majority of the Afgan war, was fought by both army special forces, teamed up with airforce combat controllers, aong wth the northern alliance. Both the green berets and controllers were called up, & actually were flown out to bases within 24hrs of the 9/11 attack, and following the first few days of carpet bombing and LG missles, (oct.)they eventually were dropped in to commit surgical strikes and link relations wit the N.alliance. The US did not have actual infantry (marines) and armor on the ground until the taliban had lost konduz and kabul , and retreated to the mountains of tora bora or Kandahr.(late nov.). the taliban was basically brought down by both the special forces units, and the northern alliance; before any american infantry and artillery div's entered the region. They simply reinforced the lines as we bombed the hell outta Kandahr. This isn't cheap, and is the correct way to fight this kind of war, using unconvential warefare in order to fight large #'s of the enemy while only retaining a low amount of, but highly trained professionals, and working in accordance with local forces while having nearly unlimited amounts of air cover. lol unfortuantley for Iraq, the "we'll just parade in with tanks" approach was used, and it has got us no where. CNN and any media has given a crappy outlook on the afgan war just as the iraq war, which ill agree, we are screwed beyond belief when it comes to organization, and tactics, and sheer presence in iraq, but afganstan was handled quite well considering the amount of men
used. It was actually more expensive to send in sf soldiers from the 1st,5th, 3rd,to go in and commit unconvential warefare considering their value in training as well extra surgical air support already added to the rest of the ac130s, tomahawks, and f16's, b2's etc, etc.; than reg. infantry. There of course is fighting still but nowhere near what it was. it should also be noted that since years have passed, the taliban/al qaida fighters obv. has increased due mostly to ofcourse foreign fighters, but much of the fighting currently, is due to the fact that us and uk forces have steeped up with operation mtn thrust which is to terminate any foreign fighters and resistnace in the mtn/Kandahr region. its been a lil while but last i checked our casulties were around 14 since the op started, (may) and we have killed around 800, of course Cnn or msnbc will prob. make it look like all out carnage b/c well thats what they get paid to do: exagerate. anyway im tired of typing, im too much of SF nut, and im gonna go enjoy my 15lbs of aquired water retention.
oh btw, its good to know u didnt forget our boys in afganstan, lol i thought i was the only one around keeping up with "the war on terror," lol.

 

[yeahright]

not to rag but....

considering most do not know that majority of the Afgan war, was fought by both army special forces, teamed up with airforce combat controllers, aong wth the northern alliance. Both the green berets and controllers were called up, & actually were flown out to bases within 24hrs of the 9/11 attack, and following the first few days of carpet bombing and LG missles, (oct.)they eventually were dropped in to commit surgical strikes and link relations wit the N.alliance. The US did not have actual infantry (marines) and armor on the ground until the taliban had lost konduz and kabul , and retreated to the mountains of tora bora or Kandahr.(late nov.). the taliban was basically brought down by both the special forces units, and the northern alliance; before any american infantry and artillery div's entered the region. They simply reinforced the lines as we bombed the hell outta Kandahr. This isn't cheap, and is the correct way to fight this kind of war, using unconvential warefare in order to fight large #'s of the enemy while only retaining a low amount of, but highly trained professionals, and working in accordance with local forces while having nearly unlimited amounts of air cover. lol unfortuantley for Iraq, the "we'll just parade in with tanks" approach was used, and it has got us no where. CNN and any media has given a crappy outlook on the afgan war just as the iraq war, which ill agree, we are screwed beyond belief when it comes to organization, and tactics, and sheer presence in iraq, but afganstan was handled quite well considering the amount of men
used. It was actually more expensive to send in sf soldiers from the 1st,5th, 3rd,to go in and commit unconvential warefare considering their value in training as well extra surgical air support already added to the rest of the ac130s, tomahawks, and f16's, b2's etc, etc.; than reg. infantry. There of course is fighting still but nowhere near what it was. it should also be noted that since years have passed, the taliban/al qaida fighters obv. has increased due mostly to ofcourse foreign fighters, but much of the fighting currently, is due to the fact that us and uk forces have steeped up with operation mtn thrust which is to terminate any foreign fighters and resistnace in the mtn/Kandahr region. its been a lil while but last i checked our casulties were around 14 since the op started, (may) and we have killed around 800, of course Cnn or msnbc will prob. make it look like all out carnage b/c well thats what they get paid to do: exagerate. anyway im tired of typing, im too much of SF nut, and im gonna go enjoy my 15lbs of aquired water retention.
oh btw, its good to know u didnt forget our boys in afganstan, lol i thought i was the only one around keeping up with "the war on terror," lol.

I wouldn't disagree with a point you made except in as much as we haven't won in Afghanistan close to 5 years on. Given the forces made available to the military for this operation, Afghanistan was handled as best as could have been expected....but I think that is where the mistake was made. We fought the Afghan war cheaply and as a result haven't achieved our main objectives there.

Depending upon which estimates you believe, the Taliban still exercise effective control of up to 1/3 of the state, the rest is in the effective control of warlords and drug runners (sometimes all three working together) with the Karzai government barely even controlling Kabul. The people I know who are there say that the only thing stopping Afghanistan from falling into utter chaos are the Coalition forces.

So we toppled the Taliban but haven't defeated them. We drove Al Queda across the border into Wazirastan but didn't destroy them, and haven't succesfully established a strong central government. These are the things that frustrate me.

 

[brk_nemesis]

I wouldn't disagree with a point you made except in as much as we haven't won in Afghanistan close to 5 years on. Given the forces made available to the military for this operation, Afghanistan was handled as best as could have been expected....but I think that is where the mistake was made. We fought the Afghan war cheaply and as a result haven't achieved our main objectives there.

Depending upon which estimates you believe, the Taliban still exercise effective control of up to 1/3 of the state, the rest is in the effective control of warlords and drug runners (sometimes all three working together) with the Karzai government barely even controlling Kabul. The people I know who are there say that the only thing stopping Afghanistan from falling into utter chaos are the Coalition forces.

So we toppled the Taliban but haven't defeated them. We drove Al Queda across the border into Wazirastan but didn't destroy them, and haven't succesfully established a strong central government. These are the things that frustrate me.

agreed totally, except that there is the consideration of the majority of foreign fighters that have been brought into the mix as well. This is the same problem that is being faced in Iraq, as the region sees it as a war on religious power rather than on the reign of a person or organzation. As stated afgan was cheap when compared to the iraqi war, but also as stated, highly trained soldiers were used, when compared to the almost unlimited amount of soldiers and armored div. launched from both the marines and army during the iraq war. so in a essence yup its cheaper, but looking in the eyes of a general, losing 5 tanks, and 20 infantry men is a less lose, than to loose just 3 SF soldiers, as it just takes too much time, and effort to devote tpo their training. as u stated, about the regions ongoin' control of afgan, yes the taliban and al queda commanders have taken control much of the country, u can thank the not so apparent corruption of the new gov't, as well as the same foreign fighters going into iraq who have come into afghanistan. all my #'s of course are from information from posted in direct action journals from SOCOM command released shorthly be4 last christmas, so as i said, current info in the post is about the fall of the taliban, not the current status. I diff. agree it frustates me as its ongoin, the politics and social values of people over there in the middleeast are not the same as pelple anyehere else in the world, and it does not surprise me they are still fighting as the russians faced the same problem in the 80's. the only answer is to pack out bags lol and leave. Of the security contracters i know in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, the few in the Afghan region admit at times it seems to be gettin better but that as much of the enemy that our operatives take out, foreign fighters fill the ranks back up as soon as possible. from what they have heard from their superiors, it seems this recuiting is becomin' larger as in iraq, with more and more fighters coming in and more being paid to fight; rather than joining in for religious, political, or simply justwanting to, their intel seems to prove now that there are some foreign fighters comin out of turkmenistan, and uzbekistan in larger numbers and of course the good old pakistani border that always seems to be "watched." anyway i agree wit you man, but considering that region of the world has money outta the wazoo and has been used to combat for many more years than the rest of the world, it wont end anytime soon, and if they are short of tali guys to send out at us they will just buy and recruit some more.

 

[The Colonel 333]

Wow finally a sane voice of reason in this debate.
YEARIGHT. many props to you bro. Now I don't have to go dig up the facts and display them here to refute the WMD statement because you did it for me.
Old containers of mustard gas ? this is a threat ?
I can't believe people fell for that Rick santorum and Sean Hannity trick about WMD's. Now I know why he is about to loose his re-election campaign.