Another book along these lines is Eric Norden’s alternate-history novel The Ultimate Solution, which ends with the Nazi-dominated half of the world about to initiate a nuclear exchange with the Japanese-dominated half of the world.
Is Rumsfeld an honest man?
-
Sorry, don’t understand what you mean by that.
-
Okay, I’ll explain myself a little better than. :D
Obviously, those 16 words wouldn’t have been published if the administration knew that they were false, so it’s apparent that on some level they have evidence to back up that claim, otherwise they’d just be pulling it out of their ass. In the case of the Brits, they still maintain that the information is entirely true. Now, the United States could very well have that same position, yet not be announcing it publicly (don’t ask me why). Whether those words should or shouldn’t have been put into the speech is entirely a judgement call. It’s foolish to focus on the fact that the line was in the speech. We need to look at the theory behind that and realize that we did indeed have substantial reason to believe that Iraq was seeking nuclear technology/weaponry.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Obviously, those 16 words wouldn’t have been published if the administration knew that they were false, so it’s apparent that on some level they have evidence to back up that claim, otherwise they’d just be pulling it out of their a**.
All this is true if and only if your very first assumption is true.
As you call that “obviously”…… well, whenever i see someone call something “obviously” or “without effort the following equation results” then i know that there is something “dubious”.And, why should a president say something on the basis of something that a foreign secret service thinks to be true becuase of “credible” third-countries intelligence?
Would you tend to do that if something serves your wishes, tneding towards it the more, the more it serves?A last thing:
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3079271.stmThe National Intelligence Estimate is a US intelligence summary based on the work of six agencies.
The summary said that “most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts” to obtain nuclear weapons materials “provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons programme”.
Since when is “personal interest” an “evidence”?
In the case of the Brits, they still maintain that the information is entirely true. Now, the United States could very well have that same position, yet not be announcing it publicly (don’t ask me why). Whether those words should or shouldn’t have been put into the speech is entirely a judgement call.
It is not a judgement call. You assume the info (which could come from the syrian secret service, btw) is correct, i assume it to be untrustworthy to the highest extend, in other words: as wrong.
Just for the fun of it: Assume it was wrong, and Bill Clinton who said it: how would you react then?It’s foolish to focus on the fact that the line was in the speech. We need to look at the theory behind that and realize that we did indeed have substantial reason to believe that Iraq was seeking nuclear technology/weaponry.
No!
The goal does not and will never sanctify the means.
Starting a war, with an excuse based on a handful of lies, is unexcusable.
And for your “substantial reason”: How much “substantial reason” does the world have to disgust the US? -
As you call that “obviously”…… well, whenever i see someone call something “obviously” or “without effort the following equation results” then i know that there is something “dubious”.
It’s not dubious. I use the term “obviously” becuase it’s not logical that a President would fill his State-of-the-Union speech with intentional lies, that simply doesn’t make sense.
why should a president say something on the basis of something that a foreign secret service thinks to be true becuase of “credible” third-countries intelligence?
He would say such things because that’s how our intelligence services are forced to work these days. Our CIA is forced to use other countries intelligence becuase the last administration gutted us so bad. When we aren’t able to easily have spies inside the Iraq government, then we have to rely (to a certain extent) on other ways of gathering our intel.
Since when is “personal interest” an “evidence”?
Not sure what you mean here, explain please. :-?
It is not a judgement call. You assume the info (which could come from the syrian secret service, btw) is correct, i assume it to be untrustworthy to the highest extend, in other words: as wrong.
Just for the fun of it: Assume it was wrong, and Bill Clinton who said it: how would you react then?No, I’m not going to assume it’s wrong, becuase you have nothing to suggest that that line of reasoning is true.
If you want to bring ol’ Clinton into this, fine. Clinton believed that Iraq posed a grave danger and was a growing threat. He was even considering the possibility of launching a full-scale war himself. The UN knew that Iraq was a threat. Our intelligence services have known that Iraq is a threat for some time now. Even f*cking Saddam Hussein told us he was developing the weapons! And I can’t understand it, but for some reason you believe that Bush is making all these lies up. :-? I’m sorry to tell you, but logic and reasoning is not on your side. :(
Starting a war, with an excuse based on a handful of lies, is unexcusable.
Now it’s a handful!?
Tsk, tsk, tsk. See my above comment. :roll:
And for your “substantial reason”: How much “substantial reason” does the world have to disgust the US?
Again, what are you talking about??
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
It’s not dubious. I use the term “obviously” becuase it’s not logical that a President would fill his State-of-the-Union speech with intentional lies, that simply doesn’t make sense.
Then you are one of the most naive people i have ever met.
He would say such things because that’s how our intelligence services are forced to work these days. Our CIA is forced to use other countries intelligence becuase the last administration gutted us so bad. When we aren’t able to easily have spies inside the Iraq government, then we have to rely (to a certain extent) on other ways of gathering our intel.
Wasn’t it you who said that you have to trust your gov’t and secret service, but not others? Or something like that, in the “Iraq again” thread somewhere IIRC…
Since when is “personal interest” an “evidence”?
Not sure what you mean here, explain please. :-?
Sure:
Read my previous post, with the quotation of the article about the US intel summary. There it says (i quote again):
“most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts” to obtain nuclear weapons materials “provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons programme”.So, most agencies believe that personal interest provide compelling evidence….
If any liberal said something like that, you’d laugh or go berserk i bet, like:
I believe that the personal interests of GWB are compelling evidence for the illegality of the war.No, I’m not going to assume it’s wrong, becuase you have nothing to suggest that that line of reasoning is true.
Not only that you are naive, you also don’t seem to be interested in a discussion. Assuming that something else is true can lead to insight. It doesn’t have to, but you will always learn about the other side (how they think, what they want, how they reason etc.)….
Assuming something as true for a gedankenexperiment does not at all need any backing up, that’ why it is called that way.If you want to bring ol’ Clinton into this, fine. …
And you pull things out of context. Probably you haven’t noticed the context in the first place.
I’m sorry to tell you, but logic and reasoning is not on your side. :(
lol
Starting a war, with an excuse based on a handful of lies, is unexcusable.
Now it’s a handful!?
You want to hear them, though you won’t believe a single one of them, it could disrupt your way of …. thinking is not the right word, i must look for something else there.
(1) The Iraq - Al Qaeda connection:
Richard Perle insists that iraqi agent Ahmad al-Ani met Mohammed Atta in Prague in april 2001.
Juli 2003: No evidence found for a cooperation between SH and alQ. In autumn 2003 czech president Havel sent a note that such a meeting did not take place. al Ani was captured by US troops on 2nd July 2003: he denies that such a meeting took place.(2) Niger
state of the union address (Jan 2003), GWB claims the Iraq has received a substantial amount of uranium for building nuclear weapons.
Juli 2003: In Jan 2002 the CIA classified the reports of the Iraq buying Uranium from Niger as “false”. 7th March 2003 Mohammed el-Baradei of the IAEO showed the documents were blun and blantant forgeries. 9th July, the US gov’t admits that they knowingly have used unproven information.(3) 45 min (a Blair thing)
talking to the house of commons on 24th Sept 2002, Blair claims that the Iraq produces WMDs, that biological and chemical weapons could be readied by the Iraq in 45 minutes.
July 2003: a UK secreat service member admits that this passage was added due to orders/pressure from gov’t. A. Ingram (of the ministry of defense) admits that the “45 minutes” is from a single source and could not be proven/secured as true information.(4) WMDs
Upon inauguration, GWB claims on 19th Jan 2001 that the Iraq possesses WMDs. Since then this has been repeated and repeated.
July 2003: Neither the UN-inspecotrs under Blix nor the 1400 men of the Iraq Survey Group under Gen. Keith Dayton have found neither any WMDs nor hints for their production.(5) biological weapons
Colin Powell claimed on 5th Feb 2003 in front of the UN Security Council:
Saddam Hussein has research running on dozens of bacteria and virusses, like Anthrax, Plague, Cholera, Pocks etc., holding up a small glas tube into the camera.
July 2003: It is said that, when Powell first read the script, he threw all the papers in the air and said “i will not say this, it’s BS”.
No traces of biological wepaons hve been found in the Iraq.(6) long range missiles
Januar 2002, US intelligence said the Iraq probably will use it’s experierence with teh SCUD to produce rockets of 650 km range, 900 km range or even longer. British intelligence gave evidence for the existance of rockest with a range of more than the allowed 150 km in Sept 2002
July 2003: The rockets with range of 200km (al Samud) were known to the UN inspectors and dismantled as a breach of the 1991 resolution. Since then, neither the UN nor the US army inspectors could find rcokets that would fit to the above descriptions.(7) high precision bombs
before the war started, the US department of defense said that 80% of all rockets, bombs and cruise missiles would be high precision weapons to save civilian lifes.
July 2003: US air force says, that more than 2/3 of the bombs used were high precision bombs (19948 of 29199, 68%) Pentagon admits the use of 1500 “spraying bombs” (i don’t know the correct english word for that, sorry, bombs that have a huge radius of effect and are most effective against soft targets). UK arti used 2000 of these around Basra. Amnesty International reckons that about 9000 highly explosive “duds” are left in Iraq.(8) Jessica Lynch
NY Times said (4th April), she had put up fierce resistance before being captured, fighting on after being injured by several bullets. Later she was “mistreated” in hospital and freed by a US special unit. Pentagon handed out some nice videos of that action.
July 2003: Lynch drove against another vehicle, she had a broken leg and was bleeding severly. She has the (ask CC) rare blood type “Zero positive”. Members of the family of Dr. Saad Abdul Razak (who treated her) donated blood. Tries of the hospital to contact the US troops were unsuccessful: the US soldiers opened fire when the ambulance coach with Lynch approached them. When the US stormed the hospital, there were no iraqi troops around, no resistance. The “journalist” who shot the movie came from Hollywood and was assistant to Ridley Scott when they made “Black Hawk Down”.(9) the bunker
20th March, Rumsfeld declared the successful bombing of a bunker in Bagdadm were SH or his son were suspected to be.
July 2003: CIA and US Colonel Tim Madere examined that area. They found a huge crater, but there never was a bunker nor did they find any human remains, as Madere reported.So, we have a handful of lies before the war, during the war, a handful of dubious connections and interest groups involved…… but well, as i said, you will not believe that, it would only disturb your way to see the world …
do you have the saying “to see the world through blinkers”, btw?And for your “substantial reason”: How much “substantial reason” does the world have to disgust the US?
Again, what are you talking about??
I am talking about your use of words.
I will not make the effort of explaining that to you, unless you ask for it and actually convince me that you are indeed interested in what i mean by that. -
Pentagon admits the use of 1500 “spraying
bombs” (i don’t know the correct english word for that, sorry, bombs that have a huge radius of effect and are most effective against soft targetsI belive there called “cluster bombs” although, that may not be their “scientific” name :lol:
-
Pentagon admits the use of 1500 “spraying bombs” (i don’t know the correct english word for that, sorry, bombs that have a huge radius of effect and are most effective against soft targets).
LOL. Admits the use of…? :-?
Is it some secret? Are they not “suppossed” to be using those?
As if our military is suppossed to declare their exact gameplan 4 months ahead of time, and not change it under any circumstances… :roll:
-
Thanks Mr. Ghoul, “Cluster bombs” is the word i was looking for.
And yes, D:S, it is “admits”. You are not “supposed” to be using weapons that are known to be one of the best “conventional weapons” to kill civilians en masse. Esp. not when you declare you will do a “clean” war.
-
Deviant, Mike, Paul (Janus), and others,
Nixon didn’t need to steal documents from the democrats in order to win his second term election. He steamrolled them. Nixon wasn’t even a bad president. Should he be found excused of charges because his actions were unneccessary?
President Bush did not need the Uranium arguement to go to war with Iraq. Not only did Congress already aprove the war, but there were numerous other issues which the American people felt justified the war with Iraq. However, in an effort to solidify his war position, President Bush (Or an Underling) may of fudged, stretched, or fabricated intelligence to support himself. This is a serious offense and deserves an independent investigation before we make speculations.
-
Fair enough. :P
-
@F_alk:
(1) The Iraq - Al Qaeda connection:
Richard Perle insists that iraqi agent Ahmad al-Ani met Mohammed Atta in Prague in april 2001.
Juli 2003: No evidence found for a cooperation between SH and alQ. In autumn 2003 czech president Havel sent a note that such a meeting did not take place. al Ani was captured by US troops on 2nd July 2003: he denies that such a meeting took place.(2) Niger
state of the union address (Jan 2003), GWB claims the Iraq has received a substantial amount of uranium for building nuclear weapons.
Juli 2003: In Jan 2002 the CIA classified the reports of the Iraq buying Uranium from Niger as “false”. 7th March 2003 Mohammed el-Baradei of the IAEO showed the documents were blun and blantant forgeries. 9th July, the US gov’t admits that they knowingly have used unproven information.(3) 45 min (a Blair thing)
talking to the house of commons on 24th Sept 2002, Blair claims that the Iraq produces WMDs, that biological and chemical weapons could be readied by the Iraq in 45 minutes.
July 2003: a UK secreat service member admits that this passage was added due to orders/pressure from gov’t. A. Ingram (of the ministry of defense) admits that the “45 minutes” is from a single source and could not be proven/secured as true information.(4) WMDs
Upon inauguration, GWB claims on 19th Jan 2001 that the Iraq possesses WMDs. Since then this has been repeated and repeated.
July 2003: Neither the UN-inspecotrs under Blix nor the 1400 men of the Iraq Survey Group under Gen. Keith Dayton have found neither any WMDs nor hints for their production.(5) biological weapons
Colin Powell claimed on 5th Feb 2003 in front of the UN Security Council:
Saddam Hussein has research running on dozens of bacteria and virusses, like Anthrax, Plague, Cholera, Pocks etc., holding up a small glas tube into the camera.
July 2003: It is said that, when Powell first read the script, he threw all the papers in the air and said “i will not say this, it’s BS”.
No traces of biological wepaons hve been found in the Iraq.(6) long range missiles
Januar 2002, US intelligence said the Iraq probably will use it’s experierence with teh SCUD to produce rockets of 650 km range, 900 km range or even longer. British intelligence gave evidence for the existance of rockest with a range of more than the allowed 150 km in Sept 2002
July 2003: The rockets with range of 200km (al Samud) were known to the UN inspectors and dismantled as a breach of the 1991 resolution. Since then, neither the UN nor the US army inspectors could find rcokets that would fit to the above descriptions.(7) high precision bombs
before the war started, the US department of defense said that 80% of all rockets, bombs and cruise missiles would be high precision weapons to save civilian lifes.
July 2003: US air force says, that more than 2/3 of the bombs used were high precision bombs (19948 of 29199, 68%) Pentagon admits the use of 1500 “spraying bombs” (i don’t know the correct english word for that, sorry, bombs that have a huge radius of effect and are most effective against soft targets). UK arti used 2000 of these around Basra. Amnesty International reckons that about 9000 highly explosive “duds” are left in Iraq.(8) Jessica Lynch
NY Times said (4th April), she had put up fierce resistance before being captured, fighting on after being injured by several bullets. Later she was “mistreated” in hospital and freed by a US special unit. Pentagon handed out some nice videos of that action.
July 2003: Lynch drove against another vehicle, she had a broken leg and was bleeding severly. She has the (ask CC) rare blood type “Zero positive”. Members of the family of Dr. Saad Abdul Razak (who treated her) donated blood. Tries of the hospital to contact the US troops were unsuccessful: the US soldiers opened fire when the ambulance coach with Lynch approached them. When the US stormed the hospital, there were no iraqi troops around, no resistance. The “journalist” who shot the movie came from Hollywood and was assistant to Ridley Scott when they made “Black Hawk Down”.(9) the bunker
20th March, Rumsfeld declared the successful bombing of a bunker in Bagdadm were SH or his son were suspected to be.
July 2003: CIA and US Colonel Tim Madere examined that area. They found a huge crater, but there never was a bunker nor did they find any human remains, as Madere reported.So, we have a handful of lies before the war, during the war, a handful of dubious connections and interest groups involved…… but well, as i said, you will not believe that, it would only disturb your way to see the world …
do you have the saying “to see the world through blinkers”, btw?this is a nice summary. Of course it is the “al queda” connection, the “45 minutes” line and the “uranium” buys that get me the most. If it were not for these 3 things, there would never be a war in Iraq - at least not one that did not result in the plummeting of Bush-Blair’s popularity even worse.
-
Okay, just becuase you don’t believe the al-Qaeda connection doesn’t make it false. :-?
-
If President Bush hadn’t censord the report about 9/11, we might know now, how much Iraq had to do with it.
-
Huh?
Nobody is claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Not even President Bush said that! (I said not even, because a few people here believe that Bush likes to exaggerate things… :wink:)
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Huh?
Nobody is claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Not even President Bush said that! (I said not even, because a few people here believe that Bush likes to exaggerate things… :wink:)
that’s interesting. I had understood that Iraq had been linked to al queda and the 9/11 bombings and that this had bought much in political equity to exercise the will to go into Iraq. This struck me as odd given that it was well known that Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies and Bin Laden’s reference to Hussein were merely intended to inflate America’s wrath against his foe.
also why then, did you sayOkay, just becuase you don’t believe the al-Qaeda connection doesn’t make it false.
?
-
I’ve heard Bush (or some other senior leader perhaps) make the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but I’m not sure that I remember a relationship being drawn between Iraq and 9/11 specifically.
However, (as usual :wink:), I may be wrong–so feel free to give me a source. :P
About the second part, when you said that it “gets you,” was I assuming that you meant it was false like the 45 minutes and the uranium. That’s why I was saying that it’s hasn’t neccessarily been proved false. In fact, did you hear about the 9/11 survivor’s family who was awarded Bin Laden and Hussein’s money in court? The judge found enough compelling evidence to link Saddam, al-Qaeda, and terrorism together in order to award the family millions of dollars. :o
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
I’ve heard Bush (or some other senior leader perhaps) make the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but I’m not sure that I remember a relationship being drawn between Iraq and 9/11 specifically.
However, (as usual :wink:), I may be wrong–so feel free to give me a source. :P
About the second part, when you said that it “gets you,” was I assuming that you meant it was false like the 45 minutes and the uranium. That’s why I was saying that it’s hasn’t neccessarily been proved false. In fact, did you hear about the 9/11 survivor’s family who was awarded Bin Laden and Hussein’s money in court? The judge found enough compelling evidence to link Saddam, al-Qaeda, and terrorism together in order to award the family millions of dollars. :o
same judge who gave that lady who spilled McDonald’s coffee on her lap millions of dollars? i mean really, these guys are lawyers voted for by a public who ostensibly voted for Bush (and have difficulty marking an election ballot by the look of things . . . ).
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
I’ve heard Bush (or some other senior leader perhaps) make the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but I’m not sure that I remember a relationship being drawn between Iraq and 9/11 specifically.
fair enough.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html- maybe not the most reliable source, but it provides an interesting take.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml - shows Rumsfeld’s lack of discernment between the 2.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html
- basically this provides emphasis on the need to go to war - you can yell 9/11 loud enough and justify anything.
at the same time, there is some controversial evidence that Iraq has been working with Al Queda as well - at least the secret service - which contradicts what i’ve read about SH and OBL’s hatred of each other:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mylroie052902.asp
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/814.html
Suggested Topics
