Zenister 0
nigel99 466
As a state Iraq may not be sponsoring terrorism but there was a feature last week, where it was shown that Iraq is now the biggest exporter of illicit weapons in the world. This is as a result of the US not securing weapons dumps post invasion and only securing "heavy" weaponry.
In short the invasion of Iraq has subsidised Al Quada and given them access to loads of cheap AK-47's, mortors and Surface to Air missiles (comforting to know as I fly commercially at least once a month to the US from the UK and where SAM threats are huge)
In short the invasion of Iraq has subsidised Al Quada and given them access to loads of cheap AK-47's, mortors and Surface to Air missiles (comforting to know as I fly commercially at least once a month to the US from the UK and where SAM threats are huge)
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
Ron 10
QuotePerhaps you missed the first-ever biological attack against the US. I know, it's easy to miss with the CNN footage of the bombing of Baghdad and all, but still . . . you figure people would remember things like that
That was not carried out by member of a religious fanatical group based in the middle east..
You think you would remember that.
Quote>Kerry COMMITED war crimes.
>Bush had soldiers under him do bad things.
Yep. Of course, only one killed 7000 innocent Iraqis because he chose not to believe politically annoying facts presented to him by his advisers. But hey, they're only Iraqis.
You also forget he had advisers telling him that Saddam HAD WMD's and we knew he had them. We know he had made NEW ones in 1995...AFTER he was told to stop.
You think you would remember that.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteThat was not carried out by member of a religious fanatical group based in the middle east..
Really? Did they catch who was doing it?
Actually, they have no idea who did it so your statement is a wild guess.
kallend 2,026
Quote
Funny you should ask. Here's what I wrote in February 2003:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328
Any more questions?
Sure- the same one. How much would you have wagered on it? Your life? Your post said the evidence was weak. It didn't say that you knew there were none.
Can't admit that you were wrong?
Many of us have been saying the same thing for the last 20 months. Unlike the Bush administration which has changed its rationale for the war a dozen times already.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
crozby 0
Quote...where it was shown that Iraq is now the biggest exporter of illicit weapons in the world. This is as a result of the US not securing weapons dumps post invasion and only securing "heavy" weaponry.
Wow! Its also recently been revealed that Afghanistan is now supplying the world with more Heroin than it was when the Taleban was in charge.
Nation building ROCKS!
billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>That was not carried out by member of a religious fanatical
>group based in the middle east..
So you ignore terrorism unless it's pulled off by middle eastern fanatics? You'd claim that the Chechens who killed hundreds in Russia were not terrorists because they were not from the Middle East? Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist? I hope after our next election we will have leaders who go after terrorism, not muslims.
>You also forget he had advisers telling him that Saddam HAD WMD's
>and we knew he had them.
I have to wonder how long people will keep defending this mistake. Everyone makes mistakes; the mark of the intelligent leader is to admit them, ensure they don't happen again and move on.
>group based in the middle east..
So you ignore terrorism unless it's pulled off by middle eastern fanatics? You'd claim that the Chechens who killed hundreds in Russia were not terrorists because they were not from the Middle East? Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist? I hope after our next election we will have leaders who go after terrorism, not muslims.
>You also forget he had advisers telling him that Saddam HAD WMD's
>and we knew he had them.
I have to wonder how long people will keep defending this mistake. Everyone makes mistakes; the mark of the intelligent leader is to admit them, ensure they don't happen again and move on.
Ron 10
QuoteI hope after our next election we will have leaders who go after terrorism, not muslims.
Silly word play on your part...We have not had another attack from the likes of the same that did the 9/11 attacks.
And you know it...But you are to proud to admit that maybe something old George did was right.
Quote>You also forget he had advisers telling him that Saddam HAD WMD's
>and we knew he had them.
I have to wonder how long people will keep defending this mistake. Everyone makes mistakes; the mark of the intelligent leader is to admit them, ensure they don't happen again and move on.
As soon as you start to admit that we had credible intel that we followed...And as soon as you drop the war ata ll cost BS.
I doubt you will drop yours, so I would not hold your breath waiting for us to drop our side.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteWe have not had another attack from the likes of the same that did the 9/11 attacks.
And you know it...But you are to proud to admit that maybe something old George did was right.
Still wondering how you know who was behind the Anthrax attacks and why you haven't informed the FBI.
billvon 2,989
>But you are to proud to admit that maybe something old George did was right.
?? Bush and company did several things right. He signed new diesel emissions laws into place. He tried to work with the UN first. He finally started listening to his military advisors after the invasion started going awry, and got enough troops in-country to make it work. He finally started paying attention to North Korea a while back. He also screwed up a lot. The question is - would someone smarter have done a better job?
>As soon as you start to admit that we had credible intel that we followed...
We had credible info that he did not have WMD's; we also had credible info that he did. He chose to believe the pro-WMD people because that intelligence supported a course of action he wished to pursue.
>And as soon as you drop the war ata ll cost BS.
Read PNAC. It may be BS, but it was the plan we were following.
?? Bush and company did several things right. He signed new diesel emissions laws into place. He tried to work with the UN first. He finally started listening to his military advisors after the invasion started going awry, and got enough troops in-country to make it work. He finally started paying attention to North Korea a while back. He also screwed up a lot. The question is - would someone smarter have done a better job?
>As soon as you start to admit that we had credible intel that we followed...
We had credible info that he did not have WMD's; we also had credible info that he did. He chose to believe the pro-WMD people because that intelligence supported a course of action he wished to pursue.
>And as soon as you drop the war ata ll cost BS.
Read PNAC. It may be BS, but it was the plan we were following.
Ron 10
QuoteStill wondering how you know who was behind the Anthrax attacks and why you haven't informed the FBI.
Well the anthrax was of a type used in US labs.....So....Kinda alomst rules out AQ...
But then don't fret, I am sure they will attack again, and then you can complain about how Bush handles that also.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
I’m going on my 10th and i know ALOT of people still active with twice that number who'd disagree with your definitions..
Commanders act on the analysis, the end product, and (mistakenly) refer to it as Intel (because it comes from that division/section etc.. but the smart ones refer back to and question the analysis which creates the cycle of Intel) but they are still miss applying the terms...
if you refer to the entire process as Intel your correct, but that is not what occurred in the case of Iraq and the WMD findings, they went with the 'analysis' that agreed with their objectives and thereby aborted the entire Intel process
later analysis of the information (and excluding the unconfirmed, unreliable, unverifiable elements of it) indicated the previous analysis and the conclusions drawn from it were flawed. This often happens when the command has preconceptions.
or to quote one of my favorite Plt Sgts "i'm sorry sir, i wouldn’t want to let reality interfere with your template"
saying they were misled by bad "Intel" is incorrect.
Intel is never 'good or bad' it simply is, the analysis can be 'good or bad' based on the quality of information, the abilities of the analysts and how much direction and control they are given from above. Conclusions and decisions can be good or bad as well depending on how much the leadership participates in the entire process of Intel.
Intelligence often gets a bad rap because of poor leadership.
"We show you the egg, you suck it yourself"
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites