PDA

View Full Version : a review of how we were misled


zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 01:52 PM
17 Mar 2002:

A DEFECTOR from Iraq has given American intelligence details of a secret underground network of laboratories where Saddam Hussein is believed to be building weapons of mass destruction.
The defector is a 43-year-old civil engineer named Adnan Sayeed who worked on 20 sites. He has provided evidence suggesting they are part of a network of bunkers where chemical and biological weapons have been made and where attempts are under way to create a nuclear bomb.
A second defector has reported that Iraq has constructed seven mobile germ laboratories, which have been disguised as milk lorries.

http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000148.htm


26 Mar 2002:

"Online Iraqis vote for new leader"

Ahmed Chalabi, the controversial head of the US-funded Iraqi National Congress (INC), who is expected to play a key role if the US installs a new government in Iraq, is running a poor third with 9%.

http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000160.htm


3 Sep 2002:

Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and -- separately -- Rumsfeld, both denied that there was any split in the administration.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/266242.html


24 Sep 2002:

Mobile biological weapons laboratories and longer-range missiles are among the new allegations against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein outlined in the British intelligence report released Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/24/uk.iraq.dossier/index.html


24 Sep 2002:

(Iraq has) sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no
active civil nuclear power programme that could require it;

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/24/uk.iraq/iraqdossier.pdf


28 Jan 2003 (state of the union):

The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth, and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C.


U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.


From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.


The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.


Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.


In Afghanistan, we helped liberate an oppressed people. And we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society, and educate all their children -- boys and girls.


We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html


15 Apr 2003:

U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/index.html


1 May 2003:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that 8,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan have ended major combat operations and will shift their focus to stabilizing and rebuilding the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2634-2003May1?language=printer


9 May 2003:

Before landing the president, who is a former Texas Air National Guard pilot, did two fly-pasts, which were shown live on TV. Once aboard, he made a speech and declared the Iraq war, in effect, over.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,952135,00.html


9 July 2003:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday rejected the "widely held impression that regime loyalists are operating freely" in Iraq, and said large portions of the country are stable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/10/iraq/main562484.shtml

Desertrat
Sep 5, 2003, 02:43 PM
I don't think I was misled. There's always a bit of truth in politicos' statements; most sins are those of omission, not commission. I sorta reviewed what the last dozen or so years have shown us, and thought that we were finally doing what should have been done long ago.

I thought there were plenty of legitimate reasons for getting rid of Hussein; I thought it was foolish to harp on WMD as a means of getting public support. Sad, though, when you have to scare people into supporting what's right.

Very few folks seem to have noticed that instead of trading 19 for 3,000 a la the WTC, we're trading one or two of our people for a lot of Saddamites and Al Qaida-type volunteers. And, we're doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of here in the U.S. We're going to lose people one way or the other, and this way strikes me as preferable. Sorry if that's too cold-blooded...

As for comments on such things as the economy, lots of pols want to do good for the economy. "God, momma and apple pie" and all that. Trouble is, politicians can screw around with tax rates and interest rates, but Mr. Market has the actual say in the matter--and always has; always will.

Just keep the saltshaker handy; remember pols want re-election over anything else, and you won't be misled--at least, not very often.

:), 'Rat

IJ Reilly
Sep 5, 2003, 03:13 PM
They're going to lie to us, but not very much, and for a good cause?

D-rat, you've managed to do something I thought was impossible -- combine naivety and cynicism.

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 04:22 PM
Every politician lies in one way or another.

As for saying Bush is a liar, that isn't proven yet. "They haven't found WMD's yet" is not really an acceptable answer when there are many ways to hide them. Like digging a hole in the middle of the desert, putting the WMD's in, and filling it back up. I'm also not saying he's right, I'm saying we have no idea but it's much better to play on the safe side considering Saddam's history and hatred for America.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
Every politician lies in one way or another.


i guess my tolerance is lower, then.

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 04:43 PM
Then you should be angry at every politician :P

But what has Bush mislead?

Yellowgate? Bush acted on a British intelligence report which the British still believe to be true.

The war being over? It is. Clean-up is what's left. Will there be deaths during the clean-up process? Yes. More than during in the actual combat? Probably considering American soldiers have the best equipment in the world and some of the best (if not the best) trained soldiers in the world going against one of the worst in the world.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
The war being over? It is. Clean-up is what's left. Will there be deaths during the clean-up process? Yes. More than during in the actual combat? Probably considering American soldiers have the best equipment in the world and some of the best (if not the best) trained soldiers in the world going against one of the worst in the world.

So let me get this straight...
You're saying better training/equipment = higher likelyhood of being killed?

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 04:58 PM
More as in, we lose so few in the fighting, it's very easy to lose more to guerilla attacks which one can not defend against.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 05:00 PM
Espescially when those attacks increase in frequency and efficiency over time.

shadowfax
Sep 5, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
More as in, we lose so few in the fighting, it's very easy to lose more to guerilla attacks which one can not defend against. which is true. in the gulf war, a huge part of the casualties were the result of terrorism (like bombing barracks) rather than field combat.

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 05:03 PM
And that is also shortly before we kill them all off.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
which is true. in the gulf war, a huge part of the casualties were the result of terrorism (like bombing barracks) rather than field combat.

i may be splitting hairs, but if an irregular army attacks a military, why wouldn't we call that guerilla warfare?

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 05:06 PM
Because it's not an army, it's a very small group of fundamentalists, loyalists and such.

This is not a large majority of the people like the media would like you to believe, this is just a large group like Pablo Escobar had in Columbia. It's just a matter of time before they are all dead.

[EDIT: Misunderstood]

It could have been done by people outside the army that were fundamentalists or loyalists.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
And that is also shortly before we kill them all off.

What's your definition of "shortly"?

shadowfax
Sep 5, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Espescially when those attacks increase in frequency and efficiency over time. do they? i've always thought terrorism was more hit-and-miss. the plans seem to often involve such different things. i mean, we certainly haven't seen anything bigger/more "efficient" than WTC since WTC.

it's quite fortunate, in any event, that this country doesn't have a climate like vietnam...

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
do they? i've always thought terrorism was more hit-and-miss. the plans seem to often involve such different things. i mean, we certainly haven't seen anything bigger/more "efficient" than WTC since WTC.

it's quite fortunate, in any event, that this country doesn't have a climate like vietnam...

I was speaking specifically about Iraq.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
And that is also shortly before we kill them all off.

what's the schedule? end of the year? who should we turn to for advice on killing all the terrorists? the turks on the kurds? israel on the palestinians? spain on the basques? russians on the chechnyans? brits on the IRA? china on the uiger separatists? india on the kashmir separatists? the phillippines on abu sayef? sri lanka on the tamil tigers? indonesia on the TNI?

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
What's your definition of "shortly"? Give or take, two years max. A few months minimum. The larger the resistance becomes, the easier they'll be to find and kill. The larger a military force becomes in Iraq (US or other) the harder it will be to escape. There are many variables, the only thing the army needs is time.

Why do we need advice for killing terrorists? We have some of the best special forces in the world, terrorist organizations arcross the world are nothing compared to them.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
Because it's not an army, it's a very small group of fundamentalists, loyalists and such. [...] It could have been done by people outside the army that were fundamentalists or loyalists.

ir·reg·u·lar
9. Not belonging to a permanent, organized military force: irregular troops.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregulars

shadowfax
Sep 5, 2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I was speaking specifically about Iraq. ah. it's a tough decision, to risk the lives of troops or give a country up to terrorists and oppression.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
Give or take, two years max. A few months minimum. The larger the resistance becomes, the easier they'll be to find and kill. The larger a military force becomes in Iraq (US or other) the harder it will be to escape. There are many variables, the only thing the army needs is time.

Ok, check back in two years and see if we've managed to kill all the terrorists by then.:rolleyes:

You've got about as much chance of winning the war on terrorism through force as you do of winning the war on drugs through law enforcement.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam

Why do we need advice for killing terrorists? We have some of the best special forces in the world, terrorist organizations arcross the world are nothing compared to them.

i can't emphasize enough how naive i find that statement.

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 05:18 PM
Sadly, many people don't seem to understand the level of our special forces. Delta can likely handle this in two years. However, we know about Delta, which means they aren't our best.

Terrorist organizations are literally nothing compared to how bad our special forces could be if they went down the path of terror.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 05:19 PM
Geez, even our own military admits it's not prepared to fight a guerilla insurgency. It's not a matter of our troops commitment or level of capability, but rather the asymmetrical nature of the fight that is the problem. We don't have the political will (thank god) to do the kind of violence to the general population to prevent them from supporting the insurgents, and we don't have the numbers of troops to pacify effectively.

IJ Reilly
Sep 5, 2003, 05:23 PM
Seems like all along I've misunderstood the president's MO in Iraq. Apparently it was to open up the country to Islamic terrorists from all over the world to fight the US occupation, and once they get there, to kill them.

"Operation Moth to Flame." Why didn't I think of that before?

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 05:23 PM
We have the number of troops because we have special forces and such. All we need is one little piece of intel and it's done.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
We have the number of troops because we have special forces and such. All we need is one little piece of intel and it's done.

And we've seen how good our intel has been lately haven't we? About the only good piece of intel i've seen lately is the one that got us Saddam's kids.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
We have the number of troops because we have special forces and such. All we need is one little piece of intel and it's done.

stop it, you're killing me. this is comedy gold.

so our special forces are made up of the guy from Doom?

toontra
Sep 5, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
We have the number of troops because we have special forces and such. All we need is one little piece of intel and it's done.

Forgive my bluntness but this statement displays the sort of arrogant nonsense that makes many of us despair of the US.

The US intelligence (or the way it has been used by the administration) has been woeful, and the US troops left alone would be in Iraq for many years - heck, even Rumsfeld is begging for help from the UN. Why would that be? Obviously he doesn't share your optimism, Rob!!

Ugg
Sep 5, 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
Give or take, two years max. A few months minimum. The larger the resistance becomes, the easier they'll be to find and kill. The larger a military force becomes in Iraq (US or other) the harder it will be to escape. There are many variables, the only thing the army needs is time.

Why do we need advice for killing terrorists? We have some of the best special forces in the world, terrorist organizations arcross the world are nothing compared to them.

Do you not remember what happened in Vietnam? This is starting to turn into a repeat performance.

Also, everybody and their brother realizes that there aren't going to be any more US soldiers going to Iraq and that in the Spring of 2004 the number will be reduced by half. It is extremely doubtful that there will be any significant increase in other nation's troops in Iraq so how do you come up with these fanciful claims?

Yeah, well, Columbia is filled with people that we've been unable to conquer and Saudi Arabia as well. You're dreaming buddy.

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by toontra
Forgive my bluntness but this statement displays the sort of arrogant nonsense that makes many of us despair of the US.

The US intelligence (or the way it has been used by the administration) has been woeful, and the US troops left alone would be in Iraq for many years - heck, even Rumsfeld is begging for help from the UN. Why would that be? Obviously he doesn't share your optimism, Rob!! Who said the intelligence had to come from someone US based? We just need to lure one person with the promise of money, they come, we kill, they collect.

That's how we killed Uday and Qusay.

All they need is that little bit of information. We know who to kill and how to do it, they just need that little where and when. Hunting requires patience, yet everyone seems to forget that.

Also, everybody and their brother realizes that there aren't going to be any more US soldiers going to Iraq and that in the Spring of 2004 the number will be reduced by half. It is extremely doubtful that there will be any significant increase in other nation's troops in Iraq so how do you come up with these fanciful claims?Things change over time. Outside help might happen, especially if the UN is hit again.

zimv20
Sep 5, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
We know who to kill and how to do it, they just need that little where and when.

pray tell, who is this magical person who, once killed, will suck the will to fight and all disillusionment from all those who hate the US?

RobVanDam
Sep 5, 2003, 11:19 PM
It's not one person, it's either a major gathering or information on many people. It's not that difficult, it just takes time for the person to come forward.

Mind you, people will always hate the US, it's just killing the people that are violent that has to be done.

Sayhey
Sep 5, 2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
It's not one person, it's either a major gathering or information on many people. It's not that difficult, it just takes time for the person to come forward.

Mind you, people will always hate the US, it's just killing the people that are violent that has to be done.

There is a never ending supply of people who will fight, kill, and die for causes they believe in. Unless the US can convince the people of Iraq and the Arab world that we are leaving the country soon and that Iraqis will be able to control their own destiny, no amount of intel will stop the killing. This is a political problem not a military one.

pseudobrit
Sep 6, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
Why do we need advice for killing terrorists? We have some of the best special forces in the world, terrorist organizations arcross the world are nothing compared to them.

Would those be the same Special Forces who funded and trained Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?

Oops.

pseudobrit
Sep 6, 2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
it's quite fortunate, in any event, that this country doesn't have a climate like vietnam...

Climate as in weather/conditions? I think the troops would choose the jungle over the desert anyday.

Oppressive heat with all that body armour on, sand as fine as talcum powder, sun beating down, equipment self-destructing...

pseudobrit
Sep 6, 2003, 12:31 AM
Oh, yeah:

How did this so quickly go from a discussion about how we were misled by the administration
into
a one-line dismissal-fest about how our special forces will kill all our enemies in a few short months? :confused:

zimv20
Sep 6, 2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Climate as in weather/conditions? I think the troops would choose the jungle over the desert anyday.


i've traveled in vietnam, and i have to say i didn't see anything which made me think "jungle." in the DMZ and what i saw in the north, there were some forests, some fields, some brush. but nothing like hollywood makes it out to be -- a tropical jungle w/ swamps and vines.

all in all, it was probably a pretty pleasant place to have a war. ;-)

pseudobrit
Sep 6, 2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i've traveled in vietnam, and i have to say i didn't see anything which made me think "jungle." in the DMZ and what i saw in the north, there were some forests, some fields, some brush. but nothing like hollywood makes it out to be -- a tropical jungle w/ swamps and vines.

all in all, it was probably a pretty pleasant place to have a war. ;-)

After Agent Orange of course... ;)

It is dense enough in many areas to be called a jungle (technically), but I see your point.

I guess for Hollywood:

Rice patties = swamp

Jungle = Amazon

shadowfax
Sep 6, 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Climate as in weather/conditions? I think the troops would choose the jungle over the desert anyday.

Oppressive heat with all that body armour on, sand as fine as talcum powder, sun beating down, equipment self-destructing... we'd have to take a poll. jungle heat is doubly worse than desert heat. think--120-130 degrees (F) at <10% humidity, or 95-100 degrees (F) at ~90% humidity? you can do the math on that. and i'll take nasty sand over leeches and other nasty, extremely dangerous creatures found in a jungle... add to that the fact that jungles give distinct advantages to small parties attacking much larger ones... i'd be surprised if a soldier actually chose the jungle after experiencing both.

pseudobrit
Sep 6, 2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i'd be surprised if a soldier actually chose the jungle after experiencing both.

I think we can agree that every soldier is going to prefer one thing in either scenario:

being deployed for as short a time as possible. Oppressive heat and killer sand or a monsoon season and killer humidity are both going to get old quick when you're in country.

shadowfax
Sep 6, 2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I think we can agree that every soldier is going to prefer one thing in either scenario:

being deployed for as short a time as possible. Oppressive heat and killer sand or a monsoon season and killer humidity are both going to get old quick when you're in country. most certainly. except maybe lawrence of arabia.