OT - Senate Intelligence Report Slams CIA for Iraq Intelligence Failures - Page 2

Tekneek · 07-10-2004, 10:57 AM

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

This is an interesting read, at least. I'm not sure that the US actually vetoed all of those resolutions, but most of them look like ones that they would veto.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 11:18 AM

I personally don't care about WMD's, but I do care about is the millions of Iraqis suffering due to the rule of the Hussein regime. This man raped, killed, and pillaged his OWN people. He had threaten to attack his neighbors and proved in the past that he would do so. Those are my reasons for going to war and I believe that they are good ones.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

I personally don't care about WMD's, but I do care about is the millions of Iraqis suffering due to the rule of the Hussein regime. This man raped, killed, and pillaged his OWN people. He had threaten to attack his neighbors and proved in the past that he would do so. Those are my reasons for going to war and I believe that they are good ones.

There are lots of those types of leaders in the world, some of which we support. We'll be invading lots of countries in the near future with that way of thinking.

Dutch · 07-10-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

There are lots of those types of leaders in the world, some of which we support. We'll be invading lots of countries in the near future with that way of thinking.

I disagree. I don't think any other current leaders come close to Saddam Hussein.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch

I disagree. I don't think any other current leaders come close to Saddam Hussein.

What's the country with the ethnic cleansing going on right now, Sudan?

Joe Canadian · 07-10-2004, 01:35 PM

The UN is evil!!!! They are useless!!! They won't agree with the US all the time when they want to invade other countries, what's up with that?? I think every country (even the evil one's) whould be able to invade any damn country they want... no matter how suspect we think the eividence is!!!!

duckman · 07-10-2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

There are lots of those types of leaders in the world, some of which we support. We'll be invading lots of countries in the near future with that way of thinking.

I think that it has been US policy to deal with genocide. We handle it when we went into Kosovo and Iraq. I supported the Kosovo conflict when President Clinton was running the show and I supported the Iraq conflict when President Bush was calling the shots. It is our job to make sure that another Nazi Germany does ever happen again.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

The UN is evil!!!! They are useless!!! They won't agree with the US all the time when they want to invade other countries, what's up with that?? I think every country (even the evil one's) whould be able to invade any damn country they want... no matter how suspect we think the eividence is!!!!

So we're supposed to wait until Saddam just give a terrorist group a WMD and let them used it on us before we do anything?

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

I think that it has been US policy to deal with genocide. We handle it when we went into Kosovo and Iraq. I supported the Kosovo conflict when President Clinton was running the show and I supported the Iraq conflict when President Bush was calling the shots. It is our job to make sure that another Nazi Germany does ever happen again.

The UN went into Kosovo not us, we went into Iraq unilaterally without UN support. Big difference.

That's a big leap, now Iraq = Nazi Germany? That's a joke.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

So we're supposed to wait until Saddam just give a terrorist group a WMD and let them used it on us before we do anything?

You must have missed the news the last couple of months. He didn't have any, OR he already gave them away to terrorists. if it's the latter, then we did exactly what you questioned.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

The UN went into Kosovo not us, we went into Iraq unilaterally without UN support. Big difference.

Actually, it was NATO who used their military might and the UN took over when the cease fire was agreed upon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

That's a big leap, now Iraq = Nazi Germany? That's a joke.

Lets see! Iraq first attacked Iran in hopes of annexing the country, but failed, then annexed Kuwait. Later, they began to build up troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia before the US stepped in during the Gulf War.

Sounds awfully familiar.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

Actually, it was NATO who used their military might and the UN took over when the cease fire was agreed upon.

Lets see! Iraq first attacked Iran in hopes of annexing the country, but failed, then annexed Kuwait. Later, they began to build up troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia before the US stepped in during the Gulf War.

Sounds awfully familiar.

It does? I was under the impression that Germany actually WON battles... (checks history books) Iraw didn't do anything with Kuwait, that was the whole reason we went to the Middle East under Bush I, to stop Iraq from taking over Kuwait.

NATO is still NOT the US, and NATO had a UN ok when they went in if I'm not mistaken. Still a big difference from our current "we'll do whatever we want and no one should say any different" attitude.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

You must have missed the news the last couple of months. He didn't have any, OR he already gave them away to terrorists. if it's the latter, then we did exactly what you questioned.

The pissing match we had with Russia, France, and Germany was the reason we didn't catch them red handed. We gave them ample time (over a year) to get rid of or hide their WMD's. If we had gone in there when we should have then we wouldn't even be disgusting this.

Glengoyne · 07-10-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

... I supported the Kosovo conflict when President Clinton was running the show and I supported the Iraq conflict when President Bush was calling the shots. ...

War monger!

Well I fit in this boat as well. I do believe that the Civilized nations of the world need to step in and police the occasional human rights situation.

I was 100% behind Clinton on Kosovo.
I was 100% behind Bush in Iraq
I was 100% against abandoning the people of Somalia.
I was appalled that we did nothing durning the Rwandan genocide.
I think leaving Lebanon after our Marine living quarters was bombed might have been Reagan's biggest mistake as President.

Geeze, I am war monger.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

The pissing match we had with Russia, France, and Germany was the reason we didn't catch them red handed. We gave them ample time (over a year) to get rid of or hide their WMD's. If we had gone in there when we should have then we wouldn't even be disgusting this.

It's not up to us to be the sole decider or UN policy, it's not our job!

duckman · 07-10-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

It does? I was under the impression that Germany actually WON battles... (checks history books) Iraw didn't do anything with Kuwait, that was the whole reason we went to the Middle East under Bush I, to stop Iraq from taking over Kuwait.

Actually, you need to check your history books again. Iraq had control of Kuwait and that is why we went in there. Also, I was saying that he was instituting the same policy of annexing countries, not that they were as successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

NATO is still NOT the US, and NATO had a UN ok when they went in if I'm not mistaken. Still a big difference from our current "we'll do whatever we want and no one should say any different" attitude.

When we were 90% of the force then yes we are the force. The UN did not passed a resolution for force. European NATO countries passed a resolution and asked us to help with the operations.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

It's not up to us to be the sole decider or UN policy, it's not our job!

I care about US policy, not UN policy. US policy states we get handle any potential (key word) threats. If you actually thought that Iraq wasn't chomping at the bit to get at us then you are just a pacifist.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

Actually, you need to check your history books again. Iraq had control of Kuwait and that is why we went in there. Also, I was saying that he was instituting the same policy of annexing countries, not that they were as successful.

When we were 90% of the force then yes we are the force. The UN did not passed a resolution for force. European NATO countries passed a resolution and asked us to help with the operations.

It doesn't matter if we're 99% of the force, we still didn't go in there because we alone wanted to (or we alone along with a persuaded Britain). Big difference.

I don't pretend to be a history professor but to compare Iraq to Nazi Germany is a HUGE stretch.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

I care about US policy, not UN policy. US policy states we get handle any potential (key word) threats. If you actually thought that Iraq wasn't chomping at the bit to get at us then you are just a pacifist.

Again the "We can do whatever we want" theory.

Why is it that we somehow should be able to do whatever we want and disregard the UN and international law but everyone else must follow it?

Chomping at the bit? We destroyed them before and we did it now, why would they want to go to war with us? Again, nothing to back up your assertions.

I firmly believe that Saddam's whole goal was to make us look stupid. He knew eventually we'd take him out so why not make us look bad in the process? That's why he fought the weapons inspectors for so long, just to be a pain in the ass.

Joe Canadian · 07-10-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

So we're supposed to wait until Saddam just give a terrorist group a WMD and let them used it on us before we do anything?

Could you please point me to proof that Saddam was activly trying to attack the United States?

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

I don't pretend to be a history professor but to compare Iraq to Nazi Germany is a HUGE stretch.

If we had left them alone and allowed them to produced WMD then they would have easily taken the region.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

If we had left them alone and allowed them to produced WMD then they would have easily taken the region.

How? Israel has weapons of mass destruction and they haven't taken the region.

You have no proof for this. They had chemical weapons and they couldn't take Iran.

We are NOT the judge, jury, and executioner for the world. This is why countries hate us.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Could you please point me to proof that Saddam was activly trying to attack the United States?

Well, they did try to assassinate former President Bush, but was caught by a foregin agency. That alone could be an act of war in itself.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

Well, they did try to assassinate former President Bush, but was caught by a foregin agency. That alone could be an act of war in itself.

Well shit, then we've gone to war with a LOT of coutries if that's the new criteria. Or are you saying we've never tried to assassinate a leader?

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

How? Israel has weapons of mass destruction and they haven't taken the region.

Israel wants to be a peaceful autonomous country. They do want the West Bank and Gaza Strip because they consider it 'holy land'. Also, they never used WMD on anyone. They are a deterent to keep other Middle Eastern countries from invading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

You have no proof for this. They had chemical weapons and they couldn't take Iran.

They attempted to and that is all the proof I need. They were in the infancy of their WMD program. If they had gotten a hold of a nuclear weapon, then the outcome would have been much different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

We are NOT the judge, jury, and executioner for the world. This is why countries hate us.

I never said that. I said that we should what is best for our country and that is take out any threat that could endanger American civilians.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Well shit, then we've gone to war with a LOT of coutries if that's the new criteria. Or are you saying we've never tried to assassinate a leader?

Not since the 1970's.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

Not since the 1970's.

Oh so that's ok then?

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

I never said that. I said that we should what is best for our country and that is take out any threat that could endanger American civilians.

That IS the "we can do whatever we want" mentality.

Again, why can we break international law and defy the UN and say others can't?

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Oh so that's ok then?

If it's a tyrannical dictator, then I have no real problem with it.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

That IS the "we can do whatever we want" mentality.

Again, why can we break international law and defy the UN and say others can't?

We don't go hurting people because "we can". If international law is making where we can't protect ourselves from threats then the laws have failed everyone.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

If it's a tyrannical dictator, then I have no real problem with it.

Let me guess who gets to decide who is tyrannical and who isn't, the US? If Saddam thought Bush was tyrannical then is it ok?

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

We don't go hurting people because "we can". If international law is making where we can't protect ourselves from threats then the laws have failed everyone.

So then we don't have to abide by the laws?

So does that mean that Iraq didn't have to abide by the laws either? Well, I guess it's ok they defied UN resolutions then because the laws failed everyone right?

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Let me guess who gets to decide who is tyrannical and who isn't, the US? If Saddam thought Bush was tyrannical then is it ok?

President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

Nope, just POW's. Oh wait, that's junior.

Funny the UN never said it was ok to take out Saddam. But again, it's not what others think it's only what the US thinks right?

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

So then we don't have to abide by the laws?

So does that mean that Iraq didn't have to abide by the laws either? Well, I guess it's ok they defied UN resolutions then because the laws failed everyone right?

If they don't do what they are intended to do, then no. We have a God given right to protect ourselves, not be lay victim for every rogue nation to come along and attack us.

Iraq defied the laws so they could build WMD's for the sole purpose of threatening their neighbors into surrending and becoming apart of this "Persian Empire" that Saddam wanted to build.

Tekneek · 07-10-2004, 02:28 PM

As far as stepping in to prevent genocide, when did we go into Rwanda? That was raging for quite a while with ZERO involvement from the US government. This tells me that we do not have a policy of intervening in all matters of genocide.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Nope, just POW's. Oh wait, that's junior.

Funny the UN never said it was ok to take out Saddam. But again, it's not what others think it's only what the US thinks right?

We'll just have agree to disagree.

Glengoyne · 07-10-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Again the "We can do whatever we want" theory.

Why is it that we somehow should be able to do whatever we want and disregard the UN and international law but everyone else must follow it?

You know it isn't "we can do whatever we want." It is we will do whatever we think we need to. And yes we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world while we do it, because honestly we CAN decide if it needs to be done. I actually trust the government, the congress and the president, whether Republican or Democrat to evaluate and decide when to use millitary force. I count on them to make every effort to protect our interests here and abroad, as well as the citizens of other nations when required. I don't think this kind of thing is done lightly. I believe they take it seriously.

I don't have any trouble with going to war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with the fact that we haven't found more than minor evidence of WMD. I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed. I do have a problem with the fact that the Bush administration hasn't mentioned how this intelligence failure affects the new policy of preemption. I mean I trust that they will be more careful vetting intelligence in the future, but it kind of bothers me that no one has come out and said as much.

Dutch · 07-10-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

The UN went into Kosovo not us, we went into Iraq unilaterally without UN support. Big difference.

That's a big leap, now Iraq = Nazi Germany? That's a joke.

Then why did the UN have sanctions on Iraq? Just to keep them down, I suppose? Why Iraq and not Sudan? And isn't the work that President Bush Sr. and President Bush Jr. really the reason Saddam Hussein is a joke compared to Adolf Hitler?

Tekneek · 07-10-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

People under his command have beaten, raped, and tortured in Iraq. So, unless we know that Saddam personally ordered beatings, rapings, and tortures, he is no more guilty of that than George W. Bush is.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

As far as stepping in to prevent genocide, when did we go into Rwanda? That was raging for quite a while with ZERO involvement from the US government. This tells me that we do not have a policy of intervening in all matters of genocide.

Yes, we do. Politicans interpet laws as they see fit and they decided that Rwanda was too much of a burden and chose language in the policy to suit their needs.

Dutch · 07-10-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

People under his command have beaten, raped, and tortured in Iraq. So, unless we know that Saddam personally ordered beatings, rapings, and tortures, he is no more guilty of that than George W. Bush is.

Saddam did. It was quite clear that he did, yet, there was no court martials, no disciplinary action, no accountability. He insisted upon it to keep fear into his enemies. Why didn't the Shiite's ever protest while Saddam was in power? Why didn't the Kurds? Fear and death. That's why.

Compare Saddam to a US President? For partisan politics? You need to take a step back and take a deep breath.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

If they don't do what they are intended to do, then no. We have a God given right to protect ourselves, not be lay victim for every rogue nation to come along and attack us.

Iraq defied the laws so they could build WMD's for the sole purpose of threatening their neighbors into surrending and becoming apart of this "Persian Empire" that Saddam wanted to build.

What attack were we protecting ourselves from?

We don't have the right to go into any country we want and attack them because they don't like us.

WHAT WMDs????? The one's we can't find? The one's that everyone is continually saying didn't exist?

Stick with an argument either it's "well he hurt his own people" or "well he sponsored terrorism" or "well he may have been able to get WMDs". Pick one, it's a constant circle to continually change the defense of our action.

Besides, it's much better for us when we can take out leaders we don't like and install one's we do right?

Tekneek · 07-10-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

Yes, we do. Politicans interpet laws as they see fit and they decided that Rwanda was too much of a burden and chose language in the policy to suit their needs.

Oh, so we don't really have an obligation to intervene in matters of genocide? I knew that anyway, but that argument was put forward as a reason for war in this thread. It's time that was properly debunked.

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You know it isn't "we can do whatever we want." It is we will do whatever we think we need to. And yes we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world while we do it, because honestly we CAN decide if it needs to be done. I actually trust the government, the congress and the president, whether Republican or Democrat to evaluate and decide when to use millitary force. I count on them to make every effort to protect our interests here and abroad, as well as the citizens of other nations when required. I don't think this kind of thing is done lightly. I believe they take it seriously.

I don't have any trouble with going to war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with the fact that we haven't found more than minor evidence of WMD. I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed. I do have a problem with the fact that the Bush administration hasn't mentioned how this intelligence failure affects the new policy of preemption. I mean I trust that they will be more careful vetting intelligence in the future, but it kind of bothers me that no one has come out and said as much.

Whew! Reinforcements.

Tekneek · 07-10-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch

Saddam did.

You have this proof? By all means, share it with me and I may very well agree with you.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch

Saddam did.

Thank you for that stunning display of proof.

While you're at it, prove Bush didn't order it.

Dutch · 07-10-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Stick with an argument either it's "well he hurt his own people" or "well he sponsored terrorism" or "well he may have been able to get WMDs". Pick one, it's a constant circle to continually change the defense of our action.

The Democrats would love that. If there were only one reason. But alas, Saddam Hussein gave us plenty of reasons.

Chubby · 07-10-2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You know it isn't "we can do whatever we want." It is we will do whatever we think we need to. And yes we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world while we do it, because honestly we CAN decide if it needs to be done. I actually trust the government, the congress and the president, whether Republican or Democrat to evaluate and decide when to use millitary force. I count on them to make every effort to protect our interests here and abroad, as well as the citizens of other nations when required. I don't think this kind of thing is done lightly. I believe they take it seriously.

I don't have any trouble with going to war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with the fact that we haven't found more than minor evidence of WMD. I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed. I do have a problem with the fact that the Bush administration hasn't mentioned how this intelligence failure affects the new policy of preemption. I mean I trust that they will be more careful vetting intelligence in the future, but it kind of bothers me that no one has come out and said as much.

Then you support hypocrisy. We can thumb our noses at the rest of the world but other nations can't.

What you described IS "we can do whatever we want". How is that different from "we will do whatever we think we need to"?

duckman · 07-10-2004, 02:35 PM

I just want to thank Chubby for the boost in my post totals.

07-10-2004, 01:35 PM	#56
Joe Canadian College Prospect Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada	The UN is evil!!!! They are useless!!! They won't agree with the US all the time when they want to invade other countries, what's up with that?? I think every country (even the evil one's) whould be able to invade any damn country they want... no matter how suspect we think the eividence is!!!!

07-10-2004, 02:28 PM	#86
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	As far as stepping in to prevent genocide, when did we go into Rwanda? That was raging for quite a while with ZERO involvement from the US government. This tells me that we do not have a policy of intervening in all matters of genocide.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)