Iran

[SameSecret001]

Am I the only one who thinks that what's going on in Iran is turning into really sketchy buisness. Read these articles and you tell me:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9070ec32-f409-4161-9e96-7bae0436ccc3&k=66789

This sounds all too familiar. Somehow, I think America is going to fuck this one up one way or another.

[FScott]

Although I'm not to fond of my President he is a man of action. And so is America. And yeah we fuck up, we take risks and at times we make mistakes. We are not a country who just rants and bitches about the actions of other nations such as Iran only to hide behind walls of isolation and wait on other countries to confront the issue. Oh who does that sound like..Um.. oh Canada! (thats you)

If Canada is worried about Iran then by all means lets hear some solutions to this crisis.

ps. diplomacy hasn't exactly been very effective and the "Canadian Armed Forces" is barely equivalent to that of a brigade of potato gunners.

[Lueda Alia]

Although I'm not to fond of my President he is a man of action. And so is America. And yeah we fuck up, we take risks and at times we make mistakes. We are not a country who just rants and bitches about the actions of other nations such as Iran only to hide behind walls of isolation and wait on other countries to confront the issue. Oh who does that sound like..Um.. oh Canada! (thats you)

If Canada is worried about Iran then by all means lets hear some solutions to this crisis.

ps. diplomacy hasn't exactly been very effective and the "Canadian Armed Forces" is barely equivalent to that of a brigade of potato gunners.
Except, unlike you and your president, Canada doesn't like being involved in wars. Unlike you, we like to use our money for healthcare and such, instead of wars that go nowhere (ie Iraq).

[FScott]

Except, unlike you and your president, Canada doesn't like being involved in wars. Unlike you, we like to use our money for healthcare and such, instead of wars that go nowhere (ie Iraq).


America becomes involved in wars when something of our interest becomes threatened and diplomacy fails. And no, America does not like war anymore then you do, but like i said, when the occasion arises we take action while Canada hides behind isolationism. And yes you have universial healthcare, I would like to see that in the United
States.

Also keep in mind that the United States provides much more foreign aid and assistance than Canada.

Now to my point. What is the Canadian fix to the Iranian crisis? (since the US is bound to "fuck it up")

[Justin_stacy]

Sounds to me like another Iraq. Large nations being bought off with oil rights in return for a vote of support. First it was France and Germany, now its Russia and China. Its another cycle that proves the uselessness of the UN.

[FallingOut]

And no, America does not like war anymore then you do.

Thats not true. George Bush loves being at war in my opinion. He loves this because he can do whatever he wants since we are in "times of war." Now I know you will say the Iraq war is causing him trouble but just wait, one day, he will declare victory in Iraq and all the gullible people in America will say it was a success.

[FScott]

still waiting on that Canadian solution

[FScott]

Thats not true. George Bush loves being at war in my opinion. He loves this because he can do whatever he wants since we are in "times of war." Now I know you will say the Iraq war is causing him trouble but just wait, one day, he will declare victory in Iraq and all the gullible people in America will say it was a success.


First of all I said America does not like war anymore then you do, not George Bush. Secondly do you have George Bush on record as of saying he likes war? No you don't. Therefore you have no evidence, "truth" requires evidence.

[FallingOut]

First of all I said America does not like war anymore then you do, not George Bush. Secondly do you have George Bush on record as of saying he likes war? No you don't. Therefore you have no evidence, "truth" requires evidence.

If you read a little bit closer, you would see the part where I said "In my opinion." Thank you.

[cal1082]

Many of you wonder why people dont give your posts much thought or think that you're a bit extreme? Radical claims, no evidence, and no points to your posts cause this.

Yes, we've been in 2 wars since September 11th. Clinton was invovled in a couple of engagments too but did this mean he liked war? Bush 41 was inolved in a conflict too, did this mean he liked war?

Keeping a level headed opinion, and keeping wild unfounded opinions to yourself is a smart thing to do. You don't want every idiot spouting out what's on their mind (just my opinion though).

[cal1082]

First of all I said America does not like war anymore then you do, not George Bush. Secondly do you have George Bush on record as of saying he likes war? No you don't. Therefore you have no evidence, "truth" requires evidence.

You don't understand, because he says "just my opinion" means he doesnt have to have any evidence or explanation of his opinion. His hate for Bush is enough to form this idea in his head.

[jusscali]

Except, unlike you and your president, Canada doesn't like being involved in wars. Unlike you, we like to use our money for healthcare and such, instead of wars that go nowhere (ie Iraq).
your awesome

[cal1082]

As for the issue, it is a lot like Iraq. Guess it goes to show you that money can do a lot, but I dont think money will be much of an issue for Israel. Israel won't hesitate to bomb Iran into the stone age when the feel there is no turning back.

In decision making you want to make the best decision, as fast as you can. Yes, mistakes are made when you make a fast decision but more often than not it's better than waiting.

[FallingOut]

You don't understand, because he says "just my opinion" means he doesnt have to have any evidence or explanation of his opinion. His hate for Bush is enough to form this idea in his head.

You think you just know everything, dont you? You know everything thats in my head! Yes, I hate Bush. Because he misuses information and leads us into war. They told him that there were WMDs. Then they told him there actually were not WMDs. So he attacks Iraq anyway. Actions like this make it seem obvious that he actually does like being at war. I read in an interview that was conducted because he was President that if he had "capitol" (in this context he was referring to how his father had the country under his control since they were at war) that he would hold onto that and take advantage of it as long as he could. So, when I hear things like that, where he says he likes having people in fear, since we are in "times of war," that makes me think that he likes being at war. That is what I base my opinion on.

This "idea that I formed in my head" was formed because of Bush's actions, not just some bias that I have for no reason.

[cal1082]

You think you just know everything, dont you?

No, and I dont see what that has to do with anything? I know not to keep my feelings about someone in the way or rational thinking.

They told him that there were WMDs. Then they told him there actually were not WMDs. So he attacks Iraq anyway. Actions like this make it seem obvious that he actually does like being at war. I read in an interview that was conducted because he was President that if he had "capitol" (in this context he was referring to how his father had the country under his control since they were at war) that he would hold onto that and take advantage of it as long as he could. So, when I hear things like that, where he says he likes having people in fear, since we are in "times of war," that makes me think that he likes being at war. That is what I base my opinion on.

There's no point rehashing this really, but all the countries thought they were a weapons threat. Which is why in November before the war they all agreed to a resolution for Iraq to give up it's weapons. If no one else thought this the resolution would not bet there.

This "idea that I formed in my head" was formed because of Bush's actions, not just some bias that I have for no reason.

I'll just restate what I said earlier..........."Keeping a level headed opinion, and keeping wild unfounded opinions to yourself is a smart thing to do. You don't want every idiot spouting out what's on their mind and have them expect to be taken seriously. (just my opinion though)."

[FallingOut]

I'll just restate what I said earlier..........."Keeping a level headed opinion, and keeping wild unfounded opinions to yourself is a smart thing to do. You don't want every idiot spouting out what's on their mind and have them expect to be taken seriously. (just my opinion though)."

When was my opinion ever wild, or unfounded? I just said that I think that Bush wants to keep our nation at war, for reasons that are justified by what the man himself has said in the past. I didnt let my opinions of somebody get in the way of logical thinking, I stated what I thought was the truth, based on past events. No, I do not like Bush, true. But what you are basically saying is that my opinion was based on bias, which is not true. I justified my opinion. I didnt just say, "I think Bush will do this because hes a stupid redneck, and hes from Texas, and hes gay!!!1111" Sorry to burst your bubble.

And why should I keep my opinion to myself? Because it makes sense or because it disagrees with you? I think its funny how you have said absolutely nothing to argue my actual point, you just attacked me. Thats the common action of somebody who knows theyre wrong.

[cal1082]

When was my opinion ever wild, or unfounded? I just said that I think that Bush wants to keep our nation at war, for reasons that are justified by what the man himself has said in the past. I didnt let my opinions of somebody get in the way of logical thinking, I stated what I thought was the truth, based on past events. No, I do not like Bush, true. But what you are basically saying is that my opinion was based on bias, which is not true. I justified my opinion. I didnt just say, "I think Bush will do this because hes a stupid redneck, and hes from Texas, and hes gay!!!1111" Sorry to burst your bubble.

And why should I keep my opinion to myself? Because it makes sense or because it disagrees with you? I think its funny how you have said absolutely nothing to argue my actual point, you just attacked me. Thats the common action of somebody who knows theyre wrong.

"Because he misuses information and leads us into war. They told him that there were WMDs. Then they told him there actually were not WMDs. So he attacks Iraq anyway. Actions like this make it seem obvious that he actually does like being at war. I read in an interview that was conducted because he was President that if he had "capitol" (in this context he was referring to how his father had the country under his control since they were at war) that he would hold onto that and take advantage of it as long as he could. So, when I hear things like that, where he says he likes having people in fear, since we are in "times of war," that makes me think that he likes being at war. That is what I base my opinion on."

This is what you've used to justify, but again it's completely unfounded.

Why?
---First, you said "he misuses information and leads us to war"...........Did you not know the Senate Intelligence Committee cleared the administration of this and criticised the intelligence community for the lack of doing their job? LINK (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1150781.htm). Second, you ignore the fact that other countries believed the same thing which is why they passed resolutions up until 4 months before the war. Not so obvious is it?

---I can't argue the interview you say you read because I dont have it in front of me but if you can find it that would be great.

---Now if you think Bush is a heartless son of a bitch who doesnt mind talking to the families of service men about their child's death that's up to you but I find that hard to believe. Bush has made strides to avoide war in many instances. ONE..........He went to the UN for resolutions to get Saddam to reveal the extent of his program and the UN was not allowed the access it called for. SECOND.......The administration allowed the EU to conduct negotions with Iran for a year or two after the Iraq war started to find a peaceful agreement but no agreement was reached. THIRD.......The administration is looking to get another resolution passed on Iran. FOURTH (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-28-bush-south-asia_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)........The administration has helped foster negotiations between India and Pakistan regarding the Kashmir region, and the result has been some of the least tensions ever seen there. FIFTH.......... The administration has taken direct action between Israel and Palestine and has fostered peace by seeking a Palestinian state and Israel has made some large concession by giving up land and removing their own people from land.

Those are direct facts where the administration as sought peaceful resolutions to potential violent conflicts.

[open mind]

despite what officials have said, evidence has surfaced that the bush administration wanted the iraq war, and that they knew evidence of wmds was weak at best.

[YourMusicSucks]

despite what officials have said, evidence has surfaced that the bush administration wanted the iraq war, and that they knew evidence of wmds was weak at best.

Wonderful job giving us generalized information with no proof.

[cal1082]

despite what officials have said, evidence has surfaced that the bush administration wanted the iraq war, and that they knew evidence of wmds was weak at best.

You can believe that and you can argue with the Senate Intelligence Committee about it and you can assume the fact that all other countries who agreed to the resolution in November did so fully knowing Iraq did not have weapons (this wouldnt make sense but you can assume it). And you can assume that either Clinton knew they didnt have them and bombed anyway. Whatever you want to believe.

Fact is, there's ovewhelming evidence that says otherwise.

[open mind]

Wonderful job giving us generalized information with no proof.
okay okay, i'll get you the links on pre-war memo minutes, pretty sure it's know as the downing street memo, and then i'll do my best to show evidence of a willfullness to ignore intel pointing to iraq not having wmds and the motivations for throwing out bad intel as fact...........alot of the stuff is still classified, so proof on this is sort of hard to come by so it's based on what from former intelligence officials say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

[open mind]

You can believe that and you can argue with the Senate Intelligence Committee about it and you can assume the fact that all other countries who agreed to the resolution in November did so fully knowing Iraq did not have weapons (this wouldnt make sense but you can assume it). And you can assume that either Clinton knew they didnt have them and bombed anyway. Whatever you want to believe.

Fact is, there's ovewhelming evidence that says otherwise.
most of the countries that agreed to the resolution have very small or non existant intelligence communities, and just went with what we said, and probably got some sort of aid in return for their vote of confidence, a link i put up touches on the senate intelligence commitee, and i wouldn't put it past clinton to bomb for political points.....but i'm pretty sure he bombed them for not allowing inspectors in or something, i could be wrong on that though.
the fact of the matter is that "overwhelming" evidence surrounding iraq is being shown to be the bullshit it really is quite steadily.

[cal1082]

most of the countries that agreed to the resolution have very small or non existant intelligence communities, and just went with what we said, and probably got some sort of aid in return for their vote of confidence, a link i put up touches on the senate intelligence commitee, and i wouldn't put it past clinton to bomb for political points.....but i'm pretty sure he bombed them for not allowing inspectors in or something, i could be wrong on that though.

Everyone on the Security Council passed the resolution so I dont know what you're talking about when you say small or non existant?

LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69532,00.html)------ "The vote was 15-to-nothing."

[open mind]

Everyone on the Security Council passed the resolution so I dont know what you're talking about when you say small or non existant?

LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69532,00.html)------ "The vote was 15-to-nothing."
oh yeah, total brainfart there, the fact of the matter is more and more light is being shed on what OUR intelligence community REALLY thought and it doesn't look like the evidence was "bulletproof" like we were told. in fact it looks like intel was pointing to no wmds, but the bush administration went ahead with it's dog and pony show anyways and just picked what they liked from the reports on iraq.

[FallingOut]

oh yeah, total brainfart there, the fact of the matter is more and more light is being shed on what OUR intelligence community REALLY thought and it doesn't look like the evidence was "bulletproof" like we were told. in fact it looks like intel was pointing to no wmds, but the bush administration went ahead with it's dog and pony show anyways and just picked what they liked from the reports on iraq.

I agree completely. What does it matter what the rest of the world was saying? They werent the ones making the decsion were they? NO. Like you said earlier, they were probably (I dont know for sure) just feeding off of what our intelligence was saying.

[Kyle Garchar]

iran "UN? WHO CARES?!, when did the un kick anyone out before?"

[cal1082]

I agree completely. What does it matter what the rest of the world was saying? They werent the ones making the decsion were they? NO. Like you said earlier, they were probably (I dont know for sure) just feeding off of what our intelligence was saying.

It matters for the sake of what you were just arguing! The adminstration was using the same intelligence that led other countries to percieve Saddam as a threat, and the same intelligence that led Clinton to strike Iraq. Why is this so hard to understand? Probably because it doesnt fit into your perception of Bush.

[Lueda Alia]

It matters for the sake of what you were just arguing! The adminstration was using the same intelligence that led other countries to percieve Saddam as a threat, and the same intelligence that led Clinton to strike Iraq. Why is this so hard to understand? Probably because it doesnt fit into your perception of Bush.
Or maybe because unlike Clinton, Bush started a war with Iraq. And unlike other countries, the US did attack Iraq. Other countries went to war because of the information that the US was providing (as far as I know). Of course everyone thought that Saddam was a threat... to his own people, but to the global community? I don't remember anyone being that threatened by Iraq, but maybe I'm wrong?

Two threats that the US government kept repeating were:

1. Iraq has WMD's.
2. Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda.

Both turned out to be untrue.

[Lueda Alia]

America becomes involved in wars when something of our interest becomes threatened and diplomacy fails. And no, America does not like war anymore then you do, but like i said, when the occasion arises we take action while Canada hides behind isolationism. And yes you have universial healthcare, I would like to see that in the United
States.

Also keep in mind that the United States provides much more foreign aid and assistance than Canada.

Now to my point. What is the Canadian fix to the Iranian crisis? (since the US is bound to "fuck it up")
I'd like to remind you that you're talking to a citizen here, not the Canadian government, so I can't tell you what I've decided to do about the Iran issue. However, in my opinion, Canada should not get involved in a war. Whatever happens, we're better at peace keeping and I'd rather stick to that. Hopefully our new government won't want to go to war like your Conservative government did, because that would be a disaster.

[FScott]

Trust me, if Canada ever went to war it would be a disaster for you. And besides who do you think Canada would call upon if they should happen to go to war? Thats right, the conservative government of the United States.

[open mind]

It matters for the sake of what you were just arguing! The adminstration was using the same intelligence that led other countries to percieve Saddam as a threat, and the same intelligence that led Clinton to strike Iraq. Why is this so hard to understand? Probably because it doesnt fit into your perception of Bush.
the bush administration fed them alot of the intelligence that supported the wmd claims, ommitted the parts that didn't fit, then made numerous false charges if not ourtight lies with "evidence" from "credible sources" (curveball anyone?) not unlike what was fed to our own leaders....... of course everyone thought iraq had wmds after the steady stream of bullshit fed to them by the bush administration.
but really why bring the u.n. into this debate? i know at the time we went into iraq the general attitude was the u.n. was good for nothing and corrupt, and now you point to them for validity....can't have it both ways my friend.....and besides it was our national leadership that got us into iraq, not the u.n.

[Lueda Alia]

Trust me, if Canada ever went to war it would be a disaster for you. And besides who do you think Canada would call upon if they should happen to go to war? Thats right, the conservative government of the United States.
Well, chances of Canada ever being in a war are pretty slim, so I doubt we'll be "calling upon" the US anytime soon.

[FallingOut]

it was our national leadership that got us into iraq, not the u.n.

Thats what I was trying to say. I dont understand Cal, how you say that doesnt fit into my perception of Bush. I dont even understand what you mean by that honestly. I was saying, that the other countries were probably listening to what we were saying, that is why they agreed with us. Defending Bush by saying that other countries agreed, doesnt make any sense if they got their information from us, and especially if the administration only gave the information they wanted to. Again, I dont know if this is exactly what happened, but if it did, the administration giving select information so other countries will support us, only emphasizes my point that they wanted to be at war.

[cal1082]

Thats what I was trying to say. I dont understand Cal, how you say that doesnt fit into my perception of Bush. I dont even understand what you mean by that honestly. I was saying, that the other countries were probably listening to what we were saying, that is why they agreed with us. Defending Bush by saying that other countries agreed, doesnt make any sense if they got their information from us, and especially if the administration only gave the information they wanted to. Again, I dont know if this is exactly what happened, but if it did, the administration giving select information so other countries will support us, only emphasizes my point that they wanted to be at war.


You keep saying this ignoring that these other countries have intelligent agiencies as well (israel, and Great Britian being among the best). I dont know how good the countries spy agencies are but I assume since they are among the "elite" countries they can hold their own water (France, Germany, Russia, etc....., etc.....)

You both assume these countries (i hadnt seen a lick of evidence) relied on US intelligence only. Hell you even keep saying, "probably" everytime you mention. Admit that you have no idea if they did or didnt. It's easy for you to assume that because it pulls everything back on the US and the Bush administration. If you're content basing your opinions on probably's because it fits your story you can. I'm gonna provide you with known realities.

1.) Link 1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-18-russia-us_x.htm)-----Russian intel warns US

2.) Italy's intelligence agency first handed Great Britian the information regarding the yellow cake deal in Niger.

3.) Great Britian put this among other intel of theirs into a report and provided it to the US

4.) Link 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1189182.stm)------- "Iraq could produce nuclear weapons within three years, according to a German intelligence assessment."

5.) Link 3 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115184,00.html)--------- "Prior to the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Israeli services reported Iraq had large amounts of weapons of mass destruction"

[cal1082]

I really get tired of people making shit up and not looking for things themselves simply because it fits what they want to believe. Either you really, really uninfomred or you're just making things up to go with what you want to believe.

I shouldnt have to sit here and vet what you say beacuse you're unwilling to do it yourself. To save people the effort for now on just cut and paste this before everything you claim, "I'm really just guessing here, basing what I say on nothing, but............"

[FallingOut]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300495.html
-The Washington Post reported last month that a U.S. fact-finding mission confidentially advised Washington on May 27, 2003, that two truck trailers found in Iraq were not mobile units for manufacturing bioweapons, as had been suspected.
-Two days later, President Bush still asserted the trailers were bioweapons labs, and other administration officials repeated that line for months afterward.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/
-Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
-"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

http://www.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/2006/04/bush_knew_there.html
-BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?
DRUMHELLER: Yes.
BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?
DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/2/12310/93341
-The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
-He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
-Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041706Y.shtml
-The memo says: "On January 12, 2003," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries."
-Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 - one week after Bush's State of the Union address - to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
-But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
-The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html
-Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.
-At the time, the Bush administration was preparing for the coalition's invasion of Iraq and publicly insisting that Hussein had reconstituted nuclear programs and was concealing from United Nations inspectors both chemical and biological weapons in violation of Security Council resolutions. The White House, which was seeking a congressional resolution that would permit the use of force against Iraq, hoped Sabri would defect, the two former officials said.


I guess I have done my research now. I could spend even more time on this and find more if you would like.

[cal1082]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300495.html
-The Washington Post reported last month that a U.S. fact-finding mission confidentially advised Washington on May 27, 2003, that two truck trailers found in Iraq were not mobile units for manufacturing bioweapons, as had been suspected.
-Two days later, President Bush still asserted the trailers were bioweapons labs, and other administration officials repeated that line for months afterward.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/
-Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
-"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

http://www.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/2006/04/bush_knew_there.html
-BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?
DRUMHELLER: Yes.
BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?
DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/2/12310/93341
-The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
-He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
-Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041706Y.shtml
-The memo says: "On January 12, 2003," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries."
-Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 - one week after Bush's State of the Union address - to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
-But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
-The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html
-Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.
-At the time, the Bush administration was preparing for the coalition's invasion of Iraq and publicly insisting that Hussein had reconstituted nuclear programs and was concealing from United Nations inspectors both chemical and biological weapons in violation of Security Council resolutions. The White House, which was seeking a congressional resolution that would permit the use of force against Iraq, hoped Sabri would defect, the two former officials said.


I guess I have done my research now. I could spend even more time on this and find more if you would like.

lol, Of course the intel was bad! You could have simply posted the Senate Intellgience report instead of wasting your time with these links. Are you not going to even address my what I've shown regarding other countries intel?

Do you know what you're even arguing at this point because I dont know what you're arguing now. At first it was Bush likes war. Yet you fail to accept that other countries were wokring off the same sort of intel. Their trashy intel showed what our trashy intel showed. You might not agree with the war, and that's a personal opinion, but it's hard for me to fault Bush, Clinton, Blair, or any other country who had this intel for taking action.

[open mind]

lol, Of course the intel was bad! You could have simply posted the Senate Intellgience report instead of wasting your time with these links. Are you not going to even address my what I've shown regarding other countries intel?

Do you know what you're even arguing at this point because I dont know what you're arguing now. At first it was Bush likes war. Yet you fail to accept that other countries were wokring off the same sort of intel. Their trashy intel showed what our trashy intel showed. You might not agree with the war, and that's a personal opinion, but it's hard for me to fault Bush, Clinton, Blair, or any other country who had this intel for taking action.
other countries telling iraq to get rid of wmds doesn't absolve the bush administrations of it's actions is my point.
they had intelligence that pointed to iraq not having wmds but ignored it, presented only the incriminating evidence to america and the rest of the world leaving out the fact that there were doubters.
if they had included reports on doubts of iraq having wmds maybe the u.n. security council wouldn't have voted the way they did. the only reason it got to the security council in the first place was our pushing the issue afterall.
the big push for the auctual war came from the bush administration and then the administration went ahead with it without the u.n. you go to for a defense of the administration.

[cal1082]

other countries telling iraq to get rid of wmds doesn't absolve the bush administrations of it's actions is my point.
they had intelligence that pointed to iraq not having wmds but ignored it, presented only the incriminating evidence to america and the rest of the world leaving out the fact that there were doubters.
if they had included reports on doubts of iraq having wmds maybe the u.n. security council wouldn't have voted the way they did. the only reason it got to the security council in the first place was our pushing the issue afterall.
the big push for the auctual war came from the bush administration and then the administration went ahead with it without the u.n. you go to for a defense of the administration.

And the flip side of the coin was they had intelligence that pointed to iraq having wmds (you put them in a catch 22). Damned if you do and damned if you dont basically. Iraq's constant defiance and unwillingness to come forward with all there information will make you lean one way or another.

Of course the administration isnt going to present the UN with information regarding Iraq NOT having weapons. You have to look at the agenda of the administration. They wanted a resolution passed for Iraq to give up information regarding there programs, activities, and information on what happend to the destoryed weapons. So you're going to present your strongest case to get that resolution passed. Iraq's unwillingness to present this information is what got Iraq where it was. The threats and the diplomacy was in place for 12 years.

[open mind]

And the flip side of the coin was they had intelligence that pointed to iraq having wmds (you put them in a catch 22). Damned if you do and damned if you dont basically. Iraq's constant defiance and unwillingness to come forward with all there information will make you lean one way or another.

Of course the administration isnt going to present the UN with information regarding Iraq NOT having weapons. You have to look at the agenda of the administration. They wanted a resolution passed for Iraq to give up information regarding there programs, activities, and information on what happend to the destoryed weapons. So you're going to present your strongest case to get that resolution passed. Iraq's unwillingness to present this information is what got Iraq where it was. The threats and the diplomacy was in place for 12 years.
and that intelligence was flawed and/or from sources know to be unreliable, basically the good intel was pushed aside and the shit was pushed to the forefront.
there you go, you prove my point, they wouldn't go to the u.n. with intel pointing to iraq not having wmds.........why wouldn't they do that?...........maybe because they wanted to go to war?

[cal1082]

and that intelligence was flawed and/or from sources know to be unreliable, basically the good intel was pushed aside and the shit was pushed to the forefront.
there you go, you prove my point, they wouldn't go to the u.n. with intel pointing to iraq not having wmds.........why wouldn't they do that?...........maybe because they wanted to go to war?.

No, because they wanted another resolution passed, a final resolution which gave iraq the ability to come forward and detail there wepons programs or what happened to their programs. That's how easily war could have been avoided.

I dont know if you remember but a day or so before the war Iraq made a desperate attempt at diplomacy by saying they would have a report detailing their nuclear program (i believe nuclear program). Shit, this was suppose to have been done a month after the 1st Gulf War!

Also you're playing a bit of Monday morning quarterback. Of course now you can look at it and say the bad intel was put forward and the good intel not followed. In evalutating whether the choice was right or wrong you have to determine what you know at the time. Like I pointed out in the above post countries like Germany, France, and Israel believe their intel was right on just like the US. Their intel, just like the US, led them to believe they had weapons. You would have to believe it's a large coincidence that all these countries believed they had a full weapons program, and that all these countries were looking to "overlook" the intel that Iraq didnt have weapons in order to go to war. That wouldnt make sense though because even countries that believed he had weapons didnt vote for war.

[open mind]

No, because they wanted another resolution passed, a final resolution which gave iraq the ability to come forward and detail there wepons programs or what happened to their programs. That's how easily war could have been avoided.

I dont know if you remember but a day or so before the war Iraq made a desperate attempt at diplomacy by saying they would have a report detailing their nuclear program (i believe nuclear program). Shit, this was suppose to have been done a month after the 1st Gulf War!

Also you're playing a bit of Monday morning quarterback. Of course now you can look at it and say the bad intel was put forward and the good intel not followed. In evalutating whether the choice was right or wrong you have to determine what you know at the time. Like I pointed out in the above post countries like Germany, France, and Israel believe their intel was right on just like the US. Their intel, just like the US, led them to believe they had weapons. You would have to believe it's a large coincidence that all these countries believed they had a full weapons program, and that all these countries were looking to "overlook" the intel that Iraq didnt have weapons in order to go to war. That wouldnt make sense though because even countries that believed he had weapons didnt vote for war.
the resolution was just window dressing so people like yourself could say bush tried diplomacy in the future, how can i say that? because the planning for war and how to frame our justifications for war were already well in place before we got to that resolution passing (downing street memos)
they knew there were doubts and many were pointing to iraq not having wmds, then they went ahead and said they had "bulletproof" evidence that iraq had wmds anyways, and the u.s. has and had a much bigger involvement with iraq then any of the other countries of the security council so logically we had more intel then them, we just convieniently left out intel hurtful to our case for resolutions and ultimatly war.

[cal1082]

the resolution was just window dressing so people like yourself could say bush tried diplomacy in the future, how can i say that? because the planning for war and how to frame our justifications for war were already well in place before we got to that resolution passing (downing street memos)

Of course the planning was in place it would be stupid to use the threat of war and not have a plan in place when it came to action. You can say it was window dressing but you have no idea and are assuming it was. I suppose the prior 18 were just drapes, and the final one that the US attempted to get passed was the mini blinds? You can assume it was window dressing just like you assume all the countries listened to our intel to form there descision. Whatever fits your beliefs will work.

Also address some of my point. I feel like I'm making them for no reason and when I do ya'll just jet off to another point disregarding what's been said.

[FallingOut]

No, because they wanted another resolution passed, a final resolution which gave iraq the ability to come forward and detail there wepons programs or what happened to their programs. That's how easily war could have been avoided.

So, basically you think that they only gave the information that sounded like Iraq had WMDs to get Iraq to come forward? You honestly believe they did it for that reason, or so they would get everybody else to believe them and support their case for war? Like almost all of the articles said, they were going to go to war no matter what was presented. Suppose, even if they really did want a resolution passed, if they had information saying that Saddam did not have WMDs and was probably not planning to attack the US, then its completely dishonest of them to come forth and pass the resolution, only showing what they want. How can you just completely absolve them of blame when they had CIA people saying they werent making any WMDs?? Either way, it clearly looks like the Bush admistration did want this war to happen, and as all of the links I provided show, they ignored all information saying that Iraq was not planning to attack us.

[cal1082]

So, basically you think that they only gave the information that sounded like Iraq had WMDs to get Iraq to come forward? You honestly believe they did it for that reason, or so they would get everybody else to believe them and support their case for war?

No, I didnt say that. I said it was done for the resolution and a last ditch effort at diplomacy. Iraq simply had to do what they had 12 years to do. And that was come forward with info. regarding their weapons programs and give full access to inspectors. It couldnt be more simple to avoide war.

I have no doubt the resolution was to set up for a possible war, in fact the US made it clear that they wanted "war language" if Iraq failed to comply. And it only makes sense that you have a war plan in place.

Now if you want to get this resolution passed (a final resolution at that) you are going to present a case against Iraq and how they've pissed on the last 18 resolutions.

Like almost all of the articles said, they were going to go to war no matter what was presented. Suppose, even if they really did want a resolution passed, if they had information saying that Saddam did not have WMDs and was probably not planning to attack the US, then its completely dishonest of them to come forth and pass the resolution, only showing what they want. How can you just completely absolve them of blame when they had CIA people saying they werent making any WMDs?? Either way, it clearly looks like the Bush admistration did want this war to happen, and as all of the links I provided show, they ignored all information saying that Iraq was not planning to attack us.

You completely ignore the fact that the CIA had evidence of weapons and that other countries had this same intel. And you can't tell me with Saddam's actions over the past 12 years that he acted like a leader with no weapons? The conclusion that there were weapons was not a far stretch or out of left field like you suggest. You're just using hindsight for an argument.

Now obviously there was intel that showed that Iraq had diminshed programs if not no weapons. No other major country including the US concluded this though. So I restate, you must believe that all countries that came to this conclusion wanted war like the US? If you're going to assume that's the case for the US how can you not assume the same for Germany, Israel, Russia, etc........?

[FallingOut]

Now obviously there was intel that showed that Iraq had diminshed programs if not no weapons. No other major country including the US concluded this though. So I restate, you must believe that all countries that came to this conclusion wanted war like the US? If you're going to assume that's the case for the US how can you not assume the same for Germany, Israel, Russia, etc........?

Well, I guess my point is that since we invaded, and it was Bush's decision, it ultimately does not matter if they other countries believe the same things, had the same information, etc. I know they influence, sure, but we didnt have to do what they said and vice versa. And I dont know for sure if other countries wanted war either, I dont know if they heard the same information that there were no WMDs.

Anyway I dont really want to argue about this anymore, you have made some very good points and I feel like I have made a few good ones myself, I just think it basically comes down to what you want to believe. We dont know for sure what Bush was thinking, whether or not he really wanted to go to war no matter what, I just feel like, based on his overall attitude, he wants to be at war, as long as possible. I know you probably feel differently, and I do respect that honestly. Lets just hope its all over pretty soon.

P.S. I do hate Bush, because I feel like he has done a terrible job as President, but if he were to go something good, like was able to make a good resolve with Iran without any violence, I would applaud it. I dont want to just hate everything he does, honestly. I know you think I have a total bias and will disapprove of everything he does, but that really is not the case.

[open mind]

Of course the planning was in place it would be stupid to use the threat of war and not have a plan in place when it came to action. You can say it was window dressing but you have no idea and are assuming it was. I suppose the prior 18 were just drapes, and the final one that the US attempted to get passed was the mini blinds? You can assume it was window dressing just like you assume all the countries listened to our intel to form there descision. Whatever fits your beliefs will work.

Also address some of my point. I feel like I'm making them for no reason and when I do ya'll just jet off to another point disregarding what's been said.
i meant planning as in the decision to go to war had already been made, sorry if you didn't understand. please note i'm not just pulling this shit out of my ass dude, there's documented proof on this.
your points have no real bearing on what i'm getting at here, the bush administration got us into iraq, not the u.n.

[Tennischickx31]

i hate bush! we were supposed to be "helping" iraq and stuff and now all we r doing is getting our young soldiers killed and making their cities messed up more than they were before...bush annoys me and yet he somehow got voted to be our president...AGAIN! ugh...politics...>:(

[FScott]

i hate bush! we were supposed to be "helping" iraq and stuff and now all we r doing is getting our young soldiers killed and making their cities messed up more than they were before...bush annoys me and yet he somehow got voted to be our president...AGAIN! ugh...politics...>:(


"We" are not getting our young soldiers killed, they signed up for the military on their own. Its a god damn war its not some pretty tennis match you ignorant fuck.