View Full Version : I Urge Kerry to Say Yes-Or-No on Iraq
Bush Urges Kerry to Say Yes-Or-No on Iraq (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040806/D849V9IO0.html)
Will Kerry give an answer?
What will that answer be?
El Barto
08-07-2004, 06:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush Urges Kerry to Say Yes-Or-No on Iraq (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040806/D849V9IO0.html)
Will Kerry give an answer?
What will that answer be?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is unfair to expect Kerry to have specific opinions on such things. He is the anti-Bush. If he has his own opinions, it diminishes his standing as the anti-Bush, and that's not fair to him.
adios
08-07-2004, 07:40 AM
He has a "secret plan" to end the war in Iraq but he won't divulge it because it will hurt our war effort. Where have we heard that before? I've got a new way to spell Kerry,
N I X O N
Why should Bush expect Kerry to tell the truth about what he would do in Iraq? He got us in there on a false premise and now he demands the truth?
The impact of the war doesn't hit home until someone from your town is killed. I didn't know him but this 30 year old Marine just got killed. He leaves a young wife and 2 year old son. Iraq has their government in place now, it's time to get the hell out. Keep the no fly zones with the Air Force patrols as long as necessary but let's get the troops out of harms way. Enough is enough!
The death toll has been incredibly light for the US military.
To compare, in the last year and a half how many people in your area died from homicides, car accidents, disease, alcohal, etc.?
TenPercenter
08-07-2004, 10:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The death toll has been incredibly light for the US military.
[/ QUOTE ]
Be careful Utah, you're inviting criticism for being insensitive to the lives of US soldiers! /images/graemlins/wink.gif This is the likely reason that what you said is not said very often by conservative leaders: They'd get hammered by the press and by liberals.
But here in these forums we shouldn't worry about such unfounded criticisms, should we? /images/graemlins/wink.gif We can point out that before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, there were predictions of between 5,000 and 30,000 total US casualties. U.S. combat losses are statistically insignificant compared to the amount of operations and ground troops deployed during this operation. (I'm sure that sentence will get quoted and distorted) Not to mention the ratio of US casualties vs. the enemy combatants. (Here's where I get flames about how many innocent civilians were killed in collateral damage)
Here are some statistics that can put the OIF casualties in perspective:
<ul type="square"> Revolutionary War (1775-1783) 4,435
War of 1812 (1812-1815) 2,260
Mexican War (1846-1848) 13,283
Civil War (1861-1865) 623,026
Spanish-American War (1898) 2,446
World War I (1917-1918) 116,708
World War II (1941-1945) 407,316
Korean War (1950-1953) 36,914
Vietnam War (1964-1973) 58,169
Persian Gulf War (1991) 269
[/list]
Ten
UTGunner
08-07-2004, 10:35 AM
I thought this was an interesting graph:
http://www.banana-ware.com/Private/bushapproval.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The death toll has been incredibly light for the US military.
To compare, in the last year and a half how many people in your area died from homicides, car accidents, disease, alcohal, etc.?
[/ QUOTE ]
Tell this to their loved ones.
Sure. Say the same thing to the loved ones of someone who died in a traffic accident or in a homicide.
If we are so concerned with people dying then would you support lowering the national speed limit to 25? Think - we can save hundreds of thosands of american lives over the next decades.
The fact is that we all make tradeoffs for death. Its a part of life. Again, the death toll is extremely low in Iraq by about standard.
TenPercenter
08-07-2004, 11:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The death toll has been incredibly light for the US military.
To compare, in the last year and a half how many people in your area died from homicides, car accidents, disease, alcohal, etc.?
[/ QUOTE ]
Tell this to their loved ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, I told you you wouldn't get away with that Utah. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Ten
p.s. (This ain't the end of it, and is mild compared to what you're bound to hear)
TenPercenter
08-07-2004, 11:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Say the same thing to the loved ones of someone who died in a traffic accident or in a homicide.
If we are so concerned with people dying then would you support lowering the national speed limit to 25? Think - we can save hundreds of thosands of american lives over the next decades.
The fact is that we all make tradeoffs for death. Its a part of life. Again, the death toll is extremely low in Iraq by about standard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Plus the fact that every soldier in our military is there by choice, knowing full well what being a soldier means. Opponents: I don't want to hear about that "one soldier out of 100" that CNN finds that has a problem with his orders, or regrets enlisting.
Ten
[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Say the same thing to the loved ones of someone who died in a traffic accident or in a homicide.
If we are so concerned with people dying then would you support lowering the national speed limit to 25? Think - we can save hundreds of thosands of american lives over the next decades.
The fact is that we all make tradeoffs for death. Its a part of life. Again, the death toll is extremely low in Iraq by about standard.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a good analogy at all. It's irrelevant whether or not I'm concerned about people dying. Our country should go to war only when our National Security is threatened. Bush knew that and he knew that the only way the country and the Congress were going to approve of the action was if he sold it that way.
But for the sake of argument lets say he got bad intelligence or bad advice and he really believed we needed to go in there. Well now it's pretty evident the whole thing was flawed. So now we know there is no real threat to our nation and Sadaam is rotting in jail, so why are we still there. It's time to leave. If one more American dies there now, it's too many, regardless of how may people get killed in car accidents this weekend.
andyfox
08-07-2004, 01:31 PM
Nixon really did have a secret plan to end the war. It was a bad one, but a plan nonetheless. It was his "madman" theory. He would make the North Vietnamese think he was a madman and threaten to unleash nuclear holocaust on Vietnam.
This theory was a substitute for logic, knowledge of history, and intelligence.
andyfox
08-07-2004, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure if this is such a good strategy for you, sir. The war in Iraq is a losing issue and bringing up the fat that we didn't find the stockpiles of weapons you said we were sure to find might not be the way to go.
Were I Kerry, I would answer the question with a blistering attack on the deceptions that were foisted on us by your administration in the lead-up to the war and the lack of mindfulness on winning the peace. Alas, he probably won't do that.
wacki
08-07-2004, 06:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush Urges Kerry to Say Yes-Or-No on Iraq (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040806/D849V9IO0.html)
Will Kerry give an answer?
What will that answer be?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is unfair to expect Kerry to have specific opinions on such things. He is the anti-Bush. If he has his own opinions, it diminishes his standing as the anti-Bush, and that's not fair to him.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is the dumbest arguement I've ever heard. If Kerry is the anti-Bush then he should tell us how he would do things differently. Otherwise he is either a cardboard cutout or a president that will make similar decisions to bush but doesn't want to admit it. Or he doens't want us to know what he really wants to do. Any way you cut it, not telling us what he wants to do as president is a bad bad thing.
wacki
08-07-2004, 06:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The death toll has been incredibly light for the US military.
[/ QUOTE ]
Be careful Utah, you're inviting criticism for being insensitive to the lives of US soldiers! /images/graemlins/wink.gif This is the likely reason that what you said is not said very often by conservative leaders: They'd get hammered by the press and by liberals.
But here in these forums we shouldn't worry about such unfounded criticisms, should we? /images/graemlins/wink.gif We can point out that before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, there were predictions of between 5,000 and 30,000 total US casualties. U.S. combat losses are statistically insignificant compared to the amount of operations and ground troops deployed during this operation. (I'm sure that sentence will get quoted and distorted) Not to mention the ratio of US casualties vs. the enemy combatants. (Here's where I get flames about how many innocent civilians were killed in collateral damage)
Here are some statistics that can put the OIF casualties in perspective:
<ul type="square"> Revolutionary War (1775-1783) 4,435
War of 1812 (1812-1815) 2,260
Mexican War (1846-1848) 13,283
Civil War (1861-1865) 623,026
Spanish-American War (1898) 2,446
World War I (1917-1918) 116,708
World War II (1941-1945) 407,316
Korean War (1950-1953) 36,914
Vietnam War (1964-1973) 58,169
Persian Gulf War (1991) 269
[/list]
Ten
[/ QUOTE ]
Dont forget the amount of Iraqi's killed it statistically insignificant to the amount of Iraqi's slaughtered by Nerve gas dispersed under the orders of Saddam. Or gunned down by helicopters, or killed by Saddams goons, or killed in the Iran Iraq war.........
But what's that got to do with the United States wasting fine young men and women needlessly?
Well, now you are making a different argument. You are now simply saying that you dont like the current death / rewards tradeoff. That is far differnt than saying how its so awful that all these soldiers are dying and that it hit you when it was close to home, and "tell that to the families", etc.
I think the strategy is quite interesting. I believe that the American attitude towards Iraq has been defined more by events at home than events in Iraq. I think Bush has been dismal on the political management of the war. He should say over and over and over, "It was the right thing to do. We did it right. It is a success and I am damn proud of the accomplishments of the US in taking down a murderous tyrant. Does Kerry not think the same?".
Iraq is not a disaster or a quagmire or even teetering on anything bad. Country is sovereign, dictator is gone, and we are taking the war to the enemy - regardless of how imminent the threat. I think in the last battle the death toll was 300 to 2. The U.S. is not on the run in Iraq. Also, the death toll is still almost nil.
What deceptions are you talking about?
It's not a game where you keep score. We could go into any country in the World and achieve the same kind of dominance. The question is whether the United States should be the Police Force for the World. There are a lot of bad places. Is it our job to go in and clean house and remove all the bad dictators. I say no. Our national policy should be that we only go to War when there is a direct threat to our Country or in retaliation to bad acts against our Country.
Just because we can kill 100 of theirs to every one of ours is not justification.
Interesting. I dont know much about Nixon or the plan. However, game theory would tell you that might just be a heck of a good plan. The irrational player, i.e. the madman, has an advantage. As I have stated before, this is a major advantage of Bush. Other countries (Iran, Syria, etc.) have to now worry that Bush is just crazy enough to attack - that knowledge gives Bush big leverage.
I am talking only of political perception - not whether the war was worth fighting. The perception of what is happening in Iraq is very skewed in this country - i.e., people feel we are losing. That is the major reason for people now not backing the war. The electorate will back Bush heavily if they think Iraq is being won.
You think that! That the country thinks we're losing? I don't think that at all and don't think the majority of the American people think that? It's irrelevant anyway. If we should be there, stay. If we shouldn't be there, leave. I personally don't think we should be there and should leave. So my point of view is that it is an outrage for every additional American life lost when we should be the hell out.
MMMMMM
08-07-2004, 09:48 PM
"Other countries (Iran, Syria, etc.) have to now worry that Bush is just crazy enough to attack - that knowledge gives Bush big leverage."
Indeed it is essential that this possibility be preserved, because our enemies already have this edge on their side. If we do not maintain this possibility as a counterweight to their craziness, we suffer a significant strategic disadvantage.
MMMMMM
08-07-2004, 09:52 PM
When the price of oil eventually hits $100/bbl it will be a good thing to have an army in the Middle East, and it would likely be a bad thing to not have an army there.
Well then just tell the people the truth that we're over there for the oil!
MMMMMM
08-07-2004, 10:06 PM
The security of the oil and a great vantage point from which to strike anywhere we need to in the Middle East. Hopefully we pacify the place soon with the aid of ordinary Iraqis, and can then overthow the mad mullahs so the Iranians can have a real democracy.
andyfox
08-08-2004, 12:39 AM
The Vietnamese had been fighting for their independence for a long time before Nixon appeared on the scene. He knew nothing of their history nor what they were fighting for. Nothing he could have done would have defeated them. In this case, the irrational Nixon had an extreme disadvantage.
andyfox
08-08-2004, 01:01 AM
The most important deceptions were that Saddam's government had something to do with 9/11 and that Saddam posed a nuclear threat to us. Powell's U.N. presentation was filled with deceptions:
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan." This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.
"Now, umanned aerial vehicles, UAVs. Iraq has been working on a variety of UAVs for more than a decade. This is just illustrative of what a UAV would look like. This effort has included attempts to modify for unmanned flight the MiG-21 and, with greater success, an aircraft called the L-29. However, Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes but on developing and testing smaller UAVs such as this. UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons. There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs." This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq’s UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."
Bush said, "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (10/7/2002). Bush was claiming that if we didn't invade Iraq we'd be nuked by Iraq. This statement is almost too ludicrous for comment.
In the same speech he said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." Yet a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."
andyfox
08-08-2004, 01:07 AM
I don't think people feel we are losing. They feel we still have a lot of soldiers there and they're getting killed every day. And that the case the administration made before the war--that Saddam had WMDs and that, therefore, he was a threat to us--was wrong.
If I were Kerry, I'd show three things in my ads:
1) Bush standing in front of the sign on the ship saying "Mission Accomplished." And then say how many Americans have been killed since that date, how many have served in Iraq, and how much it has cost.
2) The footage in Fahrenheit 911 where Bush says that he's glad to be in front of The Haves and The Have Mores and that some people may call them The Elite but he calls them "My Base." And then say how much, in absolute dollars, people makng over $200,000 a year have saved from the Bush tax cuts.
3) A chart showing the number of jobs created during the Clinton administration compared with the Bush administration.
And then I'd have $100 in my pocket. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
MMMMMM
08-08-2004, 08:16 AM
Well, I was talking about it being important to preserve the image of potential unpredictable aggression versus our enemies today.
Your point about Nixon's "crazy" image vis-a-vis the North Vietnamese may well be so (and probably is so, since you have studied the war).
I would take issue, however, with a blanket statement that nothing we could have done could have defeated the North Vietnamese. My impression is that we were mainly trying to defend the South, not utterly defeat and take over the North. If we had truly been trying to defeat the North, instead of merely trying to hold them off and coerce them into giving up on attacking the South, I suspect we could have done it.
Do you think we could not have defeated and taken over the North, had that instead been our definitive goal?
MMMMMM
08-08-2004, 08:27 AM
The thing about intelligence, Andy, is that it is seldom as clear-cut as in a court of law where proof is required.
What if Saddam had had those weapons in such quantity, and would have soon had nukes? Compare the downsides of each picture.
We ended up in a nasty little war that still drags on a bit, lost under 1,000 lives, and damaged our economy with the cost. That is very very small potatoes compared to what we could have lost had the intelligence been correct.
In other words, sometimes in matters of national security we are forced to act on reasonably strong suspicion rather than absolute 100% proof. Indeed it could be tragically negligent to always wait for 100% proof.
Given that the potential downside (if the intelligence was correct) could be at least 100 times worse than the downside we have experienced, it seems clear to me that even a reasonable suspicion would have justified the war on pure national security grounds.
Speaking of which I think we had better get that missile shield up and running soon, then take out North Korea's nuclear facilities lock stock and barrel, before they get too far along the ICBM route.
andyfox
08-08-2004, 11:54 AM
The one thing I don't understand is how people can deny that the Bush administration shaded the evidence to suit its purposes. What administration hasn't done this (especially when it's going to war)? The neocons in the administration had been calling for removal of Hussein for years. I understand the administration and prominent republicans maintaining the fiction, there's an election underway. But not objective observors.
I'd rather see our ports with better inspection than worry about North Korea.
andyfox
08-08-2004, 11:58 AM
No, not in an common understanding of the words defeat and victory. The Vietnamese had taken on France and then the United States and beat them both. We could, one supposes, have dropped nuclear bombs on them and killed every last person, and then we would have "won." Short of that, victory was not possible. Sometimes the underdogs have home field advantage and a gereater incentive to win. See the American Revolution, for example.
MMMMMM
08-08-2004, 01:19 PM
"The one thing I don't understand is how people can deny that the Bush administration shaded the evidence to suit its purposes. What administration hasn't done this (especially when it's going to war)?"
I think the administration portrayed things with a light to present a case, much like a prosecutor would in a court of law. Some "unbalanced" portrayal, to be sure, but overall in keeping with the intelligence community's general assessment.
"The neocons in the administration had been calling for removal of Hussein for years."
So was Clinton; regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy under his administration.
"I'd rather see our ports with better inspection than worry about North Korea."
Both are important IMO and no reason we should have to choose one at the exclusion of the other.
Taxman
08-09-2004, 01:17 AM
Did you vote for Nixon? Just curious.
andyfox
08-09-2004, 02:13 AM
The neocons sent a letter to Clinton admonishing him for not removing Hussein and urging him to do so. But they were not in power then. When they got into power when Bush became president, they had the power to do what they wanted to do. One senses that 9/11 was the excuse for Hussein's removal, not the reason for it.
Your comment on my remark about our ports and North Korea points out the flaws in the administration's policy and your support of it. Of course we have to choose among alternatives. We are neither omnipresent nor omnipotent. We need to make judgements about what constitues a real and imminent threat to our danger and what we would prefer didn't exist, but that really is not of immediate issue. The administration is busy remaking the world without concern for what our interests and limitations are. To a certain extent, as your comment on the Clinton administration alludes to, this is always the goal of America's foreign policy: to remake the world in its image and interest. Madelaine Albright's assertion that we are the world's indispensable nation is a great example of this thinking. But when this thinking is coupled with a kick-ass attitude, the feeling that we're the world's policeman and it's too bad if nobody else likes it, then it's likely that more criminals will be created than defeated and that our interests will suffer.
adios
08-09-2004, 03:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did you vote for Nixon?
[/ QUOTE ]
I was too young to vote in 60 and 68 (21 years was the legal voting age then). I voted for McGovern in 72.
MMMMMM
08-09-2004, 06:00 AM
"Your comment on my remark about our ports and North Korea points out the flaws in the administration's policy and your support of it."
Eh?
"Of course we have to choose among alternatives."
Of course we do. I didn't say we don't have to choose between alternatives; rather I don't see why we should necessarily have to choose between protecting our ports and dealing with North Korea.
"We are neither omnipresent nor omnipotent."
Right. We don't have to be omnipresent/omnipotent to deal with both issues, do we?
"We need to make judgements about what constitues a real and imminent threat to our danger and what we would prefer didn't exist, but that really is not of immediate issue."
Yes. Also, a growing danger that is not yet imminent is worth seriously considering too, especially if it is nuclear (as Iran is trying to develop).
Once such a threat it becomes imminent it becomes much harder to remove (e.g. North Korea, who "snuck up on us" with their nuclear weapons). Some threats are best dealt with before they become imminent, i.e. pre-emptively.
"The administration is busy remaking the world without concern for what our interests and limitations are."
We did underestimate the difficulties and expense of the Iraq war's aftermath. I agree that concern for our llimitations would be highly prudent, and it worries me that this administration perhaps does not care about cost.
"To a certain extent, as your comment on the Clinton administration alludes to, this is always the goal of America's foreign policy: to remake the world in its image and interest."
I presume you think this is necessarily bad.
"Madelaine Albright's assertion that we are the world's indispensable nation is a great example of this thinking."
It should be pretty clear she was at least on the right track with that statement, since pretty much the entire world would probably be living under tyranny today if not for the good old U.S.A.
Most of the world lives under CESSPOOL governments and BACKWARDS political systems. As a statement that is pretty objectively true. Why does acknowledging such things rub you so much the wrong way?
Your fear of hubris and Manichean thinking is severely overblown IMO. Sh!t systems are sh!t systems whether or not you or I or anyone else call them so.
It isn't hubris to state that capitalism is a better system than communism, or that secularism is a better system than theocracy, or that the Western-style democracy is a better system than dictatorship.
"But when this thinking is coupled with a kick-ass attitude, the feeling that we're the world's policeman and it's too bad if nobody else likes it, then it's likely that more criminals will be created than defeated and that our interests will suffer."
In Andy Fox's view anyway. I don't disagree that there is inevitably some backlash associated with the above, though. Claiming it likely that more criminals (in net terms) will thereby be created, however, is pure guesswork, IMO.
adios
08-09-2004, 11:31 AM
Sklansky made a post on this forum before the Iraq war that was in hindsight one of the best takes I've read on why the U.S. was pursuing the course it was pursuing in Iraq and this was before the War. I can't find it in the archives, I wish I could though but I believe it has turned out to be an excellent and accurate take. Maybe he'll post it again as I don't want to work from memory in case I got it wrong.
ChristinaB
08-09-2004, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky made a post on this forum before the Iraq war that was in hindsight one of the best takes I've read on why the U.S. was pursuing the course it was pursuing in Iraq and this was before the War. I can't find it in the archives, I wish I could though but I believe it has turned out to be an excellent and accurate take. Maybe he'll post it again as I don't want to work from memory in case I got it wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the thread? (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=231115&For um=,,,,All_Forums,,,,&Words=&Searchpage=5&Limit=25 &Main=231115&Search=true&where=&Name=5&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post231115)
wacki
08-09-2004, 05:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the strategy is quite interesting. I believe that the American attitude towards Iraq has been defined more by events at home than events in Iraq. I think Bush has been dismal on the political management of the war. He should say over and over and over, "It was the right thing to do. We did it right. It is a success and I am damn proud of the accomplishments of the US in taking down a murderous tyrant. Does Kerry not think the same?".
Iraq is not a disaster or a quagmire or even teetering on anything bad. Country is sovereign, dictator is gone, and we are taking the war to the enemy - regardless of how imminent the threat. I think in the last battle the death toll was 300 to 2. The U.S. is not on the run in Iraq. Also, the death toll is still almost nil.
What deceptions are you talking about?
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%. There is no doubt that bush has the guts and the stamina to stand up for what he believes in, it's just too bad he doesn't have to communication skills to match. He really is lacking the in the charisma department.
wacki
08-09-2004, 05:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky made a post on this forum before the Iraq war that was in hindsight one of the best takes I've read on why the U.S. was pursuing the course it was pursuing in Iraq and this was before the War. I can't find it in the archives, I wish I could though but I believe it has turned out to be an excellent and accurate take. Maybe he'll post it again as I don't want to work from memory in case I got it wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
what was it, (in general) I would love to know.
wacki
08-09-2004, 05:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky made a post on this forum before the Iraq war that was in hindsight one of the best takes I've read on why the U.S. was pursuing the course it was pursuing in Iraq and this was before the War. I can't find it in the archives, I wish I could though but I believe it has turned out to be an excellent and accurate take. Maybe he'll post it again as I don't want to work from memory in case I got it wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the thread? (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=231115&For um=,,,,All_Forums,,,,&Words=&Searchpage=5&Limit=25 &Main=231115&Search=true&where=&Name=5&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post231115)
[/ QUOTE ]
IMHO, that isn't a very good post by Sklansky. Just about every major intelligence community in the world thought they had WMDs. Putin, Great Britain, US and there is even proof that the people under Saddam were telling him that he had weapons he didn't even have. Intel is not a perfect game, especially if you don't have any high level spies in the country your spying on. Tommy Franks has repeatedly said "no one was more sure that Iraq had WMDs than me".
But besides the fact we have found small stockpiles of WMD's and over 500 barrels of yellowcake which is used to make nukes. And Putin has said Saddam wanted nukes to get revenge on the US.
If that isn't a motive to go in I don't know what is.
wacki
08-09-2004, 06:31 PM
To clarify, the fact that he says 20% almost makes it sound as if the administration was crossing their fingers and hoping they were right. From all of the raw intel that was available before the war it's still hard for me to believe that we haven't found any major stockpiles yet. After all Saddam used WMDs to keep himself safe from his own people. He needed WMDs just to stay alive on numerous occasions.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.