Author Topic: Well, it didn't take long, did it?  (Read 2872 times)

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #150 on: November 18, 2006, 04:13:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by FT_Animal
We'll the only thing I say to that is that you rearrainging timelines to make your point. That's why we went there in 91. Lets not mix 91 with 03, because the real math doesn't work.

The reason used in 03 was WMDs were still there in 2001-2003 (still present). According to 4 reports from *4* different countries inteligence agencies or studies is there were NOT. I have read all 4 reports. You're trying to mix apples and oranges. Saddam got smacked down for what he did to Kurds in 91. The point was that he get rid of them or get smacked down again. The excuse was that he didn't get rid of them, all available reports say he did or that none were found. All 4 reports call the accusation unfounded. When Saddam screwed up was not allowing them proper access to see if he did. That was the only reason that made the "excuse" workable.

IMO we should have done in Iraq in 91 what we are attempting to do now, then it would have been accepted by many. Notice, no one is complaining about going to or still being in Afganistan. In Afganistan where the real reason is is a tiny force compared to what we have in Iraq based on false information. If you can't see the intent here, then I'm wasting my time.

Nothing personal, just a clash of opinions.


Going in to Iraq in 91 didn't have a damned thing to do with the Kurds, and if you try to sell that you're either a liar or a fool. The SINGLE reason we went to Iraq in 91 is because Saddam invaded Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia. You know it is the truth. So does everyone else. Saddam didn't get smacked for gassing the Kurds. No one here is stupid enough to buy that line of crap.

The intent here is you hate Bush 41, and you cannot back him even if he does the right thing. That's your intent, and it has been for a long time. Thank you for posting it and admitting it.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline FT_Animal

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #151 on: November 18, 2006, 04:49:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
The REAL war, which has NOT erupted yet, is all about Iran controlling the
whole ME then the whole world.


Ya know I seem to recall seeing much the same thing regarding saddumb and Iraq just a few years back. Iraq trying to tie up the entire ME under saddumb. A unified Arab coalition instead of a seperated feuding mass of conflicting pathological intertribal squabbles. It was reported that saddumb thought himself the "modern man" capable of uniting all of the Arab world, under his terms of course.

There won't be any "war" with Iran by the US. Not now and not for some time, if ever. If, or when for the sake of discussion, we did go to war with Iran we'd be in the same situation we are in now with Iraq and for the same good intentions that you are alluding to. Soon afterward the usual power play politics in the US will win out and we will walk away from Iran as much as we will be walking away from Iraq. There is no more fight in the US at this time. The will is gone to actually do something as it is far easier to merely make sound bites and trite phrase instead of honest commitments. The mililtary is still just as capable, willing and able to function but it's the backing from home that is no longer there for a job not yet finished.

It wasn't taken by any enemy, it was simply lost by virtue of loss of identity, purpose, ideals and all the sniping of the rest of the global "community" who would rather b**ch and moan about anyone doing anything rather than get involved in them selves. The country is tired of trying to be the Police Man of the globe and has learned that the world does not want to be saved. It would rather just criticise the ones doing something instead. It's easier and there's no risk to them involved.

Soon the isolationist frame of mind will assert itself. As long as we aren't being threatened directly on our shores we should just stay out of the worlds messes. It's already been stated here on the bbs. The big problem with isolationism and stagnation of global activity is the innitiative shifts to anyone willing to do something. That shift in innitiative will end up biting the country big time.


I agree with portions of that, and I could go much further in explanation, but I won't. I will tackle the Iran war thing though.

IMO, When\IF we go to Iran it won't, and cannot, be the same tactics used on Afghanistan and Iraq, two different worlds even if in the same region.  It would have to be full force destruction, ground troops would probably only enter the land for burying of bodies. It will be NOTHING like we are doing in Iraq. It will be done the way we did it in WWII, bomb the living crap out of them. To make this even simpler and cheaper and least effort permission from the world to use nukes would be an option. If Iran uses nukes first, it's an instant no ask reply with nukes they simply become mist. The cost of totally destroying Iran (which is going to be the only way do to it right) would be many billions cheaper then converting Iraq. We are not too worn out to complete destruction, we are worn out converting and keeping peace, which is failing. Isolation is not going to have the same effect on people who have already learned to deal with isolation for thousands of years.

To only use diplomacy as a one and only way to deal with things is for pacifist. People who *hope* it works, verses people who *make* it work. I highly doubt any diplomacy will work on Iran unless you choose to bow to them and give them everything they ask for, and they will probably still try to kill you. The only thing that will please them fully is for the world to convert to islam and them lead it.

IMO the way to fight a war is to get in there and do it until the other guy cannot get up. You don't punch him in the eye and wait for him to get up to return a punch, you make sure he doesn't get up from the first second you start. If we want to fight a street fight like a boxer we'll lose.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13915
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #152 on: November 18, 2006, 05:28:32 PM »
Animal,

I fully agree with the premise that if you are in combat you bring on any and all force available to end it quickly and decisively. Unfortunately that isn't going to be tollerated by the "world opinion" as it isn't PC or "fair". Warfare isn't a fair fight, that's a great way to take casualties you don't need to lose. Get in, make it very deadly and decisive and move on when the enemy is destroyed.

It doesn't work that way in unconventional warfare, particularly in an urban environment unless you are going to simply do a scorched earth scenario. Very bad for the press, nation building and world opinion.

I'll have to disagree with you on the stand off warfare concept. I don't think it will work quite as well as you state. If you have fixed fortifications and a static concentrated or massed enemy you can do quite a bit of damage that way. The problem is the enemy isn't likely to do that again and will simply fade back into the urban areas and do things unconventionally, again. You don't own the real estate until you put ground forces on it to take possession.

If they decide to meet in open combat, force on force, then you have the option to destro the enemy forces even in an urban environment. A good example is the TET Offensive in Nam. The VC ceased to exist as a combat force due to overwhelmig casualties. The battle is still considered to be a victory for the VC due to the way it was reported in the US. The US military are not the only ones who made a study of the conflict and how things worked out.

Given the current situation in the world I have no doubt that a total destruction of Iran would not be tollerated by the rest of the world. While we just might win that battle, the rest of the "war" would be lost because of it. We had a total war going in WW2 and we still hear how the bad and nasty the US was for using two atomic weapons to end it. I don't think anyone would support our use of a nuke right now even if the US was first attacked with a nuclear weapon even with a confirmation about who used it. Just my opinion but I'd bet ya $5.00 on it. Hopefully we'll never see the scenario play out.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline WhiteHawk

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1815
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #153 on: November 18, 2006, 07:04:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes and guess who's army is on either side of them?  Do you play chess?


 Could you finish your thoughts there, o wise one?  So we have a big army on either side of Iran.  Now what?

Offline WhiteHawk

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1815
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #154 on: November 18, 2006, 07:17:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
ask the Kurds if saddam had WMD.


Good grief.  Has anybody denied that saddam HAD WMD's.  ?  The USA sold them to him.  We know he had them AT ONE TIME!  Man, some of you just require such a simplification that its a damm shame to see your ilk pushing our men into the meat grinder.

Offline WhiteHawk

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1815
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #155 on: November 18, 2006, 07:18:18 PM »
here, latebreaking news.....

9:42am GMT Tony Blair has conceded on al-Jazeera that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. - Mr Blair's "big mistake in foreign affairs". - Interviewed yesterday on al-Jazeera television's new English-language channel, Mr Blair was challenged by Sir David Frost over the daily murders, bombings and kidnappings.

The kings court is breaking rank.

Offline FT_Animal

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #156 on: November 18, 2006, 07:53:34 PM »
Maverick

This is what I mean by tossing all trivial BS out the window and deal with facts, from the facts you can base an interpretation and or opinion. This is what a lot of these debates are missing on the BB. The "my dad is bigger then your dad" syndrome. Most of which is barely worth a read, too much garbage to sift through.

IMO, I would place a lot of money on the table betting that if we were hit with a nuke, it's NOT going to be that hard to fling back and not get too much riff, and frankly in life preservation I don't think we're going to worry too much what others say. Iran is basing it's plans on exactly what you said about world approval, that's why what they are doing is working. We need to remove that issue from their plate (i.e. "now this is a knife") As I pointed out no one is even bothering to challenge us for being in Afganistan. Why, because 70% of the world condoned it for 911. The world will do the same with anyone hit with a nuke. SO I personally disagree based on my own  perception of world events and seemingly set patterns.

Point being, I CAN NOT say you're wrong, nor right, I can only agree or disagree, as both our conclusions are based 50% on fact and the other 50% based on indvidual interpretation  of those facts. I think common sense exist in both statements from both of us, just depends on our own POV. What would\will happen remains to be seen. Either way I would not be shocked.

This conversation between you and I is exactly what I was referring to dropping the party childs play and stick to facts with interpretation and common sense and accepting things with an open mind. I personally feel embarrassed for people who get all bent out of shape because someone said something not so pleasing about the party they voted for as if it were a personal attack on them. IMO that's just real shallow and limited thinking, a very narrow window. If the power of suggestion doesn't work, nothing will. :)

So whether we agree or not, salute for sticking to realism and facts. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me.

It's cognative conversations that allow a different POV that may enlighten both from each other to meet in the middle.

When I post things it's usually opinion not to be confused with saying I said it so that makes it true.


Animl

Offline FT_Animal

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #157 on: November 18, 2006, 08:05:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Going in to Iraq in 91 didn't have a damned thing to do with the Kurds, and if you try to sell that you're either a liar or a fool. The SINGLE reason we went to Iraq in 91 is because Saddam invaded Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia. You know it is the truth. So does everyone else. Saddam didn't get smacked for gassing the Kurds. No one here is stupid enough to buy that line of crap.

The intent here is you hate Bush 41, and you cannot back him even if he does the right thing. That's your intent, and it has been for a long time. Thank you for posting it and admitting it.


Dude, with a statement like that, I'm not even going to touch it. Here's your hook back. :)

And if you want a flame you best look elsewhere or expect exactly what you ask for.

IMO you're talking out of your butt.

Offline FT_Animal

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #158 on: November 18, 2006, 09:30:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VOR
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.


Excuse me while I post a couple things. Interpret it as you please.

Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assesments On Iraq
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence On Postwar Findings About Iraqs WMD Programs And Links To Terrorism And How They Compare to Prewar Assesments.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Additional Info: most of which is found in the PDFs

2002 DIA reports
In February 2002, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency issued Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, the existence of which was revealed on 9 December 2005, by Doug Jehl in the New York Times, which impugned the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The DIA report suggested that al-Libi had been "intentionally misleading" his interrogators. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.

2002 British intelligence report
In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction.

2003 British intelligence report
In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report was leaked to the BBC, who published information about it on February 5, the same day Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. According to BBC, the report "says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says." The BBC reported that former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that intelligence had shown that the Iraqi regime appeared to be allowing a permissive environment "in which al-Qaeda is able to operate...Certainly we have some evidence of links between al-Qaeda and various people in Iraq...What we don't know, and the prime minister and I have made it very clear, is the extent of those links...What we also know, however, is that the Iraqi regime have been up to their necks in the pursuit of terrorism generally.

2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to the AP story, "Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counter-terrorism expert, told the AP he knows of no Iraqi ties to terror groups, beyond Baghdad's relationship with Palestinian militias and possibly Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.... A senior Israeli security source told the AP that Israel has not yet found evidence of an Iraqi-Palestinian-Al Qaeda triangle, and that several investigations into possible Al Qaeda ties to Palestinian militias have so far not yielded substantial results. Ganor said Al Qaeda has put out feelers to Palestinian groups, but ties are at a very preliminary stage.

2004 Carnegie study
In January 2004, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, and George Perkovich publish their study WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which looked into Saddam's relationship with al-Qaeda and concluded that "although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda." The study also found "some evidence that there were no operational links" between the two entities.

2004 CIA report
In August, the CIA finished another assessment of the question of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. This assessment had been requested by the office of the Vice President, who asked specifically that the CIA take another look at the possibility that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constituted a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, as Colin Powell had claimed in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime harbored Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts were unable to determine conclusively the nature of the relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam. "It's still being worked," he said. "It (the assessment) ... doesn't make clear-cut, bottom-line judgments" about whether Saddam's regime was aiding al-Zarqawi. The official told Knight Ridder "What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," but that the report didn't conclude that Saddam's regime had provided "aid, comfort and succor" to al-Zarqawi. According to Knight Ridder, "Some officials believe that Saddam's secular regime kept an eye on al-Zarqawi, but didn't actively assist him." Knight Ridder reporters called the CIA study "the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

2005 update of CIA report
In October 2005, the CIA updated the 2004 report to conclude that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (see 2006 report below).[89] Two counterterrorism analysts told Newsweek Saddam's government may never have known Zarqawi was in Iraq because Zarqawi used "false cover." An intelligence official also told Newsweek the current draft of the report says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship." According to Newsweek, "The most recent CIA analysis is an update—based on fresh reporting from Iraq and interviews with former Saddam officials—of a classified report that analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence first produced more than a year ago.

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #159 on: November 18, 2006, 10:13:58 PM »
FT, you must have missed my earlier post. You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.

Offline FT_Animal

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
« Reply #160 on: November 19, 2006, 12:31:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by VOR
FT, you must have missed my earlier post. You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.


I didn't mean to come across as if I was.  Just looked like an opertune moment to do so. :)