Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9

Topic closed

2008-10-22 21:36:21
rdx-fx
...
+955|6896

Poseidon wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

I really wish people would stop saying Obama's got it on lock
So would I. I'm getting sick of it, because it's simply not true. Anything can happen.

Cockiness, if anything, will kill voter turnout.
Shhh...

Please, let 'em get cocky and not bother to vote 'cause they've 'got it on lock'.

Older people are leaning towards McCain.  Younger people are leaning towards Obama.
Older people are more conscientious about voting.  Younger people tend to 'forget' in favor of whatever happens to catch their eye on TV.

Add a little bit of premature "Obama's t3h Winnxozrs"..

You're looking at a good chance of there being MANY pissed and disgruntled Obama fans come Nov 5th.
2008-10-23 05:02:44
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Except he specifically did NOT use the Curveball intel in his UN presentation...because he knew it was questionable.
According to you, not according to the person who was actually in the room with Powell.

FEOS wrote:

You've got mountains of analyses saying one thing. And a single outlier saying something different.
No the outlier says the same thing, its just we know the source is compromised in that one case. We don't know much about the sources in the rest of it.
I'm not the one who is so focused on a single intel source that I can't/won't see the bigger picture.
I'm not focused on a single source, I've said from the outset ALL the intel was crap - which it was.
Curveball is just a provable example of the blatant way in which the intel was misused. We only know of this because Curveball's evidence was gathered by a party other than the CIA.

The people who gathered the intel knew he was a liar and didn't believe the intel.
The CIA knew the people who gathered the intel knew he was a liar and didn't believe the intel.
The information was presented to Powell as fact, and if I remember correctly used by Duhbya in a state of the union address, presented to the American people and the world as fact.

How so? How could anyone fuck up so badly, unless there was an agenda?
No I don't believe the 'deception plan' crap, intel completely outside that was also manipulated.

Enough senior people at the heart of the program have said the same about the way the rest of the intel was gathered that I'm more than prepared to believe the rest of it was misused, mishandled distorted exaggerated etc in the same way.
From what I hear there was precious little apart from Curveball, the Chalabists and a few ambiguous telephone intercepts.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-23 05:21:39)

Fuck Israel
2008-10-23 14:07:27
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Except he specifically did NOT use the Curveball intel in his UN presentation...because he knew it was questionable.
According to you, not according to the person who was actually in the room with Powell.
Kay wasn't in the room with Powell.

And it's also according to books written about it and the transcript itself.

Nothing to see here...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You've got mountains of analyses saying one thing. And a single outlier saying something different.
No the outlier says the same thing, its just we know the source is compromised in that one case. We don't know much about the sources in the rest of it.
We do know about the sources for the rest of it, as they were technical sources. They aren't "compromised" in the way a human source is. Machines don't lie.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not the one who is so focused on a single intel source that I can't/won't see the bigger picture.
I'm not focused on a single source, I've said from the outset ALL the intel was crap - which it was.
Curveball is just a provable example of the blatant way in which the intel was misused. We only know of this because Curveball's evidence was gathered by a party other than the CIA.
The CIA deals with human intel. If there was a breakdown in human intel (like Curveball), then there is only one agency and only one source/method called into question--that is the CIA and human intelligence. And guess what the 9/11 commission found as a contributing factor to that particular breakdown? The complete gutting of the US HUMINT program by the Clinton administration.

The veracity (or lack thereof) of a single HUMINT source has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity (or lack thereof) of imagery and signals intelligence--which CIA doesn't do.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The people who gathered the intel knew he was a liar and didn't believe the intel.
The CIA knew the people who gathered the intel knew he was a liar and didn't believe the intel.
The information was presented to Powell as fact, and if I remember correctly used by Duhbya in a state of the union address, presented to the American people and the world as fact.
Again, you are talking about a single source. From HUMINT. Which is NEVER used by itself without some kind of corroborating intel. Yet you lump all of the intel collected over a dozen years in with that single HUMINT source. Because you think it proves your point. The only thing your line of argument proves is your utter lack of understanding about intelligence sources, methods, and analysis.

Dilbert_X wrote:

How so? How could anyone fuck up so badly, unless there was an agenda?
Because other, non-HUMINT sources pointed to the same conclusions as that single source. Over a dozen years of near constant collection...collection from well before the Bush Administration could have possibly manipulated it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No I don't believe the 'deception plan' crap, intel completely outside that was also manipulated.
1. Doesn't really matter if you don't believe it. That's about the same as you saying you don't believe the sun is hot. You not believing a fact doesn't make it less of a fact.

2. See above. Much of the intel collected--that established patterns of behavior at certain sites that corresponds with an active program--was collected and analyzed long before the Bush administration came into power. How could they possibly have manipulated it if they weren't even there at the time?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Enough senior people at the heart of the program have said the same about the way the rest of the intel was gathered things to cover their asses that I'm more than prepared to believe the rest of it was misused, mishandled distorted exaggerated etc in the same way.
Fixed. You completely neglect the self-preservation actions being taken by those people.

Dilbert_X wrote:

From what I hear there was precious little apart from Curveball, the Chalabists and a few ambiguous telephone intercepts.
You hear what you want to hear. There was a mountain of corroborated intel outside of HUMINT that supported the pre-war assessment. And as for "ambiguous": People saying "don't say 'nerve gas' again on this phone" is fairly unambiguous...particularly after something was said about "moving the nerve gas before the UN inspectors show up" (I'm paraphrasing).

Go back and read the UN transcript. The HUMINT stuff was a very, very small part of the overall intel sources used, so your characterization is completely wrong. But don't let that stand in your way.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-23 14:33:49
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

so why doesnt bush get a pass about wmd's and powell does?  they both got it from the same source.
2008-10-23 14:36:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

usmarine wrote:

so why doesnt bush get a pass about wmd's and powell does?  they both got it from the same source.
Pass from whom?

I take issue with the decision-making, not with the intel. Some can't seem to separate the two.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-23 14:38:20
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

FEOS wrote:

usmarine wrote:

so why doesnt bush get a pass about wmd's and powell does?  they both got it from the same source.
Pass from whom?

I take issue with the decision-making, not with the intel. Some can't seem to separate the two.
powell gets a pass from all the obama people
2008-10-24 05:42:23
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Kay wasn't in the room with Powell.
Wasn't talking about Kay, was talking about Wilkerson.
Anyway, seems you're wrong on both counts:

'Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."'

FEOS wrote:

We do know about the sources for the rest of it, as they were technical sources.
Which require unbiased interpretation, which failed.
Because other, non-HUMINT sources pointed to the same conclusions as that single source. Over a dozen years of near constant collection...collection from well before the Bush Administration could have possibly manipulated it.
Except it was wrong, maybe the Neocons in the CIA were the ones with the agenda and Duhbya was their tool.
Enough senior people at the heart of the program have said the same things to cover their asses
Why would the need to do that? According to you the intel gathering and analysis was a bang up job, there was no realistic way they could have known they were being duped.
particularly after something was said about "moving the nerve gas before the UN inspectors show up" (I'm paraphrasing)
You are paraphrasing. What they basically said was 'That stuff we're not supposed to have? Better make damn sure we don't have any'.
You can look up the actual words yourself if you like.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-24 05:43:12)

Fuck Israel
2008-10-25 04:10:59
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kay wasn't in the room with Powell.
Wasn't talking about Kay, was talking about Wilkerson.
I guess that should've been obvious, since you never mentioned Wilkerson but mentioned Kay in the post where you talked about who was in the room with him.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyway, seems you're wrong on both counts:

'Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."'
Read the highlighted part.

Seems you're wrong...again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We do know about the sources for the rest of it, as they were technical sources.
Which require unbiased interpretation, which failed.
Some require interpretation, some require translation. You have no clue whether it was biased or not. I do. I'm telling you the worker bees who do the interpretation of the collections are unbiased professionals. They were taught their trade long before Bush came into office.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because other, non-HUMINT sources pointed to the same conclusions as that single source. Over a dozen years of near constant collection...collection from well before the Bush Administration could have possibly manipulated it.
Except it was wrong, maybe the Neocons in the CIA were the ones with the agenda and Duhbya was their tool.
Do you even know how to read? non-HUMINT means non-CIA. Yet you keep talking about the CIA. The bulk of the collection and analysis was non-HUMINT, which means the bulk of the collection and analysis was not done by CIA. Is that clear enough for you?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Enough senior people at the heart of the program have said the same things to cover their asses
Why would the need to do that? According to you the intel gathering and analysis was a bang up job, there was no realistic way they could have known they were being duped.
I never said they needed to cover their asses...particularly once the deception aspect of it was learned. But that was well after the witch-hunting had started.

Dilbert_X wrote:

particularly after something was said about "moving the nerve gas before the UN inspectors show up" (I'm paraphrasing)
You are paraphrasing. What they basically said was 'That stuff we're not supposed to have? Better make damn sure we don't have any'.
You can look up the actual words yourself if you like.
And they were talking about sanitizing a site immediately prior to a UN inspection...something they weren't supposed to do. How about you look the words up? It's fairly clear you need to do some more research on a number of topics before you stop being so uninformed on this.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-25 04:59:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
And they were talking about sanitizing a site immediately prior to a UN inspection...something they weren't supposed to do.
They were double-checking that Saddam's 1994 orders had been fully complied with, otherwise they'd be in trouble with Saddam.
Whatever, it was ambiguous, it was interpreted to suggest Iraq had WMD when the fact was they didn't.

However well trained all the analysts were there WERE NO WMD, there was NO REAL evidence of WMD, they failed.
But that was well after the witch-hunting had started.
It was quite a witch hunt wasn't it?
https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/GeorgeTenetMedal_thumb.jpg

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-25 04:59:54)

Fuck Israel
2008-10-25 09:03:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

And they were talking about sanitizing a site immediately prior to a UN inspection...something they weren't supposed to do.
They were double-checking that Saddam's 1994 orders had been fully complied with, otherwise they'd be in trouble with Saddam.
Whatever, it was ambiguous, it was interpreted to suggest Iraq had WMD when the fact was they didn't.
Yes, it was ambiguous. It always is. Otherwise, it wouldn't require interpretation. Part of that interpretation involves looking for corroborating evidence. Evidence like decontamination vehicles at the same place the signals intercept came from. Evidence like Iraqi soldiers in chem gear handling weapons and those not in chem gear falling out and getting hauled off to the hospital. Stuff like that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

However well trained all the analysts were there WERE NO WMD, there was NO REAL evidence of WMD, they failed.
That's the problem with intel...you have to be 100% right 100% of the time or the Monday morning quarterbacks who know jack shit about that business tear you apart.

It's easy for you and others with the benefit of hindsight to say what was and wasn't there. The fact is that at the time it wasn't at all clear whether there was WMD or not. In fact, the majority of the evidence pointed to an active program and active obstruction by the Iraqi regime to directed inspections.

Argue whether the invasion should have happened all you want. But you can't argue the evidence at the time. The problem is you can't separate now from then. You assume that what is known now should have been known then, when it is utterly impossible for that to have happened.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But that was well after the witch-hunting had started.
It was quite a witch hunt wasn't it?
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … _thumb.jpg
He was one of those who covered his ass..."slam dunk" anyone?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-25 09:51:42
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6937|949

FEOS wrote:

usmarine wrote:

so why doesnt bush get a pass about wmd's and powell does?  they both got it from the same source.
Pass from whom?

I take issue with the decision-making, not with the intel. Some can't seem to separate the two.
I take issue with the intel.  Specifically the intel provided by the Office Of Special Plans.
2008-10-25 12:16:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

usmarine wrote:

so why doesnt bush get a pass about wmd's and powell does?  they both got it from the same source.
Pass from whom?

I take issue with the decision-making, not with the intel. Some can't seem to separate the two.
I take issue with the intel.  Specifically the intel provided by the Office Of Special Plans.
That would be analysis of the big picture, not the intel itself. That abortion was NOT an intel-producing organization.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-25 12:27:29
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6937|949

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pass from whom?

I take issue with the decision-making, not with the intel. Some can't seem to separate the two.
I take issue with the intel.  Specifically the intel provided by the Office Of Special Plans.
That would be analysis of the big picture, not the intel itself. That abortion was NOT an intel-producing organization.
No, but it gave wrong intelligence to the Bush Administration.  Wrong because much of the intelligence was already debunked and/or discredited by intelligence analysts.  What is the point of having intelligence analysts if they are being circumvented by a Defense Department-created unit specifically tasked with providing intelligence supporting the "official position"?

But you know what, we can argue that in another thread, because it is of little relevance to this one.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-10-25 12:27:57)

2008-10-25 12:28:54
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I take issue with the intel.  Specifically the intel provided by the Office Of Special Plans.
That would be analysis of the big picture, not the intel itself. That abortion was NOT an intel-producing organization.
No, but it gave wrong intelligence to the Bush Administration.  Wrong because much of the intelligence was already debunked and/or discredited by intelligence analysts.  What is the point of having intelligence analysts if they are being circumvented by a Defense Department-created unit specifically tasked with providing intelligence supporting the "official position"?
There isn't one. Which is why it was shut down and those people who dreamed it up no longer have jobs.

And keep in mind it wasn't the OSP that gave the final "slam dunk" anaylsis to the President and the OSP analysis wasn't used by Powell.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-25 12:29:50)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-25 12:44:55
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6937|949

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:


That would be analysis of the big picture, not the intel itself. That abortion was NOT an intel-producing organization.
No, but it gave wrong intelligence to the Bush Administration.  Wrong because much of the intelligence was already debunked and/or discredited by intelligence analysts.  What is the point of having intelligence analysts if they are being circumvented by a Defense Department-created unit specifically tasked with providing intelligence supporting the "official position"?
There isn't one. Which is why it was shut down and those people who dreamed it up no longer have jobs.
Paul Wolfowitz - now head of World Bank (and endorsed by Bush for that job)
Doug Feith - no government job
Abram Shulsky - still there, in another capacity, doing much of the same thing

Many others are still developing policy under the American Enterprise Institute but don't hold government jobs.
2008-10-25 13:08:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


No, but it gave wrong intelligence to the Bush Administration.  Wrong because much of the intelligence was already debunked and/or discredited by intelligence analysts.  What is the point of having intelligence analysts if they are being circumvented by a Defense Department-created unit specifically tasked with providing intelligence supporting the "official position"?
There isn't one. Which is why it was shut down and those people who dreamed it up no longer have jobs.
Paul Wolfowitz - now head of World Bank (and endorsed by Bush for that job)
Doug Feith - no government job
Abram Shulsky - still there, in another capacity, doing much of the same thing

Many others are still developing policy under the American Enterprise Institute but don't hold government jobs.
Shulsky has no role in policy-making or intel analysis. So, no. He's NOT there in another capacity doing much of the same thing...mainly because "much of the same thing" doesn't exist.

And the other two...thanks for reinforcing the fact that they're no longer employed in the DoD.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-25 19:19:47
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

The fact is that at the time it wasn't at all clear whether there was WMD or not.
Which is the whole point, it wasn't clear at all, but it was presented as fact.

FEOS wrote:

Evidence like decontamination vehicles at the same place the signals intercept came from.
Except they weren't decontam vehicles, they were just vehicles.

FEOS wrote:

Evidence like Iraqi soldiers in chem gear handling weapons and those not in chem gear falling out and getting hauled off to the hospital. Stuff like that.
Except that never happened.

FEOS wrote:

..."slam dunk"
Wo says Americans don't get irony?

FEOS wrote:

Argue whether the invasion should have happened all you want. But you can't argue the evidence at the time.
If Iraq really had been developing WMD and been intent on delivering them to terrorists, and there was some sliver of evidence of this then maybe it would have been justified, it would have been up to the UN to decide that.

The argument is the whole thing was based on obvious lies, and a long standing US agenda to dismantle Iraq.
Fuck Israel
2008-10-26 12:33:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The fact is that at the time it wasn't at all clear whether there was WMD or not.
Which is the whole point, it wasn't clear at all, but it was presented as fact.
No, the conclusion wasn't presented as FACT. Evidence to support the position was presented. The facts that were presented were the actual photos, signal intercepts and the like.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Evidence like decontamination vehicles at the same place the signals intercept came from.
Except they weren't decontam vehicles, they were just vehicles.
Actually, they were decontamination vehicles.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Evidence like Iraqi soldiers in chem gear handling weapons and those not in chem gear falling out and getting hauled off to the hospital. Stuff like that.
Except that never happened.
And you would know this how? That wasn't from Curveball. It happened well after the UN presentation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Argue whether the invasion should have happened all you want. But you can't argue the evidence at the time.
If Iraq really had been developing WMD and been intent on delivering them to terrorists, and there was some sliver of evidence of this then maybe it would have been justified, it would have been up to the UN to decide that.
No, it wouldn't have been up to the UN to decide what certain countries felt was a threat. As far as I know, we haven't turned over our national security to the UN just yet.

And the whole point was there was more than a sliver of evidence. Evidence that Saddam wanted people to see. Whether it called for an invasion is another issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The argument is the whole thing was based on obvious lies, and a long standing US agenda to dismantle Iraq.
Not lies, and only obvious after the fact.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-27 03:38:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
As far as I know, we haven't turned over our national security to the UN just yet.
By signing up to the UN the US did agree to settle any differences with other natons through the UN.
Otherwise there is no point to it, which is the case now.
Not lies, and only obvious after the fact.
They were lies, and blindingly obvious ones.
And the whole point was there was more than a sliver of evidence.
Name one single piece of actual evidence, which couldn't have been interpreted in another way.
Fuck Israel
2008-10-27 03:57:04
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

As far as I know, we haven't turned over our national security to the UN just yet.
By signing up to the UN the US did agree to settle any differences with other natons through the UN.
Otherwise there is no point to it, which is the case now.
No country has subjugated their sovereignty to the UN. Not a single one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not lies, and only obvious after the fact.
They were lies, and blindingly obvious ones.
Incorrect findings =/= lies. It's easier to find what was wrong after the fact. Kind of like taking a test that you thought you aced and actually didn't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the whole point was there was more than a sliver of evidence.
Name one single piece of actual evidence, which couldn't have been interpreted in another way.
It's already been done.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-27 04:01:30
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
No country has subjugated their sovereignty to the UN. Not a single one.
Correct, but they have agreed to settle their differences through the UN, and be bound by its resolutions
Incorrect findings =/= lies.
The information presented was not true, and to say it was all based on solid sources was a lie.
It's already been done.
Not yet it hasn't, not even by Powell in the UN.
Fuck Israel
2008-10-27 17:53:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

No country has subjugated their sovereignty to the UN. Not a single one.
Correct, but they have agreed to settle their differences through the UN, and be bound by its resolutions
Not if they haven't subjugated their sovereignty to the UN, they haven't. Certainly not in ALL cases.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

Incorrect findings =/= lies.
The information presented was not true, and to say it was all based on solid sources was a lie.
The information presented certainly was true. The intelligence DID point to what was presented. As such, it was not a lie.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's already been done.
Not yet it hasn't, not even by Powell in the UN.
I hate to break it to you, but that single presentation to the UN was not the sum total of the intel portfolio against Iraq, nor does the fact that you are unwitting of it make it not true.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-28 01:41:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Not if they haven't subjugated their sovereignty to the UN, they haven't. Certainly not in ALL cases.
Suggest you read the UN Charter.
You're either with us or against us.
The information presented certainly was true. The intelligence DID point to what was presented. As such, it was not a lie.
The intel was at best ambiguous, much of it was just made up.
If you take the one sided view that intel means whatever you decide it means then it wasn't a lie.
I hate to break it to you, but that single presentation to the UN was not the sum total of the intel portfolio against Iraq, nor does the fact that you are unwitting of it make it not true.
Lets see an example of a single piece of 'intel' that either
- Proved Iraq had at WMD at the time
- Wasn't disproven later
Fuck Israel
2008-10-28 02:03:41
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7021
Saddam bluffed... we called his bluff...   

excellent debate in the previous posts... civil and intelligent... nice
Love is the answer
2008-10-28 03:20:27
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not if they haven't subjugated their sovereignty to the UN, they haven't. Certainly not in ALL cases.
Suggest you read the UN Charter.
You're either with us or against us.
Pretty sure the UN Charter doesn't require countries to subjugate their sovereign rights to the UN. But clearly you're an expert in international politics, so I'm sure you can scare up a source for us all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The information presented certainly was true. The intelligence DID point to what was presented. As such, it was not a lie.
The intel was at best ambiguous, much of it was just made up.
If you take the one sided view that intel means whatever you decide it means then it wasn't a lie.
The only part that was "made up" was the Curveball shit. Pictures weren't made up. Signals intercepts weren't made up.

There was nothing ambiguous about it, particularly if you actually take Saddam's historical behavior into account. But that's inconvenient to your argument, so I'm not surprised you're overlooking it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but that single presentation to the UN was not the sum total of the intel portfolio against Iraq, nor does the fact that you are unwitting of it make it not true.
Lets see an example of a single piece of 'intel' that either
- Proved Iraq had at WMD at the time
- Wasn't disproven later
See what you did there? "wasn't disproven later". You're living in a fantasy world using the benefit of hindsight. You simply refuse to put your argument in the context of 2002-2003, without the benefit of what was learned after that regarding the veracity of the analysis (vice collection). Unless and until you can make that mental leap (which isn't really a leap at all, but basic logical thinking), you'll constantly have your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

Similar behavior to the previous decade or so. Similar indicators to the previous decade or so (when he DID have an active WMD program). Similar rhetoric from him regarding cooperation with the UN. And people were supposed to have known that THIS time was really different.

It's like you have the Charlie Brown mentality on this: Lucy isn't going to pull the ball away THIS time.

Again, argue all you want about whether invading Iraq was the policy decision to constrain or eliminate Saddam's suspected WMD program. But your argument that the intel was fabricated or didn't support the conclusion that he had an active program is farcical.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard