Wisdom on Iraq

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not really damning at all. 10 years and 9/11 can easily change a man's opinion in a big way.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's actually possible to change one's mind about an issue by applying new information to it? I.e. So he was against the war before he was for it. Unprecedented.

I'm wondering, however, what you think specifically occurred in those 11 years to make the inevitable mess in post-war Iraq (which they seemingly foresaw, but chose not to prepare for) worthwhile in Cheney's mind.

The Iraq-Al Qaeda link I suppose? The solid evidence on WMDS? Oh wait ...

Perhaps it was a regime that was isolated and weakened to the point where they didn't pose a credible threat to anyone? Oh wait ...

I suppose I should take solace in the fact that Cheney at least knew the difference between a Sunni and Shiite before he started killing them. Perhaps he could have shared this with Bush.

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
My claim is we are seeing Bush's policy not Cheney's.
Neither one of us are privy to White House Strategy meetings so how much input Cheney has is unknown to the both of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Have you read anything about the decision to go to war? Watched any speeches or administration interviews before, during, or since?

[ QUOTE ]
Hence my advocacy of a Kurdish dictatorship over Iraq.
Find a mean bad-ass Kurd to terrorize the Sunni and Shia into behaving themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I ask again ...

While the Shia, through rhetoric and action, have indicated an interest in "revenge" for the decades of oppression by minority rulers (really centuries ...), the Kurds have been singular in their focus.

Equally as oppressed by Saddam, the Kurds have no interest in "terrorizing the Sunni and Shia into behaving themselves". They want autonomy, and their political actions and alliances (with the Shia during the constitution writing) have been aimed at this end.

If any group has been "successful" in Iraq since 2003, it's the Kurds. The last thing they want is to get in the middle of a conflict dating back to 680.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
A Kurdish state is not an option if the US wants to have anything to do with Turkey ever again. The Turks would absolutely flip if Iraq went three ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
F*** the Turks.
They stab us in the back with the 4th ID before the war and they are supposedly our allies. Creating a Kurdistan will show others there are consequences to disregarding American friendship.... Time to move on...the Kurds will be more loyal allies than the Turks.

And you have things ass-backwards.
It is not a matter of losing the friendship of the Turks. It is a matter of the Turks losing our friendship. They did not fear losing our friendship when they stalled and stalled and stalled kept the 4th ID from being deployed before the war. Yet you wring your hands that they might stop being our friends!?!? THEY should have feared losing our friendship. Friendship with the Turks has value but friendship with the USA has MORE value. And since the Turks demonstrated they can not be relied upon, then I say they friendship is over-valued and should be discounted...

Your view is one of weakness. My view is one of strength....
Besides they is more upside with an active interventionist Kurdish govt in the middle-east than a Turkey that sits on their ass criticizing the USA.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Planning for an Iraqi war had been going on for years. So what? Why are any of the official reasons given by this administration for going to war less believable or factual given these 'revelations' you've put forth?

[/ QUOTE ]

LIE - A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else.

i wouldn't take it so easy. at least thousands of american victims and hundred billions of dollars spent deserve a very good explanation why this is needed. unfortunately, all official explanations were lies. read that article about timetable and check later lies: Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

"What would you do if you knew all the things we knew, would you stand up for truth or would you turn away too?" - Paris

[theweatherman]

Lest you forget, Turkey is a member of NATO (which Im sure is of no consequence to you) and also a candidate for EU membership. Turkey is also a middle east success story, it is a modernized and secular nation whose views are probably the most similar to that of the US when compared to any other ME country.

Alliance with Turkey is far preferable to any Kurdish state. Turkey has economic, military, and diplomatic power all of which would be lacking in a Kurdistan.

You claim that the Turks benefit more from ties with the US than the other way. Yet in less than 10 years Turkey could be a full fledged member of the EU. In light of the meteoric rise of the EU in recent years the Turks will not need close ties with the US.

In addition, what exactly does Turkey gain from their alliance? Now that the soviets are not hoping to invade Turkey it seems America gets most of the benefits.

Creating/recognizing a Kurdish state would cause irreparable harm to US-Turk relations and cause the US to lose its only ally of consequence in the ME. Despite your "view of strength" an honest study of the region will reveal that this is not a viable option at the present time.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Planning for an Iraqi war had been going on for years. So what? Why are any of the official reasons given by this administration for going to war less believable or factual given these 'revelations' you've put forth?

[/ QUOTE ]

LIE - A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else.

i wouldn't take it so easy. at least thousands of american victims and hundred billions of dollars spent deserve a very good explanation why this is needed. unfortunately, all official explanations were lies. read that article about timetable and check later lies: Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

"What would you do if you knew all the things we knew, would you stand up for truth or would you turn away too?" - Paris

[/ QUOTE ]

If one is inclined to believe the administration, without going point by point a 'best case scenario' excuse could be used by Bush apologists for all these seeming refutations of Bush administration assertions(other than perhaps the UAV scare, which is preposterous on its face I think, unless one considers in-theatre uses). However I have always found it curious just what Iraqi officials wanted to import other than uranium from Niger. Niger is one piss poor country who really has nothing to offer Iraqi's other than uranium(which they had purchased from them previously). Care to comment?

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Planning for an Iraqi war had been going on for years. So what? Why are any of the official reasons given by this administration for going to war less believable or factual given these 'revelations' you've put forth?

[/ QUOTE ]

LIE - A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else.

i wouldn't take it so easy. at least thousands of american victims and hundred billions of dollars spent deserve a very good explanation why this is needed. unfortunately, all official explanations were lies. read that article about timetable and check later lies: Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

"What would you do if you knew all the things we knew, would you stand up for truth or would you turn away too?" - Paris

[/ QUOTE ]

If one is inclined to believe the administration, without going point by point a 'best case scenario' excuse could be used by Bush apologists for all these seeming refutations of Bush administration assertions(other than perhaps the UAV scare, which is preposterous on its face I think, unless one considers in-theatre uses). However I have always found it curious just what Iraqi officials wanted to import other than uranium from Niger. Niger is one piss poor country who really has nothing to offer Iraqi's other than uranium(which they had purchased from them previously). Care to comment?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will elaborate further on your link of outrageous lies.

Lie #1): The aluminum tubes could in fact be altered for centrifuge applications, although these particular tubes were apparently not in line with previous knowledge of Iraqi centrifuge design needs, it is not a fabrication to say they could be used for nuclear purposes. And although there are conventional uses(rockets), likewise the specific use of these particular tubes was not consistent for use with known Iraqi armaments.

Lie #2, #3):As to the Iraqi trip to Niger, despite some forged documents that are used as evidence that Iraqi's were not attempting to procure uranium, no definitive explanation was given by the IAEA or anyone else as to just what Iraqi trade diplomats were doing in Niger. Niger has nothing of any value for export for Iraq other than uranium, which Iraq had previously purchased in 1980. What were they doing there, buying cows or snowpeas? Simple question, no one has answered.

Prior to the '03 invasion, there was an Iraqi expatriate nuclear physicist all over the airwaves who confidently asserted that without question Saddam would be actively reconstituting his nuclear program. With men such as these(the Chalabi guys), Niger trips, and aluminum tubes, if one is inclined to believe that of course Saddam would be looking for nukes, then making assertions that support your point of view while attempting to sell war is not necessarily blatant lying.

Lies #4-9 can be summed up as simply:They wanted to buy Chalabi's bullsh** and bought it hook, line and sinker. That in combination with CIA incompetence or lack of definitive knowledge could once again be a plausible explanation for these assertions rather than bald-faced lying.

Lie #10):Bush was told and believed what he said, about the mobile chemical labs, later found to not be chemical trucks. If you believed your intelligence, not a big leap to happily proclaim the discovery of what you thought was there in the first place.

In summary, if you are a Bush hater, this link you provided is red meat. However, plausible explanations can be given for much of what was said by this administration that do not meet the 'filthy liar' threshold, if one keeps an open mind and doesn't automatically assume there was purposeful deceit at every turn.

[boracay]

Ok. Let's check some facts.
1. The same group demanded occupation with iraq continuesly several years prior inauguration of the president.
2. check again about PNAC letter to clinton calling for war against iraq in '98 and about their publishing in 2000.
3. check again what was the subject of the first meetings after inauguration.
4. check again how much efford was put to find reasons to attack iraq.
5. finally the got one with 9/11, which they say it was an AQ accomplishment.
6. amazingly, they attack iraq soon after afghanistan. The same iraq who was basicly the only AQ free country in the region. Moreover AQ camps are not a target even several years after start of war. Or think for yourself how much efford was actually put in hunting a no.1 enemy of the state.

It's hard to find a logic here. All these facts makes you think all the other proofs (which all were somehow exposed by the same administration) were falsified.

Let's see your elaboration – it's only could be, it was told, believed. No evidence, nothing. You might be interested in niger story – it's here: Uses and Misuses of Strategic Intelligence

One would hardly accept sending young men into war and spending hundred billions of dollars could be the reason because
- iraq MIGHT have a WMD (although we don't have no evidence yet)
- iraq MIGHT have started a nuclear program (although we don't have any evidence yet + although IAEA found nothing + although even if it would start the program again, it would be needed more than a decade before they could accomplish the mission)
- iraq did not gave the proper reason what his officials were doing in niger (read it again how funny this sounds + although an administration again had reports there is no buying of uranium there + again although no evidence that would confirm any buying were found)
- iraq a thread to USA? (no comment)
- iraq MIGHT have AQ links (basicly every western country had more AQ links that iraq had + again there were no evidences found)
- iraq MIGHT be behind 9/11 (either it was AQ or saudis, no evidence again was found then or later)

Do you really believe any leader would start a war, send his men dying because of MIGHT, without any evidences and without any reasonable thread to his country (because of defensive reasons)? Unless of course aggression and occupation is needed for other not so noble reasons.