Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (118956)	11/11/2003 10:10:34 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I keep on getting an "error writing to database" message when I try responding to this post...I'll try breaking the response up into smaller pieces..... Part 1 of 3 Oh I think I can put that on you. After all, it would seem that YOU concur that any possession of WMDs by Iraq was cause to "start praying real hard".. Something about such a case meaning we're in "deep doo-doo". Message 19475431 Not easy to be in "deep doo-doo", unless you believe the non-accountability for that many weapons poses a grave, or even FUTURE imminent, threat against the US and other nations. I thought I was pretty clear [same link] about why we would be in deep doo-doo. It certainly had nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was an imminent threat. It had to do with once the regime had lost power, we no longer know where or under whose control the WMD [if they existed] they are. I would rather know that they were under the control of the Iraqi regime than not know under whose control they are. And if they are now under the control of ... e.g., Al Qaeda, that doesn't mean that there was a pre-war relationship with Al Qaeda and Iraq. The security environment has completely changed. A once loyal Baathist might decide "screw Saddam, the chicken shit, screw the US, I'm handing these WMDs over to anyone that'll get the US. Further, under the control of Iraq, we had a deterrence. We could retailiate and blow Iraq off the face of the earth. That's a deterrent. If OBL/Al Qaeda has control we have no deterrence. We're not going to retaliate against Al Qaeda by blowing the Afghan/Pakistani border region off the face of the planet. We have no credible deterrence against any terrorist organization. And if you perceive danger in such a scenario, I find it amazing that you seemed perfectly happy to permit UNMOVIC to keep searching for another 12 years for something Iraq was supposed to account for in the first place.. Given my lack of trust in Saddam and the Baathists...that was probably the ideal solution. Or at least far superior to what we have now. End of Part 1 of 3

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (118956)	11/11/2003 10:11:53 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Part 2 of 3... ........No change.. no cooperation.. and UNMOVIC was at an impasse. You're a pretty binary person aren't you? They either are, or they are not. As I said in an earlier post...Iraq identified a site where they claimed the weapons were destroyed in the early 90s; the UN confirmed that some weapons were there/destroyed by soil samples and they were in a process of attempting to establish a quantity through scientific means. Good question.. As Mr. Wilson and his wife, as well as the rest of the CIA analysts. Wilson's wife had nothing to do with assessing that. Mr. Wilson claimed the Niger documents were not believed to be valid...the CIA analysts..they either didn't do the assessment [incompetence of one type] or looked and decided they were real [incompetence of another type]. Personnally, I'd like to know who did the forgeries. Purportedly, we got them from Italy, but who did Italy get them from? No one seems to care. And who told them that? The US? The same nation that was forcing its own troops to operate in MOPP 3 at all times? Another relatively inane question. Inane? You think that Iceland told Kuwait that they didn't need gas masks for their population. I asked the same question to a staffer on one of the intelligence committees and he/she didn't think it was inane. Now maybe you're a psychic, but I'm not. I have to have proof, or at least feel really comfortable that EVERY cooperation is being extended to me. And that was clearly not the case in Iraq. I'm reasonably comfortable with some cooperation and UN inspectors present. Personnally, I never would have been convinced that Saddam was fully cooperating even if it appeared that he has. Even Saddam's generals believed the Baathists possess Chemical weapons..... We got lots of intel from defectors and informants about Iraq's WMD and WMD programs....they just didn't happen to pan out. Saddam's generals are no different. They lost and they will tell the "winners" whatever they want to hear. There's also other theories being thrown out....Saddam thought he had WMD, but didn't because all his people were lying to him. Then there's the theory that he knew he didn't have any WMD, but wanted everyone to think he had WMD...And by saying he didn't have any WMD, then everyone we would believe that he did have WMD, since everyone knows he lies. end of Part 2 of 3

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (118956)	11/11/2003 10:12:46 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Part 3 of 3 But one thing is firm.. British Intelligence (whom Bush quoted in his SOTU speech) remains convinced there was some Niger-Iraq connection. And given the French connections to Niger's Uranium mining industry, it wouldn't susprise me. That wasn't what I heard in England. Blair is being accused as much or more than Bush was for spinning the truth and rigging the intelligence estimate. There were internal e-mails from analysts that the estimate was being politically driven rather than driven by analysis. A few months ago. There was a survey of Brits where 60% thought Blair should resign. The conservative party leader at the time, Ian Duncan Smith, was quite vocal about Blair lying. We have 1400 DIA officers/contractors over there searching for WMDs. That's FAR MORE than UNSCOM/UNMOVIC ever possessed. Wanna sign up and go yourself? If I was PCS'ed there, I might go. But since I don't have expertise in Arabic languages or the the bio-chemical sciences I think it's unlikely. They are entirely welcome to join and assist, so far as I know. The US was quite clear that we were not welcomed when UNMOVIC did exist and the US was not interested in extending the life of UNMOVIC. And besides, the UN can't even secure its own headquarters... Presumably you're not talking about New York, but rather the UN facility in Iraq. Isn't it the responsibility of the occupying power to provide security in Iraq? We have 1400 DIA officers/contractors over there searching for WMDs. That's FAR MORE than UNSCOM/UNMOVIC ever possessed. Good example of quantity vs. quality. Isn't it ironic that UNSCOM/UNMOVIC found far more than the US has found? Admittedly, we found some vans used to produce hydrogen gas. We also found a bunch of nuclear related documentation that was mostly unclassified [a student's thesis] and some classified documents that were dated from the early 90's [but nothing that indicated an ongoing program.] By any measure UNSCOM/UNMOVIC was far more successful in finding shit, then the US is. And in the latest budget authorization we're reducing the effort at finding WMD. That perhaps doesn't mean anything to you. jttmab End.