BF2S Forums Selectivity

Lost Hope wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Those other countries would not satisfy U.S. interests to "liberate".

If it was a true Stalinistic regime that video never would have gotten out, and the makers would have been shot.

Fundamentalist Islam is far more dangerous than North Korea. NK doesn't have a delivery system for nukes, and if Islam is ever united the U.S. is pretty much done for unless we can change how they view us now.

Yes it is, and as I said it is failing. The generals saying we needed many more people than we actually sent over were not listened to, and therefore the whole operation is a mess.

I love D&ST

How is  a united fundamentalist Islam going to destroy the US, how are they going to cross the ocean that separates you ?

And even if they unite, I think the ruling government would strengthen the border measures.

To Berster : How do you know that ? You saw Team America, did you ? 

I have seen Team America, but that has nothing to do with my comments about North Korean missile tech. They've had a number of test launches over the past few years that have been quite big news, so I've read up on them a bit.

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But what was?

I can think of lots of things that weren't ever the issue and lots of things that were potential factors. But I really have very little idea why the Iraq war was fought.

Fuck knows...revenge, oil, WMD, I don't think anyone knows anymore.

I don't think it was WMD, there are too many holes in the intelligence arguments. I don't think it was oil, although the fact it was there probably contributed, by way of covering the costs of the war by sticking loads of money back into the US economy through big contracts with US companies. Revenge is possible, but if it was that, then that's very scary.

I'm tempted to believe the whole thing was done for the profit of a very few select elitist US businessmen who happened to have ties to Bush. I wonder how much Cheney's made off Haliburton kickbacks?

I would be inclined to agree with Bertster7's last point here. The war certainly isn't benefiting the US economy but it is lining the pockets of a lot of Bush and Cheney's cronies.

Bubbalo wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The reason we went to Iraq was to put a distinct American presence in the Middle East and show that we were not weak to prevent fundamentalist Islamic groups from continuing to gain support against us.

I believe Obi-Wan Kenobi put it best:

Good job.

Good job in the sense that we took out the only non-fundamentalist, non-Islamicist regime in the area (except for Israel).  I think taking out Israel would have made us a lot of friends actually - not that I think that's cool or anything   On absolutely no level was taking out Iraq a good idea.  None.  The only people to benefit are the neo-conservative idealogues and the industrialists that support them.  The regular army is in tatters, playing into Cheney's idea of private armies taking over the job - this war being the first one using over 40% mercenaries in theatre, 30% of those in combat/security.  The US is in debt up over its head on an unheard-of level, the next crash is going to see the elite owning 99% of the property at bargain prices (the gap has already doubled under Bush).  Rebuilding the force is going to keep industrialists rolling in cash for a long time.  The price of oil has skyrocketed and then dove and skyrocketed, creating the perfect profit situation for every major oil producer and related industries.  Oh, by the way, the sum total local/state/national debt for every American here is about $920,000 at the moment...makes your credit cards look like nothin' eh?

The neo-cons get to retire when Bush leaves office to Paraguay or Dubai, leaving us holding the bag on the verge of a police state.  Be happy we're all still armed, we'll need it.

For those of us that think we're safer now - 3'ish words:

One Combat-ready Brigade.

So just keep thinking the real bad guys are some terrists hiding in a cave somewhere or taking potshots at our soldiers in Iraq.  They are bad guys, but not the ones you should be most worried about.

As far as North Korea goes. China is the answer.
China backs North Korea, and when China doesn't back them, North Korea stops whatever it was doing to provoke everyone.  If we went to stomp a mudhole in NK, China would be right there trying to aid North Korea.

Now turn back the clock to 1999. North Korean Naval Ships, escorted NK Fishing ships into SK waters, sunk a few SK fishing boats. SK navy backed by  a US Carrier group appeared a few days later.  The US Navy did nothing but secure SK fishing boats.  NK Fired a few rounds at SK navy ships, Damaged one and SK returned and sunk 4 NK navy ships.  China told NK to back off, or it would not aid it anymore.  NK returned its fishing boats and navy ships back to NK waters. 

How do I know this happend?  Easy I was a cherry private serving in Attack Company 1st battalion 503rd Infantry (AIR ASSAULT!) on Camp Casey, and I remember waking up hearing the alert go off, and drawing live ammo and throwing my gear off the 3rd floor of the barracks to walk 2 miles to the golf course on casey to load up on blackhawks to fly us to a patriot missle battery to await US reinforcements.  We loaded up on Blackhawks and split up into Small Kill Teams around the batteries only to be told 4 hours later to stand down NK left SK waters.

EDIT: I Just Hold the Tail, Uncle Sammy Pumps.

Last edited by CannonFodder11b (2007-04-30 10:33:09)

CameronPoe wrote:

Why were the Iraqi people more 'deserving'

Oh come on. You know as well as everyone else that "liberation" was merely a "feel-good" priority. What we wanted was a government more sympathetic to the US and her particular needs, and that the US isn't about to get militarily bogged down in every single country with a cruel dictatorship. Anyway, what do you do to conserve oil these days?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-30 11:06:58)

you most certainly did pay your dues.  you have my respect. absolutely,  also, i agree with 98% of the shit you write, even for being a god damned liberal (ifucking hate all politics and all forms of political parties myself)

the only issue i have with some of your posts,not even an issue, is the fact that you still write as if you are still living here.  to clarify, your not and it seems your loyalties are obviously no longer with the American people.  rock on, thats your prerogative, more power to you.  keep in mind though, to me, someone who has paid their dues as well, you seem more critical and less constructive in your posts.  and for somebody who agrees with you in spirit well, i think you know what im getting at.  but let me make perfectly clear, i understand your right to criticise.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Our constitution does not allow us to go to war to "liberate" oppressed people. Incredibly bad intelligence allowed us to be dealt the idea that Saddam was a threat (piggybacked by his 14 years of fuck you to the UN)...

The intel was sound, it just didn't match the policy.  So the administration built its own department for the sole purpose of generating intelligence that none of us at DIA (or the CIA or NSA) for that matter seemed to know anything about.  You would almost think Cheney, Rove, and Feith just made the shit up.  Seriously, my colleagues back then would hear stuff on the news at the same time the rest of the world did and be like "WTF are they talking about?"  Saddam hasn't had a decent NBC program since the late 80's when WE stopped supplying him.  And we knew this very well, it just didn't happen to fit the policy.  It was later, after I got out, that I learned about the Office of Special Plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

So a big "Fuck You" to Feith-based Intelligence.  Thanks for keeping military intelligence the cliche mockery that it certainly doesn't deserve to be.

Source

(Page 12) At the meeting on September 25,2002, both the CIA and the DIA supported the NIE assessment that the aluminum tubes were intended for Iraq’s nuclear program and were evidence that Iraq was starting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

(Page 25) When asked by Committee staff why the CIA did not consult with the DOE, the IC’s nuclear experts, the WINPAC centrifuge analyst said, “Because we funded it. It was our testing. We were trying to prove some things that we wanted to prove with the testing. It wasn’t a joint effort.”

(Page 44)In August 2002, the CIA published a paper titled Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat in which it assessed that “Iraq’s procurement of nuclear-related equipment and materials indicates it has begun reconstituting its uranium enrichment gas centrifuge program to produce fissile material for a nuclear device, a process that could be completed by late this decade.” The same paper later noted, “Iraq’s persistent interest in high-strength aluminum tubes indicates Baghdad has renewed an indigenous centrifuge uranium enrichment program.” The CIA’s nuclear analysts also told Committee staff that the aluminum tube procurement was the principal part of the agency’s assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

(Page 131)The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) intelligence assessment on July 2,2001 that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes “match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 1950s, known as the Zippe centrifuge” is incorrect. Similar information was repeated by the CIA in its assessments, including its input to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) over the next year and a half.

(Page 56)The Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of the views of all intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes prior to September 2002 and, as a result, could only have passed the Central Intelligence Agency's view along to the President until that time.

These seem like intelligence failures to me (From our traditional intelligence gathering agencies).

Kmarion wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Our constitution does not allow us to go to war to "liberate" oppressed people. Incredibly bad intelligence allowed us to be dealt the idea that Saddam was a threat (piggybacked by his 14 years of fuck you to the UN)...

The intel was sound, it just didn't match the policy.  So the administration built its own department for the sole purpose of generating intelligence that none of us at DIA (or the CIA or NSA) for that matter seemed to know anything about.  You would almost think Cheney, Rove, and Feith just made the shit up.  Seriously, my colleagues back then would hear stuff on the news at the same time the rest of the world did and be like "WTF are they talking about?"  Saddam hasn't had a decent NBC program since the late 80's when WE stopped supplying him.  And we knew this very well, it just didn't happen to fit the policy.  It was later, after I got out, that I learned about the Office of Special Plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

So a big "Fuck You" to Feith-based Intelligence.  Thanks for keeping military intelligence the cliche mockery that it certainly doesn't deserve to be.

Source

(Page 12) At the meeting on September 25,2002, both the CIA and the DIA supported the NIE assessment that the aluminum tubes were intended for Iraq’s nuclear program and were evidence that Iraq was starting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

They supported it because (2 pages earlier) they claimed they didn't have time to vet their own intelligence before the NIE meeting and were using much earlier assessments from a single CIA agent.  They didn't triple check anything, and they especially didn't phone up my crew.  We would have told them the same thing the DoE and the INR said.  The other part is that EVERYONE knew that the tubes Saddam was looking for were of only marginal quality for use in a nuclear program.  No one disagreed on that point.  One last sticker into this pig though...Cheney had already invented this claim in a "leak" to the Times 3 weeks before this NIE meeting.  Can't very well make Cheney look bad can you?

(Page 25) When asked by Committee staff why the CIA did not consult with the DOE, the IC’s nuclear experts, the WINPAC centrifuge analyst said, “Because we funded it. It was our testing. We were trying to prove some things that we wanted to prove with the testing. It wasn’t a joint effort.”

In other words, some idealogue working with or without orders in the CIA attempted junk science...picking a theory and then attempting to squeeze the evidence to fit.

(Page 44)In August 2002, the CIA published a paper titled Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat in which it assessed that “Iraq’s procurement of nuclear-related equipment and materials indicates it has begun reconstituting its uranium enrichment gas centrifuge program to produce fissile material for a nuclear device, a process that could be completed by late this decade.” The same paper later noted, “Iraq’s persistent interest in high-strength aluminum tubes indicates Baghdad has renewed an indigenous centrifuge uranium enrichment program.” The CIA’s nuclear analysts also told Committee staff that the aluminum tube procurement was the principal part of the agency’s assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

Again, politics at its finest.  This is the original report, the seed that everyone just lazily copied from to get their own assessments and then didn't triple-check because it was already out in the public eye.  It also ignores the fact that there were 2 other papers floating around with dissenting views on what the aluminum tubes were good for, both saying at best they could be used for a conventional rocket program and were the most inneficient grade that could be used for enrichment.

(Page 131)The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) intelligence assessment on July 2,2001 that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes “match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 1950s, known as the Zippe centrifuge” is incorrect. Similar information was repeated by the CIA in its assessments, including its input to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) over the next year and a half.

(Page 56)The Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of the views of all intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes prior to September 2002 and, as a result, could only have passed the Central Intelligence Agency's view along to the President until that time.

These seem like intelligence failures to me (From our traditional intelligence gathering agencies).

Theres a big difference between failed intel and politicized intel.  Say -

Situation #1 - You see, while looking out your window one day, a kid with a gun pointing it at another kid.  You shout, the kid with the gun runs.  Later, the police ask you about the kid and you tell them about the gun.  Your neighbor was closer and saw that the gun was a toy.  The police thank you for being a witness and leave.

Situation #2 - Same thing, but the police happen to be quite racist and the kid is black.  In fact, 2 weeks before they said they were gonna get that kid no matter what.  Your report is used to bust the kid and your neighbor's report ends up in the trash.  Of course they don't find the gun later, but they got the kid doing 3 years in juvee anyways.

In neither case did you mean to file a false report, it seemed quite real to you.  Your neighbor was just as honest, he just happened to be closer and more reliable as a witness.  The police decided who to believe based on honesty...or politics.  Was there an intelligence failure in either case?

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

They supported it because (2 pages earlier) they claimed they didn't have time to vet their own intelligence before the NIE meeting and were using much earlier assessments from a single CIA agent.  They didn't triple check anything, and they especially didn't phone up my crew.  We would have told them the same thing the DoE and the INR said.  The other part is that EVERYONE knew that the tubes Saddam was looking for were of only marginal quality for use in a nuclear program.  No one disagreed on that point.  One last sticker into this pig though...Cheney had already invented this claim in a "leak" to the Times 3 weeks before this NIE meeting.  Can't very well make Cheney look bad can you?

In other words, some idealogue working with or without orders in the CIA attempted junk science...picking a theory and then attempting to squeeze the evidence to fit.

Again, politics at its finest.  This is the original report, the seed that everyone just lazily copied from to get their own assessments and then didn't triple-check because it was already out in the public eye.  It also ignores the fact that there were 2 other papers floating around with dissenting views on what the aluminum tubes were good for, both saying at best they could be used for a conventional rocket program and were the most inneficient grade that could be used for enrichment.

• If triple checking was a neccesity, like you elluded to, and they didn't do it, isn't that failure? Making reports and statements without having "triple checked" or sought the opinion of other agencies (delibertly in some cases) is not doing the complete job.
• This is to illustrate a circumstance in which the CIA intentionally chose not to share what it had found. Seeking more opinions and analysis can help prevent errors and misinterpretations. It says clearly that they wanted to prove something.
• I am aware of the other reports. The ones that were not included in the talking points. But the fact remains that there was a lack of consitency. Also, don't think that I am unaware of how politicians manipulate such information to promote their political aegenda. Their hands are no way clean here. But the conflicting information enabled them to select which tool would allow them to acheive their goals.

Now I ask how does all this faked intel play with the fact the Britsh came to the same conlcusion? Did we form special "fake inteligence" agencies over there as well? Again, I have no doubt the intel was abused, that does not automatically make it solid though.

Kmarion wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

They supported it because (2 pages earlier) they claimed they didn't have time to vet their own intelligence before the NIE meeting and were using much earlier assessments from a single CIA agent.  They didn't triple check anything, and they especially didn't phone up my crew.  We would have told them the same thing the DoE and the INR said.  The other part is that EVERYONE knew that the tubes Saddam was looking for were of only marginal quality for use in a nuclear program.  No one disagreed on that point.  One last sticker into this pig though...Cheney had already invented this claim in a "leak" to the Times 3 weeks before this NIE meeting.  Can't very well make Cheney look bad can you?

In other words, some idealogue working with or without orders in the CIA attempted junk science...picking a theory and then attempting to squeeze the evidence to fit.

Again, politics at its finest.  This is the original report, the seed that everyone just lazily copied from to get their own assessments and then didn't triple-check because it was already out in the public eye.  It also ignores the fact that there were 2 other papers floating around with dissenting views on what the aluminum tubes were good for, both saying at best they could be used for a conventional rocket program and were the most inneficient grade that could be used for enrichment.

• If triple checking was a neccesity, like you elluded to, and they didn't do it, isn't that failure? Making reports and statements without having "triple checked" or sought the opinion of other agencies (delibertly in some cases) is not doing the complete job.
• This is to illustrate a circumstance in which the CIA intentionally chose not to share what it had found. Seeking more opinions and analysis can help prevent errors and misinterpretations. It says clearly that they wanted to prove something.
• I am aware of the other reports. The ones that were not included in the talking points. But the fact remains that there was a lack of consitency. Also, don't think that I am unaware of how politicians manipulate such information to promote their political aegenda. Their hands are no way clean here. But the conflicting information enabled them to select which tool would allow them to acheive their goals.

Now I ask how does all this faked intel play with the fact the Britsh came to the same conlcusion? Did we form special "fake inteligence" agencies over there as well?

Haven't you heard all the stuff about the dodgy British intelligence being made up? There was an official inquiry into it (The Hutton Inquiry - which of course exonerated everyone, as these things usually do) and all sorts.

The September dossier was a joke. Look it up.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

They supported it because (2 pages earlier) they claimed they didn't have time to vet their own intelligence before the NIE meeting and were using much earlier assessments from a single CIA agent.  They didn't triple check anything, and they especially didn't phone up my crew.  We would have told them the same thing the DoE and the INR said.  The other part is that EVERYONE knew that the tubes Saddam was looking for were of only marginal quality for use in a nuclear program.  No one disagreed on that point.  One last sticker into this pig though...Cheney had already invented this claim in a "leak" to the Times 3 weeks before this NIE meeting.  Can't very well make Cheney look bad can you?

In other words, some idealogue working with or without orders in the CIA attempted junk science...picking a theory and then attempting to squeeze the evidence to fit.

Again, politics at its finest.  This is the original report, the seed that everyone just lazily copied from to get their own assessments and then didn't triple-check because it was already out in the public eye.  It also ignores the fact that there were 2 other papers floating around with dissenting views on what the aluminum tubes were good for, both saying at best they could be used for a conventional rocket program and were the most inneficient grade that could be used for enrichment.

• If triple checking was a neccesity, like you elluded to, and they didn't do it, isn't that failure? Making reports and statements without having "triple checked" or sought the opinion of other agencies (delibertly in some cases) is not doing the complete job.
• This is to illustrate a circumstance in which the CIA intentionally chose not to share what it had found. Seeking more opinions and analysis can help prevent errors and misinterpretations. It says clearly that they wanted to prove something.
• I am aware of the other reports. The ones that were not included in the talking points. But the fact remains that there was a lack of consitency. Also, don't think that I am unaware of how politicians manipulate such information to promote their political aegenda. Their hands are no way clean here. But the conflicting information enabled them to select which tool would allow them to acheive their goals.

Now I ask how does all this faked intel play with the fact the Britsh came to the same conlcusion? Did we form special "fake inteligence" agencies over there as well?

Haven't you heard all the stuff about the dodgy British intelligence being made up? There was an official inquiry into it (The Hutton Inquiry - which of course exonerated everyone, as these things usually do) and all sorts.

The September dossier was a joke. Look it up.

We have been here before.. http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp ... But you see that is my point Bert. Not to say it was inaccurate, I think we all know by now it was. What is being suggested here is that the bad intlligence was a Cheney exlusive event (Via made up by fake intelligence agencies). That report (Of UK origin) posted is what you guys stood behind as well.

jonsimon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

These can only be rhetorical questions Cam. You know liberation was never the issue.

But what was?

I can think of lots of things that weren't ever the issue and lots of things that were potential factors. But I really have very little idea why the Iraq war was fought.

Iraq was selling oil in Euros. The basis of US economic supremecy since WWII has been the sale of crude oil exclusively in US cash. The income of the upper tier of American society, the economic aristocrats, is such a large portion of GDP that those individuals have a direct interest in the GDP. So, Iraq sells oil in euros, the US dollar loses its strength, GDP drops, the rich lose money. And in America, the rich run the government. With that motive you now have a target for all that pressure from US corporations who bid for military contracts (many like haliburton who are run by government officials/friends/family members). That is how you start a war.

Or, to put it simply:

Varegg wrote:

I can answer all questions at once: Domestic defence industry and Oil !

I don't think it's quite that simple. At the time war was declared, from what I remember ALL the intelligence services thought that Iraq had WMDs, including most, if not all, of Iraq's (correct me if I'm wrong). However, that cannot be the only thing that brought us into war. We had no idea the war would last this long, there were the special interests of oil, defense, corporations, and also the Israel Lobby pressing (here's a long article about it if you don't believe in its influence http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ). I firmly believe nothing can be singled out completely but I will say I doubt the war was for liberation (especially initially, unless there was some idea that Saddam had to be removed in order to halt WMDs? I don't know...)