Paris terror attacks

[DemonTim]

Clearly fabricated evidence according to the source thru the Guardian and BBC - i.e. the Left view - hardly objective. A bit of cherry picking. I have seen info which indicated that there were WMD (no citations as I didn't retain them on my current laptop but it can be searched). Both the Dems and Repubs thought there were WMDs. Who knows who to believe? You seem to have made up your mind on it - fair enough. But it may not be as clear as you think it is.

It's been reported in most sources, can hardly say they're all "the left view"

 

[Malifice]

Clearly fabricated evidence according to the source thru the Guardian and BBC - i.e. the Left view - hardly objective.

How much evidence do you need exactly:

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reports that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIAcomplied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq.

And the number 2 Democrat in the Senate -who was on the Senate intelligence committee – admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush’s public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. If the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.

But we don’t even have to use logic to be able to conclude that the White House knew.

Specifically, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe says that Bush, Cheney and Rice were personally informed that Iraq had no WMDs in Fall 2002 (and see this).

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil – who was a member of the National Security Council – said:

In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.

Indeed, a former high-level CIA analyst (who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials) says that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellow cake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Dick Cheney, and that:

CIA Director George Tenet told his “coterie of malleable managers” at the CIA to create a National Intelligence Estimate “to the terms of reference of Dick Cheney’s speech of August 26, 2002, where Dick Cheney said for the first time Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon in a year, he’s got all kinds of chemical, he’s got all kinds of biological weapons.”

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind says:

Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

The whole thing was based on a lie. Numerous CIA and national security people were pretty much told to 'find something to justify a war'. The evidence on this is overwhelming.

Leaving the evidence aside, why would Saddam (a Baathist) arm Al Queda with nuclear weapons even if he had them? As a Baathist, he was the ideological enemy of islamic fundamentalists (and had just been engaged in wars with both Iran and Kuwait). He had no friends among the Muslim brotherhood.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's (or anything even close to them, barring using nerve gas a decade earlier that the USA gave them), and was under sanctions at the time. Saddam (for all his tyranny) was ideologically opposed to Al Queda.

You cant think this was just a 'mistake'. I mean; thats selling geopolitics terribly short indeed. Any first year uni student or anyone with any knowledge on the area could tell you what happened here.

 

[deltablues]

How much evidence do you need exactly:



The whole thing was based on a lie. Numerous CIA and national security people were pretty much told to 'find something to justify a war'. The evidence on this is overwhelming.

Leaving the evidence aside, why would Saddam (a Baathist) arm Al Queda with nuclear weapons even if he had them? As a Baathist, he was the ideological enemy of islamic fundamentalists (and had just been engaged in wars with both Iran and Kuwait). He had no friends among the Muslim brotherhood.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's (or anything even close to them, barring using nerve gas a decade earlier that the USA gave them), and was under sanctions at the time. Saddam (for all his tyranny) was ideologically opposed to Al Queda.

You cant think this was just a 'mistake'. I mean; thats selling geopolitics terribly short indeed. Any first year uni student or anyone with any knowledge on the area could tell you what happened here.

I have said what I want to say on the topic - you have your opinion and I have mine. I have some knowledge of the area and its geopolitics, both from having lived in the area for a considerable time and having spoken to relevant Western and Arab personnel at the time (for what that is worth). But I suspect we share a lot of common ground and I certainly agree that Desert Storm 2 was ill-advised, as was getting rid of Saddam and Ghadaffi and the whole Arab Spring thing - all of which are in the Paris mix.

 

[medusala]

Mate, if you seriously still think (or thought at the time) that the US went into Iraq because of 'WMD's' then we read off different pages indeed (and I have serious concerns for your understanding of geopolitics)

You aren't getting this. Regardless of why they went there, most of the CIA believed they had WMD. Its more than likely a number of views ie do what Israel wants, WMD, revenge for assassination attempt on Bush snr, be seen to do something about 9/11 coalesced in to the invasion.

How much evidence do you need exactly:

A lot of that is BS though. Did you read the article on the weapons inspectors? Blix etc were some of the biggest critics of the war but beforehand they were adamant they needed more time, that Saddam wasn't being helpful enough. CIA types always try and claim they were right and the pollies ignored them. Its just self justification crap of the sort that the public service excels in.

Have you read the book on the killing of Osama by Mark Bowden? In it a senior CIA chap admitted they really weren't sure that Obama was in there. After Iraq they assigned probabilities IIRC it was something like 40% chance and he compared that to something like 90% that Saddam had WMD.

NB the yellowcake bit you mentioned above was run with by Tony Blair. They knew that was crap. Ditto the 45 min claim. Blair went further than Bush in his claims and its hardly disputed he (and/or Campbell) "sexed up" the intelligence dossier.

Chilcott enquiry still hasn't been released. Its getting beyond ridiculous.

Leaving the evidence aside, why would Saddam (a Baathist) arm Al Queda with nuclear weapons even if he had them?

Assad got in bed with ISIS. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[The Dice Man]

2nd round of regional voting in France completed today with more than 20% increase of voters... Front National failed to win a region. Smacked down!

 

[nut]

2nd round of regional voting in France completed today with more than 20% increase of voters... Front National failed to win a region. Smacked down!

I thoughts they we're going to change the political landscape?

 

[nut]

You aren't getting this. Regardless of why they went there, most of the CIA believed they had WMD. Its more than likely a number of views ie do what Israel wants, WMD, revenge for assassination attempt on Bush snr, be seen to do something about 9/11 coalesced in to the invasion.



A lot of that is BS though. Did you read the article on the weapons inspectors? Blix etc were some of the biggest critics of the war but beforehand they were adamant they needed more time, that Saddam wasn't being helpful enough. CIA types always try and claim they were right and the pollies ignored them. Its just self justification crap of the sort that the public service excels in.

Have you read the book on the killing of Osama by Mark Bowden? In it a senior CIA chap admitted they really weren't sure that Obama was in there. After Iraq they assigned probabilities IIRC it was something like 40% chance and he compared that to something like 90% that Saddam had WMD.

NB the yellowcake bit you mentioned above was run with by Tony Blair. They knew that was crap. Ditto the 45 min claim. Blair went further than Bush in his claims and its hardly disputed he (and/or Campbell) "sexed up" the intelligence dossier.

Chilcott enquiry still hasn't been released. Its getting beyond ridiculous.



Assad got in bed with ISIS. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Asaad in bed with ISIS? Lmao

 

[The Dice Man]

I thoughts they we're going to change the political landscape?

They are and have been I guess. As an immigrant I don't like their style, but my wife does. She seems to think the FN will fix everything.

I was pretty happy. Reports at midday were suggesting a much larger turnout to vote. I suggested this could be people rallying against the FN and their results last week.

French people are pissed off, but no one needs an extreme right in France.

 

[deltablues]

Agree with all that. The only real solution in Syria would be for Assad to regain dominance over the country and stabilise it. Russia's recent actions will facilitate that end while advancing its own interests in the region.

Contrast that with the muddled and inept actions of the West. The US belatedly backed the 'Free Syrian Army' which was initially a group of moderate rebels opposed to Assad but became an umbrella for funding a ragtag collection of groups, including many extremists, that are now fighting both Assad and ISIS. The CIA armed them then when they inevitably could not handle fighting on two fronts, their American supplied weapons ended up with ISIS and al-Qaeda factions. At the same time as Obama declared he would 'degrade and ultimately destroy' ISIS, NATO member Turkey was funding ISIS by buying oil from them. Meanwhile Disco Dave in the UK wants to bomb ISIS 'to keep our country safe'. Blair is facing the music for his lies before the Iraq invasion but this is even more flimsy.

Not sure if I can post links in this thread, protocol-wise, but I have just read this which is partly on topic. I agree with nearly all of what Obama has been quoted to have said - which to me as a Republican is a major worry

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/