Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

Excellent response Ceci....and it highlights exactly what I have been trying to say.

This administration has shot its cedibility all to hell with its posting of "news" (propaganda) favorable to it in the media so that getting a clear picture of what is happening really is almost impossible. Everybody or their bosses reporting in Iraq have an agenda and that is clear by the language that they use.

It is also true that we pick and choose what information we choose to believe. There is no way around it, it is how conciousness processes the world. For example: I have decided Muaddib is correct and I was wrong. When that decision is made there is a cognitive shift in how I see things and I begin finding things that illustrate how I was wrong and how my new prespective is correct. It affects what I chose to watch and read and how I process the information I am getting. Then should I reevaluate my opinion and decide that I was right in the first place, the process would be reversed and I would start seeing proofs illustrating how he was wrong and how I was correct all along. It is simple cognitive science and it has been illustrated time and time again. Another good example is falling into and out of love or converting to a religion. Social and political worldviews are no different.

The difference between information and knowledge is this: Semper who was a policeman gets a call telling him that a certian building is a crack house. That is information. He raids the place only to discover that the only crack ever seen it is between its owners fat ass. That is knowledge. : lol:

Grover,

Granted, and I've found my share of "crack."

Yet I will also contend that the intelligent mind can combat and overcome that propensity through research, reading and comprehending another persons view point.

We do see the world in "different colors," all of us. And all of us must choose what and who it is we believe. I have obviously chosen to believe the military experts. That is my background and I can find no "better" more informed source for information. I'm sorry but they are the experts in this, they have the training and the knowledge as well as being over there in the thick of it.
That is why I believe the WMD's

Muaddib has a valid point as well. Many people here that are anti-war make comments about "quoted" reasons for the war that just simply do not exist or are not the main topic/reason for going into Iraq that many on here would like us to believe. That is perhaps your best proof on the world view point issue.

Semper

To really do that research though....and this is the rub...you have to read all sides, both pro, con and nuteral with an unbiased mind in order to come to some sort of understanding. And the unbias part is the part that requires the most discipline. I personally read everything I can from the extreme right to the extreme left and as much inbetween and still, even though I make the effort to be unbias, my personal convictions color what I read. It is that coloring and the difficulty of getting around it is what I keep trying to point out. At least I am aware of and ackonowledge it.

There is one more unspoken reality about the war in Iraq. Once the troops were in place it was going to go forward no matter what happened. Saddam could have dropped his drawers bent over and spread his cheeks and George would have still invaded ( ). Why? because it would have been too expensive to have not done it. World War One taught us that. It did not begin because some crowned prince was killed...it was faught because both sides had everything on a tight timetable and once things got rolling, it snowballed and stopping it became incresingly more difficult and expensive. Barbra Tuchman's "The Guns of August" give an excellent history of this event.

But Grover,

That is Tuchman's and your "opinion" of the events. I can show you literally dozens of other authors that have a completely different view of the same identical war and how it began.

Again, as you stated it depends on your world view, and maybe that is why I do support President Bush, give him respect and I support the war. Maybe it is because I have been over there and have observed for myself their living conditions and want us to help them as much as we can.

But the visual of Saddam bending over will be with me now for years!!! Thanks!!! I'm trying to poke my eyes out!!!!!!




Semper

You appear to imply that the iraqis have welcomed the us with open arms which is patently false. Of course the survivors want help from the us, they have no society or infrastructure since it was destroyed by the invasion. They know that only the us can provide humanitarian assistance that is necessary to survive. For this reason iraqis will salute whatever flag is offered. Interpreting this as support of the us is either naive or dishonest.

Originally posted by semperfortis
I have been over there and have observed for myself their living conditions and want us to help them as much as we can.

Were you in iraq prior to it being made a wasteland by the us invasion?

PS: A documented definition of what constitutes a wmd has still not been presented.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by df1]

But Semper....it is also the opinion of a wide variety of historians including the late (I believe) John Keegan and is outlined in great detail in his book "The Great War"....the scene was this...the crown prince was killed. Austrian Hungray rightfully demanded the murderer be turned over. Serbia being the rectum of Europe refused. An ultimatium was given...once that ultimatium all sorts of treaties (known and secret) kicked into gear. All sides had been primed for war for years, especially France and Germany, but all sides had more or less specific timetables (and the germans very specific) for X number of troops and materials to be at certian points in the lead up to any esclalation so that should war be delcared they would be the first in the field. All very logical except that the further along the process was, the harder it became to turn back until in all actuality it became a matter of momentum.

The same thing applied in 2003, after setting everything in place at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, even if Saddam had dropped his drawers, bent over and spread em and with a twinkle in his eye offered george the lubircant (sorry couldn't resist ) to have backed down would have been almost prohibitively expensive. We would have had to at the very least entered Iraq.

You appear to imply that the iraqis have welcomed the us with open arms which is patently false.

No your statement is patently false. And that statement holds as much weight as yours. Were you not watching the news as we drove into Baghdad and see the cheering crowds? Did you not see them tearing down the statues? 12 Million came out and voted!!!
Denial, simple denial.

Were you in iraq prior to it being made a wasteland by the us invasion?

No, in Lebanon.

Again your use of the vernacular wasteland, is obviously the forming of a personal opinion to be presented incorrectly as either a fact, or meant to elicit an emotional response in this debate. It does however, perfectly indicate a prejudice towards a certain point of view and inability to consider another view point.


Grover,

I'm going to need to research the information you provided to intelligently respond.

I will say this, I do NOT DISagree with anything in your comment. Not at this time. I can not with good conscious state that money did not play a major role. As it usually does.

Time for dinner,

Semper

post removed by staff. please only add content that is relevent to the thread. This is not a dating service.



[edit on 11-7-2006 by pantha]

Actually semper it has less to do with money, though that certianly plays its part as opposed to momentum. The machinery of war has become so large and unweildy that once it gets rolling its next to impossible to stop. That is true of all military machines, not ours and one of the reasons wars are so hard to stop.

Originally quoted by grover
Excellent response Ceci....and it highlights exactly what I have been trying to say.

You're very welcome. And thanks for the nice compliment.

Semper: I have not ignored your questions. I am thinking about how to highlight my perception of the WMD's. I am also thinking about what you've discussed regarding issues of bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

The short answer, though, is that the impression I get from the U.S. military's mission of "liberating Iraq" is not as simple as you make it. The issues here are much more complex. The WMD argument fits into this as well.

I tend to think that this is America's stab at neo-colonialism. Their actions are not that different from what has been done by other Colonizing world powers in the past.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by semperfortis
Grover,

I have obviously chosen to believe the military experts. That is my background and I can find no "better" more informed source for information. I'm sorry but they are the experts in this, they have the training and the knowledge as well as being over there in the thick of it.
That is why I believe the WMD's

Semper

They may be the experts Semper BUT, they were certianly shortsighted in their planning for this war. It may have been the military or it could have been their civilian bosses but anyone and I do repeat this for imphisis ANYONE with even a little historical knowledge of occupations in general and especially occupations in this region, should have seen what was going to happen a mile away. Yes Al Qeada is there NOW...but the majority of what is happening is sectarian, and even today on the evening news what is happening there was being described as a civil war. Like the Balkan's the region was never one country but a collection of provinces held together by the heavy hand of empire (or a dictator) and once that weight was gone centrifigal force took over. We should have known this BUT as George Carlin said about Bush:

"He is a man who knows nothing about history being led by men who care nothing for it. "

As for Al Qeada and the other anti-western forces at work in the region, I highly recommend Oswald Spengler's 1918 masterpiece "The Decline of the West." It is rambling and difficult BUT he describes NOW like no one writing now can. He puts it in a historical prespective.

Simply put in a nutshell Spengler was talking about the arc of civilizations, how they grow, develop and fall, and how it applies to today is that he describes, at the height of the European empires no less, (he started writing before the onset of WW1) how the subject people would learn the tools and technologies of their conquorers in order to turn against them. There is much more to it htan that but it is the gest of (at least part) of the arguement. And while he was talking about the European powers, we are still the hated west.

Originally posted by ceci2006
...........
So, Muaddib, I accept your point of view. You are a staunch supporter of Bush and his policies despite the obvious.

You see, again you are generalizing and exagerating. First of all there have been policies which I have not agreed with and I have stated so in the threads having to do with those issues. I just happen to agree with president Bush in the war on terrorism.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Like what happened between you and Jamuhn? I beg to differ. Yes, you do speak clearly. But in your clarity, you insult and belittle others who have a different point of view. We're all intelligent people here.

If i resort to sarcastic comments is for one reason only, because those people i respond to were being not only sarcastic, but were trying to be smartasses, and demeaning towards me because I present facts which contradicts what they claim.

Originally posted by ceci2006
You make it your point to make sure the rest of us are not privvy to sharing our knowledge while yours must always be right.

The thing is that most of the time what I present are facts...not my "opinions"...

Originally posted by ceci2006
But here, I accept it. But I don't agree with you. You never admit when you are wrong.

Now all of this just for one purpose...trying to turn this around on me instead of "concentrating with the evidence and the facts"....

Originally posted by ceci2006
If you did present all the facts, by all due respect, you would acknowledge Scott Ritter's and Hans Blix's opinions about the WMD's. They have both written books about their experiences regarding this area.

With all due respect that speech was given before the war started as the reasons for going to Iraq...the problem you have is that I proved you wrong and now "you don't want to admit you are/were wrong"...

Originally posted by ceci2006
This is one speech, Muaddib. A speech made early in the second Iraq war. I would truly believe you if you did a content analysis of all the speeches Mr. Bush, Gen. Powell and others have given during the three years of the war.

.....That is one speech which was given to the world and the UN, it was broadcasted in every mayor channel and it explains that "there were more than one reason given for going to war with Saddam's regime...

Originally posted by ceci2006
Mr. Bush and others have flip-flopped so much about this war that it puts Mr. Kerry to shame.

That's a false statement, that link i gave proves it. Again you can't accept the fact that you are wrong...

Originally posted by ceci2006
We're not talking about the Clinton Administration, Muaddib. We're talking about Mr. Bush's Adminstration. That's the difference here.

....You are talking about a policy to change the regime in Iraq... That policy of regime change in Iraq, was set up before president Bush was in office, it was done during the Clinton administration, so it does have everything to do with that statement you made...

Originally posted by ceci2006
PNAC exists, Muaddib. And yes, they talked about bringing about another "Pearl Harbor". It's not speculation. It was said.

If i remember correctly this is another example of a comment taken out of context. if you present the comment in specific and a link to the original document, I will show you what i mean. Anyways, if my memory serves me right the comment was similar as if you would say "changes don't happen easily or fast, unless some major event happens..." A statement such as that does not mean "they were planning on making a terrorist attack.... on the other hand the statements from the Chinese book "unrestrictive warfare" clearly states some of the CCP plans to attack the United States. But of course, you and others like you don't mention this fact.

Originally posted by ceci2006

America ‘Pearl Harbored’
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

You have got to be kidding... That statement which you are quoting, "is a statement of fact".... major events do have a "major impact on society and bring changes faster"... but that statement is not any proof of some government agents planning to make an attack on U.S. soil....

Originally posted by ceci2006
Judging from your hysterical tone, you are.

Hysterical tone?.... this response of yours is one of the reasons why i become sarcastic when people like you resort to these tactics... Thats a condescending statement on your part.... ah but of course, you and yours can make any comments no matter how condescending and demeaning, even if they are insults, but if others respond to you in the same manner...you cry wolf.... go figure...

We have had this argument before ceci...


[edit on 10-7-2006 by Muaddib]

BTW, you want to read what is a real statement on a plan to attack the United States?

Unrestricted Warfare is written by two extraordinarily brilliant senior colonels belonging to the People's Liberation Army. The Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing published the research of Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.

Qiao and Wang started their fascinating research with the US's success against Saddam Hussein's army during the Gulf War of 1990-1991. In fact, Unrestricted Warfare is a war manual detailing how a nation like China can face the technologically advanced US army, overcome this advantage and defeat the enemy.

The book came to the notice of the CIA after the September 11 attacks, because several times in Unrestricted Warfare China's military planners suggest ways in which terrorists (bin Laden is specifically mentioned), could wage a new, unrestricted war against America.

In their foreword, the editors of Unrestricted Warfare point out the authors' 'advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict.'

Blending ancient martial arts theory and the knowledge of the high-tech era, the authors explain how the strong can be defeated by the weak through merciless unconventional methods: 'the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.'

They say: 'Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military… This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means.'

The mention of bombing the WTC resulted in US security agencies translating the book and circulating it widely.

www.phayul.com...'s+scary+asymmetry&t=1&c=4

I have presented before military papers which mention this Chinese book, and those links are somewhere in the forums. BTW, that book was funded and written with the permission of the CCP.

The statements in that book are not "taken out of context" and they are clearly the plans for attacking the united States in any way, including unconventional ways.

We have had this argument before? Muaddib, most certainly you have a thin skin if the presentation of others really bother you that much. The "argument" is one sided--with you going hysterical and with myself trying to fend off your charges. You are crying wolf. You always do.

Fine, Muaddib. You win. Everyone is wrong with their facts except you. The sky is green because you say so.

So, I'll just say it in terms of your "facts". The sky is green and the moon is made of green cheese. There are WMD's and the "War on Terror" is an actual war.

However, we're not talking about the Chinese threat to the U.S. That is another ball of wax. Plus, the site is based on Tibetian news. Don't you think that they would do anything to help their cause against China knowing their history? This doesn't say that they are wrong. But it is slanted. What else are they going to say?


Semper: I'm still thinking. Sorry it's taking a little long.







[edit on 11-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Fine, Muaddib. You win. Everyone is wrong with their facts except you. The sky is green because you say so.

Let me get this straight.... because a document states that changes don't come easy unless there is a major event, you and others like you want to twist this and make the world believe this is a plan by the U.S. to make a terrorist attack...
Yet two senior chinese military write a book which is found and quoted in military papers, in this book there are clear indications that China wants to wage an unrestrictive war against the U.S.,. such as using an enemy such as Osama Bin Laden to attack the WTC, and you claim, "that just comes from a Tibetan news"....which is not even true..

Originally posted by ceci2006
So, I'll just say it in terms of your "facts". The sky is green and the moon is made of green cheese. There are WMD's and the "War on Terror" is an actual war.

wow, so that's how you dismiss facts?.... and then some people claim i must be a bully because i laugh at such tactics....

Originally posted by ceci2006
However, we're not talking about Chinese threat to the U.S. That is an entire ball of wax.
................

Right right...it is only about the statements taken out of context which you view as facts...

Let me play your game, once again... This are your facts... The united States created the universe and built a bionic man which they named Darth Vedar, which is noone else but president Bush btw, Lord Vedar is building a death star...can't you not see the similarity between the space defense system and the movie????? Why did president Reagan name it Star Wars.... It must be true....Lord Vedar is coming to get us....... RUUUUUUNNNNNNNN FOREST RUUUUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!!!!

i can play that game too ceci....

Now back to normalcy....here are the facts to contradict your claim that "this comes only from Tibetan sources"....

Unrestricted War: the leveller

Compensating for the PLA's slow rate of military modernisation, Chinese military strategists have published a new theory of warfare that focuses on the weaknesses of potential adversaries. Dr Ehsan Ahrari investigates.

ALTHOUGH economic development is Beijing's foremost priority, since 1991 China has been steadily modernising its armed forces. Aside from initiating various modernisation programmes for the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Chinese strategic thinkers have also started to concentrate on making the best of their relative military weakness. A number have concluded that China should look for the 'Achilles' heels' of its potential adversaries and enemies.
.........

The essence of the doctrine

Unrestricted War, the book by two senior colonels of China's People's Liberation Army/Air Force (PLAAF), Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, mentions the use of terrorism as a strategy of war. Colonel Qiao has pointed out in an interview about the book: "You will find . . . not a single word about how China should use the 'terror war'". He added: "Unrestricted war . . . is a double-edged sword and is not aimed at the war plans of a specific country."

www.janes.com...


The following link is Asian, and it talks about another book these two senior Chinese officers wrote. There are some statements that you should take notice of, and they don't come from any U.S. official...

The weapons revolution
By Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui


Part 1: New forms of warfare

NOTE: This was written in 1999, on the eighth anniversary of the outbreak of the Gulf War

As soon as technological advances may be applied to military goals, and furthermore are already used for military purposes, they almost immediately seem obligatory, and also often go against the will of the commanders in triggering changes or even revolutions in the modes of combat."
- Engels
...................
When people discuss future warfare, they are already quite accustomed to using certain weapons or certain technologies to describe it, calling it "electronic warfare", "precision-weapons warfare", and "information warfare". People have not yet noticed that a certain inconspicuous yet very important changes are stealthily approaching.
..............
"Fighting the battle that fits one's weapons," and "Making the weapons to fit the battle." These two sentences show the clear demarcation line between traditional warfare and future warfare, as well as pointing out the relationship between weapons and tactics in the two kinds of war. The former reflects the involuntary or passive adaptation of the relationship of man to weapons and tactics in war which takes place under natural conditions, while the latter suggests the conscious or active choice that people make regarding the same proposition when they have entered a free state. In the history of war, the general unwritten rule that people have adhered to all along is to "fight the fight that fits one's weapons".

www.atimes.com...

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

www.fpri.org...

www.chaosacrossamerica.com...

i am not taking anything out of context, yet you claim that one statement which states that changes come slowly unless there is some major event, and that is enough to prove that 9/11 was planned by the U.S.?....

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Muaddib]

You're free to believe whatever you want, Muaddib. I didn't say otherwise. I said earlier that the news you presented could be right.

But what do I know? I've seen the light. I've been listening to propaganda while you know what the truth is. So, I hope this pleases you.

The sky is green. You should feel proud of yourself.






[edit on 11-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Now, finally, back to Semper. I apologize for not answering your questions. Here's what I have to say:

Originally quoted by semperfortis
Ceci, how can a fact be possibly? Is it possibly a pipeline, or a fact?

This is an article from Jurist talking about the Afghanistan pipeline:

THE DEADLY PIPELINE WAR:
U.S. AFGHAN POLICY DRIVEN BY OIL INTERESTS

George W. Bush justifies his bombing of Afghanistan as a war against terror. A twin motive, however, is to make Afghanistan safe for United States oil interests. A few days before September 11, the U.S. Energy Information Administration documented Afghanistan's strategic "geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural and gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea," including the construction of pipelines through Afghanistan.
[...]
Prior to September 11, United States policy toward the Taliban was largely influenced by oil. In a new book published in Paris, "Bin Laden, la verite interdite" ("Bin Laden, the forbidden truth"), former French intelligence officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document a cozy relationship between George W. Bush and the Taliban. The book quotes John O'Neill, former director of anti-terrorism for the FBI, who thought the U.S. State Department, acting on behalf of United States and Saudi oil interests, interfered with FBI efforts to track down Osama bin Laden.

This is from the Environmental News Service. It argues that the deal has been made, but instability threatens it.

Afghanistan's New Pipeline Deal May Be Just Another Pipe Dream

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 17, 2006 (ENS) - The deal has been signed, the partners agreed. Within the next two years, Afghan government officials say, construction will begin on a major gas pipeline that will extend from energy rich Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, and perhaps on to India.

But even before the ink had dried on the mid-February agreement in Ashgabat, analysts were second guessing the deal. Despite the brave face shown by the major players, this latest plan could follow several early versions into oblivion � and for the same reason, that instability in Afghanistan casts doubt over any infrastructure project, especially such a big one.

The pipeline is slated to go through Farah, Kandahar, and Helmand all provinces where Taleban insurgents carry out violent attacks on government troops and institutions on a daily basis.Once the pipeline clears Afghan territory, it will run into Baluchistan, an area of Pakistan that is now witnessing a bloody insurgency of its own.

We either gave them to them or we didn't.

If we gave them WMD's, by definition, they must have them.

Can't have it both ways.

Semper, but I said the U.S. gave Iraq arms to fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. I didn't say WMD's.

However, I did research several stories on the fact that the search for WMD's was called off last year. So, this find of new WMD's (if that's what they are), further convinces me that: a)they planted this in time for the Nov. mid-term elections; b)they are making a mountain over a molehill to grasp at any reason to justify this conflict; c)to build military morale.


The BBC reported in 2005 that America stopped its search of WMD's:

US gives up search for Iraq WMD

Charles Duelfer confirmed in October there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq
Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country.

Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.

The existence of WMD had been the stated reason in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.

The Washington Post reports in 2005 that America stopped its search of WMD's:

Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last MonthCritical September Report to Be Final Word

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States. Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

However, a report from Common Dreams says that the U.S. has planted WMD's:

New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq

BASRA -– Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. forces were unloading weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed.

Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush’s public opinion rating as the election approaches.

Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country. An Iraqi source close to the Basra Governor’s Office told the MNA that new information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly brought to southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise them as relief shipments.

About the final report about the WMD's in Iraq:

The BBC says that the report reveals that there were no WMD's in Iraq:

Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past
Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer said Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed not grown since the 1991 war.

But in a 1,000-page report his group said Saddam Hussein intended to resume production of banned weapons when UN sanctions were lifted.

The US and UK used allegations of Iraqi WMDs as a key reason for going war.

MSNBC says that the report states there were no WMD's found in Iraq:

msnbc.com
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

And, globalsecurity.com talked about key findings from the report:

Iraq Survey Group Final Report


As of the reason for "liberating" Iraq through the means of democracy, I feel that the U.S. used that to make people "feel good" about the conflict overseas.

I feel that the occupation in Iraq is one of colonialism based on mining a country's resources and ruling its people. What America did over there is not different from what happened with other countries in the past when they wanted a resource and used the people from the occupied territory to get it. I also feel that in such a colonized society, there is a hierarchy:

a)the colonizers--The American military and support staff in Iraq
b)people sympathetic to the colonizers--coalition forces, Iraqi army, police
c)the colonized and the enslaved--the Iraqi citizens
d)the rebels--the "insurgents" fighting the U.S.

Colonized societies happen because of a takeover. They push their ideals upon the colonized country, stay there until all the resources have been taken, leave when the resources are gone and leave the colonized to fend for themselves when either an uprising or international law gets in the way.

Iraq is going to be messed up for a long time because of the "occupation". Civil War has only yet to begin.

It's more complex than you think.

























[edit on 11-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Muaddib, you constantly take statements from other members out of context and twist them around to suit your arguements....if I wanted to bore myself to tears I could go through dozens of posts and find innumberable instances of you doing exactly that, but I have better things to do.

Given your tendency to twist other people's words around...you have no crediblity and no leg to stand upon. So how are we to believe your so called facts when you cannot even quote another member accurately?

And we have documents planning attacks on China and Russia as well.....and many other countries also....Given real politik we would be fools not to as would they so that proves nothing.

You are just another arm chair general and gung ho chicken hawk. Ho hum.