Not Everyone Got It Wrong!

Originally posted by Seekerof
Questions:

Do any of you who prophecy, decree, claim "false information", "corrupt", "all a lie", etc. know precisely what information/data was used to determine the status and information of Iraqi WMD? Any of you know precisely what intelligence data/information/reports were used to make the decision to go to war against Iraq? Do any of you know the inner workings of the White House and governmental foreign policy making and decisions and how the process is obtained and arrived at a/an majority conclusion?

Just trying to be objective is all and thus was wondering if anyone really understands what is totally involved in foreign policy decisions and best interests of a nation, etc.

Thanks.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Seekerof]

are you ever critical of our current administration, or do you just offer excuses for them...because honestly that's all i ever see from you. i appreciate someone that can throw some reason and logic into a heated debate, but it just seems you go out of your way to justify every seemingly bad move these people make.

Oh lord, Seekerof.. That's a lot of question!

I've been inside the government and outside the government. That's given me a great deal of insight on how things work, for one thing. Then I learned the art of analysis extensively investigating the OKC bombing, among other cases. I know people high up, on the inside from Nato to the Pentagon. Talking with those contacts gives great insight. I'm thinking of a certain Colonel who worked in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld et al.

There is no clear path. Everything is so utterly compartmentalized from the top to bottom. Even high level personnel and NOCS are often mislead for one reason or another. Call it plausible deniability. The layers of info to disinfo are staggering. Then there are the unspoken reasons that could very well have justified taking Iraq. (keeping OPEC from switching to the Euro for their trade currency.)

The best way to come to a conclusion, for me, is to analyze as much data as possible from across the political spectrum, talk to as many sources as possible, know the history (of Iraq in this case), which I've studied extensively, and spend time in said country if possible. It's hard to judge a country that you've never experienced.

When you have that wide a field of information, you begin to learn patterns, names, credibility of sources etc. Understanding the history of Iraq informs that they are a nation who will not and have not EVER allowed themselves to be occupied for very long. (That worries me for our troops.) I will never forget something an Iraqi man said, "Saddam is a hard man. He rules Eeeerok with an Iron fist. He has to. Eeerokki people are a hard people. If he stops being hard, he will be killed tomorrow." So true.

Anyway, Seekerof, I don't know if I specifically answered your question. I hope so. Take care, friend.

Tesla had the concept of "Free Energy" worked out in the 1930's, but he was silenced. He also had a car that could run on water. But that was silenced.
They have a Hydrogen car right now that works perfectly, but you don't see it on the road yet.

Big oil ain't gonna let it happen. They'd rather allow 3/4 of the world's population to die first. By the time oil runs out, I'm sure they think, they will be dead and gone.

enomus:

I know that the majority of times on this board, it appears that I am not overtly or overly critical of this administration. This is pretty much true, due to my beliefs and opinions on Iraq, for which they have been stated and argued. I am seemingly a minority at ATS when it comes to this administration and its policies. So be it. Do I 100% back this administration? No! Do I overtly proclaim thus on this board? No! Have I made mention, on seldom occasion, my displeasure on certain policies? Yes, but seldom and not overly impassioned.
I am sorry if my stance comes at a surprise or disappointment, but I have my reasons and beliefs, as you or anyone else does. My apologies to those who find my stance disappointing or contrary.


ECK:

Thank you for commenting on how you see, feel, and interpret what I asked. They were not intended to belittle any one but perhaps given to provide a limited "halt" or "stop and think" sort of questioning. I know that I have argued vehemently with many of you, and I have come to respect a many for this, but sometimes I think that we get caught up in emotions rather than the continued "objective" sifting of information. As with any issue in life, we all take sides and thus voice and express our feelings, opinions, beliefs, and thoughts......and often times, we all will butt heads or eventually butt heads.

I appreciate the answers and the honest thought you gave behind them, as always ECK. I think our past u2u discussions have provided an understanding of each and a certain amount of respect for our positions on this matter/subject(s).

To me, thats the beautiful aspect of open forum discussions, especially at ATS....we can agree to disagree and yet maintain a certain respect for our fellow members and online friends. Thanks again.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

No Esoterica, it's based on our oil economy/infrastructure.
And you think we keep that infrastructure running with daisies and pleases? We keep the thing going with our political and military might. It's the way of the world, the strong sruvive, the weak don't. Human nature won't allow anything else.

While I agree that we need to get away from an oil-based economy, I don't think it's very possible. We stop buying Arab oil, they take a hit big-time. I can't really blame them for wanting us to be dependent on them.

Would you starve to death so that people in a different country can have cleaner air and a more secure future?

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

No Esoterica, it's based on our oil economy/infrastructure.

And you think we keep that infrastructure running with daisies and pleases? We keep the thing going with our political and military might. It's the way of the world, the strong sruvive, the weak don't. Human nature won't allow anything else.

While I agree that we need to get away from an oil-based economy, I don't think it's very possible. We stop buying Arab oil, they take a hit big-time. I can't really blame them for wanting us to be dependent on them.

Would you starve to death so that people in a different country can have cleaner air and a more secure future?

Esoterica - What do you know about war? Please don't pull that macho, real world BS on me. I've been around the block plenty and I know the deal. I mean, not trying to pick a fight with you, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Seekerof, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. And I agree with you on it being nice to be able to agree to disagree and still have a good, civil, even friendly debate. Who knows, maybe this exchange will help someone learn to dig deeper and seek more widely? I can only hope so. Peace.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Here's a speech I think is very informative.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."

Thanks Bill Clinton. You have enlightened us all.

When approaching a proposal, a person uses what's called a "Selling Point". This should be the reason that is most appealing.

Is it any different for a president?

Do any of you who prophecy, decree, claim "false information", "corrupt", "all a lie", etc. know precisely what information/data was used to determine the status and information of Iraqi WMD? Any of you know precisely what intelligence data/information/reports were used to make the decision to go to war against Iraq? Do any of you know the inner workings of the White House and governmental foreign policy making and decisions and how the process is obtained and arrived at a/an majority conclusion?

Yes, yes, and "majority conclusion" never had anything to do with it. Time to go back to sleep?

As par with you MA...of course....sleep is always good and refreshing, is it not?


regards
seekerof

Since it seems that some to many are aware of the inner workings of foreign policy decision matters, specifically Iraq and the "issue" of WMD, etc....shall we also include those that are aware also?

"Were we misled?"(Seems everyone thought like the Bush administration did)
www.washtimes.com...

Excerpt:

"Can one make the case President George W. Bush "lied" or "misled" or intentionally "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq and WMD in order to lead us to war? Sure, if one possesses a visceral anti-Bush mindset coupled with a willingness to ignore powerful arguments in favor of the war:........."


Presidential candidate John Kerry:
"Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq"
www.johnkerry.com...

Excerpt:

"I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out." (sounds like "imminent threat" to me)


Influencial Mr./Senator Rockefeller IV:
Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002"
www.senate.gov...

Excerpts:

"We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam�s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States."

"Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is the core issue, and whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in six months time, that is the issue we all have to confront."


And of course, the gracious John Ritter:
"Testimony of Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Inspector
before the U.S. Senate
September 3, 1998"
www.ceip.org...

Excerpt:

"MR. RITTER: Senator, as you correctly stated, this issue is, indeed, part and parcel of the war that was fought in 1991, a war in which I participated in and a war in which hundreds of Americans lost their lives to achieve a specific aim: that was the liberation of Kuwait. In April of 1991 as part of the cease-fire resolution the Security Council added preconditions to termination of conflict. These preconditions were that Iraq must disarm, be rid of its weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, the Security Council set forth a marker on the table, saying "We are taking a collective decision to play a role in nonproliferation and disarmament activities in the world." And the United States in supporting that said this is a good role for the Security Council to do.

What we have today is two things. One, the cease-fire resolution is being violated on a continual basis by Iraq. And if we do not take action to turn this around, we will have, in fact, lost the gulf war. We will have, in fact, dishonored those Americans who died in the gulf war and those Americans who paid a heavy price, personal or physical, through the conduct of the gulf war. But even worse, Saddam Hussein will have disgraced the body of the Security Council.

SEN. MCCAIN: And isn't the unfortunate aspect of this, and perhaps one of the motivating factors in moving forward, is the United States is articulating one policy when in reality they are doing exactly the opposite? Isn't that the problem here?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: And that's what's disturbing to so many of us. Seven months ago, the secretary of State threatened force if these inspections weren't allowed to be completed. And now apparently from what you and other evidence that we have, is the secretary of State is arguing against the completion of the inspections. I'd like to get back just for a second to the gravity of this situation. Do you believe that Saddam Hussein today has three nuclear weapons assembled -- lacking only the fissile material?

MR. RITTER: The Special Commission has intelligence information, which indicates that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exist, lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: So that means to you that in what period of time, if these inspections cease, that Saddam Hussein will have that nuclear capability?

MR. RITTER: It's a question of how he chooses to acquire enriched uranium, either through indigenous enrichment or through procurement from abroad. If it's indigenous, it would take some time because the IAEA has effectively dismantled the internal enrichment -- but they have not dismantled the weaponization program per se.

SEN. MCCAIN: So what period of time are you talking about, roughly?

MR. RITTER: For a total reconstruction, it would be a period of several years to reconstruct enrichment capability. Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the biological and chemical?

MR. RITTER: That's a much less time frame. I believe within a period of six months Iraq could reconstitute its biological-weapons and chemical-weapons capability.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the missiles to deliver them?

MR. RITTER: Within a period of six months. We know in fact that Iraq has a plan to have a breakout scenario for reconstitution of long-range ballistic missiles within six months of the "go" signal from the president of Iraq.

SEN. MCCAIN: So it is your opinion that if these inspections are further emasculated, then within a six-month period of time, Saddam Hussein would have the capability to deliver a weapon of mass destruction?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman."


Perhaps it is indeed time to go back to sleep......?




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by earthtone
You would think that Bush and Blair would resign after leading our countries to war on false information. This war was illegal and everyone knows it. Benefits the people in business with the Bush administration.

Well, if you think we went there for oil, it also benefits anyone who drives a car or heats their home...

Benefit??? My ASS!!! Haven't you seen the price of gasoline? It sure as hell isn't coming down, even if they do get free oil. You, nor I, will "benfit".

[Edited on 2-7-2004 by Satyr]

Esoterica - What do you know about war? Please don't pull that macho, real world BS on me. I've been around the block plenty and I know the deal. I mean, not trying to pick a fight with you, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm not trying to pick a fight either. I try to think of myself as being an occassional realist. And you cannot argue that the most powerful nations in the world have always had two things: A powerful military, a powerful economy, and occassionally both. I didn't mean any disrespect to you, I know you're a vet. If you disagree with me, though, I'd appreciate spelling out why, as it's very easy to go on the internet and simply say "You're wrong."
I learn by argument, not discussion
Besides that, what I said is quite true. You can't expect the Arab world to give up it's way of life so that Americans down the road can have better energy.

Originally posted by Satyr

Benefit??? My ASS!!! Haven't you seen the price of gasoline? It sure as hell isn't coming down, even if they do get free oil.

You, nor I, will "benfit".

[Edited on 2-7-2004 by Satyr]

Yes, I have. It's remained roughly the same from last year, maybe increased a bit. But nothing that didn't occur in the years before the invasion.
Gasoline companies don't make money by hoarding, they make it by selling. And a sudden influx of all this supposed oily spoils of war would drive the prices down. Since they have not, the logical conclusion is that we are NOT getting large amounts of free oil from Iraq.

"I'm not saying thatitshouldn't be investigated, but it's really getting out of hand. People should focus more on current events."

agree 100%

Originally posted by GeniusSage
"I'm not saying thatitshouldn't be investigated, but it's really getting out of hand. People should focus more on current events."

agree 100%

This is such a stupid comment. Lets forget about these crimes and focus on whatever bull# they feed us next..something like that.

Originally posted by Esoterica
Gasoline companies don't make money by hoarding, they make it by selling. And a sudden influx of all this supposed oily spoils of war would drive the prices down. Since they have not, the logical conclusion is that we are NOT getting large amounts of free oil from Iraq.

remember the 'energy crisis' of the late 70's? it is a shallow view to think that hoarding doesn't create profit for 'them'. they make money by selling at a profit, not by giving it away at cost. the less oil available to the public, the higher the price for what is for sale. it's not like they're selling spice girls cd's. people NEED oil(and all successful alternatives are suppressed), so they can mete it out at a rate equal to demand, thereby keeping prices wherever the hell they want them to be.

There is a certain degree of hording. Hording lowers supply and demand will remain the same if not increase.

So a certain amount of hording is profitable.

Originally posted by billybob

remember the 'energy crisis' of the late 70's? it is a shallow view to think that hoarding doesn't create profit for 'them'. they make money by selling at a profit, not by giving it away at cost. the less oil available to the public, the higher the price for what is for sale. it's not like they're selling spice girls cd's. people NEED oil(and all successful alternatives are suppressed), so they can mete it out at a rate equal to demand, thereby keeping prices wherever the hell they want them to be.

No, I don't remember it, I wasn't born yet .

The Oil Crisis was exacerbated to the point it reached due to government price controls. The oil companies weren't hoarding the oil. The government said they couldn't sell above a certain price, so they saw no profit in selling much. They would lose money if they sold too much. A firm not wanting to be in the red is hardly a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Esoterica
The Oil Crisis was exacerbated to the point it reached due to government price controls. The oil companies weren't hoarding the oil. The government said they couldn't sell above a certain price, so they saw no profit in selling much. They would lose money if they sold too much. A firm not wanting to be in the red is hardly a conspiracy.

you are making the common mistake of believing that the oil company is seperate from the government, and that there is such a thing as a free market, or such a thing as money anymore. it is ALL tightly controlled by the 'man behind the curtain'. pay no attention to him, though. just pay your taxes and interest and be lulled, dazed and confused in the loving arms of your big brother.

Originally posted by billybob

you are making the common mistake of believing that the oil company is seperate from the government, and that there is such a thing as a free market, or such a thing as money anymore. it is ALL tightly controlled by the 'man behind the curtain'. pay no attention to him, though. just pay your taxes and interest and be lulled, dazed and confused in the loving arms of your big brother.

You're making the common mistake that the NWO exists.

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Esoterica]