Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11

[Feuer Frei!]

5 Days old but nonetheless...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html

[Catfish]

Was there ever any doubt, about all the Bush Administration ? :hmmm:
:03:

[BossMark]

Thats unusual a politician lying :haha:

[Skybird]

The point to note here is the system failing. Somebody comes along and implies to be authorized to give the order that he actually gives - but is not formally authorized at all. He gets away with it because the implication is not verified and counter-checked.

Of course, Cheney is a lying cheating manipulating bastard, and always was, but the system failure is the far more important thing to take from this news.

Bush should have cut his wings after this and show him his place. I'm sure he didn't, though. When has a hand puppet ever bitten the hand of the puppet masters?

I miss Bush, slamming and slapping Obama is all nice and well, but it just does not feel like kicking Bush around. :D

[August]

If you read the article it claims there is no proof of his having talked to the president, not that he didn't talk to the president. Typical Liberal propaganda only a sucker would believe.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, all's well then, Cheney is off the hook since it's just Liberal Propaganda.
Phew.
He should sue for character defamation.

[AVGWarhawk]

And we will hear the true story concerning Benghazi 12 years later. :88)

[Dowly]

If you read the article it claims there is no proof of his having talked to the president, not that he didn't talk to the president.

Exactly. :yep:

And the original article (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/maureen-dowd-repent-dick-cheney-678240/), is "slightly" anti-Cheney to begin with.

[Bilge_Rat]

If you read the article it claims there is no proof of his having talked to the president, not that he didn't talk to the president. Typical Liberal propaganda only a sucker would believe.


sort of my feeling too. I dont see the so-called smoking gun the "article" implies. The entire tone of that blog does not strike me as very objective either.

When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.”

so, President Bush, under oath, testifies that he had verbally authorized his vice-president to give the shoot-down order, but that is not good enough? give me a break.

[Tribesman]

Typical Liberal propaganda only a sucker would believe.
Believers like those suckers who swallowed the silly propoganda about Iraq and 9/11.
Not mentioning any names of course

[Bilge_Rat]

Believers like those suckers who swallowed the silly propoganda about Iraq and 9/11.


I'm pretty sure we all know Iraq was not behind 9/11. :ping:

[Sailor Steve]

Actually this is typical Maureed Dowd. She has been heavily biased since she started writing. The only quote from Cheney in the article is the opener about keeping Bush in the air while he went underground. Everything else is claims about Cheney lying, but where does he actually admit that, as the title claims?

I was against the Iraq invasion from the start, and I believe that our leaders both lied and were lied to, but where in the article does Cheney "come clean"? Dowd refers to claims made in a documentary, but is Cheney on the film admitting he lied? We'll see, when this film hits the air.

To be fair, though, Dowd doesn't claim that Cheney admits that he lied, either in her text or in her title. That is left to the person who wrote the blog, and to the person who linked it here.

Dowd claims that Cheney lied, which she has done all along. How solid is her evidence?

The Blogger repeats Dowd's claims, but puts up the false title "Cheney Admits that he lied about 9/11".

It is repeated here without checking to see whether that claim is true, and everybody jumps on the same bandwagon.

Just to be clear, I believe that Cheney lied, and I have always felt that Iraq was the wrong move. This coming documentary may have new evidence, or it may not. That remains to be seen. There doesn't seem to be anything new here, and still no direct evidence. My only quibble is in the rehashing of old news with nothing new to add, under the heading "Cheney Admits..."

[Tribesman]

I'm pretty sure we all know Iraq was not behind 9/11. :ping:
I wouldn't be to sure about that, after all some people still trot out the other silly false claims and say that they really were true, so why should that line of silly propoganda be any different?

[Catfish]

I wouldn't be to sure about that, after all some people still trot out the other silly false claims and say that they really were true, so why should that line of silly propoganda be any different?

^This exactly.

So we know Iraq was not behind 9/11, so why is this war of aggression (and it was one) still being defended. Saddam may have been whatever, but he also had been an allied dictator for decades before, as have others, from Pinochet to Noriega. :03:

[Armistead]

The Iraq war should go down as the biggest blunder in US history, for certain is was a tragic war in cost of lives and money. I have no doubt Bush was war hungry.

[Bilge_Rat]

^This exactly.

So we know Iraq was not behind 9/11, so why is this war of aggression (and it was one) still being defended. Saddam may have been whatever, but he also had been an allied dictator for decades before, as have others, from Pinochet to Noriega. :03:

The Confederate states decision to secede in 1861 also turned out to be a colossal boneheaded move, but I see people still get quite hot under the collar about it. :ping:

[mookiemookie]

The Iraq war should go down as the biggest blunder in US history, for certain is was a tragic war in cost of lives and money. I have no doubt Bush was war hungry.

We destroyed Iraq, gave radical Islam a recruiting tool, killed thousands of American soldiers and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civillians, and have screwed this country financially for years to come. All for nothing.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

[August]

^This exactly.

So we know Iraq was not behind 9/11, so why is this war of aggression (and it was one) still being defended. Saddam may have been whatever, but he also had been an allied dictator for decades before, as have others, from Pinochet to Noriega. :03:

So you support the Saddam regime and would have preferred that he remain in power? And what does this have to do with 9-11 and Cheney?

[Bilge_Rat]

We destroyed Iraq, gave radical Islam a recruiting tool, killed thousands of American soldiers and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civillians, and have screwed this country financially for years to come. All for nothing.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

correction, coalition forces are responsible for the death of an estimated 10-15,000 Iraqi civilians in 2003-2010;

Sunni and Shiite extremists backed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and others were responsible for the murder of an estimated 85-100,000 Iraqi civilians in the same period.

Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of an estimated 250,000-1,000,000 civilians in 1979-2003.

You would be happier if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

[Takeda Shingen]

We didn't go in there to free the Iraqi people.

[Tribesman]

So you support the Saddam regime and would have preferred that he remain in power?
I think his point is that you supported the Iraq regime, and on top of that when you decided you didn't love Saddam anymore you unwittingly decided to support the crazy ayotollahs in Tehran instead.

And what does this have to do with 9-11 and Cheney?
Errrr ....its related dodgy claims by politicians, politicians who you believed, politicians which tried to link 9/11 and Iraq.
Pretty simple isn't it, just join the dots:yeah:


Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of an estimated 250,000-1,000,000 civilians in 1979-2003.

How many of those were murdered when he was a friend to certain western governments?

Sunni and Shiite extremists backed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and others were responsible for the murder of an estimated 85-100,000 Iraqi civilians in the same period.

Who created the unstable lawless state where the extremists flourished in those years?

[August]

We didn't go in there to free the Iraqi people.

No we went in there to remove a dangerous dictator. Mission accomplished.

[Takeda Shingen]

No we went in there to remove a dangerous dictator. Mission accomplished.

We went in there to remove a nuclear threat to America; a threat that didn't exist in the first place. And in the process, we gave our real enemies a foothold in Iraq, both geographically and politically while fiscally ruining this nation and destroying other nation's desire to work with us. Mission failure, and several times over.

[August]

We went in there to remove a nuclear threat to America; a threat that didn't exist in the first place. And in the process, we gave our real enemies a foothold in Iraq, both geographically and politically. Mission failure, and several times over.

WMD is not nuclear alone and the driving force behind both Iraq use of WMD's and threatened future use of WMDs came from the man and the regime who we removed.

Mission accomplished.

[Armistead]

So you support the Saddam regime and would have preferred that he remain in power? And what does this have to do with 9-11 and Cheney?


I'm beginning to think it takes the likes of Saddam to run and rule all the sects that want to kill each other. Yes, I would rather he remained in power than to see 1000's of young soldiers die to remove him, not to mention the 1000's of soldiers that now live in pain and dysfunction.

The bigger issue was he wasn't a threat to us.

[August]

And that still has nothing to do with whether Cheney lied about presidential authorization to shoot down a terrorist controlled airliner.

[Tribesman]

No we went in there to remove a dangerous dictator. Mission accomplished.
Please read some Bush.
He kindly sets out all the reasons in simple words just so you don't get confused.


Mission accomplished.
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Pure comedy.

[August]

I'm beginning to think it takes the likes of Saddam to run and rule all the sects that want to kill each other. Yes, I would rather he remained in power than to see 1000's of young soldiers die to remove him, not to mention the 1000's of soldiers that now live in pain and dysfunction.

The bigger issue was he wasn't a threat to us.

The man was sitting on billions of petrodollars. He never should have been left in power after the 1st Gulf war. You want a Bush to blame over Iraq then '41 is your guy. That and the Democrats on Capitol hill who said the same things that Bush did up until their man left the white house.

[Takeda Shingen]

WMD is not nuclear alone and the driving force behind both Iraq use of WMD's and threatened future use of WMDs came from the man and the regime who we removed.

Mission accomplished.

The cenerpiece of the case given at the UN by Powell was about Iraqi centrifuges There was no program. They did find 60-year old mustard gas, so badly decayed as to be useless and certainly not produced by Saddam's regime. In fact, there was zero capability to produce anything resembling a weapon of mass destruction.

Failure.

[Tribesman]

And that still has nothing to do with whether Cheney lied about presidential authorization to shoot down a terrorist controlled airliner.
Indeed, but unfortunately in your attempt to defend Cheney you raised the topic of people swallowing silly propoganda.

You want a Bush to blame over Iraq then '41 is your guy.
Errrrr...that Bush had the sense to not hand Iran a regional victory on a plate.

[August]

The cenerpiece of the case given at the UN by Powell was about Iraqi centrifuges There was no program. They did find 60-year old mustard gas, so badly decayed as to be useless and certainly not produced by Saddam's regime. In fact, there was zero capability to produce anything resembling a weapon of mass destruction.

Failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

[Takeda Shingen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

I'm sorry, is that supposed to justify the claims going into Iraq?

[August]

I'm sorry, is that supposed to justify the claims going into Iraq?

No it's supposed to show that it wasn't Dick Cheney who made all this up like some here are implying. Saddam being removed from power was an objective of the Federal government long before George Bush was ever elected president but to listen to you progressives you'd think he came up with the idea all on his own.

[Takeda Shingen]

No it's supposed to show that it wasn't Dick Cheney who made all this up like some here are implying. Saddam being removed from power was an objective of the Federal government long before George Bush was ever elected president but to listen to you progressives you'd think he came up with the idea all on his own.

I didn't use the words Cheney or Bush in this thread. I said that we didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Did you actually view that video you linked? Count the number of times that nuclear weapons are mentioned. You just killed your own argument.

And "you progressives". Such nonsense.

[Tribesman]

No it's supposed to show that it wasn't Dick Cheney who made all this up like some here are implying.
No one implied that it was only Cheney who made up crap, the implication is that some people really swallowed all the made up crap and still believe it long after the people who made up the nonsense have admitted it was bull.

[Bilge_Rat]

Who created the unstable lawless state where the extremists flourished in those years?

sooooooooo, Iran backed Shiite militias kidnapping, torturing and killing an average 30-50 Sunnis a night at the height of the civil war is the U.S.'s fault?

I suppose Iran developping a nuclear arms program is also the U.S.'s fault? :ping:

[August]

I didn't use the words Cheney or Bush in this thread. I said that we didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Did you actually view that video you linked? Count the number of times that nuclear weapons are mentioned. You just killed your own argument.

And "you progressives". Such nonsense.

I killed nothing. Saddam had to be removed from power and that's what was done. Mission accomplished.

[Takeda Shingen]

I killed nothing. Saddam had to be removed from power and that's what was done. Mission accomplished.

Putting your fingers in your ears? Suit yourself, but you're going to have to find someone else to play this game with you again. Shouldn't be hard; looks like there are more than a few willing partners in this thread alone.

Have fun. :salute:

[August]

sooooooooo, Iran backed Shiite militias kidnapping, torturing and killing an average 30-50 Sunnis a night at the height of the civil war is the U.S.'s fault?

I suppose Iran developping a nuclear arms program is also the U.S.'s fault? :ping:

Yeah because like some others here he seems to prefer that Saddam had been left in power to kill another few million innocent people.

[Tribesman]

sooooooooo, Iran backed Shiite militias kidnapping, torturing and killing an average 30-50 Sunnis a night at the height of the civil war is the U.S.'s fault?

If you remove all the state apparatus and fail to provide adequate replacement security as per your obligations as occupying power then you bear responsibility.
Like Rummy, said the blanket removal of the states law and order apparatus was a major mistake which led to those events.
Are you willing to say Rummy was lying when he said that decision led to the lawless chaos that followed?

[Catfish]

August, Mr Hussein killed those civilians using torture and all kind of suppression as long as he was a 'friend' of the West.

Now it's time for Godwin's law.
August you would have made a perfct SS man, ignoring all evidence and believing your government against obvious´better knowledge', or taking the voluntary decision to not inform yourself at all.

"Mission accomplished" indeed. The thread can now be closed :dead:

[MH]

If you remove all the state apparatus and fail to provide adequate replacement security as per your obligations as occupying power then you bear responsibility.
Like Rummy, said the blanket removal of the states law and order apparatus was a major mistake which led to those events.
Are you willing to say Rummy was lying when he said that decision led to the lawless chaos that followed?

Yeah.... classic way they , the Iraqis knew so well might had worked.:doh:

[Tribesman]

Yeah because like some others here he seems to prefer that Saddam had been left in power to kill another few million innocent people.
You are posting in a state of ignorance again:yep:

I would prefer that your country didn't support Saddam in the first place.
I would prefer that you hadn't made such a complete ballsup of the removal.
I would prefer that the removal was done in a manner which didn't hand the mad mullahs a victory.
I would prefer that the stupid lines of obvious nonsense the Administration tried to sell the world hadn't wrecked the wide levels of international concensus which followed had 9/11.

Simple isn't it.

[Tribesman]

Yeah.... classic way they , the Iraqis knew so well might had worked.:doh:
Who said anything about the Iraqi way?
The fault was the attempt to do it on the cheap, removing the state security while completely failing to provide a replacement.

[MH]

You are posting in a state of ignorance again:yep:

I would prefer that your country didn't support Saddam in the first place.
I would prefer that you hadn't made such a complete ballsup of the removal.
I would prefer that the removal was done in a manner which didn't hand the mad mullahs a victory.
I would prefer that the stupid lines of obvious nonsense the Administration tried to sell the world hadn't wrecked the wide levels of international concensus which followed had 9/11.

Simple isn't it.
Not bad.... but for most it is just a wisdom after after the fact.

[Tribesman]

Not bad.... but for most it is just a wisdom after after the fact.
All those things were widely said at the time, even Bush'41 knew the 3rd one just as he had known it in the earlier gulf war.

[MH]

Who said anything about the Iraqi way?
The fault was the attempt to do it on the cheap, removing the state security while completely failing to provide a replacement.

Americans did the best they could at the time.
With time it had become obvious that it would be much tougher , thnx in great part to all great neighbouring nations of the ME who would hate it all to work out for Iraqis and used the internal tension with in the country for creating total chaos.
A chaos in which the most optimist Iraqi would wish for Saddam to return.
The Americans later on did try to use some influential prominent people from the old regime to build security forces.

Yeas it was a mistake and gamble that did not work out so well.

[Tribesman]

With time it had become obvious that it would be much tougher , thnx in great part to all great neighbouring nations of the ME who would hate it all to work out for Iraqis.

All the possible regional problems were well known before hand, the sectarian trouble in the country itself were well established for many decades.
These were obvious before the time, not becoming obvious with time.
The failure to accept and plan for all those "known knowns" is just anothetr indication of how much of a failure the mission was.

[MH]

All the possible regional problems were well known before hand, the sectarian trouble in the country itself were well established for many decades.
These were obvious before the time, not becoming obvious with time.
The failure to accept and plan for all those "known knowns" is just anothetr indication of how much of a failure the mission was.

For every decision there are those for and those against.
Yet decisions have to be made this way or another.
It turned out as it did so some may have party now.....
In this case Americans are victims of self confidence and nativity about ME...something they cant get rid off to this day or at least play it this way for political reasons...to keep some doors opened.

[Sailor Steve]

The man was sitting on billions of petrodollars. He never should have been left in power after the 1st Gulf war. You want a Bush to blame over Iraq then '41 is your guy. That and the Democrats on Capitol hill who said the same things that Bush did up until their man left the white house.
The problem I have with that logic is that we went to Kuwait with a stated goal. They didn't lie about the reasons and they stuck to the original goal. There's no blame to be had over that.

[Wolferz]

Too many read the BuyBull.

[AVGWarhawk]

We went to Iraq for the oil. Just waiting on the fat tankers to hit our shores. After all, "We hept'ed them out against the turists." "Them 9er'11 turists." "Spent gazillions." :88)

[Sailor Steve]

We went to Iraq for the oil.
I think withing the context of the rest of your speech, that should be "erl". :O:

[Bilge_Rat]

All the possible regional problems were well known before hand, the sectarian trouble in the country itself were well established for many decades.
These were obvious before the time, not becoming obvious with time.
The failure to accept and plan for all those "known knowns" is just anothetr indication of how much of a failure the mission was.

Obviously the postwar period was incredibly poorly planned, no question there.

However, predicting that a full scale civil war would break out is another thing altogether.

Who knew the Balkans would dissolve into civil war in the 90s?

Why did Lybia not descend into civil war after Qaddafi was toppled? There was'nt much of a state apparatus left.

What about Egypt or Tunisa?

Why did Syria erupt in a civil war? surely not for lack of a repressive State apparatus.

Why has Saudi Arabia not dissolved into civil war? it has a large Shiite minority.

Its a lot easier after the fact to analyse what went wrong. It was not that obvious to anyone on april 9, 2003.

[MH]

We went to Iraq for the oil.
Or change geopolitics of ME.
Showing finger to Saudis a bit might had been the bonus as well.

[vienna]

The problem I have with that logic is that we went to Kuwait with a stated goal. They didn't lie about the reasons and they stuck to the original goal. There's no blame to be had over that.


Actually, if you look back at the Gulf War coverage, you'll find reports about the Saudi government hiring a PR agency to promote the idea of an armed response to the Iraqi invasion. The Saudis were very fearful they would be Iraq's next target and were also fearful the US and other nations would do nothing until the Iraqis were at their gates. To ensure the intervention of the US and others, the PR agency trotted out stories of Iraqi atrocites, e.g., raiding hosptials in Kuwait and slaughtering newborns, as a means of stirring up anger and loathing among the the mebers of Congress anf the American people. However, as far as I have seen or heard, little, if any, of the claims made by the PR flacks have held water...

It should also be noted that at the time of the lead-up to the war against Iraq, there were a number of "whistle blowers", some from inside the White House, who openly stated the Bush administration refused to even consider any information or intelligence not linking Iraq to 9/11. One report that stands out in my memory is one White house staffer who, when he told the President and others there were no proven links, was taken aside and sternly told 'it has to be Iraq, there is no other acceptable conclusion'. The staffer went public, was quoted and reported in the mainstream press, but lost in all the chest thumping and sabre rattling...

<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

I think withing the context of the rest of your speech, that should be "erl". :O:

"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican"

[MH]

Strange but i never heard any serious claims that Saddam was linked to 9/11 somehow.:hmmm:
I don't remember Bush claiming that.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://youtu.be/duLds-TZMGw

[AVGWarhawk]

Strange but i never heard any serious claims that Saddam was linked to 9/11 somehow.:hmmm:
I don't remember Bush claiming that.

Nor I. Just WMD that were never found.

[Takeda Shingen]

"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican"

"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."

[AVGWarhawk]

"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."

Si!

[vienna]

Strange but i never heard any serious claims that Saddam was linked to 9/11 somehow.:hmmm:
I don't remember Bush claiming that.


Ever since Nixon, presdients have not been in the habit of openly making claims. Nixon used to have proxies make statements or "leak" information to see which way the wind was blowing, politically. If whatever was being tested resulted in a negative reaction, the administration would disavow the statements/leaks and thus have clean hands. If the reaction was positive, the administration would then embrace the issue and make it it's own (and sometimes take full credit fo the idea). All the presidents since then have used the Nixon playbook to keep "clean hands" whenever there is a potentially touchy matter. There were many Bush administration proxies floating about the Iraq-9/11 alleged connection. After realizing that hound wouldn't hunt, they then turned to the WMD claims...

BTW, if you want a concise, more or less, analysis of the whole Iraq-9/11 situation, try reading the section about it in "9/11 Commission Report". It starts on page 334, "Phase Two" and the Question of Iraq:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


<O>

[Tribesman]

In this case Americans are victims of self confidence and nativity about ME...something they cant get rid off to this day or at least play it this way for political reasons...to keep some doors opened.
You sound like you are quoting Thatcher talking about Lebanon:03:

Strange but i never heard any serious claims that Saddam was linked to 9/11 somehow.:hmmm:
I don't remember Bush claiming that.
Don't you remember the fictional meetings with al-qaida that they made a big deal about?
What about the terrorist training facility with a real plane where saddam teaches them how to hijack airliners?

[AVGWarhawk]

Don't you remember the fictional meetings with al-qaida that they made a big deal about?
What about the terrorist training facility with a real plane where saddam teaches them how to hijack airliners?

I do not recall to be honest. There was so much said at the time.

[Tribesman]

Obviously the postwar period was incredibly poorly planned, no question there.

However, predicting that a full scale civil war would break out is another thing altogether.




Since there was one long running but stalled civil war what other possibility apart from civil war was there when the Pershmerga were enlisted as allies?
Add in the failed civil wars in the South and it was plain to see what would happen in a created vaccuum.

Who knew the Balkans would dissolve into civil war in the 90s?

As for the Balkans, that was a surprise, that was expected to kick off in Kosovo. It was the expectation of that civil war which prompted Slovenia and Croatia to try and get out.


Why did Lybia not descend into civil war after Qaddafi was toppled? There was'nt much of a state apparatus left.

Libya is in civil war, the murders of the Americans in Benghazi are just one small event in that mess, the west of the country is far worse.


What about Egypt or Tunisa?

The same people are in power in Egypt ain't they, the MB are playing along nicely with the military to maintain the status quo.
In Tunisia the most of the military went with the protesters and only the heads of the police service changed


Why did Syria erupt in a civil war? surely not for lack of a repressive State apparatus.

Because this time there is lots of foriegn backing for the rebels plus the sunni elements from the Iraqi mess
Last time the Assads simply were able to slaughter them and move on.


Why has Saudi Arabia not dissolved into civil war? it has a large Shiite minority.

Where is the power vaccuum?
The house of Saud is keeping a very tight lid on the Iranian supported groups.

Its a lot easier after the fact to analyse what went wrong. It was not that obvious to anyone on april 9, 2003
It is a lot easier afterwards, however it is very easy to keep abrest of the situation as it exists and give a reasonable prediction of how the existing situation will develop if certain things are allowed to happen.

[Tribesman]

I do not recall to be honest. There was so much said at the time.
Ah you must remember the "training hijackers on a real airliner" one, it was hilarious.
Turned out the "secret terrorist training facility" was a rather well known exersize for the anti terrorist unit.

Edit to add: I wonder what the hearings at the 9/11 commision heard about politicians and "patriots" making the 9/11 Saddam link

[geetrue]

And we will hear the true story concerning Benghazi 12 years later. :88)

Perhaps sooner than you think if Mrs Clinton makes any moves towards running for office ... :yep:

[Tribesman]

Perhaps sooner than you think if Mrs Clinton makes any moves towards running for office ... :yep:


Have they worked out a suitable name for the "annex" yet to give it some sort of official standing? :03:

[Bilge_Rat]

Since there was one long running but stalled civil war what other possibility apart from civil war was there when the Pershmerga were enlisted as allies?
Add in the failed civil wars in the South and it was plain to see what would happen in a created vaccuum.



Not that clear to me. The Kurds had been in more or less open rebellion since the 60s and by 2003 had a de facto autonomy.

The sectarian conflict between Shias and Sunnis is a more recent development. It was pretty much unknown in 2003.

You look at the Middle East after 1945 and you see that for a long time it was shaped pretty much only by the Arab-Israel conflict and the Cold War.

Lebanon was in a civil war for most of the 70s and 80s. Both Shias and Sunnis had their own militias, but they were informal allies. The conflicts were: christians vs muslims, lebanese vs Syria, lebanese vs Israel so the muslim militias were usually fighting on the same side.

In Iraq, both Shias and Sunnis got along, the Baghdad neighborhoods were mixed and there was freqent intermarriages. During the Iran-Iraq War, most Iraqi Shias supported Iraq.

Even the Shia uprising in 1991 was perceived as an uprising against Saddam Hussein rather than a Shia-Sunni struggle.

Anyway, one thing for sure, it will be a long time before the US ever puts ground troops in the ME again. It gives a whole new meaning to the old dictum: "Dont start a land war in Asia". :D

[Stealhead]

You do realize that Saddam's regime allowed the Sunni to have control right? So most ****e kept their mouths shut or left the country.Once Saddam was gone the Sunni minority feared that they would loose control and the ****es feared that the Sunnis would get control again.And as a result they started killing each other.

In Saddams Iraq the Sunnis had power and the ****e did not by and large the ones that got along where the ones that where a part of Saddams bureaucracy and exceptions to the rule.

Maybe to you the uprising in 1991 was not seen as a Sunni .vs ****e thing but it was just like the Iran Iraq war was just like the killing that still occurs right now is.

The hatred between Sunni and ****e in Iraq and in the Middle East in general is far from something new.


From Wiki article on Sunni-Shia relations


"The governing regimes of Iraq were made mainly of Sunnis for nearly a century until the 2003 Iraq War. The British, having put down a Shia rebellion against their rule in the 1920s, "confirmed their reliance on a corps of Sunni ex-officers of the collapsed Ottoman empire". The British colonial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism) rule ended after the Sunni and Shia united against it.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#cite_note-65)
The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Shia_Muslims) under post-colonial Iraqi governments since 1932, erupting into full scale rebellions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Shia_revolts_1935%E2%80%931936) in 1935 and 1936. Shias were also persecuted during the Ba'ath Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party) rule, especially under Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein). Under Saddam public Shia festivals such as Ashura were banned. It is said that every Shia clerical family of note in Iraq had tales of torture and murder to recount.[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#cite_note-66) In 1969 the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhsin_al-Hakim) was arrested and allegedly tortured. From 1979-1983 Saddam's regime executed 48 major Shia clerics in Iraq.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#cite_note-67) They included Shia leader Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Sadr) and his sister. Tens of thousands of Iranians and Arabs of Iranian origin were expelled in 1979 and 1980 and a further 75,000 in 1989.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#cite_note-68)
The Shias openly revolted against Saddam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq), following Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War) in 1991, and encouraged by Saddam's defeat in Kuwait and simultaneous Kurdish uprising in the north. However, Shia opposition to the government was brutally suppressed, resulting in some 50,000 to 100,000 casualties and successive repression by Saddam's forces."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#Shia.E2.80.93Sunni_in _Iraq

Not that clear to you perhaps but very very clear to others.

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2:

You wouldn't have this problem if you realized that Shiite is spelled with two 'I's - either Shiite or Shi'ite. :sunny:

[GT182]

"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."

Exactly! The "buffer zone" between the two counties is taking up all the slack. :rolleyes:

[Stealhead]

:rotfl2:

You wouldn't have this problem if you realized that Shiite is spelled with two 'I's - either Shiite or Shi'ite. :sunny:

I tried that and it still did the **** thing to me for some reason.:hmmm:

It might have been because I edited it when I noticed the missing "I" So I went to add in an extra i while editing it did not want to let me use Shiite. So I just left it that and I was famished and about to eat dinner so it is what it is.

Grammar Nazi all you want.:shucks:

[Tribesman]

Not that clear to me. The Kurds had been in more or less open rebellion since the 60s and by 2003 had a de facto autonomy.

The sectarian conflict between Shias and Sunnis is a more recent development. It was pretty much unknown in 2003.

You look at the Middle East after 1945 and you see that for a long time it was shaped pretty much only by the Arab-Israel conflict and the Cold War.

Lebanon was in a civil war for most of the 70s and 80s. Both Shias and Sunnis had their own militias, but they were informal allies. The conflicts were: christians vs muslims, lebanese vs Syria, lebanese vs Israel so the muslim militias were usually fighting on the same side.

In Iraq, both Shias and Sunnis got along, the Baghdad neighborhoods were mixed and there was freqent intermarriages. During the Iran-Iraq War, most Iraqi Shias supported Iraq.

Even the Shia uprising in 1991 was perceived as an uprising against Saddam Hussein rather than a Shia-Sunni struggle.

Anyway, one thing for sure, it will be a long time before the US ever puts ground troops in the ME again. It gives a whole new meaning to the old dictum: "Dont start a land war in Asia". :D

De facto autonomy?
How much land were they claiming which was way beyond that de facto holding?
What is the only logical process for them pushing into that claim with the armed overthrow of the regime that holds it?
If you can come up with any logical answer apart from "civil war" then you may have a point.

You later come back to the Shia which you initially wrote off as "unknown", Steelhead has already dealt with that.

On Lebanon I am afraid you are very incorrect, in that long running mess just about every group has been allied with every other group and been at war with every other group.
It has been an ever shifting mess which never really shifts very far.

If you look at the mid east post-45 you will see religious tribal ideological national conflicts both linked to and seperate from the cold war and Isreali/arab issues.
If you look pre-45 you will see more of the history of these long running problems

As for not putting ground troops in again, do you really have that much faith in your politicians so as to believe they will not make the same mistakes they have already made time and time again?

[Bilge_Rat]

Not that clear to you perhaps but very very clear to others.

omg, Saddam executed 50 Shias during the Iran-Iraq war, yet thousands of Shias fought faitfully in the Iraqi armed forces. You did not see the mass desertions of 2003.How many Sunnis or Kurds did he execute? You really have to do better than a wiki snippet.:ping:

However Tribesman, Stealhead and all the other prophets, I defy you to find a pre-2003 article that predicts a full scale civil war. It should be easy since it was so obvious to everyone. :rolleyes:

btw, why did'nt South Africa erupt in civil war after majority rule was
established. Were the Blacks less oppresed that the Shias of Iraq? :ping:

[Tribesman]

However Tribesman, Stealhead and all the other prophets, I defy you to find a pre-2003 article that predicts a full scale civil war. It should be easy since it was so obvious to everyone. :rolleyes:

So you wouldn't be interested in the obvious pieces doing the rounds in 2002 at the time when little Bush did his war resolution on 16th October that year?
Poor young George said those people were living in denial and fear.

I suppose the Saudis and Turks warning of the same thing in March 2002 would be news to you too.:hmmm:

How about a nice open letter from Sept 2002 in a newspaper signed by 100 Iraqi exiles opposed to Saddam warning that the proposed US approach will unleash civil war and regional destabilisation?

Is there any shortage of pre 2003 news articles warning of the obvious?

omg, Saddam executed 50 Shias during the Iran-Iraq war,
Are you familiar with the name Al-Sadr?

[Bilge_Rat]

So you wouldn't be interested in the obvious pieces doing the rounds in 2002 at the time when little Bush did his war resolution on 16th October that year?
Poor young George said those people were living in denial and fear.

I suppose the Saudis and Turks warning of the same thing in March 2002 would be news to you too.:hmmm:



links? How can I discredit them if you dont post a link. :03:

[Tribesman]

links? How can I discredit them if you dont post a link. :03:
Ah, I expect you to do your own research, go to newspaper website and dial up "Iraq war" articles from 2002.

BTW did the name al-sadr make you rethink your OMG comment?

[August]

links? How can I discredit them if you dont post a link. :03:

He doesn't have anything.

[Tribesman]

He doesn't have anything.
Says the man repeating pre war lies that have been exposed as lies for a decade now.:rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

Any luck yet Bilge?
Have you found a piece from 4th Oct 2002 giving the 3 most repeated reasons for opposing the war?
#2 is shia/sunni/kurd civil war:03:

[Bilge_Rat]

still waiting for a link.

the ball is in your court, should be easy if it was so obvious. :ping:

[Sailor Steve]

That's the way it's done. You make a claim, you post a link. If somebody asks for a link, you provide it.

[Tribesman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=Iraq+war&section=&date=date%2F2002

Take your pick, no shortage of them fitting the bill.:D

[Tribesman]

Different sources.
Assad in the Times 13/12/2002
Indias FM on the BBC 28/11/2002.
British MP house of commons 20/11/2002
King Abdulah of Jordan Times and W.post 29/6/2002

Damn this is easy:03:

[Jimbuna]

Same old, same old....why can't people just get along http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2822/yawnbigji2wt7.gif

[Tribesman]

Same old, same old....why can't people just get along
People are people:yep:


But as Bilge rat had raised another question perhaps it is time it got a simple answer as his latest example really makes the point in a way that is crystal clear.
Why did S.Africa not erupt into civil war when the regime changed?
Because it was a long drawn out negotiated settlement which led to a peaceful transition of government that created no power vaccuum for the nuts to fill at will, and contained a legal mechanism for the adjudication of past wrongs.

[Bilge_Rat]

Different sources.
Assad in the Times 13/12/2002
Indias FM on the BBC 28/11/2002.
British MP house of commons 20/11/2002
King Abdulah of Jordan Times and W.post 29/6/2002

Damn this is easy:03:

again I dont see why it is so difficult to provode a quote and a link. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to find these links on my own. As far as I can see, none discuss the possibility of a Shia-Sunni civil war.

[Bilge_Rat]

But as Bilge rat had raised another question perhaps it is time it got a simple answer as his latest example really makes the point in a way that is crystal clear.
Why did S.Africa not erupt into civil war when the regime changed?
Because it was a long drawn out negotiated settlement which led to a peaceful transition of government that created no power vaccuum for the nuts to fill at will, and contained a legal mechanism for the adjudication of past wrongs.


hmmm, let's see...

Iraq: Shias and Sunnis share the same race, language, culture, religion, live in the same neighborhhoods and intermarry regularly. Under the US-UK plan which had already been partly implemented by july 2004, Shias would have a majority in the parliament and control the government. Yet both sides felt compelled to engage in a prolonged period of ethnic cleansing.

South Africa: Blacks and whites do not share the same race, culture, live in different neighborhoods, do not intermarry regularly. Blacks took complete control of a government, army, police, courts which had been dominated by whites. Yet on the whole, the transition to black majority rule has been peaceful.

yes, I guess it should be obvious to everyone why one erupted into a civil war and the other one did not. :ping:

[Tribesman]

Iraq: Shias and Sunnis share the same race, language, culture, religion, live in the same neighborhhoods and intermarry regularly.
Wow...just wow.
I think that deserves a :doh:

Can you just run off a quick list of the ethnicities and languages of Iraq, maybe give a brief history of the religious conflicts between these "same" religions you speak of.
Maybe touch on the Kurd/Turkoman/Assyrian problems then add in the arab problems with those communities too, possibly deal with the aftermath and consequences of Uncle saddams arabification program, then for good measure mix in the Persian element for some real fun and giggles.
Blimey some of the Ma'dan even speak Aramaic, hows that for culture eh?

South Africa: Blacks and whites do not share the same race, culture, live in different neighborhoods, do not intermarry regularly. Blacks took complete control of a government, army, police, courts which had been dominated by whites. Yet on the whole, the transition to black majority rule has been peaceful.

It could be said that the transition followed a long running low level civil war which led to the peace process.
I suppose mixing in the conflicts between the various black groups for their own political/tribal agendas might be taxing you a bit much. So how about something easier like the British/Dutch/Indian/Cape Coloured differences.
Or is it all just black and white to you?

As far as I can see, none discuss the possibility of a Shia-Sunni civil war.
So you didn't see things like.
The knock-on effects of an Iraq war - a Sunni-Shia civil war 29/12/2002.?

[geetrue]

Foresight is not my best quality, but hindsight I have plenty of ... :yep:

Iraq was a wise move in many respects ... I am so sorry for the thousands of US and allied troops that died and were maimed or injured, but in hindsight they did a valuable service to America.

A certain crazy indvidual, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, with a small nuclear weapon was going to destroy America and then blame the crazyman of Iraq President Saddam Hussein, but the Gulf war of August 1990 caused all of that to change.

Both Presidents named Bush have Chenny to thank ... I know I do.

No proof, no links, nothing I will admit to, but true never less.

They were friends of course: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70583,00.html#ixzz2NjkphaVC


Saddam Hussein has made secret plans for his family and leading members of his regime to be given political asylum in Libya in the event of a war with America or a successful internal coup in Baghdad.


The extraordinary steps taken by the Iraqi leader to provide an exit strategy for key relatives and associates, which includes paying $3.5 billion into Libyan banks, provide the first evidence that Saddam is now facing up to the prospect of being toppled from power.


Even as he makes public statements of defiance and vows to defend his country against an American invasion, The Times has learnt that Saddam’s secret emissaries have been visiting Libya and Syria to ensure that there is an escape route for his family and top cronies.


The deal with Tripoli does not include providing refuge for Saddam or for Uday, his eldest son



Obama himself may have a few secrets, but instead of lying like they now out and out say that Chenny did, they call it talking points

[Tribesman]

Iraq was a wise move in many respects ...
Name one.
Then again.....

the Gulf war of August 1990 caused all of that to change
Are you talking about the other war?
If so then you are correct, the UN sanctioned liberation of Kuwait was a wise move.

[mookiemookie]

Iraq was a wise move in many respects ...

At first I was like :huh: and then I was all :rotfl2:

[Bilge_Rat]

So you didn't see things like.
The knock-on effects of an Iraq war - a Sunni-Shia civil war 29/12/2002.?


so, you have plenty of articles which support your point, but I have to find them?

well that's novel.

btw did you see "No one predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war":ping:

[Tribesman]

btw did you see "No one predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war":ping:
Do you have a date for an article?:rotfl2:
Nice try, but any article with that line would have had to be printed after the events:smug:

[Bilge_Rat]

Do you have a date for an article?:rotfl2:
Nice try, but any article with that line would have had to be printed after the events:smug:

typical Tribesman, when you can't back up an argument, change the subject. :rotfl2:

unless you post a relevant link, there are no articles which predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war, so it was not that obvious to everyone.:smug:

[Tribesman]

typical Tribesman, when you can't back up an argument, change the subject.
It responded to your post, how is that changing the subject?
You wrote the words.
Such a statement can only have been made after a civil war.

unless you post a relevant link, there are no articles which predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war, so it was not that obvious to everyone.:smug:
:har: Keep digging.
Answer this, if prior to the invasion Wolfowitz and Rummy both made statements rejecting the predictions of civil war what predictions are they rejecting?
If Wolfowitz 3 months after the invasion says he was wrong to reject the predictions what predictions did he reject?
Now I could go all State dept. on you with predictions, but as it became a military matter can you name the two senior US generals who predicted it and were attacked by the administration for saying the troop levels were insufficient to address the "inevitable ethnic based conflict" that would follow?

[Bilge_Rat]

:har: Keep digging.


:har: No link?

[Tribesman]

:har: No link?
No link is needed.:know:
And I do wish Vienna hadn'd edited in that 9/11 link earlier as that would have been fun dealing with those faulty memories some people have considering the US opinion polls from the time showed vast proportions of the US population had clearly swallowed that bullexcrement hook line and sinker.

[Tribesman]

hey its a new one Bilge.
NYT, are we about to open an arab yugoslavia?

I like "congenitally divided", a pretty good turn of phrase about the ethnic division existing in the country.:yeah:

Not of course suggesting that the NYT loved saddam , after all they follow with.
"Does that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it right. To begin with, the president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the Arab Yugoslavia".

[Bilge_Rat]

hey its a new one Bilge.
NYT, are we about to open an arab yugoslavia?

I like "congenitally divided", a pretty good turn of phrase about the ethnic division existing in the country.:yeah:

Not of course suggesting that the NYT loved saddam , after all they follow with.
"Does that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it right. To begin with, the president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the Arab Yugoslavia".

not sure if I follow, do I have to find the link for this one too? :D

[Tribesman]

do I have to find the link for this one too? :D
You can if you want, do you want the date?

Though I think you realise that not only is there no shortage of articles warning of the obvious, but that politicians and the military all warned about the obvious too.

[Bilge_Rat]

If you want to discuss Syria, fine.

If you want to keep discussing Iraq, I stand by my point that no one predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war before the event. Unless you can show otherwise, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

On Syria, I think it should be obvious to everyone that the U.S. will never, ever intervene in the present conflict. UK and France, if they are so hot, can do it on their own. The most you may get is limited air support as in Libya or Mali.

[geetrue]

At first I was like :huh: and then I was all :rotfl2:

I still respect you mookie, from the last election alone I respect you, but you have no way of knowing what that crazy man Saddam would've done if he of stayed in power.

The picture of Sadddam looking like a street person living out of a taxi with a brief case of over $100,000 is enough to convince me that both Bushes and Cheney did the right thing and were the right people for the job.

[Tribesman]

If you want to keep discussing Iraq, I stand by my point that no one predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war before the event. Unless you can show otherwise, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So you are claiming that no newspaper articles featured the warnings, General S and General Z didn't give the warnings in 2002 and get publicly attacked for it, and that wolfowitz wasn't appearing before a hearing shortly after the invasion regretting that they hadn't taken heed of the warnings given before the war?
A novel approach, you really did dig yourself a hole there.:rotfl2:

On Syria, I think it should be obvious to everyone that the U.S. will never, ever intervene in the present conflict.
Your president has already set out the conditions where he would intervene, currently he is in the mid east discussing that very issue(plus of course the issue of Assads allies).

[Bilge_Rat]

So you are claiming that no newspaper articles featured the warnings, General S and General Z didn't give the warnings in 2002 and get publicly attacked for it, and that wolfowitz wasn't appearing before a hearing shortly after the invasion regretting that they hadn't taken heed of the warnings given before the war?
A novel approach, you really did dig yourself a hole there.:rotfl2:



no, you will never find anything supporting that. Making stuff up again? :rotfl2:

[Bilge_Rat]

Your president has already set out the conditions where he would intervene, currently he is in the mid east discussing that very issue(plus of course the issue of Assads allies).

it will never happen.

[Tribesman]

no, you will never find anything supporting that. Making stuff up again?
Thats true, in february 2003 I must have wrote
the arab yugoslavia
I never told you write for the NY Times did I:rotfl2:

Could you run through the objections of George Bush's special envoy and elaborate on that Generals made up objections which he didn't voice (first not voiced on BBC and Washington Post, June 2002)

Come to think of it since you are apparently unable to see at all perhaps that generals later statement from Oct 17th 2002 is apt
I am not sure which planet you are on. (though altering just one word as of course he was refering to Cheney and Rummy not you)

[Bilge_Rat]

I am not sure which planet I am on. (though altering just one word as of course he was refering to Cheney and Rummy not me)

agreed....just one word. :ping:

[Tribesman]

agreed....just one word.
Two words work well.
two pairs of two words of what to expect

tribal revenge
factional splitting

Though of course as he put it(definately not reported in the British and US media both in June 2002& Oct2002:rotfl2:) he had his eyes opened in Somalia about what to expect.
Not like those errrrr..."neo con hawks":know:

Damn that American general was really scathing wasn't he. You can see why Rummy and Cheney were laying into him before the war, how dare he say such things in public:har:

[Dowly]

To get this BS over with, here's a link to what Tribesman is talking about:
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/17/zinni/

[Tribesman]

Thats not the BBC or the NYtimes Dowly.

Why not go with wolfowitz' testimony? after all thats an official government record

[Takeda Shingen]

To get this BS over with, here's a link to what Tribesman is talking about:
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/17/zinni/

Thank you. And here's one of the others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/opinion/the-day-after.html

Tibesman, why do you do this? Here is a case where you were right, and you could have just posted the links. It might have taken about 15 seconds, but instead you let this drag on for days. Sheesh.

[August]

To get this BS over with, here's a link to what Tribesman is talking about:
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/17/zinni/


There better be a better example than that because nowhere in that article is a Sunni/Shia civil war even mentioned.

[Dowly]

Thats not the BBC or the NYtimes Dowly.

Why not go with wolfowitz' testimony? after all thats an official government record

It wasnt my job in the first place to post any links, I just wanted to get this thread
moving somewhere.

And like Tak says, this one you are right in, why not just post the links? :doh:

[Tribesman]

Tibesman, why do you do this?
To see how deep people will dig their own hole instead of actually thinking about it.

Like I said I was dissapointed when the 9/11 inqiry link was edited into a post.
Given the wide acceptance of that line of nonsense your side of the water I was amazed when people were on here denying that it had even been claimed.

One thing that always strikes me about the topic of Iraq is that the cheereaders try and twist what is clearly recorded history to still attempt to justify things which are long known to be false.

Though on the media issue bilge rat did have an understandable problem. There was plenty of coverage, but it was largely drowned out in your neck of woods by the crazy chants of cheese eating surrender monkeys or why do you hater freedom or you love saddam.
However when the information is all freely available via your keyboard I am stumped that people remain ignorant of it even though the US govtheld hearings within months of the invasion about how they had messed up in the face of all the warnings they were given.

[Tribesman]

There better be a better example than that because nowhere in that article is a Sunni/Shia civil war even mentioned.
Errrrr.... read the one above your post, its a month earlier.

[Bilge_Rat]

There better be a better example than that because nowhere in that article is a Sunni/Shia civil war even mentioned.


yeah and Zinni was head of CENTCOM 1997-2000 so he was familiar with the region.

[Takeda Shingen]

To see how deep people will dig their own hole instead of actually thinking about it.

But all that happens then is that you give weight to your detractor's assertion that you don't discuss anything, but only play games. Moreover, you just plainly admitted that you are just playing games. And in the end, it just makes people like me look stupid for sticking up for you, as you are doing this even when you are right.

Like I said I was dissapointed when the 9/11 inqiry link was edited into a post.
Given the wide acceptance of that line of nonsense your side of the water I was amazed when people were on here denying that it had even been claimed.

One thing that always strikes me about the topic of Iraq is that the cheereaders try and twist what is clearly recorded history to still attempt to justify things which are long known to be false.

Though on the media issue bilge rat did have an understandable problem. There was plenty of coverage, but it was largely drowned out in your neck of woods by the crazy chants of cheese eating surrender monkeys or why do you hater freedom or you love saddam.
However when the information is all freely available via your keyboard I am stumped that people remain ignorant of it even though the US govtheld hearings within months of the invasion about how they had messed up in the face of all the warnings they were given.

Look, I agree with you. And if you posted this and added the links below we wouldn't have had two days of this silliness. Instead, we had this ridiculous dance of "show me the links", "no, I don't have to show you the links", "yes, show me the links", "no, show yourself the links", and so on.

[Tribesman]

Takeda, do you really think I would have been doing it if I wasn't sure I could back it all up?

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda, do you really think I would have been doing it if I wasn't sure I could back it all up?

That's not the point. The point is that you knew that you could back it up, I knew you could back it up, Dowly knew you could back it up, and most everybody knew you could back it up. All of that and you refused to actually back it up. Instead, we got this game.

I give up.

[Bilge_Rat]

Thank you. And here's one of the others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/opinion/the-day-after.html



this one is more sort of on point:


In one Shiite city after another, expect battles between rebels and army units, periodic calls for an Iranian-style theocracy, and perhaps a drift toward civil war.For the last few days, I've been traveling in these Shiite cities -- Karbala, Najaf and Basra -- and the tension in the bazaars is thicker than the dust behind the donkey carts.

So before we rush into Iraq, we need to think through what we will do the morning after Saddam is toppled. Do we send in troops to try to seize the mortars and machine guns from the warring factions? Or do we run from civil war, and risk letting Iran cultivate its own puppet regime? In the north, do we suppress the Kurds if they take advantage of the chaos to seek independence? Do we fight off the Turkish Army if it intervenes in Kurdistan?

Unless we're prepared for the consequences of our invasion, we have no business invading at all.

So après Saddam, le déluge? That's only a guess, of course, but it's exactly what happened the last time Saddam was in trouble, at the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991.


of course he also says.



Of course there are happier scenarios as well. Iraq also has a 95 percent literacy rate and a secular middle class that could eventually be fertile soil for a democracy that would be a model for the Arab world. So it's fine to hope for democracy, as long as we brace for civil war.

[Tribesman]

of course he also says.

Yes, and when wolfowitz was appearing to answer questions on the failings this...
So it's fine to hope for democracy, as long as we brace for civil war.
....was a central theme, as in "since you had all the warnings why was the invasion lite option chosen despite all the objections raised about the aftermath"

[Bilge_Rat]

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

So I pulled out one of the many books I have read on Iraq, in this case "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to see what he had to say about the civil war. Thomas Ricks was the senior Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and a leading critic of the war.

So I checked the pre-war period and the objections people raised to the war, odd, no mention of a possible civil war; checked late 2003, 2004, 2005 still no discussion of a possible civil war. Finally, when he wrote the conclusion in the fall of 2005, he discusses the possible outcomes as best, middle or worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a civil war which he mentions as a possibility. So, one of the leading critics of the war did not think a civil war was an obvious outcome as late as the fall of 2005.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.

[August]

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

So I pulled out one of the many books I have read on Iraq, in this case "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to see what he had to say about the civil war. Thomas Ricks was the senior Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and a leading critic of the war.

So I checked the pre-war period and the objections people raised to the war, odd, no mention of a possible civil war; checked late 2003, 2004, 2005 still no discussion of a possible civil war. Finally, when he wrote the conclusion in the fall of 2005, he discusses the possible outcomes as best, middle or worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a civil war which he mentions as a possibility. So, one of the leading critics of the war did not think a civil war was an obvious outcome as late as the fall of 2005.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.


Bam! :)

[Tribesman]

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

See your problem, you were writing about the poster not what was written.:rotfl2:

You dug your hole nice and deep and jumped right in youself with only the slightest hint of a push. Now you are stuck in your hole claiming that you are not.


So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.
Obvious to anyone who actually looked and thought.
No doubt you can provide books from the past few years which will still claim that the WMD claims were true, yet it doesn't make it so.
You can probably provide links to the flat earth society too.
What is obvious is never obvious to everyone.


You were provided with indications to public statements from the US chief of staff, the US special envoy, the official stance of the Turkish government , the Indian foriegn minister visiting Washington to discuss the matter, the Saudi foriegn minister doing the same , the ruler of Jordan visiting Blair on the way to meet Bush, the British MPs raising the concern in their parliament, references to many news articles stating the same.
You were provided with US politicians rubbishing the warnings and a US hearing where the administration are castigated for ignoring the obvious warnings.
You come back with one reporter and one book he wrote:har:

I must say though, I did have a good laugh about your attempt on S. Africa.
Off hand can you tell me the ethicity of just the cabinet, maybe stretch it out to deputy ministers to include more blacks, do the same with the military the police and the judiciary...all blacks you see:rotfl2:


Bam! :)
Is that the explosion of those WMDs you recently claimed really did exist:rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

So I pulled out one of the many books I have read on Iraq, in this case "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to see what he had to say about the civil war. Thomas Ricks was the senior Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and a leading critic of the war.

So I checked the pre-war period and the objections people raised to the war, odd, no mention of a possible civil war; checked late 2003, 2004, 2005 still no discussion of a possible civil war. Finally, when he wrote the conclusion in the fall of 2005, he discusses the possible outcomes as best, middle or worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a civil war which he mentions as a possibility. So, one of the leading critics of the war did not think a civil war was an obvious outcome as late as the fall of 2005.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.

I just gave you an article that did. This is what you asked for back in post No. 74. Now you are moving the goalposts and claiming victory.

[Tribesman]

No worries Tak, even with his shifting of the goal posts his "evidence" undercuts him and puts him in a deeper hole.
When Ricks writes of the terrifying concusion that the white house wasn't listening to the generals warnings he is writing about the generals warnings that invasion lite wouldn't allow for any containment of the inevitable blood letting which would come about due to the ethnic divisions in Iraq.:know:

[Tribesman]

Or
Another virtue of retelling the whole ugly tale is to dispel a favourite accusation of the Bush administration: that its critics are “Monday morning quarterbacks”, emboldened only by hindsight. At every step, in fact, from the pre-war intelligence to American interrogation tactics, wiser men than those in power questioned each facet of the Iraq policy.

Or maybe
A lot of people were saying that this is going to be harder than you think. But that advice was systematically excluded. It was aggressively not welcome in the inner circle.

Perhaps
A phrase that came to haunt me in the research for my book was [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz's "hard to imagine." It turned out that, yeah, it was the imagination. Wolfowitz said it was hard to imagine that you'd need that many more troops for an occupation than for an invasion.

Not wanting to quote Bilges source of "supporting" "evidence" too much of course:03:

[Bilge_Rat]

I just gave you an article that did. This is what you asked for back in post No. 74. Now you are moving the goalposts and claiming victory.

He is the one who claimed that it was obvious to everyone that there would be a civil war, when it obviously was not. As usual, he is just trying to score cheap debating points and is not interested in the truth.

[Bilge_Rat]

Obvious to anyone who actually looked and thought.
No doubt you can provide books from the past few years which will still claim that the WMD claims were true, yet it doesn't make it so.
You can probably provide links to the flat earth society too.
What is obvious is never obvious to everyone.



is that the best you can do, man you are really stuck in that hole you dug. Keep digging. :har::har:

[Bilge_Rat]

No worries Tak, even with his shifting of the goal posts his "evidence" undercuts him and puts him in a deeper hole.
When Ricks writes of the terrifying concusion that the white house wasn't listening to the generals warnings he is writing about the generals warnings that invasion lite wouldn't allow for any containment of the inevitable blood letting which would come about due to the ethnic divisions in Iraq.:know:



“President George W. Bush (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy,” Mr. Ricks writes. “The consequences of his choice won’t be clear for decades, but it already is abundantly apparent in mid-2006 that the U.S. government went to war in Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information — about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s terrorism — and then occupied the country negligently. Thousands of U.S. troops and an untold number of Iraqis have died. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, many of them squandered. Democracy may yet come to Iraq and the region, but so too may civil war or a regional conflagration, which in turn could lead to spiraling oil prices and a global economic shock.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/books/25kaku.html?ei=5088&en=ed583c38a608b09b&ex=1311480000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&_r=0

"may" is not "obvious".

read the book, you might learn something. :rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

He is the one who claimed that it was obvious to everyone that there would be a civil war, when it obviously was not. As usual, he is just trying to score cheap debating points and is not interested in the truth.
Cheap point scored again, damn this is easy:yeah:
Thank you for throwing me another point, your claim is false.:know:
I must say you have managed to give yourself a real solid asswhooping, that really is some achievement.

Would you like to deal with what I have written instead of tilting at your own strawman arguements?:rotfl2:

[MH]

So they all knew there would be civil war and pressed with invasion of Iraq?.
I suppose a lot of lessons had been learned for the next time if ever...which will include more of possible scenarios.

Taking aside all the crap throwing and the coast of the war to Americans it still possible that Iraqis will eventually benefit from this all.
With all the chaos there they are more of democracy than any other post Arab spring country.

[geetrue]

This is after all just a message board, but some of you have turned it into a paddleball board :woot:

I like wacthing Tribesman work his sheep, but he that wants everyone else to be right has to be right in his own right :know:

I leave you with this message:
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A6-8&version=NKJV
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. ... but the end is not yet in sight

(see even has a link)

[Buddahaid]

Here I go. It should have been obvious to anyone who bothered to notice, that these Arab states were/are all held together by ruthless leadership or they fall apart into brawling factions. But that didn't matter because too many people in the US just wanted to kick some Arab, or anybody that looked Arab, butt. The juggernaut was unstoppable.

I made that point to co-workers and was met with stupid questions like "So you think Saddam is a nice man?" It was pointless to argue against attacking. The bogeyman was named and the propaganda was flowing.

[MH]

But that didn't matter because too many people in the US just wanted to kick some Arab, or anybody that looked Arab, butt. The juggernaut was unstoppable.

You did no go to Iraq to kick some Arab ass....

[Buddahaid]

No? That's what the blue collar people I talked with wanted. WMD's were just the selling point.

[MH]

No? That's what the blue collar people I talked with wanted. WMD's were just the selling point.

I suppose it was easer to sell than some geopolitical projects.
It all must be about oil or ass kicking... right?

Look at Syria thousand are ding there but it is all about weather they will or will not use chemical weapons.

[August]

I suppose it was easer to sell than some geopolitical projects.
It all must be about oil or ass kicking... right?

Look at Syria thousand are ding there but it is all about weather they will or will not use chemical weapons.

Maybe it's all about chemweps in Israel but over here the Syrian civil war has been nightly news for months now. In any case don't you think their use is worth making a big deal over?

[MH]

Maybe it's all about chemweps in Israel but over here the Syrian civil war has been nightly news for months now. In any case don't you think their use is worth making a big deal over?

It is on the news here as well for a lot of reasons.


I'm not saying it is not big deal but is it a crossing of red line in terms of humane behaviour after slaughtering thousands and thousands?

[Oberon]

Death Star destruction was 'an inside job':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2dvv-Yib1Xg

[August]

It is on the news here as well for a lot of reasons.


I'm not saying it is not big deal but is it a crossing of red line in terms of humane behaviour after slaughtering thousands and thousands?

I don't know who says it's a red line but it does indicate a very worrying escalation of the conflict don't you agree?

[Takeda Shingen]

He is the one who claimed that it was obvious to everyone that there would be a civil war, when it obviously was not. As usual, he is just trying to score cheap debating points and is not interested in the truth.

I can't argue against that. He has admitted that he is just playing games with you.

[Catfish]

If you want links that provide evidence for Cheney, Powell, Bush having lied about WMDs to get the US into war, and how they manipulated the media to 'follow' them, i can provide some german ones - but i guess the german ones alone would eat up Neal's server space :03:

[MH]

I don't know who says it's a red line but it does indicate a very worrying escalation of the conflict don't you agree?
But not very surprising if it actually happened.

If you want links that provide evidence for Cheney, Powell, Bush having lied about WMDs to get the US into war, and how they manipulated the media to 'follow' them, i can provide some german ones - but i guess the german ones alone would eat up Neal's server spaceIt is sort of on topic of the off topic:haha:
If you like theories....don't know if it fits into your world view though.

Where Does Syria’s Chemical Weapons Come From?

Daily Witness December 10, 2012
Last week, the world was told that Syria’s President Bashar Assad is poised to use chemical weapons against his own people in a last-ditch effort to retain power despite his growing unpopularity.
Such a maneuver can certainly be classified as insane, because it would have the opposite result of that which is intended. Most likely, the people of Syria in combination with the people of the world would not only depose Assad, but would try him for war crimes as well — should he live that long!
The government of Syria says it would never use chemical weapons against its own people, but we must ask why Assad would even have chemical weapons were he unwilling to use them. Perhaps he thought they would be necessary in a war against Israel — the target of opportunity for Muslim states throughout the region. But since Israel is a known nuclear power, that would be even more insane — and more suicidal — than using the weapons in his own country.
The fact that there is no sane use for chemical weapons does raise the question of why Syria would have ever developed such weapons in the first place. For many years, Syria denied that it even had chemical weapons, but that changed on July 23 of this year, when Assad may have thought it wise to pose a threat that would make the world uncertain whether he was a madman or not!
Which brings us to another madman who liked to play with chemical weapons — Saddam Hussein.
In fact, there has been a story around since 2006 that Syria inherited a large chemical weapons stash from its neighbor Iraq when Hussein tried to rid his country of evidence of WMDs just before the 2003 invasion that toppled him from power.
That story has received blessed little attention over the years in large part because it would have given credence to the claims of the Bush White House that Saddam was a clear and present danger. Since the prevailing narrative among the mainstream media in Washington, D.C., was that Bush had “lied” about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, it would have been highly inconvenient to discover that such weapons had existed after all.
Nonetheless, the evidence is fairly compelling because of its source — retired General George Sada of the Iraqi Air Force. Sada had returned to service at Saddam’s request during the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but lost favor when he refused orders to execute POWs. That’s a pretty good testament to his character, in my opinion.
After Saddam fell from power in 2003, Gen. Sada was appointed as national security adviser by interim leader Iyad Allawi. During that time, Sada would have been privy to state secrets, and thus his claim in his 2006 book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” that Saddam had smuggled WMDs out of Iraq to Syria certainly deserved at least a full hearing. Instead, it was taken up mostly in narrow conservative circles and widely ignored by the more liberal mainstream press.
Sada described the transport of the deadly weapons in an interview with the New York Sun shortly after the book was published in January 2006:
“There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Sada was quoted as saying. He told the Sun that the weapons were smuggled out on two commercial airliners that were stripped of seating in order to turn them into clandestine cargo planes. Sada said the pilots, who were friends of his from the Iraqi Air Force, told him they flew a total of 56 flights to Syria.
According to the Sun interview, “Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes … including ‘yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel.’ The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.”
And according to Sada, the weapons were received in Syria by a cousin of none other than President Assad “who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.”
The story was never confirmed, but it should be noted that there was other testimony that such a transfer had occurred. According to the New York Sun, “An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, ‘Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.’”
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, likewise, in 2003 testified before Congress that he was aware of reports that Saddam had transferred WMDs to Syria and that he considered the reports to be a “cause of concern.”
Unfortunately, we may never know whether any of the weapons in the hands of Bashar Assad originated in Iraq. Bolton confirmed the problem in his 2003 testimony when he made it clear that Syria already had “one of the most advanced Arab state chemicals weapons capabilities, including nerve agents sarin and VX.”
That being the case, along with Bolton’s confidence that Syria believed that its chemical weapons capability “serves as a deterrent to regional adversaries,” we are probably going to be left with a mystery, unless the impending collapse of the Syrian government results in a new book called “Assad’s Secrets.”
But that, too, would likely be dismissed as inconclusive or fiction were it to support the claims of the Bush administration. Some things never change.
By Frank Miele

[Catfish]

For August, some reminders:



President Bush and british colleague Tony Blair on a press conference in Camp David, stating Iraq had WMDs this being the reason to support the US for an invasion. A lot of Americans were angry that US journalists seemed to have forgotten to ask any questions:


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/image-474086-galleryV9-zohm_zpse39b89e7.jpg
　



　
Former Foreign minister Powell in his meanwhile (in)famous speech before the United Nations, claiming the existnce of WMDs with "found" probes of WMDs allegedly from Iraq, provided by a US secret service.
Does anyone remember Powell's later appearance, and what he said THEN ? I do.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/image-117995-galleryV9-poil_zpsd70a8194.jpg
　
　



One year after the invasion of Iraq Bush in his speech at Fort Campbell, Kentucky (march 18th, 2004,) still claims the troops are in Iraq to find the Saddam Hussein regime's WMDs :


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/image-474092-galleryV9-ihuv_zpsf69ce10e.jpg

　


　
Judith Miller, star reporter of the "New York Times" published report after report of "evidence" of WMDs allegedly having been found in Iraq (b.t.w. where is she now?). After Powell's appearance before the UN (see above) "Washington Post" reporter Richard Cohen said that only charlatans - or frenchmen - would now doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq. The few reportes who dared to contradict such statements, were banned to the rearmost pages, or fired:


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/image-474095-galleryV9-occj_zps9e1e67a6.jpg
　

　
Lets stop here please. Anyone who thinks they did not lie suffers from a serious lack of a sense of reality.

[mapuc]

I have been following this thread with interest. I can't remember everything that have been said before the invasion of Iraq.

Why I Post a response is because today the danish channel DR2 had a whole afternoon about the Iraq war

I'm not perfect in English grammar and I can't remember every word that was said in this program

But I do remember what a danish politician(Mogens Lykketoft) said

Today we know, that

There was no WMD
There was no connection to 9/11
There was no connection to some terrorist group

We(Denmark) went to war on huge lies.

When he said that, it made me remember a danish party(SF) Who a couples a year, ago demanding that everything about the Iraq war was being investigated, they want to see if Denmark went to war on a lie. I don't know if there is a such a inquiry has been started, but I do remember some other politician saying

That would mean that we need to access secret papers from CIA...forget it.

Markus

[Platapus]

You did no go to Iraq to kick some Arab ass....

Well since one definition of Arab is one who speaks Arabic (the other being genealogical) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Arab

And since Arabic is one of the official languages of Iraq........:)

[Tribesman]

I can't argue against that. He has admitted that he is just playing games with you.
Then you should think, that post you quote starts off with bull and ends with bull.
What you have had is a perfect demonstration that even when links are posted with irrefutable proof which back claims up people still reject the truth, and will make up claims that were never posted to try and avoid facing the truth.

To be honest I thought Bilge was playing games, it took a while to realise that he genuinly believed no such warnings were made prior to the invasion. Which is a very strange belief to hold when there is a multitude of evidence to shatter that blind faith.

[Tribesman]

I don't know who says it's a red line but it does indicate a very worrying escalation of the conflict don't you agree?
Wasn't it your president who said it was a red line?

[Bilge_Rat]

I can't argue against that. He has admitted that he is just playing games with you.

you are correct. Everyone says he is a troll. For some reason I thought he had changed.

[Tribesman]

So now that you are stuck in a hole of your own making you resort to silly attempts at insults:haha:

[Bilge_Rat]

So now that you are stuck in a hole of your own making you resort to silly attempts at insults:haha:

buzz off troll.

[Tribesman]

Do you want to invent more claims and attribute them to people so you can pretend you didn't give yourself an asswhooping?

[Takeda Shingen]

you are correct. Everyone says he is a troll. For some reason I thought he had changed.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt too. I even stuck my neck out for him recently, and we see how that ended. I did a similar thing with a member that went by the handle of waste gate a number of years ago, and the same thing happened. When will I learn?

[Jimbuna]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt too. I even stuck my neck out for him recently, and we see how that ended. I did a similar thing with a member that went by the handle of waste gate a number of years ago, and the same thing happened. When will I learn?

We all live and learn...don't we?

[August]

you are correct. Everyone says he is a troll. For some reason I thought he had changed.

You're a trusting soul BR.

[Tribesman]

We all live and learn...don't we?
Not Bilge rat apparently, he still thinks well documented facts are a work of fiction because they don't agree with his fixed view.

[Takeda Shingen]

Enough of this.

[Jimbuna]

Enough of this.

Agreed...time to focus on more positive matters.

[geetrue]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt too. I even stuck my neck out for him recently, and we see how that ended. I did a similar thing with a member that went by the handle of waste gate a number of years ago, and the same thing happened. When will I learn?

Boy was that guy a waste of time ... he named himself correctly :yep: