• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

  • Total voters
    102
polgara said:
It is a puzzle, isn't it? It was the same intelligence information everyone was privy at the time that decided their vote. It's bad form to now say something different, and blame Bush, just because they, and everyone else, believed what they saw and heard, IMO. We could use the same argument...after the fact... on BHO's decisions regarding Egypt and Libya! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...
It was not the same intelligence information.

I'm amazed that even after 10+ years, there are still people who live in some alternate universe where they continue to believe that nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Here is the report given to Bush, others in his administration with the proper clearance, and to members of Congressional intelligence committees:

96 page NIE

And here is the report given to the other 95% of Congress:

25 page NIE

Do you really think a 25 page report IS THE SAME as a 96 page report?? :screwy
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Do you realize that the NIE was published (Oct 2, 2002) just 9 days prior to the vote on the Iraq Resolution (Oct 11, 2002)? Very few Congress people had a chance to read it.
Click to expand...
The White Paper, which is what most of Congress received, was released 2 days later on October 4th (a Friday).
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It was not the same intelligence information.

I'm amazed that even after 10+ years, there are still people who live in some alternate universe where they continue to believe that nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Here is the report given to Bush, others in his administration with the proper clearance, and to members of Congressional intelligence committees:

96 page NIE

And here is the report given to the other 95% of Congress:

28 page NIE

Do you really think a 28 page report IS THE SAME as a 96 page report?? :screwy
Click to expand...

Good morning Sheik Yerbuti.

Since the ones on the Congressional Intelligence Committees, etc, who saw the report made their decision based on what they read, and since those who had not apparently trusted in their leaders to make the correct decisions, and voted based on that, what is wrong with that? As slowly as Congress acts, I'm sometimes surprised that anything ever gets accomplished in DC!

My point was that it is wrong to place blame after the fact! It's history now, and cannot be changed by pointing fingers at others who thought they were making the correct decision at the time.
 
Jack Hays said:
You don't know what you don't know.:doh
Click to expand...
It's been ten years and both the House and the Senate drafted in depth reports on the. How many more years and reports do you think you need until you understand the public has been made aware of what happened?
 
polgara said:
Good morning Sheik Yerbuti.

Since the ones on the Congressional Intelligence Committees, etc, who saw the report made their decision based on what they read, and since those who had not apparently trusted in their leaders to make the correct decisions, and voted based on that, what is wrong with that? As slowly as Congress acts, I'm sometimes surprised that anything ever gets accomplished in DC!

My point was that it is wrong to place blame after the fact! It's history now, and cannot be changed by pointing fingers at others who thought they were making the correct decision at the time.
Click to expand...
No, your point was that they all had the same information Bush had.

Hopefully, now you'll stop spreading that nonsense.

And of those on the Senate Intelligence committee, the ones who did have the same intel as Bush, more Democrats voted against the resolution than those who voted for it.

And it is not wrong to place blame after the fact. We won't learn from our mistakes if we simply try to forget mistakes that we made and we'll be doomed to repeat them again.
 
Jack Hays said:
The forged documents were immediately determined to be forgeries and were never used in any report. Wilson didn't know that, and conflated them with other intelligence that had nothing to do with the forgeries.:cool:
Click to expand...
That is a complete fabrication. As stated, the first time those documents made it into CIA hands was in 2001.

It wasn't until after Bush already deployed troops to Iraq in 2003 that they were determined to be forgeries.

A year and a half later is not "immediate."

And had you read the Senate report I recommended you read, you wouldn't have made the ridiculous (and erroneous) assertion that they were never used in a report. They were. The Senate report mentions at least two reports the CIA drafted as a result of the fake documents purporting a sale of Uranium to Iraq. And this all occurred before Wilson was ever asked to go to Niger as it would be a catalyst for sending him.

I'd really appreciate it if you would learn what really happened and stop posting bullxit you know nothing about.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It was not the same intelligence information.

I'm amazed that even after 10+ years, there are still people who live in some alternate universe where they continue to believe that nonsense, even though it has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Here is the report given to Bush, others in his administration with the proper clearance, and to members of Congressional intelligence committees:

96 page NIE

And here is the report given to the other 95% of Congress:

25 page NIE

Do you really think a 25 page report IS THE SAME as a 96 page report?? :screwy
Click to expand...
The statement that they all saw the same information is logically true, but is misleading. They all saw the 25 page report; the Bush administration saw more.
 
pbrauer said:
The statement that they all saw the same information is logically true, but is misleading. They all saw the 25 page report; the Bush administration saw more.
Click to expand...
It's not even logically true. A 25 page report is not the same as a 96 page report.

Missing from the White Paper was all of the indpeth analysis which was heavily contaminated with ambiguity and uncertainty. The powers that be cleansed the contamination for most of Congress to get their vote on the upcoming authorization to use military force resolution.
 
To me, the question should be is Iraq a better place without Saddam Hussein?

And as I said before, the ten plus years between the Kurd Uprising and the Iraqi invasion (when the No Fly zones and UN inspectors kept his aggression in relative check)? No, I do not believe Iraq (as a whole) is better off now then under Saddam during that time frame.

Before the Kurd Uprising - Iraq is probably better off now then it was then (imo).
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That is a complete fabrication. As stated, the first time those documents made it into CIA hands was in 2001.

It wasn't until after Bush already deployed troops to Iraq in 2003 that they were determined to be forgeries.

A year and a half later is not "immediate."

And had you read the Senate report I recommended you read, you wouldn't have made the ridiculous (and erroneous) assertion that they were never used in a report. They were. The Senate report mentions at least two reports the CIA drafted as a result of the fake documents purporting a sale of Uranium to Iraq. And this all occurred before Wilson was ever asked to go to Niger as it would be a catalyst for sending him.

I'd really appreciate it if you would learn what really happened and stop posting bullxit you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Put in the kindest way possible, you are uninformed. Here is a brief excerpt from my cleared resume.

3. Chief for Africa, CIA, September 2000 – June 2003

Led and managed a staff of several hundred both in Headquarters and dispersed continent wide. Oversaw and managed the full spectrum of operations conducted both unilaterally and in cooperation with allies.
:cool:
 
Your opinion seems focused on the idea of Iraq as being a member of the Sunni Tribe. I'm sure life in Germany was just fine in the 1930s and 1940s if you were a Nazi. Even with the turmoil that Muslim culture in Iraq has presented in the absence of a brutal dictator forcing what you believe to have been favorable to the majority, the country and region is moving to a better a place. Opinions are worthless without a cultural and historical understanding of the issues.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's not even logically true. A 25 page report is not the same as a 96 page report.

Missing from the White Paper was all of the indpeth analysis which was heavily contaminated with ambiguity and uncertainty. The powers that be cleansed the contamination for most of Congress to get their vote on the upcoming authorization to use military force resolution.
Click to expand...

Very good and very true. A watered down idea of things made it easy to pass through the obtuse Congress. Another issue was the living CENTCOM plan that was deemed "outdated" by the Rumsfeld coven. It introduced the turmoil of removing the brutal tyrant and the need for more troops to face it. Such things were not in keeping with a quick drive-by war like what people saw in the Gulf War. Therefore, the Rumsfeld plan took center stage and doomed the Iraqi struggle after the topple. In other words, our professional military made Rumsfeld's retarded military plan look good...until our troops were looking at each other in Baghdad and asking each other, "what next?"

But don't mistake something done badly for something that needn't been done. A doctor placing a bandaid on a Cancer and screwing up a human body doesn't change the fact that a cancer needed dealt with.
 
Jack Hays said:
Put in the kindest way possible, you are uninformed. Here is a brief excerpt from my cleared resume.

3. Chief for Africa, CIA, September 2000 – June 2003

Led and managed a staff of several hundred both in Headquarters and dispersed continent wide. Oversaw and managed the full spectrum of operations conducted both unilaterally and in cooperation with allies.
:cool:
Click to expand...
Anyone can claim to be anything in an anonymous chatroom such as this. Stating your qualificatations is meaningless when you can't even get the facts right.

As stated, all this information is available in the Senate report I referred you to.

You claimed the documents were determined to be forgeries "immediately."

That is false. They were first made available to the CIA in 2001 but weren't revealed to be forgeries until a year and a half later.

You claimed the forged documents were not part of any reports.

That is false. The CIA revealed two reports which used them.

So you can claim to be the President of the United States for all anyone cares. Until you start posting facts and stop making **** up, your credibility will never merit the standard of the position you claim to have.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Anyone can claim to be anything in an anonymous chatroom such as this. Stating your qualificatations is meaningless when you can't even get the facts right.

As stated, all this information is available in the Senate report I referred you to.

You claimed the documents were determined to be forgeries "immediately."

That is false. They were first made available to the CIA in 2001 but weren't revealed to be forgeries until a year and a half later.

You claimed the forged documents were not part of any reports.

That is false. The CIA revealed two reports which used them.

So you can claim to be the President of the United States for all anyone cares. Until you start posting facts and stop making **** up, your credibility will never merit the standard of the position you claim to have.
Click to expand...

None of your narrative about the forged documents is accurate.
 
Jack Hays said:
Put in the kindest way possible, you are uninformed. Here is a brief excerpt from my cleared resume.

3. Chief for Africa, CIA, September 2000 – June 2003

Led and managed a staff of several hundred both in Headquarters and dispersed continent wide. Oversaw and managed the full spectrum of operations conducted both unilaterally and in cooperation with allies.
:cool:
Click to expand...
Uninformed about what?? I am not impressed with you pulling rank Jack, just because you were there doesn't mean diddilt-**** to me.

Greetings from Starbucks.
 
Jack Hays said:
Put in the kindest way possible, you are uninformed. Here is a brief excerpt from my cleared resume.

3. Chief for Africa, CIA, September 2000 – June 2003

Led and managed a staff of several hundred both in Headquarters and dispersed continent wide. Oversaw and managed the full spectrum of operations conducted both unilaterally and in cooperation with allies.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Very nice. I'd love for you to be my neighbor. I always saw the CIA in my post military career, but family screwed that up. I only had a brief encounter with CIA officials in twenty years.

As for "uninformed," most are when quoting public knowledge of government events.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Anyone can claim to be anything in an anonymous chatroom such as this. Stating your qualificatations is meaningless when you can't even get the facts right.
Click to expand...


There has to be some measure of trust. Defaulting to mistrusting somebody's stated credentials only serves to allow you to stand by your idea of things.
 
Jack Hays said:
Put in the kindest way possible, you are uninformed. Here is a brief excerpt from my cleared resume.

3. Chief for Africa, CIA, September 2000 – June 2003

Led and managed a staff of several hundred both in Headquarters and dispersed continent wide. Oversaw and managed the full spectrum of operations conducted both unilaterally and in cooperation with allies.
:cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I was GWB's personal assistant.

Some nameless/faceless guy on an internet chat forum claims to be such and such and you honestly expect me to believe it?

Man, you sure assume a ton of naivety.
 
pbrauer said:
Uninformed about what?? I am not impressed with you pulling rank Jack, just because you were there doesn't mean diddilt-**** to me.

Greetings from Starbucks.
Click to expand...

It might offer a measure of first hand experience into type situations and routine SOPs.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, your point was that they all had the same information Bush had.
Click to expand...


Whatever the point was, Congress and the public will never have the same information the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon have. Therefore it is up to the public to educate itself beyond political speeches and sound bytes. If it does not, the public is to blame for its own ignorance.
 
DA60 said:
Yeah, and I was GWB's personal assistant.
Click to expand...


See, that is very unlikely.

What's the point in discussing anything with anybody if we don't accept a measure of truth in identities to appreciate what is being brought to the table? It would appear the point is simply to bitch about pre-concieved notions and to stick with it no matter what, which is absolutey pointless to discussion.
 
DA60 said:
Yeah, and I was GWB's personal assistant.

Some nameless/faceless guy on an internet chat forum claims to be such and such and you honestly expect me to believe it?

Man, you sure assume a ton of naivety.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine somebody who claims such importance, spending their time in an forum such as DP.
 
MSgt said:
See, that is very unlikely.

What's the point in discussing anything with anybody if we don't accept a measure of truth in identities to appreciate what is being brought to the table? It would appear the point is simply to bitch about pre-concieved notions and to stick with it no matter what, which is absolutey pointless to discussion.
Click to expand...

And it was also obviously a joke.

You want to believe him - who is stopping you?

I don't believe anything without unbiased, factual evidence - especially from faceless people on a chat forum - and especially if it puts the person in a better light for the discussion.
 
pbrauer said:
I can't imagine somebody who claims such importance, spending their time in an forum such as DP.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can....though I agree it would be rare.

I am not saying he is lying.

I am just saying that there is NO WAY I am just going to take his word for it.

Some nameless, faceless person on a chat forum?

Ahhhh....no.
 
DA60 said:
Actually, I can....though I agree it would be rare.

I am not saying he is lying.

I am just saying that there is NO WAY I am just going to take his word for it.

Some nameless, faceless person on a chat forum?

Ahhhh....no.
Click to expand...
Watch his posts, he just proclaims things to be true or false, he never provides any evidence. He may be what he said he was, but that doesn't mean his claims are true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom