amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I don't see George Bush hovering over a map of Iraq telling Tommy Franks which sites should've been bombed. This war is fought on the ground in Iraq, not in Washington.blackheart said:
Food for thought from Iraq...
- Thread starter Mano3
- Start date
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
MobBoss said:
It is rather hard to keep up with the ever changing "facts"
Mobboss recently used that "links" between Saddam and Aleqdea as a factual statement when the senate investigation already has revealed that the information provided was in fact made up.
In fact the sourse of the information Qball also lied abut WMDs mobile.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
rmsharpe said:
True. Though poltical situation would put limits on the military (most ovious is troop numbers and postwar planning)
"Our working budgetary assumption was that 90 days after completion of the operation, we would withdraw the first 50,000 and then every 30 days we'd take out another 50,000 until everybody was back. ( Planning for Postwar Iraq as ordered by Rumsfield)
Thomas E. White - Former secretary of the Army
"'Where is our Phase 4 plan?'
Director of the Joint Staff, Army Gen. George Casey
Zany
Prince
@Jawz II
Saddam didn't use the WMD because it was pretty obvious that was the reason of the war. He knew he couldn't beat America no matter what, even if he used WMDs. The guerilla strategy involves destroying the four instruments of national power (or whatever the proper term is): military, political, economic, and psycho-social. Vietnam was lost because the will of the people was broken and so the military was forced to withdraw. So, Saddam was reliant on the insurgents forcing America out, even if the casualties are 20-1, and then he can take his WMD back from Syria.
Al Qaeda was probably in Iraq before the war, but regardless of a physical presence, they had strong ties. Saddam had a Swiss bank account (who doesn't
If the Swiss want to stay neutral they really should avoid attracting the ire of nations on the hunt for their enemies) that gave money to Al Qaeda. And beyond A.Q., Saddam had ties to other terrorist groups, including a number of Palestinian ones.
And who says I watch Fox News? Typical brainwashed liberal. In your propaganda sessions you are told everyone watches Fox News and regardless anything said by Fox News should be ignored or called invalid without any consideration for the validity of it.
Saddam didn't use the WMD because it was pretty obvious that was the reason of the war. He knew he couldn't beat America no matter what, even if he used WMDs. The guerilla strategy involves destroying the four instruments of national power (or whatever the proper term is): military, political, economic, and psycho-social. Vietnam was lost because the will of the people was broken and so the military was forced to withdraw. So, Saddam was reliant on the insurgents forcing America out, even if the casualties are 20-1, and then he can take his WMD back from Syria.
Al Qaeda was probably in Iraq before the war, but regardless of a physical presence, they had strong ties. Saddam had a Swiss bank account (who doesn't
If the Swiss want to stay neutral they really should avoid attracting the ire of nations on the hunt for their enemies) that gave money to Al Qaeda. And beyond A.Q., Saddam had ties to other terrorist groups, including a number of Palestinian ones.And who says I watch Fox News? Typical brainwashed liberal. In your propaganda sessions you are told everyone watches Fox News and regardless anything said by Fox News should be ignored or called invalid without any consideration for the validity of it.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
FriendlyFire said:It is rather hard to keep up with the ever changing "facts"
Mobboss recently used that "links" between Saddam and Aleqdea as a factual statement when the senate investigation already has revealed that the information provided was in fact made up.
In fact the sourse of the information Qball also lied abut WMDs mobile.
What I posted previously were some of the declassified CIA notes on the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.
CartesianFart
Deity
Zany said:
This is a good propositional peice here.
I say that the pentagon budjet for the vietnam war and compare the prices of bribing journalists and other industries in the media was definately smaller than today's war.
Colonel_here
Chieftain
Why than US is not invading Syria to remove the dangerous WMD from there. Have they become harmless or something? It seems logical than if US and coalition of the willing invaded Iraq out of danger of WMDs it should go ahead and hunt them down.Zany said:
In my opinion if you set out to get those WMDs you have to go ahead and finish the job.
Zany
Prince
It's more than just the will of the people broken, it was horribly managed. And now you claim America is bribing journalists for spreading propaganda?!This is a good propositional peice here.
I say that the pentagon budjet for the vietnam war and compare the prices of bribing journalists and other industries in the media was definately smaller than today's war.
How stupid can you possibly be? Forgive me if I misinterpreted you, but you don't deserve to debate if you think the anti-war media have been bribed by the Pentagon.'Cause Bush is a pansy. He tries to appease his political enemies. And he's afraid because of all the brainwashed antiwar lefties to say we need to go after Syria now. People expect the war to end in five minutes and for Iraq to be perfect in ten. And for there to be just one war every twenty years. Imagine the reaction if Bush said we need to go after Syria now.
But yes, why don't we go after Syria?! They are trouble, and they will attack America in one form of another within 5 years.
CartesianFart
Deity
You can be surprised to know that the federal government do in fact spend money on propaganda for war effort,you can call me a liar on that but i am just wonderin how delusional that you really are.Zany said:
Sometimes the Pentagon and other agencies have in fact manufactured dissent because they feel on their analysis that producing dissent will help monitor and to determinate opinions.
Zany
Prince
You seem to be the delusional one. Regardless of what you've been told or think, the US can't possibly be bribing journalists when there is so much negative press for the war. Honestly, do you have any exposure to the news? And I don't mean real, honest news, I mean any source. Every minute the lefties are ragging on the war and Bush, when if the Pentagon actually was concerned with propaganda they would hush up these dissidents.
Colonel_here
Chieftain
Government does not need to go openly and beat up the journalists that are talking too much or pay them to say things. With appropriate touch and careful releases of information and interpretation/presentation of information, as well "benefits"(exclusive first hand coverage, exclusive access to certain places) that government gives could influence the media to present the information in the needed style for the government. You won't have all of media saying the same thing but most will present information in the needed fashion.
It also tends to be swayed by the overall impression of pulbic opnion on the subject. If media thinks ppublic want the war, media will cover in a certain way to make it look like they are on the side of the public. If public doesn't want the war media will present stories to show their support for anti-war feeling. They don't want to lose their audience so they will work for the audience too.
It also tends to be swayed by the overall impression of pulbic opnion on the subject. If media thinks ppublic want the war, media will cover in a certain way to make it look like they are on the side of the public. If public doesn't want the war media will present stories to show their support for anti-war feeling. They don't want to lose their audience so they will work for the audience too.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
Zany said:
"that was the reason for war" dosent answer the question, its just stating the facts, which we all know. that was bushs excuse, yes.
the reason for the war supposedly was that saddam would use WMD on americans or europe, remember the "saddam can use WMD on us within 45 minutes" talk?
so the question stills stands, if he had WMD and didnt even use it on an invading army, how was he a threat to anyone? what good are weapons if youre never gonna use them?
are you saying saddam planned for the insurgency? then why didnt he get his sons out of the country into hiding somewhere? his sons filled a few trucks up with american dollars and went for it, way too late, and thats why they died.
why didnt he make arrangements for himself to get away? why didnt he distribute better weapons amongst the would be insurgents before the war?
do you know what kind of damage a few hundred shoulder fired AD missiles (MANPADS) would do to the americans?
Zany said:Al Qaeda was probably in Iraq before the war, but regardless of a physical presence, they had strong ties. Saddam had a Swiss bank account (who doesn't
And who says I watch Fox News? Typical brainwashed liberal. In your propaganda sessions you are told everyone watches Fox News and regardless anything said by Fox News should be ignored or called invalid without any consideration for the validity of it.
he donated money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers, but he hated religious fanatics of all kind, including al qaeda and the talibans, so no al qaeda presence in iraq then, at least not to saddams knowledge
in fact he feared religious types in his country would revolt and seize power from him, like the iranian islamic revolution of 1979, thats why he did all in his power to appease the religious imams by changing his image to a more religious one, right after the 1991 war. in reality he and his sons were not good muslims, they drank and partied alot!
i said i hate fox news because the majority of americans think iraq had ties with al-qaeda, i think its 70%, whos fault is that? not fox news?
this is from 2004:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123679,00.html
before and right after the war, the majority of americans (over 60%) thought the rest of world backed america on their attack on iraq, UN voted against attacking iraq.
who is to blame for that?
if you dont watch fox news, you do a real good job of repeating their rhetoric, now why dont you prove youre not brain washed by fox news and answer my original question (iraq-WMD) or admit youre wrong.
Zany said:
Do you have any clue AT ALL what you are talking about? This must be your own little theory, because even the paid commentators on FOX would not dare say something so illogical. You are grabbing at straws.
Is that why Vietnam was lost? I always thought it was because we could not bomb the Chinese without risk of WW IIII.
O... M.... G....
Al Qaeda was probably in Iraq before the war, but regardless of a physical presence, they had strong ties. Saddam had a Swiss bank account (who doesn't
probably.... that sure is pretty weak to base the killing of 10,000 civilians on.
SO, ummm... do you watch FOX news or not? Actually, it sounds like you don't watch or read much news at all. YOu just make stuff up as you go along.
Mano3:
Your "top secret clearance", and you still missed the PUBLIC reports of how what percentage of the captured prisoners are native Iraqis, and posted this little piece of worthless small picture propaganda. I hope you aren't so sloppy at your professional job.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
hey neomega, nice to see youre back!
Zany said:It's more than just the will of the people broken, it was horribly managed. And now you claim America is bribing journalists for spreading propaganda?!
What anti-war media? Now most of it, (except fox of course) is anti-war, but before the invasion, the media was on it's kness facing the Bush administration and saying... "oh, I love you!"
They cheered the war.
And the pentagon is, as a matter of FACT, paying Iraqi newspapers big money to print their stories. Read any news or watch any station besides FOX, and you would see the mounds of evidence to support this. You are embarassing the rest of your pro-war compatriots with your unfounded and disproved archaic propaganda. Most of it has already been disproved handily, yet you still cling to the lies like a dingleberry to curly hair.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Mano3 said:What's your background? I'm a MSgt in the USAF and have been in almost 20 years. Right now, I'm the Director of the Aerospace Historian Contingency Course. I'm responsible for instructing ALL USAF Historians on how to do their job and survive in the field. Like all other historians, I posess a Top Secret/SCII clearance and have access to ALL records and work directly for the combatant commander when in the field.
What do USAF Historians do you may ask? Well, it's our job to record and preserve what goes on during any contingency to ensure credit is given to where credit is due. We operate as a non-biased entity (sort-of like an IG) and our reports go directly to our supporting MAJCOM and to the Pentagon.
That said, I've been privy to what's really been going on since this war started. The WMDs are real and 99.9% of the letter I posted is true. As for the letter's age, that I do not know as it came to me through outside military channels.
My point is that most of what you see and read about on the news is wrong, the DoD pretty much knows what's best for the country and there's just some information that the public doens't need to know and will never know. All I can say is check back 20 years from now when most of the documentation is unclassified. But be careful, you might have to eat a big hunk of crow.
Oh, boy. This is a new one. Well, I'm with the SSIGTKMTY (Super Secret Inteligence Guys That Know More Than You) and have a Super Duper Top Most Secret Intelligence Stuff Clearance, and I say the weapons are NOT real. So there!
I mean, I've heard that they were transported and hidden in Syria. I've heard they hid them in Iran. Now this.
A) If they had them, they would have used them. What use is having all of these weapons if your not going to use them when you're invaded and your nation is being over run????
B) If we knew they had them and had any evidence at all, W would have done a 'Mission Accomplished' style parachute jump into Iraq and held the largest news conference seen by man. And it wouldn't have to be strong evidence, or even REAL evidence, lol....they've shown their bent for manipulating evidence.
To put it str8, I don't even BEGIN to believe this.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
In regards to changing small arms calibres, there have been some moves in regards to the 9mm. The 5.56mm round is fairly safe, although it may be adjusted in terms of power and composition. There is a fair bit of information on this, a large part of it speculation, on strategy and defence industry sites, such as Strategypage and Defensetech.
Re: weapons that cannot be used remaining threats. The Tirpitz was a threat in place, regardless of its overall lack of utility. As such, heavy RN units had to be kept in place in case it came out after convoys. Ditto the High Seas Fleet in the Great War. There is a great deal of conjecture over the issue of weapons in Iraq, and one area is that Hussein was being told what he wanted to hear. The full truth is yet to emerge.
Strategic weapons systems work well for bluffing and as threats in place. They complicate operational planning by their very existence, or rumour of existence - Japanese super cruisers leading to the manufacture and deployment of the Alaska class CBs, for example.
The general view that WMD was the predominant casus belli is widespread in some circles, but it did not exist in isolation. Wide ranging operations can entail over catering for a potential threat - the Allied preparations against chemical warfare in Desert storm - or a potential threat that may exist in the future.
Hussein did not use his arsenal when he definitely had them, in 1990-91, because of both the threat of retaliation (nuclear Tomahawks on US ships in the Gulf, plus gravity bombs delivered by strike aircraft) and because being strategic weapons systems held by an intermediate power, they had a significance beyond that of weapons. They were status symbols, crypto-deterrents and symbols of the regimes power and threat. Using them against a superior force would be a wasteful action that he was not prepared to take, for the two main consequences - once used, they are lost, and there will be massive retaliation. Far better to attempt to come out of a conventional conflict with some modicum of power.
Hussein cannot be characterized as a completely rational actor, as can be seen from his statecraft and military endeavours.
An interesting incident was when his airforce fled to Iran, his blood enemy.
Any full examination of what happened to the arsenal will take time, and a bit more examination. Certainly no Debka-esque solutions on either side look likely.
In the end, the substance of the thread has turned to the classic polarization and political debate of Iraq threads, and with both sides opposed, never the twain shall meet. There are interesting 'micro' questions to be examined in regards to the war and its influence upon technology, doctrine, weapons, tactics and logisitics that do not deserve to be swamped in the classic macro debates along political lines.
Re: weapons that cannot be used remaining threats. The Tirpitz was a threat in place, regardless of its overall lack of utility. As such, heavy RN units had to be kept in place in case it came out after convoys. Ditto the High Seas Fleet in the Great War. There is a great deal of conjecture over the issue of weapons in Iraq, and one area is that Hussein was being told what he wanted to hear. The full truth is yet to emerge.
Strategic weapons systems work well for bluffing and as threats in place. They complicate operational planning by their very existence, or rumour of existence - Japanese super cruisers leading to the manufacture and deployment of the Alaska class CBs, for example.
The general view that WMD was the predominant casus belli is widespread in some circles, but it did not exist in isolation. Wide ranging operations can entail over catering for a potential threat - the Allied preparations against chemical warfare in Desert storm - or a potential threat that may exist in the future.
Hussein did not use his arsenal when he definitely had them, in 1990-91, because of both the threat of retaliation (nuclear Tomahawks on US ships in the Gulf, plus gravity bombs delivered by strike aircraft) and because being strategic weapons systems held by an intermediate power, they had a significance beyond that of weapons. They were status symbols, crypto-deterrents and symbols of the regimes power and threat. Using them against a superior force would be a wasteful action that he was not prepared to take, for the two main consequences - once used, they are lost, and there will be massive retaliation. Far better to attempt to come out of a conventional conflict with some modicum of power.
Hussein cannot be characterized as a completely rational actor, as can be seen from his statecraft and military endeavours.
An interesting incident was when his airforce fled to Iran, his blood enemy.
Any full examination of what happened to the arsenal will take time, and a bit more examination. Certainly no Debka-esque solutions on either side look likely.
In the end, the substance of the thread has turned to the classic polarization and political debate of Iraq threads, and with both sides opposed, never the twain shall meet. There are interesting 'micro' questions to be examined in regards to the war and its influence upon technology, doctrine, weapons, tactics and logisitics that do not deserve to be swamped in the classic macro debates along political lines.
