Pentagon: Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda

[Forwardassist]

I have seen combat twice, in two different arenas. It only served to make me more anti-war than ever before. It did not make me think war is never the answer but it made me want to explore every other option first.

Thank you for your service.
Some of the fiercest critics of this misguide war in Iraq and Afghanistan are veterans who actually saw combat. If you look around the country many of the veteran groups to do support this so called war. The people who mindlessly support this failed war are the ones that never saw battle or were never in the military. Look at the majority of anti-war Democrats in congress, many of them served honorably in our armed services, while many of the chicken hawk Republicans never served because they got deferments. And the Republicans actually have the gall to question these brave critics loyalty to this country. :barf:

 

[Playboypenguin]

While PBP has touted his CIA, MI, and now combat experience, I have yet to see HIM delivering to this thread an on topic post.

You only see what you want to see...that is pretty obvious. Since you chose to single me out and post negative comments about me and not in a statement to me, I feel I am free to respond. I will not attack you but I will point out some observations.

You seem very threatened when anyone relates actual experience while you sit at home and "cut and paste" every bit of right wing rehtoric you can find on the net. So much so that you even choose to bring up an unrelated thread to divirt attention. You always seem to be the first person to jump in and start spraying a thread with party line garbage so I would think you would be used to opposing opinion. IMHO, I start to wonder if someone is real or just a created internet personality when they act like that (but that is not really that important). Regardless, you like to make a statement then become very defensive and spiteful when someone has an opposing argument. People bicker on here a lot and there is nothing wrong with it, but when you start trying to single people out you cross a line. You are not trying to discredit the position itself but the person holding that position. That is bad habit to develope.

Plus, I never said I had CIA experience in any thread I have ever written. You are the one that claimed to have an MOS so secret you could not even mention what it was...all the while spouting falsehoods about MI that you read on the internet and never answering a direct question. Nor did I even come close to "bragging" about any combat experience. I claimed I had 8yrs in Army MI and during that time I have seen combat and the results of it twice and I did not care for it. Some of us have actually done things and base our opinions on those experiences and not on what we are told by Rush and what propaganda we can find on the internet. We go out and have real world experiences which shape views. We do not sit around and try to play semantics by applying right wing bullet points to every topic we can find.

These real world experiences are why so many of us are not black and white people. We fall on different sides of different arguments. Some people seem to be on the same side of every argument and it only takes a quick look at their post history to see that it seems to be a daily thing. There never seems to be any variance that would imply a true educated viewpoint. They tow the party line time and time again (like some angry teen anxious to prove himself to his racist father) and then attack anyone that disagrees. Their posts are seldom thoughtful but just regurgitated talking points and full of spite and sarcasm and underhanded attacks on other people.

 

[Thumper]

There never seems to be any variance that would imply a true educated viewpoint. They tow the party line time and time again (like some angry teen anxious to prove himself to his racist father) and then attack anyone that disagrees.

I think you mean "toe". It's almost vitally important to get these things right when demonizing your opponent as uneducated.

Just sayin'...

BTW, 98 Kilo (MI, ASA, NSA) here who completely disagrees with your view on the war and really, really questions your statements in the other thread regarding interrogation techniques. (They don't seem to reflect the ideas of anyone with actual experience in that discipline). We can talk offline if you'd rather. Oh...and you take really pretty gun pictures.

Back to the thread...

 

[Playboypenguin]

BTW, 98 Kilo (MI, ASA, NSA) here who completely disagrees with your view on the war and really, really questions your statements in the other thread regarding interrogation techniques. (They don't seem to reflect the ideas of anyone with actual experience in that discipline). We can talk offline if you'd rather. Oh...and you take really pretty gun pictures.

I have no problem with some questioning my viewpoint...or my typing since it often sucks (e and w are next to each other). If you want to attack spelling you should check out my posts immediately after I post them. I have to look at the keyboard to type so they look like they were tapped out by an illiterate chicken to whom english is a second language.

My point is when someone appears one dimensional and then tends to lash out when questioned they are usually hiding something. Some people present hard right wing arguments daily and back it up. others just present them and then spend the rest of the discussion casting accusations and deflecting attention.

I think one thing alot of people where missing was the context of the argument in the other thread. Noone was saying anything was not effective. We were saying that it was effective in the wrong ways and easily abused. Therefore not effective at obtaining reliable information.

BTW, 96B here for the first four years of my military career.

but that is a different thread.

 

[Thumper]

Ah, sunny Ft. Huachuca...ick.

Anyway, the thought that I keep coming back to is that we've somehow blundered our way into having a sizeable number of based, air supported, supply chained, combat experienced troops right in the middle of the area that generated al Queda. We also seem to have gotten them to agree to fight us and be killed in an area outside our borders.

Is this ethical? Tough to say. Is it effective? Well, in the short term, it might cause more anger, but in the long term, I think that it is. We started out after 9/11 all agreeing that we needed to wipe out al Queda. I think this was a pretty good way to go about doing it. It's been damned effective so far.

On top of all that, Iraq should have been forced to comply with the mandates of the ceasefire years ago.

Another point that might be worth considering is that a combat vet's personal experiences might inhibit his big picture thinking...and I are one.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Ah, sunny Ft. Huachuca...ick.

Anyway, the thought that I keep coming back to is that we've somehow blundered our way into having a sizeable number of based, air supported, supply chained, combat experienced troops right in the middle of the area that generated al Queda. We also seem to have gotten them to agree to fight us and be killed in an area outside our borders.

Is this ethical? Tough to say. Is it effective? Well, in the short term, it might cause more anger, but in the long term, I think that it is. We started out after 9/11 all agreeing that we needed to wipe out al Queda. I think this was a pretty good way to go about doing it. It's been damned effective so far.

On top of all that, Iraq should have been forced to comply with the mandates of the ceasefire years ago.

Another point that might be worth considering is that a combat vet's personal experiences might inhibit his big picture thinking...and I are one.

Huachuca wasn't that bad (especially stick village) if you like snakes and giant bugs.

I do not think we needed to go into Iraq for that and we could have better done it in Afghanistan. I think Iraq only served to get us fighting among ourselves and diverting attention from the true enemy. If in the end, it causes Al Q to collapse from within I would say it will have been worth it but I do not see that happening. I see Al Q stengthening and gaining support.

You are 100% correct. I know my personal experience has been tainted by combat. I hated it and do not want to subject anyone else to it. I do appluade the soldiers in the field that have more of a stomach for it than I do. I am not a soldier at heart.

 

[Thumper]

Huachuca wasn't that bad (especially stick village) if you like snakes and giant bugs.

Nope, but I do like MI chicks. (Especially Golfs)

 

[Playboypenguin]

Nope, but I do like MI chicks. (Especially Golfs)

Another area where we differ.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

My view is this was an illegal war- started by poor intel, a love of oil and unfinished Bush family business.

I'm not critical here of any serviceman (or woman) who has served there. They served and I respect them for that. I am critical of the politicians and they should have to answer for it in the International Court.

Of course, no leader of a super power only stands trial- the only ones to ever be tried are the loosers- ask Herman Goering or Sadam.

 

[Playboypenguin]

My view is this was an illegal war- started by poor intel, a love of oil and unfinished Bush family business.

Or a favor to the Saudis, who felt threatened by Saddam, and who hold the Bush's reigns.

 

[ahenry]

Hmm, lets see…
Posted by Playboypenguin on 03/11/08 at 11:29pm as post #278 of this thread:

Just for fun...I will offer a prize to the first person that successfully guesses my MOS (either old or new nomenclature) based on my posts.

Then posted by myself on the same day and same thread at 11:45pm:

If I were to guess I'd say it was 96B. I suspect you're going to say 97E, but you don't talk like any of the 97E folks I've ever talked to/worked with.

Then we have this post by Playboypenguin:

BTW, 96B here for the first four years of my military career.

So where’s my prize?

My point with this is that this forum is made up of many, many experienced individuals. A poster would do well to remember that there is a better than even chance whatever "experience" one claims to have, there is at least one other poster that actually does have the experience claimed.

 

[Playboypenguin]

So where’s my prize?

Oh, I am sorry. I did not see your post. I already awared a prize to the first e-mail I received with the correct answer. I see now you should have been the one to get it. I gave the "winner" a choice of two "prizes." You can have the remaining if you like...an ankle holster (never worn) for a NAA mini.

 

[JaserST4]

Some of the fiercest critics of this misguide war in Iraq and Afghanistan are veterans who actually saw combat. If you look around the country many of the veteran groups to do support this so called war. The people who mindlessly support this failed war are the ones that never saw battle or were never in the military.

We lost already? When did that happen? You speak with great flatulence sir. Many veterans do, many veterans don't support the war.

Look at the majority of anti-war Democrats in congress, many of them served honorably in our armed services, while many of the chicken hawk Republicans never served because they got deferments. And the Republicans actually have the gall to question these brave critics loyalty to this country.

I guess the fact that the majority of Democrats voted to go in has escaped your attention. What war was Hillary in exactly? What shall we call her? A chicken hen? Married to a draft dodger at that!

 

[nate45]

I was a 55D, guess what some of the things I make here at the compound are.

I like the military and liked being in the military. Why does having been in the military mean you have to like the Iraq war? Or why does lack of military service not accord someone the same right to voice their opinion concerning its use as someone who has? A very small percentage of the current U.S. population have ever served in the military, but they still have a right to comment on its use.

Back to the topic so Brux won't have a cow.

Before we went in WMDs were the primary reason given, every intelligence agency thought Saddam had them no WMD were found.

Faulty intelligence was blamed. Everyone thought Saddam had them, the defenders of the war often say.

Who is the preeminent , ledgendary intel organization in the Mid-East?

The one who infiltrates al Qaeda and Hamas. The one on whom western agencies depend. The whos motto is 'By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War'.

 

[johnbt]

"The report does not state there was no AlQ in Iraq, it states there was not 'operational' link to AlQ. The semantics game again. And it not only doesn't state that Saddam's Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism, it states the OPPOSITE."

Amazing, someone who can read. Thank you.

John

 

[Bruxley]

"The report does not state there was no AlQ in Iraq, it states there was not 'operational' link to AlQ. The semantics game again. And it not only doesn't state that Saddam's Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism, it states the OPPOSITE."

Amazing, someone who can read. Thank you.

John

Well someone does know the topic. Thank you.

Others seem to be spending ALOT of effort 'parading out their military service to lecture people'. Some vets get spat on, others get a thank you, guess the political opinions are the determiing factor.

Anyone here had combat experience against the Soviet Union..........

Well, guess since there wasn't a ground war then anyone shot or killed in that one is just a cut and paste keyboard commando. Right wing nut job, etc.
You may want to look at page 1 of THIS thread and see if you can find any party line bias devoid of attention to the actual report cited in the OP.

And BTW......

Both the CIA and MI stress in there training that torture is not a reliable method of intelligence gathering and does more harm than good. I am giving you a first hand account. I would love to hear our first hand experience to the contrary. I hate to break it to you...the intel committee works with the CIA and they understand very well the official stance of the CIA and they have clearly stated time and time again on TV news that torture is not only unacceptable but unreliable.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2747146&postcount=88

I never said I have a rating that was so secret it couldn't be reveled. I refereed to training that I received that what occurred in that training was under an NDA after you stated you knew of no traing in which people are water boarded. I later found that someone else on the web had disclosed what went on in that training and I believe others here disclosed their having also received such training. Now I guess that it's possible that at MI training at Ft. Huachuca and during the CIA traing you experienced first hand (see above) nobody mentioned SERE traing (despite all branches holding SERE training) or perhaps the Army version doesn't have people getting waterboarded. Either way, I didn't claim any such secret rating (rating is what the Navy calls your classification, the Army/Marines use MOS). You actually over inmagined that.

Now hopefully the parade is over. Would you like to discuss this report or ya got more hostility to vent? Political discussions can irritate. And when people vent publicly their true natures can spill out. ALOT of spilling here.

Attack me, mock me, tell me the scars are fake. Enjoy.

Do you have anything about the report to discuss?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Attack me, mock me, tell me the scars are fake. Enjoy.

Spoken like a true internet Rambo. A real intel agent with such experiences would not be parading around making vague statements about themselves. Now I am convinced of the invalidity of your claims.

As for you response to my statement. I guess your reading comprehension skills need some work if you think that says I have CIA training.

I was a 96B for four years and if you read my posts I pretty much made that clear. I stated that intel analysts hate information of this sort since it is completely unreliable and I stated why. You never seemed able to grasp that though.

As for this topic, you are once again just playing semantics games that can be read almost verbatim on several right wing websites. There is not real insight or relative experience in the posts. Just claims of combat valor and scars from you war exploits.

The semantics game you are play with the word "operational" could very easily be used to show that America has strong terrorist ties also. We pay for information from know terrorists, we associate with nations that promote terrorist acts, we offer money for the apprehension of persons, we supply arms to nations that then use those arms in terrorist fashions, we have terrorists inside our borders, etc.

 

[Bruxley]

OK. I guess the vent wasn't over and the parade is ongoing. Still offended HJB.

Question:
-Was Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism given for our action or was it that Iraq had operational links to AlQ given?

-Was providing for Iraq being self governed and it's people enjoying freedom given as a mark for success at the OIF began?

-Were we told when OIF began that it would take longer to achieve such freedom then many estimated?

-Was it asserted that Iraq was involved in 9/11 when OIF started?

I mean by the PRESIDENT which is being alleged to have lied or changed the goal, etc.

Snyde comments are becoming the topic. It's often the case when intellectual acquity lacks a valid point. I'm curious of what right wing sites your visiting that you think I'm regurgitating from. Some don't need pundits to do our thinking and believe it or not actual free thinkers happen to also be conservative. I know, if all else fails flip out and get loud, gotcha, weak tact but it must work somewhere for ya or you wouldn't utilize it so often.

The report does conterdict the CNN article. I know it's hard to accept variances to your preconcieved notions but that is the case. Of all the posts I see very few where you are actually addressing the topic instead of attacking those with opposing views.

Some people spend all day regergitating left wing arguements and won't back them up. When presented with opposing information they become hostile and begin casting accusations/dispersions on people and deflecting questions. When people do that it confirms for me I'm right. When I'm not I admit it and conceed the point. People unable or unwilling to do that show a deep insecurity. The loudest most vitriholic people are usually either angry or masking insecurity with bravado. Someone with more experience in psycology than I would have to speak to that more expertly but it is a pattern I have noticed.

 

[Benonymous]

The haves and have mores.

It's a widely known fact that both the British and the US intelligence agencies briefed their respective Governments to the effect of “no WMD in Iraq”. However, following a completely different agenda to the officially stated one, sent troops into Iraq to occupy it. No greater proof of this assertion is the actual outcome of the operation. Iraq as a country is shattered, not democratized.

Saddam may have been acting in the way dictators do, but this was not sufficient reason to intervene. As many others have pointed out, the same treatment has not been meted out to any other dictatorships scattered around the world.

Following the Carter Doctrine of 1974 (Google it) The US and Britan moved to secure strategic and essential energy resources in the face of Peak Oil and other potential supply problems. Dont forget, the oil crisis of the 70's only involved a 16% reduction in supply. There is no question that massive corporate interests have influenced the actions of both governments also.

Iran is on the radar, not because of a nuclear (nukular0 program but because they have chosen to start a bourse to trade oil in any currency, not just USD and have threatened to make the Euro their standard currency. This is a greater threat to US corporate interests and the US itself than any nuclear weapon.

Opinions will vary on this but I choose not to use the word “Israel” to describe that place. Instead I use it's proper name Palestine. Read up on the history of “Israel” as it relates to post WWII events. Without US funding, “Israel” would cease to exist in a blink of an eye.

Thanks to the Bush government, the wealth of the US has been mortgaged far into the future and its all the people that the government could care less about (citizens) who will pay. The citizenry provided the tax dollars to get the US to where it was, at the top of the food chain. A run of government for corporate clients like Bush has inflicted will be very difficult to recover from.

Finally. WHO HAS BENEFITTED??? This is the big question. Has middle America? No, they have supplied the wealth and the sons and daughters. What have they received? A busted economy, family grief from lost and maimed loved ones, a damaged constitution, TSA harassment to simply travel on an airplane the list goes on. Middle America got screwed.

The main benefits seem to have flowed to those awarded contracts to supply goods and services to the occupation. These same people were on the receiving end of generous tax cuts. So the wealth and the future wealth of the USA has been siphoned out of the treasury via the Iraq occupation into the bank accounts of the rich who gained a nice tax break to assist them in keeping more of the siphoned money. The Mafia has got nothing on the gummint.

Don't forget who Bush's declared “base” is, the “haves and have mores”.

 

[Bruxley]

It's a widely known fact that both the British and the US intelligence agencies briefed their respective Governments to the effect of “no WMD in Iraq”.

Really,I would like to see that substantiated. For 10 years prior to Bush Sr. taking office our Democrats have been saying the same thing. Bush didn't begin that line of thinking and wasn't the first President to act militarily based on it. Stating that the proof that the intelligence agencies briefing those governments that there were no WMD's is that none were found is a connected line of reason. That's like saying that the intelligence agencies told both of those governments that Al Q would come and work to incite a civil war and cite it happening as proof the governments were briefed in advance.

Other dictators around the world weren't also in violation of multiple UN regulations including a ceasefire brokered to end a previous war with them. Saddam was.

All reports coming from Iraq show Iraq is not 'shattered' but rather coming together. Petraeus is due to testify as to the actual status soon. And Democracy is not only embraced enthusiastically (Google the other turnouts) and provincial elections are scheduled and look to be the next step toward making Iraq's central government a reflection of what Iraqis want it to be.

I'll address the rest later - a pressing priority needs tended to right now.