Downing Street memo

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:46 am

DCC2MSU wrote:What about someone who was openly against invading Iraq - if they still think it was a bad idea and publicly say so is that "second-guessing"? I guess I would define that as still questioning.

Using the guidelines in my post, it's still the hated "second guessing." Complaining after the fact like a 5-year old that you didn't get your way, and not offering any legitimate ways to fix the mistakes we may have made is, in my mind, "second guessing."

I'd like to spend more time on this post, but can't afford the time right now. Maybe later.

Cat Grad wrote:Us ground pounders are taught to lay every damn thing we think could go wrong on the table before the operations order is given; once all the contingencies have been argued and the commander makes that famous command decision, it's balls to the wall in compliance and finish the mission--no questions asked.

Huah!

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:49 pm

I can respect that. Just different opinions. Though I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, I wasn't trying to upset anyone. Thanks for the discussion.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:27 pm

I though the issue over the war was settled. The people voted in November to continue the war by re-electing Pres. Bush. Case closed.

If you do not democracy, move to Russia, China, Africa, North Korea or the Middle East. I am sure the leaders of these countries would love to hear your opinion.

(I know Africa and the Middle East are not countries. There are two many to list at this time of the night.)

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:19 am

Second guessing? What's to second guess? Bush blatantly made up reasons to go to Iraq. His reasoning is 'be content at all costs.' Whoever you have to eliminate...don't worry, just do it if it'll make your life better.
Over 1,600 American service men and women are now dead for a reason we may never know. Bush is wiping out a threat that wasn't there and is letting whatever real threats slide by. Bush can't fight Korea because Korea will fight back...in a big way. But he can fight Iraq, because he knows Iraq has no WMDs to fight back with. Should be a cake walk, right?

Let's go talk to Pat Tillman's parents. Here's a guy who ignores a $3.6 million per year salary to do what he believes is his part in "defending" our country. This is a monetary sacrifice beyond anything any soldier before or since has ever made. A truly heroic move. Why did he do it? Because George Bush and his buddies made up a bunch of B.S. How do they feel about this now? He joins the service because he's lied to by Bush, then is killed by friendly fire, then is lied about by Bush's buddies, who say he died while leading a charge. Yes, they lied to him and when that wasn't enough, they lied about him. They left no 'lying' stones unturned. They covered all their bases....with lies. What else could they have done to mislead and deface this patriot whose lone quest was to defend his people?
A TRUE hero who is misled, then killed, then lied about by the people he """""BELIEVES""""" he is fighting for. What an absolute miscarriage of human life.
Yet here are all these Americans (less than 40% of them) who could care less about being lied to. (Go ahead lie to me as long as I get a tax break, who cares?) Who gives a damn about someone likeTillman, who sacrifices so much more than they could ever contemplate? is what they are saying by supporting this Bush regime. Who cares about a guy that will give up all this because of his utter faith in his country? Who cares about a guy whose death is lied about by the gov't he gave his life for? How proud they must be to have these wonderful 'defenders of democracy' like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney leading our country. So long as they are waving the stars and stripes and somehow win the election, we're behind them all the way. I love democracy, that's why I want those three to move to Russia, China or any place out of this country. They've never shown anything that resembles democratic thought.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:23 am

1aafan

This is not Bush's War. The war we are fighting can be laid at the feet of WW2. The Allies made the decision to take some long time British occupied land call Palestine and gave it to the Jewish population that remained in Europe. I guess Hitler got what in wanted, the Jews out of Europe. Ever since then, the Muslims nations of the Middle East have had a burning mistrust of the US. This underlying mistrust has been turned into a hatred for all things western, and for some religionist zealots they have been preaching Holy War against the US for decades. The US has been the only true friend of Israel as Europe has turned their back on them time after time. (Europe never liked the Jewish religion or its followers, why would you expect them to support Israel.) Our 60-year friendship with Israel is the real reason we are now fighting this war. This war will not end when we get thinks settled in Afghanistan nor will it end we settle things in Iraq. This war is based on religion, and this kind of war can last for 100’s if not 1000’s of years. The region dictators ( yes, we supported some of them in past which was a mistake) and religious leaders have used this hatred against the US and Israel as a means to gain power. We have two choices we can follow:

1) Do what Europe did and turn its back on Israel.
2) Defend Israel. To defend Israel, the only way out of this religious war is to establish peaceful democracies that will support “Freedom of Religion.”

If you think this war is all about Oil, well there is some truth in that. We what the oil to flow, but the US does not want to control the oil. If you are not willing to secure the flow of oil out of the Middle East, then you should be ready to give-up your SUV, your gas hog Pickup, your monstrous RV, your 4000 sq ft home out in the countryside, and your gas powered toys. You better be pared to have high densities of urban housing and mass transit. The trip to the Wal-Mart Super store will be to expensive to drive too, so you will have to shop at smaller local stores. Thus limiting your choice and since the volume of sales will be smaller, the price of goods will be higher. Fresh foods from around the world will be to expensive to ship, so be ready to eat more foods that are canned. Land values will crash since the true value of land will be based on the how much food the land can produce and not on inflated housing values. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea of what are the consequences of not having cheap and reliable energy.

Ask yourself, why do you support or not support this war? Most of you blinding follow your political party, which is truly sad. Learn and remember your history.

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it."

As for your stupid and insensitive comment about Bush forcing Tillman to join the Army, and then killing him, I am not even going to respond.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:29 am

You blatantly misrepresented what I said at the end of your post. I NEVER said Bush 'forced' Tillman into the service. And I never said Bush 'killed' him. (This is what the Bushies do when someone points at them, they make something up to distract everyone) Maybe you should take your own advice and study history...as in recent history.
If you want to believe that what the US did in WWII is having an affect on what's going on now that's fine. But what about the affect of what's going on now is going to have on the future.
Our 'intelligence' no only told us there were WMDs, but it also said this war would be a walk in the park. Victory has been claimed aobut three times now. Apparently they didn't study these people close enough, because the are making this war into something they never expected.
As for the oil spiel you're obviously the product of the Bush propaganda, mind-control, brain washing machine. The world, including the oil companies, is already adjusting, with or without Bush, to less/no oil. Unlike him, people are intelligent and innovative beings capable of problem solving.
Your comments mean that oil is more valuable than life itself.

If you take nothing from what I say, at least do this: Go back and read what I said about Tillman and quit misrepresenting me.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:55 pm

Let get the facts correct. I am no "Bushie.” I voted for him only because he was far better then the democrat.

History is not a single point of view. If you do not think that, we are still fight decisions that were made during and after WW2, then you as I said, you are deemed to repeat them. The Bush Administration is trying to change the future by engaging the Middle East. He is not sitting back as Clinton did and let the terrorist hit us time after time. The troubles that we are having in Iraq are being created to a far greater degree by Al-qudia (SP) and not by the Iraqi people. Sure there are some who oppose us, but the bombings are being done mostly by foreigners. As for your comment on WMD. Every country in the world thought Sadaam had them. Even Russia came out publicly and stated that. The reason we could not get UN support was Sadaam had bribed the UN Security Council. Follow the money.

I never said oil is more valuable then life itself. I said our country, our economy; our life style is based on cheap energy. I am not one who the beliefs that the ends justify the means. I think you might belief that that. Yes, our country will adjust to higher energy cost, but what will the cost be? I stated some, you seem to have your head in the sand.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:46 pm

I don't know what that cost will be. What is the cost of this war? Isn't it in the hundreds of billions? Didn't our defense budget go from $400 billion to $600 billion a year and rising.

Other countries may have THOUGHT Iraq had WMDs, be our country (the Bush Administration in particular) said it KNEW they had them. The countries that thought that probably only did so, because of what we were telling them.

Another fact is that I never said you were a bushie.

I'm well aware that history is not a single point of view as you seem to imply.

Bush isn't sitting back and letting the terrorists hit us time after time? Maybe not, but there are those who think he wasn't on top of it on 9/11. The Clinton Admin. specifically told the Bush Administration that its biggest concern should be terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

I don't think Saddam is bribing the UN now, so why is there still no support?

I don't have my head in the sand and I'd appreciate it if we don't personalize this. I'm just stating this as I see it. If you disagree I'd like to hear your viewpoint and reasoning, which you're doing, but again don't personalize this.

I'd love to believe our country is doing the right thing with this Iraq situation and anything that will steer me to that conclusion is welcome.

Just to clarify, I may not like Bush at this point (I was behind him for several months following 9/11), but I'm not anti-Republican nor do I follow the Democrat party line straight down the line. I have way too many friends and relatives that are Republican to be like that.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:25 pm

iaafan wrote:Second guessing? What's to second guess? Bush blatantly made up reasons to go to Iraq.

You may see it as "making up reasons." Whatever. I can't make you believe he didn't, but I believe the evidence shows (and we've admitted) the intelligence during the spin up to the war was flawed. No wonder--administrations before (both Republican and Democrat, by the way) had stripped any of our intelligence organizations from any sort of base in the Middle East. IMINT and SIGINT (pictures and radio intercepts, respectively) are great, but nothing beats HUMINT--the intelligence gained from eyes on the ground.

iaafan wrote:Over 1,600 American service men and women are now dead for a reason we may never know.

And it's our job to do that--I guess you should be thankful you didn't choose this profession. Sometimes we in the military are directed into conflicts we don't understand. That's okay--it's expected and understood.

iaafan wrote:Bush is wiping out a threat that wasn't there and is letting whatever real threats slide by.

Saddam and the Taliban weren't threats? I would be willing to bet the family members of those repressive regimes would disagree with your assertion.

iaafan wrote:Bush can't fight Korea because Korea will fight back...in a big way.

You shouldn't use "can't"--use "won't" instead. Rest assured, we could take out North Korea if they decided to start anything. Why doesn't he? I'm not on the National Security Council, so I don't know. I trust our President and his advisors to make the call, though.

iaafan wrote:Let's go talk to Pat Tillman's parents. Here's a guy who ignores a $3.6 million per year salary to do what he believes is his part in "defending" our country. This is a monetary sacrifice beyond anything any soldier before or since has ever made. A truly heroic move. Why did he do it? Because George Bush and his buddies made up a bunch of B.S.

And how do you know his reasoning for giving up pro football to join the military. Not just enlisting in the Army, mind you, but becoming a Ranger. I implore you to read up on the training required of US Army Rangers--training that guarantees "Rangers Lead The Way!" Nobody could become a Ranger unless they are dedicated to the cause. The same could be said of Pat Tillman.

iaafan wrote:How do they feel about this now? He joins the service because he's lied to by Bush, then is killed by friendly fire, then is lied about by Bush's buddies, who say he died while leading a charge.

Modern armed conflict is violent, speedy business, filled with what Karl von Clausewitz refers to as the "fog of war." There are situations where the initial summary of a tactical exchange will state one thing, but a more detailed after-action report will lead to another conclusion. That does NOT mean anyone was lied to. Having never been in such a situation, and looking for any reason to trash our administration and national leadership, you shouldn't be expected to understand.

iaafan wrote:Yes, they lied to him and when that wasn't enough, they lied about him. They left no 'lying' stones unturned. They covered all their bases....with lies. What else could they have done to mislead and deface this patriot whose lone quest was to defend his people?

What a load. Does it make you feel better to make such bitter statements?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:28 pm

iaafan wrote:I don't think Saddam is bribing the UN now, so why is there still no support?

There is. Several countries, including (gasp!) France, has signed up to provide myriad types of support to Iraq.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:15 pm

Actually Honolulu Cat I did choose "this" profession, but opted out after finishing my tour. So did my uncle (perished in prison camp in the Phillipines after surviving the Bataan Death March) and my brother (seriously and permanently injured in Vietnam). So you need not go into any long explanations about the sacrifices we in the military make and have had to make. It's been etched in pretty well. Just like I don't need to tell you that everyone in the service buys into it.

Threat? It all depends on your definition. I feel a bit more threatened by North Korea, but we "know" they have WMDs and we aren't doing much about that. Whatever the case it's easy to say that Saddam was not the threat to the world that Bush portrayed him as being.

I don't know where you're going with Tillman, those are my exact sentiments. He was a special human being, which makes what happened to him all the more disgusting. It's not difficult to understand what went on with Tillman. The military got caught in a lie. It was known immediately by those there that he was killed by friendly fire. The Tillman family has been privy to first hand information His brother knew many at the scene. They are very critical and justifiably so.

Really? What a load? I'm not surprised or inspired by your seemingly cold stance on the Tillman case. He gave up everything for his country and was slapped in the face for it.

Please tell me more that makes what has happened to Tillman, "OK." This entire war is playing out as a complete sham, but Tillman -- ever the good soldier -- believes it is his duty to defend his country, his president. He gives it all up -- materially more so than perhaps anyone in history. He's killed in action and the events of his death are grossly lied about. Thank you for your service Mr. Tillman. The guy had it all, but was willing to -- and did -- let it go because he simply believed his country's leaders.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:19 am

iaafan wrote: Threat? It all depends on your definition. .

At the beginning for WW2, Germany was not a threat either. After all, the war was over in Europe. How could that be a threat to the USA?

You are letting your emotions make your decisions on the war. You are not thinking logical and you are not thinking long term. The radical Muslims are a threat to the USA. We must stop them from gain access to WMD. Iraq could have easily given WMD to these groups. Saddam thought he had bought the UN Security Council and he did not think the USA would invade without UN Support. I guess he was wrong. What was he hiding? If he had no WMD, why did he bribe the UN and why did he kick the inspectors out.

I guess I have a different point of view.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:15 am

Everything iaa is arguing is easy to argue when your hindsight is 20-20.

It is easy to see that you have a strong hatred for President Bush, and it is dictating your arguements. I havent read anything you've been posting in this topic as anti-war but rather as anti-Bush. Are you writing the script for Michael Moore's next movie?

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:24 am

The conversation regarding “Threat” revolves around Iraq, not radical Muslim extremists or terrorists. Please, as I’ve asked other posters, pay me the same consideration I pay you by not misrepresenting my words and do not personalize this. No one on this board is in a position to psychoanalyze anyone else based on their comments.

Iraq did not have any WMD to give to Al Qaeda or any other terrorists and the Bush Administration knew that at the time, so attacking Iraq has done little to advance our cause, which is a just cause, of ridding the world of terrorists.

I guess we do have differing points of view. It appears you still think Saddam was hiding WMD somewhere, is that correct? I’m not being a smart ass, I’m just trying to clarify your post. It’s a bit vague.

Hindsight? Was I not supposed to believe Bush when he told us Iraq had WMD? I did believe him as I’ve posted. I was all for it. So here’s some more hindsight…I was wrong to believe Bush. It is easy for me to say that now, knowing what we all know. I do not have a “strong hatred” for Bush, but I sure don’t like him. I like to poke fun at him just as a means of dark humor, because what he’s done is so bad it’s hard to fathom. The guy baked up a bunch of fake information and fed it to America. We said, “Mmmm, yummy.” But now our stomachs are turning.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:50 am

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:07 pm

iaafan wrote:Iraq did not have any WMD to give to Al Qaeda or any other terrorists and the Bush Administration knew that at the time, so attacking Iraq has done little to advance our cause, which is a just cause, of ridding the world of terrorists.

I beg to differ. The entire world thought Iraq had WMD. This is not the conspiracy theory you are making it out to be.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:16 pm

Cat Pride wrote:
iaafan wrote:Iraq did not have any WMD to give to Al Qaeda or any other terrorists and the Bush Administration knew that at the time, so attacking Iraq has done little to advance our cause, which is a just cause, of ridding the world of terrorists.
I beg to differ. The entire world thought Iraq had WMD. This is not the conspiracy theory you are making it out to be.

I don't really want to get back into this discussion, but this statement is simply not true. Refer to the subject of this thread. We just keep telling ourselves that the whole world thought that. It turns out that they had a healthier dose of skepticism and less of a predetermined "right answer" than our decision makers, which led them to a better answer (to not go to war under false pretenses).

But now we are in it, so we need to finish it well ... and learn from our mistakes the next time somebody tries to convince us that invading a country is a good idea.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:25 pm

The entire world "except the Bush Administration and some folks in Tony Blair's cabinet" THOUGHT that Iraq had WMDs. Bush, Blair and Co. KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:47 pm

iaa,

Please share with us the entirety of your obvious first-hand knowledge that Bush & Blair KNEW there were no WMD's in Iraq when we attacked. That's an amazing statement with absolutely NO proof. Take all the time & space you need; and please don't waste that time & space by quoting unnamed/uncorroborated/unsubstantiated rumors consistently found in the traditional media.

If there were "smoking gun"-esque memos or communications by & between high-level Bush/Blair folks demonstrating that the WMD justification for war was a lie, I'm pretty sure ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the NY Times, Newsweek etc. etc. would be screaming about them every day! You know those organizations are just DROOLING over the thought of getting their hands on something like that.

The bottom line is that at this point, no such smoking gun exists, so your statement is pure speculation on your part as a venom-spewing liberal who so desperately WANTS your statement to be true that you've simply made up your mind that it is, regardless of a total lack of factual foundation.

BTW, do you deny that Saddam gassed the Kurds back in the 90's? If not, are you aware that the gas used in that slaughter IS a WMD?