Saddam More Dangerous Defeated According to INtelligence Community

[Dreadsox]

[Q]But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.[/Q]

Now this is interesting!!!!!

Where are the WMD?????????

Why didn't the President take this into account??????http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20698-2003Jul20.html?nav=hptop_tb

The declassified sections of the NIE were offered by the White House to rebut allegations that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The result, however, could be to raise more questions about whether the administration misrepresented the judgments of the intelligence services on another basis for going to war: the threat posed by Hussein as a source of weapons for terrorists.

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

but God is on our side! we will be the victors!

bush

 

[80sU2isBest]

Here is my belief about your statement, red Ships:

You're right. God wasn't on our side.

We were on His side.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

80s, how on earth do you feel you have the grounds to make that claim?

 

[Rono]

Here is my belief about your statement, red Ships:

You're right. God wasn't on our side.

We were on His side.

If that is true i want to go to hell,...

 

[BVS]

Here is my belief about your statement, red Ships:

You're right. God wasn't on our side.

We were on His side.

The last time I checked God didn't want me to use lies in order to kill. But maybe I missed that part in Bible school. I'll take your word for it, you seem to have the market on the truth.

 

[Angela Harlem]

80's has merely stated this is his belief, right or wrong in someone's opinion is not grounds to start picking on the individual.

 

[verte76]

Some group of Moslems gave a tape to Al-Jazeera TV. They are out to get Americans *and* Iraqis helping Americans in Iraq, according to a report on my ISP's news. This scares me. What the hell is going on here? More war? How much more?

 

[Klaus]

80sU2isBest: who is "we" - the US?

if yes - when were they on Gods side?

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

Come on people, what does this have to do with the fact that quite possibly, the administration ignored some intelligence or may e did not present this part of the case to the House and Senate. Want to bet it wasn't?

I really expected more from this thread.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

This was a widely discussed point as late as last summer and not something that was classified. In addition, much of the reason for disarming Hussien had to do with his past behavior and not the possibility of him arming terrorist, although that was indeed a possibility. Judging what Saddam would and would not do was very difficult. The same intelligence community overwhelmingly said he would never invade Kuwait, but he did.

Saddam's unpredictability and refusal to cooperate in disarmament is precisely why he had to go.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

if the declassified part is the same as the genaral context of the document it would mean that the US Government didn't start a war because of the informations they had but although they had the information.
-> the WMDs were not the real reason for the War.

So there is left: Oil and strategic interests

Klaus

 

[anitram]

I never, ever understood the administration's apparently desperate desire/need to go to war RIGHT then and there. They were unwilling to spend any more time on it, they repeatedly shut down efforts by the Canadian government to produce a deal that would sort of mediate between the French/Germans/Russians and the US, and insisted that the reasoning was they could waste absolutely not another second. That is how things were presented and I always felt it was bullshit. Seems to me now they were willing to bypass logic and foresight just to get their way.

As for why the thread went the way it did, I believe "we were on his side" is a borderline inflammatory statement, because we were not all on the same side and I'll be damned if somebody else dictates to us who was and was not on God's side. Just saying.

 

[Dreadsox]

As for why the thread went the way it did, I believe "we were on his side" is a borderline inflammatory statement, because we were not all on the same side and I'll be damned if somebody else dictates to us who was and was not on God's side. Just saying.

It's all cool....

BTW....Clay and I will be by to serenade you!!!

 

[anitram]

BTW....Clay and I will be by to serenade you!!!

Like this?

You know I love ya, Dreadsox. I actually think you're my favourite non-leftist in the whole wide world.

 

[speedracer]

So there is left: Oil and strategic interests

Klaus

I thought the first of these had been debunked many times over: if all Bush wanted was the oil, he'd just tell the UN to drop the sanctions and deliver some spiel about how the sanctions are inhumane, 500,000 children have died because of lack of medical supplies, etc. Then he wins both ways -- he gets the oil and he looks like a "humanitarian".

 

[speedracer]

As for why the thread went the way it did, I believe "we were on his side" is a borderline inflammatory statement, because we were not all on the same side and I'll be damned if somebody else dictates to us who was and was not on God's side. Just saying.

I would suggest that Bush's (and 80's and others') notion that "God was on our side" is offensive because a priori you disagree with Bush himself (because you think he made selective use of evidence, shunned diplomatic efforts by others, etc.) The fact that he claims God on his side makes him more offensive to you.

The respected pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought that God wanted him and others to assassinate Hitler. Seriously.

I'm not going to analyze in detail the similarities and differences between the two examples here; I just wanted to point out that the notion that God is on somebody's side in a war or that God might want someone to kill someone else is of itself not inherently evil or misguided.

 

[speedracer]

[Q]But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.[/Q]

Now this is interesting!!!!!

Where are the WMD?????????

Why didn't the President take this into account??????http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20698-2003Jul20.html?nav=hptop_tb

Because the other consequences of overthrowing Saddam were thought to outweigh the possibility of WMDs being leaked to terrorists, perhaps? (Although if Bush had thought this, you could argue that he shouldn't have emphasized the WMD threat the way he did.)

 

[Klaus]

speedracer: I just mentioned the oil again because Sting2 (not to be known to bash the current US government) mentioned the Iraqi oil several times as legitime interest of the US.

 

[Klaus]

The respected pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought that God wanted him and others to assassinate Hitler. Seriously.

You can't say it in such a short and easy way.
Mr. Bonhoeffer was fully aware that he did something evil when trying to kill Hitler.
Bonhoefer said: "To Follow Jesus means to work for Peace and Justice"
He accepted for himself that Pacifism wasn't enough, that he had to do something. He didn't accept any colaterale damage, he was willing to risk his own life, not the life of other guys.

From my point of view it is completely unacceptable to compare outstanding bad people like Hitler to "average horrible dictators" like Mr Hussein - and it's also unacceptable to compare outstanding good people to average presidents who were not willing to give their life but to accept the loss of other lifes (soldiers and foreign civlists).

Klaus

 

[speedracer]

From my point of view it is completely unacceptable to compare outstanding bad people like Hitler to "average horrible dictators" like Mr Hussein - and it's also unacceptable to compare outstanding good people to average presidents who were not willing to give their life but to accept the loss of other lifes (soldiers and foreign civlists).

I completely refrained from making a detailed comparison; I just wanted to isolate the "God is on our side" part of the argument. As you stated, the veracity of the claim that "God is on our side" depends completely on the specific circumstances.

 

[Klaus]

And even Hitler thought that god was on his side.. he could even "proof" it, because he survived all the assasination attempt by coincidence or - as he saw it - with gods help

 

[80sU2isBest]

I would suggest that Bush's (and 80's and others') notion that "God was on our side" is offensive

read it again, speedracer. I never said God was on our side.

I said we were on His side. there is a big difference.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80s, how on earth do you feel you have the grounds to make that claim?

Did you forget, Sula? According to you, I think I know everything. If I think I know everything, then in my mind, I am qualified to make any statement I want.

Actually, all I meant by that statement is that the US did the right thing. Doing the right thing is "being on God's side" at least for that one act.

 

[speedracer]

read it again, speedracer. I never said God was on our side.

I said we were on His side. there is a big difference.

What precisely is this difference? It is not clear to me.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80's has merely stated this is his belief, right or wrong in someone's opinion is not grounds to start picking on the individual.

Thank you very much, Angela. You've always replied respectfully, even when you adamantly disagree.

Some others do have a difficult time living up to your high standards, however.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What precisely is this difference? It is not clear to me.

The difference actually speaks to the nature of one's relationship with God.

In order to be in a right relationship with God, one doesn't make his plans and then hope that God goes along with them. On the contray, in a right relationship with God, one puts his faith in God and goes along with what God says: this the distinction between "God being on our side" and "us being on God's side".

 

[speedracer]

Actually, all I meant by that statement is that the US did the right thing. Doing the right thing is "being on God's side" at least for that one act.

That is what I thought you meant, and I don't see how the invocation of the Almighty should affect the evaluation of the merits of Bush's decision to go to war.

I don't think anyone has enough insight into Bush's mind to decide whether (1) he thought he was following God's command or (2) he was acting of his own accord and hoping God would "agree" with him. Speculation on this issue doesn't form a particularly persuasive argument.

 

[deep]

Actually, all I meant by that statement is that the US did the right thing. Doing the right thing is "being on God's side" at least for that one act.

Do you realize the other side can make this same argument?

In my mind it cheapens God.

I do not believe God recognizes national boundaries or goals, but only what is in one's heart.

I was listening to a religious speaker this weekend.
He said when one claims God for nationalistic goals it is a form of idolatry.

 

[Scarletwine]

In order to be in a right relationship with God, one doesn't make his plans and then hope that God goes along with them. On the contray, in a right relationship with God, one puts his faith in God and goes along with what God says: this the distinction between "God being on our side" and "us being on God's side". [/B]

Then it would be fair to say that God was not on the side of the little boy we all saw pictures of that lost his arms and was burned from the waste down or other children killed and maimed?

All religious terrorists state the "God is on their side" including Osama. Any use of God for an excuse or help in killing his children, regardless of the reason, to me is the highest form of blasphemy.