George Tenen's speach (long post)

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
George Tenen's speach (long post)

Whole text

I'm going to take important excerpts of the speach and comment on them.

First, Iraq's history. Everyone knew that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s and 1990s. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people on at least 10 different occasions. He launched missiles against Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

And we couldn't forget that in the early 1990s, we saw that Iraq was just a few years away from a nuclear weapon. This was not a theoretical program. It turned out that we and other intelligence services of the world had significantly underestimated his progress.

And finally, we could not forget that Iraq lied repeatedly about its unconventional weapons.

So to conclude before the war that Saddam had no interest in rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction programs, we would have had to ignore his long and brutal history of using them.
First strike. Iraq was a nation with a past of using WMDs, the money to make them, the desire to make them, and the motive to use them.
Our second stream of information was that the United Nations could not and Saddam would not account for all the weapons the Iraqis had: tons of chemical weapons precursors, hundreds of artillery shells and bombs filled with chemical or biological agents.

We did not take this data on face value. We did take it seriously. We worked with the inspectors, giving them leads, helping them fight Saddam's deception strategy of cheat and retreat.

Over eight years of inspections, Saddam's deceptions and the increasingly restrictive rules of engagements U.N. inspectors were forced to negotiate with the regime undermined efforts to disarm him.

To conclude before the war that Saddam had destroyed his existing weapons, we would have had to ignore what the United Nations and allied intelligence said they could not verify.
Second strike. Iraq kept perfect records second only to Hitler's Germany. They knew exactly where all the weapon systems were. They had a long and near perfect record of keeping things hidden from the UN inspectors. Only somebody in denial could believe Saddam's goons when they say they "don't know" where the weapons are.

In intercepts of conversations and other transactions, we heard Iraqis seeking to hide prohibited items, worrying about their cover stories and trying to procure items Iraq was not permitted to have.
We knew they were playing a shell game. Why would they do that if they didn't have something they didn't want the inspectors to find?
Satellite photos showed a pattern of activity designed to conceal movement of material from places where chemical weapons had been stored in the past. We also saw reconstruction of dual-purpose facilities previously used to make biological weapons or chemical precursors.

And human sources told us of efforts to acquire and hide materials used in the production of such weapons.

And to come to conclusions before the war other than those we reached, we would have had to ignore all the intelligence gathered from multiple sources after 1998.
Multiple sources. Not one with the big picture. But all together and the puzzle becomes clear. They had weapons and weapon systems that were prohibited.

Did these strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it. But taken together, this information provided a solid basis on which to estimate whether Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

[/quote]But before we start, let me be direct about an important fact. As we meet here today, the Iraq Survey Group is continuing its important search for people and data. And despite some public statements, we are nowhere near 85 percent finished. The men and women who work in that dangerous environment are adamant about that fact.[/quote]

We're nowhere near done. Saying there is nothing there is like saying you have no socks without looking any further than your sock drawer. Same goes for Iraq. We're not done looking. And we won't be done for a lot longer.
Let me turn to unmanned aerial vehicles. The estimate said that Iraq had been developing an unmanned aerial vehicle probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents.

Baghdad's existing unmanned aerial vehicle could threaten its neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and, if a small unmanned aerial vehicle was brought close to our shores, the United States itself.

What do we know today?

The Iraq Survey Group found that two separate groups in Iraq were working on a number of unmanned aerial vehicles designed that were hidden from the U.N. until Iraq's declaration in December of 2002. Now we know that important design elements were never fully declared.

The question of intent, especially regarding the smaller unmanned aerial vehicle, is still out there. But we should remember that the Iraqis flight tested an aerial biological weapons spray system intended for a large unmanned aerial vehicle.

A senior Iraqi official has now admit that their two large unmanned vehicles, one developed in the early '90s and the other under development in late 2000, were intended for the delivery of biological weapons.

My provisional bottom line today: We detected the development of prohibited and undeclared unmanned aerial vehicles. But the jury is still out on whether Iraq intended to use its newer, smaller unmanned aerial vehicle to deliver biological weapons.
But with the past history of Iraq you cannot deny that it's use wasn't likely. You do not invest millions of dollars in a weapon system just to not use it. Unless said system is part of a MAD deterrant. Which a regional biological weapon delivery system is not.

Let me turn to biological weapons.

The estimates said Baghdad had them and that all key aspects of an offensive program — research and development, production and weaponization — were still active and most elements were larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War.

We believe that Iraq had lethal biological weapons agents, including anthrax, which it could quickly produce and weaponize for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives. But we said we had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal.
Yet Saddam had biological-capable UAVs. Those two points separate don't mean much. But together and you have the necessary components for a biological war.

What do we know today? Last fall the Iraqi Survey Group uncovered, quote, "significant information, including research and development of biological weapons, applicable organisms, the involvement of the Iraqi intelligence service in possible biological weapons activities and deliberate concealment activities."

All of this suggests that Iraq, after 1996, further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of biological weapons agents.
The Iraq Survey Group found a network of laboratories and safe houses controlled by Iraqi intelligence and security services that contained equipment for chemical and biological research and a prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing for biological weapons agents that were not declared to the United Nations.

It also appears that Iraq had the infrastructure and the talent to resume production, but we have yet to find that it actually did so, nor have we found weapons. [/quote]

They had the infrastructure, the talent, the delivery system and the desire to have said weapons. With Iraq's previous history of using WMDs, you cannoy deny he was a danger to the world.

Until we get to the bottom of the role played by the Iraqi security services, which were operating covert labs, we will not know the full extent of the program.

And I must tell you that we are finding discrepancies in some claims made by human sources about mobile biological weapons production before the war. Because we lack direct access to the most important sources on this question, we have as yet been able to resolve the differences

My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop biological weapons. Clearly, research and development work was under way that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not yet know if production took place. And just as clearly, we have not yet found biological weapons.

Before I leave the biological weapons story, an important fact that you must consider: For years the U.N. searched unsuccessfully for Saddam's biological weapons program. His son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, who controlled the hidden program, defected and only then was the world able to confirm that Iraq indeed had an active and dangerous biological weapons program.

Indeed, history matters when dealing with these complicated problems. While many of us want instant answers, the search for biological weapons in Iraq will take time and it will take patience. [/quote]

Have not YET found biological weapons. Tenent said earlier they were not done yet. There is still much of Iraq to search. He's (and I as well) have said have patience.

Let me now turn to chemical weapons.
We said in the estimate with high confidence that Iraq had them. We also believed, though with less certainty, that Saddam had stocked at least 100 metric tons of agent.

That may sound like a lot, but it would fit in a few dorm rooms on this campus. And the last time I remember, they're not very big rooms.
A few dorm rooms. Iraq has the land mass of California. Do you remember the arguments as to why we can't find illegals immigrants? It's too big of a task. And there are millions of immigrants in California alone. How difficult do you think it'd be to locate three specific rooms in California that have been expertly concealed by people with unlimited money?

I've designed a few basements with concealed spaces in them. All have been for keeping valuables safe and concealed. Even using just basic construction techniques it is possible to conceal the existance of said room without any dificulty. True experts in concealment with the space of Iraq could make several tons of chemical weaponry disappear and never be found again.

I have now given you my provisional bottom lines, but it is important to remember that estimates are not written in a vacuum. Let me tell you some of what was going on in the fall of 2002.

Several sensitive reports crossed my desk from two sources characterized by our foreign partners as established and reliable. The first from a source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle said Iraq was not in the possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon.

Saddam had recently called together his nuclear weapons committee, irate that Iraq did not yet have a weapon because money was no object and they possessed the scientific know-how. The committee members assured Saddam that once fissile material was in hand, a bomb could be ready in 18 to 24 months. The return of U.N. inspectors would cause minimal disruption because, according to the source, Iraq was expert at denial and deception.
The same source said that Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides under the oil-for-food program had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production.

The source said that Iraq's weapons of last resort were mobile launchers armed with chemical weapons which would be fired at enemy forces in Israel; that Iraqi scientists were dabbling with biological weapons with limited success, but the quantities were not sufficient to constitute a real weapons program.

A stream of reporting from a different sensitive source with access to senior Iraqi officials said he believed production of chemical and biological weapons was taking place, that biological agents were easy to produce and hide, and that prohibited chemicals were also being produced at dual-use facilities.

The source stated that a senior Iraqi official in Saddam's inner circle believed, as a result of the U.N. inspections, Iraq knew the inspectors' weak points and had to take advantage of them.

The source said that there was an elaborate plan to deceive inspectors and ensure prohibited items would never be found.
Now, did this information make any difference in my thinking? You bet it did.
Taken by itself this source is easily discounted. But add in the intercepted electronic communications. Add in the refusal to account for the missing WMDs. Add a pinch of past history of lying and deception. Fold in the means of delivery. Whip together with purchase orders for nuclear components from North Korea. Bake for an hour at 350 degrees and voila! A picture of Saddam doing everythign in his ability to have a massive WMD system.

this information and other sensitive information came across my desk, it solidified and reinforced the judgments that we had reached in my own view of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and I conveyed this view to our nation's leaders.

Could I have ignored or dismissed such reports? Absolutely not.
Now, I'm sure you're all asking, "Why haven't we found the weapons?" I've told you the search must continue and it will be difficult.
But the search will continue.

As David Kay reminded us, the Iraqis systematically destroyed and looted forensic evidence before, during and after the war. We have been faced with organized destruction of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of weapons of mass destruction work. The pattern of these efforts is one of deliberate, rather than random, acts. Iraqis who have volunteered information to us are still being intimidated and attacked.

Remember, finding things in Iraq is always very tough. After the first Gulf War, the U.S. Army blew up chemical weapons without knowing it. They were mixed in with conventional weapons in Iraqi ammo dumps.
Which ties in with human sources saying the WMDs were concealed in plain sight in amongst the conventional weapons. We haven't had the time for our limited resources to inpect every individual mortar shell, artillery shell, missle warhead, bomb, etc. This will take a LONG time.

So what do I think about all this today? Based on an assessment of the data we collected over the past 10 years, it would have been difficult for analysts to come to any different conclusions than the ones reached in October of 2002.
Difficult when you are tasked with providing the intelligence used for the protection of the US and the rest of the world by proxy.

Among the questions that we as a community must ask are: Did the history of our work, Saddam's deception and denial, his lack of compliance with the international community and all that we know about this regime cause us to minimize or ignore alternative scenarios?

Did the fact that we missed how close Saddam came to acquiring a nuclear weapon in the early 1990s cause us to overestimate his nuclear or other programs in 2002?
I personally believe this to be the case. We erred on the side of caution. Keeps our civilians alive.

We did not have enough of our own human intelligence. We did not ourselves penetrate the inner sanctum.
Had not Sen. Church and Sen. Kerry not been so pro-active in destroying our intelligence capabilities this problem wouldn't have been so insurmountable. And had Pres. Clinton not issued the order that we can no longer hire "undesirables" for clandestine work, we could have turned hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi goons to our side (i.e. paycheck) and really known what was going on.

Our agents were on the periphery of WMD activities, providing some useful information. We had access to emigres and defectors with more direct access to these programs. And we had a steady stream of reporting with access to the Iraqi leadership come to us from a trusted foreign partner.

Other partners provided important information. What we did not collect ourselves, we evaluated as carefully as we could.

Still, the lack of direct access to some of these sources created some risk. Such is the nature of our business.

To be sure, we had difficulty penetrating the Iraqi regime with human sources. And I want to be very clear about something: A blanket indictment of our human intelligence around the world is dead wrong. We have spent the last seven years rebuilding our clandestine service. As director of central intelligence, this has been my highest priority.
To give Pres. Clinton credit, he did allow the intelligence community to grow slightly. Only because we were no longer allowed to use "undesirables" to do the dirty work for us. But it wasn't enough to stem the tide of people leaving the morass the intel community was beaten down to.

When I came to the CIA in the mid-'90s, our graduating class of case officers was unbelievably low. Now, after years of rebuilding, our training programs and putting our best efforts to recruit the most talented men and women, we are graduating more clandestine officers than at any time in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency
Now as in since Pres. Bush became president and made the intel community feel welcome again.

It will take an additional five years to finish the job of rebuilding our clandestine service, but the results so far have been obvious.

A CIA spy led us to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks.

Al Qaida's operational chief Nashiri, the man who planned and executed the bombing of the USS Cole, was located and arrested because of our human reporting.

Human sources were critical to the capture of Hambali, the chief terrorist in southeast Asia, who organized and killed hundreds of people when they bombed a nightclub in Bali.

So when you hear pundits say that we have no human intelligence capability, they don't know what they're talking about.
And that is just what they're telling us about. Nevermind the thousands of SpecWar people who do the black ops we know nothing about. Nevermind the other nations doing the same and sharing their intel with us.

Let's talk about Libya, where a sitting regime has volunteered to dismantle its WMD program. Somebody on television said we completely missed it. Well, he completely missed it. This was an intelligence success.
Libya is more of a success than he's making it out to be. By fighting in Iraq, we forced Libya's hand. We fought one war and because of it avoided another. Countless thousands of Libyians don't have to die because of a single despot.

Let me briefly mention Iran, and I will not go into detail. I want to assure you of one thing: that recent Iranian admissions about their nuclear programs validate our intelligence assessments. It is flat wrong to say that we were surprised by reports from the Iranian opposition last year.
Again, this success was largely due to the war in Iraq. Iran knew they were next if they didn't start cooperating. We may have avoided war in Iran by fighting a war in Iraq. That makes three victories from one fight. That hasn't happened in modern times.

And on North Korea, it was patient analysis of difficult-to- obtain information that allowed our diplomats to confront the North Korean regime about their pursuit of a different route to a nuclear weapon that violated international agreements.
While I have no proof of it, I believe it was the Kodiak detatchment from SEAL Team 1 that first discovered the N. Korean nuclear threat back sometime between early 1990 and early 1991. If anybody knows anything about this I'd appreciate what you know. I'll share my theory with anybody who can help. Even if it's just speculation from somebody with some knowledge of Team 1.

The rest of the story deals with a Q&A session which I won't get into. This thread is long enough as is.

What does this all mean? We pieced together the larger picture from thousands of little pieces of intel. The picture wasn't complete but it showed Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. They had the ways and means of building chemical and biological weapons. They had the means of delivering said weapons. The UN in 1998 said he still had those weapons. And we had no reason to believe otherwise that he didn't still have them. Given his past history of using chemical weapons we had no choice but to believe he'd use them again.

Was Saddam an immenant threat? No he wasn't. The case was never made that he was. The case was made that we had to stop him BEFORE he became an immenant threat. We did just that. We'll never know just how dangerous Saddam could have been. But that's a good thing. You don't want to know how dangerous a rabid dog can be. You simply put the dog down.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
You'd be alot more credible if you had spelled Tenet's name correctly :p

First strike. Iraq was a nation with a past of using WMDs, the money to make them, the desire to make them, and the motive to use them.
No different from the UK, the US, French or Germans. Remember?

Second strike. Iraq kept perfect records second only to Hitler's Germany. They knew exactly where all the weapon systems were. They had a long and near perfect record of keeping things hidden from the UN inspectors. Only somebody in denial could believe Saddam's goons when they say they "don't know" where the weapons are.
1) Then where are these weapon systems?
2) Record keeping is kinda what government does.
3) I'm pretty sure most modern governments are much better than 1930's Germany at keeping records. Points for comparing Hussein to Hitler.

We knew they were playing a shell game. Why would they do that if they didn't have something they didn't want the inspectors to find?
Nope, we thought and assumed they were. Read the Kay report. I'm afraid of your multiple double negatives, but hiding something that may or may not exist is hardly a good reason. But more points for baseless accusations.

Multiple sources. Not one with the big picture. But all together and the puzzle becomes clear. They had weapons and weapon systems that were prohibited.

Did these strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it. But taken together, this information provided a solid basis on which to estimate whether Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
I can take three pieces of information and claim that Jesus Christ is actually Donald Trump. That doesn't make it so. Now you're just grasping.

We're nowhere near done. Saying there is nothing there is like saying you have no socks without looking any further than your sock drawer. Same goes for Iraq. We're not done looking. And we won't be done for a lot longer.
Toning back the number of cats looking for the ghosts in the desert suggests otherwise. But, you're right (finally). We're not done looking yet.


But with the past history of Iraq you cannot deny that it's use wasn't likely. You do not invest millions of dollars in a weapon system just to not use it. Unless said system is part of a MAD deterrant. Which a regional biological weapon delivery system is not.
Way to cover your *** with Star Wars. 'Nuff said, weak sauce.

Yet Saddam had biological-capable UAVs. Those two points separate don't mean much. But together and you have the necessary components for a biological war.
How do you jump from think (in the text) to know (what you assume)? Again, wild speculation not backed by facts....hmmm, a pattern seems to be emerging.

After this, you totally suck at parsing the quotes and what not ;), and I'm tired. I'll leave the rest of your poor reasoning to others who actually care.

Long story short, there was no imminent threat to the U.S., there seem to be no WMD, and we were lied to by the administration.
 
So if Hussein was never claimed to be an imminent threat, why are we so hell bent on proving he was? Why did we invade if there was no imminent threat?
 

Stark_

Diabloii.Net Member
How quickly we forget. The case for war was made under the assumption that Iraq had these weapons, would not hesitate to sell or use them, and that they posed and immediate and serious threat to our national security. Not that we would be liberating the citizens of Iraq, not that Iraq might be dangerous soon, but that Iraq posed an IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!

I would say all evidence now points to that idea being wrong. We seem to have been lead into a war based on very shaky "facts". I believe that further investigation will only reinforce this.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
So if Hussein was never claimed to be an imminent threat, why are we so hell bent on proving he was? Why did we invade if there was no imminent threat?
We stopped him BEFORE he could be an imminent threat.

stark said:
How quickly we forget. The case for war was made under the assumption that Iraq had these weapons, would not hesitate to sell or use them, and that they posed and immediate and serious threat to our national security. Not that we would be liberating the citizens of Iraq, not that Iraq might be dangerous soon, but that Iraq posed an IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!
Saddam has been a known threat to the US since 1998. The reasons given for Operation Desert Fox were the exact same ones as the reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Saddam has been known to be a threat for years. You quickly you forgot that.

I would say all evidence now points to that idea being wrong. We seem to have been lead into a war based on very shaky "facts". I believe that further investigation will only reinforce this.
Those "shaky facts" were agreed upon by the UN and Pres. Clinton in 1998.
Those "shaky facts" were agreed upon by congress in 2002.
Those "shaky facts" weren't entirely right and not entirely wrong. The question still remains, are we safer now that Saddam is dead?
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
question still remains, are we safer now that Saddam is dead?
When did he die? I hadn't heard that. You're so funny, Smeg. Especially when you try to debate. Stick to opinon, you're much better at that.
 
Smeg Head said:
We stopped him BEFORE he could be an imminent threat.
There are a lot of people and nations that could become an imminent threat 10-20 years down the road. I don't see us invading Europe or Russia or China or South America or...

You've gotta face facts, man. The argument for pre-emptive strike doctrine is pure paranoia and absolutely nothing else. There is no way to know a man's future intentions.

It is not logical, humane, or even economically or militarily viable to invade all nations that could at some point become an imminent threat.

Saddam has been a known threat to the US since 1998.
Didn't you just say he wasn't a threat?

Saddam has been known to be a threat for years. You quickly you forgot that.
So was he or was he not a threat?

Those "shaky facts" weren't entirely right and not entirely wrong. The question still remains, are we safer now that Saddam is dead?
"Shaky facts" not being entirely right is exactly what makes them shaky facts. We are much less safe with him gone. How many Americans per day were dying prior to his "death" compared to after? How many nations existed in states of anarchy prior compared to after?
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
When it comes down to it, the U.S. invaded Iraq because it believed Iraq to be an imminent threat at the time of the invasion.

"Bush had come under increasing pressure from Democrats in recent days in the wake of the admission by chief weapons inspector David Kay that he could not substantiate that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had the kind of weapons arsenal the administration maintained was in existence and which it used to justify the invasion of Iraq. " Source:Yahoo news.

"Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on Thursday defended the spies and analysts under his command, contending they never said Iraq (news - web sites) posed an "imminent" threat ..." Source: Chicago Tribune.


Frankly, Bush has 9 months to explain the debacle. Maybe the better answer is to apologize to the American public for being incompetent, and justify that the "ends justifies the means," because Libya, a "rogue" state has forfeited its nuclear program and N. Korea is soon to follow. 9 months is a long time. The American public may forget. N. Korea may follow...

But it looks like a mutiny in D.C. as Tenet refuses to take the bullit for Bush. Smeg, too bad you're not in the CIA. Wondered whether you would have gone down quitely for your president or spoke up as Tenet did.
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm still waiting for this earthshattering news Smeg said he had about WMD. It's been months and it was supposed to prove us wrong. These guys really know how to tease.
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Bah, Smeg, I'm just tired of trying to get others to see it our way. I find no fault in our offensive against Iraq. Whether the real reason is oil, WMD's or the chance for American troops to have a Super Bowl party in one of Saddam's palace's, the bottom line is this, Saddam was a brutal, violent, sadistic ruler. He used chemical weapons on his own citizens many times, invaded Kuwait unprovoked, murdered anyone who opposed him, brutalized his citizens, took advantage of the oil-for-food program for personal power gains. He was a regional threat for certain and we are all but certain if he wasn't a global threat already, he would have been if given enough time and could have been if someone pushed him in a way he didn't like.

Crap, I've just explained myself on this again. :xsmile4:
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
Sergeant said:
Bah, Smeg, I'm just tired of trying to get others to see it our way. I find no fault in our offensive against Iraq. Whether the real reason is oil, WMD's or the chance for American troops to have a Super Bowl party in one of Saddam's palace's, the bottom line is this, Saddam was a brutal, violent, sadistic ruler. He used chemical weapons on his own citizens many times, invaded Kuwait unprovoked, murdered anyone who opposed him, brutalized his citizens, took advantage of the oil-for-food program for personal power gains. He was a regional threat for certain and we are all but certain if he wasn't a global threat already, he would have been if given enough time and could have been if someone pushed him in a way he didn't like.
So we can alter sovereign nations on a whim because we feel like it? We don't like you, so we're gonna kill you?
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Sergeant said:
Bah, Smeg, I'm just tired of trying to get others to see it our way.
Ah, but it's fun trying.

And yes Damascus, that's exactly how it is. We don't like those who support and harbor those that want to kill our civilians. So we kill them first. I'd rather a few enemy die than millions of Americans. Don't you?
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Damascus said:
So we can alter sovereign nations on a whim because we feel like it? We don't like you, so we're gonna kill you?
We don't like Saddam, we didn't kill him. So who exactly are you talking about? Iraqis have died who support and fight for Saddam even now that he's in custody and totally out of power. They do so by choice and we return fire. Ours have died, theirs have died, that is war.

But to answer your question, yes, that's how it is. You harbor terrorists, fund terrorism, threaten neighbors, brutalize and terrorize citizens, defy the world community, violate cease fires and you will be dealt with. You put it simply and a little harshly but in a general sense, yeah, that's how it goes.
 
But he wasn't a threat.

I know it's easy to bypass your own moral beliefs by pretending we only killed 6 or 7 faceless people who had no lives other than hating America, but we've killed thousands upon thousands of non-military personnel who are just trying to carve out a life for themselves in the dirt, imprisoned hundreds, and lost hundreds of our own. For what? To eliminate a non-threat.
 
Sergeant said:
You harbor terrorists, fund terrorism, threaten neighbors, brutalize and terrorize citizens, defy the world community, violate cease fires and you will be dealt with. You put it simply and a little harshly but in a general sense, yeah, that's how it goes.
So the US is next on the chopping block?
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
Ah, but it's fun trying.

And yes Damascus, that's exactly how it is. We don't like those who support and harbor those that want to kill our civilians. So we kill them first. I'd rather a few enemy die than millions of Americans. Don't you?
Eh, just say your post. Now we can wait for Dam or someone else to come back and say "I don't want anyone to die!". They want their cake on a silver platter and fed to them by a nubile woman desiring nothing else but making their cake eating experience as erotic as possible.
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
And yes Damascus, that's exactly how it is. We don't like those who support and harbor those that want to kill our civilians. So we kill them first. I'd rather a few enemy die than millions of Americans. Don't you?
And how many US civilians did Iraq kill?
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
But he wasn't a threat.

I know it's easy to bypass your own moral beliefs by pretending we only killed 6 or 7 faceless people who had no lives other than hating America, but we've killed thousands upon thousands of non-military personnel who are just trying to carve out a life for themselves in the dirt, imprisoned hundreds, and lost hundreds of our own. For what? To eliminate a non-threat.
True, lots of innocent people have died. But, **newsflash**, they were dying in larger numbers when he was in power and he did it for no other reason because he could and it kept him in power. We are not TRYING to kill innocent people just trying to get by. We are trying to eliminate a threat in Iraq that is hindering our ability to rebuild that nation and secure the peace and prosperity these people want and deserve badly.

IDupedInMyPants said:
So the US is next on the chopping block?
So please tell me, what terrorists have we harbored, what terrorism have we funded, what neighbors have we threatened, what citizens do we brutalize, we haven't defied the world community, and what cease fires have we violated?

And if you try and come back with "the US did violate the world community by going to war", we didn't. The US, Great Britain and other nations were in on this as well.
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Damascus said:
And how many US civilians did Iraq kill?
NONE. And thank God for that. Now, he WAS killing his own citizens, or don't they matter? OR would you rather we'd waited until a mushroom cloud went up or a few bio attacks happened?

Yeah, good idea, at least we'd have our smoking gun then, along with hundred of thousands of bodies. Maybe then you people would pipe down. But then you would probably say "Why didn't someone do something about him before this happened?"

Good grief. :xrollseye
 
Top