Iraq & Afghanistan and US & UK

Re: More Lies...

I'm all in favour of bringing democracy to Afganistan. But first, I think we should pull out and give them some time and space to themselves to evolve at their own pace. I think somewhere around 8 or 9 centuries should do it.

Then, we could give them all the help and advice they need ( if they asked us nicely that is).

dd


Issue here is - if they are left to their own devices they will take the country into cavemen era.

Banning music and drawings - they are even beyond Neanderthal man in their level thought and development.

I would subject the taliban to Polyandry - see how they take to that?
 
Re: More Lies...

I think somewhere around 8 or 9 centuries should do it.

Then, we could give them all the help and advice they need ( if they asked us nicely that is).

dd

You are an eternal optimist. There won't be anyone around by then. :D

An efficient method of world population control is what is needed. All this Iraqi/Afghan stuff is just giving everyone a talking point.

The real problem is that in 40 years (not 50, anymore) we are going to be 9 billion. No one wants to ponder on what it is going to be like by the turn of the next century.

The quickest way to stop us sending troops to Afghanistan is to stop all these cheap flights.
 
Re: More Lies...

The quickest way to stop us sending troops to Afghanistan is to stop all these cheap flights.

Why? Is that how they're getting there? :LOL:

Military spending ain't what it used to be! :LOL:
 
Re: More Lies...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8401473.stm

What a load of bull.

They state the information was not substantiated and lost in translation... No **** Sherlock... :eek:

In secret and military intelligence to verify hearsay the information is required to be colloborated / confirmed by two or three different sources.

To act on any single source of information is acting blind - as disinformation is the game played by most Intelligence services as it causes more disruption and effort to clear up.

poor old David Kelly is sacrificied in the process which doesn't really get any mention. Key man who did know what the real intelligence was about. Whistle blower who got 'cleared-up' call it what you will.


The Hutton Inquiry into the death of the BBC's source - Dr David Kelly - ruled that the BBC report's claims were "unfounded" because the 45 minute claim was based on a report which the Secret Intelligence Service "regarded as reliable".


OBVIOUSLY WITH THE BENEFIT OF 20-20 VISION AND HIND SIGHT DAVID KELLY AND BBC'S REPORT WAS CORRECT. THE DOSSIER WAS WELL AND TRULLY SEXED UP!

HUTTON YOU PLONKER - YOU GOT IT WRONG AND DAVID KELLY'S DEATH LIES IN VAIN


It was not until the following year's Butler inquiry into intelligence about Iraq's weapons capability in 2004 that it emerged that the 45-minute claim had come "third-hand", through an established source and a second link in the reporting chain from the original Iraqi military source.

Lord Butler concluded the limitations of the intelligence were not "made sufficiently clear", that important caveats had been removed and that the 45 minutes claim was "unsubstantiated" and should not have been included without clarification.



Clarification should read colloboration-confirmation. This is an indellible rule of intelligence gathering.


What is the probability of the CIA ****ing intelligence up with their 'Slam dunk case' againts Saddam and the probability of

MI6 sexing up the dossier on Saddam????


World two leading BEST intelligence operations using state of art technology gets it all wrong :?::?::?:
 
Re: More Lies...

World two leading BEST intelligence operations using state of art technology gets it all wrong :?::?::?:

That and the fact that Saddam was apparently trained by the CIA, so knew their methods and was probably pretty good at covering his tracks, so they only had extremely patchy 'intelligence' to work on in the first place.
 
Re: More Lies...

That and the fact that Saddam was apparently trained by the CIA, so knew their methods and was probably pretty good at covering his tracks, so they only had extremely patchy 'intelligence' to work on in the first place.


Feeble excuses. Saddam had no tracks to cover. Moreover, the West sold him the chemical warfare technology to stop him losing the war against Iran.

He destroyed all that ****, which the West having given him the technology assumed he still had it.


Slam dunk case = patchy intelligence!

2nd & 3rd party patchy intelligence = lost in translation!


 
Re: More Lies...

I know about Rumsfeld...

(Disclaimer - below contains swear words and other assorted words with more than one syllable that your mummy told you not to use, and many other expletives that would make fitting adjectives when used in conjunction with descriptions of Arsenal fans and other such miscreants)


The point I was trying to make was the fact that there was probably so little intelligence either way that they could accuse him of whatever they wanted - because they also had very little evidence to contradict any of their accusations.
 
Re: More Lies...

The point I was trying to make was the fact that there was probably so little intelligence either way that they could accuse him of whatever they wanted - because they also had very little evidence to contradict any of their accusations.

I dunno about that. The UN weapons inspectors had been over Iraq pretty thoroughly and had nothing nasty to report.
 
Re: More Lies...

I dunno about that. The UN weapons inspectors had been over Iraq pretty thoroughly and had nothing nasty to report.

Yes but they didn't know what Rumsfeld knew...


"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction


Here is a few more quotes from the tortured man himself... :)


"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens"

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

"[Osama Bin Laden is] either alive and well or alive and not too well or not alive."

"I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." -asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."

"Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said."

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." -on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -in Feb. 2003

"Well, um, you know, something's neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so, I suppose, as Shakespeare said."

"Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin's still learning."

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty."

"I don't do quagmires."

"I don't do diplomacy."

"I don't do foreign policy."

"I don't do predictions."

"I don't do numbers."

"I don't do book reviews."

"Now, settle down, settle down. Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."



STUPID or WHAT?

Someone once said the stupidist of people can ask questions which the cleverest of men can not answer? That doesn't change the fact they are still stupid. Rumsfeld must have been that man...

He really really gave the Pentagon are hard time and the generals took it. Stupid is as stupid does... :cheesy:
 
What these both country find in Iraq and Afghanistan, In Iraq they don't find even a single weapon of mas destruction and in Afghanistan they don't know where is Osama Bin Laden. But they find a large number of dead bodies in both countries. Yes thats the best reward for these two countries.
 
What could be a better indication that the US lost the war on IRAQ?

China and Russia the big winners in Iraq oil auction

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL16Ak02.html

Lost the war?

The Americans would have to try very hard to lose a war against anybody (or indeed everybody).

Perhaps they should not have been there in the first place, certainly the aftermath is going badly, and personally I would imagine that they will leave having accomplished nothing of value.

But lose the war they most certainly did not.
 
That article is a little strange also.

If indeed the Americans did not get things as they wanted them, it is only because they allowed that to happen.

Possibly the new administration has no interest in this matter. If, however, it did, the Americans would order matters according to their liking.

It is a very odd point that you are making - the Iraqis set terms, bids are made freely, the Americans don't interfere but instead respect the decision. In what way does this mean that they have lost?
 
Lost the war?

The Americans would have to try very hard to lose a war against anybody (or indeed everybody).

Perhaps they should not have been there in the first place, certainly the aftermath is going badly, and personally I would imagine that they will leave having accomplished nothing of value.

But lose the war they most certainly did not.



What do people fight for or go to war for? Over disagreements.

What was the reason for going to war with Iraq? WoMD!

Did the US find WoMD? No

What did they achieve? Deaths of over a million people with 4 m displaced as well as bunch of mutilated marines with pychological problems whilst running down reserves, international good will and terrorising people.

So if they didn't lose the war what did they win?
 
That article is a little strange also.

If indeed the Americans did not get things as they wanted them, it is only because they allowed that to happen.

Possibly the new administration has no interest in this matter. If, however, it did, the Americans would order matters according to their liking.

It is a very odd point that you are making - the Iraqis set terms, bids are made freely, the Americans don't interfere but instead respect the decision. In what way does this mean that they have lost?

They can't even fix their own budget or BoP deficits. The World's richest country can't even fix their simple pension and health bill to llook after their own citizens and you expect them to control and manage a culture beyond their comprehension...

US incompetence is shocking and awe inducing.

You points a comical if you believe the Iraqis have freedom. They don't even have steady water or electricity let alone freedom. Freedom to do what???
 
Lost the war?

The Americans would have to try very hard to lose a war against anybody (or indeed everybody).

Perhaps they should not have been there in the first place, certainly the aftermath is going badly, and personally I would imagine that they will leave having accomplished nothing of value.

But lose the war they most certainly did not.

...You haven't got a clue what you are talking about mate.....What would you call losing, if what is happening now is winning...?

Read posts 76 and 77 of Atilla...!
 
..... a bit off topic here but, what is your folks opinion on recent, rich oil resources discovery in Falklands?
 
....You should know by now, normally when powers go to war in modern times, it is always for natural resources, or possibility of natural resources....

If it is found, then they either acquire it, or plant a puppet ruler....!

No one will go to war to liberate Tibet, or for that matter their human rights which have been suppressed for years..!
 
Top