Political:Powell Spoke.

It is very likely that the images were "fuzzed" because the event was being televised.

It is also somewhat likely that considerably less "fuzzed" materials were given to the delegates privately.

Keep in mind that Powell's public speech was not the only presentation he made that day.

As to what can be defined and agreed-upon as a chemical truck vs. a pizza truck... the various intelligence agencies have more expertise than we do at that (excepting maybe the intel guys here). Enough so that any attempted deception by US would be uncovered vary quickly.

If you haven't heard anything to the contrary from anybody else's intel services, especially those of countries that do NOT back the war, by the time the inspectors report again (2/14), they're almost certainly authentic.

I do not think the US faked anything I just think that any delegate at that conference saw what they wanted to see. The US wanted to see a decon vessel. The German delegates saw nothing and the Iraq delegate would have liked to see a truck of gold with his name on it.

However if the US print photographs of Soviet carriers in books why not show a picture of quality of a decon truck? I think if they could have done that, they would. You said yourself that the carrier-pic was seventeen years old. Technology has improved since that and Iraq is quite near the equator which makes it easier to take pictures there. So I would assume the US are capable of making photographs that would make a dentist analysis of the driver possible. 'Fuzzy' to hide the true capabilites of the satellites and you just can see what cigarette he smokes. But it was just a grey and shady picture with a truck. I think it wss the best the US had to offer - yet it keeps room for many interpretations.

"...and the Iraq delegate would have liked to see a truck of gold with his name on it..."

:D

If it were anything BUT a decon truck, why would it be neccessary to get it out of there in a hurry, when you're supposed to be being open with the inspectors?

Frenzied activity around a military base just one day before an inspection has but one rational explanation. Deception.

Unless you believe the Iraqi military was trying to win the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. In which case I'd need to see a copy of their entry form.

Let's hear it for civilized Europe!

Quote:

---

Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries
For the record: 5 February 2003, Wednesday.

Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in response to the presentation by the United States Secretary of State to the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq:

Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.

Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction.

We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: "We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq."

The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.

---

By the way, maybe the French guys can riddle me this...

If military intervention is a bad, bad thing...

What are French troops doing in the Ivory Coast?

If we have been cursed, we have been cursed by the Chinese for we do indeed live in interesting times. I've spent most of my time lurking and I have seen posts that were a banquet of food for thought on both sides of the Atlantic (special kudos to Dan Stack and C5...I've got some 12 year old scotch and glasses with y'all's names on them). I've also seen some half baked posts that merited a pimp slap from a Klingon...especially some rather trite ones from one of my fellow Americans.

Like some of the posters here, I work in the DC metro area where we mix Rebel ingenuity with Northern charm. Foreign policy is a part of my job and this is a truly tangled knot. Some of my fellow Americans seem to be distraught with the fact that there are nations in Europe showing the audacity to disagree with us. Well, let me clue you in on something: they are our allies. They are not our pawns and they are not yes-men. Thank God for that. Yes-men dispense some pretty crappy advice.

Keep something in mind: Mr. Hussein is on neither the Christmas card lists of Mssrs. Chirac or Schroeder. If Mr. Hussein were to slip in the bathtub, get hit by a dirgible, or have a satellite fall on him, I don't think too many sad words would be going back and forth over the region of Alcaice-Lorainne [sp?]. They are elected leaders who are looking after the interests of the people who gave them the power they weild (and who can just as easily take it away). They are doing what democratically elected leaders do.

I tend to be fairly conservative in matters of foreign policy. Here's my advice. Do not attack Iraq without the blessings of the SC. It can be done. I am not talking about arm twisting either (especially with Europe...Mr. Blair is in a tight enough position). One of the many things I learned is that blackmail makes lifeling enemies while bribery makes short term business partners. Now please take this as a metaphore because I think sliding a paper bag full of Euros across a desk in Paris or Berlin will go over like a fart in church ;)

What I am saying is that both nations have some serious concerns that need to be addressed. I am not talking about a grandiose ceremony transmitted word for word all over the free world press. I am talking about some Washington-, Paris-, and Berlin-insiders having some closed door sessions and try to hash things out. Call it a meeting of the minds, a cabal of bureaucrats, or (my personal favorite) "the smoke filled room". Better yet, call it nothing at all and just hold the meeting in secret.:D The bottom line would be for the US to get the nod from France and Germany while France and Germany get to have a say and save face.

Can the US take out Hussein without the SC blessings? Yes, but its not worth it. Hussein is not the Black King and Iraq is not the endgame. He is a rather annoying rook. Although it may seem that we don't need France or Germany now, we definitely will in the long term.

Here's an excellent article with some possible insight into the American character that so puzzles people.

In general, I found it pretty on the money; the analysis is solid.

http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

On the Decon truck, my guess having some expierence with Emergency hazmat procedures (and these are fairly common to both Military and Emergency use) is that maybe it was not the truck itself which made it a decon turck but that stuff around it which Powell did not go it to detail on.

Perhaps water tanks were loctaed nearby for Decon i.e large hoses running into the trucks trailor for showers; Safe zones, water pools, and hot zones may have been identified. A Decon operation no matter if it is in use or on standby takes up a lot of space trust me I have been in plenty of real and training exercises to know. The Iraqi's are not dumb they know the dangers that even working with the stuff can incure and would be ready to prevent/aid in case of an emergency.

Hey, that's brilliant.

No wonder I feel so conflicted sometimes.. I'm half Jeffersonian, half Jacksonian.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
By the way, maybe the French guys can riddle me this...

If military intervention is a bad, bad thing...

What are French troops doing in the Ivory Coast?

---

My question on the whole Ivory Coast thing is when will the French troops there surrender? :D (No, that's not a serious debate remark, but in fact was a cheap shot. That's all I can afford until my next paycheck...)

Good article, qerlin :)

Reminds me why I have always loathed Andrew Jackson, though...

If there is a feeling by Europeans that have opinions contrary to Americans that their opinion is being disreguarded as just being irrational US-hatred, stupidity and moral hypocrisy. Then I would say there is a tone that opinions contrary to the European view are viewed as being held by a blood thirsty, warmongering, jingoistic, barbaric, blindly obediant, chest-thumping "goosesteppers". Having your opinion being discounted due to prejudice hurts doesn't it? :(

You see we can go tit for tat here. One could say that because the US government supports war that Americans who supports the war only do so out of a patriotic/nationalistic ferver. Can one also assume that German and French views agianst the war only come from their Governments' stance against the war? That they too are only following the party line? Either America doesn't hold a monoply on being in lock step with the government or Germany and France doesn't have a monopoly on critical thinking.


Perhaps a new rule should be not to place your fear as their reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
If it were anything BUT a decon truck, why would it be neccessary to get it out of there in a hurry, when you're supposed to be being open with the inspectors?

Frenzied activity around a military base just one day before an inspection has but one rational explanation. Deception.

---

First of all I do not say that it was well done by Iraq, and this deception may indeed point to WMDs, however it is just a 'may'.

The photos shown in the meeting were taken with a months-span between them not one day. And I already said what another explanation would be. This could be a smuggling truck for oil, which the Iraqi's of course want to hide. Second even if it is a decon truck that actually proofs nothing. Germany has decon trucks as well - yet we do not have WMDs, which are forbidden by our constitution. But we use such decon vessels in case we are attacked with WMDs.
Some past inspectors did some spying, which UN had sadly to admit, and therefore Iraq might want to hide its capability of defense as they might fear in a war chemical weapons will be used.

Quote:

---

My question on the whole Ivory Coast thing is when will the French troops there surrender? (No, that's not a serious debate remark, but in fact was a cheap shot. That's all I can afford until my next paycheck...)

---

Yes, it was a cheap shot Cybrludite, and one I get a little tired of. Yes, the French government surrendered to the Germans during WWII. The French Army fought and in many cases continued to fight long afterward. Ever heard of Charles De Gaul? The blood of his troops was split right alongside that of Britain and the US during the liberation of Europe. And if you think otherwise, you've been watching too much Spielburg...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
By the way, maybe the French guys can riddle me this...

If military intervention is a bad, bad thing...

What are French troops doing in the Ivory Coast?

---

Not to bring the thread off course to far, but this deserves an answer I think.

Frankly, there's a huge difference between waging war against Irak and what French troops are doing in the Ivory Coast. As far as I understood, the French troops have been sent there for two reasons:
- Protecting French citizens in case civil war breaks out. Most of our former colonies maintain very friendly relationships with France. That and the fact that they actually speak French and not some other complicated language have led a lot of French companies and citizens to live/work there. We're speaking thousands or even tens of thousands here, something worth protecting, don't you think?
- Enforce cease fire between belligerent factions when one is agreed upon. As said, there are friendly political ties between both countries, and having lived there for four years, I'm pretty happy France is trying to help, cause I'd hate seeing what Ivory Coast is at the present, what Ouphouet Boigny (sp?) even if he wasn't flawless as a president, spent a big part of his life to achieve, destroyed. Why France and not UN troops ... good question. I do not know.

But one thing is for sure: the French troops there are not there to help one faction or the other, they are not trying to keep Gbagbo in power because of some secret agreements for oil or ore as we've had in the past (mind you, Ivory Coast doesn't have much oil nor ore to speak of). Nor are they trying to help some opponents because we don't like Gbagbo (even if his legitimty is rather questionable as an elected president). Nor are we waging war in any case. You'd think we'd use something a bit more threatening than infantry and light armored vehicles if we were, wouldn't you?

Anyhow, the sad truth is that I'm not sure we're achieving much in the end. We've tried to host talks, enforce the cease fire, and when finally they agree onto compromise, this stupid president goes back to his capital and refuses to accept the compromise. He even managed to imply that France coerced him into agreeing, and is trying to put some bloodthirsty rebel in the governement. So now the opponents hate us because they think we protect Gbagbo, and Gbagbo partisans hate us because they think we're giving all the power to the rebels. I guess we'll just help evacuate the remaining French citizens and let him have his civil war and destroy Ivory Coast. It's really sad when you've actually lived there, seen how peaceful the people were there ... and how bad it is getting. :( This all makes me wonder if we've all got this aptitude to violence ... if something like this could happen in so-called civilized countries. To tell the truth, it worries me quite a bit too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Yes, it was a cheap shot Cybrludite, and one I get a little tired of. Yes, the French government surrendered to the Germans during WWII. The French Army fought and in many cases continued to fight long afterward. Ever heard of Charles De Gaul? The blood of his troops was split right alongside that of Britain and the US during the liberation of Europe. And if you think otherwise, you've been watching too much Spielburg...

---

Off topic and just for abit of color commentary:


The American opinion of the French military is based on the lack of will to fight the Germans in 40 which was quite evident when whole divisions just disintegrated before the Germans at the mere mention of the word tank. (Of course no body ever mentioned how ill prepared they were to face such a threat) When US forces first entered the theater who did they first fight? French troops in North Africa who fought (read fire there weapon three times) and surrendered. (Agian no body ever thought that the will to defend those beaches for Vichy and Hitler might have had sometig to do with it as well as destroying the French fleet at Al kir bir (SP?).) When They did see French troops they were North African colonials mainly (Few metropolitan forces fought in the Free French at that time) and I have to admit unfortuantely that with the amount of racsism in the US military at that time Black troops did not impress US troops, plus US troops hated Arabs, post war studies showed of all the areas where GI's fought they disliked the Arabs the most just below the Japanese. Most of this Info could then be moved on to Italy, where the French fought under British command and US troops rarely if ever saw them.

By Normandy when the Metropilitan Free French got there first real big chance to fight it was in such small numbers (never more than five divisions) that they could not reveres the US opinion/perception of them. I mean think about the two most significant pictures which emerged from the Liberation of Paris one is of US troops (MY state's 28th Division PANG and Region's 110th Intrantry Regiment to be Exact) marching beneath the Arch of Triumph and of French troops and citizens dashing for cover when a sniper open fire. Of course running for cover is a natural reaction and would have been done by anybody but in this case it only reinforced a perception of French ineptness in military matters. Then add the defeats in Vietnam and Algeria, and the perception that "we saved there butts" in 17-18 and the total defeat of the Franco Prussian war and you can see how the US would get this erronous perception of the French surrendering (read as Loseing) in every war they fight.

Now you may all retrun to you regular scheduled rants :D

Actually, you may have a point there Eric ... I guess we'd have to go back to Napoleon to contradict you.
Mind you, we lost in Indochine, but Vietnam wasn't exactly a piece of cake for you either. And Algeria was pretty bad too.
Another point to consider may be that you have to ascertain the price you're willing to pay for victory or defeat. In the Ivory Coast I mean: is maintaining the ceasefire worth killing the very people you are trying to protect from themselves? How many Ivorian deaths are worth a bruised French army ego or reputation? Of course, one might argue that an army's reputation can save lives to ... that's a tough decision indeed.

Anyhow ... just trying to get my own ego back in working order :D .

Wow this is what happens when you don't log on for a day or two.:eek:

I didn't see the Powell speech (mostly because my TV still doesn't work:mad: ), but I didn't need convincing on a war with Iraq. I've seen enough and I've made up my mind.

And just off topic on the French militaries image problem, I remember my grandfather saying that the French were poor soldiers in his opinion, BUT, he held in high esteem (and so do most Polish people) the French Foreign Legion. Also, during the brieg 1920-21 war between Poland and Russia, it was a French division or regiment (made up mostly of Polish men) which was released to go fight back home. Amongst them were some French volunteers, including none other than Charles DeGaulle, whom many Poles still respect him for the deed.

And now back to your regularly scheduled debate.:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
Mind you, we lost in Indochine, but Vietnam wasn't exactly a piece of cake for you either.

---

And you guys tried to tell us but we just had to learn for ouselves didn't we. :rolleyes:

Actually thats a good point many in the US military and government had the opinion that we would not loss as we were not the French. The military leadership at that time was made up of men who had been Platoon, Company and Battalion leaders in 44-45 in France. Right off the bat I can think of Abrams who was a Tanker company/battalion commander and Westmoreland who was a platoon/company leader in the 101 Airborne.

Guys, thought I would chime in here at this point. Some of you may remember me from the old LUG days, when I would periodically post an opinion here or there, and participate in #LUGTrek chats.

For those that don't know me, my name's Yancy, and I live in Phoenix, AZ. I served in the US Army for eight years as a 96B (Intelligence Analyst). I served almost all my time in the Republic of Panama.

I was one of USARSOs (US Army South), primary political/economic analysts covering Panama, and was one of the primary analysts tasked with following terrorist organizations and their activities in Latin America (spent a lot of time covering Sendero Luminoso aka "Shining Path" as well as following Hezbollah activities in the region).

Anyway to my point, I was mainly writing because so many people had questioned the validity of the imagery photos Sec of State Powell had shown in his UN briefing.. "how do they know what that is???" "How do they know that's a decontamination truck, it looks like a grey blob??"

Well the reason they know is simple... training. Imagery analysts are highly trained individuals who pour over hundreds of photos at a light table (usually at the cost of their sight... they don't go blind, but staring into a light table for hours on end usually results in the analyst needing glasses later on). These people know what they are looking for. They know the equipment the "bad guys" use... So when an imagery analysts says "that's an NBC decon truck," they KNOW that's what it is.

One of the main reasons it's fairly easy to determine what Sadaam is using is that he almost exclusively uses Russian/Soviet equipment (with the exception of some French, and Chinese stuff)... Heck, his armies use old Russian military doctrine... He's a pretty easy nut to crack. So, knowing that he uses primarily Soviet-era euipment, the analyst looks at the image and says,"what kind of Soviet vehicle configuration does this truck match?" Well, it could be the old Zil-131 or a Ural 375. Both trucks have a certain profile when configured for use in NBC decon... if someone put a gun to my head I'd guess the Ural 375 since the Zil is so antiquated.

Anyway, that's why these guys know what they're doing.. they know what they're looking for.


Just some thoughts,

Yancy

Just a note on the French. While I am none to happy with France's continued opposition to a possible war, and their assertion that the inspections must continue (hey guys, haven't we been playing this game for some 12 years now???), I do understand where Frances aversion to large-scale fighting comes from.

Simply put, France was devestated during World War I. Some statistics indicate as many a 1 in 3 men between the ages of 18-40 died fighting the war. Some smaller villages had almost their entire male population wiped out. For years Frances ratio of births compared to deathes was very alarming.

While I feel they do need to take a firm stand against Iraq, I cannot find it in myself to call the French a "bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys," like my friend Ed is inclined to call them. Heck I'm part French, my mother's maiden name was Varney, the Anglo version of Vuarnet... mainly Welsh though (I'm a second generation American).

However, also keep in mind the French are having serious internal problems with Islamic terrorists (mainly Algerian), probably more than any other European country, and France has a large Arab immigrant populace... so the French have been trying to play this delicate balancing act for fear they might incur the wrath of more Islamic terrorists.

Yancy

Welcome aboard, yancy. FMR 98G/AD here...

HOOAH!

Ahhh, a 98G.. a "pop up target" as we were fond of calling them. Man I felt sorry for you guys.

Yancy

Off-topic as hell, but there you go: what are your personal opinion on the state of Latin America today ? Just curious, not trying to bait a flamewar or somesuch...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
The photos shown in the meeting were taken with a months-span between them not one day.

---

Um, sorry, Evan, but WRONG.

from the transcript of Powell's speech (Emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone, it's been cleaned up, and it was done on the 22nd of December, as the U.N. inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.

---

Quote:

---

At this ballistic missile site, on November 10, we saw a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components. At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly.

At this ballistic missile facility, again, two days before inspections began, five large cargo trucks appeared along with the truck-mounted crane to move missiles. We saw this kind of house cleaning at close to 30 sites.

Days after this activity, the vehicles and the equipment that I've just highlighted disappear and the site returns to patterns of normalcy. We don't know precisely what Iraq was moving, but the inspectors already knew about these sites, so Iraq knew that they would be coming.

We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what they had or did not have?

---

And Transformed Man handled the rest of your assertion, so I won't cover that.

Well CPT, I love Latin America, have spent 8 years in the Republic of Panama (which I consider my second home). I've travelled through the region and studied it thouroughly in classes, and to this day keep up on political affairs in the region.

I think there are a couple of major factors holding back develoement in the region, and I'll address these:

1) The way governments work in Latin America. One of the biggest problems I see in Latin America is the way in which governments in the region (most, not all) are structured. Most use the US Constitution as their base with an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch. The problem I see is that the governments are usually way too powerful, too much day to day living of the average citizen is regulated in some way by a law in some book.

For the most part, these regualtions are hold-overs from days when many Latin American countries were run by dictators or by the military. Too many, industries are regulated, or flat out run by the government. For years while I lived in Panama, the electric company was effectively run by the government... Sorry, but private industry should handle most of these.

2) Wages. I still cannot believe the wages most workers receive in Latin American countries. When I arrived in Panama in 1990, the minimum wage was $1.15 per hour, when I left in 1998 it was $1.23. Outrageous!!! People have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to get by, and to top that off a policeman just starting out in the PNP (Panama National Police) made $580 a month!!! Want to know why there's corruption in the police force... want to know why honest cops are worn out... because their having to "moonlight" just to get by.

Anyway, I have to go... taking my kids to play futbol this morning. I'll continue my little diatribe on Latin America later today... and boy wait until I get to the part where I start criticizing U.S. foriegn policy in the region.

Yancy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
Um, sorry, Evan, but WRONG.

from the transcript of Powell's speech (Emphasis mine):

---

Sorry, but that was what I heard in a new show over here.

However the moving of missiles can also be sign that Iraq is preparing for incoming troops it not neccessarily means that there are WMDs.

And concerning the absolute sure identification of the truck. I do not buy this. There were made mistakes before my intel services. I remember the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslawia, refugee tracks, which where thought of as military tracks, the medical facility in Africa. And even if it is a decon truck, what does this matter? You d not attack people with decon trucks.

It does if it's a known WMD site, and not a missile site.

Is all your news done that badly? If so, it explains a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
It does if it's a known WMD site, and not a missile site.

Is all your news done that badly? If so, it explains a lot.

---

If the US have proove that this is a WMD site, why have they not shown that before the inspectors arive? That would have saved a lot of work.

And mistakes can happen. I saw real funny pictures of CNN maps concerning Europe and your TV news obviously told everyone that nothing would make Germany vote for military action, which completely wrong. So I think new services on both sides of the Atlantic are not that good.

Dude.

It was a place known to be a WMD site back when the first round of inspections was going on. It was identified as such by the UN folks. It's not a disputed issue that it had been used to produce those weapons. The only thing in dispute is whether or not it still is. The photos show that it is, and that the Iraqis are trying to hide that fact.

Like I said, it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

"even if it is a decon truck, what does it matter."

A whole Hell of a lot, especially if you are claiming you have no WMD (like Iraq is). If you have no WMD, what do you need a decon truck for????

I'd have to look up the original UN resolutions regarding Iraq and the weapons they can and cannot have, but I'd be willing to bet money that Iraq even possesing an NBC decon truck is a material breach of UN resolutions.


Yancy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
Dude.

The only thing in dispute is whether or not it still is. The photos show that it is, and that the Iraqis are trying to hide that fact.

Like I said, it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

---

How do this photos show that? There are missiles loaded, but as long as there are no WMD warheads I do not see what that should proof. As it was a military base before its only logical it still, but that does not mean there are still WMDs. And if the inspectors checked that area this time, they would have probably found traces of chemicals left.


Transformed Man: You do not attack with decon trucks. As mentioned before Germany has no WMDs, as it is fobidden by our constitution. Yet we have a load of decon trucks and ABC-troops, so much and well trained NATo regularily asks for them, including the US.

More original text:

Quote:

---

This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.

Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.
Slide 13

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says security points to a facility that is the signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker.

---

A "signature item" means that EVERY intel agency's guys who look at photos would see what is in that picture as a clear indication that it is what he says it is. They would not mistake it for anything else. Just as Transformed Man explained.

This place was a chemical weapons MANUFACTURING facility. Not a military base. Did your news service miss that, too?

If it was already cleared out, there would be no need for trucks to haul things away.

If it was now a conventional military base, there was nothing that needed to be hidden, there would be no need for trucks to haul things away. Or for decon trucks, as the area would have had to be decon'ed long before to make it safe for a conventional base.

The only reason to have trucks to haul things away would be if there was something there that was to be kept from being seen by inspectors. What else could that be? Saddam's porn video collection?

Thank you First of Two, thank you for some common sense.

One other thing to keep in mind too is that no one, and I mean NO ONE would ever conduct an intelligence briefing based soley on one piece of information (a Satellite photo), or one aspect of intelligence collection (i.e., SIGINT -Signals Intelligence-, COMINT -Communications Intelligence-, ELINT -Electronics Intelligence-, or HUMINT -Human Intelligence-).

I have sat through or conducted hundreds of briefings for Senior Staff level personnel, and I have yet to meet any analyst who would, excuse the French, "hang their dick out in the wind" on a hunch, or guess... You need to have multiple sources to back up you analysis.

I could tell you all sorts of stories about tracking down bad guys, or monitoring terrorist groups... and never once did I tell my DCSINT (Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence) or the USARSO Commander... "well, it kind of looks like this, and I guess they will do this." No, I always had facts to back up my assertions, and historical precedence to back up my analysis. I KNEW what I was talking about, and my commanders had the utmost faith in me.

I'm not trying to brag or boast, but most PFCs (which is what I was two monthes after I got to Panama) don't brief Senior staff, I was... and you know what I found out??? I wasn't the only one... there are a ton of very talented analysts in the Army and they know what they are doing, and what they are talking about.

Sorry, given the choice of trusting the analysis of a U.S. Army Imagery analyst, or the "best guesses" of some Frech Foreign Ministry official... I'll take the Amry guy every time.


YAncy

HOAH! I've briefed guys all the way up to the reprobate that was in NCA at the time (on Kashmir, of all thngs), and as Yancy pointed out, we do not make intel reports based off one bit of data. No one in authority is going to stick their neck out on a guess; they're too fond of their careers.

The sat images, the intercepts -- they're all great, but they only give you 'warnings and indicators'. The solid intel is done by some brave but scared guy, in country, who could be burned at a moment's notice if a particular bit of intelligence is released. Our 'flawed' intelligence in Bosnia and other missions through the '80s/90s were due to massive cutbacks in HUMINT (the guys on the ground) and thepolicymakers screwing up by not listening to what we tell them. It's been improving over the past couple of years as we've turned our focus back toward HUMINT to augment SIGINT and PHOTINT.

In Iraq, it's always been the case that our best data coes from some brave but terrified guy (usually a native) hanging it all out to get us the truth. We slip up with who gets the raw data, this guy dies.

And of course, that's the data that nobody (outside of us) wants to accept.

Hey TM, can I post the rest of what you said on some other site where they don't believe me?

Yeah qerlin. guys on the ground a really hanging it all out for us. Just one bit of info I found very funny... I was watching Powell's briefing to the Senate Intelligence commitee on Thursday. Well, good old Sen Joe Biden chimes in about Powell's assertion that AL Qaeda operatives were working out of northern Iraq. Well, Biden presses Powell on the issue and ask (I'm paraphrasing): "If we know Al-Qaeda is operating facilities in northern Iraq, why don't we simply send in Special Forces to take them out???"

Powell's response "I'd like to answer that quenstion, but it must be in private." Okay, lets analyze for a sec... Joe, the reason I can't tell you is that we have an operative in that cell, or at the very least Special Ops guys in the area are monitoring their every step... My guess is we have a Kurdish operative in the cell. More than likely, a lot of the info that resulted in us increasing our threat level to "High" came from monitoring this group. Consequently Joe, we cannot afford to take out this cell just yet, it's probably providing us some of the best intel we have on Al-Qaeda.

BTW, check out these articles from the New York Post and New Yorker:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/68525.htm

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact


Yancy

Yeah First, go ahead.


Yancy

Shame you're in Phoenix, TM; we'd have to get together for a game or something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
More original text:

If it was now a conventional military base, there was nothing that needed to be hidden, there would be no need for trucks to haul things away. Or for decon trucks, as the area would have had to be decon'ed long before to make it safe for a conventional base.

---

Of course there would be. Maybe Iraq does not want its military equipment being spied upon. UN inspectors were used for spy operations before. And of course you need decon trucks. If you buy them when you are already contaminated its to late- you need them in advance if only for training. As said before Germany has them as well, we use them for training although none of our ground is contaminated. And there is the threat of chemical weapons in the future.



But I gues everybody sees what they want to see. Those who prefer military action, see enough reasons, those who do not want military involvement see nothing. I guess that is the reason why we have international comitees to decide upon such important issues, where thousands of lives are at stake.