Political:Powell Spoke.

[The Transformed Man]

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

[Evan van Eyk]

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.

[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.

[Evan van Eyk]

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.

[First of Two]

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.

[The Transformed Man]

"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

[Evan van Eyk]

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.

[First of Two]

More original text:

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?

[The Transformed Man]

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

[qerlin]

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.

[First of Two]

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?

[The Transformed Man]

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

[The Transformed Man]

Yeah First, go ahead.


Yancy

[qerlin]

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

[Evan van Eyk]

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.