Phantomfan;842613600 said:

---

Assault rifle != assault weapon. Assault rifles require a special permit to buy. They have mechanical characteristics that make them easy to identify (ie selective fire).

---

Just to be clear.....
There is a definition of "Assault Weapon"
There is a definition for "Assault Rifle"
But no, the definitions are not the same.
Again, I didn't define either of them, so don't blame me.
As for BearsWiin's Rugar Mini-14.......There is a "Tactical" model. marketed for "snipers", "law enforcement" and "military".
Though "tactical" is not actually defined in the context of rifles, it is commonly considered to be "combat style".
Perhaps we should change our language from being a deer hunter, to being a "deer sniper", and changing SWAT sniper to "SWAT hunter"
Since they both are the same as well and obtain the same results.
Cheers!

calbear93;842613663 said:

---

Wow. There are so many people here who obviously would have done better. Even better than all those Democratic congressmen and congresswomen who were for the war until they weren't.

Let's not pretend that the Iraq war was the only reason for ISIS. I was personally against the Iraq war since I was not convinced that Saddam was a threat to us and since I never would support a war unless I was truly ready to serve and have my kids serve on the front line. Even as a conservative Republican, I am more of a pacifist (and not a libertarian) when it comes to creating death and destruction over worldly principles. However, let's not conveniently forget the Arab Spring we supported and pushed (like some condescending blowhard tapping the poor ignorant folks on head for seeing how great our form of Democracy is for any and every culture and region - sarcasm). Let's not forget that ISIS was an offshoot of AQ in Iraq that we had mostly contained before we pulled our troops before the Iraq armed forces were ready. Let's not forget that refocusing on Afghanistan before we stabilized Iraq and treating ISIS as the "JV" (if anything Obama is consistently arrogant, laughing at Romney for thinking Russia was a threat - ooh, look how smart I am and how ignorant the Republicans are; laughing at the Republicans worried about ISIS, calling them the JV team we shouldn't worry about) allowed AQ in Iraq to grow. Bush's foreign policy was a disaster, and he had really bad advisor (Rumsfeld and Cheney) and really bad intel. The only one who compares as a failure is Obama. Gee, Libya sure welcomed us as liberators when we forced Gaddafi out.

When I get turned off by the spin and bias within my party, all I have to do is read the rewrite of history on these boards and the representation of the other party to remember why I hate politics on both sides.

---

It really irritates me that supporters of the invasion of Iraq cite to the many politicians who also supported that invasion.
That support was based upon misinformation (lies???) provided to them by the Bush Administration when it was known or should have been known to be wrong and available countervailing information was deliberately hidden.

"We KNOW where the weapons of mass destruction are located"

So it would be like Robert Madoff claiming he is innocent because his investors supported him in his business.

68great;842613676 said:

---

It really irritates me that supporters of the invasion of Iraq cite to the many politicians who also supported that invasion.
That support was based upon misinformation (lies???) provided to them by the Bush Administration when it was known or should have been known to be wrong and available countervailing information was deliberately hidden.

So it would be like Robert Madoff claiming he is innocent because his investors supported him in his business.

---

You're assuming that the Republicans who were also for the war actually had the correct intel. And you assume that the advice that Bush got included convincing countervailing information. I haven't seen any evidence that Bush deliberately hid information because that would be criminal. I think Bush and his cabinet were incompetent. That is not a crime. Otherwise, Obama would be a criminal as well.

And who, in hindsight and with the knowledge that there never was weapon of mass destruction (which was a bogus reason to attack anyway if we allow a country like Pakistan to have nuclear weapons and allowed Syria to have chemical weapons), is a current SUPPORTER OF THE INVASION? Politicians on both sides were wrong to support the invasion, and just like you believe that the Democrats provided that support based on bad information (which I clearly stated in my post), I believe the Republicans had bad information as well. So, both parties were wrong to support the war and both parties had bad intel. As such, it really IRRITATES ME that the Democrats act as if they are absolved of supporting a bad war but are entitled to cast all responsibility on the Republicans.

calbear93;842613680 said:

---

You're assuming that the Republicans who were also for the war actually had the correct intel.

And who, in hindsight and with the knowledge that there never was weapon of mass destruction (which was a bogus reason to attack anyway if we allow a country like Pakistan to have nuclear weapons and allowed Syria to have chemical weapons), is a current SUPPORTER OF THE INVASION? Politicians on both sides were wrong to support the invasion, and just like you believe that the Democrats provided that support based on bad information (which I clearly stated in my post), I believe the Republicans had bad information as well. So, both parties were wrong to support the war and both parties had bad intel. As such, it really IRRITATES ME that the Democrats act as if they are absolved of supporting a bad war but are entitled to cast all responsibility on the Republicans.

---

The misinformation was spread by a Republican-controlled White House. So yes, the Democrats (as a group) do have a bit more high ground on this one. That's not to say that every individual Republican is at fault.

calbear93;842613663 said:

---

Bush's foreign policy was a disaster, and he had really bad advisor (Rumsfeld and Cheney) and really bad intel.

---

When I hear people say this I can't help but laugh.
He didn't have bad advisers, and he didn't have bad intel.
His advisers and he may say they had bad intel, that's what they want you to believe NOW.
Then, they/he knew exactly what they were doing........lying to America and the world.

sycasey;842613683 said:

---

The misinformation was spread by a Republican-controlled White House. So yes, the Democrats (as a group) do have a bit more high ground on this one. That's not to say that every individual Republican is at fault.

---

Look, I believe Bush just had bad intel from the CIA. If you believe that Bush hid information and intentionally lied to Congress and to the UN to start a war that he knew was not justified, I think there would be a Watergate like incident. He would be tried as a war criminal. I'm sure there were some biases involved that caused the Bush administration to give more credibility to one type of evidence over another. That makes them incompetent. If he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, they would not have made the hunt for those weapons so public that made them look so inept.

Likewise, I'm sure Obama and Clinton had biases that caused them to misjudge and miscalculate as often as they have been. That is human nature. That makes them incompetent but not criminal.

Bears2thDoc;842613689 said:

---

When I hear people say this I can't help but laugh.
He didn't have bad advisers, and he didn't have bad intel.
His advisers and he may say they had bad intel, that's what they want you to believe NOW.
Then, they/he knew exactly what they were doing........lying to America and the world.

---

OK. Sure. Glad I am getting the lowdown from someone who was in the room with them. Talk about bearing false witness.

calbear93;842613690 said:

---

Look, I believe Bush just had bad intel from the CIA. If you believe that Bush hid information and intentionally lied to Congress to start a war that he knew was not justified, I think there would be a Watergate like incident. He would be tried as a war criminal. I'm sure there were some biases involved that caused the Bush administration to give more credibility to one type of evidence over another. That makes them incompetent. Likewise, I'm sure Obama and Clinton had biases that caused them to misjudge and miscalculate as often as they have been. That is human nature. That makes them incompetent but not criminal.

---

I didn't say criminal (it's possible, but I don't know for sure). But if this kind of massive misinformation leading to a destructive war happens on your watch, I don't care what the reasons are. That's on Bush and his administration.

I'm also sure that Obama hasn't been perfect in this regard. But from where I'm sitting I don't see anywhere near the massive blunders we saw under the previous administration.

sycasey;842613695 said:

---

I didn't say criminal (it's possible, but I don't know for sure). But if this kind of massive misinformation leading to a destructive war happens on your watch, I don't care what the reasons are. That's on Bush and his administration.

I'm also sure that Obama hasn't been perfect in this regard. But from where I'm sitting I don't see anywhere near the massive blunders we saw under the previous administration.

---

Look, I understand your perspective. You, like every other human being, have biases that cause you to view things that way. From my perspective, Obama has been an utter disaster from a foreign policy standpoint.

When I talk to some of my Republican friends, they have the exact opposite opinion that you have, and some of their accusation against Obama and some of the conspiracy theory I hear about Obama's failures are no better than the nonsense I read from the Democrats. I know, from your perspective, you think the far right Republicans are crazy, but you probably don't understand that from an average person' perspective, the far left (and far left won't realize they are far left just like far right won't realize they are far right) are just as crazy.

calbear93;842613698 said:

---

Look, I understand your perspective. You, like every other human being, have biases that cause you to view things that way. From my perspective, Obama has been an utter disaster from a foreign policy standpoint.

When I talk to some of my Republican friends, they have the exact opposite opinion that you have, and some of their accusation against Obama and some of the conspiracy theory I hear about Obama's failures are no better than the nonsense I read from the Democrats. I know, from your perspective, you think the far right Republicans are crazy, but you probably don't understand that from an average person' perspective, the far left (and far left won't realize they are far left just like far right won't realize they are far right) are just as crazy.

---

I think the "average person's" perspective is that Bush's performance was far more disastrous than Obama's. With all due respect.

I am not surprised that your Republican friends disagree.

sycasey;842613701 said:

---

I think the "average person's" perspective is that Bush's performance was far more disastrous than Obama's. With all due respect.

I am not surprised that your Republican friends disagree.

---

And I am not surprised by what you consider to be the average person's perspective. Maybe the average person's perspective in California, but not in a broader scope. However, you seem like a reasonable person, and I respect that you have perspective and biases that are different from mine. It would be boring if we all saw the world the same way.

calbear93;842613705 said:

---

And I am not surprised by what you consider to be the average person's perspective. Maybe the average person's perspective in California, but not in a broader scope. However, you seem like a reasonable person, and I respect that you have perspective and biases that are different from mine. It would be boring if we all saw the world the same way.

---

I will give you credit for at least admitting that the Iraq War was a mistake (and apparently being against it at the time).

sycasey;842613707 said:

---

I will give you credit for at least admitting that the Iraq War was a mistake (and apparently being against it at the time).

---

You will never hear me be excited about any war. Any time we have to send our children to risk their lives and try to kill other children who were raised with love, hopes and dreams by other parents is an utter failure of mankind. Sometimes it is necessary to prevent an even greater evil, but war is evil, and many of those exhibiting bravado with claims that we have to show our military might would whimper like Trump did if they were asked to serve.

calbear93;842613713 said:

---

You will never hear me be excited about any war. Any time we have to send our children to risk their lives and try to kill other children who were raised with love, hopes and dreams by other parents is an utter failure of mankind. Sometimes it is necessary to prevent an even greater evil, but war is evil, and many of those exhibiting bravado with claims that we have to show our military might would whimper like Trump did if they were asked to serve.

---

On that we can solidly shake hands.

:beer:

calbear93;842613680 said:

---

You're assuming that the Republicans who were also for the war actually had the correct intel. And you assume that the advice that Bush got included convincing countervailing information. I haven't seen any evidence that Bush deliberately hid information because that would be criminal. I think Bush and his cabinet were incompetent. That is not a crime. Otherwise, Obama would be a criminal as well.

And who, in hindsight and with the knowledge that there never was weapon of mass destruction (which was a bogus reason to attack anyway if we allow a country like Pakistan to have nuclear weapons and allowed Syria to have chemical weapons), is a current SUPPORTER OF THE INVASION? Politicians on both sides were wrong to support the invasion, and just like you believe that the Democrats provided that support based on bad information (which I clearly stated in my post), I believe the Republicans had bad information as well. So, both parties were wrong to support the war and both parties had bad intel. As such, it really IRRITATES ME that the Democrats act as if they are absolved of supporting a bad war but are entitled to cast all responsibility on the Republicans.

---

I am assuming that the Republicans who were not in the Bush Administration were misled (lied to???) just as much as the Democrats. It was the Bush administration that was primarily at fault.

I have a problem with the politicans who after the correct information came out, were not willing to admit their mistake and continued to swallow the misinformation even after it was proven to be wrong. Most of those people were Republicans. But there were Democrats in that group as well. Politicians are famous for not wanting to admit to making a mistake.

As for wether the Bush Administration knew there is plenty of information showing that it did Know. Even Colin Powell long ago admitted to having provided information that was wrong and he did so although having contradictory information from military sources.

If this were a simple matter of contract law, the Bush Administration would be guilty of fraud.

The longer that people (mostly Republican) refuse to acknowledge this, they are giving cover to the Bush Administration.

As a Democrat I am willing to admit that LBJ most likely set up the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify US involvement in Vietnam.
Why can't the Bush Supporters admit that Bush (or more likely Cheney) most likely set up the "WMD's" to justify US invasion of Iraq.

MiZery;842613376 said:

---

Thi is absolutely incorrect, where do you get your information from?

---

Which part is absolutely incorrect? I get my information from talking to people who study Middle East History and several people who have studied the Koran, the Hadith and all of the legends surrounding Mohammed. And I've taken care to research where they get their information, so I know I've found scholars who are reading ancient scripts from around that time. Not someone reading a 20th century rewrite of a 19th century translation of a 15th century copy of something that might have come out of Constantinople around 1000 AD.

This history of Mohammed isn't exactly clear because his parents died when he was young and there aren't exactly any written records from him time. There aren't even any written copies of the Koran that can be dated to the time he was alive. Everything known about him is based on folk tales that we written down many years after he died.

The conquests aren't exactly questionable. Muslims did go on a war of conquest after Mohammed's death and at once point the caliphate controlled all of North Africa and even had taken over Spain. The story of Charles Martel is about how the French finally halted the expansion of Islam at the southern border of France.

And the tales of Vlad Tepes (later turned into Dracula by legend and myth) note that he was fighting against Muslim invaders attempting to conquer Romania. I'd never say that Vlad was a nice man, but to the people of his region he was stopping an invader bent on expansion.

However, you can continue to believe whatever lies please you.

Bears2thDoc;842613669 said:

---

Just to be clear.....
There is a definition of "Assault Weapon"
There is a definition for "Assault Rifle"
But no, the definitions are not the same.
Again, I didn't define either of them, so don't blame me.
As for BearsWiin's Rugar Mini-14.......There is a "Tactical" model. marketed for "snipers", "law enforcement" and "military".
Though "tactical" is not actually defined in the context of rifles, it is commonly considered to be "combat style".
Perhaps we should change our language from being a deer hunter, to being a "deer sniper", and changing SWAT sniper to "SWAT hunter"
Since they both are the same as well and obtain the same results.
Cheers!

---

What you're talking about is cosmetics. The action of the rifle is the same.

Assault weapons are generally the civilian version of military model assault rifles. The military models have select-fire capability, while the civilian models are strictly semi-automatic. Even so, it's pretty easy to convert most semi-auto models to auto if you know what you're doing. Hell, even my SAFN goes full-auto by itself sometimes, because some of the receiver parts are worn (and let me tell you, by the third shot the recoil from the big 7.92mm round takes you waaay off the original target).

68great;842613723 said:

---

I am assuming that the Republicans who were not in the Bush Administration were misled (lied to???) just as much as the Democrats. It was the Bush administration that was primarily at fault.

I have a problem with the politicans who after the correct information came out, were not willing to admit their mistake and continued to swallow the misinformation even after it was proven to be wrong. Most of those people were Republicans. But there were Democrats in that group as well. Politicians are famous for not wanting to admit to making a mistake.

As for wether the Bush Administration knew there is plenty of information showing that it did Know. Even Colin Powell long ago admitted to having provided information that was wrong and he did so although having contradictory information from military sources.
If this were a simple matter of contract law, the Bush Administration would be guilty of fraud.

The longer that people (mostly Republican) refuse to acknowledge this, they are giving cover to the Bush Administration.

As a Democrat I am willing to admit that LBJ most likely set up the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify US involvement in Vietnam.
Why can't the Bush Supporters admit that Bush (or more likely Cheney) most likely set up the "WMD's" to justify US invasion of Iraq.

---

Wait, are you saying that Colin Powell admitted to intentionally lying to Congress, to the American people and to the UN with information he knew were false and hiding information that he knew were true? Or did he say that, in hindsight, he realized he gave overweight to one aspect of inconclusive evidence and less weight to other countervailing evidence. Two completely different things. One is criminal deceit and the other is poor judgment.

I can't support such a horrible judgment and conviction that Bush (whose father I deeply respect and who himself seems like a decent human being even if he were in over his head) would knowingly send thousand of American boys and girls and even more Iraqi young men and women to their death over something he knew was a lie. That is a horrible accusation. And it defies logic. Why make the hunt so public if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would he have made that search such a big part of the invasion if he knew his "lie" would be discovered?

As a Republican, I can admit that Nixon authorized burglary, committed perjury, etc. It doesn't mean I have to agree with horrible accusations without proof against another person just because Democrats are willing to admit something about LBJ. I don't think you have to admit, without more evidence, that FDR suppressed warning about Pearl Harbor because he wanted US to enter the war. Likewise, I don't expect Democrats to admit to "criminal" actions by Hillary (I am unwilling to convict Hillary even in my mind without convincing proof that goes beyond incompetence) even if some of the Republicans are convinced that what she did regarding danger to folks in Benghazi and using private e-mail server were criminal.

calbear93;842613663 said:

---

Let's not pretend that the Iraq war was the only reason for ISIS.

---

You are right, but it starts with our invasion of Iraq, although truly the issue goes back to the way in which Saddam treated the majority Shia, and the sectarian violence that has sprung up since Saddam's fall. ISIS/Daesh is run by a young cleric, but it's on the ground operations and military planning/coordination is run almost entirely by former Saddam military leaders from his Baathist party who are Sunni. These guys have 35 years of experience controlling the majority Shia with ruthless tactics, and those same tactics are now being employed by ISIS.

In 2003 after we took out Saddam, Paul Bremer passed an anti-baathist law which resulted in 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army being barred from government employment along with the denial of their pensions. These now out of work soldiers then were left to their own devices. We gave control of Iraq to the majority Shia, who then began exacting retribution for the years of brutality that Saddam and his baathist's had controlled the country. All of this led to the backlash and the rise of ISIS, but first they needed space to operate - which they got after the four years of civil war between Assad and the rebel forces.

In essence, ISIS/Daesh is a home grown Iraqi insurgency against the majority Shia, that was able to get a foothold first in Syria once the civil war started there once the government was mired in going after the Syrian rebels. Its a response to the power vacuum created when we left, but also from years of sectarian disagreements between the now ruling Shia and the former ruling Sunni minority. Of course, that is not to say that all Sunni's are ISIS; only a small minority in real numbers are. In fact, Sunni's are escaping northern Iraq and moving south into Shia controlled areas, and are experiencing reprisals from the ruling class now. There have been large numbers of Sunnis changing their names to sound either Shia or neutral. Sunnis living in southern Iraq are held in great suspicion that they are Daesh, even if they are moderate.

This is why it is imperative that a large portion of any "liberating" army fighting against ISIS must be Sunni Arab. Otherwise it will just play into the ISIS narrative and give them more power. This is why US troops on the ground in any significant number is most definitely not the answer, and any politician who says it is either doesn't understand the issues or is pandering to what the US public wants to hear (or both).

Also, as any terrorist group loses control/power will strike out as a means of recapturing their brand, so to speak. ISIS/Daesh has lost at least 20% of their controlling land in the last year, and I think their branching out of attacking outside of their controlled area (lebanon, paris, egypt) is in direct response to that loss of territory/power. We should expect more as they continue to lose power.

Vandalus;842613762 said:

---

.You are right, but it starts with our invasion of Iraq

---

Actually, it starts with Carter's support of the rebels against Russian invasion in Afghanistan.

Vandalus;842613762 said:

---

.

In 2003 after we took out Saddam, Paul Bremer passed an anti-baathist law which resulted in 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army being barred from government employment along with the denial of their pensions. These now out of work soldiers then were left to their own devices. We gave control of Iraq to the majority Shia, who then began exacting retribution for the years of brutality that Saddam and his baathist's had controlled the country. All of this led to the backlash and the rise of ISIS, but first they needed space to operate - which they got after the four years of civil war between Assad and the rebel forces.

---

This was one of the biggest, most arrogant error and miscalculation of the war, and we are still paying the price for this. We allowed Shia, with the backing of Iran, to marginalize the Sunni and got rid of a relatively capable military force who were eager to serve in the new government, driving them to be effective terrorists. Unbelievable arrogance to think that we were so mighty in military might that we could take bunch of police officers and civilians and turn them into a capable military force able to battle war tested soldiers who now had nowhere to go. That was as much of a disaster as Obama's attempt to train moderate rebels, with many of those weapons now in the hands of ISIS. I hope Rumsfeld finds some humility in the face of the disaster he helped generate.

Bears2thDoc;842613689 said:

---

When I hear people say this I can't help but laugh.
He didn't have bad advisers, and he didn't have bad intel.
His advisers and he may say they had bad intel, that's what they want you to believe NOW.
Then, they/he knew exactly what they were doing........lying to America and the world.

---

Well, neocons' "Iraqi-advisor-in Chief" is now Dead (he WAS a liar but he was convenient for their "story")
And Bush's squeeze KindaSleazy was squeezed, forcing that smoking mushroom cloud outta her ... uh, mouth.
Funny how they outted an undercover CIA agent cuz they didn't like her husband's truth about the "yellow cake".
Destroyed Powell as he WAS lied to and fed sh!t to the UN (with pics) then slinked away in embarrassment.
Quite a "party" but Cheney's Halliburton enjoyed it.
And all those coffins, thousands and thousands slipped back into USA, under cover of secrecy and darkness.
But, if you miss that War, look at the National Debt ... :woohoo ... kinda Grew.

And neocons are awfully quiet about current POTUS honoring previous POTUS' agreement to pull outta there.

The bigger disasters were Bush. Obama's are more amateurish. Putting Maliki in charge in Iraq which led to Sunni solidarity and gains by ISIS, the "all in-now we're out" Libya deal which created another vacuum; the "Assad must go" wish, and failure to formulate a coherent policy in Syria until this day.

Hillary is gaining distance from this daily, already staking out tougher polices

calbear93;842613690 said:

---

Look, I believe Bush just had bad intel from the CIA. If you believe that Bush hid information and intentionally lied to Congress and to the UN to start a war that he knew was not justified, I think there would be a Watergate like incident. He would be tried as a war criminal. I'm sure there were some biases involved that caused the Bush administration to give more credibility to one type of evidence over another. That makes them incompetent. If he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, they would not have made the hunt for those weapons so public that made them look so inept.

Likewise, I'm sure Obama and Clinton had biases that caused them to misjudge and miscalculate as often as they have been. That is human nature. That makes them incompetent but not criminal.

---

This is an interesting interview re the recent showtime documentary that discusses what the CIA knew both before 9/11 as well as concerning WMD's in Iraq. Basically, the CIA directors all say that pretty much everyone thought that he had WMD's but there is evidence that the intelligence community ignored or discredited evidence to the contrary. In a fateful twist of irony, Saddam, believing that the CIA was basically omnipotent, assumed that Bush was just blustering for political gain and that we knew all along that he in fact did not have WMD's and that we would accordingly never attack. Whoops.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/458300917/top-cia-spymasters-agree-we-cant-kill-our-way-out-of-terrorism

The most widely pointed to evidence of incompetence and/or willful ignorance was as to the gathering of intelligence that lead to the claim that Saddam had mobile chemical weapons labs, which was a major part of Powell's UN speech. That piece of intelligence came from a source named "curveball." This source was known to have been providing false information by the German bureau of the CIA, who sent up warnings to CIA in Washington. It was either ignored or misplaced, but acting CIA director Tenet swears that he was never given that intelligence prior to them vetting the speech.

So basically, we had the intelligence that curveball was a bad source and was giving bad intel, yet we relied on it anyway. At best, we had the info but there was a breakdown of epic proportions. At worst, Tenet is lying.

Also interesting from this interview: everyone knows about the daily intelligence briefing "Bin Laden determined to strike US" a few weeks before 9/11, but what I did not know is that prior to that daily briefing, in July 2001 the CIA got actionable intelligence that there was a significant terror plot and rushed over to Condoleezza Rice's office to brief her and her team to implore them to do something. They were impassioned that this was serious, but apparently it was brushed aside. I also find it interesting that despite the acting CIA director testifying to that meeting as part of the 9/11 investigation, that testimony or mention of that meeting was not included anywhere in the 9/11 commission report.

calbear93;842613783 said:

---

Actually, it starts with Carter's support of the rebels against Russian invasion in Afghanistan.



This was one of the biggest, most arrogant error and miscalculation of the war, and we are still paying the price for this. We allowed Shia, with the backing of Iran, to marginalize the Sunni and got rid of a relatively capable military force who were eager to serve in the new government, driving them to be effective terrorists. Unbelievable arrogance to think that we were so mighty in military might that we could take bunch of police officers and civilians and turn them into a capable military force able to battle war tested soldiers who now had nowhere to go. That was as much of a disaster as Obama's attempt to train moderate rebels, with many of those weapons now in the hands of ISIS. I hope Rumsfeld finds some humility in the face of the disaster he helped generate.

---

How our leaders didn't learn the lessons from WWII (and WWI) is pretty amazing really.

Vandalus;842613800 said:

---

This is an interesting interview re the recent showtime documentary that discusses what the CIA knew both before 9/11 as well as concerning WMD's in Iraq. Basically, the CIA directors all say that pretty much everyone thought that he had WMD's but there is evidence that the intelligence community ignored or discredited evidence to the contrary. In a fateful twist of irony, Saddam, believing that the CIA was basically omnipotent, assumed that Bush was just blustering for political gain and that we knew all along that he in fact did not have WMD's and that we would accordingly never attack. Whoops.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/458300917/top-cia-spymasters-agree-we-cant-kill-our-way-out-of-terrorism

The most widely pointed to evidence of incompetence and/or willful ignorance was as to the gathering of intelligence that lead to the claim that Saddam had mobile chemical weapons labs, which was a major part of Powell's UN speech. That piece of intelligence came from a source named "curveball." This source was known to have been providing false information by the German bureau of the CIA, who sent up warnings to CIA in Washington. It was either ignored or misplaced, but acting CIA director Tenet swears that he was never given that intelligence prior to them vetting the speech.

So basically, we had the intelligence that curveball was a bad source and was giving bad intel, yet we relied on it anyway. At best, we had the info but there was a breakdown of epic proportions. At worst, Tenet is lying.

Also interesting from this interview: everyone knows about the daily intelligence briefing "Bin Laden determined to strike US" a few weeks before 9/11, but what I did not know is that prior to that daily briefing, in July 2001 the CIA got actionable intelligence that there was a significant terror plot and rushed over to Condoleezza Rice's office to brief her and her team to implore them to do something. They were impassioned that this was serious, but apparently it was brushed aside. I also find it interesting that despite the acting CIA director testifying to that meeting as part of the 9/11 investigation, that testimony or mention of that meeting was not included anywhere in the 9/11 commission report.

---

This is what I understood as well. This points to high level of arrogance leading to miscalculation of our own and our enemies capabilities. And this clearly points to how we often have our own prejudices and biases and, as a result, two different people can come to different conclusions based on same evidence depending on what their initial perceptions were.

Rice was clearly arrogant (she's a Furd...what do you expect), but so were many of us. We thought we were invincible. We assumed that some fanatic living in some desert could never harm this mighty nation. 9/11 changed how we viewed the world.

While I wouldn't argue that the Bush administration wasn't inept, I would also suggest that they were not malicious (as some crazy far left would intimate just like crazy far right intimate that Obama hates America) and would suggest, based on Obama's arrogance and ineptitude, Obama would not have done any better if he were in the same situation at that time.

calbear93;842613810 said:

---

While I wouldn't argue any claims that the Bush administration was inept, I would also suggest that they were not malicious (as some crazy far left would intimate just like crazy far right intimate that Obama hates America) and would suggest, based on Obama's arrogance and ineptitude, I question whether Obama would have done any better.

---

I suspect Obama would have done better, at least in the aftermath of 9/11. His default stance tends to be one of inaction: if he believes the problem will work itself out, he will refuse to commit himself to anything. This seems to be his general attitude towards both Russia and ISIS -- he believes their current aggressive stance is unsustainable and will eventually burn itself out if left alone (personally, I can't say he's definitely wrong about that). So I very much doubt he would have tried starting a war unless he was absolutely sure it was necessary. The relatively quick and clean action that was taken under his watch w/r/t taking out Bin Laden I think speaks to what his approach would have been: find the guy who attacked us, take him out, and we're done.

I have to say that as a philosophy (while there are certainly drawbacks) this is far preferable to me than the Bush Administration's policy of running in all guns ablaze. At least you aren't starting many new fires while trying to put out the existing ones.

sycasey;842613818 said:

---

I suspect Obama would have done better, at least in the aftermath of 9/11. His default stance tends to be one of inaction: if he believes the problem will work itself out, he will refuse to commit himself to anything. This seems to be his general attitude towards both Russia and ISIS -- he believes their current aggressive stance is unsustainable and will eventually burn itself out if left alone (personally, I can't say he's definitely wrong about that). So I very much doubt he would have tried starting a war unless he was absolutely sure it was necessary. The relatively quick and clean action that was taken under his watch w/r/t taking out Bin Laden I think speaks to what his approach would have been: find the guy who attacked us, take him out, and we're done.

I have to say that as a philosophy (while there are certainly drawbacks) this is far preferable to me than the Bush Administration's policy of running in all guns ablaze. At least you aren't starting many new fires while trying to put out the existing ones.

---

I guess you and I would disagree on this. 9/11 was a complete game changer. There was so much anger and shock that Bush's approval rating was through the roof. He received standing ovation from both parties in Congress. He wasted all that goodwill domestically and with other world leaders with his miscalculation in Iraq, but I don't think Obama would have done nothing if he thought Saddam was supporting AQ (Obama redoubled our efforts in Afghanistan without much success) and had weapons of mass destruction that could go to terrorists. I think he would have been compelled to act aggressive and quickly, but if he took this passive, lecturing tone after 9/11, he would have been denounced even by his own party.

calbear93;842613824 said:

---

I guess you and I would disagree on this. 9/11 was a complete game changer. There was so much anger and shock that Bush's approval rating was through the roof. He received standing ovation from both parties in Congress. He wasted all that goodwill domestically and with other world leaders with his miscalculation in Iraq, but I don't think Obama would have done nothing if he thought Saddam was supporting AQ (Obama redoubled our efforts in Afghanistan without much success) and had weapons of mass destruction that could go to terrorists. I think he would have been compelled to act aggressive and quickly, but if he took this passive, lecturing tone after 9/11, he would have been denounced even by his own party.

---

I suppose that's possible, but based on what we've seen of Obama's general temperament I doubt it. I don't expect you to be convinced.

sycasey;842613826 said:

---

I suppose that's possible, but based on what we've seen of Obama's general temperament I doubt it. I don't expect you to be convinced.

---

Maybe you're right. And maybe Saddam would not have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction if he knew he could cross the red line set by Obama by using more chemical weapons against the Kurds, knowing all he would get would be a lecture. I don't know. Neither leader inspired too much confidence. And I'm not smart enough to know which way is the right way.

calbear93;842613829 said:

---

Maybe you're right. And maybe Saddam would not have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction if he knew he could cross the red line set by Obama by using more chemical weapons against the Kurds, knowing all he would get would be a lecture. I don't know. Neither leader inspired too much confidence. And I'm not smart enough to know which way is the right way.

---

That argument I would find more convincing, that Obama might have allowed a minor threat to become a major one based on inaction. An invasion, though, would not have been Obama's kind of error.

FYI, NPR's Fresh Air has Mark Fullman on discussing mass shootings. Good discussion.

Gun Violence
Join the conversation about gun violence and mass shootings with Mark Follman, National Affairs Editor at Mother Jones magazine. He leads an investigative team covering gun violence, and in 2012 started a database collecting information about mass shootings. His latest article is about threat assessments teams which try to prevent such shootings.

Wed, Dec 9, 2015 -- 1:00pm

On KQED in the bay area now and repeated at 7pm Pacific Time.

Catch the archive here:
http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/

Why is it so hard to have a sensible discussion about gun violence and mortality in the United States?

juarezbear;842613465 said:

---

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm glad you mentioned these issue because they support my position that extremism and/or fundamentalism in ANY religion or culture (including my own) is depraved. Dogma in any form is the root of all evil as far as I'm concerned.....I always used to say that only the Buddhists were immune until I was made aware of the horrendous situation in Myanmar.

---

Also don't forget the Japanese Buddhist cult which killed people in the Tokyo subway by infusing it with Sarin gas; and the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka, which gave horror for horror in its civil war with the Tamil Tigers, at the end, herding the civilian Tamil population into a smaller and smaller geographical location, and expelling many, in a kind of mass ethnic cleansing.

Phantomfan;842613474 said:

---

I REALLY want to help people understand why gun laws are NOT "common sense" and WILL NOT work as proposed, and how to craft reasonable arguments in the future.

Because... those laws defining "Assault weapons" dont work ... because they dont actually address anything aside from inconsequential things and cosmetics.

Assault Weapon's are not a real thing: the term is literally marketing to sell things that cosmetically LOOK like Assault Rifles (something that does exist) to idiots that didnt know the difference. To ban them you would have to ban cosmetics. That is why banning them has always been a failure. It does not diminish the killing power of the weapon AT ALL. The Newtown shooter bought a weapon that was sold in a very strict assault weapon ban state as legal! It was 0% safer than an "assault weapon" and as a matter of fact, was called an "assault weapon" by nearly everyone anyway. Because cosmetics do NOT make a firearm.

Step one is determining what exactly you are trying to prevent and why:
1. Most gun deaths are not caused by long rifles. They are caused by Handguns. About 70%
2. Rifles account for 4% of gun deaths, right in line with shotguns. Less than hammers, less than knives.
3. Cosmetically styled "Assault Weapons" are not listed, because they do not function differently than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Sometimes rifles that look like military rifles and fire low-power are used in mass shootings. Not often, but sometimes. Lets say you focus on on THOSE shootings, and you will deal with the 96% of gun homicides through, lets say, social programs to curb gang violence. OK. How?

To be honest, the very first step you would need to take to get a hold of this issue is to stop acting as though scary looking equates to more dangerous. Look at why a weapon you think is dangerous is dangerous, then look at what you can do to overcome that: Fair enough. Where to start?

Lets dispel the most prevalent myth first: Cosmetics do not matter. A gun is lethal. The attachments are not. Semi-automatic is nearly meaningless in today's world. Automatic is already heavily regulated.

What is termed "Assault Weapons" shoot a small, low power, high velocity round, typically .223 (about the size of a 22, but ridiculously faster) - they are not "high powered." Nearly ALL ammunition available is hollow point because hunting with FMJ is illegal in most places (because it wounds, not kills). There IS reason to own them (ie small predator hunting for protection of livestock, et al). The most common type (made to look like a US military rifle) has two parts called an "Upper" containing the bolt group and barrel, and the receiver (lower), containing the trigger group and magazine well. The lower is the gun. The upper is not well unregulated, unless attached to the lower. The draw of these weapons is the ease of use, and the individual rounds they put down range. They are easy to shoot because the round is so low power, and they are small rounds, so a magazine can hold a lot. What makes them so lethal if they shoot such a ***** round? Hollow Point Ammunition. Full Jacket ammunition will go through you pretty well. Unless it hits something immediately vital (brain, heart) you will very likely survive. Even if you are shot in an artery, you have an OK chance. A HP round? You are fucked a high percentage of the time. If you dont die, the damage is ... very bad (best example I could find quickly ).

So, some common sense ideas that will not work:
1. Reduce the number of rounds in a magazine -why it is hard to do: a magazine is a box and a spring. I can make one out of a coke can and a wire. I can print one. They are not traceable. They are not regulated unless you are caught with it. TRUST that someone trying to kill a lot of people will find a way to get magazines that fit their need. OK start. Not real world workable.
2. Eliminate detachable magazines - quite possibly the only solution to the issue. but is asinine (for reasons I will show later) but a start. More workable than mag restriction, but can be overcome with some effort. Better start.
3. Ban cosmetic attachments and outlaw already non-purchasable attachments - cosmetics do NOT change the ability to send 30 WELL AIMED rounds down range in 15 seconds. No one is being bayoneted to death in these attacks and knifes are legal. Grenade launchers are the most ridiculous thing I have heard of (if you can legally get one, you can get a machine gun anyway). Dumbest **** I have ever seen attempted.


So what would actually work to prevent deaths, and may be politically achievable?
1. Something NO ONE talks about: Outlaw Hollowpoint rifle ammunition for general sale.
- VERY touchy because the VAST majority of killing is hunting, and this would cause ridiculous amounts of suffering to animals, but for argument sake, lets say you can specially purchase hunting ammunition with a game tag, with the casings returned after the season/6 months whatever: not ideal, but preventing human death is the goal, not animal suffering. The difference in lethality between FMJ and HP rounds is RIDICULOUS. Most victims would not have died if they were shot with FMJ's given emergency response times and proximity to hospitals. I have no data, aside from Military casualty data, where FMJ is the only legal ammunition, but knowing a few "Blackwater" types who have used HP in theater and vouch for its killing power over standard ball ammunition. You dont need hollow point for target shooting. For home defense it is good because it wont go through material as well, but even with HP, they go through **** pretty well. A glaring issue here is that anyone can poke a hole in an FMJ and make their own HP's, but I doubt most mass shooters would even think about it. Worse is that FMJ will **** people up behind cars, behind walls, behind doors, etc. Not much hiding. Less dying if hit. Maybe more hits?
2. Treat the upper (as mentioned above) as a firearm, and regulate them. They matter because they are half of what makes the gun work. Right now you can buy one, make one, sell one, etc with no oversight.
3. Treat ANY manufacture of lowers as firearm manufacturing. Currently you can purchase an "80%" lower with no regulation, complete it yourself, and have an untraceable gun. It is extremely uncommon, but has happened, and will become more popular as rifle laws are passed.
4. Ban .223 ammunition sale. The side effect here is that every other rifle round is exponentially more lethal, but they are much harder to use and take more training to use effectively. So that is a plus. It is only legal to kill game smaller than a coyote with it, so not a huge livestock protection loss, I dont think, and certainly not a a huge hunting loss, but perhaps a significant "fun at the range loss." I take that as a win, personally.

Those are three simple things we can do to at the very least reduce lethality and improve tracability, and one thing we can do to increase lethality but decrease ease of use.



The problem with assualt weapon bans is they are a mythical type of weapon. NOTHING about them is unique to "assault weapons." They are semi-automatic rifles. A VERY widely used rifle everywhere. It is politically IMPOSSIBLE to ban semi-automatic rifles, and that is the "dangerous" technology regardless of what the rifle LOOKS like.



Remember the term was INVENTED to sell guns based on LOOKS alone. It is now being used to try to ban guns. A term invented to sell guns based on looks will NEVER work to ban guns. Focus on what makes them uniquely dangerous, and solve those problems. What is more important? A couple dozen people a year, or animal suffering. That is a VERY real question in this, because it is the number one reason these weapons are so lethal.


Anyway, anyone that talks about Assault Weapons is ignorant. It was a marketing tool to sell to soldier of fortune wannabes and is still used to trap ignorant people. To stop the problem you see, you need to think more clearly, understand the issue, take a less reactionary approach, etc. We dont stop terrorism like this by putting Muslims in camps, because we are smarter than that (I hope). We should be equally smart in not reacting through ignorance on gun control.

---

High class, whoever you are.

Vandalus;842613802 said:

---

How our leaders didn't learn the lessons from WWII (and WWI) is pretty amazing really.

---

Actually it goes back much further since WWII and WWI were precipitated by events from years before as well. The statement that "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." is in my mind only partially true. The problem isn't the study, but the understanding. So often with the benefit of hindsight we can look at an event and say, "Why did X decide to do that, you can see that its a major mistake." The US military attack on Iraq was clearly that now, and we can now point to earlier events like Russia invading Afghanistan and say, "See history repeats itself." but I remember the Rethugicans saying that "this time will be different, we're smarter."

Sadly, the new bosses are never smarter or more knowledgable or more wise. They simply are willing to ignore history and repeat actions that have failed in the past.

At the same time, the US invasion of Iraq is not the sole cause for the rise of ISIS/ISIL. There are root causes going back hundreds of years. It merely created the power vacuum that ISIS managed to jump into before any other force in the region mobilized. But the factionalism that drove the creation of ISIS runs back to the Shia/Sunni schism from the 7th century, and that runs back into the tribal cultures of Arabia absorbing the remnants of the Persian empire during the initial expansion of Islam after the death of Mohammed since the Shia/Sunni schism basically started over who was going to inherit control of the religion after Mohammed died.

calbear93;842613829 said:

---

Maybe you're right. And maybe Saddam would not have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction if he knew he could cross the red line set by Obama by using more chemical weapons against the Kurds, knowing all he would get would be a lecture. I don't know. Neither leader inspired too much confidence. And I'm not smart enough to know which way is the right way.

---

Saddam had gotten rid of his chemical weapons by the mid-90's. He was acting like he still had them in order to deter the Iranians.

The WMD issue was always a red herring. It was a way to exert pressure on Saddam's regime, and keep the tinpot dictator in his box. Even if he had been able to develop nuclear weapons (the only real WMD; the others are disruptive, not destructive) he would never have given them to AQ. Forget that as a secular leader he didn't trust the jihadis; he wasn't going to give a terrorist organization that kind of weaponry, lest they use it on his own regime. And if they had used them against the West, he would have no plausible deniability. He would have to pay the cost of their use even though he would have had little or no say over when, how, where, or against whom they would have been used. Smoking gun/mushroom cloud is probably the most irresponsible thing that has ever come out of Condi's mouth, because she knew better than to say something so stupid.

The Iraq invasion was about ideas, not WMDs, or oil, or Halliburton profits. It was the culmination of the post-9/11 neocon takeover of an otherwise noninterventionist Bush administration. It was about extending American influence into the ME through the establishment of a foothold democratic regime. Bush bought into it because he had no strategic foreign-policy vision, and he allowed the people working for him to define his vision for him. He placed a high level of trust/faith in his inner circle and a hierarchical system of both information transfer and decisionmaking, which made him vulnerable to the "gatekeepers" of information in his inner circle who could frame his decisions for him.

I recall in a rare moment of candor, Wolfowitz admitted in a spring 2003 press conference that different elements in the administration all had different reasons for invading Iraq, but they agreed that the WMD angle was the one they could sell.