"Three-day blitz" plan for Iran

[rabbitproof]

Hopefully, it won't happen.

Like Alexamenos said, if we do go into Iran, we will need Congressional approval, which will NOT be granted. The citizens of this nation will NOT stand for it. From the average American's point of view, going into Iran is a less of a possibility after witnessing what we've witnessed in Iraq.

The international organizations around the world would have to decide it is necessary to intervene in Iran, at which point, it will not be necessary for America to devise and act on a '3 day blitz plan'.

Thank God.

[Janett_Reno]

Why isn't France, Great Britain, Germany bombing Iran? Why aren't we bombing NK, Cuban, Vens, China, Syria. Pakistan, Russia?

It is more way's to do business without bombs. I haven't seen Germany or France dropping bombs. The neocons have made Iran bigger, badder and more a power since the neocons have given Iran, Iraq. No more Sadam and the Bath party, who Iran feared. So now Maliki is in bed with Iran. Let's police Iraq for Maliki and Iran? I don't think so.

We made a bad mistake, let's stop pilling mistakes on. Do you think the Democratic congress and Senate are going to keep allowing more wars? Do you think good Republicans like Hagel, Lugar, Warner are going to keep on funding and votting for more wars?

The boogieman and scare tactic is done. Chains and W is gonna have to do alot more preaching on tv, to sell a war with Iran and Syria to the American public.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Why isn't France, Great Britain, Germany bombing Iran? Why aren't we bombing NK, Cuban, Vens, China, Syria. Pakistan, Russia?

Well because that would be stupid and not in our strategic interests. However the last time I heard the French president talk, he was openly talking about bombing Iran much more so than the US. In fact he went further than Dubya ever has with respect to openly stating he would do so.

We aren't bombing Iran either. Although THEY ARE attacking our soldiers, but hell they shouldn't be there anyway right, so who gives a crap.

If you recall when Cuba was putting nuclear weapons on site, we were going to bomb them. N. Korea has a country that is a counterweight to it, china and S. Korea.

So every problem is solved with talk right? Tyrants LOVE it when folks yak,yak,yak while they build up their forces. They've been taking advantage of it for a long time.

So which conflict HAVE you supported? I would expect from your conversations it is only WWII (only against Japan..maybe) and Afghanistan. If others, please explain why? This would let me understand where you are coming from.

The boogieman and scare tactic is done. Chains and W is gonna have to do alot more preaching on tv, to sell a war with Iran and Syria to the American public.

I expect so. Those sanctions and the european talks have done a bang up job haven't they?

So what IS your opinion on Iran developing nuclear weapons? You seem to sort of skirt that issue or as usual...hopeing that someone will make it go away.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Hopefully, it won't happen.

Like Alexamenos said, if we do go into Iran, we will need Congressional approval, which will NOT be granted. The citizens of this nation will NOT stand for it. From the average American's point of view, going into Iran is a less of a possibility after witnessing what we've witnessed in Iraq.

The international organizations around the world would have to decide it is necessary to intervene in Iran, at which point, it will not be necessary for America to devise and act on a '3 day blitz plan'.

Thank God.

What scenario would change your mind?

[Kirobaito]

Come, get out of the way, boys
Quick, get out of the way
Better watch what you say, boys
Better watch what you say
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your ports
Our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the fort
Cause we're the cops of the world, boys
We're the cops of the world.

Our boots are needing a shine, boys
Boots are needing a shine
But our Coca-cola is fine, boys
Coca-cola is fine
We've got to protect all our citizens fair
So we'll send a battalion for everyone there
And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Dump the reds in a pile, boys
Dump the reds in a pile
You'd better wipe of that smile, boys
Better wipe off that smile
We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck
We'll find you a leader that you can't elect
Those treaties we sighned were a pain in the neck
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Clean the johns with a rag, boys
Clean the johns with a rag
If you like you can use your flag, boys
If you like you can use your flag
We've got too much money we're looking for toys
And guns will be guns and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we destroy
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Please stay off of the grass, boys
Please stay off of the grass
Here's a kick in the ass, boys
Here's a kick in the ass
We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock?
We're the biggest and toughest kids on the block
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

When we butchered your son, boys
When we butchered your son
Have a stick of our gum, boys
Have a stick of our bubble-gum
We own half the world, oh say can you see
The name for our profits is democracy
So, like it or not, you will have to be free
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

[dude1394]

American Cemetery, Omaha Beach

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

??? Beats me...One of the biggest shocks in my life was the absence of WMD in Iraq. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a "consensus" on a subject as that. Even global warming doesn't have nearly the consensus as wmd's in iraq did.

There was no consensus whatsoever about that one. The UN inspectors said otherwise. They were the ones who should've known. - And in fact, they were totally right.

But yeah right, on Fox News there was consensus about WMD's in Iraq...

Originally Posted by dude1394

Iran is on the same path. They are openly trying to acquire nuclear weapons in spite of sanctions and world-wide condemnation. If they were actually doing it for defensive purposes I imagine they would be a lot more quiet about it, however their intentions are pretty clear about what they plan on doing with them.

This only proves that you're being indocrininated by this whole neo-con propaganda.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE OPENLY TRYING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?? Iran has always stated that they would only use it for peaceful purposes. Civilized nations need energy, you know...

[Arne]

Listen to the U.N.inspectors they know what is going on...

IAEA Chief Defends Iran Plan
By GEORGE JAHN – Sep 7, 2007

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — The chief U.N. nuclear inspector warned Friday against sounding the "war drums" over the Iranian nuclear standoff and said he sees no reason to go beyond diplomacy in apparent criticism of the U.S. position.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the U.N. nuclear watchdog had a reasonable timetable for Iran to come clean on past nuclear activities, but detractors were not giving the IAEA's efforts a chance to work.

The U.S. suspects Iran's uranium enrichment program is geared toward producing nuclear weapons and says that all options, including new U.N. sanctions and military action against Iran, remain on the table.

ElBaradei called for an end to the pounding of the "war drums from those who are basically saying 'the solution is bomb Iran.'" He warned against rhetoric that is "a reminder of pre-war Iraq" in comments to reporters in Vienna.

"We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we received any information to that effect — no smoking gun or information from intelligence," he said. "Based on the evidence, we have, we do not see ... a clear and present danger that requires that you go beyond diplomacy."

Responding to the "war drums" comment, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he "would certainly hope that those kinds of comments wouldn't be referred to the United States, because they certainly wouldn't be true."

He said the United States appreciates the IAEA's efforts to try to help answer questions about Iran's nuclear program."

"It would be really hard for anyone to say that the United States has been anything but at the forefront of supporting the work of the IAEA to try and resolve these issues."

ElBaradei urged both Iran and the U.S.-led camp pushing for new U.N. Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear defiance to agree to a time-out to cool passions and pave the way for a return to negotiations.

Diplomats accredited to the IAEA say ElBaradei is under U.S. pressure over a recent IAEA-Iran working plan committing Tehran to fully clear up its past nuclear activities by year's end.

"We have a timeline which would enable us by ... December to check clearly whether Iran is ready to work with us in good faith or whether (as) some like to suspect, Iran is buying time," ElBaradei said.

"This is a reasonable time in our view to resolve a number of complex issues," he added.

The U.S. has suggested that Iran was using the work plan as a smoke screen to deflect attention away from its continued defiance of a Security Council ban on uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

But ElBaradei criticized those who "do not necessarily understand the process," an apparent reference to the U.S. misgivings.

Washington and its closest allies called for new sanctions as recently as July 30, when the IAEA reported "significant" progress in clearing up past questions about Iran while at the same time confirming that Tehran was expanding its enrichment program.

"For the last few years, we have been told by the Security Council ... that we needed to clarify the outstanding issues," ElBaradei said. "We obviously had to welcome" Tehran's decision to cooperate with the agency."

In the IAEA-Iran plan agreed in July, Iran agreed to answer questions from agency experts by December on more than two decades of nuclear activity — most of it secret until revealed over four years ago.

The plan, which was made public last month, appeared to give Iran a clean bill of health on past small-scale plutonium experiments that could be linked to a weapons program. The IAEA said Tehran had accounted for amounts that of the substance originally appeared to have been missing.

It also noted cooperation on other issues, while specifying that Tehran still needed to satisfy the agency's curiosity about its enrichment technology and traces of highly enriched uranium at a facility linked to the military.

The plan forms the backbone of an IAEA report to be debated at a 35-nation board meeting of the agency that opens Monday.


Associated Press writer Foster Klug contributed to this report from Washington.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

This only proves that you're being indocrininated by this whole neo-con propaganda.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE OPENLY TRYING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?? Iran has always stated that they would only use it for peaceful purposes. Civilized nations need energy, you know...

iran tells us they will enrich uranium

iran says they have thousands

iran's missle program

IAEA says iran on path to bomb

there is no valid reason to set up the scale of uranium enrichment if the goal was merely power generation.

likewise, the missle programs have gone beyond self defense, they have become offensive in nature.

the public comments by the leadership of iran are hostile. they have openly expressed the goal of "destruction" of another state.

why is iran spending so much of their resources on this project, while at the same time having to ration commodities such as gasoline?

this is not at all like the iraq situation. hussein hid what he was supposedly doing, in hindsight it was a ruse to maintain his power. the iranians are openly going after a bomb, much in the pakistan model.

they must be prevented from reaching their goal. hopefully they will back down and diplomacy will work. ultimately tho it may be necessary to use force.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

There was no consensus whatsoever about that one. The UN inspectors said otherwise. They were the ones who should've known. - And in fact, they were totally right.

But yeah right, on Fox News there was consensus about WMD's in Iraq...

Britain, France, Germany, US, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Israel, Clinton, Hillary, majority of US representatives (and then there was IAEA) who thought that Saddaam was not being forthright in their reports on what happended to his WMD. You do recall that Saddam DID have them don't you? That is a proven FACT. The only debate was how much he had left.

You know all of the above however, but you are willing to believe in some sort of alternate reality.

This only proves that you're being indocrininated by this whole neo-con propaganda.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE OPENLY TRYING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?? Iran has always stated that they would only use it for peaceful purposes. Civilized nations need energy, you know...

No it proves that I do not trust Iran with nuclear weapons but you do. I do not know your location? Do you happen to be in israel where Iran has threatened to wipe them off the map.

Why are france, germnay and the security council willing to put sanctions on Iran if they are only going to use this for peaceful purposes?

[DevinFuture]

[QUOTE=dude1394]??? Beats me...One of the biggest shocks in my life was the absence of WMD in Iraq. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a "consensus" on a subject as that. /QUOTE]

The consensus of sheep and cronies.
Many patriotic Americans took to the streets in protest before the war started, demanding proof of WMD in Iraq before an attack.
Why? Because they weren't sold on pure neo-con bs. They weren't going to believe WMD were there without evidence.
And they were right. Bush was wrong.
Oh you can say they were in no position to know. But that's a cop out. All people wanted was evidence. Bush asked for faith. You can't lead a country into war on a hunch and expect to be taken seriously as a leader. Even if the hunch had turned out to be right, Bush would have been in the wrong for not confirming it before going to war. But his hunch was wrong, making him decisions even more obviously wrong.

[alexamenos]

as for sticking one's head in the sand, my head is certainly not buried with respect to the idea that there are BAD MEN in the world, (as if the observation that there are BAD MEN in the world is some relatively new phenomena).

Rather, my head is buried to the question of whether Bush et al might actually attack Iran without a congressional declaration of war.....the costs and implications are too dire for me to consider without shuddering uncontrollably.

(perhaps it's news to more than a few folks out there, but by law it is the responsibility of congress, not the president, to determine whether and when we go to war)

i think it's quite reasonable to say that even if we agree that Iran is a dire threat which simply must be dealt with, it would be nonetheless quite wrong for us to wage such such a war by presidential dictum and without at least the pretense of congressional debate and subsequent support.

iow, what is the point of you and i debating whether we should go to war with Iran if our elected representatives, who by law are responsible for declaring war, don't even have any say in the matter?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

Even if the hunch had turned out to be right, Bush would have been in the wrong for not confirming it before going to war. But his hunch was wrong, making him decisions even more obviously wrong.

You're quite accurate in terming it a *hunch*.

I don't think that there is any question of whether Bush and friends really believed (hunched) Iraq had chemical and biological weapons*. The CIA certainly thought it likely that Iraq possessed CBWs....

....what's telling is why the CIA was wrong on their assessment of Iraq's CBW program -- they were wrong because the CIA's assessment of Iraq was that even if Iraq had kept its program substantially in place it wasn't a threat to the US, hence they devoted prescious few intelligence resources into tracking the Iraqis.

(technically, as I understand it, the CIA considered Iraq a *Tier 2* country, a secondary priority for the allocation of intelligence resources)

so the cia was wrong on the question of whether iraq had cbws, but that wrongness has to be viewed in the context of cia's view that iraq wasn't a threat to the US, and that the only way saddam would use cbws against the US (or provide cbws to terrorists) was in the face of an attack by the US.

cheers

....

*generally called *Weapons of Mass Destruction* for propoganda purposes, as if a jar full of WWI vintage mustard gas is inherently more destructive and less discriminating than a barrage of missiles....

[Janett_Reno]

Bill and Hillary Clinton did not start this war. Neither did Fred Thompson or Rudy. Neither did Obama or Edwards.

Wouldn't be nice if Bubba could have this as a plea. Bubba, why did you have oral sex with Monica? Well because Chains and W made me do it or maybe because, well Vitter does it. Wrong answer. He had oral sex and W did not make him do that.

The neocon administration wanted to invade Iraq a long time before they did. Mr Ramlbing Ramsfield was as eager as Chans was on this and W was in on it. They pushed and pushed and pushed the senate, the congress, that was led by Republicans to plase invade Iraq, while Rams, Chains and W preached on tv, we need to get the tyrant from Iraq before he takes over the world.

Sadam was a piss ant. He couldn't do much more than take over Kuwaitt. Then he got his butt ran back home very fastly.

People know what the neocons want. They know they use the here comes the boogieman, so let's go invade. That is over dude, it won't happen anymore. The public will have to see it with there own eyes before they ever believe this administartion. They belive Richad Lugar, Hagel and John Warner before they ever believe these oil administation.

In the end this is what has happened. We took out Sadam and the Bath party. This is who Iran was scarred to death of. Now they are smilling and can't wait to take over Iraq fully and maybe they will share the country with Syria, maybe. Saudi and some other countries will battle with Iran and Syria over Iraq for years to come. How long will Maliki last when we get out? Not long, unless Iran fully protects him.

When we took over it was one guy named Saydr or something, i forget his name that battled us and sent people in battling us daily. When they knew his name and what he was doing, we wanted to get him but guess what? No, if we mess with him alot of Muslims will come down on us hard. He is still strong with all his groups. When he says to do something, they follow him.

This is a civil war, followed by countries wanting Iraq. The civil wars will not stop or the violence because Iran, Syria, Al Queda, and many, many more groups and countries won't let it stop. Your answer is with the neocons, who interfers with us, let's go take them out. We can't. Why?

Because if we go into Iran, Syria, Saudi, Jordan, Lebanon, and even outskirts African and the old break away Stans of Russia, then we start a global war. Then you have Laden in Pakistan and we are already in Ahganistan, it can be like chasing a mice around all over and provoking many more nations against us.

Before we are ready for more wars, i do not think the American public, senate or congress and many, many Republicans will let the neocons without UN support and allies support. It is more world police than the usa. We have now let Laden go hide. We are out of money. Countries hate us and even our own allies. Now we are stuck behind the 8-ball, so we it was a legit war and legit something we should go and do, we can't. Why? Because of what this administration has done. We have no money, troops are stretched to the max, no one will believe a word this administration says.

Do you honestly think John Warner, Hagel and Richard Lugar are mean evil men? No way, they are good and respected men. This administration has ruined alot of morals and good people.

If we stay in Iraq and mess with Iran and Syria and other countries, we go deeper and deeper making a wrong even worse. Trust me Israel can defend it's land. Let's let more world police step in and police the world instead of just us.

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

iran tells us they will enrich uranium

iran says they have thousands

iran's missle program

IAEA says iran on path to bomb

there is no valid reason to set up the scale of uranium enrichment if the goal was merely power generation.

likewise, the missle programs have gone beyond self defense, they have become offensive in nature.

the public comments by the leadership of iran are hostile. they have openly expressed the goal of "destruction" of another state.

why is iran spending so much of their resources on this project, while at the same time having to ration commodities such as gasoline?


this is not at all like the iraq situation. hussein hid what he was supposedly doing, in hindsight it was a ruse to maintain his power. the iranians are openly going after a bomb, much in the pakistan model.

they must be prevented from reaching their goal. hopefully they will back down and diplomacy will work. ultimately tho it may be necessary to use force.

Now what about the Chinese missiles, the Russian, The North Korean??? Ohh and how about the US. You cant have things and tell some1 else that they cant..because you think you run the world. This are all ifs and buts...and people on here need to know this when posting because I am tired of some ignorant people posting on here and acting like they know first hand whts going on. My opinion is let Iran use build nuclear energy...some1 may say otherwise and tht our opinions but dont come on here and act like you are a mind reader and know exactly wht Iran will do

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Britain, France, Germany, US, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Israel, Clinton, Hillary, majority of US representatives (and then there was IAEA) who thought that Saddaam was not being forthright in their reports on what happended to his WMD. You do recall that Saddam DID have them don't you? That is a proven FACT. The only debate was how much he had left.

You know all of the above however, but you are willing to believe in some sort of alternate reality.



No it proves that I do not trust Iran with nuclear weapons but you do. I do not know your location? Do you happen to be in israel where Iran has threatened to wipe them off the map.

Why are france, germnay and the security council willing to put sanctions on Iran if they are only going to use this for peaceful purposes?

Iraq had chemical weapons?? Hmmm how did they get those again?? and as far as I know they still havent been found...so then either they dont exist or the people lookin for them are reall stupid including Bush. IMo its both.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Iraq had chemical weapons?? Hmmm how did they get those again?? and as far as I know they still havent been found...so then either they dont exist or the people lookin for them are reall stupid including Bush. IMo its both.

I think some poor folks in the Kurdish village of Halabja managed to 'find' Iraqi chemical weapons back in 1988, much to their woe...

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

I think some poor folks in the Kurdish village of Halabja managed to 'find' Iraqi chemical weapons back in 1988, much to their woe...

Yeee unfortunately the ones US gave Saddam to fight against Iran. And i am sure those people were smarter then Bush and all those who said that he still had em before the war...thinking about it the people that actually believe that ...those weapons were the reason the US went to war...they are extremely ignorant and stupid if they still believe that...but yet they always find an excuse

[AxdemxO]

Since we are on the topic...I personally agree with a lot of wht he says

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ran/index.html

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Now what about the Chinese missiles, the Russian, The North Korean??? Ohh and how about the US. You cant have things and tell some1 else that they cant..because you think you run the world.

so your position is this: some countries have nuclear weapons, so everybody can/should have nuclear weapons?

iran does not have the right to develop a bomb. in fact, the world has the right to stop them.

the non-proliferation treaty was signed by most countries (inc iran), and its intent is clear: no state will pursue establishing a nuclear program. iran would be the first signator of the treaty to violate it.

north korea is not too different than the situation with iran except the koreans are negotiating their concession. hopefully iran will do the same.

This are all ifs and buts...and people on here need to know this when posting because I am tired of some ignorant people posting on here and acting like they know first hand whts going on.

who woulda thought something like that would happen on an internet message board? strange....

My opinion is let Iran use build nuclear energy...some1 may say otherwise and tht our opinions but dont come on here and act like you are a mind reader and know exactly wht Iran will do

iran does have the right to develop nuclear energy. that isn't the question.

the russians and the germans have both agreed to construct nuclear power facilities in iran. while I see their business with iran as a poor choice of business partners, they have the right to go forward.

those nuclear plants don't need to be supported by these centrifuges. there is only one purpose of the thousands of centrifuges iran is seting up, and that's bombs.

one doesn't need to be a mind reader to see what is happening. iran is pretty damned open about it, almost a taunt.

[alexamenos]

so i'm watching meet the press (travelin' heavy, hotel livin')....

it's John McCain and John Kerry, and the question pops in my head...

When did John McCain go batshit insane? I never bought his whole "straighttalk express" act, but I didn't think he was nuts before. But now??? Geez.....somebody needs to put the dude in an old folks home and start feeding him apple sauce three times a day.

His most nearly cogent point is that Kerry and the Dems are advocating some "failed strategy of the past of the past four years". But plainly he is the dude saying we need to have troop levels comparable to the last four years, and that we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up, and there's a light at the end of the tunnel, etc., etc....

and, for the record....

wmds???? give it up guys -- dubya emm dees were a sales pitch.....that iraq did or didn't have them was never that important in the first place.....

Dubya Emm Dees (let's all wet our pants a bit) are the most overrated subject on earth....with the possible exception of nukes mounted to ICBMs, wmds are no more massively destructive than a barage of JDAMs or any grouping of "conventional" weapons, and often considerably less destructive.

....for that matter....about a million folks in Rwanda were killed with machetes....dead is dead whether one is killed by a batch of sarin or by a bunch of guys with ak47s.

....dead is dead, and getting one's panties in a wad over a bit of mustard gas is unnecessary, IMHO.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

one doesn't need to be a mind reader to see what is happening. iran is pretty damned open about it, almost a taunt.

of course Iran wants nukes....they'd be stupid not to want nukes.

it's the leap from "iran with nukes" to "iran with nukes is a threat to the US", or at the least enough of a threat to warrant some action, that I don't quite see.....

perhaps there is an argument there, but it is in my view an argument to be made and not assumed.

[DevinFuture]

An honest view of nuclear proliferaiton has to begin with these facts:
Every country who develops nukes claims they are doing so as a matter of self-defense.
It is always good to be sceptical about such claims.
But when someone mentions one particular country, whether its Iran or North Korea, as being just crazy enough to use them, it's important to remember that there is only one country that has ever actually used nukes on another nation.

[dude1394]

[QUOTE=DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

??? Beats me...One of the biggest shocks in my life was the absence of WMD in Iraq. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a "consensus" on a subject as that. /QUOTE]

The consensus of sheep and cronies.

Yup...britain, france, germany, russia, chian, saudia arabia, egypt, israel, UN, clinton, hillary, kerry, teddy kennedy, us congress, UN, Saddam himself. All "sheeps and cronies".

Are these the "sheeps and cronies" you are talking about?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

i think it's quite reasonable to say that even if we agree that Iran is a dire threat which simply must be dealt with, it would be nonetheless quite wrong for us to wage such such a war by presidential dictum and without at least the pretense of congressional debate and subsequent support.

Agreed...where have we done otherwise?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

so the cia was wrong on the question of whether iraq had cbws, but that wrongness has to be viewed in the context of cia's view that iraq wasn't a threat to the US, and that the only way saddam would use cbws against the US (or provide cbws to terrorists) was in the face of an attack by the US.

Who says Iraq wasn't a threat to the US? Certainly not our previous and current political leaders?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Bill and Hillary Clinton did not start this war

Not this engagement, what about the bombing of Iraqi soverign soil?

The neocon administration wanted to invade Iraq a long time before they did.

Show me anywhere that dubya talked about invading Iraq (even in passing to be honest) when he was campaigning. You cannot because it's a fantasy.

Please show me.

Dubya was a domestic political animal and wanted to stay that way. The last thing he wanted to do was to do nation-builiding. Something happened (oh I don't know what it was you seem to forget) that changed his opinion.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You're quite accurate in terming it a *hunch*.

I don't think that there is any question of whether Bush and friends really believed (hunched) Iraq had chemical and biological weapons*. The CIA certainly thought it likely that Iraq possessed CBWs....

Let me again help you by expanding your definition of "friends". Britain, russia, china, france, egypt, saudia arabia, canada, hillary, bubba, teddy kennedy, kerry, UN, us congress, us intelligence agencies. Saddam himself.

[dude1394]

Janett:

[quote]So which conflict HAVE you supported? I would expect from your conversations it is only WWII (only against Japan..maybe) and Afghanistan. If others, please explain why? This would let me understand where you are coming from.

So what IS your opinion on Iran developing nuclear weapons?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE OPENLY TRYING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS??

Because they say so. Iran obviously needs lots of energy, thats' why they basically give away gasoline.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Iraq had chemical weapons?? Hmmm how did they get those again?? and as far as I know they still havent been found...so then either they dont exist or the people lookin for them are reall stupid including Bush. IMo its both.

Okay..the whole world is stupid, every country, everybody. Feel better? Only ElBairadei (who as mavie shows also thinks they are trying to get nuclear weapons) is right. But if elbairadei also thinks they are trying to get nuclear weapons...is he also right? Or just stupid like everyone?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

of course Iran wants nukes....they'd be stupid not to want nukes.

So you are okay with Iran having nukes right? Trying to get to some positions in this place, they keep moving around.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

An honest view of nuclear proliferaiton has to begin with these facts:
Every country who develops nukes claims they are doing so as a matter of self-defense.
It is always good to be sceptical about such claims.
But when someone mentions one particular country, whether its Iran or North Korea, as being just crazy enough to use them, it's important to remember that there is only one country that has ever actually used nukes on another nation.

So devin are you also okay with Iran getting nukes?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who says Iraq wasn't a threat to the US? Certainly not our previous and current political leaders?

the CIA was quite explicit in the NIE's published immediately before the war that the only way Hussein would use WMDs against the US (or even troops in the ME), or provide WMDs to terrorists to use against the US was in the event of an attack on Iraq by the US.

Moreover, Hussein's (and Iraqi's) top military priorities were internal revolts among the shia and Iran....the idea that Hussein might have had some interest in waging war on the US was absurd given his much more considerable military concerns in and next door to iraq....

tho....I suppose it's acedemically true that none of our current or former political leaders would say that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US....it's hardly a politically adroit thing to say that you are leading a war against a country which is not a threat....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

the CIA was quite explicit in the NIE's published immediately before the war that the only way Hussein would use WMDs against the US (or even troops in the ME), or provide WMDs to terrorists to use against the US was in the event of an attack on Iraq by the US.

Moreover, Hussein's (and Iraqi's) top military priorities were internal revolts among the shia and Iran....the idea that Hussein might have had some interest in waging war on the US was absurd given his much more considerable military concerns in and next door to iraq....

tho....I suppose it's acedemically true that none of our current or former political leaders would say that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US....it's hardly a politically adroit thing to say that you are leading a war against a country which is not a threat....

Alex...it's way more than "academically" true. It's why the overthrow of Saddam was stated US national interests policy. It's why we flew sorties over there, it's why clinton bombed the dang place.

I have no problem with the CIA having a different opinion(right now their credibility isn't too high) but to try and parse the almost unanimous thinking of our political leaders just smacks of making stuff up.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Alex...it's way more than "academically" true. It's why the overthrow of Saddam was stated US national interests policy. It's why we flew sorties over there, it's why clinton bombed the dang place.

I have no problem with the CIA having a different opinion(right now their credibility isn't too high) but to try and parse the almost unanimous thinking of our political leaders just smacks of making stuff up.

I don't argue that political leaders did not say that Hussein was a threat to the US....

....I argue that this was position was a) absurd; and b) not the judgment of the agency most formerly tasked with assessing whether Hussein was a threat....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Since we are on the topic...I personally agree with a lot of wht he says

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ran/index.html

Do you believe that Iran is supplying shaped IEDs to terrorists in Iraq?
Do you believe that Iran is providing training for terrorists in Iraq?

I seem to remember that this has been proven by capturing Iranians providing the training as well as iranian markings on said weapons?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So you are okay with Iran having nukes right? Trying to get to some positions in this place, they keep moving around.

my position is that I don't think an iran armed with nukes would present a threat to the US....

....so in that sense I'm "okay" with it....

.... I'd say that it's unlikely that the Iranians will ask me for permission and I'm disinclined to tell them how to manage their own affairs so long as they're unlikely to mingle in mind.

[dude1394]

Are there any countries that you would NOT be okay with having nuclear weapons and you would be willing to stop them?

And as a follow-up I assume that you were also against the Bosnia engagement as well as the first iraqi war? Neither a threat to the US, right?

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So devin are you also okay with Iran getting nukes?

I would rather nobody have them, of course. But while Israel has them, I think it's ridiculous to expect Iran not to pursue them.