Remind us again how Iran is not...

[Gunny]

Please do keep up. They were destroyed in 1991:

"Following a particularly invasive IAEA inspection in late June 1991, Saddam ordered Dr. Mahmud Filal, former deputy of the Chemical Weapons program, to destroy all hidden chemical weapons and biological materials....Available evidence indicates Iraq destroyed its hidden chemical weapons and pre-cursors, but key documentation and duel use equipment were retained and were later discovered by inspectors."

from: IRAQ WMD Report - by Bush's Chief WMD Inspector Charles Duelfer



That was in 1991. What does that have to do with Bush's claims that iraq had WMD and an active WMD program in 2003?




They used WMD on the iranians with the approval of the reagan adminstration, who helped them with targeting the iranians. Iraq was our ally, and our strategic goal was to make sure iran didn't win, at any cost. So, its patently ridiculous to point to the gassing of the iranians to support your war two decades later.

As for the kurds, that was horrible and tragic. But again, that was the 1980s, and it had nothing to do with american national security, let alone as a justification to invade iraq two decades after the fact.

Your arguments are completely irrelevant. The fact is Saddam produced, posessed and used WMDs, period.

Please produce factual evidence that Saddam gassing Iranians was with the approval of the Reagan administration. Good luck, because it wasn't. Just more smoke.

The fact is, you're trying to run a bluff with Monday morning quarterbacking and it's been called.

 

[Shogun]

When did we find out Saddam didn't have WMDs? You have accounted for all of the ones he is on record with the UN as having that are STILL unaccounted for?

And AGAIN ad nauseum, I have not suggested killing anyone. Can any of you MFers READ or what?

What is this? If one doesn't believe Iran should be allowed to have nuclear power they automatically have to believe in invading Iran and/or killing Iranians?

It's one side or the other with no room for thinking for yourself, is that it?

well, I am glad to hear that you don't advocate invading iran.


ill take it! What would your strategy be if you were playing this all out like risk on a boardgame? if we just sit nuking em and invasions aside for a minute YOU, sir, have my undivided attention if you would like to toss back a few alternatives. I don't think clinging to the ghost of saddams phantom WMDs is any way to rationalize aggression with Iran but I will agree that ANY nation that wants to join the nuclear fraternity is worth addressing. Heres an idea for ya. We get iranian nuclear energy plants built in palestine so we can ensure supervision, allow all energy and profit flow to iran to allow for economy and energy desire, use the location to build infrastructure in palestine to alleviate the pal treatment arguement... which creates opportunity that draws the pal population, aggressive and peaceful, away from Israel. It's a PR wet dream. It undermines the two, out of three, primary issues expressed by the muslim world. There will always be radical assholes hellbent on destruction but the rest of the people are worth consideration.

ok. GO.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Your arguments are completely irrelevant. The fact is Saddam produced, posessed and used WMDs, period.

Please produce factual evidence that Saddam gassing Iranians was with the approval of the Reagan administration. Good luck, because it wasn't. Just more smoke.

The fact is, you're trying to run a bluff with Monday morning quarterbacking and it's been called.

For someone who claims to have not supported Bush's invasion of iraq, you sure work double time to spin lame justifications for your war.

1) You asked were the unaccounted WMD went. I gave you the answer from bush's OWN wmd inspector: they were destroyed in the 1990s. Yet, in this post you ignore that I answered your question. You appear to pretend you never asked it, and never received the answer.

2) Of course Saddam had WMD in the 1980s. Your asserting this like its some sort of gotcha analysis. His weapons in the 1980s were not the reason we invaded. Bush said he had a current WMD program, that revived after the inspectors left in 1998.

3) If you don't know that Reagan was Iraq's ally in the 1980s, that reagan gave iraq intelligence on iranian troops movements and targeting info, and that reagan turned a blind eye to saddam's use of wmd on Iranian troops, then I have to really question your alleged military career and credentials. This is common knowledge stuff, to anyone remotely familiar with military history and U.S. national security strategies two decades ago.

 

[Psychoblues]

gunny is quite the dancer, don't you think?

For someone who claims to have not supported Bush's invasion of iraq, you sure work double time to spin lame justifications for your war.

1) You asked were the unaccounted WMD went. I gave you the answer from bush's OWN wmd inspector: they were destroyed in the 1990s. Yet, in this post you ignore that I answered your question. You appear to pretend you never asked it, and never received the answer.

2) Of course Saddam had WMD in the 1980s. Your asserting this like its some sort of gotcha analysis. His weapons in the 1980s were not the reason we invaded. Bush said he had a current WMD program, that revived after the inspectors left in 1998.

3) If you don't know that Reagan was Iraq's ally in the 1980s, that reagan gave iraq intelligence on iranian troops movements and targeting info, and that reagan turned a blind eye to saddam's use of wmd on Iranian troops, then I have to really question your alleged military career and credentials. This is common knowledge stuff, to anyone remotely familiar with military history and U.S. national security strategies two decades ago.

I wish he was doing his samba in Baghdad.

 

[Gunny]

For someone who claims to have not supported Bush's invasion of iraq, you sure work double time to spin lame justifications for your war.

Complex issues are a bit much for you, are they? I did not and do not agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq. There was plenty of justification to invade Iraq. Tow separate issues ... get it?

1) You asked were the unaccounted WMD went. I gave you the answer from bush's OWN wmd inspector: they were destroyed in the 1990s. Yet, in this post you ignore that I answered your question. You appear to pretend you never asked it, and never received the answer.

Sorry, that is an unacceptable answer based on nothing but assumption. I am pretending nothing ... I have in fact received NO answer to the question that is supported by evidence.

2) Of course Saddam had WMD in the 1980s. Your asserting this like its some sort of gotcha analysis. His weapons in the 1980s were not the reason we invaded. Bush said he had a current WMD program, that revived after the inspectors left in 1998.

My assertion establishes possession and intent since he in fact had no qualms against, and DID use them.

Bush said the same thing most every intelligence agency and individual in the world thought at the time. You keep trying to play that "there are wolf tracks but since I don't see a wolf there isn't one" game and it's crap.

3) If you don't know that Reagan was Iraq's ally in the 1980s, that reagan gave iraq intelligence on iranian troops movements and targeting info, and that reagan turned a blind eye to saddam's use of wmd on Iranian troops, then I have to really question your alleged military career and credentials. This is common knowledge stuff, to anyone remotely familiar with military history and U.S. national security strategies two decades ago.

Nice little game of semantics you are trying to play. I see you have suddenly separated targetting info and use of WMDs, and altered "approval" to "turned a blind eye."

The fact is, I am QUITE aware of US involvement in the Iran Iraq War and you're full of shit. One, my level of education on the matter would have nothing to do with my military service. That's a deflection. I in fact, learned what I knew of the Iran Iraq War from sources other than the military. The only way I would have had any military related intelligence on the Iran Iraq War was if I had been involved in some manner; which, I was not.

Other than reading the Naval Message with the casualties from the Beiruit Barracks Bombing, I learned everything I know about that from sources outside the military.

So, your accusation is muy lame.

The US supported Iraq against Iran. THAT everyone knows and I'm not saying otherwise.

Now, if you would be so kind as to provide the aforementioned proof that Saddam used WMDs with Reagan's approval, we can move on from your blustering, and irrelevant defense, or rewording to "turned a blind eye."

The fact is, NOBODY gave a shit or it'd have been all over the media.

 

[Gunny]

gunny is quite the dancer, don't you think?



I wish he was doing his samba in Baghdad.

From he who has served in every war from Korea thru Gulf War I in every branch of the service.

I'd have no problem going back, but I want to take you along so I could see the look on your face when you realize everyone's watching you shit your pants the first time some Iraqi kid pops a firecracker.

 

[Gunny]

well, I am glad to hear that you don't advocate invading iran.


ill take it! What would your strategy be if you were playing this all out like risk on a boardgame? if we just sit nuking em and invasions aside for a minute YOU, sir, have my undivided attention if you would like to toss back a few alternatives. I don't think clinging to the ghost of saddams phantom WMDs is any way to rationalize aggression with Iran but I will agree that ANY nation that wants to join the nuclear fraternity is worth addressing. Heres an idea for ya. We get iranian nuclear energy plants built in palestine so we can ensure supervision, allow all energy and profit flow to iran to allow for economy and energy desire, use the location to build infrastructure in palestine to alleviate the pal treatment arguement... which creates opportunity that draws the pal population, aggressive and peaceful, away from Israel. It's a PR wet dream. It undermines the two, out of three, primary issues expressed by the muslim world. There will always be radical assholes hellbent on destruction but the rest of the people are worth consideration.

ok. GO.

I will provide you with a response when I have the time to put as much effort into it as you have.

 

[Gunny]

well, I am glad to hear that you don't advocate invading iran.


ill take it! What would your strategy be if you were playing this all out like risk on a boardgame? if we just sit nuking em and invasions aside for a minute YOU, sir, have my undivided attention if you would like to toss back a few alternatives. I don't think clinging to the ghost of saddams phantom WMDs is any way to rationalize aggression with Iran but I will agree that ANY nation that wants to join the nuclear fraternity is worth addressing. Heres an idea for ya. We get iranian nuclear energy plants built in palestine so we can ensure supervision, allow all energy and profit flow to iran to allow for economy and energy desire, use the location to build infrastructure in palestine to alleviate the pal treatment arguement... which creates opportunity that draws the pal population, aggressive and peaceful, away from Israel. It's a PR wet dream. It undermines the two, out of three, primary issues expressed by the muslim world. There will always be radical assholes hellbent on destruction but the rest of the people are worth consideration.

ok. GO.

I think your idea is probably THE quickest road to war there is. If Israel is unwilling to tolerate Iraq or Iran possessing nukes, it's not hard to figure out their response to "next door."

Having said that, I really can come up with no viable alternative. Ideally, the UN/world community would actually recognize the threat Iran posessing nukes poses, and lay economic siege the place until it cries uncle.

We have however seen with Saddam the reality of THAT. In Iran's case, it's obvious Putin/Russia will oppose any such sanctions.

Which leaves pretty-much only unilateral military action, or just ignoring the whole situation as viable alternatives.

So my answer to the whole situation is we come up with a viable alternate fuel source that completely cuts all dependency on the Middle East or that moron in Venezuela, and let the radical Muslims/Arabs/Persians kill each other off until the mainstream Arabs have enough and squash them, or they completely wipe each other off the map. Either conclusion works for me.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

funny, the last bit of hard evidence I remember coming from the INTELLIGENCE community said something about mobile chem labs and weapons of....


say, what happened when the barking dogs calling for war against iraq for much the same reasons discovered just how solid THAT intel turned out to be?

There y’all were; Saddam was doing a sterling job of suppressing the Shiites (the Iranians) and the international Kurdish “t-u-u-rusts” - in spite of America’s unstinting financial and military assistance to them and its spineless pleas for them to kill him.

The American pay-rolled Islamic Proddies, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who had been instrumental in tossing the evil Christ-denyin’ Russians out, were smashing the opium trade and all forms of public and private indecency – especially the Pinkos and poofters - in Afghanistan

Oil was about 18 bucks a barrel

The grossly overvalued American dollar was the world’s official fiat currency

American business was experiencing boom times

The gullible global masses believed the sun shone out of each individual American's arse…

And then along came Bones(man)
Stumblebum Bones
Strut-walkin' Bones
Show-boatin’ Bones
Along came Drongo, skanky Bones

Now Saddam is dead and Iraq is a Mad Maxian free-for-all for and a focus for all the world rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists; the formerly “poor oppressed Kurds” and Ronnie Rayguns’s “freedom fighters,” the Taliban and Al Qaeda, are personae non gratia in The Reich; the Bathhist Sunnis are now fiercely democratic freedom fighters, whose erstwhile evil shit now smells like Chanel No 5 to faux decent Christians; America is getting its arse kicked in Afghanistan; Oil will be $100 bucks a barrel by tomorrow; the work ethical Asians are calling in the sinfully inefficient American's mortgage; Americans are universally and personally as popular as a pork chop in a synagogue, their much vaunted Armed Farces are likened to F Troop or The Keystone Kops, and the world is on the cusp of a nuclear holocaust.

As Strangelovian GunnyL would say, OUTSTANDING, MEIN FUHRER!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For all the claims that only Bush believes Iran is after nuclear weapons we have this to show that his great mind control ray is still working well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc

 

[Shogun]

"I think your idea is probably THE quickest road to war there is. If Israel is unwilling to tolerate Iraq or Iran possessing nukes, it's not hard to figure out their response to "next door.""

Yea, but you see I'm not too worried about the will of Israel when they use the US as the big dog to hide behind despite repercussions to OUR nation. Israel can hop on board or israel can see what it's like after the umbilical cord is cut. At some point israel is going to have to stop shrugging their shoulders at the pals. They COULD regulate a nuclear facility in Pal a lot easier than they could in Iran. If israel isn't willing to come to the table then israel is a large part of the problem to begin with. I realize I just set off at least 6 antisemite alarms on this board but israel relies on the US too much to be stubborn. if THEY want a war instead of fielding out peaceful solutions then let them defend their own back yard. Remember, you are an American. Not an Israeli.



Having said that, I really can come up with no viable alternative. Ideally, the UN/world community would actually recognize the threat Iran posessing nukes poses, and lay economic siege the place until it cries uncle.

Ideally, nations on the "good side" would be applealing to the citizens of Iran instead of trying to give the next generation of muslims in the M.E. another reason to hate the west. This is why I'm accomidating Iran's 2 out of three main concerns: nuclear energy and treatment of pals. If we can show that we have tried to meet them half way to alleviate these concerns then more hearts would be won in that area than from a mushroom cloud, ironically, which is the clarion call for OUR aggression. Nations tend to resent being dominated on. Be it the UN or the West or US/israel doing the dominating. Given israels "off the map" double standard with nukes and the fact that the US is the only nation to ever use them it's pretty damn hypocritical to insist that Iran can't have nuclear energy becuase of the paranoia of potential nukes. That's probably easier to see when not from the US or israel.


We have however seen with Saddam the reality of THAT. In Iran's case, it's obvious Putin/Russia will oppose any such sanctions.

AND china. I;ve said it before: if I were a muslim nation being demonized by the US and israel, both of whome don't play the same nuclear rules set upon everyone else, ID WANT NUKES TOO. The question becomes can we give Iran a reason to ONLY want the energy? I think so.. but it wold take a non-stubborn israel and a West that isn't baying for war. We struck out in Iraq. THAT is the fact. After all the warnings, circle and arrows of chem labs, promise of finding the cache, and eventual admittance to shitty intel we are not in a position to play the same failing hand.


Which leaves pretty-much only unilateral military action, or just ignoring the whole situation as viable alternatives.


hey, even nazi germany had a lil buddy when deciding to create an empire... I would not doom the US for the sake of a stubborn israel. a unilateral invasion is not the solution. This is why we'd lean on israel to play along with a peaceful solution like the one I described above.


So my answer to the whole situation is we come up with a viable alternate fuel source that completely cuts all dependency on the Middle East or that moron in Venezuela, and let the radical Muslims/Arabs/Persians kill each other off until the mainstream Arabs have enough and squash them, or they completely wipe each other off the map. Either conclusion works for me.


yea... but this isn't JUST about OUR energy consumption... unless you are admitting that invading iraq had a greater hand in collecting oil than in phantom WMDs... Would you let those in south africa and darfuer just kill themselves off too? Why the callousness towards arab life, gunny?

 

[Paulie]

We have however seen with Saddam the reality of THAT. In Iran's case, it's obvious Putin/Russia will oppose any such sanctions.

Which leaves pretty-much only unilateral military action, or just ignoring the whole situation as viable alternatives.

Nothing has ever worked better in the international arena at easing tensions and preventing war then diplomacy. I find it odd that you don't seem to support it. Or do you? Because you didn't mention it as an alternative...

So my answer to the whole situation is we come up with a viable alternate fuel source that completely cuts all dependency on the Middle East or that moron in Venezuela, and let the radical Muslims/Arabs/Persians kill each other off until the mainstream Arabs have enough and squash them, or they completely wipe each other off the map. Either conclusion works for me.

How do you expect to proceed with alternate fuel sources when Big Oil and the petro-dollar are the global monopoly? People have been denied patents for ideas to create alternate energy.

It'll never happen as long as Big Oil exists.

This being said though, I still couldn't agree with you more on the IDEA. If only a powerful lobby existed that had enough influence in Washington as the Oil lobbyists to bring it to fruition.

All the more reason why we need to stay away from corporate-connected politicians...especially one's running for president.

If you can understand where I'm coming from at all, then you would be able to understand why the "kooks" that you guys refer to hate the current structure of Corporate America, and the shady relationship it has with the US government.

 

[CSM]

Nothing has ever worked better in the international arena at easing tensions and preventing war then diplomacy. I find it odd that you don't seem to support it. Or do you? Because you didn't mention it as an alternative...

Bullcrap! If diplomacy was so effective we wouldn't need the military.

How do you expect to proceed with alternate fuel sources when Big Oil and the petro-dollar are the global monopoly? People have been denied patents for ideas to create alternate energy.

Just let one country come up with viable alternative energy/fuel sources and "Big Oil" as you put it will go the way of New England whaling fleets.

It'll never happen as long as Big Oil exists.

This being said though, I still couldn't agree with you more on the IDEA. If only a powerful lobby existed that had enough influence in Washington as the Oil lobbyists to bring it to fruition.

All the more reason why we need to stay away from corporate-connected politicians...especially one's running for president.

Name a politician that doesn't have ties to corporate connections or for special interest groups of any kind.

If you can understand where I'm coming from at all, then you would be able to understand why the "kooks" that you guys refer to hate the current structure of Corporate America, and the shady relationship it has with the US government.

I guess if we listen to some then there is no solution.

 

[Paulie]

I guess if we listen to some then there is no solution.

I'll be back in later to answer you.

I'd prefer it if you quote-mined, instead of adding colored responses to my quoted piece in your post. With all due respect, of course. It makes the reply process go a lot smoother, IMO.

 

[Gunny]

Nothing has ever worked better in the international arena at easing tensions and preventing war then diplomacy. I find it odd that you don't seem to support it. Or do you? Because you didn't mention it as an alternative...



How do you expect to proceed with alternate fuel sources when Big Oil and the petro-dollar are the global monopoly? People have been denied patents for ideas to create alternate energy.

It'll never happen as long as Big Oil exists.

This being said though, I still couldn't agree with you more on the IDEA. If only a powerful lobby existed that had enough influence in Washington as the Oil lobbyists to bring it to fruition.

All the more reason why we need to stay away from corporate-connected politicians...especially one's running for president.

If you can understand where I'm coming from at all, then you would be able to understand why the "kooks" that you guys refer to hate the current structure of Corporate America, and the shady relationship it has with the US government.

ummm ... whatever you say, dude. That tinfoil hat a bit tight, is it?

 

[DeadCanDance]

For all the claims that only Bush believes Iran is after nuclear weapons we have this to show that his great mind control ray is still working well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc

Would you please stop it, and at least read you own articles before posting them?

Six world powers meet on Friday to discuss imposing a third round of sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to stop enriching uranium, which they suspect could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Still no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Or even that they're enriching uranium to weapons grade.

Every rational person knows that its prudent to be supicious, and to make them open their nuclear program to more transparency.

But, if you want to sell a trillion war AGAIN based on guesses, and suspicions, then you should rightly be called a war-loving war monger.

 

[Gunny]

Would you please stop it, and at least read you own articles before posting them?

Six world powers meet on Friday to discuss imposing a third round of sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to stop enriching uranium, which they suspect could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Still no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Or even that they're enriching uranium to weapons grade.

Every rational person knows that its prudent to be supicious, and to make them open their nuclear program to more transparency.

But, if you want to sell a trillion war AGAIN based on guesses, and suspicions, then you should rightly be called a war-loving war monger.

What is it that you need? A mushroom cloud over your house? GMAFB. You're in denial for no more reason than political partisanship. What crap that is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Would you please stop it, and at least read you own articles before posting them?

Six world powers meet on Friday to discuss imposing a third round of sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to stop enriching uranium, which they suspect could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Still no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Or even that they're enriching uranium to weapons grade.

Every rational person knows that its prudent to be supicious, and to make them open their nuclear program to more transparency.

But, if you want to sell a trillion war AGAIN based on guesses, and suspicions, then you should rightly be called a war-loving war monger.

Why any sanctions much less a THIRD round , if there is no concern? You and your buddies keep claiming only Bush is concerned, this and the rest of it prove your idiots and liars. What war against Iran is being sold to us? Sanctions and diplomacy are what is being used and your against even that. laiming only the US thinks it required.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Why any sanctions much less a THIRD round , if there is no concern? You and your buddies keep claiming only Bush is concerned, this and the rest of it prove your idiots and liars. What war against Iran is being sold to us? Sanctions and diplomacy are what is being used and your against even that. laiming only the US thinks it required.

Please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Or stop lying.

I have consistently said, over and over, that we have every right to be suspicious of iran, and work aggresively to make their nuclear program more transparent.

I object to those, like you, beating the war drums AGAIN, based on guesses and allegations. Another trillion dollar war requires more than just your guesses and allegations.

 

[mattskramer]

It comes down to showing careless inattention, reasonable caution, or being overly reactionary with an itchy trigger finger.