Looks like Iran might need those missles...

[RkFast]

And that's the basic problem, based on their performance with Iraq it is difficult to believe anything that this adminstration says without independent verification. What they say is true may or may not be, but they have no credibility when it comes to justifying military action against another country based on just their own word.

 

Hate to burst your bubble, but we had "independent verification" in regards to WMD exsisting in Iraq pre-2003.

[yall]

That you were already musing about leveling another country based on an erroneous Drudge Inflamma-line (that linked to nothing, then dissappeared) speaks for itself.

 

Gimme a break, are you still harping on this? Most major news outlets are carrying this story, and you are still hung up on the drudgereport? What makes you say that it's erroneous, the fact that it is no longer on the web site? Yeaterday's news isn't there either, does that make it wrong?

 

I was musing on leveling another country based upon a report that links said country to the ambush, abduction, and execution of 5 US soldiers. Like I said "if" it were true, there should be some retalition.

 

What don't you get? Are you just trying to be difficut or troll for an argument?

 

Why not post something meaningful instead of "duh well the drudge report doesnt have it on their website any more so it's obviously an error".

 

I bet you think the Iraqi Prime Minister is erroneous as well... Maybe he didn't actually say any of this and CNN is just grossly misquoting him:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/...main/index.html

[chicot]

The Arabian sea is a practical choice to land the battle group. However, the US has sent 4 mine sweepers to the gulf and the ultimate destination is the gulf for the Stennis group. The Ying-Ji-802 is the major anti ship missile in the Iranian armament with an effective range of 120 km. These missiles fly subsonically at mach .9 and are well within the spectrum of defense that the outer defense shell and last resort Phalanx system can easily handle.

 

But would the Phalanx system be able to handle a Sunburn flying at mach 3?

[molson_golden2002]

You think the militias and death squads are independent?

 

Second requirement of a successful insurgency: a secure base of support and operations outside the area of conflict. Castro had Central America. The Afghan mujahadeen had Pakistan and Iran. The Viet Cong had North Vietnam and Cambodia. The Contras had El Salvador. The Iraqi Kurds had Iran.

 

You honestly think that the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ias are the first insurgent groups in history to buck this trend?

(The first requirement of successful insurgency, by the way, is: exist. Castro's group was down to five guys hiding in the mountains at one point, and ended up ousting Batista. As long as an insurgent group isn't completely eliminated, they're winning. Bodes well for the US's future in Iraq...)

Let's stick with the Shiites for this. They have plenty of room to operate in Iraq, they are part of the government for God's sake. Sadr city is also a base of operation. The US and UK don't control much of Iraq outside the green zone, so there isn't as much a need for outside control. So while Iran may be influencing events in Iraq--of which there is no doubt--it does not in any way lead auotmatically to the conclusion that you threw out there that they did this. You just want to believe they did at the exclusion of all other factors. And BTW, there is no one group of Shiites, there are many. Did you read the story about those "200" or so "insurgents" killed the other day? They were Shiites out to kill other Shiites. Heavily armed religious fanatics that overpowered the Iraqi army who had to call in US support. Who were these people? Which group was working for Iran, if any was at all?

[molson_golden2002]

Hate to burst your bubble, but we had "independent verification" in regards to WMD exsisting in Iraq pre-2003.

LOL, like a nuke program? That was all bull, as were those terrible flying drone air craft that were coming to kill all of us! Boo!

[pdh1]

1. Link a lie to a emotional event

2. Disseminate "intelligence" based on conjecture and speculation to two media sources

3. Rely on public to virally spread inflammatory, factless headline

4. Retract story when it's already percieved as fact by the vast majority

5. Use that lie to reinforce another lie.

6. Invade Iran

 

 

1. Blame Jews for everything, to divert attention from rights abuses and economic woes at home

2. Fight Proxy wars against the US so you can spread your view of creating an Islamic-Uber State

3. Thumb nose at the UN and go full tilt towards create atomic weapons

4. Then Blame US and Jews for everything again

5 US actually tries to do something to stop the spread of terrorism and Islamic Thugs

6. Liberals then blame US for creating the terrorists in the first, and then say that going after them will only create more terrorists.

[RkFast]

LOL, like a nuke program? That was all bull, as were those terrible flying drone air craft that were coming to kill all of us! Boo!

 

No, dummy.

 

Im speaking about the French, the Germans and others who through their OWN assesments believed Iraq possesed WMD and programs for their further development.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack

 

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[DC Tom]

I may be wrong, but my recollection of the Falklands war is that the Argentinians simply ran out of exocets - I think they only had five to begin with.

 

I believe it was the Argentinian air force that had only five (air-launched and shore-launched Exocets aren't necessarily interchangeable)...but most of the British ship casualties were from iron bombs, not Exocets.

 

HMS Coventry: three iron bombs at low level, sunk.

HMS Glamorgan: two near misses with iron bombs, one glancing Exocet from a shore-based launch (hit at an oblique angle, bounced off the deck as it exploded). Fire damage.

HMS Sheffield: Exocet. Sunk. The most famous sinking, and the one that made the name for the Exocet...even though it was less the Exocet's performance that caused the sinking as it was command failure (specifically, the Task Force air officer's refusal to believe the launch warning was anything other than a false alarm and authorize action.)

HMS Ardent: iron bombs, sunk.

HMS Argonaut: iron bombs, moderate damage.

HMS Antelope: iron bombs, sunk.

HMS Plymouth: iron bombs, damaged.

Atlantic Conveyor: Exocet, sunk. That should barely count for the discussion at hand, considering it was a completely undefended target.

 

And Glamorgan was hit on the next-to-last day of the war, which is hardly consistent with "running out" of missiles.

 

Which is beside the point, really. The point is: the Argentinians employed the weapons they had very smartly, taking in to account their strengths and British weaknesses (mainly: the inability of the British fleet to prosecute an air superiority battle anywhere but over their own decks. The Argentinians could project power to the British fleet; the Royal Navy could not project power to any point anywhere near the Argentinian coast. Because of that, and of weaknesses in British air defense aside (little or no airborne early warning radar, little or no ability to prosecute contacts at decent range from the fleet, limited capability against low-flying aircraft), the Argentinians were able to contest the RN for control of the Falklands, not because of Exocets. In fact, the RN recognized iron bombs dropped from A-4 Skyhawks as a greater threat than Argentinian Exocets.

 

And it's a different situation entirely, anyway. The British couldn't project power, couldn't prosecute an outer air battle, and couldn't effectively deal with low-level targets. The US Navy can...which means they can destroy launchers before they launch, and prosecute contacts in the air at any height well away from a task force (rather than over the decks of the ships). None of which has anything to do with whether the weapons are bombs, Exocets, Sunburns, or sharks with lasers on their heads.

[DC Tom]

Let's stick with the Shiites for this. They have plenty of room to operate in Iraq, they are part of the government for God's sake. Sadr city is also a base of operation. The US and UK don't control much of Iraq outside the green zone, so there isn't as much a need for outside control. So while Iran may be influencing events in Iraq--of which there is no doubt--it does not in any way lead auotmatically to the conclusion that you threw out there that they did this. You just want to believe they did at the exclusion of all other factors. And BTW, there is no one group of Shiites, there are many. Did you read the story about those "200" or so "insurgents" killed the other day? They were Shiites out to kill other Shiites. Heavily armed religious fanatics that overpowered the Iraqi army who had to call in US support. Who were these people? Which group was working for Iran, if any was at all?

 

I didn't conclude they did this, I said there was a good chance they did this. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

[molson_golden2002]

No, dummy.

 

Im speaking about the French, the Germans and others who through their OWN assesments believed Iraq possesed WMD and programs for their further development.

I guess Bush shouldn't have ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 then

[RkFast]

I guess Bush shouldn't have ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 then

 

Now youre talking in circles again.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack

 

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[DC Tom]

But would the Phalanx system be able to handle a Sunburn flying at mach 3?

 

Would it need to? There's a lot else that has to happen on the Iranian side before you have to worry about Phalanx vs. Sunburn. It doesn't matter how many how many missiles they have of what kind if their command and control is shot up, their radars are smoking craters, and their air force is a pile of ashes.

 

Professionals worry about command and logistics. Amateurs worry about tactics. Idiots worry about technology.

[DC Tom]

I guess Bush shouldn't have ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 then

 

Bush ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq?

 

Reading comprehension definitely isn't your strong suit...

[erynthered]

I guess Bush shouldn't have ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 then

 

 

 

[molson_golden2002]

I didn't conclude they did this, I said there was a good chance they did this. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I'm sorry, what did you mean by this then?

 

You think the militias and death squads are independent?

 

Second requirement of a successful insurgency: a secure base of support and operations outside the area of conflict. Castro had Central America. The Afghan mujahadeen had Pakistan and Iran. The Viet Cong had North Vietnam and Cambodia. The Contras had El Salvador. The Iraqi Kurds had Iran.

 

You honestly think that the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ias are the first insurgent groups in history to buck this trend?

 

Really seems like you are saying the Shiite death squads are controlled by Iran. Or are they bucking the trend? Are they? And no, they wouldn't be the first nor only. Insurgent groups are notorioulsy independent. Sure, they take supplies and fight, but they don't simply bend overbacwards to make outsiders happy. That was a silly point you made. Cute historical/theoretical framework you got there, too bad its basically worthless

[molson_golden2002]

Bush ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq?

 

Reading comprehension definitely isn't your strong suit...

My bad, he just 'advised' them to leave before the bombs began falling. So leave or take your chances, forget about looking for WMD, the very thing the war was over

[erynthered]

My bad, he just 'advised' them to leave before the bombs began falling. So leave or take your chances, forget about looking for WMD, the very thing the war was over

 

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

 

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Johnny Coli]

Gimme a break, are you still harping on this? Most major news outlets are carrying this story, and you are still hung up on the drudgereport? What makes you say that it's erroneous, the fact that it is no longer on the web site? Yeaterday's news isn't there either, does that make it wrong?

 

I was musing on leveling another country based upon a report that links said country to the ambush, abduction, and execution of 5 US soldiers. Like I said "if" it were true, there should be some retalition.

 

What don't you get? Are you just trying to be difficut or troll for an argument?

 

Why not post something meaningful instead of "duh well the drudge report doesnt have it on their website any more so it's obviously an error".

 

I bet you think the Iraqi Prime Minister is erroneous as well... Maybe he didn't actually say any of this and CNN is just grossly misquoting him:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/...main/index.html

 

Ah, yes, now your evidence is unnamed sources saying the Pentagon is "seriously" looking at Iran, and Al-Maliki saying he is "sure Iran is behind some attacks" (tacked on to the same article as before, but with a new headline...the evidence is truly mounting).

Asked about the role of Iran in Iraq, al-Maliki said he was confident that Iranian influence was behind attacks on U.S. forces. "It exists, and I assure you it exists," he said.

 

Iranian-U.S. tensions have been ratcheted up recently, with two U.S. officials theorizing about the possibility that Iran was involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers.

 

Two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said Tuesday the Pentagon is investigating whether the attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives.

 

Theories by unnamed sources and assurances from al-Maliki. Let's go to war.

 

The issue is that we're not interested in the truth...we're more interested in finding a way, any shred of evidence will do, to go to war. That is the issue I have with the drum-beaters, and that is the issue I have with your initial post.

[molson_golden2002]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

 

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Maybe we should have waited for UN inspectors to finish there job. Would have been better than this disasterous occupation.

[yall]

Ah, yes, now your evidence is unnamed sources saying the Pentagon is "seriously" looking at Iran, and Al-Maliki saying he is "sure Iran is behind some attacks" (tacked on to the same article as before, but with a new headline...the evidence is truly mounting).

Theories by unnamed sources and assurances from al-Maliki. Let's go to war.

 

The issue is that we're not interested in the truth...we're more interested in finding a way, any shred of evidence will do, to go to war. That is the issue I have with the drum-beaters, and that is the issue I have with your initial post.

 

For starters, it's not my evidence. I made no claim as to the veracity of the evidence cited by any official. I merely showed reports that officials said they had evidence. There is a huge difference.

 

And once again I said "if this was true"...

 

Do you understand what that means? I'm not sure you do, because I have repeatedly explained the same thing several times.

 

Let me sum it up for you:

 

If the Iranian government was involved in the murder of US troops, the US should enagage the Iranians. Notice the "if" part. That doesn't mean "it seems as though they may have" nor does it mean "I want them to have done this so we can bomb them". It simply means "if they actually did it". Why can't you comprehend this?

[erynthered]

Maybe we should have waited for UN inspectors to finish there job. Would have been better than this disasterous occupation.

 

 

Highnsight is 20/20

 

“If I known then what we know now there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give the president that authority,” said H. Clinton.

 

 

 

Geez, you think, Hill?

[Alaska Darin]

Ah, yes, now your evidence is unnamed sources saying the Pentagon is "seriously" looking at Iran, and Al-Maliki saying he is "sure Iran is behind some attacks" (tacked on to the same article as before, but with a new headline...the evidence is truly mounting).

Theories by unnamed sources and assurances from al-Maliki. Let's go to war.

 

The issue is that we're not interested in the truth...we're more interested in finding a way, any shred of evidence will do, to go to war. That is the issue I have with the drum-beaters, and that is the issue I have with your initial post.

Uh, wars have been fought for much less. Do you honestly expect to see "named sources"? That's not how the game has ever been played.

[Johnny Coli]

Uh, wars have been fought for much less. Do you honestly expect to see "named sources"? That's not how the game has ever been played.

I would think that the evidentiary bar for the next war should be raised a bit higher than the last one, don't you?

[Alaska Darin]

I would think that the evidentiary bar for the next war should be raised a bit higher than the last one, don't you?

You mean like you libs favor raising the evidentiary bar for the next social program, based on the fiscal disasters you've already thrust upon us?

[Johnny Coli]

You mean like you libs favor raising the evidentiary bar for the next social program, based on the fiscal disasters you've already thrust upon us?

 

I see we're moving the discussion away from apples towards oranges, eh?

[RkFast]

Uh, wars have been fought for much less. Do you honestly expect to see "named sources"? That's not how the game has ever been played.

 

Darin...why bother?

 

A mushroom cloud over Manhattan and a notarized affidavit from Achmeninutjob that he did the deal wouldnt be enough to convince them. And even if it was, their response would be "we had it coming...we provoked him."

[Alaska Darin]

I see we're moving the discussion away from apples towards oranges, eh?

Both are exercises in the failures of imposing bureaucratic will. Not surprised you'd miss that connection. Just once, I'd love for you ideological liberals to turn your glaring eye on the crap you love so much. You'll find it eerily similiar it is to the crap you supposedly despise.

[pdh1]

Maybe we should have waited for UN inspectors to finish there job. Would have been better than this disasterous occupation.

 

Uh, does the Oil for Bribes UN fiasco ring a bell, anyone?

[Alaska Darin]

Darin...why bother?

 

A mushroom cloud over Manhattan and a notarized affidavit from Achmeninutjob that he did the deal wouldnt be enough to convince them. And even if it was, their response would be "we had it coming...we provoked him."

It's my duty to point out folly, whether it's something like: We're going to impose democracy on someone, or: if we just had more money, this faceless bureaucracy could create heaven on earth.

 

My most recent favorite was the "Majority should always rule" and because of that we should do away with the Electoral College. As if watching Iraq line up along religious boundries isn't enough "fact" to show how bad an idea that truly is.

[Alaska Darin]

Uh, does the Oil for Bribes UN fiasco ring a bell, anyone?

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

[erynthered]

Darin...why bother?

 

A mushroom cloud over Manhattan and a notarized affidavit from Achmeninutjob that he did the deal wouldnt be enough to convince them. And even if it was, their response would be "we had it coming...we provoked him."

 

 

After all, we're an international pariah.

[DC Tom]

I'm sorry, what did you mean by this then?

Really seems like you are saying the Shiite death squads are controlled by Iran. Or are they bucking the trend? Are they? And no, they wouldn't be the first nor only. Insurgent groups are notorioulsy independent. Sure, they take supplies and fight, but they don't simply bend overbacwards to make outsiders happy. That was a silly point you made. Cute historical/theoretical framework you got there, too bad its basically worthless

 

Not "controlled by". "Backed by". Big difference. It is entirely possible for an organization (e.g. the Taleban) to be backed by another organization (e.g. Pakistani intelligence) without being controlled by them.

 

Cute historical/theoretical framework I've got there, too bad your reading comprehension skills are basically worthless.

[molson_golden2002]

Not "controlled by". "Backed by". Big difference. It is entirely possible for an organization (e.g. the Taleban) to be backed by another organization (e.g. Pakistani intelligence) without being controlled by them.

 

Cute historical/theoretical framework I've got there, too bad your reading comprehension skills are basically worthless.

LOL! You done run yourself up a stump, haven't you? Now you are saying its "entirely" possible. Hell, I agree with that, and have said so but you said more than that before. You argued that if they didn't do it they would be breaking with your silly historical paradigm, and you rolled your eyes:

 

You think the militias and death squads are independent?

.....

 

You honestly think that the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ias are the first insurgent groups in history to buck this trend? <--note the eye rolling, lol!

 

So what is it? 'Entirely possible' or did they buck your stupid historical/theoritical paradigm, which is very useless, btw?

 

Please do tell us.

[molson_golden2002]

Uh, does the Oil for Bribes UN fiasco ring a bell, anyone?

So, has there been more money lost to corruption in the years of UN oil for food, or the shorter period of US occupation?

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/dailyUpdate.html

 

 

A former senior advisor to the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq until the election of an interim Iraq government last January, says that the US government's refusal to prosecute US firms accused of corruption in Iraq is turning the country into a " free fraud zone."

Newsweek reported earlier this week that Frank Willis compared Iraq to the "wild west," and that with only $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion that the US government set aside for the reconstruction of Iraq having been spent, the lack of action on the part of the government means "the corruption will only get worse."

 

More than US money is at stake. The administration has harshly criticized the United Nations over hundreds of millions stolen from the Oil-for-Food Program under Saddam [Hussein]. But the successor to Oil-for-Food created under the occupation, called the Development Fund for Iraq, could involve billions of potentially misused dollars.

[chicot]

Would it need to? There's a lot else that has to happen on the Iranian side before you have to worry about Phalanx vs. Sunburn. It doesn't matter how many how many missiles they have of what kind if their command and control is shot up, their radars are smoking craters, and their air force is a pile of ashes.

 

Professionals worry about command and logistics. Amateurs worry about tactics. Idiots worry about technology.

 

Obviously, if you can prevent the flying sharks with lasers from being launched in the first place then you have no problem. However, this idiot is not quite as confident as you seem to be that that is necessarily a given.

[Alaska Darin]

Obviously, if you can prevent the flying sharks with lasers from being launched in the first place then you have no problem. However, this idiot is not quite as confident as you seem to be that that is necessarily a given.

Then you'd be wrong.

[chicot]

Then you'd be wrong.

 

Hopefully, we never get to find out.

[Bungee Jumper]

LOL! You done run yourself up a stump, haven't you? Now you are saying its "entirely" possible. Hell, I agree with that, and have said so but you said more than that before. You argued that if they didn't do it they would be breaking with your silly historical paradigm, and you rolled your eyes:

 

 

 

So what is it? 'Entirely possible' or did they buck your stupid historical/theoritical paradigm, which is very useless, btw?

 

Please do tell us.

 

 

Are you high? It's entirely possible, even likely, that Iran was behind this specific attack we've been discussing, because they are involved in the insurgency, and it is folly to believe that they are not involved in the insurgency as any insurgent campaign requires support from outside the theater of operations.

 

That is what I've been saying. That is all I've said. I've said nothing otherwise. I haven't said Iran controls the insurgency, I haven't said Iran is responsible for every insurgent attack. Again, it's just you're complete lack of reading comprehension.

[Bungee Jumper]

Obviously, if you can prevent the flying sharks with lasers from being launched in the first place then you have no problem. However, this idiot is not quite as confident as you seem to be that that is necessarily a given.

 

It's not necessarily a given. It just has jack sh-- to do with the type of missiles. Iran would have to evidence superior (and heavily redundant) command, control, and intelligence (i.e. both finding US forces, and hiding their own) before their "Oh my God, they go Mach 3!" missiles become any more effective than rocks.

 

And the US military is organized and trained specifically to utterly wreck command and control systems at the outset of a conflict (which is what "Shock and Awe" actually means)...and smart enough to not go anywhere near the Iranian coast with a carrier until Iran's ability to strike warships is severely degraded. Iran would have to launch everything, all at once, without warning, in a single attack on a carrier battle group that was just stupid enough to get within range of everything they had...but I thought the whole point of this stupid discussion was that Iran was going to defend itself against the US reaction against their presumed involvement in an insurgent attack? So now you're postulating that a US attack against Iran won't actually involve attacking Iranian assets that threaten US forces doing the attacking?

 

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous, anyway. Iran isn't going to engage any US units in a straight-up fight, because then they lose deniability and will get the snot pounded out of them...and it'll completely wreck the strategic position in southern Iraq they've worked to build over the past few years. The US isn't attacking Iran over a single incident in Iraq...otherwise we already would have quite some time ago. We probably won't even bomb them over their nuclear program; if we won't bomb an honest-to-God international pariah like North Korea over an actual test, we're probably not bombing a country who has international backing over the installation of centrifuges.

[pdh1]

So, has there been more money lost to corruption in the years of UN oil for food, or the shorter period of US occupation?

 

So, that means the UN is great organization to watch over our very lives?

If they aren't taking bribes, their peacekeepers are raping women in Africa.

 

But hey, it was you liberals that use to say our sanctions were starving Iraq babies.

 

Now the we find out that money that was to used on food and medical care was used bribe french and russian crooks, do you guys ever plan a protest march against that?