DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Amianthus on February 09, 2007, 01:31:15 PM
-
SEVILLE, Spain (AP) -- Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.
Offering some of the first public details of evidence the military has collected, Gates said, "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found," that point to Iran.
At the same time, however, he said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.
Just last week, Gates said that U.S. military officers in Baghdad were planning to brief reporters on what is known about Iranian involvement in Iraq but that he and other senior administration officials had intervened to delay the briefing in order to assure that the information provided was accurate.
Speaking to reporters at a defense ministers conference here, Gates said Friday, "I don't think there was surprise that the Iranians were actually involved, I think there was surprise we actually picked up some."
He and other U.S. officials have said for some time that Iranians, and possibly the government of Iran, have been providing weapons technology, and possibly some explosives to Iraqi insurgents.
The improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been a leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq, where more than 3,000 servicemen and women have died in the nearly four-year-old war.
Gates, who is attending his first NATO defense ministers meeting, said Iran is "very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles. Now they don't represent a big percentage of the IED attacks but they're extremely lethal."
Gates said the raids combined with the movement of an additional U.S. aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf have created a stir, but said the Bush administration has no intention of attacking Iran.
Meanwhile, the defense secretary has been getting a lukewarm response here to his plea for allies to send more troops and aid for a spring offensive in Afghanistan.
Gates said the U.S. made no additional commitments for more troops of its own. He recently extended the tour of a brigade in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has 27,000 troops -- the most since the war began in 2001.
U.S. and NATO military leaders in recent months have repeatedly called on alliance members to send reinforcements and lift restrictions on where their troops can serve. On Thursday, Gates secured smaller offers from some nations, but he met resistance from key allies.
Other countries question sending more troops
France and Germany are questioning the wisdom of sending more soldiers, while Spain, Italy and Turkey have also been wary of providing more troops.
"When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they had 100,000 soldiers there and they did not win," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters.
The meeting in southern Spain did produce some offers, however.
Lithuania, which already has 130 troops in Afghanistan, offered to send an unspecified number of special forces, helping to fill a key shortfall.
Germany says it will provide six Tornado reconnaissance jets but not significantly augment its 3,000 troops in the north. The Italian government said it would send a much-needed transport plane and some unmanned surveillance aircraft, but it is struggling to secure parliamentary backing for the finances needed to maintain a contingent of 1,950.
Spain also said it would send four unmanned planes and more instructors to help the Afghan army.
Gates said that after nearly five years at war with the Taliban, this spring will be critical because it could give the people of the country more hope.
"Each spring for the last several years, the Taliban have been more aggressive and there has been an increasing level of violence," he said. "There is a consensus on the part of the ministers that it is important that this year we knock the Taliban back."
The end of winter has traditionally brought an upsurge in attacks by Taliban militants in Afghanistan. U.S. commanders have already predicted that this spring will be even more violent than last year, when a record number of attacks included nearly 140 suicide bombings.
About 15,000 of the American troops are serving in the NATO-led force, which now totals about 36,000, while the other 12,000 are special operations forces or are training Afghan troops.
Article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/gates.iraq.iran.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics)
Here is an artile about shaped charges like Gates was discussing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge)
-
According to Js, why wouldn't they? If not Iran, someone else would be. :-\
-
They've also gotten proof that the US is helping the "insurgents". Is Bush going to want to invade the US?
-
<<Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.>>
Yeah because it's impossible for the U.S. to get its hands on Iranian explosives and detonate them pretty much anywhere they choose. Or give them to others to detonate wherever they choose.
Question: Gulf of Tonkin; First Gulf War; Second Gulf War; HOW MANY TIMES are the American sheeple going to allow their criminal "bi-partisan" leadership to lead them into disastrous wars on deliberately falsified evidence?
<< . . . he [Gates] said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.>>
Astounding development. Let's see, neighbouring country, close ties, same religion: who would believe that Iranians would be found in Iraq? Much more normal to see Americans there, in huge numbers, all running around with guns.
<<Just last week, Gates said that U.S. military officers in Baghdad were planning to brief reporters on what is known about Iranian involvement in Iraq but that he and other senior administration officials had intervened to delay the briefing in order to assure that the information provided was accurate.>>
Ahh, the guarantee of accuracy - - they delayed their "press conference" (bullshit-fest would probably be the more accurate description) ONE WHOLE WEEK - - who now can harbour any doubts as to its accuracy?
Sounds to me like the powers that be have decided upon an invasion of Iran, or, probably due to sheer lack of guts, a massive aerial bombardment killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with minimal U.S. casualties. The phony excuses are being lined up and the bullshit machine is in overdrive. A wider Mideast war to cover the failures of the existing Mideast war. This is gonna translate into a lot more dead rednecks, which is of little consequence to Bush and his gang of war criminals, but a minimum hundred thousand dead Iranian civilians should be a tragedy in anyone's eyes and it's really too bad nothing can stop it. Payback's gonna be a bitch, though.
-
Sounds to me like the powers that be have decided upon an invasion of Iran, or, probably due to sheer lack of guts, a massive aerial bombardment killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with minimal U.S. casualties. The phony excuses are being lined up and the bullshit machine is in overdrive. A wider Mideast war to cover the failures of the existing Mideast war. This is gonna translate into a lot more dead rednecks, which is of little consequence to Bush and his gang of war criminals, but a minimum hundred thousand dead Iranian civilians should be a tragedy in anyone's eyes and it's really too bad nothing can stop it. Payback's gonna be a bitch, though.
Payback?
It will be worse for Iran if we blast them, that it can be for us.
Have you seen a lot of Kosovo payback?
If we attack Iran w will very likely need to pound them severely , but refrain from bombing their atomic waste sites ,or their atomic plants .The fallout from a few bombs on atomic waste or nuclear fuel would very effeciently destroy Iraqs ability to fight but would also make the area uninhabtable for many years.
Payback? We are overdue to give some.
-
<<Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.>>
Yeah because it's impossible for the U.S. to get its hands on Iranian explosives and detonate them pretty much anywhere they choose. Or give them to others to detonate wherever they choose....Let's see, neighbouring country, close ties, same religion: who would believe that Iranians would be found in Iraq?....Sounds to me like the powers that be have decided upon an invasion of Iran, or, probably due to sheer lack of guts, a massive aerial bombardment killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with minimal U.S. casualties. The phony excuses are being lined up and the bullshit machine is in overdrive. A wider Mideast war to cover the failures of the existing Mideast war.
Tee leaf "logic", at some of its finest. In 1 breath it's the nefarious work of the Americans. In another, it's a perfectly reasonable expectation, being religious neighbors and all.
(http://www.freewebby.com/action-smilies/beat_deadhorse.gif)
-
... an invasion of Iran, or, probably due to sheer lack of guts, a massive aerial bombardment killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with minimal U.S. casualties. .... This is gonna translate into a lot more dead rednecks, ....
Not if done with Air Power ,arn't we about to elect anoher Clinton?
but a minimum hundred thousand dead Iranian civilians
Why such a very low estimate?
-
<<Not [a lot of dead rednecks] if [Iran is] done with Air Power ,arn't we about to elect anoher Clinton?>>
The dead rednecks I was thinking of are in Iraq and they'll be the first targets of revenge when the first bomb lands on Iran.
<<Why such a very low estimate?>>
I said it was a minimum estimate [of Iranian casualties.] I'm a very conservative guy.
-
I said it was a minimum estimate [of Iranian casualties.]
Yeah high estimates only come out in the last week of october during general election years.
-
<<Have you seen a lot of Kosovo payback?>>
No. I guess payback's just wishful thinking on my part. I'm an incurable optimist at heart.
-
<<Tee leaf "logic", at some of its finest. In 1 breath it's the nefarious work of the Americans. In another, it's a perfectly reasonable expectation, being religious neighbors and all. >>
sirs' stupidity at its densest: as if there were any inconsistency between (1) Iranians being in Iraq to look after legitimate interests there, given the common border, religious ties and natural interest in a neighbouring country and (2) Americans promoting internecine violence in Iraq for their own nefarious purposes.
-
... an invasion of Iran, or, probably due to sheer lack of guts, a massive aerial bombardment killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with minimal U.S. casualties. .... This is gonna translate into a lot more dead rednecks, ....
Not if done with Air Power ,arn't we about to elect anoher Clinton?
but a minimum hundred thousand dead Iranian civilians
Why such a very low estimate?
Welll, I sincerely HOPE we are not going to elect another Clinton. Anyone else want to relocate to Australia in that case. Anyone?
As Plane espouses, an air bombardment of Iran might produce satisfactory results, if done in sufficient numbers. Probably overdue anyway. :-)
-
... an invasion of Iran, or, probably due to sheer lack of guts, a massive aerial bombardment killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with minimal U.S. casualties. .... This is gonna translate into a lot more dead rednecks, ....
Not if done with Air Power ,arn't we about to elect anoher Clinton?
but a minimum hundred thousand dead Iranian civilians
Why such a very low estimate?
Welll, I sincerely HOPE we are not going to elect another Clinton. Anyone else want to relocate to Australia in that case. Anyone?
As Plane espouses, an air bombardment of Iran might produce satisfactory results, if done in sufficient numbers. Probably overdue anyway. :-)
I don't want to "espouse" the idea ,there are better possibilities, but I am certain it would work if it came to it , because we would never need to stop.
-
Hmmmmmm....
Didn't we have 'evidence' of WMD's? 'Evidence' of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
Based on this administration's record of fixing the 'evidence', I'm gonna take a lot of convincing.
-
(http://cagle.com/working/070124/bromhead.jpg)
Peter Bromhead, Dominion-Post Wellington and Sunday-Star Times, Auckland New Zealand
-
Hmmmmmm....Didn't we have 'evidence' of WMD's? 'Evidence' of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
Yea,.......and?
-
Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.
The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.
In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support†to Shiite militants in Iraq.
The focus of American concern is known as an “explosively formed penetrator,†a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb being used by Shiite groups in attacks on American troops in Iraq. Attacks using the device have doubled in the past year, and have prompted increasing concern among military officers. In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.
Because the weapon can be fired from roadsides and is favored by Shiite militias, it has become a serious threat in Baghdad. Only a small fraction of the roadside bombs used in Iraq are explosively formed penetrators. But the device produces more casualties per attack than other types of roadside bombs.
Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile. The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.
The assessment was described in interviews over the past several weeks with American officials, including some whose agencies have previously been skeptical about the significance of Iran’s role in Iraq. Administration officials said they recognized that intelligence failures related to prewar American claims about Iraq’s weapons arsenal could make critics skeptical about the American claims.
The link that American intelligence has drawn to Iran is based on a number of factors, including an analysis of captured devices, examination of debris after attacks, and intelligence on training of Shiite militants in Iran and in Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and by Hezbollah militants believed to be working at the behest of Tehran.
The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.
The information includes interrogation reports from the raids indicating that money and weapons components are being brought into Iraq from across the Iranian border in vehicles that travel at night. One of the detainees has identified an Iranian operative as having supplied two of the bombs. The border crossing at Mehran is identified as a major crossing point for the smuggling of money and weapons for Shiite militants, according to the intelligence.
According to American intelligence, Iran has excelled in developing this type of bomb, and has provided similar technology to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon. The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq. In addition, some components of the bombs have been found with Iranian factory markings from 2006.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appeared to allude to this intelligence on Friday when he told reporters in Seville, Spain, that serial numbers and other markings on weapon fragments found in Iraq point to Iran as a source.
Some American intelligence experts believe that Hezbollah has provided some of the logistical support and training to Shiite militias in Iraq, but they assert that such steps would not be taken without Iran’s blessing.
“All source reporting since 2004 indicates that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Corps-Quds Force is providing professionally-built EFPs and components to Iraqi Shia militants,†notes a still-classified American intelligence report that was prepared in 2006.
“Based on forensic analysis of materials recovered in Iraq,†the report continues, “Iran is assessed as the producer of these items.â€
The United States, using the Swiss Embassy in Tehran as an intermediary, has privately warned the Iranian government to stop providing the military technology to Iraqi militants, a senior administration official said. The British government has issued similar warnings to Iran, according to Western officials. Officials said that the Iranians had not responded.
An American intelligence assessment described to The New York Times said that “as part of its strategy in Iraq, Iran is implementing a deliberate, calibrated policy — approved by Supreme Leader Khamenei and carried out by the Quds Force — to provide explosives support and training to select Iraqi Shia militant groups to conduct attacks against coalition targets.†The reference was to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian leader, and to an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Command that is assigned the task of carrying out paramilitary operations abroad.
“The likely aim is to make a military presence in Iraq more costly for the U.S.,†the assessment said.
Other officials believe Iran is using the attacks to send a warning to the United States that it can inflict casualties on American troops if the United States takes a more forceful posture toward it.
Iran has publicly denied the allegations that it is providing military support to Shiite militants in Iraq. Javad Zarif, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in an Op-Ed article published on Thursday in The Times that the Bush administration was “trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq.â€
The explosively formed penetrator, detonated on the roadside as American vehicles pass by, is capable of blasting a metal projectile through the side of an armored Humvee with devastating consequences.
American military officers say that attacks using the weapon reached a high point in December, when it accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq. For reasons that remain unclear, attacks using the device declined substantially in January, but the weapons remain one of the principal threats to American troops in and around Baghdad, where five additional brigades of American combat troops are to be deployed under the Bush administration’s new plan.
“It is the most effective I.E.D out there,†said Lt. Col. James Danna, who led the Second Battalion, Sixth Infantry Regiment in Baghdad last year, referring to improvised explosive devices, as the roadside bombs are known by the American military. “To me it is a political weapon. There are not a lot of them out there, but every time we crack down on the Shia militias that weapon comes out. They want to keep us on our bases, keep us out of their neighborhoods and prevent us from doing our main mission, which is protecting vulnerable portions of the population.â€
Adm. William Fallon, President Bush’s choice to head the Central Command, alluded to the weapon’s ability to punch through the side of armored Humvees in his testimony to Congress last month.
“Equipment that was, we thought, pretty effective in protecting our troops just a matter of months ago is now being challenged by some of the techniques and devices over there,†Admiral Fallon said. “So I’m learning as we go in that this is a fast-moving ballgame.â€
Mr. Gates told reporters last week that he had heard there had been cases in which the weapon “can take out an Abrams tank.â€
The increasing use of the weapon is the latest twist in a lethal game of measure and countermeasure that has been carried out throughout the nearly four-year-old Iraq war. Using munitions from Iraq’s vast and poorly guarded arsenal, insurgents developed an array of bombs to strike the more heavily armed and technologically superior American military.
In response, the United States military deployed armored Humvees, which in turn spawned the development of even more potent roadside bombs. American officials say that the first suspected use of the penetrator occurred in late 2003 and that attacks have risen steadily since then.
To make the weapon, a metal cylinder is filled with powerful explosives. A metal concave disk manufactured on a special press is fixed to the firing end.
Several of the cylinders are often grouped together in an array. The weapon is generally triggered when American vehicles drive by an infrared sensor, which operates on the same principle as a garage door opener. The sensor is impervious to the electronic jamming the American military uses to try to block other remote-control attacks.
When an American vehicle crosses the beam, the explosives in the cylinders are detonated, hurling their metal lids at targets at a tremendous speed. The metal changes shape in flight, forming into a slug that penetrate many types of armor.
In planning their attacks, Shiite militias have taken advantage of the tactics employed by American forces in Baghdad. To reduce the threat from suicide car bombs and minimize the risk of inadvertently killing Iraqi civilians, American patrols and convoys have been instructed to keep their distance from civilian traffic. But that has made it easier for the Shiite militias to attack American vehicles. When they see American vehicles approaching, they activate the infrared sensors.
According to American intelligence agencies, the Iranians are also believed to have provided Shiite militants with rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, mortars, 122-millimeter rockets and TNT.
Among the intelligence that the United States is expected to make public this weekend is information indicating that some of these weapons said to have been made in Iran were carried into Iraq in recent years. Examples include a shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile that was fired at a plane flying near the Baghdad airport in 2004 but which failed to launch properly; an Iranian rocket-propelled grenade made in 2006; and an Iranian 81-millimeter mortar made in 2006.
Assessments by American intelligence agencies say there is no indication that there is any kind of black-market trade in the Iranian-linked roadside bombs, and that shipments of the components are being directed to Shiite militants who have close links to Iran. The American military has developed classified techniques to try to counter the sophisticated weapon.
Marine officials say that weapons have not been found in the Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, adding to the view that the device is an Iranian-supplied and Shiite-employed weapon.
To try to cut off the supply, the American military has sought to focus on the cells of Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives it asserts are in Iraq. American intelligence agencies are concerned that the Iranians may respond by increasing the supply of the weapons.
“We are working day and night to disassemble these networks that do everything from bring the explosives to the point of construction, to how they’re put together, to who delivers them, to the mechanisms that are used to have them go off,†Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week. “It is instructive that at least twice in the last month, that in going after the networks, we have picked up Iranians.â€
Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?ei=5065&en=7febec32f88064b5&ex=1171774800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
-
Hmmmmmm....
Didn't we have 'evidence' of WMD's? 'Evidence' of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
Based on this administration's record of fixing the 'evidence', I'm gonna take a lot of convincing.
I do not think that there is a record of"fixing"evidence in this administration.
I also do not think that there is any push from this administration twards invadeing Iran.
Am I wrong on one count or two?
-
Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.
The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.
To make the weapon, a metal cylinder is filled with powerful explosives. A metal concave disk manufactured on a special press is fixed to the firing end.
Several of the cylinders are often grouped together in an array. The weapon is generally triggered when American vehicles drive by an infrared sensor, which operates on the same principle as a garage door opener. The sensor is impervious to the electronic jamming the American military uses to try to block other remote-control attacks.
When an American vehicle crosses the beam, the explosives in the cylinders are detonated, hurling their metal lids at targets at a tremendous speed. The metal changes shape in flight, forming into a slug that penetrate many types of armor.
In planning their attacks, Shiite militias have taken advantage of the tactics employed by American forces in Baghdad. To reduce the threat from suicide car bombs and minimize the risk of inadvertently killing Iraqi civilians, American patrols and convoys have been instructed to keep their distance from civilian traffic. But that has made it easier for the Shiite militias to attack American vehicles. When they see American vehicles approaching, they activate the infrared sensors.
According to American intelligence agencies, the Iranians are also believed to have provided Shiite militants with rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, mortars, 122-millimeter rockets and TNT.
Among the intelligence that the United States is expected to make public this weekend is information indicating that some of these weapons said to have been made in Iran were carried into Iraq in recent years. Examples include a shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile that was fired at a plane flying near the Baghdad airport in 2004 but which failed to launch properly; an Iranian rocket-propelled grenade made in 2006; and an Iranian 81-millimeter mortar made in 2006.
Assessments by American intelligence agencies say there is no indication that there is any kind of black-market trade in the Iranian-linked roadside bombs, and that shipments of the components are being directed to Shiite militants who have close links to Iran. The American military has developed classified techniques to try to counter the sophisticated weapon.
Marine officials say that weapons have not been found in the Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, adding to the view that the device is an Iranian-supplied and Shiite-employed weapon.
To try to cut off the supply, the American military has sought to focus on the cells of Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives it asserts are in Iraq. American intelligence agencies are concerned that the Iranians may respond by increasing the supply of the weapons.
“We are working day and night to disassemble these networks that do everything from bring the explosives to the point of construction, to how they’re put together, to who delivers them, to the mechanisms that are used to have them go off,†Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week. “It is instructive that at least twice in the last month, that in going after the networks, we have picked up Iranians.â€
Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?ei=5065&en=7febec32f88064b5&ex=1171774800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
I have read of this type of bomb before , I don't think it is impossible to improvise it but it requires the right knowledge , a good shop , and it would be very hard indeed to standardize and produce as a dependable standard product . Since these are showing up in waves and large numbers this seems consistant with arrivals of shipments from a foreign suppler.
I agree with the assessment that the point of the weapon is making it difficult to protect the innocent , the moderate and the friendly .
-
<<I do not think that there is a record of"fixing"evidence in this administration.>>
Let's put it this way, there are two schools of thought on the subject. One is that Bush lied and he fixed the evidence to back up his lie. The other is that Bush and his entire administration were misled by evidence that was not found convincing by many other countries including a majority of the UN Security Council members and Canada. They are therefore either dishonest or incredibly dumb and easily misdirected. In neither case is there any good reason for trusting in their good judgment.
<<I also do not think that there is any push from this administration twards invadeing Iran.>>
You mean apart from their constant publishing of "expert" opinions stating that most U.S. active service deaths in Iraq are caused by weapons manufactured in Iran and delivered to "insurgent" groups by Iranans?"
-
<<I do not think that there is a record of"fixing"evidence in this administration.>>
Let's put it this way, there are two schools of thought on the subject. One is that Bush lied and he fixed the evidence to back up his lie. The other is that Bush and his entire administration were misled by evidence that was not found convincing by many other countries including a majority of the UN Security Council members and Canada. They are therefore either dishonest or incredibly dumb and easily misdirected. In neither case is there any good reason for trusting in their good judgment.
<<I also do not think that there is any push from this administration twards invadeing Iran.>>
You mean apart from their constant publishing of "expert" opinions stating that most U.S. active service deaths in Iraq are caused by weapons manufactured in Iran and delivered to "insurgent" groups by Iranans?"
"...that was not found convincing by many other countries .."... Many , most, who do you mean? The list of those who agreed with the assesment of Saddam as a hoarder of WMD is often visited here .
"... their constant publishing ..."... Of the truth? Is the Bush Administrtion the sole sorce of information embarrassing to the govenment of Iran?
Repeatedly the administration has stated in recent months that they are not planning an invasion of Iran , and thy have nee lied to us yet I think that thy deserve the trust that Iran does not.
The main contradiction is from Iran itself where beating a war drum is good for business and continuity of government.
-
I do not think that there is a record of"fixing"evidence in this administration.
I also do not think that there is any push from this administration twards invadeing Iran.
Am I wrong on one count or two?
Yes.
-
I do not think that there is a record of"fixing"evidence in this administration.
I also do not think that there is any push from this administration twards invadeing Iran.
Am I wrong on one count or two?
Yes.
can't be
Could you quote President Bush , Vice President Cheny, Secretary Rice , or someone of consequence saying that we need to invade Iran?
I may have to continue to think you wrong on both of these counts.
-
Could you quote President Bush , Vice President Cheny, Secretary Rice , or someone of consequence saying that we need to invade Iran?
Why should I? Haven't they made it perfectly clear that they are looking for an excuse that will inflame the American public enough to allow them to somehow get us into a war with Iran? They're not stupid enough to come right out and say they want war with Iran, especially after the mess they've made in Iraq, but they are doing their damnedest to provoke a war, a la Iraq, all the while trying to deny that is what they are doing.
I may have to continue to think you wrong on both of these counts.
Feel free. I wish I were. A lot of people tried to convince me I was wrong about Iraq, too.
Care for some Flavor Aid?
-
Could you quote President Bush , Vice President Cheny, Secretary Rice , or someone of consequence saying that we need to invade Iran?
Why should I? Haven't they made it perfectly clear that they are looking for an excuse that will inflame the American public enough to allow them to somehow get us into a war with Iran?
No they have not, and that is why you cannot provide such a quote.
They're not stupid enough to come right out and say they want war with Iran, especially after the mess they've made in Iraq, but they are doing their damnedest to provoke a war, a la Iraq, all the while trying to deny that is what they are doing.
I doubt that president Bush is dictateing the behavior if the Iranians , and I don't doubt that the Iranians are trying to regain their status as the premininent American Killers a they were in the Eightys and Ninetys.
I may have to continue to think you wrong on both of these counts.
Feel free. I wish I were. A lot of people tried to convince me I was wrong about Iraq, too.
Care for some Flavor Aid?
Shure ,how about some flavord with any evidence at all that the bad behavior of Iran is even slightly exaggerated?
Without the flavor of evidence I would rather let you have the Koolaid .
-
I don't doubt that the Iranians are trying to regain their status as the premininent American Killers a they were in the Eightys and Ninetys.
Really? That's news to me.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Beirutbarr.jpg/300px-Beirutbarr.jpg)
A mushroom cloud rises from the rubble of the bombed barracks at Beirut International Airport.
The death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured. In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast.[1] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building also were killed.[2]
.........the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, identified the two suicide bombers as Abu Mazen and Abu Sijaan.
............many (notably the U.S. government) believe [2] that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April.
This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima
In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[3] But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/
Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen, a U.S. District Court judge ruled
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/history/index.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ViMTQ1NTllMjAxZDVmNjg3ZjIyMWRlMWU5OWE3N2M=
".......the “Party of God†(Hizb Allah) claimed in its manifesto to be
the vanguard … made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: [Ayatollah] Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!
Over the quarter century that followed, Hezbollah received billions in aid from Iran, as well as aid, logistical support, and safe haven from Syria, with which it works hand-in-glove to strangle Lebanon and wage war against Israel.
Hezbollah’s founding quickly resulted in a spate of kidnappings, torture, and bombing. (See this useful timeline from CAMERA.) In April 1983, for example, a Hezbollah car bomb killed 63 people, including eight CIA officials, at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. More infamously, the organization six months later truck-bombed a military barracks in Beirut, murdering 241 United States Marines (and killing 58 French soldiers in a separate attack). These operations, like many other Hezbollah atrocities, were orchestrated by Imad Mugniyah, long the organization’s most ruthless operative.
On December 12, 1983, the U.S. embassy in Kuwait was bombed, killing six and wounding scores of others. The bombers were tied to al-Dawa, a terror organization backed by Iran and leading the Shiite resistance against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime (with which Iran was at war). The leader of Dawa’s “jihad office†in Syria at the time was none other than Nouri al-Maliki — now the prime Minister of Iraq (and who, having opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, currently squabbles with American authorities, draws his country ever closer to Iran and Syria, and professes his support for Hezbollah). Among the “Dawa 17†convicted and sentenced to death for the bombing was Imad Mugniyah’s cousin and brother in law, Youssef Badreddin. (Badreddin escaped in the chaos of Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.)
Meanwhile, in 1984, Hezbollah bombed both the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut, killing two, and a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force base in Torrejon, Spain, killing 18 American servicemen. On March 16 of that year, Hezbollah operatives kidnapped William Francis Buckley, the CIA’s station chief in Beirut. He was whisked to Damascus and onto Tehran where he became one of the hostages whose detention led to the Iran/Contra affair. Under Mugniyah’s direction, Buckley was tortured for 15 months, dying of a heart attack under that duress.
Hezbollah hijackers seized a Kuwait Airlines plane in December 1984, murdering four of the passengers, including two Americans. Six months later, Hezbollah operatives hijacked TWA Flight 847 after it left Greece. The jihadists discovered that one of their hostages was a U.S. Navy diver named Robert Stethem. They beat him severely and then shot him to death before dumping his body onto the tarmac of Beirut airport. In early 1988, Hezbollah kidnapped and ultimately murdered Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine serving in Lebanon.
-
<<"...that was not found convincing by many other countries .."... Many , most, who do you mean? The list of those who agreed with the assesment of Saddam as a hoarder of WMD is often visited here .>>
More countries did not buy it than those who did buy it. In earlier reply to Ami, I indicated my reasons for believing that the U.S. would not be able to convince a simple majority of the UN Security Council of the need for an immediate invasion of Iraq. My own country, Russia, China, France and Germany did not buy the Bush administration's bullshit. If they weren't lying (and I am convinced that they were) then they had to be pretty God-damned stupid and pig-headed to believe what the Russians, Chinese, French and Germans thought was pure BS. These are some of the most experienced and competent intelligence services in the world.
<<"... their constant publishing ..."... Of the truth? >>
How do you know it's the truth? They've used faked evidence before. If they're not puthing for war with Iraq, why the constant spate of articles from Pentagon sources about how the evil Iranians are behind the production and distribution of IEDs in Iraq?
<<Is the Bush Administrtion the sole sorce of information embarrassing to the govenment of Iran?>>
Of course not, I'm sure the Mossad has its hand in this too.
<<Repeatedly the administration has stated in recent months that they are not planning an invasion of Iran , and thy have nee lied to us yet >>
They lied to you plenty of times. Think "WMD." Think "Saddam-al Qaeda link." Think "mobile chemical-warfare labs." Think "we're winning." Think "Mission Accomplished."
<<I think that thy deserve the trust that Iran does not.>>
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . .
-
Now look around, Plane, and google up how much military aid we gave to Israel in the 80's and 90's that they used against the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, et al, as our surrogates, much the same as Hezbollah served as their surrogates.
And while you're at it, look up preeminent (which is, I presume, what you were trying to say).
As someone pointed out, when referring to American deaths in Iraq, more have been killed in auto crashes...I would add plane crashes during those years...cancer...heart disease...and I'd almost figure a safe bet would be more have died of hangnails during those years. Hardly makes the Iranians, or Hezbollah, the preeminent killers of Americans during that time.
-
Now look around, Plane, and google up how much military aid we gave to Israel in the 80's and 90's that they used against the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, et al, as our surrogates, much the same as Hezbollah served as their surrogates.
And while you're at it, look up preeminent (which is, I presume, what you were trying to say).
As someone pointed out, when referring to American deaths in Iraq, more have been killed in auto crashes...I would add plane crashes during those years...cancer...heart disease...and I'd almost figure a safe bet would be more have died of hangnails during those years. Hardly makes the Iranians, or Hezbollah, the preeminent killers of Americans during that time.
Although disease probly killed more Bear than Davy Crockett , he killed suffecint bear to secure his political carreer , this has a seeming of simularity.
I don't have a figure for the number of Americans killed by hangnail compliations , but the terrorist orginisation with the best score untill 2001 was Hezbollah.
I should feel good about this because Americans like Robert Stetham or the Airmen in the Kobar Towers deserved what they got?
Well no I don't , I wouldn't mind haveing a peacefull discussion with any of the leadershp that wanted to do reasonable things, ut I don't want to change anything in reward for mistreating Americans or Iriquis .
-
<<"...that was not found convincing by many other countries .."... Many , most, who do you mean? The list of those who agreed with the assesment of Saddam as a hoarder of WMD is often visited here .>>
More countries did not buy it than those who did buy it.
While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD) Go figure
-
<<While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD) Go figure>>
I'll figure it out for you, because you're obviously incapable of doing so for yourself. When you last voted, did you vote for a President or did you vote for the heads of a "vast majority of your country's intel services?"
Answer: You voted for a "President." (But you knew that, didn't you.)
NEWSFLASH sirs: A President is not supposed to be a mouthpiece speaking for "the vast majority" of his country's "intel services." He's not supposed to be their agent. He's actually their employer. WOW. Radical concept, huh, sirs? It is his job to supervise them, review their results, and considering the results, using some intelligence, knowledge and experience, make a decision based upon them. (Note that the process just described does not exclude use of a healthy sense of skepticism, a little probing or a healthy dose of common sense.)
So this "all the intelligence services of all the nations of all the world" bullshit is just one more load of crap. Whether it's true or not - - and I kind of suspect that it's not, I would suspect for example that the intelligence services of the State of Israel knew very well that it was a crock of shit - - I don't really know, because not a single one of those intelligence agencies has chosen to bare their soul to me, Michael Tee. And I have to tell you, I am deeply, deeply wounded to learn that they apparently have all chosen to make YOU their confidante. I don't know WHY they have chosen to confide in you but not in me, but I don't like it one bit. But anyway, assuming that it IS true, it doesn't get your man off the hook in any way, because: the leadership of a great many nations DID NOT CHOOSE, even with this "intelligence" [which wasn't all that intelligent after all, it seems] TO INVADE IRAQ, now did they? Only your "President" was dumb enough to believe that shit. Well, not ONLY your "President," they also got the President of Poland and I think Nicaragua and a few other U.S. satellites had to pretend to believe it too. All in all, a pretty sorry spectacle, I'd say.
-
<<While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD) Go figure>>
When you last voted, did you vote for a President or did you vote for the heads of a "vast majority of your country's intel services?" You voted for a "President." (But you knew that, didn't you.) NEWSFLASH sirs: A President is not supposed to be a mouthpiece speaking for "the vast majority" of his country's "intel services."
NEWSFLASH Tee; our OWN intel said "slam dunk", which basically was cooroborated by the "vast majority". So our "mouthpiece" was indeed speaking for the U.S. But you knew that. The irony is if it were only the CIA making these conclusions, you'd be foaming at the mouth how Bush or the CIA didn't demonstrate any coorboration from any other country's intel agency. Kinda like what you're trying to do know, but since we do have such cooroboration, now you're having to distort it to make it about using the intel to go to war, vs simply what their conclusions were.
Go back to sarcasm, Tee. Objective debate is again, not your strength. At least when it comes to Bush and our military
-
<<While the vast majority of those country's intel services did "buy it" (Saddam and his stockpiles of WMD) Go figure>>
I'll figure it out for you, because you're obviously incapable of doing so for yourself. When you last voted, did you vote for a President or did you vote for the heads of a "vast majority of your country's intel services?"
Answer: You voted for a "President." (But you knew that, didn't you.)
NEWSFLASH sirs: A President is not supposed to be a mouthpiece speaking for "the vast majority" of his country's "intel services."
President Bush has a duty to interpret the facts laid before him , his assessment is of the conflicting findings.
His verdict was not diffrent from the previous two presidents , and why should president givet he beneit of the doubt to the word of Saddam?
Rather it would seem prudent t err on the side of safety and squash the threat , risking embarrasment if the threat turns out to be small and destruction if the threat turned out to be great.
-
<<His verdict was not diffrent from the previous two presidents , and why should president givethe beneit of the doubt to the word of Saddam?>>
Really? So they invaded Iraq too, eh? I just wasn't aware of it.
-
Really? So they invaded Iraq too, eh? I just wasn't aware of it.
Canada helped us out.
;D
-
<<His verdict was not diffrent from the previous two presidents , and why should president givethe beneit of the doubt to the word of Saddam?>>
Really? So they invaded Iraq too, eh? I just wasn't aware of it.
Saddam was constantly complaining about it , how did you miss that?
-
<<NEWSFLASH Tee; our OWN intel said "slam dunk", which basically was cooroborated by the "vast majority".>>
Uh, NO, sirs, it DIDN'T say "slam dunk" till it was "fixed" to say so, and it WASN'T corroborated by a vast majority of anybody or anything. Or if it was, I've never seen any evidence of it, and when last I checked you were going to try and find some.
<< So our "mouthpiece" was indeed speaking for the U.S. >>
So now your "mouthpiece" is the American intelligence establishment and IT speaks for the country? So then what's the "President" and whom does he speak for?
Or maybe you meant your mouthpiece was the "President" and HE was speaking for the U.S.? But you say he just followed what the intelligence services told him and he believed them. Wasn't he really just speaking for the intelligence services then?
<<The irony is if it were only the CIA making these conclusions, you'd be foaming at the mouth how Bush or the CIA didn't demonstrate any coorboration from any other country's intel agency. >>
I thought I was already foaming at the mouth because the other intelliegence services were too smart to follow this line of BS.
<< Kinda like what you're trying to do know, but since we do have such cooroboration, now you're having to distort it to make it about using the intel to go to war, vs simply what their conclusions were.>>
I've already stated the distinction between the President's duties and the duties of the intelligence services, and I don't think I distorted anything. And that is completely apart from the fact that you haven't demonstrated any such "corroboration," in fact you admitted you didn't have it when you undertook to search for it on the internet. Remember?
-
<<NEWSFLASH Tee; our OWN intel said "slam dunk", which basically was cooroborated by the "vast majority".>>
Uh, NO, sirs, it DIDN'T say "slam dunk" till it was "fixed" to say so, and it WASN'T corroborated by a vast majority of anybody or anything. Or if it was, I've never seen any evidence of it, and when last I checked you were going to try and find some.
So says you. Sorry, but your credibility in declaring what is and isn't based on no more than your tee-leaf logic, doesn't even get you a cup of coffee, on this topic
<< So our "mouthpiece" was indeed speaking for the U.S. >>
So now your "mouthpiece" is the American intelligence establishment and IT speaks for the country?
Try to keep up. They speak for the intel gathered
So then what's the "President" and whom does he speak for?
Leader, and CnC of the U.S. who speaks for the U.S. & takes the intel presented him, judges its worthiness and takes actions based on that intel. Gads Tee, even knute could figure that one .......actually, no he couldn't. Never mind
Or maybe you meant your mouthpiece was the "President" and HE was speaking for the U.S.? But you say he just followed what the intelligence services told him and he believed them. Wasn't he really just speaking for the intelligence services then?
You are that dense. Must feed template...must feed template. Amazing
<<The irony is if it were only the CIA making these conclusions, you'd be foaming at the mouth how Bush or the CIA didn't demonstrate any coorboration from any other country's intel agency. >>
I thought I was already foaming at the mouth because the other intelliegence services were too smart to follow this line of BS.
No, since no one is claiming that the intel made on Saddam's WMD was the precursur for everyone to join in one big global war against Iraq. That's your distorted attempt at trying to deflect from the truth and facts of the matter. The foaming at the mouth is the vitriolic certaining you have at how evil Bush is, and in concluding Bush lied us into war depsite the overwhelming facts & logic to the contrary
<< Kinda like what you're trying to do know, but since we do have such cooroboration, now you're having to distort it to make it about using the intel to go to war, vs simply what their conclusions were.>>
I've already stated the distinction between the President's duties and the duties of the intelligence services, and I don't think I distorted anything.
Well you are. And only a fair job at that, since most of us can see it pretty clearly. Everyone grasps the distinction. You're the one trying to frame it as Bush either blindly following what the CIA said (regardless of what everyone else wa also saying), or that Bush masterfully was able to convince every other foreign intelligence agency to see things his way....be cause of course, everyone is gonna do Bush's bidding.
And that is completely apart from the fact that you haven't demonstrated any such "corroboration," in fact you admitted you didn't have it when you undertook to search for it on the internet. Remember?
Oh, now I'm a computer that's supposed to regurgitate links at your demand, that to which I've read before in the past?? Yea, I remember. I'll also remember that interesting train of thought next time you don't come up with sources right then and there. By that piece of Tee logic, you must not have any. Fascinating
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070212/asay.gif)
-
<<Oh, now I'm a computer that's supposed to regurgitate links at your demand, that to which I've read before in the past?? Yea, I remember. I'll also remember that interesting train of thought next time you don't come up with sources right then and there. By that piece of Tee logic, you must not have any. Fascinating>>
IIRC, you yourself volunteered to dig up the sources. I didn't ask you to. You wanna welsh, go ahead and welsh. Don't try to blame me for it, though.
-
<<Oh, now I'm a computer that's supposed to regurgitate links at your demand, that to which I've read before in the past?? Yea, I remember. I'll also remember that interesting train of thought next time you don't come up with sources right then and there. By that piece of Tee logic, you must not have any. Fascinating>>
IIRC, you yourself volunteered to dig up the sources. I didn't ask you to. You wanna welsh, go ahead and welsh. Don't try to blame me for it, though.
Yet, you then made the illogic leap that such information didn't exist, since I couldn't pull them up at your beck and call. Like i said, it'll be fun applying that tactic to yourself, when/if I ever feel the need to belittle an irrelevent point as to the timing of providing information. And said information has been provided you from messers Wilkerson & Pollack, in the "To War or not...." thread. So, basically I blame you for your continued misrepresentation of me, and blatant distortion of issues being discussed.
-
<<Yet, you then made the illogic leap that such information didn't exist, since I couldn't pull them up at your beck and call.>>
Well, that certainly wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got. If you want more time, WTF? Take as much time as you need.
-
<<Rather it would seem prudent t err on the side of safety and squash the threat , risking embarrasment if the threat turns out to be small and destruction if the threat turned out to be great.>>
That's bullshit. There was no threat, big or small, and none of them believed that there was. It was and is absurd to think for a minute that Saddam or anyone else would attack the U.S.A. with nukes. There is still no evidence whatsoever that he would. They wanted the oil, faked the threat and invaded. Fortunately, most people can see that now, even if you can't.
-
<<and in concluding Bush lied us into war depsite the overwhelming facts & logic to the contrary>>
LOL - - the "overwhelming facts and logic" is that Bush lied you into a war, not to the contrary.
-
<<Rather it would seem prudent t err on the side of safety and squash the threat , risking embarrasment if the threat turns out to be small and destruction if the threat turned out to be great.>>
That's bullshit. There was no threat, big or small, and none of them believed that there was. It was and is absurd to think for a minute that Saddam or anyone else would attack the U.S.A. with nukes. There is still no evidence whatsoever that he would. They wanted the oil, faked the threat and invaded. Fortunately, most people can see that now, even if you can't.
Is it unequal to demand certain proof that Saddam had WMD threatening Americans , but assume with no proof that the real issue was stealing oil?
-
<<Is it unequal to demand certain proof that Saddam had WMD threatening Americans , but assume with no proof that the real issue was stealing oil?>>
The claim that Iraq was a threat to America was and remains ludicrous from any standpoint. When the given reason for an act is such obvious and blatant bullshit, and the perpetrator insists against all reason and logic that it's true, then a reasonable person will search for other reasons. In this case, you don't have to search very far.
If I caught a guy in the basement of my house at 2:30 A.M., wearing a mask and carrying a flashlight and a pillowcase I'd never seen before half-loaded with my silverware, claiming to be an insurance underwriter testing my home security system, I might (if I were crazy enough) demand to see some proof that he really was an underwriter AND I might also assume with no proof that the guy was really there to rip me off, but I don't see anything really unequal in demanding to see proof of his status as underwriter and assuming without proof that he was stealing from me.
Common sense and logic tells you that no country the size of Iraq has ever launched a devastating WMD attack on a nation the size of America. Never has and never will. Common sense AND HISTORY teach us that invading countries to steal their wealth is actually a fairly common thing, there's even a name for it: colonialism. When the thief in the night claims some outlandish and never-before-heard-of reason for his thievery and his presence in your home, it is reasonable to demand proof; most reasonable people wouldn't even go that far. But if they did, it has nothing to do with the other thought process, i.e. instantly recognizing a pattern repeated many times in the past for what it obviously is, without waiting for formal proof.
-
<<Is it unequal to demand certain proof that Saddam had WMD threatening Americans , but assume with no proof that the real issue was stealing oil?>>
The claim that Iraq was a threat to America was and remains ludicrous from any standpoint. When the given reason for an act is such obvious and blatant bullshit, and the perpetrator insists against all reason and logic that it's true, then a reasonable person will search for other reasons. In this case, you don't have to search very far.
If I caught a guy in the basement of my house at 2:30 A.M., wearing a mask and carrying a flashlight and a pillowcase I'd never seen before half-loaded with my silverware, claiming to be an insurance underwriter testing my home security system, I might (if I were crazy enough) demand to see some proof that he really was an underwriter AND I might also assume with no proof that the guy was really there to rip me off, but I don't see anything really unequal in demanding to see proof of his status as underwriter and assuming without proof that he was stealing from me.
Never has and never will. Common sense AND HISTORY teach us that invading countries to steal their wealth is actually a fairly common thing, there's even a name for it: colonialism. When the thief in the night claims some outlandish and never-before-heard-of reason for his thievery and his presence in your home, it is reasonable to demand proof; most reasonable people wouldn't even go that far. But if they did, it has nothing to do with the other thought process, i.e. instantly recognizing a pattern repeated many times in the past for what it obviously is, without waiting for formal proof.
You are correct in reverse.
"The claim that Iraq was a threat to America was and remains ludicrous from any standpoint."
How is it rediculous at all? Saddam was constantly proclaiming his strength and he had no reasonable fear in his person , he fired on American warcraft constantly and was barely prevented from attacking former President Bush. He had a long history of attempting to gather and use WMD and supporting attacks against countrys that could conceveably beat him.
"Common sense and logic tells you that no country the size of Iraq has ever launched a devastating WMD attack on a nation the size of America. "
Where were you on 9-11? Do you consider Afganistan to be a large country and are you really maintaining that National governments throughout history never bite off more than they can chew?
Gheingus Kahn succeeded at exactly this , so did Attilla the hun.The number of unequal contests in history is large and is not consistant in the larger always being the instigation or the smaller always being the looser.
"If I caught a guy in the basement of my house at 2:30 A.M., wearing a mask and carrying a flashlight and a pillowcase I'd never seen before half-loaded with my silverware, claiming to be an insurance underwriter testing my home security system, I might (if I were crazy enough) demand to see some proof that he really was an underwriter AND I might also assume with no proof that the guy was really there to rip me off, but I don't see anything really unequal in demanding to see proof of his status as underwriter and assuming without proof that he was stealing from me."
This is indeed our attitude twards Saddam , why should we have wated longer for proof of his innocence when we had already waited longer than a decade?
-
MT: <<"The claim that Iraq was a threat to America was and remains ludicrous from any standpoint.">>
plane: <<How is it rediculous at all? Saddam was constantly proclaiming his strength and he had no reasonable fear in his person , he fired on American warcraft constantly and was barely prevented from attacking former President Bush. He had a long history of attempting to gather and use WMD and supporting attacks against countrys that could conceveably beat him.>>
It is ridiculous in every particular.
1. "Saddam was constantly proclaiming his strength." THAT I am not even going to bother replying to. The Third World country of 23 million was constantly . . . oh forget it, it's not even worth the time of a reply.
2. "He had no reasonable fear in his person" - - HUH? He cleared his invasion of Kuwait with the U.S. before he started, and he pulled his army out of Kuwait rather than risk confronting the U.S. army there. Sure sounds like reasonable fear to me.
3. He "constantly" fired on U.S. aircraft? They "constantly" overflew his country and bombed his anti-aircraft defences. How does firing on hostile aircraft equate to launching a WMD attack on the U.S.A.? Is any sane person surprised that Iraq didn't get nuked for firing on U.S. aircraft? They didn't even get invaded for it. How the hell any sane person can compare the risk of firing on U.S. aircraft with the risk of nuking the U.S. itself is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
4. "Was barely prevented from attacking President Bush." We don't even know if that's true or not. But even if it were, it would bring nothing like the massive retaliation that a nuclear or other WMD strike on the U.S. would bring. Personally I think the so-called attempt on ex-Pres. Bush's life is pure BS anyway. But it's completely against all logic and common sense to equate the two acts, knocking off George H. W. Bush and nuking the U.S.A. That's just insane.
5. <<a long history of attempting to gather and use WMD and supporting attacks against countrys that could conceveably beat him.>>
That's just more senseless blather. We're not talking about countries taht "could conceivably beat him," we're talking about one country in particular, the only one in history to ever nuke an opponent, twice, the one country that could and would physically anihilate him and his whole country in retaliation for a WMD strike.
It's just insane to even consider the possibility that Saddam would really have attacked the U.S. with WMD. Your silly and ridiculous examples do absolutely nothing to reverse that conclusion.
-
Is any sane person surprised that Iraq didn't get nuked for firing on U.S. aircraft? They didn't even get invaded for it.
Yes they did.
He cleared his invasion of Kuwait with the U.S. before he started, and he pulled his army out of Kuwait rather than risk confronting the U.S. army there.
Neither of these is true.
Why would he clear an invasion ? All our ambassidor had to say was "don't"?So why would we want Kuait to be invaded?
Where is that common sense?
-
<<Yes they did [get invaded for firing on U.S. aircraft.]>>
That's just more bullshit. If they got invaded for firing on U.S. aircraft, it's the first I heard of it (apart from that bullshit resolution that Ami posted where they claim about 25 reasons for invading Iraq, everything anyone could ever dream up except Saddam's bad breath.) The pre-invasion sales pitch was WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD. AND if they were invaded for firing on U.S. planes, the U.S. sure took their time over it.
<<Neither of these is true [that Saddam cleared the invasion of Kuwait with the U.S. ambassador and pulled his army out of Kuwait rather than confront U.S. troops there.}>>
Sure as hell are true.
<<Why would he clear an invasion ? >>
to make sure he wouldn't have to fight the U.S. army over it.
<<All our ambassidor had to say was "don't"? So why would we want Kuait to be invaded?>>
If it didn't matter to you (and really WTF difference would it have made, Kuwait had no real right to exist as an independent nation, it was just a British diplomatic creation, part of their divide-and-rule colonial policy anyway) and you owed one to Saddam because he started a war against Iran for you. Saddam knows that the U.S. government doesn't give a shit about a lot of things, and figured Kuwait might be one of them. But he wanted to be sure. So he asked. A lot of people ask the U.S. if it's OK before they do something illegal. The assassins of the Diem brothers in Viet Nam cleared it first with the U.S. embassy. The plotters of the coup that took down the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile cleared it first with the U.S. embassy (to make sure their new government would have U.S. support.) Saddam wasn't breaking new ground asking the U.S to approve his dirty work in advance.
-
MT, unfortunately, a lot of what you say in this post is correct. It is the way things are right now.
Don't worry, though, O Anti-American. China is next in line; you can beat on them then, if you're still around. At this rate, it won't take them long. They are already an economic Juggernaut and are up-in-coming military. As only one example, many in our SpaceDefense establishment are scared to death over the recent success China had in destroying an orbital satellite. The Japanese are, justifiably, concerned about the Red Chinese navy that is both more numerous than never before and more assertive. They also hold an ungodly amount of U.S. Treasury notes. And on and on.
It's okay. Canada will continue to stand by and not be a major player, as usual.
-
apart from that bullshit resolution that Ami posted where they claim about 25 reasons for invading Iraq, everything anyone could ever dream up except Saddam's bad breath.
It wasn't a "bullshit resolution" - that was the authorization for Bush to go to war, passed by Congress.
-
apart from that bullshit resolution that Ami posted where they claim about 25 reasons for invading Iraq, everything anyone could ever dream up except Saddam's bad breath.
It wasn't a "bullshit resolution" - that was the authorization for Bush to go to war, passed by Congress.
If we want to point to BS resolutions, we need look no further than the one currently being debated in the House, and its sibling that didn't even make it to the floor of the Senate
-
I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found,"
Now they don't represent a big percentage of the IED attacks but they're extremely lethal.
and possibly[/u] the government of Iran
*emphasis mine*
Not exactly a condemning set of evidence that the Iranian government is massively supplying the Shi'a militants, is it?
We need some perspective here. This administration needs to stop blaming others and start fixing the problems in Iraq.
-
This administration needs to stop blaming others and start fixing the problems in Iraq.
Which would then require some significant intervention in stemming Iran's influence on those problems in Iraq. Glad you're finally on board, Js
-
Which would then require some significant intervention in stemming Iran's influence on those problems in Iraq.
What influence?
Oh you mean the fragments we think could maybe have some markings that might indicate a tiny percentage of IED supplies could be coming from Iran and that might, possibly, maybe indicates that the Iranian government could, maybe be involved. We think.
Nah. We were supposedly convinced with exact tonnage of the WMD's Saddam Hussein supposedly had. You think this kind of/sort of garbage is going to be considered proof positive? Even the Defence Secretary said it was only a "possibility."
-
<<It's okay. Canada will continue to stand by and not be a major player, as usual.>>
U.S. population 300,000,000; China, billions; Canada 30,000,000.
For a relatively small country, Canada has: 1. contributed one of the six invading armies that landed in Normandy on D-Day (the U.S. contributed three and the British 2;) 2. owned the 4th largest navy in the world at the end of WWII; 3. Lost hundreds of men in the Korean War; 4. Contributed to U.N. peace-keeping operations in Cyprus, Sinai, ex-Yigoslavia and many other places. We have done our share and probablly more than our share.
More important than "being a major player" we have established a civilized, cultured, tolerant society (these things are relative, of course0 and one in which no citizen is ever subjected to the indignity of choosing to go without medical care or begging for it as charity. Every citizen knows he or she will be looked after cradle-to-grave, regardless of wealth. If being a major player means napalming innocent civilians by the thousands and hundreds of thousands, and running torture chambers all over the world, no we are not a major player. And proud of it.
I agree with you, though, Professor - - China will be a thousand times worse.
-
Which would then require some significant intervention in stemming Iran's influence on those problems in Iraq.
What influence? Oh you mean the fragments we think could maybe have some markings that might indicate a tiny percentage of IED supplies could be coming from Iran and that might, possibly, maybe indicates that the Iranian government could, maybe be involved. We think.
That's right....let's keep that head buried. Seriously, it's staggering for me to think that you believe that Iran has so little influence and disruptability inrying to bring stability to its next door neighbor, it's been warring with for decades. Literally stunning :-\
-
The Professor said: "It's okay. Canada will continue to stand by and not be a major player, as usual."
MT, I think you misread my intent here. My apololgies for not phrasing it better.
My intent is that Canada possesses many admirable aspects, many of which you just mentioned. I wish they were more assertive, globally, in espousing these. So, what I am basically postulating is that Canada should be mroe assertive in exporting its positives so others may benefit.
-
For a relatively small country, Canada has: 1. contributed one of the six invading armies that landed in Normandy on D-Day (the U.S. contributed three and the British 2;)
The units for Overlord were contributed on a divisional basis. In general, 4 divisions make up one army. Canada contributed 5 divisions to Overlord, the US contributed 21 divisions.
Also, the US had numerous divisions in other theaters of the war at the same time. Canada had few elsewhere.
-
That's right....let's keep that head buried. Seriously, it's staggering for me to think that you believe that Iran has so little influence and disruptability inrying to bring stability to its next door neighbor, it's been warring with for decades. Literally stunning
Sirs, where in the report by the Defence Secretary do you see evidence for the claims you are making?
Am I supposed to simply take your word for it? And with Syria I have yet to see any real evidence of involvement. With Iran what I've seen is a great deal of kind of/sort of language that concludes with "possibility." This is from the Secretary of Defence, Sirs, someone that even you must admit is privy to a great deal of information.
Do you just forget about evidence now? Is it just what we say, or else?
-
<<The units for Overlord were contributed on a divisional basis. In general, 4 divisions make up one army. Canada contributed 5 divisions to Overlord, the US contributed 21 divisions.>>
From what I recall, there were six armies, six invasion beaches. The U.S. had Omaha and two others, the Canadians had Juno Beach, the British had Sword and one other. How many divisions went into an army on D-Day for the invasion, I have no idea, nor whether each division had roughly the same number of men, nor whether each army had the same number of divisions. The fact is, without in any way attempting to minimize the American contribution, Canada was NOT a bystander as the Professor implied, they were the only Ally to send an army to Normandy and to take one of the invasion beaches.
<<Also, the US had numerous divisions in other theaters of the war at the same time. Canada had few elsewhere.>>
Canada was always about one-tenth the population of the U.S.A. From what I can recall of the WWII casualty figures, Canada's casualties were much more than one-tenth of the U.S.A.'s. We did our share and IMHO much more than our share.
-
Long ago when I was a sailor I went to Canada and participated in exercises along with the Canadian Navy.
It is a good bunch .
On the same trip I learned not to ridicule funny looking money .
Got my ears pinned back.
Canada and the US help make each other possible , a destitute or an unfreindly northern neighbor would produce a very diffrent situation for us.
-
<< Long ago when I was a sailor I went to Canada and participated in exercises along with the Canadian Navy.
<< It is a good bunch .>>
Thank you. We have a very good friend who is a veteran of the Battle of the Atlantic and whose brother is one of the few survivors of the sinking of HMCS Athabaska. It was also my privilege, while still a teenager, to work in an organization which employed quite a few RCN vets. They are all a great bunch of guys. Some would have called them a great bunch of sex-obsessed perverts, but not me. I wish I could remember all the verses of "The North Atlantic Squadron" that they liked to sing, though. They were hilarious.
-
From what I recall, there were six armies, six invasion beaches.
The Canadians were part of the British Second Army. The order of battle was approximately as follows, east to west:
British sector (Second Army)
- 6th Airborne Division was delivered by parachute and glider to the east of the River Orne to protect the left flank.
- 1st Special Service Brigade comprising No.3, No.4, No.6 and No.45(RM) Commandos landed at Ouistreham in Queen Red sector (leftmost). No.4 Commando were augmented by 1 and 8 Troop (both French) of No.10 (Inter Allied) Commando.
- I Corps, 3rd Infantry Division and the 27th Armoured Brigade on Sword Beach, from Ouistreham to Lion-sur-Mer.
- No.41(RM) Commando (part of 4th Special Service Brigade) landed on the far right of Sword Beach.
- Canadian 3rd Infantry Division, Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade and No.48 (RM) Commando on Juno Beach, from Saint-Aubin-sur-Mer to La Rivière-Saint-Sauveur.
- No.46(RM) Commando (part of 4th Special Service Brigade) at Juno to scale the cliffs on the left side of the Orne River estuary and destroy a battery. (Battery fire proved negligible so No.46 were kept off-shore as a floating reserve and landed on D+1).
- XXX Corps, 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division and 8th Armoured Brigade on Gold Beach, from La Rivière to Arromanches.
- No.47(RM) Commando (part of 4th Special Service Brigade) on the West flank of Gold beach.
- 79th Armoured Division operated specialist armour ("Hobart's Funnies") for mine-clearing, recovery and assault tasks. These were distributed around the Anglo-Canadian beaches.
U.S. Sector (First Army)
- V Corps, 1st Infantry Division and 29th Infantry Division on Omaha Beach, from Sainte-Honorine-des-Pertes to Vierville-sur-Mer.
- 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions at Pointe du Hoc (The 5th diverted to Omaha).
- VII Corps, 4th Infantry Division and the 359th RCT of the 90th Infantry Division on Utah Beach, around Pouppeville and La Madeleine.
- 101st Airborne Division by parachute around Vierville to support Utah Beach landings.
- 82nd Airborne Division by parachute around Sainte-Mère-Église, protecting the right flank. They had originally been tasked with dropping further west, in the middle part of the Cotentin, allowing the sea-landing forces to their east easier access across the peninsula, and preventing the Germans from reinforcing the north part of the peninsula. The plans were later changed to move them much closer to the beachhead, as at the last minute the 91st Air Landing Division was found to be in the area.
The fact is, without in any way attempting to minimize the American contribution, Canada was NOT a bystander as the Professor implied, they were the only Ally to send an army to Normandy and to take one of the invasion beaches.
Poland and Free France also sent divisions for the landing at Normandy.
-
(http://media2.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/Car/b/blindhate%20copy.jpg)