Gates: U.S. has evidence of Iran helping insurgents

[Plane]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Plane]

 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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[The_Professor]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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

[_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."

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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]

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.