And there dies another foul excuse

[Skybird]

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
(...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

Saddam in bed with Al Quaeda (by definition his lethal archenemy, hehe: Saddam's regime was everything what Bin Laden hates) - was wrong a claim back then, still is wrong a statement today. But I am sure the usual suspects will nevertheless continue to hammer it into our heads how much the two were engaged with each other (and that Saddam was linked to 9/11 anyhow - another of these Iraq-related myths to sell a war of choice as a war of need.

Piece by piece the whole system of lies crumbles down with years passing by.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What would Sadaam's interest in attacking the US be?

[DeepIron]

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime. Interesting that this is a "Pentagon-sponsored" study. Not the machinations of some "anti-american, liberal, pinko commie think tank" out to undermine the US Government.

What would Saddam's interest in attacking the US be? And that, my dear Kapitan, is the question. Why indeed, would Saddam Hussein have WMDs in the first place to use against the US if he had no intentions, nor were his "terrorist" ties to groups who were acting outside the Middle East. One can argue he used chemicals against the Kurds, but that is a far cry from deploying them in a place like NYC.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001 , terrorist attacks.
Our "intelligence" was good enough, according to some, to find "WMDs" in Iraq, and yet, could have missed this?

[GlobalExplorer]

He did send money to so called "martyrs" families in palestine, that's what I know. But I am not sure what were is motives in doing it.

But Al Qaida? Only dumbasses for who all muslims are the same believed in that.

[Platapus]

At least we DO know that there is oil in Iraq. :yep:

[TheSatyr]

Didn't Al Quaeda attempt to assassinate both Hussien and Kaddafi at one time or another?

They were both Secular Leaders...which Al Quaeda hates almost as much as they hate the USA.

[Dowly]

Bravo US intelligence. So, how many official reason there is left that support the invasion of Iraq? :88)

[sunvalleyslim]

I don't believe it was lies that got us into the state of war. But rather very faulty intelligence gathering on our part......

[Skybird]

I don't believe it was lies that got us into the state of war. But rather very faulty intelligence gathering on our part......
Half correct. It was faulty intelligence that the intel service was demanded by the political top to be produced. I remind in thos context of the "London missile memo". Intel was not asked to find out about the state of things, it was demanded to paint things like politics wanted it to appear like, it was not to describe a situation - it was to create an excuse. So it was faulty intelligence, as you say, but it was faulty intelligence that was ordered for. Let's not forget that this war was planned, wanted and outlined since the early 90s, and already back then put on paper and then waiting for a conservative president being unscrupellous enough to carry it out. A war of choice - not a war of needs.

[Platapus]

The intel was out there. The decision makers choose to interpret it to their agenda.

This is nothing new. Intel is only one of the tools of the decision maker. What I find offensive is that when the decision maker is wrong, he points the finger at intel. Knowing that due to the job, intel is not in a position to publicly defend itself.

Intel, as always, has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while continuing to work hard.

Intel can accept never being thanked for their successes. All part of the job
but it is hard to accept the blame for something they did not do.

The average citizen can not, unfortunately, know all about intel. But they need to understand that Intel is being worked by excellent and smart men and women working their best in an environment where the deck is stacked against them.

[Dowly]

This is nothing new. Intel is only one of the tools of the decision maker. What I find offensive is that when the decision maker is wrong, he points the finger at intel. Knowing that due to the job, intel is not in a position to publicly defend itself.

Intel, as always, has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while continuing to work hard.



A-Friggining-men! This' the best post I've seen in a loooong time here. :up:

[Jimbuna]

This is nothing new. Intel is only one of the tools of the decision maker. What I find offensive is that when the decision maker is wrong, he points the finger at intel. Knowing that due to the job, intel is not in a position to publicly defend itself.

Intel, as always, has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while continuing to work hard.



A-Friggining-men! This' the best post I've seen in a loooong time here. :up:

....against those who would oppose us ;)

[Rockstar]

Saddam and Al-Queda did have much in common they were both from the sunni tribe. However the Sunni we called Saddam had in past years attacked other Sunni nations in an attempt to extend his power. We (the US) probably got involved as a favor to our supposed allies namely Kuwait and Suadi Arabia (both sunni majority) in order to protect them from further agression. But we needed an excuse to send our troops to fight someone elses battle. Americans had to made think that they too were threatened before we would agree to send our troops to remove the 'trouble maker' Saddam.

Saddam wouldn't dare start another major offensive against shiite nations it was stalemate especially since he was a minority sunni in his own country. I fiigure he wanted to be the leader of a greater sunni nation before taking on the shiite nations and to establish a unified islamic nation. Under his leadership of course :) I know Im rambling.

"But those who believe the U.S. presence is the catalyst only choose to believe a particular political agenda rather than historical facts known for centuries. Sadly neither side of the U.S. presence theory are correct. The belief that any strength of force moderated by the ideals of democracy and religious freedom tempered by separation of church and state can overcome this struggle is naive to the extreme."

The only reason Iraq was held together for the last part of the 20th century was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not limited by any liberal moderation of his actions -- he simply tortured and killed anyone who did not go along with his particular version of the Baath party. And the kind of torture we are talking about here is not the pacifist's definition of "making someone feel uncomfortable". Indeed those who survived Saddam's (more likely his son Qusay's) torture, would look upon the liberalist definition of torture as laughable, saying in effect, "Feeling just a little uncomfortable would have been a god-send.""

Which means we are stuck in the middle of a messy tribal war with little chance of leaving the area in peace.

[SUBMAN1]

I think the problem here is in understanding the mentality that Al Qeida represented and probably still represents all screwed up muslim finaticals, regardless if they are affiliated or not. It is a face to a problem, nothing more.

The assassination attempt on Bush's life is an example of undermining the US. Paying families martyrs is another attempt to undermine the US. Taking over nations that are friends of the US is another. How many you want? ANd what happened to the stockpiles of gas Saddam had? All hidden since no evidence was also found that it was destroyed. How about the centrifuge parts buried in Iraqi scientist front yards? Crap, they even found MiG's buried in the sand in the middle of no where, so nuke parts would be easy to hide by comparison.

All this tells me is a big fat - nodda. Its more propoganda.

-S

[Dowly]

@Subman1, have you ever tried looking at things from a neutral POV? That's sometimes necessary to see how "weak" some proofs might be.

You talk about all those hidden MIGs and all that, how you know it has anything to do with Saddam??? Because the same ppl who showed the world the satellite images of an "WMD plant" that didnt event have anything to do with WMDs told you that? Again, I have no intententions to disrespect you nor your country, only what I'm saying is that it sometimes needs an outsider's view to see the right side of things. Again, no pun intended, I dont want this thread to go to another flame war as they usually do.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think the problem here is in understanding the mentality that Al Qeida represented and probably still represents all screwed up muslim finaticals, regardless if they are affiliated or not. It is a face to a problem, nothing more.

The assassination attempt on Bush's life is an example of undermining the US. Paying families martyrs is another attempt to undermine the US. Taking over nations that are friends of the US is another. How many you want? ANd what happened to the stockpiles of gas Saddam had? All hidden since no evidence was also found that it was destroyed. How about the centrifuge parts buried in Iraqi scientist front yards? Crap, they even found MiG's buried in the sand in the middle of no where, so nuke parts would be easy to hide by comparison.

All this tells me is a big fat - nodda. Its more propoganda.

-S

Since 1991 the most powerful country on the planet had been bombing Iraq - often with the expressed objective of eliminating suspected WMD storage/production facilities. It should not be surprising that these may have in fact been completely destroyed in the late '90s.

There is a difference between having a reason to believe something and wanting to believe something. And ALL evidence points to the FACT that at the time of the invasion, and probably years before, no WMDs were to be found in Iraq.

PD

[Dowly]

I think the problem here is in understanding the mentality that Al Qeida represented and probably still represents all screwed up muslim finaticals, regardless if they are affiliated or not. It is a face to a problem, nothing more.

The assassination attempt on Bush's life is an example of undermining the US. Paying families martyrs is another attempt to undermine the US. Taking over nations that are friends of the US is another. How many you want? ANd what happened to the stockpiles of gas Saddam had? All hidden since no evidence was also found that it was destroyed. How about the centrifuge parts buried in Iraqi scientist front yards? Crap, they even found MiG's buried in the sand in the middle of no where, so nuke parts would be easy to hide by comparison.

All this tells me is a big fat - nodda. Its more propoganda.

-S
Since 1991 the most powerful country on the planet had been bombing Iraq - often with the expressed objective of eliminating suspected WMD storage/production facilities. It should not be surprising that these may have in fact been completely destroyed in the late '90s.

There is a difference between having a reason to believe something and wanting to believe something. And ALL evidence points to the FACT that at the time of the invasion, and probably years before, no WMDs were to be found in Iraq.

PD

Well said, this is my point. US and it's allies attacked Iraq with no solid proof, ok you all know how I feel about it. But now, the western countries are pointing their guns to Iran. For what? Because their leader hates the western ppl? Come on ppl, who would be that stupid to really believe that Iran would attack anywhere? They just cant do that, it would result in an armed answer from the western world. Nukes? They'd maybe have the time to blow up one or two western cities, before they would be nuked. Now, what's the point in them doing that? We are talking about some million dead westerns against many more on Iran's side. If they think we western are so fricking bad ppl, what it would help them to kill, let's say 2mil of us in cost of 10mil of their countrymen in retaliation strikes?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I remember sawing these pictures showing MIGs burried in the sand in some army magazine. They said that the Iraqis burried them because they just didn't have any spare parts/mechanics to keep them flying. What a threat :lol:

I don't think it was spare parts. I think they were buried by Iraqi Air Force people who knew the 2003 invasion really would culminate in the US going "all the way". And rather then have their aircraft destroyed in the air or on the ground (even hiding them among the civillian population wasn't safe anymore with concrete filled LGBs), they decided to put them somewhere where they might be able to use them later on.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Since 1991 the most powerful country on the planet had been bombing Iraq - often with the expressed objective of eliminating suspected WMD storage/production facilities. It should not be surprising that these may have in fact been completely destroyed in the late '90s.

There is a difference between having a reason to believe something and wanting to believe something. And ALL evidence points to the FACT that at the time of the invasion, and probably years before, no WMDs were to be found in Iraq.

PDNow that is up for debate. I believe the Isrealies more than I ever believe our US media. WHy do you think Syria was bombed?

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

Here are ex Iraqies saying the same thing:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463


And Dave Gaubatz will disgree with you till he is dead and in his grave:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502

http://www.davegaubatz.com/

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Well said, this is my point. US and it's allies attacked Iraq with no solid proof, ok you all know how I feel about it. But now, the western countries are pointing their guns to Iran. For what? Because their leader hates the western ppl? Come on ppl, who would be that stupid to really believe that Iran would attack anywhere? They just cant do that, it would result in an armed answer from the western world. Nukes? They'd maybe have the time to blow up one or two western cities, before they would be nuked. Now, what's the point in them doing that? We are talking about some million dead westerns against many more on Iran's side. If they think we western are so fricking bad ppl, what it would help them to kill, let's say 2mil of us in cost of 10mil of their countrymen in retaliation strikes?
WMDs found in Iraq: http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSL0854496320080310 :)

More of PD's opinions to follow:
Iran certainly is pursuing nuclear weapons. I don't think they intend to use them or hand them out to terrorist types. They just want to be treated like a real player and have something that they feel would ensure their security against US bully'ism. You have to look at it from their perspective. They see North Korea get a bomb, and what do they get? Serious negotiations with major world powers. And with US taking up what may be permanent strategic positions on their western and eastern borders, they know they'll have to deal with us in the long run. And they want to do it through a position of strength. Hence the naval bravado (capturing Brits, scaring the hell out of a USN warship) and nuclear weapon/ballistic missile tech seeking.

Unfortunately for them (and the rest of the world), I don't think the Iranians understand just how seriously this administration is contemplating bully-through-airpower tactics and worse in response to their, "Look at us! We're big boys too!" moves.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Well, since CHuck Norris isn't in Iraq, I have to disagree with that assesment! :D Read my provious links, espcially the Dave G. reports.

ANyway, I am not so sure that given them the bomb is a bad idea however. SOmething tells me that before they get around to nuking us with advanced mini bombs, they will nuke themselves back to the stone age.

-S

[Dowly]

Well said, this is my point. US and it's allies attacked Iraq with no solid proof, ok you all know how I feel about it. But now, the western countries are pointing their guns to Iran. For what? Because their leader hates the western ppl? Come on ppl, who would be that stupid to really believe that Iran would attack anywhere? They just cant do that, it would result in an armed answer from the western world. Nukes? They'd maybe have the time to blow up one or two western cities, before they would be nuked. Now, what's the point in them doing that? We are talking about some million dead westerns against many more on Iran's side. If they think we western are so fricking bad ppl, what it would help them to kill, let's say 2mil of us in cost of 10mil of their countrymen in retaliation strikes?
WMDs found in Iraq: http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSL0854496320080310 :)

More of PD's opinions to follow:
Iran certainly is pursuing nuclear weapons. I don't think they intend to use them or hand them out to terrorist types. They just want to be treated like a real player and have something that they feel would ensure their security against US bully'ism. You have to look at it from their perspective. They see North Korea get a bomb, and what do they get? Serious negotiations with major world powers. And with US taking up what may be permanent strategic positions on their western and eastern borders, they know they'll have to deal with us in the long run. And they want to do it through a position of strength. Hence the naval bravado (capturing Brits, scaring the hell out of a USN warship) and nuclear weapon/ballistic missile tech seeking.

Unfortunately for them (and the rest of the world), I don't think the Iranians understand just how seriously this administration is contemplating bully-through-airpower tactics and worse in response to their, "Look at us! We're big boys too!" moves.

PD

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?

[SUBMAN1]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?You know why its not? Because the very people making them are the very people who are threatening to use them - Iran threatening to destroy Isreal off the map comes to mind. Last I checked, the US didn't want to nuke anyone, but keep them strictly for the MAD policy.

-S

[Dowly]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?You know why its not? Because the very people making them are the very people who are threatening to use them - Iran threatening to destroy Isreal off the map comes to mind. Last I checked, the US didn't want to nuke anyone, but keep them strictly for the MAD policy.

-S

Yes, but would Iran do that? They attacking Israel would start an armed response from the west right? They would gain nothing from it. After the defend of Israel the West would most propably invade Iran. And Iran would lose. Please, guys, let them stretch their muscles, they arent stupid to do anything. ;)

[PeriscopeDepth]

Since 1991 the most powerful country on the planet had been bombing Iraq - often with the expressed objective of eliminating suspected WMD storage/production facilities. It should not be surprising that these may have in fact been completely destroyed in the late '90s.

There is a difference between having a reason to believe something and wanting to believe something. And ALL evidence points to the FACT that at the time of the invasion, and probably years before, no WMDs were to be found in Iraq.

PDNow that is up for debate. I believe the Isrealies more than I ever believe our US media. WHy do you think Syria was bombed?

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

Here are ex Iraqies saying the same thing:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463


And Dave Gaubatz will disgree with you till he is dead and in his grave:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502

http://www.davegaubatz.com/

-S

Frankly, I don't give ANY creedence to exile groups who will do anything to get the USA to free their $hithole from oppressive dictator of the day and then and then slam the door on us once they get back in power. The INC and Chalabi pulled EXACTLY the same crap. And now look at where we are.

I don't know much about Mr. Gaubatz, but if all he can come up with for his efforts are interviews with Fox News and his own website I just can't think he's legit. I mean come on, if there was serious evidence of WMDs don't you think more than one person would be crowing about it? Tons of people would LOVE to have that drop from the sky like God given manna to the neo con movement. It would save a lot of people politically.

I personally don't trust the Israelis at all (not to say I trust the US media either). They drain my tax dollars for a first class military/domestic "joint" military R&D bought and paid for by the US government right before they turn around and sell it to the Chinese. The time to give anything to the Israelis for free ended after the USSR broke up. They are far more of a liability now than any sort of real ally. And since we give them all the cool guns, guess who else we have to sell to? Good for them though, they bombed a Syrian WMD site a few times.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Trust me, the US would be the first country to get rid of it's nukes if everybody else agreed to. We need them the least due to the strength of our conventional forces. 3rd world countries see them as an "easy" way to the big leagues and preventing the US from playing aerial assassin with impunity.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted? Agreed, that's again some "double standard".
By the way PD, that link made me laugh. Out of curiosity, is that Chuck Norris guy taken seriously in the US ? Here he's a total joke. :-?

I loved his action movies when I was a kid! He's a legit martial artist, though. I wouldn't call him a joke. He's recently very popular again due to the Chuck Norris facts website.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Frankly, I don't give ANY creedence to exile groups who will do anything to get the USA to free their $hithole from oppressive dictator of the day and then and then slam the door on us once they get back in power. The INC and Chalabi pulled EXACTLY the same crap. And now look at where we are.

I don't know much about Mr. Gaubatz, but if all he can come up with for his efforts are interviews with Fox News and his own website I just can't think he's legit. I mean come on, if there was serious evidence of WMDs don't you think more than one person would be crowing about it? Tons of people would LOVE to have that drop from the sky like God given manna to the neo con movement. It would save a lot of people politically.

I personally don't trust the Israelis at all (not to say I trust the US media either). They drain my tax dollars for a first class military/domestic "joint" military R&D bought and paid for by the US government right before they turn around and sell it to the Chinese. The time to give anything to the Israelis for free ended after the USSR broke up. They are far more of a liability now than any sort of real ally. And since we give them all the cool guns, guess who else we have to sell to? Good for them though, they bombed a Syrian WMD site a few times.

PDThats the problem - they can't 'discredit' Gaubatz. He is highly decorated and yet his message is a liability to both democrats and republicans alike. Couple this to a person who is best described as one of the purest and unselfish form of human that has probably walked the Earth, and the US Gov has a problem with him. THey can't just sweep him under the rug, so they are just hoping no one notices him for now.

This will show that he is well known, and not just involved with WMD's:

http://www.davegaubatz.com/files/Paul_Dave_Gaubatz_Biography_pdf.pdf

http://www.antimedia.us/dave_gaubatz/

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-interview-with-dave-gaubatz.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=ADD15EB9-3A51-46D1-B834-27EEDE7AF8CB

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/DavidGaubatz.php

http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

http://www.mappingsharia.us/Jihad-in-America-Dave-Gaubatz-Reports-on-the-Reality-article-429-65.htm

How many do you want? There are thousands of them.



Some articles by him:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_strategy_and_objectives_of.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/sleeper_cells_in_the_united_st.html

-S

[Foxtrot]

Let's hear the Symphony of Lies (http://youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs) once again with full volume :rock:
Don't forget to note the part of Colin Powell's speech from Feb, 2001

Personally, I don't hate Bushie as much as I hate Donald Duckling Rumsy and Penis Cheney. Hope that this duo will burn in hell

[PeriscopeDepth]

Thats the problem - they can't 'discredit' Gaubatz. He is highly decorated and yet his message is a liability to both democrats and republicans alike. Couple this to a person who is best described as one of the purest and unselfish form of human that has probably walked the Earth, and the US Gov has a problem with him. THey can't just sweep him under the rug, so they are just hoping no one notices him for now.

This will show that he is well known, and not just involved with WMD's:

http://www.davegaubatz.com/files/Paul_Dave_Gaubatz_Biography_pdf.pdf

http://www.antimedia.us/dave_gaubatz/

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-interview-with-dave-gaubatz.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=ADD15EB9-3A51-46D1-B834-27EEDE7AF8CB

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/DavidGaubatz.php

http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

http://www.mappingsharia.us/Jihad-in-America-Dave-Gaubatz-Reports-on-the-Reality-article-429-65.htm

How many do you want? There are thousands of them.



Some articles by him:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_strategy_and_objectives_of.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/sleeper_cells_in_the_united_st.html

-S
Oh, I don't think he's some crazy. I understand he's a well respected professional. Just I think if there was something to it he WOULD garner more attention. Just him isn't enough for me.

And it isn't that I don't think there's any "reasonable doubt" concerning Iraqi WMDs. I, just like anyone else, can never be 100% sure. Because the physical reality, as mentioned earlier, is that it isn't too difficult to hide a small inventory of say chemical weapons. I just remain unconvinced that there was a reason for Saddam in his calculus of survival (which he was very skilled at) to possess WMDs after the late '90s. Stick it to the western world via weapons inspectors, sure. Sticking it to the western world just happens to be the national identity he created for Iraq that held his country together. But I think he knew if there was any real hard evidence of WMDs in his country post 9-11, his career would be over in short order. And I just don't think he would even take the chance of stashing a few artillery shells with chemical tipped warheads under his sons' mattresses "just in case" the Kurds or Shiia got uppity again. Let alone be caught with a real WMD program or inventory, he was too smart for that. Whether by his hands or ours, I believe Iraq's WMD capabilities withered away in the very early part of 21st century.

PD

[Iceman]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?You know why its not? Because the very people making them are the very people who are threatening to use them - Iran threatening to destroy Isreal off the map comes to mind. Last I checked, the US didn't want to nuke anyone, but keep them strictly for the MAD policy.

-S

Yes, but would Iran do that? They attacking Israel would start an armed response from the west right? They would gain nothing from it. After the defend of Israel the West would most propably invade Iran. And Iran would lose. Please, guys, let them stretch their muscles, they arent stupid to do anything. ;)

I can see you are a gambling man.

You are assuming rational and logical reasoning from a people who's track record speaks otherwise.

All a country can go by is actions...by that token Iran should take very seriously a response from the U.S. or Israel.Israel can not afford to gamble on any threat such as nuclear...period.Get this thru your head.Take your own advice and look thru other eyes.At the clearest sign that Iran was approaching some sort of nuclear capability at some facility if I were Israel I would flatten it in a heart beat.Iran and Muslim nations need to simply wake up and face facts.The rest of the world is getting very tired of dealing with they're B.S. .

Not fair that some have bombs and some do not?...who ever said life was fair?...and I thank God at the moment they do not.

[mrbeast]

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?

[SUBMAN1]

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?Martyrdom

-S

[Iceman]

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?

Ask Skybird...he seems pretty versed in loonies. :) Again you assume you are dealing with rational people yet the ,I'm sorry to say, religion/belief of many Muslims is that if you kill as many infidels as possible you bump yourself right up to the head of the class in heaven...this is the short and ugly version but it's the truth...GET OVER IT and ACCEPT IT.

This is who you are dealing with...now try to have a rational,peaceful,co-exsistence with someone who actually believes if he kills you it is not different than killing a cow?

I did not make this religion up...I just try to understand my opponents pov and understand it I do.

INFIDELS!

Such overwhelming detterents only work if the people you are deterring want to live more than die.

[mrbeast]

Can someone explain why the fact that the US and her allies have an overwhelming superiority in nuclear firepower would not work as a deterant to any 'rogue' nation that aquires a small nuclear capablity?

The 'loonies' in Iran might be prety bonkers but they are not that bonkers to commit national suicide. What would they gain from it?

Ask Skybird...he seems pretty versed in loonies. :) Again you assume you are dealing with rational people yet the ,I'm sorry to say, religion/belief of many Muslims is that if you kill as many infidels as possible you bump yourself right up to the head of the class in heaven...this is the short and ugly version but it's the truth...GET OVER IT and ACCEPT IT.

This is who you are dealing with...now try to have a rational,peaceful,co-exsistence with someone who actually believes if he kills you it is not different than killing a cow?

I did not make this religion up...I just try to understand my opponents pov and understand it I do.

INFIDELS!

Such overwhelming detterents only work if the people you are deterring want to live more than die.

But you are assuming that everybody in Iran or all of those in power in Iran are irrational, infact more than that they would have to be certifiably mad.

As far as I have seen Iran's strategy seems perfectly rational.

[Sailor Steve]

Let's hear the Symphony of Lies (http://youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs) once again with full volume :rock:
Don't forget to note the part of Colin Powell's speech from Feb, 2001

Personally, I don't hate Bushie as much as I hate Donald Duckling Rumsy and Penis Cheney. Hope that this duo will burn in hell
You know, I'm not such a big fan of the current administration either, but I hope you realize that to serious policy-watchers that kind of name-calling puts you on a lower level than them. Do you have anything real to offer, or just insults?

[Jimbuna]

Let's hear the Symphony of Lies (http://youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs) once again with full volume :rock:
Don't forget to note the part of Colin Powell's speech from Feb, 2001

Personally, I don't hate Bushie as much as I hate Donald Duckling Rumsy and Penis Cheney. Hope that this duo will burn in hell
You know, I'm not such a big fan of the current administration either, but I hope you realize that to serious policy-watchers that kind of name-calling puts you on a lower level than them. Do you have anything real to offer, or just insults?

A real thought provoking occupation in your profile as well. I'm sure many on here will appreciate it....not :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

But you are assuming that everybody in Iran or all of those in power in Iran are irrational, infact more than that they would have to be certifiably mad.

As far as I have seen Iran's strategy seems perfectly rational.Hahahahaha! That is a funny one. you are joking i hope! :D I almost spit my beer I was drinking on reading that.

Anyway, you do know the president is merely a puppet to the clerics, right? In case not, the one who holds ultimate power in Iran is called the 'Supreme Leader' who is the head religious man in Iran. He has the ability to override the president on any matter of state, and is the ultimate commander in chief over the military. To launch a nuke attack even in the event of complete destruction as a consequence is an option to them. Khomeini used to hold this position before his death. I forget who holds it now, but he is also some whacko just like Khomeini used to be.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

What would Sadaam's interest in attacking the US be?

My question exactly. Saddam was our best ally in the Middle-East... well, him and Israel, but the Israeli government is weak. By removing him and instating a greenhorn government in his place, we've allowed the terrorists and the radicals to enter the country without much difficulty at all. This is, basically, another version of the Vietnam War. Heard it before, and it's true. Same ****, different day.

[PeriscopeDepth]

This thread took a noise dive IMO.

On a lighter side, what are you drinking Subman? Just plain old Guinness here. :)

PD

[kiwi_2005]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?You know why its not? Because the very people making them are the very people who are threatening to use them - Iran threatening to destroy Isreal off the map comes to mind. Last I checked, the US didn't want to nuke anyone, but keep them strictly for the MAD policy.

-S
Yes, but would Iran do that? They attacking Israel would start an armed response from the west right? They would gain nothing from it. After the defend of Israel the West would most propably invade Iran. And Iran would lose. Please, guys, let them stretch their muscles, they arent stupid to do anything. ;)

i see your point but when nations state they would like to blow some other of the map and your a power nation you have to do something than do nothing.

[Platapus]

Anyway, you do know the president is merely a puppet to the clerics, right? In case not, the one who holds ultimate power in Iran is called the 'Supreme Leader' who is the head religious man in Iran. He has the ability to override the president on any matter of state, and is the ultimate commander in chief over the military. To launch a nuke attack even in the event of complete destruction as a consequence is an option to them. Khomeini used to hold this position before his death. I forget who holds it now, but he is also some whacko just like Khomeini used to be.

-S

Subman you seem to have a lot of biases against the Republic of Iran.

It is no secret that the president of Iran is subordinate to the Supreme Leader. This is clearly spelled out in the Iranian constitution. No tricky, no "puppet". Have you ever read the Iranian Constitution? If you want to understand how the Iranian government operates, you might want to. It is a pretty complex and complicated democracy. It does not operate in the same way as American democracy operates. But then Iran is not the United States.

Perhaps your confusion is based on the similarity of terms. The President of the United States is the ultimate authority in this country. In our culture the term President usually means the head man/woman. That does not mean that everyone who holds the title of President has the same authority. This does not make them a "puppet". It makes them part of a political system that is different from ours. When studying other nation's government structure, it is important not to skew your perception as to how the United States' government is structured.

Yes the Supreme Leader is the head religious leader of the Republic. Thats what his job is. This is also clearly spelled out in the Iranian Constitution. Iran is an Islamic Republic. While other religions are recognized, if you want to be a leader in Iran you have to be not only a Muslim but a Shi'a Muslim. You have to be a Cleric of Shi'a to be elected Supreme Leader. That's their culture. In the United States, we would not feel comfortable with a state religion (That's why we have separation of church and state). That does not mean that every other country must operate the same way. Iran is a religious state.

The culture of the United States of America is different from the culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

Different means different. Different does not mean wrong.

"Khomeini used to hold this position before his death. I forget who holds it now, but he is also some whacko just like Khomeini used to be. "

You don't even know the man's name, but you are labeling him a whacko? This does not bode well for any credibility on your part. The current Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei. FYI: The Supreme Leader has to under go two separate elections before becoming the Supreme Leader.

The first is a general election by the citizens of Iran to be elected to the Council of Experts.
The second is an internal election by the other 85 members of the Council of Experts.

The Supreme Leader is not elected to the position for life. The Supreme Leader is reaffirmed once a year by the Council of Experts and they have the authority to remove him from office at any other time. Since the Revolution there have been two Supreme Leaders. The first held the office until his death. This hardly sets a precedent that all Supreme Leaders will hold office until death. Like the United States Senate, the Council of Experts has never removed a Supreme Leader. Like the United States Senate, this does not mean that they can't.

I am not a fan of Iran. There are many things the Republic does that I deeply disagree with. As part of my profession and my academia, I study Iranian government and policy deeply. There are many misconceptions about Iran of which I put the blame on the media. The Republic of Iran is not a simple thing to understand in a nice trendy sound bytes. People study the governmental and political systems of Iran for years and still only have a smattering of understanding.

The 79 Revolution did not wipe out the history of governance in Iran and start out anew. The current structure has remnants of the Democracy under Mossadegh, the dictatorship under Pahlavi and the newly formed Islamic Republic under Khomeini. The Iranians are still forming and changing their governmental structure.

Discussions about Iranian politics and foreign policy can become emotional in nature. We are in a propaganda war with the Republic with misconceptions and errors on both sides. Some of which may be accidental, others part of an agenda. I just wanted to interject some facts in case anyone cared.

Recommended reading: "Democracy in Iran" by Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr

[Tchocky]

Perhaps your confusion is based on the similarity of terms. The President of the United States is the ultimate authority in this country. In our culture the term President usually means the head man/woman. That does not mean that everyone who holds the title of President has the same authority. This does not make them a "puppet". It makes them part of a political system that is different from ours. Same in Ireland. We've got a President, but she's not the head of government. That role belongs to the Taoiseach (Irish for Prime Minister).

[Platapus]

BTW, in case any one cares. The Iranian President never said that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map.

"Wiped off the face of the map" is an idiom that is not part of the Farsi language. There are no Farsi word combinations that would incorporate these words and have the same meaning. Idioms seldom translate well.

What was said, in translation" is that Israel will be wiped off the page of time. (there are dissenting opinions on the exact translation and interpretation. I will freely admit)

As a way of clarifying this statement, the President added references to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not destroyed by military action but was destroyed by internal dissent. The Soviet Union was "wiped off the face of the map" by being replaced by another governmental system. The Soviet Union does not exist any more.

It is hardly surprising that the translations and the references to the Soviet Union are absent in many American reporting of the President's statements.

One of the first rules of propaganda is to control the translations of foreign speeches. What is sad is that in this age of the Internet, few people seem motivated to seek out other sources to refute or confirm their perceptions.

The information is out there. It is everyone's responsibility to see out other sources of information, characterize any biases (all sources are biased) and by taking the conglomerate data form their understanding. Limiting oneself to only one source (American Media) is risky.

[Platapus]

Same in Ireland. We've got a President, but she's not the head of government. That role belongs to the Taoiseach (Irish for Prime Minister).

Israel is another example. Olmert is the President of Israel but Peres is the Prime Minister.

So do Ireland and Israel have "puppet" governments?

Of course not. They do have a different governmental structure than the US.

[GlobalExplorer]

@Platapus: Excellent posts, which I recommend to anyone.

I got more interested in the issue myself recently, since I realized that the media has been feeding us stereotypes over the years.

Of course it is easy to see Iranians as "whackos" if you reduce them to the image from the Chomeini years. Which is what the media has been doing in the last 20 years.

The role of Persia / Iran is actually pretty complex but the media has reduced it to a few stereotypes. It is only when you have met a few Iranians yourself that you will realize there is much more about their intelligence / culture than the average westerner knows.

[mrbeast]

But you are assuming that everybody in Iran or all of those in power in Iran are irrational, infact more than that they would have to be certifiably mad.

As far as I have seen Iran's strategy seems perfectly rational.Hahahahaha! That is a funny one. you are joking i hope! :D I almost spit my beer I was drinking on reading that.

Well you better turn away from your monitor straight after you read this!;) :D

But no, I'm not joking. I'm serious. Look where Iran is now, the most powerful country in the Middle East. Its not swivel-eyed religeous nutjobs that have got them there but shrewed and entirely rational minds. Certainly they are religous conservatives but world domination by Islam is not Iran's objective, probably not the objective of most Islamic fundamentalist groups.

By making aggresive sounding statements towards Israel (whatever their true meaning was, some good info there, Platapus:up: ) Iran is attempting to take the lead role, in opposing Israeli occupation, away from other Middle Eastern countries.

Infact, I would argue that far from making the Middle East a safer place, the invasion of Iraq has merely played into the hands of Iran. Effectively removing Iraq from the scene and allowing Iranian backed elements to infiltrate in the south and gain some influence over what happens there.

As Platapus has shown, don't make the mistake of making a caricature of Iran or any other force in the middle east.

[Jimbuna]

But you are assuming that everybody in Iran or all of those in power in Iran are irrational, infact more than that they would have to be certifiably mad.

As far as I have seen Iran's strategy seems perfectly rational.Hahahahaha! That is a funny one. you are joking i hope! :D I almost spit my beer I was drinking on reading that.

Anyway, you do know the president is merely a puppet to the clerics, right? In case not, the one who holds ultimate power in Iran is called the 'Supreme Leader' who is the head religious man in Iran. He has the ability to override the president on any matter of state, and is the ultimate commander in chief over the military. To launch a nuke attack even in the event of complete destruction as a consequence is an option to them. Khomeini used to hold this position before his death. I forget who holds it now, but he is also some whacko just like Khomeini used to be.

-S

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018932.stm

[SUBMAN1]

Subman you seem to have a lot of biases against the Republic of Iran.

It is no secret that the president of Iran is subordinate to the Supreme Leader. This is clearly spelled out in the Iranian constitution. No tricky, no "puppet". Have you ever read the Iranian Constitution? If you want to understand how the Iranian government operates, you might want to. It is a pretty complex and complicated democracy. It does not operate in the same way as American democracy operates. But then Iran is not the United States.

Perhaps your confusion is based on the similarity of terms. The President of the United States is the ultimate authority in this country. In our culture the term President usually means the head man/woman. That does not mean that everyone who holds the title of President has the same authority. This does not make them a "puppet". It makes them part of a political system that is different from ours. When studying other nation's government structure, it is important not to skew your perception as to how the United States' government is structured.

Yes the Supreme Leader is the head religious leader of the Republic. Thats what his job is. This is also clearly spelled out in the Iranian Constitution. Iran is an Islamic Republic. While other religions are recognized, if you want to be a leader in Iran you have to be not only a Muslim but a Shi'a Muslim. You have to be a Cleric of Shi'a to be elected Supreme Leader. That's their culture. In the United States, we would not feel comfortable with a state religion (That's why we have separation of church and state). That does not mean that every other country must operate the same way. Iran is a religious state.

The culture of the United States of America is different from the culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

Different means different. Different does not mean wrong.

"Khomeini used to hold this position before his death. I forget who holds it now, but he is also some whacko just like Khomeini used to be. "

You don't even know the man's name, but you are labeling him a whacko? This does not bode well for any credibility on your part. The current Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei. FYI: The Supreme Leader has to under go two separate elections before becoming the Supreme Leader.

The first is a general election by the citizens of Iran to be elected to the Council of Experts.
The second is an internal election by the other 85 members of the Council of Experts.

The Supreme Leader is not elected to the position for life. The Supreme Leader is reaffirmed once a year by the Council of Experts and they have the authority to remove him from office at any other time. Since the Revolution there have been two Supreme Leaders. The first held the office until his death. This hardly sets a precedent that all Supreme Leaders will hold office until death. Like the United States Senate, the Council of Experts has never removed a Supreme Leader. Like the United States Senate, this does not mean that they can't.

I am not a fan of Iran. There are many things the Republic does that I deeply disagree with. As part of my profession and my academia, I study Iranian government and policy deeply. There are many misconceptions about Iran of which I put the blame on the media. The Republic of Iran is not a simple thing to understand in a nice trendy sound bytes. People study the governmental and political systems of Iran for years and still only have a smattering of understanding.

The 79 Revolution did not wipe out the history of governance in Iran and start out anew. The current structure has remnants of the Democracy under Mossadegh, the dictatorship under Pahlavi and the newly formed Islamic Republic under Khomeini. The Iranians are still forming and changing their governmental structure.

Discussions about Iranian politics and foreign policy can become emotional in nature. We are in a propaganda war with the Republic with misconceptions and errors on both sides. Some of which may be accidental, others part of an agenda. I just wanted to interject some facts in case anyone cared.

Recommended reading: "Democracy in Iran" by Ali Gheissari and Vali NasrOh I agree, so don't get me wrong. There is hope for Iran, and its people are all not whackos. Democracy is wanted there too, but I am refering to those who are currently in power - who do want to wipe Isreal off the map. They have the capability to launch if there were a missile equipped to do so at any time they please, and they have the crazyness to do it.

Here is a little vid for you to watch - undercover in Iran:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/

It has much insight into this country and its politics from the common mans perspective. This video goes into the push for democracy.

And yes, I know people from there as well. They fled after the Shah fell from power, and the only reason they got out was they had the money to do so. The common peasent is stuck.

-S

[Iceman]

BTW, in case any one cares. The Iranian President never said that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map.

"Wiped off the face of the map" is an idiom that is not part of the Farsi language. There are no Farsi word combinations that would incorporate these words and have the same meaning. Idioms seldom translate well.

What was said, in translation" is that Israel will be wiped off the page of time. (there are dissenting opinions on the exact translation and interpretation. I will freely admit)

As a way of clarifying this statement, the President added references to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not destroyed by military action but was destroyed by internal dissent. The Soviet Union was "wiped off the face of the map" by being replaced by another governmental system. The Soviet Union does not exist any more.

It is hardly surprising that the translations and the references to the Soviet Union are absent in many American reporting of the President's statements.

One of the first rules of propaganda is to control the translations of foreign speeches. What is sad is that in this age of the Internet, few people seem motivated to seek out other sources to refute or confirm their perceptions.

The information is out there. It is everyone's responsibility to see out other sources of information, characterize any biases (all sources are biased) and by taking the conglomerate data form their understanding. Limiting oneself to only one source (American Media) is risky.

You are pointing out shades of grey...the end desired result is the same.As you say propaganda and lack of actual intel will kill you.To try to wash over and belittle such known hatred that the Muslim world has for the West is an insult to any intelligent person here.They are fundamentaly different cultures that do not and will not ever mix or co-exsist peacefully.You have thousands of years of wars and death as proof.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[Platapus]

Yes, I am pointing out shades of gray. Thats all there is in international policy. There is no black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong. Everything is shades of gray. And ever changing shades of gray at that. Every shade of gray contains a mixture from both sides.

That was my point and I am happy I made it.

You don't have to agree with it, but I am happy you understand where I was coming from. :up:

[antikristuseke]

You are pointing out shades of grey...the end desired result is the same.As you say propaganda and lack of actual intel will kill you.To try to wash over and belittle such known hatred that the Muslim world has for the West is an insult to any intelligent person here.They are fundamentaly different cultures that do not and will not ever mix or co-exsist peacefully.You have thousands of years of wars and death as proof.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Yeah, kind of like the many diferent cultures in Europe, which allso have quite a few centuries of war behind, them could never coexist peacefuly.:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

...Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

...Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S

It's raining.:-?

[mrbeast]

You are pointing out shades of grey...the end desired result is the same.As you say propaganda and lack of actual intel will kill you.To try to wash over and belittle such known hatred that the Muslim world has for the West is an insult to any intelligent person here.They are fundamentaly different cultures that do not and will not ever mix or co-exsist peacefully.You have thousands of years of wars and death as proof.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Yes, lack of intel and relying on propaganda when forming opinions is fatal.

So why in the second part of your post do you revert to the very same propaganda nonsense that the 'Muslim World' hates us, wants to destroy us etc etc?

There are Islamic fundamentalists who harbour great hatred for the west and its influence over areas that they regard as being the dominion of Islam. But to take these as evidence that the 'Muslim World' hates the west is like taking white supremacists and nazis as evidence that the western world hates Jews and Black people.

Agreed there are large numbers of muslims who don't like the way the west deals with the middle east and particularly the Israel/Palestine conflict, but I doubt that a majority of Muslims harbour implacable hatred the way you charaterise the situation.

Also the 'clash of cultures thesis is very simplistic and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Islam and the west did not develop separately or in a vaccum. They are not fundamentally different cultures at all. Muslims and westerners have engaged with eachother, traded and lerned from eachother for over a thousand years. If it wasn't for muslim scholars, much of what we regard as being the foundations of western culture, such as works by the great classical authors, would never have survived the Dark Ages. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a common origin in that they are all Abrahamic religions and share a joint mythology, aspects of Islam are actually adopted from Christianity. The shape of its mosques is adopted from Byzantine churches, its bowing is also adopted from early Christianity.

As to a history of warfare between west and Islam, as antikristuseke points out, Europe has suffered just as much if not more internal conflict than it has with Islam. Infact the Crusades, the greatest example of western/Muslim conflict were precipitated because of the levels of conflict in Europe. Pope Urban II leapt upon the chance to direct European martial attentions away from fighting eachother, Chrstians killing Christians, to a more theologically acceptable Christians killing non-Christians.

Platapus isn't pissing down anybody's back, but frankly to spout simplistic nonsense is a greater insult to peoples intelligence.

[Jimbuna]

...Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S

Hey!...that rain is warm :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/smilies%202/weathermanf3.gif

[mrbeast]

...Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S

Hey!...that rain is warm :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/smilies%202/weathermanf3.gif

Jim, do you really have an emoticon for every situation? :hmm: :lol:

[Jimbuna]

...Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S

Hey!...that rain is warm :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/c_jane24/Smileys/smilies%202/weathermanf3.gif

Jim, do you really have an emoticon for every situation? :hmm: :lol:

Ermm...... http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1817/thinkbigsw1yo4.gif

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img91/817/ideaps5.gif
Yes http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img412/4774/thumbsuplargeon1.gif

[Steel_Tomb]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?

A nuclear arsenal is more than just a weapon, its a political ace card. Its why countries like Korea/India/Pakistan scrambled to get nuclear weapons, so that they can become solidified on the world stage and recognized as a world power. Although MAD isn't as relevant as it used to be, I believe it still exists to some extent, the Russians still have a very real nuclear arsenal. Some people may disagree, but its what I've been taught in my A level history :yep:.

[mrbeast]

Aye, we are thinking pretty much the same way. The way I see it, US and some of it's allies have nukes, which are baaaaaad. Still, they are keeping theirs "for their on safety" they reject other countries from having them. I mean, I know alot of will disagree with me, but isnt that a tad twisted?

A nuclear arsenal is more than just a weapon, its a political ace card. Its why countries like Korea/India/Pakistan scrambled to get nuclear weapons, so that they can become solidified on the world stage and recognized as a world power. Although MAD isn't as relevant as it used to be, I believe it still exists to some extent, the Russians still have a very real nuclear arsenal. Some people may disagree, but its what I've been taught in my A level history :yep:.

Good point.:up: A nuclear arsenal gets you a place at the big boys table and ensures that you will be taken seriously.

[Platapus]

+1 Steel Tomb and Mr Beast :up:

[Rockstar]

For what its worth since this topic is slowly fading. Im of the believe we had a presence to maintain in the middle east and bombing the snot out of Saddam was part of it. Im certain Arabic and Kuwaiti stablity was part of it aswell for it would have been disasterous for the ruling families of these countries if they attacked thier own. Unfortunetly I don't think we knew enough of the culture to make what we did stick. We have shown weakness in front of the enemy we will soon regret it.

Iran is an evil country and we should go in and nuke the snot outta them as well just like we did in Iraq. But this time show no mercy and give no quarter. Saddam and other Middle Eastern leaders knew that we should've done the same. If it mean't wiping them off the face of the earth in order for me to get on with my life in peace then so be it.

What was the real reason we went in? I don't know, but I don't think it had all to do with WMDs alone. Frankly I think it was a feeble excuse to instill fear into the American population, to make sending our troops in an easier pill to swallow. But whatever the reason next time finish it, fast, decisive. When someone like the little man from Iran starts telling me he wants to drive my friend and allie into the sea I want to plant my foot in his arse somthing fierce.

we now return you to your regularly scheduled topics and other rants

[Tchocky]

Iran is an evil country and we should go in and nuke the snot outta them as well just like we did in Iraq.
Woo!

If it mean't wiping them off the face of the earth in order for me to get on with my life in peace then so be it.
Woo!

What's to stop someone else using this kind of logic? Maybe one of those evil people I've heard so much about?

[SUBMAN1]

...Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I love it! That is a good analogy.

-S
It's raining.:-?Raining yellow rain! Don't eat the yellow snow either!:D

[SUBMAN1]

What's to stop someone else using this kind of logic? Maybe one of those evil people I've heard so much about?Nothing. But since we aren't screwing around and killing them terrorist style, then there is not reason to use it on us! :D

-S

PS. THe irony on this board is that it seems like it is OK, or marginally OK to blow up innocent Western women and children, yet not OK to go after the people that did it? Are you guys all nuts?

[mrbeast]

What's to stop someone else using this kind of logic? Maybe one of those evil people I've heard so much about?Nothing. But since we aren't screwing around and killing them terrorist style, then there is not reason to use it on us! :D

-S

PS. THe irony on this board is that it seems like it is OK, or marginally OK to blow up innocent Western women and children, yet not OK to go after the people that did it? Are you guys all nuts?

I haven't seen anyone suggest or insinuate that the killing of western women and children is acceptable. Niether has anyone said that the pursuit of terrorists is 'not ok'.

Its interesting though that some posters seem to suggest that the death of Muslim women and children wouldn't be so bad. :roll: :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

I haven't seen anyone suggest or insinuate that the killing of western women and children is acceptable. Niether has anyone said that the pursuit of terrorists is 'not ok'. No, but it is implied when they talk of the US going after them....

Its interesting though that some posters seem to suggest that the death of Muslim women and children wouldn't be so bad. :roll: :nope:Its not if they are the ones carrying bombs. Also, sometimes civilians are causulties of war, and even though the US takes great care not to harm civilians, they are never even given credit for that. The US is not required by the Geneva convention to avoid civilian causuaties, so where is their credit?

-S

[mrbeast]

I haven't seen anyone suggest or insinuate that the killing of western women and children is acceptable. Niether has anyone said that the pursuit of terrorists is 'not ok'. No, but it is implied when they talk of the US going after them....

I'm afraid I still don't see where anyone has implied that killing western civilians is acceptable. Can you give some examples?

Its interesting though that some posters seem to suggest that the death of Muslim women and children wouldn't be so bad. :roll: :nope:Its not if they are the ones carrying bombs. Also, sometimes civilians are causulties of war, and even though the US takes great care not to harm civilians, they are never even given credit for that. The US is not required by the Geneva convention to avoid civilian causuaties, so where is their credit?I

-S

The vast majority of women and children killed are not carriyng bombs though.

If you were an Iraqi and your family was accidentally killed buy US troops you would be satisfied with 'sorry sometimes civilians are casuaties of war'?

Its easy to just pass off the deaths of innocent civilians as collateral damage.

There are many occasions where US troops have takan little or no care to avoid civillian casuaties.

[SUBMAN1]

The vast majority of women and children killed are not carriyng bombs though.

If you were an Iraqi and your family was accidentally killed buy US troops you would be satisfied with 'sorry sometimes civilians are casuaties of war'?

Its easy to just pass off the deaths of innocent civilians as collateral damage.

There are many occasions where US troops have takan little or no care to avoid civillian casuaties.Talk to the Nazi's. Talk to the families of 9/11. Talk to the families of the USS Cole. I'd even venture to say that US troops only account for 1 in 1000 civi deaths in Iraq, and it was only accideent where your friggen Muslims are responsible for the other 999, so yeah, I'd say that these people know the US troops are there to do some good.

So I don't buy your argument for a grain of salt. It doesn't hold up to the 999 holes in the bag you are selling, leaving it worthless.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

To top it, US has intalled a Chiite government which I really can't understand since Chiite are all more or less connected to Iran.

It may have something to do with with the Shi'ite majority in Iraq electing them.

PD

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I still cant believe they're called Shi'ite.

:lol:

[Knipper]

I'd just like to add a little bit of English irony to the whole 'why the Eye-Rak thing happened' debate. One of the things that really pissed me off about the duff/manufactured intel rationale for going to war bit is that Tony F*ing Blair went along with it thinking he could get something in return from GWB, i.e. a resolution to the Israel/Palestinian thing. How stupid can you get???? :damn: And the irony? Now he's no longer prime minister, Blair is some sort of Middle East peace envoy. :rotfl: What a prat. I never thought I'd say something like that about a leader of my beloved Labour Party, but it's the only conclusion you can reach. Think I'll go hit some tonnage.