Julie

Ask Mickey? No, just kidding...

I hear US is negotiating "quick" sanctions of Iran....just dandy...again.

What I'm trying to say is ....... STOP SCREWING AROUND WITH THE CRAB....STEP ON HIS FREAKIN' UGLY HEAD AND SQUISH HIS INSIDES OUT, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, HE'S GOING TO BITE YOUR A$$.

There....am I being more rational now?

Bluesman

You're advocating a full-up, gloves-off war against Iran, are we reading you correctly?

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Julie

Well....DUH!.

Same should have been done with Iraq.....instead of "Mission Accomplished," someone, should have anticipated the overly quiet Mr. Crab next door....and hit the damn interstate doing 90 instead of taking the back roads like a damn gypsy convoy for Christ sake. Does anyone have Colin Powell's phone # by chance?

Am I being more rational now?

kams

Not even beer?

Anon

I have no problem with that view miss.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Anon

I agree with you on this one miss....however, had reagan attacked, it would've been quite the to-do. Of course the national resolve at the time certainly allowed for such a bold stroke IMO.

There was also another (and MUCH better) rescue mission planned that should've been tried before any deals were cut(not that i favor cutting a deal in any case).

Arms for hostages was Reagans one great blunder, and he freely admitted such on worldwide TV. Because he was THE MAN.

Anon

She has said so several times in a couple different threads now Top.

I don't know that she realizes what she's asking for completely, but she has clearly stated several times that she favors a full-out war to a nuke armed Iran, and i agree wholeheartedly.

Anon

M21 Said: "I don't drink."
Nope. Maybe 2 drinks at a special occasion every once in a great while, that's it.

gunnut

So what if we find out, after we crush Iran, that they didn't have anything close to a nuclear weapon? What if we were completely fooled by their gesture? What if we entered a war under false pretenses? We would have invaded a sovereign nation because it had oil.

Sound familiar?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Anon

Agreed.

Almost everyone that has armed themselves with the facts will concede that the plan was A) overly(some would say wildly) ambitious, B) hugely under-manned, and C) completely incapable of administering effective security of Iraq in the aftermath.

Of course, even under the best of circumstances winning the peace in an orderly and just fashion is one of the most difficult and elusive of all feats toward which mankind endeavours.

"Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war."
~ Winston Churchill

Anon

Not directed at you Gun nut, just a general observation:

And what if we found out that the only reason everyone believed that Iran was an imminent threat was because their Mullah President was actively spreading disinformation even among his own top aids?

Cause that is exactly what happened in Iraq.

To blame anyone for believing a deliberate and ongoing disinformation campaign by Saddam that was launched for the specific purpose of convincing his enemies he had WMD is well....just plain stoopid.

If that happens in Iran too, then it happens in Iran too. It must be considered, however unlikely it may be(just look how totally sure we were about Iraq!)

Of course a very real possible alternative is that they DO have a Nuke program, that Azabeanutjob really is a prophecy believing mullah nut, and that he would love nothing more than to cackle like a school girl as he 'pushed the button' to nuke Israel.

No way i see any need to take any chance. We have the military we have for EXACTLY these sorts of contingincies. If we don't use it, while it's an ass-stomp, then we're asking for it.

Just asking for it.

BIKEMAN

Before the Iraqi invasion the weapons inspectors, ME experts and most foreign diplomats said that Saddam had very little left. The US admin was sure, because liars always believe their own lies eventually. But most of the rest of the world didn't - the US admin was wrong again. Quite a solid streak of being proven wrong.

kams

Now that I am back in home, with a cup of hot coffee (I don't drink too..only occassional/social drinker ), can join the fireworks.

When a nation has publicly declared it's desire to obliterate another nation, I don't want to wait till they get a nuke. I would anything to ensure they never get the opportunity and ability to get nuke or for that matter anything bigger than a peashooter.

Now It's not going well for Bush at home. Senate report has rubbished Bush admin claim that Hussain supported Al Qaida.

gunnut

Are you accusing the French intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, German intelligence, and the Israeli intelligence as liars? Because they believed the same thing we did. In fact, that's how we verified our information, by comparing notes with other intelligence agencies.

Do you, or do you not believe, Iran is nuclear capable?

Anon

Your representation of 'what world leaders knew' at the time is highly revisionist and downright disingenuous.

And i'll prove it right now in black and white:

FACT: Prior to the war, Hans Blix and the UN said Iraq had a WMD program and/or unaccounted for chemical weapons.

"By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY- Posted 3/2/2004
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

Kay reported in October(2004) that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm

FACT: 27 nations intel agencies, including the KGB, the CIA, Mossad, the DIA, the NSA, MI6, the Pakistani ISI, and both the French and German intel agencies all said Saddam had WMD.
(numerous sources)

FACT: Most of the Govt's of the ME told the US Iraq had WMD. In January 2003, Egyptian President Josne Mubarak outright told Gen. Tommy Franks, “Saddam has WMD-biologicals, actually-and he will use them on your troops.”
(Source, Franks biography, American Soldier, there are also several sites on the web with the same quote)

FACT: Saddam was actively engaging in a misinformation purpose for the specific purpose of misdirecting his enemies in the US, the Kurdish North, and in Iran WRT his actual possession- or lack thereof- of WMD.
(Source, Cobra II, Gen Bernard Trainor, post-war interviews of top Iraqi leaders)

-----------------

You sir, are either ignorant, or are knowingly perpetuating lies.

So which is it?