Syria's WMD's could someday be used here on us.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/07/21/Barak-Israel-ready-to-seize-Syria-weapons/UPI-14471342896037/

Barak: Israel ready to seize Syria weapons

Published: July 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM
JERUSALEM, July 21 (UPI) -- The Israeli military is prepared to seize Syria's chemical weapons and missiles and to stop refugees from crossing the border, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

Barak said Friday that Israel will block any move by President Bashar Assad's regime to transfer advanced weaponry to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ynetnews reported. He said the army has been ordered to increase its monitoring of Syria's weapons stockpiles.

If necessary, Israel would strike inside Syria, Barak said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/07/21/Barak-Israel-ready-to-seize-Syria-weapons/UPI-14471342896037/#ixzz21IEN5iPg

America had better be very worried about where those weapons end up. In the wrong hands they could be used here on us as well as on Israel! Those fanatical idiots seek to destroy both big and little Satans. If Israel rushes in to secure those weapons , obama will seek to join those opposed to Israel's actions! How do I know this ? I know because obama has stated that in the end he will ALWAYS side with Islam! Look up his words on that. He currently plays a game but if given a second term he will come out strongly against Israel and possibly even directly join forces with Israel's sworn enemies. I pray we never find out how correct I am on that because if we do America will suffer so much under an obama second term that few here would ever believe it until after it happened! Too damn late is one ffing bad place to be , trust me on that even if nothing else...-Tyr

[Drummond]

.. And where did Syria's WMD's come from, anyway ?

All the talk (mostly from the Left) about how wrong you were to go to war against Saddam's Iraq, how it was all 'lies' that Saddam had WMD's. Well, there was talk that Saddam used a certain six month window he had to move his WMD's across to Syria.

Now, 'all of a sudden', we learn that Syria has WMD's !! I don't know about your media, but ours is reporting claims that Syria is prepared to use WMD's, but NOT ONE WORD is said about how Assad got them.

And naturally not. Looking into that question would be way too awkward for them.

[Dilloduck]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/07/21/Barak-Israel-ready-to-seize-Syria-weapons/UPI-14471342896037/

Barak: Israel ready to seize Syria weapons

Published: July 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM
JERUSALEM, July 21 (UPI) -- The Israeli military is prepared to seize Syria's chemical weapons and missiles and to stop refugees from crossing the border, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

Barak said Friday that Israel will block any move by President Bashar Assad's regime to transfer advanced weaponry to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ynetnews reported. He said the army has been ordered to increase its monitoring of Syria's weapons stockpiles.

If necessary, Israel would strike inside Syria, Barak said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/07/21/Barak-Israel-ready-to-seize-Syria-weapons/UPI-14471342896037/#ixzz21IEN5iPg

America had better be very worried about where those weapons end up. In the wrong hands they could be used here on us as well as on Israel! Those fanatical idiots seek to destroy both big and little Satans. If Israel rushes in to secure those weapons , obama will seek to join those opposed to Israel's actions! How do I know this ? I know because obama has stated that in the end he will ALWAYS side with Islam! Look up his words on that. He currently plays a game but if given a second term he will come out strongly against Israel and possibly even directly join forces with Israel's sworn enemies. I pray we never find out how correct I am on that because if we do America will suffer so much under an obama second term that few here would ever believe it until after it happened! Too damn late is one ffing bad place to be , trust me on that even if nothing else...-Tyr

I'm tired of being worried. Whatever kind of defense America has against this from happening will have to do. If Israel is worth a shit as an ally maybe they can deter some of this shit. If some terrorist wants us it won't matter who the president is. Hell our own people shoot us at movies.

[revelarts]

.. And where did Syria's WMD's come from, anyway ?

All the talk (mostly from the Left) about how wrong you were to go to war against Saddam's Iraq, how it was all 'lies' that Saddam had WMD's. Well, there was talk that Saddam used a certain six month window he had to move his WMD's across to Syria.

Now, 'all of a sudden', we learn that Syria has WMD's !! I don't know about your media, but ours is reporting claims that Syria is prepared to use WMD's, but NOT ONE WORD is said about how Assad got them.

And naturally not. Looking into that question would be way too awkward for them.

Got any proof to go along with that speculation.

And I always ask IF what you say is true WHY didn't we go get them if WMD's where what we concerned about?

But I 've been told that there where a million other piss poor reasons to attack Iraq too Durmond.

And. if Syria has had these horrible weapons the whole time and we knew about them why is it an issue NOW? If Syria was so evil they could have given them to Hell-bolah etc LONG ago anytime in the past 10 years.


Sorry, this is just more fear mongering for preemptive (aggressive) wars we don't need, can't afford and will get more US and UK soldiers killed for BS IMO.

[Drummond]

Revelarts, you want me to prove a negative ?

Quite the contrary .. if you seriously believe that Syria's WMD's actually did NOT come from Iraq, that Syria either made them herself or bought them from elsewhere, I invite you to provide proof of THAT.

If you can't ... then YOU explain away the media's twin acceptance that Syria has them, along with their lack of candidness as to HOW they have !!

... and YES, by the way, I already tried to find that proof of Syria's self-manufacture of its WMD's. I totally failed to find any. If you can prove such a case, go to it !

[Mr. P]

.. And where did Syria's WMD's come from, anyway ?

All the talk (mostly from the Left) about how wrong you were to go to war against Saddam's Iraq, how it was all 'lies' that Saddam had WMD's. Well, there was talk that Saddam used a certain six month window he had to move his WMD's across to Syria.

Now, 'all of a sudden', we learn that Syria has WMD's !! I don't know about your media, but ours is reporting claims that Syria is prepared to use WMD's, but NOT ONE WORD is said about how Assad got them.

And naturally not. Looking into that question would be way too awkward for them.

Yep, I remember that. Seems there was some proof at the time too...but I sure don't remember the source.

[Drummond]

Oh, and by the way .. I DID find THIS ....

http://www.free-lebanon.net/syria/syrian-wmd-pinpointed-on-video/


Syrian WMD exists, in large stockpiles, much coming from Iraq before the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein way back in 2003. FSA freedom fighters have published a video of the locations of at least two caches of chemical weapons today!

Though many called the Bush administration liars over the subject of Iraqi WMD stockpiles at the time, and soon after the nation was secured, they failed to understand there was a major exodus conducted that few detractors wanted to believe.

We now know this was true, as the Saddam Tapes of 2006 revealed, and as we now see that all governments of the world concede the fact that Syria has a huge stockpile, especially Chemical Weapons.

[Drummond]

.... back again ....

I intended to log off by now, but as Mr P also commented, I felt sure that there must be old reporting out there to help illustrate the window Saddam had, and what he did with it, to move WMD's out of his territory. So ..

.... Have just now found this, dating back six years ...

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/


The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus.

Of course, Leftie determination to make the 'Iraq didn't have any WMD's' case stick drowned out any protests to the contrary .. after all, one fights their propaganda at one's peril, no matter how disgusting their lies are !!

[Dilloduck]

Then Israel better get off their asses and make sure nothing happens to them. If they won't then we obviously have to attack Syria. Does Obama have a coalition started yet ?

[revelarts]

Revelarts, you want me to prove a negative ?

Quite the contrary .. if you seriously believe that Syria's WMD's actually did NOT come from Iraq, that Syria either made them herself or bought them from elsewhere, I invite you to provide proof of THAT.

If you can't ... then YOU explain away the media's twin acceptance that Syria has them, along with their lack of candidness as to HOW they have !!

... and YES, by the way, I already tried to find that proof of Syria's self-manufacture of its WMD's. I totally failed to find any. If you can prove such a case, go to it !


.... back again ....

I intended to log off by now, but as Mr P also commented, I felt sure that there must be old reporting out there to help illustrate the window Saddam had, and what he did with it, to move WMD's out of his territory. So ..

.... Have just now found this, dating back six years ...

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/



Of course, Leftie determination to make the 'Iraq didn't have any WMD's' case stick drowned out any protests to the contrary .. after all, one fights their propaganda at one's peril, no matter how disgusting their lies are !!



Lefties' like Hans Blick the IRAQ WMD Inspector that told the UN everything could be discovered and taken care in a matter of months of IF there was anything left?

The neo-con right are the ones with the WMD propaganda Drummond, i bought a bit of it to early on but no more.


But Concerning Syria, the 1st article you post Just Asserts that Syria got WMDs from Iraq but it goes on to say that Syria never signed an No Chem WMD agreement and it's is believed that they have theire own Chem weapons production going on.
So Syria is making their own WMD's.

the 2nd article about the General is interesting. I saw his interview on FOX years ago.
Now if you consider him all you need to Confirm without question that Iraqi WMD's were transferred to Syria then I can't argue with you.

But i ask you to give the same credibility to Any gov't single source i produce to prove a point contrary to your positions.
How about it?

I'll find a link to a long debate where i point to a dozen or so U.S. and UK gov't sources proving the Bush admin lied about Wmds in Iraq.

Will you believe them?

As far as the General claims go, he said it was 2 747's on 56 flights. with a cover of Humanitarian aid to Syria on a Dam accident. He knows this because of 2 Iraqi pilot friends who told him.

OK 1, so was that the total of Iraqs WMDs? Those and the mobile Facilities and underground bunkers and TONS of wmds?

And It looks like the According to the UN records, that the Fights from iraq to Syria for the "aid to the Dam accident" only totaled 12.
So the The story is not confirmed on that point.

http://ochaonline.un.org/OchaLinkClick.aspx?link=ocha&DocId=1001703


The large Zeyzoun earth dam, located in the agricultural Al-Ghab region some 300 km north of Damascus, collapsed on 4 June 2002. The impact of the released water caused serious damage in nearby populated areas with resultant casualties .
To date some 20 people are known to have been killed, and this figure is not likely to change. It is estimated that over 10,000 people were directly affected by this incident to varying degrees, with at least 2,000 rendered completely homeless.
Six days after the disaster, it is considered that the humanitarian situation resulting from this accident is largely under control as a result of a swift and targeted response by the Provincial and Central Syrian authorities. A rapid reaction by the international community, which sent large quantities of emergency supplies, also contributed to quickly stabilize the situation.


Drilling down for further detail, here is how Iraq is credited for its role in the relief efforts:
Iraq has sent 12 airplanes with food, medicines and blankets, and also dispatched a 12-member medical team.






Not sure why the UN would lie for Iraq here.
And someone might asked how you get 56 flights in 6 days from 2 planes. i'm not a pilot but that seems like a lot to me.

But if your satisfied with that the General has accounted for all of the Iraqi WMDs that the Coalition of the willing went to war over, i can't dispute it i suppose.

If you give my single source hearsay the same respect i'll leave it at that, if not i see no reason to give the Syrian stories the weight of unquestionable fact.


circumstantial evidence..



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...667r/?page=all (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/?page=all)
....He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”

But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because “the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve. ...

[Gaffer]

Lefties' like Hans Blick the IRAQ WMD Inspector that told the UN everything could be discovered and taken care in a matter of months of IF there was anything left?

The neo-con right are the ones with the WMD propaganda Drummond, i bought a bit of it to early on but no more.


But Concerning Syria, the 1st article you post Just Asserts that Syria got WMDs from Iraq but it goes on to say that Syria never signed an No Chem WMD agreement and it's is believed that they have theire own Chem weapons production going on.
So Syria is making their own WMD's.

the 2nd article about the General is interesting. I saw his interview on FOX years ago.
Now if you consider him all you need to Confirm without question that Iraqi WMD's were transferred to Syria then I can't argue with you.

But i ask you to give the same credibility to Any gov't single source i produce to prove a point contrary to your positions.
How about it?

I'll find a link to a long debate where i point to a dozen or so U.S. and UK gov't sources proving the Bush admin lied about Wmds in Iraq.

Will you believe them?

As far as the General claims go, he said it was 2 747's on 56 flights. with a cover of Humanitarian aid to Syria on a Dam accident. He knows this because of 2 Iraqi pilot friends who told him.

OK 1, so was that the total of Iraqs WMDs? Those and the mobile Facilities and underground bunkers and TONS of wmds?

And It looks like the According to the UN records, that the Fights from iraq to Syria for the "aid to the Dam accident" only totaled 12.
So the The story is not confirmed on that point.

http://ochaonline.un.org/OchaLinkClick.aspx?link=ocha&DocId=1001703



Not sure why the UN would lie for Iraq here.
And someone might asked how you get 56 flights in 6 days from 2 planes. i'm not a pilot but that seems like a lot to me.

But if your satisfied with that the General has accounted for all of the Iraqi WMDs that the Coalition of the willing went to war over, i can't dispute it i suppose.

If you give my single source hearsay the same respect i'll leave it at that, if not i see no reason to give the Syrian stories the weight of unquestionable fact.


circumstantial evidence..

So tell me again rev about your confidence in the un and how it operates. You'll take a un report over eyewitnesses? I have been saying for years that saddam was shipping his stuff to syria and other stuff went back to russia probably from syria. Tons of WMD's can easily be moved with planes and trucks. There were many convoys running to syria from iraq. And your boy Blitz was kept out of the country until the shipments were complete. You don't trust anything our govt does yet you accept whatever the un says as gospel?

I'm sure Drummond will find even more facts when he has more time for research. He just won't find much in the MSM.

[Roo]

God am I sick of this "Bush Lied" meme from partisan hacks who care little for any "truth" that may not support "their" positions.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Having said this, AND shown them to be moronic....we did not need to fight the Iraq war.

[Kathianne]

Yep, I remember that. Seems there was some proof at the time too...but I sure don't remember the source.

I went to the 'old site' to see if I could find my posts from the time. No luck, they dropped all posts before 2005. However, a more general search I came up with this:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/


Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria (http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/) The history books on this issue shouldn’t be written just yet.

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/wp-content/author_photos/ryanmauro-1374166036.jpg
by
Ryan Mauro
Bio (http://pjmedia.com/blog/author/ryanmauro/)

June 6, 2010 - 12:08 am

Ha’aretz has revived (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/what-is-assad-hiding-in-his-backyard-1.292935) [1] the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.


The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=68) [2] in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.


One of the three specific sites he mentioned was an underground base underneath Al-Baida, which is one kilometer south of Masyaf. This is a perfect match. The suspicious features in the photos and the fact that a Western intelligence agency is so interested in the site support Nayouf’s reporting, showing that his sources in Syria did indeed have access to specific information about secret activity that is likely WMD-related. Richard Radcliffe, one of my co-writers at WorldThreats.com, (http://www.worldthreats.com/) [3] noticed that Masyaf is located on a road that goes from Hamah, where there is an airfield sufficient to handle relatively large aircraft, into Lebanon and the western side of the Bekaa Valley, another location said to house Iraqi weapons.


It seems to be commonly accepted that Iraq did not have WMDs at all. The intelligence was obviously flawed, but the book has not been closed on what actually happened. The media blasted the headline that Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group tasked with finding out if Saddam had WMDs, concluded that a transfer did not occur. In reality, his report said (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2005.pdf) [4] they were “unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war” due to the poor security situation.


Although no conclusion was made, Duelfer has since said that he is “convinced” that no WMD went to Syria. He is a competent and credible individual, but there is evidence that key information on this possibility was not received by the Iraq Survey Group, which had many of its own problems.


On February 24, 2009, I went to see a talk Duelfer gave at the Free Library of Philadelphia to promote his book (http://www.amazon.com/Hide-Seek-Search-Truth-Iraq/dp/B002DYJKL6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275710192&sr=1-1) [5]. He admitted there were some “loose ends” regarding the possibility that Iraqi WMD went to Syria, but dismissed them. Among these “loose ends,” Duelfer said, was the inability to track down the Iraqis who worked for a company connected to Uday Hussein that sources said had driven “sensitive” material into Syria. A Pentagon document reveals (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=60) [6] that an Iraqi dissident reported that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.


During the question-and-answer period and during a follow-up interview, Duelfer made several interesting statements to me that reinforced my confidence that such a transfer occurred, although we can not be sure of the extent of it.


General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force, claimed in his 2006 book (http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1595553304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275710159&sr=8-1) [7] that he knew two Iraqi pilots that flew WMD into Syria over the summer of 2002, which came before a later shipment on the ground. I asked Duelfer if Nizar Nayouf or the two Iraqi pilots were spoken with.


“I did not interview the pilots nor did I speak with the Syrian journalist you mentioned,” he said. “We were inundated with WMD reports and could not investigate them all. … To narrow the problem, we investigated those people and places we knew would have either been involved or aware of regime WMD activities.”


He then told me that the lack of testimony about such dealings is what convinced him that “a lot of material went to Syria, but no WMD.” He cited the testimony of Naji Sabri, the former Iraqi foreign minister, in particular.


“I knew him very well, and I had been authorized to make his life a lot better, or a lot worse,” he told me.
He said that Sabri’s position would make him aware of any such deal between the two countries. However, in his book, Duelfer said that Sabri had nothing to do with any of Iraq’s WMD efforts at any time. “His statements on WMD from an intelligence perspective would have been irrelevant,” Duelfer wrote.


“Someone among the people we interviewed would have described this,” Duelfer said. However, such testimony does exist. Don Bordenkircher, who served as the national director of jail and prison operations in Iraq for two years, told me (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076) [8] that he spoke to about 40 Iraqis, either military personnel or civilians assigned to the military, who talked about the WMDs going to Syria and Lebanon, with some claiming they were actually involved. Their stories matched and were not contradictory, he said. Another military source of mine related (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=88) [9] to me how an Iraqi intelligence captain in Al-Qaim claimed to have witnessed the movement of suspicious convoys into Syria between February and March 2003.


I also asked Duelfer if he was aware of the intelligence provided by the Ukrainians and other sources that the Russians were in Iraq helping to cleanse the country shortly before the invasion. His facial expressions before I even finished the question showed he genuinely had never even heard of this...








One other, older reference:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/



The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.


The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/qid=1138293088/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9365920-2992826?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.


"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."


Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."


Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."


Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."


The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.


The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.


Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops....

[revelarts]

So tell me again rev about your confidence in the un and how it operates. You'll take a un report over eyewitnesses? I have been saying for years that saddam was shipping his stuff to syria and other stuff went back to russia probably from syria. Tons of WMD's can easily be moved with planes and trucks. There were many convoys running to syria from iraq. And your boy Blitz was kept out of the country until the shipments were complete. You don't trust anything our govt does yet you accept whatever the un says as gospel?

I'm sure Drummond will find even more facts when he has more time for research. He just won't find much in the MSM.
Gaffer do you believe the Eye witnesses at the grassy knoll or the Warren report ?
Gaffer so do you believe the 9-11 eye witnesses of Bombs in building?
or do you believe the official reports?

we can talk if you want to agree that some good eyewitness are the Gold standard for info. You know I'm no fan of the U.N. but in this case I see no reason to discount it's record here. Who benefits?

i have no problem with Eyewitnesses. i don't completely discount the Iraqi general account but it's 2nd hand and is not corroborated anywhere. Gaffer You didn't see any WMDs moved from iraq to Syria you BELIEVE they were. It seem to me ONLY based on the idea that our Gov't leaders couldn't have lied to us about tons of WMDs we NEVER found. So they had to go somewhere.

Drummonds 1st article said the Syrians have Chemical manufacturing ability. No need to imagine shipments form Iraq here to try to cover for Bush Blair and Cheney.


God am I sick of this "Bush Lied" meme from partisan hacks who care little for any "truth" that may not support "their" positions.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Having said this, AND shown them to be moronic....we did not need to fight the Iraq war.

Col. Wilkerson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb4h2ZhI41U&feature=related) Colan Powel's Chief of staff has said POINT BLANK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzkR1yvIRHA&feature=related) that Cheney and the CIA lied to him about the intel he and powell were given. Maybe you didn't get the news. That's just 1 set of lies.
It's really not a left right issue, it's a true or false issue Roo.

Cheney, Bush, Blair and some in the CIA and other intel sources LIED.

I don't want to derail the thread with the issue, if you want to continue you might want to check out these threads and post there.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&highlight=iaea

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose&highlight=saddam

[Roo]

Gaffer do you believe the Eye witnesses at the grassy knoll or the Warren report ?
Gaffer so do you believe the 9-11 eye witnesses of Bombs in building?
or do you believe the official reports?

we can talk if you want to agree that some good eyewitness are the Gold standard for info. You know I'm no fan of the U.N. but in this case I see no reason to discount it's record here. Who benefits?

i have no problem with Eyewitnesses. i don't completely discount the Iraqi general account but it's 2nd hand and is not corroborated anywhere. Gaffer You didn't see any WMDs moved from iraq to Syria you BELIEVE they were. It seem to me ONLY based on the idea that our Gov't leaders couldn't have lied to us about tons of WMDs we NEVER found. So they had to go somewhere.

Drummonds 1st article said the Syrians have Chemical manufacturing ability. No need to imagine shipments form Iraq here to try to cover for Bush Blair and Cheney.



Col. Wilkerson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb4h2ZhI41U&feature=related) Colan Powel's Chief of staff has said POINT BLANK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzkR1yvIRHA&feature=related) that Cheney and the CIA lied to him about the intel he and powell were given. Maybe you didn't get the news. That's just 1 set of lies.
It's really not a left right issue, it's a true or false issue Roo.

Cheney, Bush, Blair and some in the CIA and other intel sources LIED.

I don't want to derail the thread with the issue, if you want to continue you might want to check out these threads and post there.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&highlight=iaea

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose&highlight=saddam

Then so did every damn Dem from the mid 90's on , AND most of the world leaders geeeezus.

[revelarts]

Then so did every damn Dem from the mid 90's on , AND most of the world leaders geeeezus.

Some Lied and some were mislead and repeated lies...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027

[revelarts]

I went to the 'old site' to see if I could find my posts from the time. No luck, they dropped all posts before 2005. However, a more general search I came up with this:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/



One other, older reference:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/


that's a good report, Sounds a bit breathless and hopeful though.
Again you guys should be 9-11 toofers if the level of evidence only needs to rise to this level.




Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria (http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/)

The history books on this issue shouldn’t be written just yet.

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/wp-content/author_photos/ryanmauro-1374166036.jpg
by
Ryan Mauro
Bio (http://pjmedia.com/blog/author/ryanmauro/)

June 6, 2010 - 12:08 am

Ha’aretz has revived (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/what-is-assad-hiding-in-his-backyard-1.292935) [1] the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.


The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=68) [2] in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.

The mere presence of a facility and Hidden Path Supports it?

One of the three specific sites he mentioned was an underground base underneath Al-Baida, which is one kilometer south of Masyaf. This is a perfect match. The suspicious features in the photos and the fact that a Western intelligence agency is so interested in the site support Nayouf’s reporting, showing that his sources in Syria did indeed have access to specific information about secret activity that is likely WMD-related. Richard Radcliffe, one of my co-writers at WorldThreats.com, (http://www.worldthreats.com/) [3] noticed that Masyaf is located on a road that goes from Hamah, where there is an airfield sufficient to handle relatively large aircraft, into Lebanon and the western side of the Bekaa Valley, another location said to house Iraqi weapons.


It seems to be commonly accepted that Iraq did not have WMDs at all. The intelligence was obviously flawed, (LIED ABOUT -Re Curveball) but the book has not been closed on what actually happened. The media blasted the headline that Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group tasked with finding out if Saddam had WMDs, concluded that a transfer did not occur. In reality, his report said (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2005.pdf) [4] they were “unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war” due to the poor security situation.


Although no conclusion was made, Duelfer has since said that he is “convinced” that no WMD went to Syria. He is a competent and credible individual, but there is evidence that key information on this possibility was not received by the Iraq Survey Group, which had many of its own problems.


On February 24, 2009, I went to see a talk Duelfer gave at the Free Library of Philadelphia to promote his book (http://www.amazon.com/Hide-Seek-Search-Truth-Iraq/dp/B002DYJKL6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275710192&sr=1-1) [5]. He admitted there were some “loose ends” regarding the possibility that Iraqi WMD went to Syria, but dismissed them. Among these “loose ends,” Duelfer said, was the inability to track down the Iraqis who worked for a company connected to Uday Hussein that sources said had driven “sensitive” material into Syria. A Pentagon document reveals (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=60) [6] that an Iraqi dissident reported (wasn't curveball was it?) that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.


During the question-and-answer period and during a follow-up interview, Duelfer made several interesting statements to me that reinforced my confidence that such a transfer occurred, although we can not be sure of the extent of it.


General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force, claimed in his 2006 book (http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1595553304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275710159&sr=8-1) [7] that he knew two Iraqi pilots that flew WMD into Syria over the summer of 2002, which came before a later shipment on the ground. I asked Duelfer if Nizar Nayouf or the two Iraqi pilots were spoken with.


“I did not interview the pilots nor did I speak with the Syrian journalist you mentioned,” he said. “We were inundated with WMD reports and could not investigate them all. … To narrow the problem, we investigated those people and places we knew would have either been involved or aware of regime WMD activities.”


He then told me that the lack of testimony about such dealings is what convinced him that “a lot of material went to Syria, but no WMD.” He cited the testimony of Naji Sabri, the former Iraqi foreign minister, in particular.


“I knew him very well, and I had been authorized to make his life a lot better, or a lot worse,” he told me.
He said that Sabri’s position would make him aware of any such deal between the two countries. However, in his book, Duelfer said that Sabri had nothing to do with any of Iraq’s WMD efforts at any time. “His statements on WMD from an intelligence perspective would have been irrelevant,” Duelfer wrote.


“Someone among the people we interviewed would have described this,” Duelfer said. However, such testimony does exist. Don Bordenkircher, who served as the national director of jail and prison operations in Iraq for two years, told me (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076) [8] that he spoke to about 40 Iraqis, either military personnel or civilians assigned to the military, who talked about the WMDs going to Syria and Lebanon, with some claiming they were actually involved. (This is Interesting but it's one source giving the testmony of 40 + , if true it would be very good evidence. )Their stories matched and were not contradictory, he said. Another military source of mine related (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=88) [9] to me how an Iraqi intelligence captain in Al-Qaim claimed to have witnessed the movement of suspicious convoys into Syria between February and March 2003.


I also asked Duelfer if he was aware of the intelligence provided by the Ukrainians and other sources that the Russians were in Iraq helping to cleanse the country shortly before the invasion. His facial expressions before I even finished the question showed he genuinely had never even heard of this...

[revelarts]

Why are we even concerned about Syria?
General Wesley Clark
HEARD that there was a plan to attack 7 governments of 7 countries in 5 years . back in 2001-02 from people in the pentagon and directly from Wolfawitz. The policy really hasn't changed it seems.
Countries listed below !

Iraq, CHECK
Libya, CHECK
Syria, CHEC.....
Lebanon,
Samolia,
Sudan
and Iran CHE... CHE... CHE...
( 7 countries in 5 years)

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Drummond]

This is the same old story, isn't it ? Lefties absolutely refusing to accept either evidence or doubts which blow a hole in their cherished beliefs.

Here's part of what's laughable about this whole 'did they have them or didn't they, and what did they do with them' controversy about Iraq's WMD's.

Iraq was KNOWN to have WMD's at the time of Gulf War #1, when Saddam's invasion force was kicked out of Kuwait ... after all, they'd used one against the Kurds, just a couple of years previously !! Part of the agreement by which that invasion force wasn't utterly crushed, why they were allowed back into Iraq territory and not fought against further, was that Saddam would become totally accountable for the weaponry his regime held.

So, the long and drawn-out farce of UN Resolution after UN Resolution being passed, then defied, kicked off ... and lasted over a DECADE.

Saddam never did give a full account of those weapons. Only after the especially toughly worded Resolution 1441 did he take them even half seriously, and even then, what did he do ? Just declared that he had no weapons of mass destruction. No numbers of them were supplied. No totals of what had been held, and when, and what quantities destroyed, where and when. NOTHING of that sort was definitively declared.

No, Saddam merely 'gave his word' that none were held. That, and also some inspectors were taken to sites where it could be proved that WMD's had been destroyed. No amounts declared. No precise records ever released properly detailing the tally of how much had been destroyed, and how that related to the total stockpile.

Saddam ... 'gave his word'. And for all the strong protests from the Left, it's a fact that the 'we are sure Iraq had no WMD's' just comes down to a blind faith IN SADDAM'S WORD. This from a brutal, rogue leader who'd evaded giving direct accounts of anything held for over a decade, and who was persisting in his evasiveness !!

Between the passing of UN Resolution 1441 and the Iraq invasion, Saddam had several months to ensure that and stocks held could be hidden or moved, or both. But the Left has always been wilfully blind to that, choosing instead their myopic propagandising over facing realities squarely.

So it's hardly surprising, is it, that any and all evidence suggesting that Iraqi WMD's are now held by Syria will likewise be rejected out of hand.

If Lefties in the US were confronted with news that police had discovered a Syrian terrorist cell in their territory, that they were holding a cache of Iraqi-acquired WMD's all primed for deployment, WMD's clearly stamped 'Made In Iraq' on them, and if that terrorist cell just happened to have documented evidence of when, where and how Syria had got a hold of them, if all of that could be PROVED, still, they'd refuse to believe any of it. They'd say it was all 'a Right wing plot', or that all the evidence was forged. Or, they'd do what they did with the four pages of declassified intelligence released by your Intelligence services back in June 2006, and just keep all news of it out of the Left-wing controlled media ..... ANYTHING to keep their propagandist stance in place.

Who'd like to deny the existence of the following link ? >

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3492930/Iraq-WMD-Declassified

.. or, declare the document a forgery ? Come on, Lefties, don't be shy, form a queue for the privilege ....

[To the best of my knowledge, folks, the existence of that document, and any account of its findings .. WAS NEVER, ONCE, REPORTED AT ALL BY ANY MEDIA OUTLET IN EUROPE. Certainly, the British media never released news of it. I only know of it myself, thanks to my reviewing the Fox News site at the time.]

I've seen it claimed in this thread that the war against Iraq shouldn't have been fought. Well, had it not been, US authorities would've never found what they DID find (.. or rather, 'didn't find', as some would insist was true).

Perhaps it's better not to fight for the truth, or to ever face the consequences of that truth, if that truth isn't preferred by the Left ? :bang3::bang3::blowup:

[Drummond]

Why are we even concerned about Syria?
General Wesley Clark
HEARD that there was a plan to attack 7 governments of 7 countries in 5 years . back in 2001-02 from people in the pentagon and directly from Wolfawitz. The policy really hasn't changed it seems.
Countries listed below !

Iraq, CHECK
Libya, CHECK
Syria, CHEC.....
Lebanon,
Samolia,
Sudan
and Iran CHE... CHE... CHE...
( 7 countries in 5 years)

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Perhaps there's some little-known law of nature that would physically prevent any terrorist from ever acquiring a WMD from any rogue nation, anywhere, anytime, ever ?

OR, could it be that a regime whose leadership have little or nothing in the way of moral or ethical standards might just feel themselves free to give (or sell) some WMD's to them ??

But then again ... maybe this possibility, too, defies any and all Leftie propaganda designed to arrange myopic complacency in us all ? Yes, INDEED, why are any of us 'even concerned about Syria' ... ???

After all, that little-known law of nature will ensure that no terrorist could ever get a Syrian-owned WMD. Absolutely Guaranteed. After all ... LEFTIES don't want to believe it, so, why should anyone else ?

Therefore .. It Cannot Happen. So There ...

[revelarts]

This is the same old story, isn't it ? Lefties absolutely refusing to accept either evidence or doubts which blow a hole in their cherished beliefs.

Here's part of what's laughable about this whole 'did they have them or didn't they, and what did they do with them' controversy about Iraq's WMD's.

Iraq was KNOWN to have WMD's at the time of Gulf War #1, when Saddam's invasion force was kicked out of Kuwait ... after all, they'd used one against the Kurds, just a couple of years previously !! Part of the agreement by which that invasion force wasn't utterly crushed, why they were allowed back into Iraq territory and not fought against further, was that Saddam would become totally accountable for the weaponry his regime held.

So, the long and drawn-out farce of UN Resolution after UN Resolution being passed, then defied, kicked off ... and lasted over a DECADE.

Saddam never did give a full account of those weapons. Only after the especially toughly worded Resolution 1441 did he take them even half seriously, and even then, what did he do ? Just declared that he had no weapons of mass destruction. No numbers of them were supplied. No totals of what had been held, and when, and what quantities destroyed, where and when. NOTHING of that sort was definitively declared.

No, Saddam merely 'gave his word' that none were held. That, and also some inspectors were taken to sites where it could be proved that WMD's had been destroyed. No amounts declared. No precise records ever released properly detailing the tally of how much had been destroyed, and how that related to the total stockpile.

Saddam ... 'gave his word'. And for all the strong protests from the Left, it's a fact that the 'we are sure Iraq had no WMD's' just comes down to a blind faith IN SADDAM'S WORD. This from a brutal, rogue leader who'd evaded giving direct accounts of anything held for over a decade, and who was persisting in his evasiveness !!.....

.....


Drummond that would be fine it that was the WHOLE story but it's not.

there are 2 questions here
1- Did we know that Saddam had WMDs WHEN WE ATTACKED?
and
2- Did Bush Blair and Cheney LIE about the intel to try to make Look worse than it was.



the 1st question is what some like to harp on but only to say he had them whithout being specific as to when. NO ONE denies that at one point in the 80 and and early 90s he DID have WMDs the question was whether he had WMDs in 2000 2001 2002 and the Answer is Only some old unsealbe stuff and some items that where unaccounted for on paper that have yet to be found but That The IAEA and other acknowledge could have been destroyed in previous batches. And NONE of that added up to TONS of VX Sarin or a possible mushroom cloud.


Han Blix DID go into Iraq and said Shortly before we invaded that IF there was any WMDs that were unaccounted for then withen a few months of continued investigation they could determine the status.

That's was NOT Saddams promise that the word of the U.N Chief investigator in April before the Invasion, Why do you overlook that truth?


to the 2nd question Did they Lie,
As i pointed out earlier but you you seemed to miss or ignored is that Col Wilkerson has stated repeatedly in writting and in interviews that he was LIED to by Cheney's office and by members of the CIA. He had knowledge after the fact that they KNEW that much of what Colan powell was given as evidence was false. I wish ONE or you would acknowledge at lest that fact.

And you Drummond should be well aware of the Downing St memos and much of the other info that has come out in th UK exposing the "sexing up" of intel.

Just to be clear definitions, when someone intends to decieve others into thinking something is far worse thann it is, that is lying. Even if they think it's for a good cause.

they LIED on multiple occasion Drummond i'm not sure what skin the right losses by admitting that politicatians are proven liars, and Are willing to lie their own nations in wars for reasons they keep
secret to themselves. it's part of history of power both left and right. We don't do ourselves any favors defend corruption of any side. the rank and file end up dying in wars, getting tortured and paying the bills not the politicians.
:bang3::bang3::blowup:

[revelarts]

For a just the facts ma-am
a short list people who KNEW that the intel was flase and that Cheney, Rumsfelid Bush and Blair were Lying. many in the intel comunity knew the officail accusations were false.

Anyway
Lt Col Karen Kawaitski's Pentagon.
http://www.q-and-a.org/Video/?ProgramID=1069
C-Span is a pretty fair place to start. She been in the New Yorker Magazine, Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2005/6/29/fmr_pentagon_insider_blasts_bushs_iraq) , militaryweek.com, Huffington Post, AntiWar.com, The American Conservative magazine, Salon, Motherjones, LA Weekly, Coommondreams.com, Russia Today, and more. She's been in several documentaries, Superpower, Why We Fight , Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire, Uncovered: The War on Iraq and Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War.

She work for Doug Feith In the Pentagon on the near east desk and saw an adjunct office created By Feith called the Office of Special Plans that she says Cherry picked intel info messaged it and fed it to the the BCRandR. She saw the same intel they did but knew that much of it WAS OLD others parts had been discredited by DIA and CIA reports. And On some intel they just removed the caveats like the timing to create the impression that what Iraq did in the past they were doing now. the OSP was accountable to no one but the Vice President and Rumsfled.

If she was alone in her Assertions then you might , MIGHT, want to dismiss her. but she's not.
---BUT IF YOU BELIEVE ONE IRAQI GENERALS STORY then ONE U.S. LT Col STORY SHOULD BE GOOD TOO.--

New Yorker Magazine Article by Symour Hersh 1 paragraph
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by New Yorker Magazine
They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question….




the article goes on to
W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of Middle East intelligence at the D.I.A., said, “The Pentagon has banded together to dominate the government’s foreign policy, and they’ve pulled it off. They’re running Chalabi. The D.I.A. has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there’s no guts at all in the C.I.A.”
Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of counter-terrorism operations and analysis at the C.I.A., worked with Shulsky (OSP Boss) at a Washington think tank after his retirement. He said, “Abe is very gentle and slow to anger, with a sense of irony. But his politics were typical for his group—the Straussian view.” The group’s members, Cannistraro said, “reinforce each other because they’re the only friends they have, and they all work together. This has been going on since the nineteen-eighties, but they’ve never been able to coalesce as they have now. September 11th gave them the opportunity, and now they’re in heaven. They believe the intelligence is there. They want to believe it. It has to be there.”…
…In interviews, former C.I.A. officers and analysts described the agency as increasingly demoralized. “George knows he’s being beaten up,” one former officer said of George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. “And his analysts are terrified. George used to protect his people, but he’s been forced to do things their way.” Because the C.I.A.’s analysts are now on the defensive, “they write reports justifying their intelligence rather than saying what’s going on. The Defense Department and the Office of the Vice-President write their own pieces, based on their own ideology. We collect so much stuff that you can find anything you want.”…
…A former high-level intelligence official told me that American Special Forces units had been sent into Iraq in mid-March, before the start of the air and ground war, to investigate sites suspected of being missile or chemical- and biological-weapon storage depots. “They came up with nothing,” the official said. “Never found a single Scud.”…
…On April 22nd, Hans Blix, hours before he asked the U.N. Security Council to send his team back to Iraq, told the BBC, “I think it’s been one of the disturbing elements that so much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been so shaky.”…


So there a are few others that seem to corroborate her story but sadly there's more.

Patrick Lang, DIA
Patrick Lang, the former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence, said the Office of Special Plans "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. Lang said in interviews with several media outlets that the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

"“I don’t have any problem with them bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessments. But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get.” [New York Times, 4/28/2004]"

That agency was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vincent Cannistraro Head of CIA's counter-intelligence unit
“I think that early on in the administration—sometime within the first five to six months after Sept. 11, 2001—the decision was made that Iraq had to be dealt with. The intelligence community was tasked to collect information.” [ABC News, 6/16/2003]

“They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it. And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can’t get him to say what they want on Iraq.” [Washington Post, 10/25/2002]

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA.” [Guardian, 10/9/2002]

“The [INC’s] intelligence isn’t reliable at all. Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi’s own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches.” [Independent, 9/30/2003]

He told Reuters that “he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up ‘fraudulent’ intelligence” that had been acquired through the notorious Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. [Reuters, 5/30/2003]


-----
Tyler Drumheller, CIA chief in Europe

CBS NEWS
Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...in;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBod y)
Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says….

...Meanwhile, the CIA had made a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq’s nuclear program. Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, had made a deal to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA. Drumheller was in charge of the operation.

"This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says.

"You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked.

"We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied.

According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice.

At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis."

What did this high-level source tell him?

"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller.

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all.

"It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked.

"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister.

But he says he was taken aback by what happened. "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested," Drumheller recalls. "And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

"And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that," Bradley asked.

"The first we heard, they were. Yes," Drumheller replied.

Once they learned what it was the source had to say — that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to wage nuclear war or have an active WMD program, Drumheller says, "They stopped being interested in the intelligence."

The White House declined to respond to Drumheller's account of Naji Sabri’s role, but Secretary of State Rice has said that Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister turned U.S. spy, was just one source, and therefore his information wasn’t reliable.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on uranium, on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all and so you can’t say you only listen to one source, because on many issues they only listened to one source," says Drumheller.

"So you’re saying that if there was a single source and that information from that source backed up the case they were trying to build, then that single source was ok, but if it didn’t, then the single source was not ok, because he couldn’t be corroborated," Bradley asked.

"Unfortunately, that’s what it looks like," Drumheller replied.

"One panel after another found that agencies were giving conflicting information to the president," Bradley remarked.

Drumheller admits they were. "And that's the problem. No. There was no one voice in coming out of the intelligence community and that allowed those people to pick and choose those bits of information that fit what they wanted to know."


…."The American people want to believe the president. I have relatives who I've tried to talk to about this who say, 'Well, no, you can’t tell me the president had this information and just ignored it,'" says Drumheller. "But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

CIA CHief Drumheller interview with Spiegel about "Curveball" Info in Powells U.N. Speech.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...462782,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462782,00.html)

…Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."
SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell’s presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.
Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.

Larry Johnson, CIA analyst
“We’ve entered the world of George Orwell. I’m disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can’t allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 6/8/2003]

“By April of last year, I was beginning to pick up grumblings from friends inside the intelligence community that there had been pressure applied to analysts to come up with certain conclusions. Specifically, I was told that analysts were pressured to find an operational link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. One analyst, in particular, told me they were repeatedly pressured by the most senior officials in the Department of Defense.… In an e-mail exchange with another friend, I raised the possibility that ‘the Bush administration had bought into a lie.’ My friend, who works within the intelligence community, challenged me on the use of the word, ‘bought,’ and suggested instead that the Bush administration had created the lie.… I have spoken to more than two analysts who have expressed fear of retaliation if they come forward and tell what they know. We know that most of the reasons we were given for going to war were wrong.”


[B]Melvin A. Goodman Senior Analyst CIA Intell Specialist National war college
“To deny that there was any pressure on the intelligence community is just absurd.” [Reuters, 6/6/2003]
[ed: Goodman is referring here to the lectures he gives to intelligence analysts at the State Department’s Foreign Services Institute] “I get into the issue of politicization. They don’t say much during the question period, but afterwards people come up to me, DIA and CIA analysts who have had this pressure. I’ve gotten stories from DIA people being called into a supervisor’s office and told they might lose their job if they didn’t revise a paper. ‘This is not what the administration is looking for. You’ve got to find WMD’s, which are out there.’” [Vanity Fair, 5/2004]

Stansfield Turner, former director of CIA
“There is no question in my mind (policymakers) distorted the situation, either because they had bad intelligence or because they misinterpreted it.” [USA Today, 6/17/2003]



Richard Clarke, White House counterterrorism advisor
Clarke recounts how on Jan. 24, 2001, he recommended that the new president's national-security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, convene the president's top advisers to discuss the Qaeda threat. One week later, Bush did. But according to Clarke, the meeting had nothing to do with bin Laden. The topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. "What does that tell you?" Clarke remarked to Newsweek. "They thought there was something more urgent. It was Iraq. They came in there with their agenda, and [al*Qaeda] was not on it."

Clarke emphasizes that Bush's focus on Iraq actually served to increase the terrorist danger. Clarke writes that Bush "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

Clarke is not a Democrat, and his sentiments are not antiwar in principle. In fact he is a foreign-policy hawk and career government official who served five presidents, three of them Republicans.

"Beginning on the night of 9/11, we have the secretary of defense and others talking about going to war with Iraq. I think we knew pretty much that week that the probability of finding a justification for going to war with Iraq was high on their agenda."
"And he said: "Saddam! Saddam! See if there's a connection to Saddam!" And this wasn't "See if there's a connection with Iran, and while you're at it, do Iraq, and while you're at it, do the Palestinian Islamic group." It wasn't "Do due diligence." It wasn't "Have an exhaustive review." It was "Saddam, Saddam." I read that pretty clearly, that that was the answer he wanted.
I said to him, "We have already done that research prior to the attack" -- in fact, we'd done it a couple of times -- "and there's nothing there." And the facial expression back was, "That wasn't the right answer."
So I said, "Well, but we will do it again." And we asked CIA to do it again. CIA did it again, came up with the same answer. That answer was written up and handed to the president by George Tenet in one of his morning meetings, and it said, "For the third or fourth time, we've gone back to look at the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and there is no real cooperation between those two.""
"I remember vividly, in the driveway outside of the West Wing, Scooter Libby, from the vice president's office, grabbing me and saying, "I hear you don't believe this report that Mohamed Atta was talking to Iraqi people in Prague." I said, "I don't believe it because it's not true." And he said: "You're wrong. You know you're wrong. Go back and find out; look at the rest of the reports, and find out that you're wrong." I understood what he was saying, which was: "This is a report that we want to believe, and stop saying it's not true. It's a real problem for the vice president's office that you, the counterterrorism coordinator, are walking around saying that this isn't a true report. Shut up!" That's what I was being told.
I'm somebody who has been in Washington national security for 30 years. I'm not easily intimidated. Imagine if you're an analyst at the CIA who's been there for four or five years."

“I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.” [Washington Post, 3/22/2004]
Associated Events

“The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it. They did know better. We told them. The CIA told them. The FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging Sept. 11, when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. I think for a commander in chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable.” [New York Times, 3/23/2004]

Larry Wlkerson, Gen Powell's Chief of staff
Look him up and see what he has to say if your interested


Hans Blix
Between late November and mid-March 2003, Blix reports, the UN inspectors made seven hundred separate visits to five hundred sites. About three dozen of those sites had been suggested by intelligence services, many by Tenet's CIA, which insisted that these were "the best" in the agency's database. Blix was shocked. "If this was the best, what was the rest?" he asked himself. "Could there be 100-percent certainty about the existence of weapons of mass destruction but zero-percent knowledge about their location?"
By this time Blix was firmly opposed to the evident American preference for disarmament by war. "It was, in my view, too early to give up now," he writes. Tony Blair in late February tried to convince Blix that Saddam had WMD even if Blix couldn't find them – the French, German, and Egyptian intelligence services were all sure of it, Blair said. Blix told Blair that to him they seemed not so sure, and adds as an aside, "My faith in intelligence had been shaken." On March 5, Blix on the phone with Rice asked her point-blank if the United States knew where Iraq's WMD were hidden. "No, she said, but interviews after liberation would reveal it."
In that meeting of the Security Council both ElBaradei and Blix reported their continuing plans for further inspections, and both said that outstanding issues might be resolved within a few months. This was not what the United States wanted to hear. In mid-February, President Bush had derided efforts to give Iraq "another, 'nother, 'nother last chance." Blix had pleaded in a phone call about the same time to Secretary of State Colin Powell for a free hand at least until April 15. "He said it was too late."
Three years later, in a speech to the Arms Control Association, Blix reflected on that moment in his office at the UN – the afternoon of March 16 – when the State Department's John Wolf called to say that the time had come to pull the inspectors out of Iraq. "My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue with inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all of the sites which were given by intelligence," he said. "And since there were not any weapons of massive destruction, we would have reported there were not any." An invasion might have taken place anyway, Blix concedes; the Americans and British had sent several hundred thousand troops to Kuwait and could not leave them sitting in the desert indefinitely. "But it would have been certainly more difficult," Blix said. Even so, in Blix's view, something important had been achieved. "The UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it." Blix guessed that Saddam hid his compliance so Iran wouldn't think him weak, but it was the Americans who were deceived.


Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, formerlythe director of policy planning at the State Department. A former Rhodes Scholar, he also served as the U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and was senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.
frontline interview
"Was it necessary to go to war when we did?
"When we did, no. That was a question of choice. Obviously, you could have delayed it a day, a week, a month, a year. There was no necessity then. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision."




curveball
the best source for WMD info was a complete fraud
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...808,full.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,5362808,full.story)
60 minites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U7beWttza0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxbV...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxbV0CjshQ&feature=related)

Hussien Kamel, former Director of Iraq's Industrialization Corporation in charge of Iraq's weapons program, stated in an Aug. 22, 1995 briefing with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
"I don't remember resumption of chemical weapon production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. But there was no decision to use chemical weapons for fear of retaliation. They must have a revision of decision to start production.
All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear were destroyed."
Aug. 22, 1995 - Hussein Kamel*


http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resour...ourceID=000674 (http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000674)

...

[revelarts]

Perhaps there's some little-known law of nature that would physically prevent any terrorist from ever acquiring a WMD from any rogue nation, anywhere, anytime, ever ?

OR, could it be that a regime whose leadership have little or nothing in the way of moral or ethical standards might just feel themselves free to give (or sell) some WMD's to them ??

But then again ... maybe this possibility, too, defies any and all Leftie propaganda designed to arrange myopic complacency in us all ? Yes, INDEED, why are any of us 'even concerned about Syria' ... ???

After all, that little-known law of nature will ensure that no terrorist could ever get a Syrian-owned WMD. Absolutely Guaranteed. After all ... LEFTIES don't want to believe it, so, why should anyone else ?

Therefore .. It Cannot Happen. So There ...

Pakistan has WMD's
India Has WMDs
N. Korea has WMDs
RUSSIA has Rouge WMDs scattered about.

there are little reported Incidents of people in the U.S. SELLING WMD info and material to rouge powers.
it's another BS argument to say we have to attack a ANOTHER nation to keep WMDs from speading to the "wrong hands".

But Drummond i don't think you really care about facts that don't line up with your view of the world.

You keep thinking that a rightist gov't can keep you safe from all danger. and will never allow 60 year old tech to fall into the wrong hands. keep dreaming buddy. there are far worse tech items down the line and as i've mentioned before.

If 50 terrorist of any strip decided to do only what the batman shooter did all at one time in gov't bldging on the east and west coast of the U.S.. the US population would losses it freaking mind.
that's without ANY WMDs.
Saftey is an illusion for old ladies and lil kids. We don't want to encourage proliferation but to say that Syria is a threat to us of any significance is BS of a HIGH order.

[Roo]

Pakistan has WMD's
India Has WMDs
N. Korea has WMDs
RUSSIA has Rouge WMDs scattered about.

there are little reported Incidents of people in the U.S. SELLING WMD info and material to rouge powers.
it's another BS argument to say we have to attack a ANOTHER nation to keep WMDs from speading to the "wrong hands".

But Drummond i don't think you really care about facts that don't line up with your view of the world.

You keep thinking that a rightist gov't can keep you safe from all danger. and will never allow 60 year old tech to fall into the wrong hands. keep dreaming buddy. there are far worse tech items down the line and as i've mentioned before.

If 50 terrorist of any strip decided to do only what the batman shooter did all at one time in gov't bldging on the east and west coast of the U.S.. the US population would losses it freaking mind.
that's without ANY WMDs.
Saftey is an illusion for old ladies and lil kids. We don't want to encourage proliferation but to say that Syria is a threat to us of any significance is BS of a HIGH order.

To say that their WMD's pose NO threat to us is BS of the highest order.......to deny that would make on a flat earther.

[Drummond]

Drummond that would be fine it that was the WHOLE story but it's not.

there are 2 questions here
1- Did we know that Saddam had WMDs WHEN WE ATTACKED?
and
2- Did Bush Blair and Cheney LIE about the intel to try to make Look worse than it was.

Sorry to disappoint you (.. but I'm sure you'll disregard what you choose to, so it doesn't really matter ...) .. but, both your questions are spurious.

On the first one, the whole point was that Saddam had utterly refused to comply with the UN Resolution 1441's demand of Saddam that he EITHER account for WMD stocks, OR that he declare, with supporting evidence, what had been destroyed. To simply declare 'we have no WMD's' and to expect that assurance to be taken on its face value, unsupported by those little, 'incidental' things called .. FACTS .. wasn't nearly good enough.

Blix and his teams were far too few in number to just go and scour Iraq on their own, and expect to get anywhere in the process. The reality of their so-called 'inspections' was that they were reliant on Iraqi officials for information as to where to go and inspect !! And as Blix himself admitted on an O'Reilly Factor interview .. I watched it myself, via our Sky satellite service in the UK .. Blix told Bill O'Reilly that the best they could do was determine that WMD destructions had occurred at sites they were LED to. They had no way of verifying the quantities destroyed.

On your second question, I don't buy that Bush, Blair, Cheney, knowingly lied. But what difference would it have made ?? Saddam had not cooperated properly with the UN, the inspections were farcical, and no way existed to definitely determine what WMD stocks were being held.

No, the only option that meant ANYTHING was to militarily invade. That is the reality that existed.

And by trying to deny that reality, you're allowing propagandist illusion to triumph over realism.

Because Lefties would've preferred Saddam's regime to be free of WMD's isn't the same as saying it WAS. But then ... you'll never accept that, will you ?

Some of us don't allow wishing for what we prefer to be an adequate response to the harsh realities of this world, Revelarts. Some of us consider that a Russian roulette approach to world security isn't remotely sensible.

Maybe, one day, the Left will agree. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

[jimnyc]

For a just the facts ma-am
a short list people who KNEW that the intel was flase and that Cheney, Rumsfelid Bush and Blair were Lying. many in the intel comunity knew the officail accusations were false.

Anyway
Lt Col Karen Kawaitski's Pentagon.
http://www.q-and-a.org/Video/?ProgramID=1069
C-Span is a pretty fair place to start. She been in the New Yorker Magazine, Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2005/6/29/fmr_pentagon_insider_blasts_bushs_iraq) , militaryweek.com, Huffington Post, AntiWar.com, The American Conservative magazine, Salon, Motherjones, LA Weekly, Coommondreams.com, Russia Today, and more. She's been in several documentaries, Superpower, Why We Fight , Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire, Uncovered: The War on Iraq and Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War.

She work for Doug Feith In the Pentagon on the near east desk and saw an adjunct office created By Feith called the Office of Special Plans that she says Cherry picked intel info messaged it and fed it to the the BCRandR. She saw the same intel they did but knew that much of it WAS OLD others parts had been discredited by DIA and CIA reports. And On some intel they just removed the caveats like the timing to create the impression that what Iraq did in the past they were doing now. the OSP was accountable to no one but the Vice President and Rumsfled.

If she was alone in her Assertions then you might , MIGHT, want to dismiss her. but she's not.
---BUT IF YOU BELIEVE ONE IRAQI GENERALS STORY then ONE U.S. LT Col STORY SHOULD BE GOOD TOO.--

New Yorker Magazine Article by Symour Hersh 1 paragraph
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by New Yorker Magazine
They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question….




the article goes on to
W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of Middle East intelligence at the D.I.A., said, “The Pentagon has banded together to dominate the government’s foreign policy, and they’ve pulled it off. They’re running Chalabi. The D.I.A. has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there’s no guts at all in the C.I.A.”
Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of counter-terrorism operations and analysis at the C.I.A., worked with Shulsky (OSP Boss) at a Washington think tank after his retirement. He said, “Abe is very gentle and slow to anger, with a sense of irony. But his politics were typical for his group—the Straussian view.” The group’s members, Cannistraro said, “reinforce each other because they’re the only friends they have, and they all work together. This has been going on since the nineteen-eighties, but they’ve never been able to coalesce as they have now. September 11th gave them the opportunity, and now they’re in heaven. They believe the intelligence is there. They want to believe it. It has to be there.”…
…In interviews, former C.I.A. officers and analysts described the agency as increasingly demoralized. “George knows he’s being beaten up,” one former officer said of George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. “And his analysts are terrified. George used to protect his people, but he’s been forced to do things their way.” Because the C.I.A.’s analysts are now on the defensive, “they write reports justifying their intelligence rather than saying what’s going on. The Defense Department and the Office of the Vice-President write their own pieces, based on their own ideology. We collect so much stuff that you can find anything you want.”…
…A former high-level intelligence official told me that American Special Forces units had been sent into Iraq in mid-March, before the start of the air and ground war, to investigate sites suspected of being missile or chemical- and biological-weapon storage depots. “They came up with nothing,” the official said. “Never found a single Scud.”…
…On April 22nd, Hans Blix, hours before he asked the U.N. Security Council to send his team back to Iraq, told the BBC, “I think it’s been one of the disturbing elements that so much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been so shaky.”…


So there a are few others that seem to corroborate her story but sadly there's more.

Patrick Lang, DIA
Patrick Lang, the former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence, said the Office of Special Plans "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. Lang said in interviews with several media outlets that the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

"“I don’t have any problem with them bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessments. But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get.” [New York Times, 4/28/2004]"

That agency was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vincent Cannistraro Head of CIA's counter-intelligence unit
“I think that early on in the administration—sometime within the first five to six months after Sept. 11, 2001—the decision was made that Iraq had to be dealt with. The intelligence community was tasked to collect information.” [ABC News, 6/16/2003]

“They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it. And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can’t get him to say what they want on Iraq.” [Washington Post, 10/25/2002]

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA.” [Guardian, 10/9/2002]

“The [INC’s] intelligence isn’t reliable at all. Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi’s own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches.” [Independent, 9/30/2003]

He told Reuters that “he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up ‘fraudulent’ intelligence” that had been acquired through the notorious Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. [Reuters, 5/30/2003]


-----
Tyler Drumheller, CIA chief in Europe

CBS NEWS
Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...in;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBod y)
Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says….

...Meanwhile, the CIA had made a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq’s nuclear program. Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, had made a deal to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA. Drumheller was in charge of the operation.

"This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says.

"You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked.

"We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied.

According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice.

At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis."

What did this high-level source tell him?

"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller.

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all.

"It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked.

"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister.

But he says he was taken aback by what happened. "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested," Drumheller recalls. "And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

"And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that," Bradley asked.

"The first we heard, they were. Yes," Drumheller replied.

Once they learned what it was the source had to say — that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to wage nuclear war or have an active WMD program, Drumheller says, "They stopped being interested in the intelligence."

The White House declined to respond to Drumheller's account of Naji Sabri’s role, but Secretary of State Rice has said that Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister turned U.S. spy, was just one source, and therefore his information wasn’t reliable.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on uranium, on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all and so you can’t say you only listen to one source, because on many issues they only listened to one source," says Drumheller.

"So you’re saying that if there was a single source and that information from that source backed up the case they were trying to build, then that single source was ok, but if it didn’t, then the single source was not ok, because he couldn’t be corroborated," Bradley asked.

"Unfortunately, that’s what it looks like," Drumheller replied.

"One panel after another found that agencies were giving conflicting information to the president," Bradley remarked.

Drumheller admits they were. "And that's the problem. No. There was no one voice in coming out of the intelligence community and that allowed those people to pick and choose those bits of information that fit what they wanted to know."


…."The American people want to believe the president. I have relatives who I've tried to talk to about this who say, 'Well, no, you can’t tell me the president had this information and just ignored it,'" says Drumheller. "But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

CIA CHief Drumheller interview with Spiegel about "Curveball" Info in Powells U.N. Speech.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...462782,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462782,00.html)

…Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."
SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell’s presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.
Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.

Larry Johnson, CIA analyst
“We’ve entered the world of George Orwell. I’m disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can’t allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 6/8/2003]

“By April of last year, I was beginning to pick up grumblings from friends inside the intelligence community that there had been pressure applied to analysts to come up with certain conclusions. Specifically, I was told that analysts were pressured to find an operational link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. One analyst, in particular, told me they were repeatedly pressured by the most senior officials in the Department of Defense.… In an e-mail exchange with another friend, I raised the possibility that ‘the Bush administration had bought into a lie.’ My friend, who works within the intelligence community, challenged me on the use of the word, ‘bought,’ and suggested instead that the Bush administration had created the lie.… I have spoken to more than two analysts who have expressed fear of retaliation if they come forward and tell what they know. We know that most of the reasons we were given for going to war were wrong.”


[B]Melvin A. Goodman Senior Analyst CIA Intell Specialist National war college
“To deny that there was any pressure on the intelligence community is just absurd.” [Reuters, 6/6/2003]
[ed: Goodman is referring here to the lectures he gives to intelligence analysts at the State Department’s Foreign Services Institute] “I get into the issue of politicization. They don’t say much during the question period, but afterwards people come up to me, DIA and CIA analysts who have had this pressure. I’ve gotten stories from DIA people being called into a supervisor’s office and told they might lose their job if they didn’t revise a paper. ‘This is not what the administration is looking for. You’ve got to find WMD’s, which are out there.’” [Vanity Fair, 5/2004]

Stansfield Turner, former director of CIA
“There is no question in my mind (policymakers) distorted the situation, either because they had bad intelligence or because they misinterpreted it.” [USA Today, 6/17/2003]



Richard Clarke, White House counterterrorism advisor
Clarke recounts how on Jan. 24, 2001, he recommended that the new president's national-security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, convene the president's top advisers to discuss the Qaeda threat. One week later, Bush did. But according to Clarke, the meeting had nothing to do with bin Laden. The topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. "What does that tell you?" Clarke remarked to Newsweek. "They thought there was something more urgent. It was Iraq. They came in there with their agenda, and [al*Qaeda] was not on it."

Clarke emphasizes that Bush's focus on Iraq actually served to increase the terrorist danger. Clarke writes that Bush "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

Clarke is not a Democrat, and his sentiments are not antiwar in principle. In fact he is a foreign-policy hawk and career government official who served five presidents, three of them Republicans.

"Beginning on the night of 9/11, we have the secretary of defense and others talking about going to war with Iraq. I think we knew pretty much that week that the probability of finding a justification for going to war with Iraq was high on their agenda."
"And he said: "Saddam! Saddam! See if there's a connection to Saddam!" And this wasn't "See if there's a connection with Iran, and while you're at it, do Iraq, and while you're at it, do the Palestinian Islamic group." It wasn't "Do due diligence." It wasn't "Have an exhaustive review." It was "Saddam, Saddam." I read that pretty clearly, that that was the answer he wanted.
I said to him, "We have already done that research prior to the attack" -- in fact, we'd done it a couple of times -- "and there's nothing there." And the facial expression back was, "That wasn't the right answer."
So I said, "Well, but we will do it again." And we asked CIA to do it again. CIA did it again, came up with the same answer. That answer was written up and handed to the president by George Tenet in one of his morning meetings, and it said, "For the third or fourth time, we've gone back to look at the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and there is no real cooperation between those two.""
"I remember vividly, in the driveway outside of the West Wing, Scooter Libby, from the vice president's office, grabbing me and saying, "I hear you don't believe this report that Mohamed Atta was talking to Iraqi people in Prague." I said, "I don't believe it because it's not true." And he said: "You're wrong. You know you're wrong. Go back and find out; look at the rest of the reports, and find out that you're wrong." I understood what he was saying, which was: "This is a report that we want to believe, and stop saying it's not true. It's a real problem for the vice president's office that you, the counterterrorism coordinator, are walking around saying that this isn't a true report. Shut up!" That's what I was being told.
I'm somebody who has been in Washington national security for 30 years. I'm not easily intimidated. Imagine if you're an analyst at the CIA who's been there for four or five years."

“I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.” [Washington Post, 3/22/2004]
Associated Events

“The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it. They did know better. We told them. The CIA told them. The FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging Sept. 11, when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. I think for a commander in chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable.” [New York Times, 3/23/2004]

Larry Wlkerson, Gen Powell's Chief of staff
Look him up and see what he has to say if your interested


Hans Blix
Between late November and mid-March 2003, Blix reports, the UN inspectors made seven hundred separate visits to five hundred sites. About three dozen of those sites had been suggested by intelligence services, many by Tenet's CIA, which insisted that these were "the best" in the agency's database. Blix was shocked. "If this was the best, what was the rest?" he asked himself. "Could there be 100-percent certainty about the existence of weapons of mass destruction but zero-percent knowledge about their location?"
By this time Blix was firmly opposed to the evident American preference for disarmament by war. "It was, in my view, too early to give up now," he writes. Tony Blair in late February tried to convince Blix that Saddam had WMD even if Blix couldn't find them – the French, German, and Egyptian intelligence services were all sure of it, Blair said. Blix told Blair that to him they seemed not so sure, and adds as an aside, "My faith in intelligence had been shaken." On March 5, Blix on the phone with Rice asked her point-blank if the United States knew where Iraq's WMD were hidden. "No, she said, but interviews after liberation would reveal it."
In that meeting of the Security Council both ElBaradei and Blix reported their continuing plans for further inspections, and both said that outstanding issues might be resolved within a few months. This was not what the United States wanted to hear. In mid-February, President Bush had derided efforts to give Iraq "another, 'nother, 'nother last chance." Blix had pleaded in a phone call about the same time to Secretary of State Colin Powell for a free hand at least until April 15. "He said it was too late."
Three years later, in a speech to the Arms Control Association, Blix reflected on that moment in his office at the UN – the afternoon of March 16 – when the State Department's John Wolf called to say that the time had come to pull the inspectors out of Iraq. "My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue with inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all of the sites which were given by intelligence," he said. "And since there were not any weapons of massive destruction, we would have reported there were not any." An invasion might have taken place anyway, Blix concedes; the Americans and British had sent several hundred thousand troops to Kuwait and could not leave them sitting in the desert indefinitely. "But it would have been certainly more difficult," Blix said. Even so, in Blix's view, something important had been achieved. "The UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it." Blix guessed that Saddam hid his compliance so Iran wouldn't think him weak, but it was the Americans who were deceived.


Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, formerlythe director of policy planning at the State Department. A former Rhodes Scholar, he also served as the U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and was senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.
frontline interview
"Was it necessary to go to war when we did?
"When we did, no. That was a question of choice. Obviously, you could have delayed it a day, a week, a month, a year. There was no necessity then. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision."




curveball
the best source for WMD info was a complete fraud
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...808,full.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,5362808,full.story)
60 minites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U7beWttza0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxbV...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxbV0CjshQ&feature=related)

Hussien Kamel, former Director of Iraq's Industrialization Corporation in charge of Iraq's weapons program, stated in an Aug. 22, 1995 briefing with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
"I don't remember resumption of chemical weapon production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. But there was no decision to use chemical weapons for fear of retaliation. They must have a revision of decision to start production.
All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear were destroyed."
Aug. 22, 1995 - Hussein Kamel*


http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resour...ourceID=000674 (http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000674)

...

How many books have been sold by these folks? LOL And I see you're still spouting Kwiatkowski's name around, too funny. And Clarke? That cracks me up even more. Why do these people not have any solid proof and it's mostly hearsay, while their hawking their books and websites of course?

I can give you a list just as long, from people not looking to sell anything, and you won't believe it unless it's good news about the enemy. Bottom line, there would be quite a few top democrats that would be all over this if it had any teeth. Shit, only Paul and Kucinich are willing to buy the books, and we knew them 2 have about 5 brain cells between another to share.

And we were going in to remove Saddam unless he fully cooperated - WHICH HE NEVER DID. To this day, there are literally TONS of chemical weapons that WERE ACCOUNTED FOR in 1998 that never have showed up. That WAS PART of the UN resolutions, that they account for these weapons, and they not only never did, they outright refused. I don't care about the reports of what Blix believed, as his own words and words of his colleagues show that Iraq remained in material breach up till the day they were invaded.

But lets help some shitheads sell some books off of hearsay rather than based on 12 years of FACT finding from the entire effing world!

[Drummond]

Pakistan has WMD's
India Has WMDs
N. Korea has WMDs
RUSSIA has Rouge WMDs scattered about.

there are little reported Incidents of people in the U.S. SELLING WMD info and material to rouge powers.
it's another BS argument to say we have to attack a ANOTHER nation to keep WMDs from speading to the "wrong hands".

But Drummond i don't think you really care about facts that don't line up with your view of the world.

You keep thinking that a rightist gov't can keep you safe from all danger. and will never allow 60 year old tech to fall into the wrong hands. keep dreaming buddy. there are far worse tech items down the line and as i've mentioned before.

If 50 terrorist of any strip decided to do only what the batman shooter did all at one time in gov't bldging on the east and west coast of the U.S.. the US population would losses it freaking mind.
that's without ANY WMDs.
Saftey is an illusion for old ladies and lil kids. We don't want to encourage proliferation but to say that Syria is a threat to us of any significance is BS of a HIGH order.

I'm not sure what a 'rouge power' is supposed to be. One consisting of 'reds', maybe ? And I have to ask .. is a WMD wearing cosmetics more dangerous than one that doesn't ?

But you have a point of sorts, in that proliferation of WMD's just has to make it that much easier, certainly statistically, to imagine that terrorists will one day get their hands on some.

But Syria is a particular concern, though for reasons best known to yourself you're refusing to see the truth of that. What if Assad's regime is overthrown, and we see a situation develop there much like Libya, with rebel forces just taking everything over ? What if some of those rebels had sympathies with terrorist groups ? What if some WERE terrorists, who'd infiltrated ?

Some Nation States are more stable than others, and by nobody's standards is Syria stable today. BUT, Revelarts, you seem not to have taken that into account, or, to WANT to ?

Now ... why would that be ?

Because some Leftie imperative would rather have it that you didn't ?

[Dilloduck]

What are you suggesting that the US do in order to defend itself from WMD's that may be/are in Syria ?

[Drummond]

What are you suggesting that the US do in order to defend itself from WMD's that may be/are in Syria ?

I take it from your question that you accept the nature of the danger this situation poses ? All well and good, if so.

Well, it's difficult, I'll give you that.

One problem is that Russia and China both want to continue to defend Assad's interests. Which from a world security angle, MIGHT be reasonable, if Assad had the means of asserting power decisively. However, it's becoming clear that he doesn't.

So establishing stability is the key.

Both Russia and China need to be told (maybe via the UN ?) that all they're doing is helping to prop up an unstable situation, and that this must stop. They would be wise to cooperate in an initiative which lands forces in the area to lend stability to warzone areas (with American forces a part of that; you can't just have them march in on their own !!). Better that they cooperate than not, though if they don't, they need to butt out while others do the job instead.

The UN might have a role as a communications medium, but can they be trusted with any more than that ? I really think not.

So, unless you also go in for carpet-bombing .. NOT my first choice ! .. I'd say you need to land troops there and either take the place over, or, do what the Soviets did in Afghanistan and prop up a native Government. Perhaps purely as a temporary measure, though ... I'm sure you'd prefer to institute proper democracy there.

Whatever the precise logistics of what would need to be done, one overriding imperative has to surely be applied .. which is to absolutely avoid just standing on the sidelines, and letting any manner of militant crazies step in, instead. You need CONTROL of the situation, and if YOU don't have it, then anyone else, no matter how savage or hostile, may grab it instead.

... and what would THAT mean for your security ??

[Roo]

The only thing Revel had right was that security is an illusion.

I don't remember which security official said this....."The bad guys only have to be right once...we have to be right every time". ( a paraphrase)

[Drummond]

The only thing Revel had right was that security is an illusion.

I don't remember which security official said this....."The bad guys only have to be right once...we have to be right every time". ( a paraphrase)

I certainly agree with that second sentence.

Even so, to just stand back and say that nothing useful can be done, is the same as inviting the WORST to happen. Even getting partial control of a bad situation is definitely better than having no control at all.

The Syrian situation is a messy one - and it would've been way easier to militarily resolve if the Russians and Chinese weren't so intent on supporting Assad. Which is why I think that a solution has to involve them. Far better that they butt out, but I doubt they would.

So you make the best of a bad job, and solve whatever you can, as best you can.

But what you DON'T do is stand back and do nothing .. unless, of course, the idea is to maximise the chance of the very worst happening.

Who's for surrendering US security to whoever, or whatever, wants to be a player in this ? Al Qaeda, maybe ?

[revelarts]

I'm not sure what a 'rouge power' is supposed to be. One consisting of 'reds', maybe ? And I have to ask .. is a WMD wearing cosmetics more dangerous than one that doesn't ?

But you have a point of sorts, in that proliferation of WMD's just has to make it that much easier, certainly statistically, to imagine that terrorists will one day get their hands on some.

But Syria is a particular concern, though for reasons best known to yourself you're refusing to see the truth of that. What if Assad's regime is overthrown, and we see a situation develop there much like Libya, with rebel forces just taking everything over ? What if some of those rebels had sympathies with terrorist groups ? What if some WERE terrorists, who'd infiltrated ?

Some Nation States are more stable than others, and by nobody's standards is Syria stable today. BUT, Revelarts, you seem not to have taken that into account, or, to WANT to ?

Now ... why would that be ?

Because some Leftie imperative would rather have it that you didn't ?


LOL Putin asked the U.S. the same question long ago? And the Same question in Lybia? Where we KNEW we knew Absolutely that we were assisting "fromer" Alquida take over from Qaddafi.
Who do you think will take over here? it will be the Muslim Brotherhood and or alquida afiliates most likey . do you think it will be a secular democratic minded group?

Libya and egpyt are the examples here. We had no real problem with Assad or many of these other Jacked Up dictatorships other than they were more friend with Russia than we like. NONE of them where really working with terrorist. What ME Country had the most terrorist come from it OH that's Saudi Arabia!!!. Our good friends!
Drummond the Idea that suddenly Sryia is more of threat with Assad than without him is Kool aid drinking imperialist propaganda.

I think Gen Clack had it part right, it's a plan to break up the old ME soviet satellites and sow disorder in the region, and give the brotherhood and other radicals a leg up to what final purpose i don't know.

But it's NOT to protect us from Syrian or any other M.E. WMDs.

you need to wake up friend.

[Roo]

I certainly agree with that second sentence.

Even so, to just stand back and say that nothing useful can be done, is the same as inviting the WORST to happen. Even getting partial control of a bad situation is definitely better than having no control at all.

The Syrian situation is a messy one - and it would've been way easier to militarily resolve if the Russians and Chinese weren't so intent on supporting Assad. Which is why I think that a solution has to involve them. Far better that they butt out, but I doubt they would.

So you make the best of a bad job, and solve whatever you can, as best you can.

But what you DON'T do is stand back and do nothing .. unless, of course, the idea is to maximise the chance of the very worst happening.

Who's for surrendering US security to whoever, or whatever, wants to be a player in this ? Al Qaeda, maybe ?

I am not saying do nothing....I am simply saying that we can never be 100% secure.....the only thing that will make someone like revel sit up and take notice is if an attack gets someone he loves...until then he lives in a theoretical world in which he will believe in the innate "goodness" of mankind.

Right now his argument is only that his "hear say" is better than ours.

[Drummond]

LOL Putin asked the U.S. the same question long ago? And the Same question in Lybia? Where we KNEW we knew Absolutely that we were assisting "fromer" Alquida take over from Qaddafi.
Who do you think will take over here? it will be the Muslim Brotherhood and or alquida afiliates most likey . do you think it will be a secular democratic minded group?

Libya and egpyt are the examples here. We had no real problem with Assad or many of these other Jacked Up dictatorships other than they were more friend with Russia than we like. NONE of them where really working with terrorist. What ME Country had the most terrorist come from it OH that's Saudi Arabia!!!. Our good friends!
Drummond the Idea that suddenly Sryia is more of threat with Assad than without him is Kool aid drinking imperialist propaganda.

I think Gen Clack had it part right, it's a plan to break up the old ME soviet satellites and sow disorder in the region, and give the brotherhood and other radicals a leg up to what final purpose i don't know.

But it's NOT to protect us from Syrian or any other M.E. WMDs.

you need to wake up friend.

From a practical point of view, the problem with Assad is that he's not delivering stability as he ideally should be. So the question is, how will it be introduced ?

If it's true that Assad is causing the instability and is perceived as the enemy by a large percentage of Syrians, then how is his remaining in power helping anyone ?

OK, forces could move in and prop up Assad. Maybe the Russians and Chinese would like that. But such an arrangement wouldn't last. All you'd really have is the likes of Al Qaeda making this a basis for getting recruits on their side .. and an expanded Al Qaeda doesn't do anybody any favours (or do you argue that it DOES ?).

.. so I think that an Iraq-style solution is probably the best one.

Revelarts, I'm not pretending that any of this comes near to being 'perfect'. But consider that your chief concern has to be to ensure that forces move in which ensure that the area is free of WMD's !! There could be nothing more irresponsible than to stay on the sidelines and just hope against hope that they don't one day fall into the wrong hands.

This time, there's seemingly no doubt that the WMD's are real. Revelarts, are you just going to do the 'Leftie thing' and say that war is wrong, everybody should blind themselves to the dangers this entire situation has thrown up .. and just trust to comforting illusion, instead, and do NOTHING ?

[revelarts]

How many books have been sold by these folks? LOL And I see you're still spouting Kwiatkowski's name around, too funny. And Clarke? That cracks me up even more. Why do these people not have any solid proof and it's mostly hearsay, while their hawking their books and websites of course?

I can give you a list just as long, from people not looking to sell anything, and you won't believe it unless it's good news about the enemy. Bottom line, there would be quite a few top democrats that would be all over this if it had any teeth. Shit, only Paul and Kucinich are willing to buy the books, and we knew them 2 have about 5 brain cells between another to share.

And we were going in to remove Saddam unless he fully cooperated - WHICH HE NEVER DID. To this day, there are literally TONS of chemical weapons that WERE ACCOUNTED FOR in 1998 that never have showed up. That WAS PART of the UN resolutions, that they account for these weapons, and they not only never did, they outright refused. I don't care about the reports of what Blix believed, as his own words and words of his colleagues show that Iraq remained in material breach up till the day they were invaded.

But lets help some shitheads sell some books off of hearsay rather than based on 12 years of FACT finding from the entire effing world!

Ah well the Iraqi General everyone is in love with here told his story in what .....A BOOK!

Ergo therefore No Doubto HE IS A LYING SACK OF ----.

Really Jim I'm gonna be Bluntly honest,
that is a STUPID argument. You need to drop it.

"They wrote book so it's a lie" is a STUPID argument man.

Bush Cheney rumsfeld all wrote books therefore they are Dirty stinky liars. right?
No, the content stands or falls on corroborating facts, the trust worthiness of the individual etc etc.. not the simple fact that a books been written.
and most of the people in the list never wrote a book anyway.

But it shows just how desperate you all are when you IGNORE THE CONTENT COMPLETELY and attack the HUGE list of people I've posted yet HANG ON TO and BELIEVE without reservation EVERY COMMENT FROM 1 Iraqi general and a rumors of transport of WMDs that NOT ONE of you has seen or can say where it is.


a few folks here are in denial here, and i'm not one of um.

[Dilloduck]

I take it from your question that you accept the nature of the danger this situation poses ? All well and good, if so.

Well, it's difficult, I'll give you that.

One problem is that Russia and China both want to continue to defend Assad's interests. Which from a world security angle, MIGHT be reasonable, if Assad had the means of asserting power decisively. However, it's becoming clear that he doesn't.

So establishing stability is the key.

Both Russia and China need to be told (maybe via the UN ?) that all they're doing is helping to prop up an unstable situation, and that this must stop. They would be wise to cooperate in an initiative which lands forces in the area to lend stability to warzone areas (with American forces a part of that; you can't just have them march in on their own !!). Better that they cooperate than not, though if they don't, they need to butt out while others do the job instead.

The UN might have a role as a communications medium, but can they be trusted with any more than that ? I really think not.

So, unless you also go in for carpet-bombing .. NOT my first choice ! .. I'd say you need to land troops there and either take the place over, or, do what the Soviets did in Afghanistan and prop up a native Government. Perhaps purely as a temporary measure, though ... I'm sure you'd prefer to institute proper democracy there.

Whatever the precise logistics of what would need to be done, one overriding imperative has to surely be applied .. which is to absolutely avoid just standing on the sidelines, and letting any manner of militant crazies step in, instead. You need CONTROL of the situation, and if YOU don't have it, then anyone else, no matter how savage or hostile, may grab it instead.

... and what would THAT mean for your security ??

Let's see----get the UN to tell Russia and China to fix it and if that doesn't work send in American troops ?

Do you have a plan B like sending in the Brits who started the whole mideast mess in the first place ?

[Roo]

Ah well the Iraqi General everyone is in love with here told his story in what .....A BOOK!

Ergo therefore No Doubto HE IS A LYING SACK OF ----.

Really Jim I'm gonna be Bluntly honest,
that is a STUPID argument. You need to drop it.

"They wrote book so it's a lie" is a STUPID argument man.

Bush Cheney rumsfeld all wrote books therefore they are Dirty stinky liars. right?
No, the content stands or falls on corroborating facts, the trust worthiness of the individual etc etc.. not the simple fact that a books been written.
and most of the people in the list never wrote a book anyway.

But it shows just how desperate you all are when you IGNORE THE CONTENT COMPLETELY and attack the HUGE list of people I've posted yet HANG ON TO and BELIEVE without reservation EVERY COMMENT FROM 1 Iraqi general and a rumors of transport of WMDs that NOT ONE of you has seen or can say where it is.


a few folks here are in denial here, and i'm not one of um.

LOL.....YOU can't say where it is, if it was or anything else......you've made conclusions based on hearsay you choose to believe, no more....no less.

[Dilloduck]

Who cares if they are there or not ? Sending in Americans to secure them is out of the question.
Next plan.

[aboutime]

Thankful that NOBODY on this forum has the power to do anything about this, either way.

After all. Eventually. As things seem to be going these days with Obama, and all of the Tree Hugging, Special Representatives of the HATE AMERICA crowd getting their way.
It won't be long now till OUR PREDOMINANTLY GAY Military starts to Wave their RAINBOW FLAGS of Surrender to the enemies of America, and Nancy Pelosi get's her WHITE HOUSE Western Version...in San Francisco, AT LAST, under the "Y. M. C. A." Banner of AIDS AWARENESS.

[Drummond]

Let's see----get the UN to tell Russia and China to fix it and if that doesn't work send in American troops ?

Do you have a plan B like sending in the Brits who started the whole mideast mess in the first place ?

I don't believe that Russia or China have any way of fixing this. They can make it worse, but not much better.

Sending in American troops would make more sense.

Dilloduck, IF Assad could assert proper, stabilising force to put an end to Syria's problems, then that would make the best of a fairly lousy situation. The difficulty is that he can't. If he could, why hasn't he succeeded already ?

So what's the alternative ? There HAS to be one, because otherwise, what's being risked is that crazies, and/or terrorists, move in and grab all the WMD's they can get their hands on. Or, dodgy deals are done which arrive at the same outcome.

If we had enough British troops to move in and take over, I for one wouldn't mind that a bit. I'm sure we'd do a cracking job. Since we don't ... it makes sense for American troops to take the lead. Maybe we could assist, as we did in Iraq.

Still, I know that there are war-weary Americans out there who are fed up with seeing their lads go out to the Middle East and see them put their lives on the line, again and again. I promise you, I've every sympathy with that point of view.

So the question then is, ... shall we all just do nothing, let matters unfold, and hope against hope that your terrorist enemies are so Neanderthal in their savageries that they can't work out how to detonate, or otherwise activate, the WMD's they are bound to get their hands on, given half a chance ?

[Roo]

Thankful that NOBODY on this forum has the power to do anything about this, either way.

After all. Eventually. As things seem to be going these days with Obama, and all of the Tree Hugging, Special Representatives of the HATE AMERICA crowd getting their way.
It won't be long now till OUR PREDOMINANTLY GAY Military starts to Wave their RAINBOW FLAGS of Surrender to the enemies of America, and Nancy Pelosi get's her WHITE HOUSE Western Version...in San Francisco, AT LAST, under the "Y. M. C. A." Banner of AIDS AWARENESS.


Really???

Moron alert.

[aboutime]

Who cares if they are there or not ? Sending in Americans to secure them is out of the question.
Next plan.

Sure thing Dilloduck. Who cares? Just let them give the terrorists all of the Deadly Nerve, and Gas weapons to attack their own people...on the way to attack ANYONE LIKE YOU, who doesn't care.

[aboutime]

Really???

Moron alert.


ROO.... Take that back. You just insulted Moron's. The backbone of real Liberalism.

[Dilloduck]

I don't believe that Russia or China have any way of fixing this. They can make it worse, but not much better.

Sending in American troops would make more sense.

Dilloduck, IF Assad could assert proper, stabilising force to put an end to Syria's problems, then that would make the best of a fairly lousy situation. The difficulty is that he can't. If he could, why hasn't he succeeded already ?

So what's the alternative ? There HAS to be one, because otherwise, what's being risked is that crazies, and/or terrorists, move in and grab all the WMD's they can get their hands on. Or, dodgy deals are done which arrive at the same outcome.

If we had enough British troops to move in and take over, I for one wouldn't mind that a bit. I'm sure we'd do a cracking job. Since we don't ... it makes sense for American troops to take the lead. Maybe we could assist, as we did in Iraq.

Still, I know that there are war-weary Americans out there who are fed up with seeing their lads go out to the Middle East and see them put their lives on the line, again and again. I promise you, I've every sympathy with that point of view.

So the question then is, ... shall we all just do nothing, let matters unfold, and hope against hope that your terrorist enemies are so Neanderthal in their savageries that they can't work out how to detonate, or otherwise activate, the WMD's they are bound to get their hands on, given half a chance ?

OK--I'll try to make it really simple. Who do you trust with all of Syria's WMD's ? America has it's hands full right now.

[jimnyc]

Ah well the Iraqi General everyone is in love with here told his story in what .....A BOOK!

Ergo therefore No Doubto HE IS A LYING SACK OF ----.

Really Jim I'm gonna be Bluntly honest,
that is a STUPID argument. You need to drop it.

"They wrote book so it's a lie" is a STUPID argument man.

Bush Cheney rumsfeld all wrote books therefore they are Dirty stinky liars. right?
No, the content stands or falls on corroborating facts, the trust worthiness of the individual etc etc.. not the simple fact that a books been written.
and most of the people in the list never wrote a book anyway.

But it shows just how desperate you all are when you IGNORE THE CONTENT COMPLETELY and attack the HUGE list of people I've posted yet HANG ON TO and BELIEVE without reservation EVERY COMMENT FROM 1 Iraqi general and a rumors of transport of WMDs that NOT ONE of you has seen or can say where it is.


a few folks here are in denial here, and i'm not one of um.

STUPID is falling for shit that no one else will, being gullible, thinking everything in life that goes on around you is a grand conspiracy. Even the worst of enemies that you make claims against don't want to be a part of this hearsay. WHY won't they do so, Rev? Because they have pretty much zero in the evidence department and a lot in rhetoric and hearsay. You choose to believe the bare minimum with bare minimum of evidence, while outright ignoring other things presented to you. Unless your nutter hero is taken seriously, you proclaim every avenue of government to be some sort of conspiracy. That must really suck to go through life like that. And why do you outright ignore the portion of my reply dealing with the stuff in Iraq that we all know as fact? You don't like much in the facts department but sure do love you a conspiracy, and any conspiracy that can make our country looks bad, even if it means defending another country.

Rev, no one is addressing the meat of your "argument", as our entire government, who LIVE to "one up" the other party, won't even listen to this hearsay garbage. That's what you ignore - HEARSAY. It's always so and so heard this, then of course they keep it to themselves for years, then want to discuss it when it may help sell a few books. And Clarke? Holy crap, the man stole confidential documents and STILL has nothing!

If you want to pin your tail on hearsay, so be it, as usual I will side with the facts. The facts about what WMD were proven to be in Iraq, bagged and tagged, never to be heard from again. And not just a little - literally TONS. And you love to bring up Blix and his opinion that things might be finished in a few months, but don't acknowledge that even Blix admits they remained in material breach of resolutions and were not fully cooperating.

Hearsay. Cherry picking. More hearsay. Ignore facts.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway. The US was going in regardless and it had only a small portion to do with WMD and a 12 year history of shooting at out planes and ignoring UN resolutions. Everyone and anyone saw this coming from 1998 on. 'Cept for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Revelarts. :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Who cares if they are there or not ? Sending in Americans to secure them is out of the question.
Next plan.

Next plan, you say ?

Oh, that's an easy one.

Wait for terrorists to grab themselves some WMD's, since they'll be given the maximum chance of managing it.

Then wait some more, for them to go about deploying them.

Then .. one day, wake up to find out why the population of the US has suddenly reduced in size by a million people. And reflect on how you could've prevented such an outcome !!

And the 'icing on the cake' ... decide to give up on the War on Terror entirely. You might just as well, in that scenario. And learn how to surrender to terrorist savages, who'll delight in showing you the full extent of their subhumanity to you and your loved ones !!!

[Drummond]

I am not saying do nothing....I am simply saying that we can never be 100% secure.....the only thing that will make someone like revel sit up and take notice is if an attack gets someone he loves...until then he lives in a theoretical world in which he will believe in the innate "goodness" of mankind.

Right now his argument is only that his "hear say" is better than ours.

I agree with you. Total security can't ever be guaranteed. But you have to strive to get as near to that 100 percent as you can.

The lower the percentage achieved, the higher the death toll.

Perhaps Revelarts would benefit from reruns of the demolition of the Twin Towers. Of watching victims prefer to fall to their deaths than be roasted alive.

Or perhaps he imagines it was all a Walt Disney production, with Walt getting out of the wrong side of the bed one morning ...

[Roo]

ROO.... Take that back. You just insulted Moron's. The backbone of real Liberalism.

ONLY if that was sarcasm.

[Dilloduck]

Next plan, you say ?

Oh, that's an easy one.

Wait for terrorists to grab themselves some WMD's, since they'll be given the maximum chance of managing it.

Then wait some more, for them to go about deploying them.

Then .. one day, wake up to find out why the population of the US has suddenly reduced in size by a million people. And reflect on how you could've prevented such an outcome !!

And the 'icing on the cake' ... decide to give up on the War on Terror entirely. You might just as well, in that scenario. And learn how to surrender to terrorist savages, who'll delight in showing you the full extent of their subhumanity to you and your loved ones !!!

Let Israel or the Turks take care of it. I appreciate your respect for American military might but there are people logistically closer to this situation. They can handle it. If the can't then the world has apparently become too dependent on America to take of their defense needs.

[Drummond]

OK--I'll try to make it really simple. Who do you trust with all of Syria's WMD's ? America has it's hands full right now.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying you don't trust YOURSELVES with them ?

I suppose we could take them off your hands, if you like. What are friends for ?

Of course .. I suppose you could be saying that it would be better to trust TERRORISTS with them ? Are you claiming this ? Because if you aren't .. then something has to be done to make sure they don't get their grubby paws on them.

I don't really see any sense to your position.

I'm seriously asking you - are you advocating that TERRORISTS win the War on Terror ?

[Dilloduck]

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying you don't trust YOURSELVES with them ?

I suppose we could take them off your hands, if you like. What are friends for ?

Of course .. I suppose you could be saying that it would be better to trust TERRORISTS with them ? Are you claiming this ? Because if you aren't .. then something has to be done to make sure they don't get their grubby paws on them.

I don't really see any sense to your position.

I'm seriously asking you - are you advocating that TERRORISTS win the War on Terror ?

OK you win----I'll call Obama and get some Marines to parachute in, collect them all and fly them back here to Colorado for safe keeping.

Seriously----do you think it's going to be a walk in the park or something ? Maybe if the rest of the world could come up with a big reward we should consider it. BTW--what makes you think America is the only country threatened by the WMDs ? Israel is already screaming their heads off. Why don't they get off their asses and do something?

[Drummond]

Let Israel or the Turks take care of it. I appreciate your respect for American military might but there are people logistically closer to this situation. They can handle it. If the can't then the world has apparently become too dependent on America to take of their defense needs.

Israel ? Interesting.

Well, I'm sure that would be one easy way of guaranteeing renewed hostilities between Israel and most of the Arab world .. perhaps you think that Israel's been having too easy a time of it lately ?

Turkey, eh ? Now, that could be interesting.

Did you know that Turkey has been petitioning to join the European Union ? Now, that would be 'fun' ... with the open border policy in force right across the EU, every member country could suddenly find itself with sleeper cells of Turkish-recruited Al Qaeda terrorists, just waiting to either deploy some in MY backyard ... or, just hop on a transatlantic flight, and hijack them ?

You have some interesting ideas, but as yet, nothing that won't make matters a lot worse. But please, keep those Ostrich-inspired ideas coming ... add some estimated death tolls to them, too, just for good measure ...

[Dilloduck]

Israel ? Interesting.

Well, I'm sure that would be one easy way of guaranteeing renewed hostilities between Israel and most of the Arab world .. perhaps you think that Israel's been having too easy a time of it lately ?

Turkey, eh ? Now, that could be interesting.

Did you know that Turkey has been petitioning to join the European Union ? Now, that would be 'fun' ... with the open border policy in force right across the EU, every member country could suddenly find itself with sleeper cells of Turkish-recruited Al Qaeda terrorists, just waiting to either deploy some in MY backyard ... or, just hop on a transatlantic flight, and hijack them ?

You have some interesting ideas, but as yet, nothing that won't make matters a lot worse. But please, keep those Ostrich-inspired ideas coming ... add some estimated death tolls to them, too, just for good measure ...

Send your own troops. We've killed enough of ours. and pick up the tab too.

[Drummond]

OK you win----I'll call Obama and get some Marines to parachute in, collect them all and fly them back here to Colorado for safe keeping.

Seriously----do you think it's going to be a walk in the park or something ? Maybe if the rest of the world could come up with a big reward we should consider it. BTW--what makes you think America is the only country threatened by the WMDs ? Israel is already screaming their heads off. Why don't they get off their asses and do something?

Of course, I'm guessing, but there are probably too many of those WMD's around for parachuting Marines to take care of the problem. Besides, they probably need experts on hand to ensure they can be transported safely.

No, better that it was a large force, capable not only of safe transport, but of securing the territory to be traversed.

Do I think that America is the only country threatened with WMD's ? Nope. I do think you're the terrorists' favourite target. But the UK would serve as another. So would many Western countries. Which is why I found your idea of Turkey getting some especially 'entertaining', for the reason I specified.

Tell me, just how greatly do you want Israel's tensions with all her Arab neighbours ratcheted up ? Do you want universal approval in the Arab world for Ahmadinejad's holocaustal threats ?

Keep those Ostrich ideas coming ...

[Drummond]

Send your own troops. We've killed enough of ours. and pick up the tab too.

If we had enough of them, I'd actually be in favour of the idea.

I would like to ask you, though, why you want to entrust your own security to foreign troops.

[Dilloduck]

Of course, I'm guessing, but there are probably too many of those WMD's around for parachuting Marines to take care of the problem. Besides, they probably need experts on hand to ensure they can be transported safely.

No, better that it was a large force, capable not only of safe transport, but of securing the territory to be traversed.

Do I think that America is the only country threatened with WMD's ? Nope. I do think you're the terrorists' favourite target. But the UK would serve as another. So would many Western countries. Which is why I found your idea of Turkey getting some especially 'entertaining', for the reason I specified.

Tell me, just how greatly do you want Israel's tensions with all her Arab neighbours ratcheted up ? Do you want universal approval in the Arab world for Ahmadinejad's holocaustal threats ?

Keep those Ostrich ideas coming ...

America has given Israel TRILLIONS. Are they saving it up for a big fucking party ? Holy shit---it's time some other countries to tak care of their own shit. Send the EU army :laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

If we had enough of them, I'd actually be in favour of the idea.

I would like to ask you, though, why you want to entrust your own security to foreign troops.


oh the irony :laugh2:

[Drummond]

America has given Israel TRILLIONS. Are they saving it up for a big fucking party ? Holy shit---it's time some other countries to tak care of their own shit. Send the EU army :laugh2:

Fair enough. I'm sure they'd consider risking renewed war with most of the Arab world a truly excellent way of spending what money you've given them.

Don't run away with the idea that I'm unsympathetic to the burden your own troops have shouldered in fighting the War on Terror. I absolutely promise you that I'm sorry that so much, in the past, has fallen on America's shoulders. But still, facts are facts, and you HAVE built up a very considerable fighting machine of your own. If you so resent using it, why does it exist ?

And I ask again. Why do you want your security to rely on FOREIGN troops ?

The EU army ?? Yes, that is funny. Lots of talk about creating one, but precious little really achieved. Yes ... it's pathetic.

But still, ostrich thinking notwithstanding, I'm afraid you can't run away from the reality that America IS terrorists' favourite target of them all. Now, maybe you want terrorists to have the maximum possible chance of getting WMD's, which your inaction would guarantee. Maybe you get a warm, fuzzy feeling from opting out of defending your backyard, and that of your loved ones.

If so, you reap what you sow.

But, as you have pointed out in your own way, you are not the only target country there is. We're all in this together, and yes, I'm sure that our own people will do what they can to defend their interests.

A pity that YOU would rather not do YOURS, when it most matters ...

[Dilloduck]

Fair enough. I'm sure they'd consider risking renewed war with most of the Arab world a truly excellent way of spending what money you've given them.

Don't run away with the idea that I'm unsympathetic to the burden your own troops have shouldered in fighting the War on Terror. I absolutely promise you that I'm sorry that so much, in the past, has fallen on America's shoulders. But still, facts are facts, and you HAVE built up a very considerable fighting machine of your own. If you so resent using it, why does it exist ?

And I ask again. Why do you want your security to rely on FOREIGN troops ?

The EU army ?? Yes, that is funny. Lots of talk about creating one, but precious little really achieved. Yes ... it's pathetic.

But still, ostrich thinking notwithstanding, I'm afraid you can't run away from the reality that America IS terrorists' favourite target of them all. Now, maybe you want terrorists to have the maximum possible chance of getting WMD's, which your inaction would guarantee. Maybe you get a warm, fuzzy feeling from opting out of defending your backyard, and that of your loved ones.

If so, you reap what you sow.

But, as you have pointed out in your own way, you are not the only target country there is. We're all in this together, and yes, I'm sure that our own people will do what they can to defend their interests.

A pity that YOU would rather not do YOURS, when it most matters ...

Oh please. Americans will gladly take care of America. I find it more than humorous that you attempt to use guilt as a motivator. America has more than pull it's own weight. Where did terrorists last attack Israelis ? Bulgaria.
Think about it.
Did they need any special WMDs ?
Nope.
How about you taking care of the mideast for awhile ? Can't do it can ya ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Syria is destined to fall to the Islamic surge. And hell yes they know they are there and want those WMD'S. America being the number one target after Israel puts it squarely into the fight in Syria because should we do nothing to stop Islam's control there we will one day face some of those supposed mythical WMD's but it will not be fantasy the outcome of that attack when it has already happened here!
A GD ounce of prevention(no matter how costly it could be) could easily be worth a few hundred tons of cure !
We are responsible for our own safety regardless of who else is threatened as well.
On the whole Drummond is dead on accurate IMHO!
Just screaming no WMD's does nothing AND doing nothing is easy but so often proves to be exactly wrong and extremely costly too!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Syria is destined to fall to the Islamic surge. And hell yes they know they are there and want those WMD'S. America being the number one target after Israel puts in squarely into the fight in Syria because should we do nothing to stop Islam's control there we will one day face some of those supposed mythical WMD's but it willnot be fantasy the outcome of that attack when it has already happened here
A GD ounce of prevention(no matter how costly it could be) could easily be worth a few hundred tons of cure !
We are responsible for our own safety regardless of who else is threatened as well.
On the whole Drummond is dead on accurate IMHO!
Just screaming no WMD's does nothing AND doing nothing is easy but so often proves to be exactly wrong and extremely costly too!-Tyr

We tried this plan in Iraq. I obviously didn't protect us. Who next after Syria ?

[Drummond]

Oh please. Americans will gladly take care of America.

If they all shared your attitude, they'd be doing nothing of the kind !!! Giving terrorists the best chance possible of grabbing WMD's is madness !!


I find it more than humorous that you attempt to use guilt as a motivator.

No guilt. Conscience. And a hefty dose of realism. Your way, terrorists DO get the best chance of grabbing WMD's, because you are by far the best equipped to stop them.


America has more than pull it's own weight.

AND I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THE BURDEN IT'S TAKEN ON.

All the same, you're not thinking logically. Robbing terrorists of WMD acquisition is not about doing others a good deed. It's about making sure that terrorists aren't given the opportunity to kill your loved ones with them.


Where did terrorists last attack Israelis ?

Probably yesterday. Failing that, the day before. My understanding is that hardly a day goes by without some sort of attempt being made. Israel is a country on PERPETUAL terrorist alert !


Bulgaria.
Think about it.
Did they need any special WMDs ?
Nope.

You've lost me completely.

Terrorists are always in the market for new and better weapons. I ask why you want them to have them.


How about you taking care of the mideast for awhile ? Can't do it can ya ?

You're right. The UK doesn't have that capacity.

If we did .. I've little doubt that we WOULD. After all, it's not as though we've never had our own presence in the Middle East, in times gone by.

Given the proper capacity to cope .. would WE evade the challenge ? I really think not, especially if the homeland was threatened by our inaction. Think of Margaret Thatcher, and the Falkland Islanders. We came to their aid when they needed us. With the capacity to do so, we fight for what's right. We look after our own.

But it appears that, and through choice, you'd rather not take that option yourself.

As I said, you reap what you sow. And be assured ... you will.

[jafar00]

I'm sure Ahmedinejad would approve of US and Israel being tied up in a Syrian quagmire going after some are they there or aren't they WMDs. It would give them some much needed breathing room. :laugh:

[Dilloduck]

If they all shared your attitude, they'd be doing nothing of the kind !!! Giving terrorists the best chance possible of grabbing WMD's is madness !!



No guilt. Conscience. And a hefty dose of realism. Your way, terrorists DO get the best chance of grabbing WMD's, because you are by far the best equipped to stop them.



AND I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THE BURDEN IT'S TAKEN ON.

All the same, you're not thinking logically. Robbing terrorists of WMD acquisition is not about doing others a good deed. It's about making sure that terrorists aren't given the opportunity to kill your loved ones with them.



Probably yesterday. Failing that, the day before. My understanding is that hardly a day goes by without some sort of attempt being made. Israel is a country on PERPETUAL terrorist alert !



You've lost me completely.

Terrorists are always in the market for new and better weapons. I ask why you want them to have them.



You're right. The UK doesn't have that capacity.

If we did .. I've little doubt that we WOULD. After all, it's not as though we've never had our own presence in the Middle East, in times gone by.

Given the proper capacity to cope .. would WE evade the challenge ? I really think not, especially if the homeland was threatened by our inaction. Think of Margaret Thatcher, and the Falkland Islanders. We came to their aid when they needed us. With the capacity to do so, we fight for what's right. We look after our own.

But it appears that, and through choice, you'd rather not take that option yourself.

As I said, you reap what you sow. And be assured ... you will.

If you don't think they already have WMDs and the capacity to make more on thier own, YOU are the one with his head in the sand. WMDs don't kill people==people kill people.

[gabosaurus]

WMDs don't kill people==people kill people.

Gun enthusiasts will need to think that one over for awhile. :salute:

[Drummond]

Syria is destined to fall to the Islamic surge. And hell yes they know they are there and want those WMD'S. America being the number one target after Israel puts it squarely into the fight in Syria because should we do nothing to stop Islam's control there we will one day face some of those supposed mythical WMD's but it will not be fantasy the outcome of that attack when it has already happened here!
A GD ounce of prevention(no matter how costly it could be) could easily be worth a few hundred tons of cure !
We are responsible for our own safety regardless of who else is threatened as well.
On the whole Drummond is dead on accurate IMHO!
Just screaming no WMD's does nothing AND doing nothing is easy but so often proves to be exactly wrong and extremely costly too!-Tyr

Well said, Tyr.

I can understand war-weariness. But to dress it up as 'principle' is shabby in the extreme.

And the reality is, simply, that either terrorists get WMD's, or SOMEBODY stops them. Dilloduck seems not to want that effort to be made.

This not only helps terrorists kill your own, but it's also a way of saying that American troops who fought trying to protect America ultimately wasted their time.

It's a bit like running from the blast zone of a large bomb about to detonate, then deciding only to run ten yards. The amount of running done is rendered useless through lack of sustained effort.

[Dilloduck]

Gun enthusiasts will need to think that one over for awhile. :salute:

You're a day late and a dollar short as usual. :lol:

[Drummond]

If you don't think they already have WMDs and the capacity to make more on thier own, YOU are the one with his head in the sand. WMDs don't kill people==people kill people.

Well, put it this way. I'd rather not MAKE SURE OF IT !!

[Dilloduck]

Well said, Tyr.

I can understand war-weariness. But to dress it up as 'principle' is shabby in the extreme.

And the reality is, simply, that either terrorists get WMD's, or SOMEBODY stops them. Dilloduck seems not to want that effort to be made.

This not only helps terrorists kill your own, but it's also a way of saying that American troops who fought trying to protect America ultimately wasted their time.

It's a bit like running from the blast zone of a large bomb about to detonate, then deciding only to run ten yards. The amount of running done is rendered useless through lack of sustained effort.

I bet you regret allowing the Muslims to take over the UK huh ?

[Drummond]

I'm sure Ahmedinejad would approve of US and Israel being tied up in a Syrian quagmire going after some are they there or aren't they WMDs. It would give them some much needed breathing room. :laugh:

... er'm, to do WHAT, EXACTLY ?

Care to enlighten us ?

How's that 'religion of peace' coming along, by the way ?

[Dilloduck]

Well, put it this way. I'd rather not MAKE SURE OF IT !!

Then GET OF YOUR ASS---we ain't your fucking slaves !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well said, Tyr.

I can understand war-weariness. But to dress it up as 'principle' is shabby in the extreme.

And the reality is, simply, that either terrorists get WMD's, or SOMEBODY stops them. Dilloduck seems not to want that effort to be made.

This not only helps terrorists kill your own, but it's also a way of saying that American troops who fought trying to protect America ultimately wasted their time.

It's a bit like running from the blast zone of a large bomb about to detonate, then deciding only to run ten yards. The amount of running done is rendered useless through lack of sustained effort.

Too many fail to see that , in for a penny in for a pound , makes sense in fighting the terorists . For its either fight or be conquered, their terms and they are deathly adamant about it! Whats being ignored by most on this subject is the nature and connections of these new governments coming in after these dictators are eliminated! That is Islamic control. The entire thing is an Islamic surge and it has a plan. That is to set up a huge Caliphate with Iran running the show over there. Iran is our GD sworn enemy and that'll never change as long as its controlled by Islam!
Obama has sided with all the rebels except the ones that wanted to topple IRAN'S GOVERNMENT(a damn theocracy)! There his answer was -HELL NO!
People need to wake the hell up and ask why not!!???
The answer points squarely to where his true loyalties are!! -Tyr

[Drummond]

I bet you regret allowing the Muslims to take over the UK huh ?

What did I have to do with it ?

Besides, they haven't quite taken over ... yet ....

... though our resident LEFTIES bent over backwards to accommodate their so-called 'needs', when they were in power.

How accommodating have YOUR Lefties been, thus far ? H'mm ?

Cue one to lecture us on the importance of 'terrorist human rights' ... ??

Cripes.

I shall look in on this thread again tomorrow.

[Dilloduck]

Too many fail to see that , in for a penny in for a pound , makes sense in fighting the terorists . For its either fight or be conquered, their terms and they are deathly adamant about it! Whats being ignored by most on this subject is the nature and connections of these new governments coming in after these dictators are eliminated! That is Islamic control. The entire thing is an Islamic surge and it has a plan. That is to set up a huge Caliphate with Iran running the show over there. Iran is our GD sworn enemy and that'll never change as long as its controlled by Islam!
Obama has sided with all the rebels except the ones that wanted to topple IRAN'S GOVERNMENT(a damn theocracy)! There his answer was -HELL NO!
People need to wake the hell up and ask why not!!???
The answer points squarely to where his true loyalties are!! -Tyr

Oh horseshit-----is Romney gonna nuke Iran ? Politics and politicians need to get the hell outta war.

[Dilloduck]

What did I have to do with it ?

Besides, they haven't quite taken over ... yet ....

... though our resident LEFTIES bent over backwards to accommodate their so-called 'needs', when they were in power.

How accommodating have YOUR Lefties been, thus far ? H'mm ?

Cue one to lecture us on the importance of 'terrorist human rights' ... ??

Cripes.

I shall look in on this thread again tomorrow.

LOL you're begging Americans to take care of Syria and you can't even take care of the UK . Maybe the UN will help you. :laugh::laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We tried this plan in Iraq. I obviously didn't protect us. Who next after Syria ?

Really? Is Iraq threatening to cut the flow of oil/shipping thru the Strait of Hormuz over there now or is it Iran?
Dont ask me who next , the who next will be the nation or nations that decides we are still the big Satan deserving only of being destroyed.
We had better get out heads out of our ciolectives ases or we may wake up someday minus a few million heads pronto!
I am not anxious to be involved in another conflict over there but as so often is the case we have to fight where the enemy decides to engage us. Myself, I think we should just outright attack Iran for it is the head of the coming beast there. If Russia wasnt so damn stupid they'd team with us on doing exactly that! But no , they like China seek to play others against us to their own advantage.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Really? Is Iraq threatening to cut the flow of oil/shipping thru the Strait of Hormuz over there now or is it Iran?
Dont ask me who next , the who next will be the nation or nations that decides we are still the big Satan deserving only of being destroyed.
We had better get out heads out of our ciolectives ases or we may wake up someday minus a few million heads pronto!
I am not anxious to be involved in another conflict over there but as so often is the case we have to fight where the enemy decides to engage us. Myself, I think we should just outright attack Iran for it is the head of the coming beast there. If Russia wasnt so damn stupid they'd team with us on doing exactly that! But no , they like China seek to play others against us to their own advantage.-Tyr

Ya Ya==we jsut run around like a losse cannon blowing the shit out of anyone supected of having WMDs. Let's do N Korea.

In case you didn't notice it---we haven't made the world any safer by making sure everyone got oil.
If as you claim Islam is indeed the enemy then I wanna see you make a case for eradicating it. One that you can sell.

[revelarts]

I am not saying do nothing....I am simply saying that we can never be 100% secure.....the only thing that will make someone like revel sit up and take notice is if an attack gets someone he loves...until then he lives in a theoretical world in which he will believe in the innate "goodness" of mankind.

Right now his argument is only that his "hear say" is better than ours.

The innate goodness of mankind ? huh? you don't know me. Men are sinners. And people in political power anywhere can often become corrupt.
It's best to be prepared. but it BS to think that the US can put out every fire and potential fire in the world.





I agree with you. Total security can't ever be guaranteed. But you have to strive to get as near to that 100 percent as you can.

The lower the percentage achieved, the higher the death toll.

Perhaps Revelarts would benefit from reruns of the demolition of the Twin Towers. Of watching victims prefer to fall to their deaths than be roasted alive.

Or perhaps he imagines it was all a Walt Disney production, with Walt getting out of the wrong side of the bed one morning ...

You can't get anywhere near 100%. it's bombastic arrogance to think so. If you put every cleared true blue american under ground behind 10 miles of rock MAYBE you'd be close to 100% security. from OUTSIDE enemies at least. But guess what, short of that if we are going live in the open air. And have some taste of the reality of freedom. We are not going to get anywhere close to 100%.

I'm not sure what movies you've been watching.

The reality is this we've invaded in Iraq and theire gov't is moving more in the direction of Shraia and Iran.

Afghanistan is barely under our hand picked Kleptocratic drug dealing "republic". With the taliban waiting in wings who we never beat.
We Backed Alquida in Lybia bombing Lybians now the elected Gov't leans Muslim and terrorist.

We back the overthrow of Mubrarak,

do they have WMDs well someone told us that Iraq did right?
well Egypt does.
the problem is we have not made ANY friends in the region the gov'ts don't like us and the people of the countries we've invaded, tortured and bombed for OUR safety sorta hate our guys more.



every time we attack we create MORE radical enemies but somehow we are made Safer by continuing to attack and Lord it over other peoples countries for our benefit.

the only terrorist that have mannaged to attack America came from Saudia Arabia. who we haven't attacked. And we caught Bin laden in Pakistan, our friend, who we mostly haven't attacked. at least not the gov't.

I won't debate you guys or even offer alternative options because it seems to some folks every M.E. problem is a nail to you guys the U.S. military is the Hammer. I'm not going to waste my time trying to counter that most deeply held faith.
But just ask yourself hows that working for us?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ya Ya==we jsut run around like a losse cannon blowing the shit out of anyone supected of having WMDs. Let's do N Korea.

In case you didn't notice it---we haven't made the world any safer by making sure everyone got oil.
If as you claim Islam is indeed the enemy then I wanna see you make a case for eradicating it. One that you can sell.

Sorry, Im not in charge of selling that case. It is my opinion on opposing Islam which I can and do express here and elsewhere but which of us are in charge of selling our opinions on foreign policy to government here? We as citizens should educate ourselves and vote from a point of knowledge rather than a point of ignorance which is the place the Dems desire votes to be cast from.
However , I have not asked for Islam's eradication instead I've asked that we stand united against it's goal of world subjegation and if that includes outright fighting so be it. Defense of our nation and culture isnt always appeasing flowery talk or camp picnics you know. How long would Britain have last had it choose talk against Hitler's rampage across Europe and his desire to destroy Britain? Or we for that matter? Sometimes talk is the absolute worse thing to do because it delays preparedness that is critical to victory! History proves that many times over IMHO.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Sorry, Im not in charge of selling that case. It is my opinion on opposing Islam which I can and do express here and elsewhere but which of us are in charge of selling our opinions on foreign policy to government here? We as citizens should educate ourselves and vote from a point of knowledge rather than a point of ignorance which is the place the Dems desire votes to be cast from.
However , I have not asked for Islam's eradication instead I've asked that we stand united against it's goal of world subjegation and if that includes outright fighting so be it. Defense of our nation and culture isnt always appeasing flowery talk or camp picnics you know. How long would Britain have last had it choose talk against Hitler's rampage across Europe and his desire to destroy Britain? Or we for that matter? Sometimes talk is the absolute worse thing to do because it delays preparedness that is critical to victory! History proves that many times over IMHO.-Tyr

Fine --in the mean time let's stay the hell out of Syria. They have neighbors that can and are handling it.

[revelarts]

[QUOTE=jimnyc;567424]
STUPID is falling for shit that no one else will, being gullible, thinking everything in life that goes on around you is a grand conspiracy.
( just name calling here)

Even the worst of enemies that you make claims against don't want to be a part of this hearsay.
WHY won't they do so, Rev?
(Who pick up the facts does not determine the facts)

Because they have pretty much zero in the evidence department and a lot in rhetoric and hearsay.
(Why they didn't is there own biz you don't know why, you just have opions why based on your own prepective. you have no facts for that statment)

You choose to believe the bare minimum with bare minimum of evidence, while outright ignoring other things presented to you.
(What are you talking about? that Saddam have WMD in the 1990s that there are records and accounts of it being mostly destroyed. But some didn't make the list. and the UN and US have never accounted for the last drips and drabs to THIS DAY. What have I ignored JIM. nothing. but as i said be fore that's NOT the WHOLE STORY. i include all of your info in my version of history but you name call and dismiss ALL contrary evidence. Even the fact THAT AFTER 10 years you still can't say where those WMDs are for sure. BUT YOU or some here BELIEVE they are in Syria. with a MUCH thinner set of witteness to back it than I have on my my points)

Unless your nutter hero is taken seriously, you proclaim every avenue of government to be some sort of conspiracy.
(What conspiracy have i mentioned here JIM? That politicains lied. that politicians lied a country into war? It's been done efore, often really. Do the facts back it up in this case? Why yes they do. So this "conspiracy" is real then. some are you know Jim)

That must really suck to go through life like that. And why do you outright ignore the portion of my reply dealing with the stuff in Iraq that we all know as fact? You don't like much in the facts department but sure do love you a conspiracy, and any conspiracy that can make our country looks bad, even if it means defending another country.
(The truth isn't always pretty, were grown up we need to deal with it. sometimes we have to wave the flag with tears.)

Rev, no one is addressing the meat of your "argument", as our entire government, who LIVE to "one up" the other party, won't even listen to this hearsay garbage. That's what you ignore -
(I ignore that the lazy congress doesn't fight for the truth? We have to wait for congress or the media to validate reality before we accept it? It's not true unless the democrats or Republicain party says so. You don't believe that.)

HEARSAY.
("unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.")
It's always so and so heard this, then of course they keep it to themselves for years, then want to discuss it when it may help sell a few books.

Col Wilkerson Asked the CIA If the intel was Correct and valid in many way and often he was told it was solid. He found out that it was not and they KNEW it was not.

how is that hersay Jim? that's direct knowledge.

Lt. Col K; Worked with the OPS and Saw the Intel Herself and saw what was feed Cheney and Bush and Challenged it to her boss and others at the pentagon. And she Saw Docs that indicated they would have the war REGARDLESS of the intel.
That's Direct knowledge.

Please go through each and show me which one is Hearsay, they all are Gov't officials or eyewitness with hands on direct knowledge or verified intel.

The Downing st memo is direct evidence on it's face, showing the intent to alter the perception of reality ... LIE)

And Clarke? Holy crap, the man stole confidential documents and STILL has nothing!
(Ok you don't like Clark, what about the others Jim? All liars and Book selling fiends)


If you want to pin your tail on hearsay, so be it, as usual I will side with the facts. The facts about what WMD were proven to be in Iraq, bagged and tagged, never to be heard from again. And not just a little - literally TONS.
( see my earlier statements)

And you love to bring up Blix and his opinion that things might be finished in a few months, but don't acknowledge that even Blix admits they remained in material breach of resolutions and were not fully cooperating. ( Who said Saddam was fully cooperating all the time, not me. what does that have to do with the fact that he said he could deal with it in a few month with the cooperation HE WAS GETTING AT THAT TIME.)

Hearsay. Cherry picking. More hearsay. Ignore facts.
( BS BS BS)

It wouldn't have mattered anyway. ( THAT is part of my point BUSH Knew it wasn't enough so he had to lie to the UN and the American people to justify Invasion.) The US was going in regardless and it had only a small portion to do with WMD and a 12 year history of shooting at out planes and ignoring UN resolutions. Everyone and anyone saw this coming from 1998 on. (No only those who drunk the NeoCon kool aid "Knew" we were going to Attack Iraq.) 'Cept for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Revelarts. :rolleyes:

( In other places you've told me that Bush never wanted to Attack Iraq before 9-11 or when he was running for prez, so which is it. HE DID want to Iraq pre 9-11 for no fly zone violations or he didn't?)

[jafar00]

We Backed Alquida in Lybia bombing Lybians now the elected Gov't leans Muslim and terrorist.

Actually they voted secularists in recently. Ain't Democracy grand?

[Kathianne]

Oh horseshit-----is Romney gonna nuke Iran ? Politics and politicians need to get the hell outta war.

I don't think it will be nukes, nor do I think it will be Romney. If anyone has been paying attention, a great deal of US Naval power has been building up in the Middle East for months now.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-persian-gulf/


Gunboats, Super-Torpedoes, Sea-Bots: U.S. Navy Launches Huge Iran Surge

By Spencer Ackerman (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/spencer_ackerman/)
Email Author (spencerackerman@gmail.com%3C/a%3E)
March 16, 2012


Sending more aircraft carriers to the waters near Iran, it turns out, was just the start. Yes, the U.S. currently has more seapower aimed at Iran in the Persian Gulf (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/iran-aircraft-carriers/) than in the fleets of most countries on Earth, Iran included. But that was just the Navy cracking its knuckles.


In the next few months, the Navy will double its minesweeper craft stationed in Bahrain, near Iran, from four to eight. Those ships will be crucial if Iran takes the drastic step of mining the Strait of Hormuz (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/strait-of-hormuz/), one of the global energy supply’s most crucial waterways. Four more MH-53 “Sea Stallion” helicopters, another minesweeping tool, are also getting ready for Bahrain, to give the U.S. Fifth Fleet early warning for any strait mining.


Then the Navy will prepare to get closer to Iranian shores. Much closer. It’s got five close-action patrol boats in the Gulf right now. Once the Coast Guard returns three that the Navy loaned out, the Navy will have five other patrol craft in the United States. All those boats are getting retrofitted. With Gatling guns. And missiles.


Sure, the guns aboard the two aircraft carriers currently near Iran are the seapower equivalent of high-powered, long-range rifles. “But maybe what you need is like a sawed-off shotgun,” capable of doing massive damage from a closer distance, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s senior officer. All 10 of those patrol boats, Greenert told reporters at a Friday breakfast in Washington, will get strapped with the Mk-38 Gatling Gun and should make it to the Gulf next year. (Though, alas, they won’t have the Gatling/laser gun mashup (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/navys-next-laser-mashes-up-machine-guns-and-death-rays/) BAE Systems is working on.) They’ll also get close-range missiles that can hit Iranian shores from four miles away — the same kinds Navy SEALs use.





http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/usa-uae-ship-idUSL6E8IH4OM20120717


US Navy attack "threatens regional security": Iran foreign ministry DUBAI, July 17 (Reuters) - Iran (http://www.reuters.com/places/iran) on Tuesday criticised the actions of a U.S. navy ship that shot at an approaching fishing boat off the United Arab Emirates, saying the incident showed foreign forces threatened regional security.

[jimnyc]

( In other places you've told me that Bush never wanted to Attack Iraq before 9-11 or when he was running for prez, so which is it. HE DID want to Iraq pre 9-11 for no fly zone violations or he didn't?)

I'm not wasting much typing on you, no offense. But this one sentence to end your argument spells it all out. Where have I ever stated Bush wanted to go into Iraq prior to 911? I believe the entire world wanted Saddam to completely cooperate with the UN inspectors and account for all previously tagged weapons. Stating that the US was going to go into Iraq in 2003 as a result of this failure to cooperate says nothing about what these leaders wanted 2,3 and 4 years prior. But many thought Saddam needed to come clean, cooperate or be removed starting a little in 1991, then gearing up in 1998 and then progressively getting worse as he refused more and more to cooperate.

They WANTED cooperation. They got missiles at planes and ignoring of resolutions in return. That simply cannot be disputed.

Your semantics and desire to twist my words just went "THUD" on the ground.

[Kathianne]

I don't think it will be nukes, nor do I think it will be Romney. If anyone has been paying attention, a great deal of US Naval power has been building up in the Middle East for months now.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-persian-gulf/



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/usa-uae-ship-idUSL6E8IH4OM20120717

I didn't go looking for this, I went to RCP to look at 'top stories. This caught my eye:

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/239387-opinion-heading-toward-a-sept-surprise


Opinion: Heading toward a Sept. surprise
By Judd Gregg - 07/23/12 05:00 AM ET

The fiscal cliff is the most talked about , and predictable, event in politics today.


If the policies it involves go forward — with massive cuts in defense spending and a massive tax increase on everyone who pays taxes — it will cause a dramatic slowdown in the economy.
It will probably put the nation into recession.

Just the anticipation of it seems to have significantly slowed economic activity — investment, in particular — as we head into the second half of this year.


Of course, Congress talks about it. But it cannot act, or will not act, until December.
President Obama has simply abdicated his role as the nation’s leader and moved on to something he can actually do, which is campaign.


But while the fiscal cliff is a critical issue, it may not be the next major threat to our prosperity...

...Why these events seem to crowd into September is a subject of a great deal of conjecture.

There is no consistent answer. But it seems September is the point in the year where people assess where they have gone, and what the next year will be like, and make investment decisions based on their conclusions.


To put it another way, reality sets in.


If investors see big problems in the economy or in world affairs, they take matters into their own hands rather than hoping they will be fixed by some outside force such as government.

Usually, they act defensively.


Unfortunately, this year, September may be a decisive month for the world and our nation’s economy.


Think about the forces afoot. None of them seems to be headed to a happy ending.
First, there’s the European fiscal mess.


Although there is a constant and energized effort to abate the problems driving the disarray there, progress is minimal. As Bernanke pointed out in sobering testimony before the House last week, Europe does not have its act together.


It has not addressed the core of its problem — its massive debt and unstable banking system. The recession brought on by this problem is only aggravating things.
This will probably be undeniably clear by September.


Second, Israel is under attack, or at least her people are, in places such as Bulgaria. They believe Iran is behind these attacks...

[jimnyc]

Sure, no need to worry about Syria, whether they have WMD's or will use them...


Syria says will use chemical weapons if attackedBEIRUT (AP) — The Syrian regime threatened Monday to use its chemical and biological weapons in case of a foreign attack, in its first ever acknowledgement that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed, however, that Damascus would not use its unconventional arms against its own citizens. The announcement comes as Syria faces international isolation, a tenacious rebellion that has left at least 19,000 people dead and threats by Israel to attack to prevent such weapons from falling into rebel hands.

Syria's decision to reveal the long suspected existence of its chemical weapons suggests a desperate regime deeply shaken by an increasingly bold revolt that has scored a string of successes in the past week, including a stunning bomb attack that killed four high-level security officials, the capture of several border crossings and sustained offensives on the regime strongholds of Damascus and Aleppo.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-chemical-weapons-attacked-103925213.html

[Roo]

Sure, no need to worry about Syria, whether they have WMD's or will use them...



http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-chemical-weapons-attacked-103925213.html

Actually today they are saying they will use them if attacked.

[Dilloduck]

Then it would be really wise to not attack them.

[jimnyc]

Then it would be really wise to not attack them.

Agreed, we should just sit back and watch the slaughter. I know of a few websites that are nothing more than war and gore. Not helping out where there are massive killing of innocents, by their own government, makes for good viral videos.

[Dilloduck]

Agreed, we should just sit back and watch the slaughter. I know of a few websites that are nothing more than war and gore. Not helping out where there are massive killing of innocents, by their own government, makes for good viral videos.

There is nothing we can do to stop it other than committing more war and gore.You wanna blame someone ? Talk to Russia and China. Where are people getting the idea that the US is omnipotent? You think Seal Team 6 can just drop in and kick ass ?

[jimnyc]

There is nothing we can do to stop it other than committing more war and gore.You wanna blame someone ? Talk to Russia and China. Where are people getting the idea that the US is omnipotent? You think Seal Team 6 can just drop in and kick ass ?

I'm not claiming to have the answers or to be some great strategist. Just seems to me that the whole world shouldn't sit back and watch people killed by their own government. Seems wrong.

[Dilloduck]

I'm not claiming to have the answers or to be some great strategist. Just seems to me that the whole world shouldn't sit back and watch people killed by their own government. Seems wrong.

I have no verification of wh othe government is fighting. Could be Al Quaeda or the Taliban for all I know.

[jimnyc]

I have no verification of wh othe government is fighting. Could be Al Quaeda or the Taliban for all I know.

News agencies from around the world, and some even dumb enough to get in the thick of things, are reporting attacks on civilians from government forces. Like you though, I don't know who is starting or protecting themselves from the government. But thousands and thousands of innocent civilians, women and children, are dying at the ammo from the government.

[Dilloduck]

News agencies from around the world, and some even dumb enough to get in the thick of things, are reporting attacks on civilians from government forces. Like you though, I don't know who is starting or protecting themselves from the government. But thousands and thousands of innocent civilians, women and children, are dying at the ammo from the government.

If the rebel forces are hiding amongst highly populated areas and firing on the government it wouldn't suprise me. People who are in power wanna keep it.

[Drummond]

LOL you're begging Americans to take care of Syria and you can't even take care of the UK . Maybe the UN will help you. :laugh::laugh:

Don't be ridiculous. No 'begging' is involved. No, I just thought that you might want - after much persuasion, apparently !! - to take on a responsible attitude when it comes to your nation's security.

However .. since I now understand just how determined you are to not accept that WMD's need to be kept out of the hands of terrorists, I suppose all I CAN do is to give up on you. Anyone that determined to maintain a mindset which maximises terrorist fortunes ... and at the cost of one's own nation ... is clearly too far gone to reason with.

I do have one question for you, because I'm baffled as to how anyone can think as you do with anything like a clear conscience. It's this ...

.. why do you mean your country harm ?

It's a serious question. I'd like to understand what your country has done to you, that you'd happily see terrorists armed to the teeth against you.

[jafar00]

Actually today they are saying they will use them if attacked.

That reminds me of another country saying the same thing..... Iran.

[jimnyc]

That reminds me of another country saying the same thing..... Iran.

Yep, unfortunately, many Islamic lead countries are in turmoil and ran by religious nuts who would rather kill innocents, and their own people, than relinquish any power.

[Drummond]

That reminds me of another country saying the same thing..... Iran.

... though, of course, that stance is one that Iran has adopted AFTER first threatening to wipe Israel off the map !

As for that same basic threat which a certain Iranian general has seen fit to regurgitate recently, its wording is surely instructive ? ....

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/02/iranian-general-israeli-attack-would-hand-us-an-excuse-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/


Any attack on Iran by Israel would “hand us an excuse to wipe them off the face of the earth,” Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said Sunday.

Hajizadeh, announcing three days of missile tests by Iran, ....

So, nothing provocative, threatening, downright belligerent, in any of THAT, then ... ?

[jimnyc]

... though, of course, that stance is one that Iran has adopted AFTER first threatening to wipe Israel off the map !

As for that same basic threat which a certain Iranian general has seen fit to regurgitate recently, its wording is surely instructive ? ....

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/02/iranian-general-israeli-attack-would-hand-us-an-excuse-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/



So, nothing provocative, threatening, downright belligerent, in any of THAT, then ... ?

They're just itching for an excuse to destroy an entire country. That's not the type of country to have any concern over! LOL

[Roo]

That reminds me of another country saying the same thing..... Iran.

The difference is that you think their both innocent nations reacting to a bully, I know they are both rogue regimes that sponsor terror all over the world.

[jimnyc]

Even Obama is finally making a statement on Syria and their WMD... I really don't see Assad going that far. But just like Iraq, this country has now "admitted" their possession of WMD's in the midst of turmoil. In hindsight, we are told that we should never have believed Saddam and his generals when they made threats, as "it was clear" they no longer possessed the weapons.

The US shouldn't get involved many will say, that it's not our war. But what if it reaches 2 million dead, 5 million dead, or just one hundred thousand. At what point does someone/anyone assist? Or does the body count not matter?


Obama to Syria’s Assad: Using chemical arms would be ‘tragic mistake’

President Barack Obama warned Syria's Bashar Assad on Monday that he will be held accountable if he makes the "tragic mistake" of using chemical weapons on his own people.

His blunt warning came shortly after Syria—gripped by deadly violence since an uprising against Assad that began early last year—threatened to use chemical and biological weapons if attacked from the outside (http://news.yahoo.com/syria-could-chemical-weapons-attacked-185511673.html?_esi=1). It was the first formal admission from Damascus that the regime, long a close partner of Iran, has weapons of mass destruction.

"Given the regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad and those around him that the world is watching and that they will be held accountable by the international community, and the United States, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons," the president said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) at their annual convention in Reno, Nev.




http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-syria-assad-using-chemical-arms-tragic-mistake-201016500.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That reminds me of another country saying the same thing..... Iran.

You mean Iran the muslim theocracy that obama protected from an "Arab Spring" uprising!
Obama went with every attack on any dictator regime but absolutely refused any form of support when it came to dethroning and Islamic theocracy! So very telling about where obama's true loyalties are, eh?-Tyr

[Drummond]

Even Obama is finally making a statement on Syria and their WMD... I really don't see Assad going that far. But just like Iraq, this country has now "admitted" their possession of WMD's in the midst of turmoil. In hindsight, we are told that we should never have believed Saddam and his generals when they made threats, as "it was clear" they no longer possessed the weapons.

The US shouldn't get involved many will say, that it's not our war. But what if it reaches 2 million dead, 5 million dead, or just one hundred thousand. At what point does someone/anyone assist? Or does the body count not matter?



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-syria-assad-using-chemical-arms-tragic-mistake-201016500.html

... and what about a scenario that sees Syria prove beyond all doubt to the world that it does have WMD's, only to subsequently lose power to rebels known to have terrorist links ?

Just finding that out, from a distance, will open up the spectre of the near-certainty of future WMD attacks from Muslim terrorists. The forthcoming attack(s) might make 9/11 look like a tea party by comparison !

Carping about such a mess long AFTER it comes about, will be useless. All you could then do is wait for an attack which no terrorist would be less than tempted to make ... sooner rather than later.

[revelarts]

Can someone tell me when Assad every threatened the U.S.?
Or can you tell me what foreign country Syria has attacked Since they attacked Israel in the 6 day war with Egypt?

the answer is none.

Now folks here are pissin their pants because they have WMDs, apparently it's been known for quite some time.

Seems to me the cats out of the bag. but you guys are so full of fear and propaganda you can't think strait.
The same old lines but different a monster get you all ginned up to go to war.


It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
Douglas MacArthur (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/douglas_macarthur.html)




later ya'll peace to you...

[jimnyc]

Can someone tell me when Assad every threatened the U.S.?
Or can you tell me what foreign country Syria has attacked Since they attacked Israel in the 6 day war with Egypt?

the answer is none.

Now folks here are pissin their pants because they have WMDs, apparently it's been known for quite some time.

Seems to me the cats out of the bag. but you guys are so full of fear and propaganda you can't think strait.
The same old lines but different a monster get you all ginned up to go to war.


It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
Douglas MacArthur (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/douglas_macarthur.html)




later ya'll peace to you...

There is so much here to laugh at that I'm winded even thinking of where to start. :lol: :laugh2:

[Roo]

Can someone tell me when Assad every threatened the U.S.?
Or can you tell me what foreign country Syria has attacked Since they attacked Israel in the 6 day war with Egypt?

the answer is none.

Now folks here are pissin their pants because they have WMDs, apparently it's been known for quite some time.

Seems to me the cats out of the bag. but you guys are so full of fear and propaganda you can't think strait.
The same old lines but different a monster get you all ginned up to go to war.


It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
Douglas MacArthur (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/douglas_macarthur.html)




later ya'll peace to you...

You really shouldn't be so condescending, you don't really have any reason to be.

Syria and Iran have attacked Nations from all over the world through their proxies.....like I said once before, you can afford to be theroetical... you haven't lost anyone you love.....neither have I but neither do I need to hide behind false pretenses and pretend to be above it all.

I pray they apprehend and kill every terrorist they can to prevent anything like that ever happening to you but karma is a bitch.

[Drummond]

Can someone tell me when Assad every threatened the U.S.?

... meaning, of course, that for such a thing to happen is a total impossibility ?

I suppose, by that logic, an attack on Israel by Iran will be a total impossibility ... until it HAPPENS ?

By the way, and for your information ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18963720


President Barack Obama has warned Syria's President Bashar al-Assad that his government will be held accountable if it uses chemical weapons.

He was speaking after Damascus said they would not be deployed inside Syria but would be against foreign attack.

Or to put it another way .. the warning is for no foreign power to get anywhere near Syrian territory .. which will, of course, optimise the chance of a power such as America never getting the opportunity of keeping them away from terrorists .. yes ?


Or can you tell me what foreign country Syria has attacked Since they attacked Israel in the 6 day war with Egypt?

In case you missed it, the warning coming out of the Assad regime shows rather less than 'statesmanlike concern' for the security and integrity of powers foreign to Syria ? Or to put it another way, they are prepared for belligerence against any foreign power at any time they consider it opportune.

The Assad regime, Revelarts, is somewhat less than a 'peaceful' one !!


Now folks here are pissin their pants because they have WMDs, apparently it's been known for quite some time.

Well, yes, there's been a suspicion for a long time that Iraq shipped theirs over to Syria.


Seems to me the cats out of the bag. but you guys are so full of fear and propaganda you can't think strait.
The same old lines but different a monster get you all ginned up to go to war.

Er'm ... WHO is threatening WHO with their deployment ???

Revelarts, may I ask that you wake up and smell the coffee ? There's a real world out there, where some 'people' are considerably less than 'nice'.

[Drummond]

Those happy to leave Syria alone, who fail to be concerned about any prospect of terrorists getting their hands on weapons such as WMD's ... might find this interesting.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/960725.html


As you know, Secretary Christopher will testify on July 31 and can discuss Syria and other Middle East issues, including the peace process. Regarding terrorism, which is my area of responsibility, the Administration shares the Committee's concerns addressed in your letter of July 22 to the Department about Syrian support for terrorism. This is an important element in our dialogue with the government of Syria. Indeed, the United States has made clear to the Syrians on numerous occasions and at the highest levels that their support for international terrorist groups is a serious impediment to our bilateral relationship.

Syria is one of the original countries to be placed on the list of state sponsors that was adopted in 1979 pursuant to Section 6 of the Export Administration Act. The criteria for including a country on the terrorism list include, but are not limited to, whether the country provides terrorists sanctuary from extradition or prosecution; arms, explosives and other lethal substances; logistical support; safe houses or headquarters; planning, training or other assistance for terrorist activities; and direct or indirect financial backing.

Syria continues to provide safe haven and logistic support to a variety of terrorist groups, both Arab and non-Arab, such as the Kurdish PKK. Several of these groups maintain a presence in Damascus and terrorist training facilities or forces in Syria. Terrorist groups also have bases in parts of Lebanon either controlled or strongly influenced by Syria. Personnel of several other international terrorist groups are allowed to transit Syria. Syria does not define the activities of the groups as "terrorism." We strongly disagree.

... OK. Any Lefties out there itching to jump in, and try to sanitise Syria's reputation, so as to then argue that there are no legitimate concerns about Syria's stock of WMD's ??

There is a name .. it comes to mind .. of a certain initiative that was, once upon a time, tailor-made to tackle scenarios JUST like this one. Anyone care to recall what it was ?

Let me help you.

THE WAR ON TERROR.

Sounds vaguely familiar ?

[aboutime]

Can someone tell me when Assad every threatened the U.S.?
Or can you tell me what foreign country Syria has attacked Since they attacked Israel in the 6 day war with Egypt?

the answer is none.

Now folks here are pissin their pants because they have WMDs, apparently it's been known for quite some time.

Seems to me the cats out of the bag. but you guys are so full of fear and propaganda you can't think strait.
The same old lines but different a monster get you all ginned up to go to war.


It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
Douglas MacArthur (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/douglas_macarthur.html)




later ya'll peace to you...

But now. After reading your garbage, and lame attempts to act like you have any knowledge to work with. I am convinced, you really are THAT LAME, and anything you said above sounded so much like something Assad would want you to say. Or, going back a few years. What Saddam Hussein would say to CYA.
You are the perfect, misled tool, or sheeple that the Assad government wants, and needs to continue the Propaganda that ALL OF YOU ARE JUST INNOCENT bystanders.
What a total waste of time, and space you are here.

[jafar00]

Yep, unfortunately, many Islamic lead countries are in turmoil and ran by religious nuts who would rather kill innocents, and their own people, than relinquish any power.

Actually, the ones being removed one by one are secularist nuts who would rather kill innocents, and their own people than relinquish any power ;) You may have a point with Iran though. I have no love for a regime that has hunted down and murdered Muslims because they are "Sunni".

[jimnyc]

Actually, the ones being removed one by one are secularist nuts who would rather kill innocents, and their own people than relinquish any power ;) You may have a point with Iran though. I have no love for a regime that has hunted down and murdered Muslims because they are "Sunni".

Ok, fair enough. I would also add Syria to that current list, whether killing their citizens because of secular reasons or just to control power.

[gabosaurus]

Ok, fair enough. I would also add Syria to that current list, whether killing their citizens because of secular reasons or just to control power.

North Korea does the same thing. So why aren't we worried about their WMDs, which they threaten to use on a regular basis?
Oh, I forgot, they aren't Muslims. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

North Korea does the same thing. So why aren't we worried about their WMDs, which they threaten to use on a regular basis?
Oh, I forgot, they aren't Muslims. :rolleyes:

Once again, being an ignorant troll and labeling people outside of the facts. We ARE worried about NK and have been for a LONG time. We have a shitload of military over there and are always monitoring them. They are clearly not an ally. If anyone at all paid attention in the past few decades, they would know that the US has been worried about NK.

Sometimes it's because of oil, because of "revenge for his daddy", about lies & now it's because we want to just go after Muslims. Soon you'll be running out of ignorant comments to make.

[aboutime]

North Korea does the same thing. So why aren't we worried about their WMDs, which they threaten to use on a regular basis?
Oh, I forgot, they aren't Muslims. :rolleyes:

Another victim God used his sense of humor on, and when gabby asked for brains, God thought gabby said trains. So, God laughed, and gave gabby the Smallest Set.

[jafar00]

Once again, being an ignorant troll and labeling people outside of the facts. We ARE worried about NK and have been for a LONG time. We have a shitload of military over there and are always monitoring them. They are clearly not an ally. If anyone at all paid attention in the past few decades, they would know that the US has been worried about NK.

Sometimes it's because of oil, because of "revenge for his daddy", about lies & now it's because we want to just go after Muslims. Soon you'll be running out of ignorant comments to make.

Israel is making the US concentrate on Iran which has no bombs, and so far has no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, meanwhile NK has pledged to started testing again.
North Korea said it is reviewing the “nuclear issue” to counter the U.S. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-20/north-korea-reviewing-nuclear-issue-to-counter-u-dot-s-dot)

[aboutime]

Once again, being an ignorant troll and labeling people outside of the facts. We ARE worried about NK and have been for a LONG time. We have a shitload of military over there and are always monitoring them. They are clearly not an ally. If anyone at all paid attention in the past few decades, they would know that the US has been worried about NK.

Sometimes it's because of oil, because of "revenge for his daddy", about lies & now it's because we want to just go after Muslims. Soon you'll be running out of ignorant comments to make.


The ignorant are....so ignorant. They are always convinced their comments will somehow manage to scare, or intimidate many of us who aren't so easily led, when it comes to being supporters of the American President who worships the Muslim Brotherhood.
That is also how terrorists achieve their goals, through intimidation, and a lack of tolerance only they are permitted to set the guidelines for, and with for others to either follow, or DIE.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Israel is making the US concentrate on Iran which has no bombs, and so far has no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, meanwhile NK has pledged to started testing again.
North Korea said it is reviewing the “nuclear issue” to counter the U.S. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-20/north-korea-reviewing-nuclear-issue-to-counter-u-dot-s-dot)

"no evidence of a nuclear weapons program", :laugh::laugh2::laugh:
Sure thing, somebody has virus attacked their "not a weapons" program to make those "not a weapons" enrichment activities go haywire.
Damn those Saturday night jokers, messing with Allah's new toys. Right?? Right?
Meanwhile you point us onto N. Korea away from Allah's "not weapon toys" that are "not being made" to destroy Israel..
How clever...:slap:--Tyr

[fj1200]

If anyone at all paid attention in the past few decades, they would know that the US has been worried about NK.

True, and NK will probably just collapse under its own weight with no shooting necessary.

[logroller]

True, and NK will probably just collapse under its own weight with no shooting necessary.
Great leader would never let that happen.:laugh:

[jafar00]

"no evidence of a nuclear weapons program", :laugh::laugh2::laugh:

Show me the evidence then. Better yet, show the IAEA your evidence :laugh2::lame2::laugh2:


Meanwhile you point us onto N. Korea away from Allah's "not weapon toys" that are "not being made" to destroy Israel..
How clever...:slap:--Tyr

Well that's the crux of the matter isn't it. NK's nukes are not point at Israel. They are pointed at YOU, but who cares as long as Israel is safe right?

[Drummond]

Show me the evidence then. Better yet, show the IAEA your evidence :laugh2::lame2::laugh2:

Jafar, you doubtless have your biases, sympathies and even an agenda. But you might start to try justifying your stance by explaining how you can be so dismissive of even the idea that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program intended to arm it with nuclear weapons.

We all know that Ahmadinejad repeatedly made holocaustal threats against Israel. Just days ago, one of Iran's generals pro fessed to be looking for, or hoping, for 'an excuse' to launch a devastating attack against Israel. So, what basis do you have for being so dismissive of Iran as a threat to Israel ?

It's not as though they're known to be unconditionally cooperative to inspection teams .. or anything like it. It's not as though they've entered into talks and walked away from them with any declared intention to give ground on a program that's going full pelt towards its completion ... and this from an energy-rich country that has NO NEED OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY to satisfy its energy needs, yet, defies any and all sanctions to pursue its nuclear goals !!

If they have no need to generate power by that means, WHY THE DETERMINATION TO PRESS ON ?

... and tell me. Have you 'forgotten' this story, from 2009 ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6235516/Discovering-Irans-secret-nuclear-plant-has-wiped-off-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejads-smile.html

A country with nothing to hide and so no hidden agenda, wouldn't have a reason to try and hide a nuclear facility !!!


Until the Obama administration dropped the bombshell that it knew what the Iranian regime was up to, Mr Ahmadinejad had been enjoying himself, provoking mass walkouts from the United Nations General Assembly in New York after his claims the Holocaust was a myth.

He had even managed to persuade some of the more gullible delegates that Iran would take a constructive approach to this week's scheduled talks over the future of its nuclear program, which are due to take place in New York on Thursday.

Holding court at his hotel, Mr Ahmadinejad said he was looking forward to "free and open" discussions during this week's meeting with six world powers on Iran's nuclear program.

But by Friday, Mr Ahmadinejad's composure looked shaken when he appeared at a news conference shortly after President Barack Obama had disclosed that Iran had been developing a second uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom without bothering to inform the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency what it was up to.

Given Iran's previous track record of concealing vital details of its nuclear program from the UN, the disclosure that Iran had been forced to admit it had embarked on another undeclared nuclear site has severely damaged Mr Ahmadinejad's credibility at a crucial moment in the international stand-off over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Explain that away, Jafar. Come on ...


Well that's the crux of the matter isn't it. NK's nukes are not point at Israel. They are pointed at YOU, but who cares as long as Israel is safe right?

So, can I infer from this that Israel's safety and security is NOT an important issue ? That it doesn't deserve proper attention ?

North Korea may be ruled by a belligerent regime, but to the best of my understanding, that belligerence hasn't gone so far as the issuing of repeated threats of genocide. Or ... do you say otherwise ?

[gabosaurus]

North Korea may be ruled by a belligerent regime, but to the best of my understanding, that belligerence hasn't gone so far as the issuing of repeated threats of genocide. Or ... do you say otherwise ?


North Korea's military vowed a new and unusually specific threat to its neighbors, saying it would reduce South Korea "to ashes" (http://news.yahoo.com/nkorean-military-warns-special-actions-soon-110332750.html;_ylt=AvG40uX4FJWjqfQy.0DWQdfyWed_;_ ylu=X3oDMTFka3BkYnE0BG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzEEc2 VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ0JvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTMxZTFyYXBrBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMzhjNmZkYTEtNTE5ZC0zYTBiLWIzYTgtN2I1MjNmYm YxYjdhBHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3x0aGVlbnZveQRwdANzdG9yeXBh Z2U-;_ylv=3) in less than four minutes.

This is only the latest of many. Perhaps you are too obsessed with Muslims to realize what is going on in the rest of the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/north-korea-issues-unusually-specific-threat-152720861.html

[Drummond]

This is only the latest of many. Perhaps you are too obsessed with Muslims to realize what is going on in the rest of the world.

Meaning .. what ?

That a regime which repeatedly threatens genocide against a people within missile range of it, which has one of its generals happy to admit they want an 'excuse' to launch a major attack against that very same people, which is running full pelt towards developing a technology that can carry out such threats, is utterly determined to shrug off any measures taken to dissuade them from continuing with it, this a technology it HAS NO NEED TO DEVELOP, which tries to hide a nuclear facility from the world yet claims to only want to pursue a 'peaceful' application of nuclear technology ... should, in the face of ALL of that, just be ...

... FORGOTTEN ABOUT ??

I actually think not, Gabby.

Iran has already had years to pursue its single-minded ambition, Gabby. How many more of those years would you prefer it have, remaining relatively unchallenged ? WHY is there such a wish to ignore a belligerent country's stated aims, which constitute the greatest threat to the Jewish people since Hitler's Holocaust ???

Gabby, explain what drives you to take this path.

[Drummond]

Oh, and by the way, Gabby, having viewed your link about North Korea .. sure, I agree this looks bad. All the same, even your link says the following:-


North Korea's military vowed a new and unusually specific threat to its neighbors

Contrast that, if you will, against Iran's somewhat older threat, a repeated one, which they keep finding ways to regurgitate.

But in the face of such persistence, still, you want focus on Iran to CEASE ?

[Kathianne]

This is only the latest of many. Perhaps you are too obsessed with Muslims to realize what is going on in the rest of the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/north-korea-issues-unusually-specific-threat-152720861.html

and yet in 60+ years they've not managed to reignite the war in real terms. They are much poorer today than then.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-12/news/31329167_1_kim-jong-il-food-aid-rocket

[jafar00]

Jafar, you doubtless have your biases, sympathies and even an agenda. But you might start to try justifying your stance by explaining how you can be so dismissive of even the idea that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program intended to arm it with nuclear weapons.

I don't any love for the Iranian regime or their leaders. Especially not the Ayatullah who puts himself up on a pedestal and is even seen as divine by his followers. This is contrary to Islam which teaches that we are all equal. They have also tortured and put some of my brothers and sisters to death simply because they are Sunni. But I will defend their right to a Nuclear Power industry as is granted to them as a signatory to the NPT. It's that simple. I will also dismiss any suggestion that they have a weapons program until clear, verifiable evidence is present that they actually have such a program. I'm not going to accuse them just because they are Iranian or that I just don't trust them.


We all know that Ahmadinejad repeatedly made holocaustal threats against Israel. Just days ago, one of Iran's generals pro fessed to be looking for, or hoping, for 'an excuse' to launch a devastating attack against Israel. So, what basis do you have for being so dismissive of Iran as a threat to Israel ?

... and tell me. Have you 'forgotten' this story, from 2009 ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6235516/Discovering-Irans-secret-nuclear-plant-has-wiped-off-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejads-smile.html

A country with nothing to hide and so no hidden agenda, wouldn't have a reason to try and hide a nuclear facility !!!



Explain that away, Jafar. Come on ...

Ok. If you had an enemy constantly threatening you, would you let them know where sensitive infrastructure was so they can target it? With all the threats, it's no surprise they have hidden facilities.


So, can I infer from this that Israel's safety and security is NOT an important issue ? That it doesn't deserve proper attention ?

All Israel needs to do is NOT attack Iran and stop threatening them. Why is that so hard to understand?


North Korea may be ruled by a belligerent regime, but to the best of my understanding, that belligerence hasn't gone so far as the issuing of repeated threats of genocide. Or ... do you say otherwise ?

Well, apart from constant threats to wipe out South Korea and the odd jab at the USA.

[Drummond]

Thank you for your reply.


... But I will defend their right to a Nuclear Power industry as is granted to them as a signatory to the NPT. It's that simple. I will also dismiss any suggestion that they have a weapons program until clear, verifiable evidence is present that they actually have such a program. I'm not going to accuse them just because they are Iranian or that I just don't trust them.

But the thing of it is .. though you say you've reasons not to like Iran's leaders, you still defend what they're aiming to do !

What if you keep defending this, and will only entertain doubts about what they're up to, when the evidence is that of mushroom clouds appearing where Israeli cities used to be ? Won't it be just the teensiest bit too late by then ?!?

You will 'dismiss' suggestions of a weapons program, you say, until you see verifiable evidence you can recognise to be such. That, Jafar, is a remarkably strong stance to make in their favour !! Consider its lack of reasonableness. If UN inspectors took that line, logically, they'd never start investigating Iran, because the possibility of such a program would be automatically 'dismissable' before evidence turned up !!

If you're currently convinced you can 'dismiss' a weapons program, you have to therefore be saying that they're only embarking on a program for power generation. But you've NO way of showing me that they have ANY NEED to get power from nuclear means !! Iran is energy-rich, more so than most nations on this planet, before ever thinking of building nuclear facilities.

So show me that they need energy from nuclear technology. If you can't, how can you make the case for why Iran even defies all sanctions that come their way ? How does it make ANY sense for them to suffer sanctions hardships for something they DON'T EVEN NEED !!


Ok. If you had an enemy constantly threatening you, would you let them know where sensitive infrastructure was so they can target it? With all the threats, it's no surprise they have hidden facilities.

A couple of points to make here.

For one .. WHO is threatening WHO, and to what extent ? Has Israel threatened Iran with genocide ? Because this is what Iran has done to Israel - REPEATEDLY. We even, now, have the case of an Iranian general who admits he's looking for AN EXCUSE to attack Israel !

Israel wants to live securely, without threats, without acts of terrorism coming their way. Even as armed to the teeth as we're told they are, do they actually USE more than the smallest fraction of it, against aggressors ? BUT .. compare that to Iran, which may be less well armed, but have embarked on a form of technological progress well suited to the instigation of the worst form of attack possible.

A threat of genocide is not a defensive threat. It is a belligerent threat, in fact the very worst form of threat one Nation State can make to another.

And Iran has issued it - repeatedly.

Now, you talk of a 'sensitive infrastructure'. Meaning, the hidden facility of Qom, discovered in 2009 against Iran's wishes, and which the public revelation of which caused Ahmadinejad some reported discomfiture ? But tell me, what was it about that facility that made it 'sensitive', therefore 'needing to be kept hidden' ?

See ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8274262.stm


Iran has revealed the existence of a second uranium enrichment plant, the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed.

Tehran made the announcement earlier this week in a letter to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed ElBaradei.

Iran has previously acknowledged it has one enrichment plant at Natanz, which IAEA inspectors are monitoring.

The US, UK and France are set to accuse Iran of concealing the plant later on Friday, media reports say.

They and other Western nations have long feared that Iran is planning to develop an atomic weapon.

A second enrichment plant. Now, since Natanz was known about, and since it was known that Iran was working to build and to use enrichment technology, what was it that made that OTHER facility one needing to be kept hidden, IF all Iran ever wanted was the peaceful application of nuclear technology ?? A second site should simply mean that they have a greater capacity to do the very same thing that they were already known to be doing, and which had been openly reported.

Yet . that second facility was .. 'sensitive', you say ..

.... WHY ?? ....

Jafar, there is only ONE answer to that, and it's painfully obvious. The hidden site was going to enrich WEAPONS GRADE material.

You have no way of explaining the 'sensitivity' of that PARTICULAR site, ANY OTHER WAY !


All Israel needs to do is NOT attack Iran and stop threatening them. Why is that so hard to understand?

There is actually something far harder to understand than this, Jafar. It's how a nation such as Israel, under threat of extermination, manages to be as restrained as it does, in the face of the threatener working to enact that threat !!!

I marvel at their restraint. I really do.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't any love for the Iranian regime or their leaders. Especially not the Ayatullah who puts himself up on a pedestal and is even seen as divine by his followers. This is contrary to Islam which teaches that we are all equal. They have also tortured and put some of my brothers and sisters to death simply because they are Sunni. But I will defend their right to a Nuclear Power industry as is granted to them as a signatory to the NPT. It's that simple. I will also dismiss any suggestion that they have a weapons program until clear, verifiable evidence is present that they actually have such a program. I'm not going to accuse them just because they are Iranian or that I just don't trust them.



Ok. If you had an enemy constantly threatening you, would you let them know where sensitive infrastructure was so they can target it? With all the threats, it's no surprise they have hidden facilities.



All Israel needs to do is NOT attack Iran and stop threatening them. Why is that so hard to understand?



Well, apart from constant threats to wipe out South Korea and the odd jab at the USA.

Translation : I have no love for Iran's regime or their leaders but they are muslim so I support their right to get nukes, destroy Israel and later when they are much stronger ,the USA weaker , destroy the USA too. It's the muslim thing to do...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thank you for your reply.



But the thing of it is .. though you say you've reasons not to like Iran's leaders, you still defend what they're aiming to do !

What if you keep defending this, and will only entertain doubts about what they're up to, when the evidence is that of mushroom clouds appearing where Israeli cities used to be ? Won't it be just the teensiest bit too late by then ?!?

You will 'dismiss' suggestions of a weapons program, you say, until you see verifiable evidence you can recognise to be such. That, Jafar, is a remarkably strong stance to make in their favour !! Consider its lack of reasonableness. If UN inspectors took that line, logically, they'd never start investigating Iran, because the possibility of such a program would be automatically 'dismissable' before evidence turned up !!

If you're currently convinced you can 'dismiss' a weapons program, you have to therefore be saying that they're only embarking on a program for power generation. But you've NO way of showing me that they have ANY NEED to get power from nuclear means !! Iran is energy-rich, more so than most nations on this planet, before ever thinking of building nuclear facilities.

So show me that they need energy from nuclear technology. If you can't, how can you make the case for why Iran even defies all sanctions that come their way ? How does it make ANY sense for them to suffer sanctions hardships for something they DON'T EVEN NEED !!



A couple of points to make here.

For one .. WHO is threatening WHO, and to what extent ? Has Israel threatened Iran with genocide ? Because this is what Iran has done to Israel - REPEATEDLY. We even, now, have the case of an Iranian general who admits he's looking for AN EXCUSE to attack Israel !

Israel wants to live securely, without threats, without acts of terrorism coming their way. Even as armed to the teeth as we're told they are, do they actually USE more than the smallest fraction of it, against aggressors ? BUT .. compare that to Iran, which may be less well armed, but have embarked on a form of technological progress well suited to the instigation of the worst form of attack possible.

A threat of genocide is not a defensive threat. It is a belligerent threat, in fact the very worst form of threat one Nation State can make to another.

And Iran has issued it - repeatedly.

Now, you talk of a 'sensitive infrastructure'. Meaning, the hidden facility of Qom, discovered in 2009 against Iran's wishes, and which the public revelation of which caused Ahmadinejad some reported discomfiture ? But tell me, what was it about that facility that made it 'sensitive', therefore 'needing to be kept hidden' ?

See ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8274262.stm



A second enrichment plant. Now, since Natanz was known about, and since it was known that Iran was working to build and to use enrichment technology, what was it that made that OTHER facility one needing to be kept hidden, IF all Iran ever wanted was the peaceful application of nuclear technology ?? A second site should simply mean that they have a greater capacity to do the very same thing that they were already known to be doing, and which had been openly reported.

Yet . that second facility was .. 'sensitive', you say ..

.... WHY ?? ....

Jafar, there is only ONE answer to that, and it's painfully obvious. The hidden site was going to enrich WEAPONS GRADE material.

You have no way of explaining the 'sensitivity' of that PARTICULAR site, ANY OTHER WAY !



There is actually something far harder to understand than this, Jafar. It's how a nation such as Israel, under threat of extermination, manages to be as restrained as it does, in the face of the threatener working to enact that threat !!!

I marvel at their restraint. I really do.

Im guessing Israel will not make a move on Iran until after the coming election here. They desperately want the "muslim in hiding" out of the Whitehouse before hitting Iran's nukebomb producing sites. Jafar knows he is a muslim and he knows obama loves Islam. What's that most beautiful sound he ever heard , answer -Muslim afternoon call to prayers. Who has he stated that he will stand by at the end, answer --Islam.
Jafar plays games here IMHO. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Translation : I have no love for Iran's regime or their leaders but they are muslim so I support their right to get nukes, destroy Israel and later when they are much stronger ,the USA weaker , destroy the USA too. It's the muslim thing to do...

Well, Tyr, on the 'destroying the USA' part .. I suppose they can dream (and I'll just bet they do).

Though I think that by destroying the USA, what they'd really want is to convert it to their thinking from within. It's the same thing as we see here, they move into areas, change the whole nature of them to conform to what THEY want it to resemble, then move elsewhere and start the process again.

They can hope to bomb Israel into extinction. They cannot hope to replicate such an outcome elsewhere in the West. So they'll just subvert, altering what was healthy into something cancerous instead.

[Drummond]

Im guessing Israel will not make a move on Iran until after the coming election here. They desperately want the "muslim in hiding" out of the Whitehouse before hitting Iran's nukebomb producing sites. Jafar knows he is a muslim and he knows obama loves Islam. What's that most beautiful sound he ever heard , answer -Muslim afternoon call to prayers. Who has he stated that he will stand by at the end, answer --Islam.
Jafar plays games here IMHO. -Tyr

Sounds a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me. Obama's proven himself to be a far more unreliable so-called 'ally' than Israel could deserve. For a long time I've been considerably less than convinced that his so-called 'dithering' is anything of the sort.

Obama wants Iran to get all the time he can reasonably buy for them. I note much the same from others who argue for Iran's 'right' to work on a form of technology it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE A 'NEED' FOR .. UNLESS IT WANTS NUKES.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sounds a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me. Obama's proven himself to be a far more unreliable so-called 'ally' than Israel could deserve. For a long time I've been considerably less than convinced that his so-called 'dithering' is anything of the sort.

Obama wants Iran to get all the time he can reasonably buy for them. I note much the same from others who argue for Iran's 'right' to work on a form of technology it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE A 'NEED' FOR .. UNLESS IT WANTS NUKES.


Here is the type of insanity that many think is brilliant thinking.
This type of idiot is why we may lose to our enemies if that crap thinking is accepted as brilliance. Obama and others like him are eggheads that couldn't form a brilliant thought if given a century to do so! They are ate up with liberal insanity.-Tyr

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/06/23/can-letting-iran-get-a-nuke-help-bring-peace-to-the-middle-east/

Are Iranian president Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei more rational than we think they are?
It makes intuitive sense that Iran shouldn’t be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but what if that notion is wrong? What if letting Iran develop and test a nuke actually made the Middle East more stable?

That’s the thought-provoking position taken by prominent international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz, who thinks once Iran got a nuke, it would balance Israel’s nuclear might, with deterrence kicking in to finally make the Middle East a peaceful place. With oil falling below $80 a barrel last week, eliminating the geopolitical premium would add further downside catalysts, putting pressure on oil companies and Gulf States.

Waltz’s argument is based on the idea that nuclear weapons foster stability, which on the face of it sounds wrong. “Power begs to be balanced,” he wrote in his latest essay in Foreign Affairs titled Why Iran Should Get The Bomb. Waltz suggests that “Israel’s nuclear monopoly […] has long fueled instability in the Middle East” by giving Israel asymmetrical power, and thus capacity to strike at its enemies with impunity when they attempt to question that power. This happened in 1981 with Iraq, in 2007 with Syria (when both of them tried to develop nuclear capabilities), and is being talked about now, with Iran.

At the same time, sanctions “primarily harm ordinary Iranians,” while history proves that they do little to derail nations from pursuing their nuclear ambitions, Waltz explained, citing the case of North Korea. Indeed, sanctions can have the opposite effect, while they push up the price oil (and favor major producer like Exxon Mobil, BP, and Chevron), sanctions make Iran “feel more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate deterrent,” according to Waltz, who is a member of the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University, a WWII veteran, and the founder of the neorealist school of international relations.

By reducing military imbalances in the region, allowing Iran to get a nuke could actually stabilize the Middle East. Waltz notes that “there has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states,” citing the case of China (which “became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964) and India and Pakistan (“in the face of high tensions and risky provocations, the two countries have kept peace”).

The reasons why we’re so afraid that Iran might get a nuke is that we have come to understand its leaders as irrational, while they are anything but such, Waltz says. Iran’s foreign policy isn’t run by “mad mullahs” but by “perfectly sane ayatollahs” that know how to use inflammatory and hateful rhetoric to gain advantage at the negotiating table. But, at the end of the day, they have shown no “propensity for self-destruction.”

[Drummond]

Here is the type of insanity that many think is brilliant thinking.
This type of idiot is why we may lose to our enemies if that crap thinking is accepted as brilliance. Obama and others like him are eggheads that couldn't form a brilliant thought if given a century to do so! They are ate up with liberal insanity.-Tyr

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/06/23/can-letting-iran-get-a-nuke-help-bring-peace-to-the-middle-east/

Are Iranian president Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei more rational than we think they are?
It makes intuitive sense that Iran shouldn’t be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but what if that notion is wrong? What if letting Iran develop and test a nuke actually made the Middle East more stable?

That’s the thought-provoking position taken by prominent international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz, who thinks once Iran got a nuke, it would balance Israel’s nuclear might, with deterrence kicking in to finally make the Middle East a peaceful place. With oil falling below $80 a barrel last week, eliminating the geopolitical premium would add further downside catalysts, putting pressure on oil companies and Gulf States.

Waltz’s argument is based on the idea that nuclear weapons foster stability, which on the face of it sounds wrong. “Power begs to be balanced,” he wrote in his latest essay in Foreign Affairs titled Why Iran Should Get The Bomb. Waltz suggests that “Israel’s nuclear monopoly […] has long fueled instability in the Middle East” by giving Israel asymmetrical power, and thus capacity to strike at its enemies with impunity when they attempt to question that power. This happened in 1981 with Iraq, in 2007 with Syria (when both of them tried to develop nuclear capabilities), and is being talked about now, with Iran.

At the same time, sanctions “primarily harm ordinary Iranians,” while history proves that they do little to derail nations from pursuing their nuclear ambitions, Waltz explained, citing the case of North Korea. Indeed, sanctions can have the opposite effect, while they push up the price oil (and favor major producer like Exxon Mobil, BP, and Chevron), sanctions make Iran “feel more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate deterrent,” according to Waltz, who is a member of the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University, a WWII veteran, and the founder of the neorealist school of international relations.

By reducing military imbalances in the region, allowing Iran to get a nuke could actually stabilize the Middle East. Waltz notes that “there has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states,” citing the case of China (which “became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964) and India and Pakistan (“in the face of high tensions and risky provocations, the two countries have kept peace”).

The reasons why we’re so afraid that Iran might get a nuke is that we have come to understand its leaders as irrational, while they are anything but such, Waltz says. Iran’s foreign policy isn’t run by “mad mullahs” but by “perfectly sane ayatollahs” that know how to use inflammatory and hateful rhetoric to gain advantage at the negotiating table. But, at the end of the day, they have shown no “propensity for self-destruction.”

Insanity is right. This Waltz character is a raving nutter.

Very simply ... for a regime to threaten a country, and a people, with being 'wiped off the map' is the very opposite of one that might be interested in 'balance'. Iran has made its ambition clear, and is now working to realise it. They won't stop until they succeed, or unless they ARE stopped.

But still, Lefties only see what they want to see. It is, literally in this case, UTTER MADNESS.

[gabosaurus]

Translation : I have no love for Iran's regime or their leaders but they are muslim so I support their right to get nukes, destroy Israel and later when they are much stronger ,the USA weaker , destroy the USA too. It's the muslim thing to do...

India and Pakistan both opposed he other getting nuclear weapons. Each thought the other would use them in an attack. It hasn't happened in several decades and never will.

Only a real idiot would believe that one country would use nuclear weapons on a neighboring country in close proximity. Or that such a country would take on a larger country.
Tyr, your problem is that your hatred of Muslims is such that it precludes common sense. You want to destroy your enemy so badly that you fail to see the obstacles in your path.
Don't worry, Hitler had the same problem. And look at how successful he was.

[Drummond]

India and Pakistan both opposed he other getting nuclear weapons. Each thought the other would use them in an attack. It hasn't happened in several decades and never will.

Only a real idiot would believe that one country would use nuclear weapons on a neighboring country in close proximity. Or that such a country would take on a larger country.
Tyr, your problem is that your hatred of Muslims is such that it precludes common sense. You want to destroy your enemy so badly that you fail to see the obstacles in your path.
Don't worry, Hitler had the same problem. And look at how successful he was.

OK, then, Gabby ...

How much of an idiot would a leader of a country have to be to threaten genocide against a geographically near-by Nation State ? What's more .. to threaten a power already armed to the teeth with nukes ??

In fact, forget any question of 'intelligence' .. what about the RATIONALITY involved ?

So, now tell me how RATIONAL Ahmadinejad was to make that threat against Israel. It wasn't even as though he'd uttered the threat and regretted it afterwards .. he even REPEATED it. Neither has he ever issued an apology.

As for the utterance of one of his generals, only very recently ...

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/02/iranian-general-israeli-attack-would-hand-us-an-excuse-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/


Any attack on Iran by Israel would “hand us an excuse to wipe them off the face of the earth,” Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said Sunday.

Hajizadeh, announcing three days of missile tests by Iran, said the exercises should be seen as a message “that the Islamic Republic of Iran is resolute in standing up to … bullying, and will respond to any possible evil decisively and strongly,” according to the IRNA news agency.

No Ahmadinejad apology. No regret. No rethink at all. Just, as this general recently proved, a DESIRE to KEEP ISSUING HOLOCAUSTAL THREATS !!

Rationality isn't involved, Gabby, in any of this. You've tried berating Tyr for so-called 'hatred', but instead, you should face up to the utterly irrational hatred that's been emanating out of Iran for years. Add to that the great threat their nuke ambitions promise ... and you have a picture which ... well ... you IRRATIONALLY refuse to properly acknowledge.

Ostrich posturing is not helpful in these circumstances. I really don't care how comforting Lefties find that self-delusion of theirs. They badly need to wake up and live in the real world.

[revelarts]

OK, then, Gabby ...

How much of an idiot would a leader of a country have to be to threaten genocide against a geographically near-by Nation State ? What's more .. to threaten a power already armed to the teeth with nukes ??

In fact, forget any question of 'intelligence' .. what about the RATIONALITY involved ?

So, now tell me how RATIONAL Ahmadinejad was to make that threat against Israel. It wasn't even as though he'd uttered the threat and regretted it afterwards .. he even REPEATED it. Neither has he ever issued an apology.

As for the utterance of one of his generals, only very recently ...

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/02/iranian-general-israeli-attack-would-hand-us-an-excuse-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/



No Ahmadinejad apology. No regret. No rethink at all. Just, as this general recently proved, a DESIRE to KEEP ISSUING HOLOCAUSTAL THREATS !!

Rationality isn't involved, Gabby, in any of this. You've tried berating Tyr for so-called 'hatred', but instead, you should face up to the utterly irrational hatred that's been emanating out of Iran for years. Add to that the great threat their nuke ambitions promise ... and you have a picture which ... well ... you IRRATIONALLY refuse to properly acknowledge.

Ostrich posturing is not helpful in these circumstances. I really don't care how comforting Lefties find that self-delusion of theirs. They badly need to wake up and live in the real world.

I'm nnot sure why the comment by the General is that horrible and outrageous.

the guy is saying "IF ATTACKED" they'd have reason to retailate with both feet.

I've said similar about people attacking the U.S. but i've been told I'm crazy, soft, have a death wish etc because I don't want to Attack POTENTIAL Threats "BEFORE ATTACKED".

What's the deal with the double standard?!?
I know i won't get a real answer here. so I'll leave you to your rant's about how Dangerous Iran is because of the one misquoted statement by Aminajab.
And Must be Attacked NOW, BEFORE they get 1 nuke, BEFORE they attack Because they MIGHT attack ONE DAY MAYBE FOR SUUUUURE.

And Syria's Weapons will get us , we don't know Exactly what or where there are but we need to be afraid and ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK BEFORE they fall into the wrong hands. And Might ONE DAY GET US MAYBE For SURE. You remember 9-11 don't you, well there you go. never mind that we had enough hard evidence about all the 9-11 players to stop the attacks before hand without attacking foreign countries That doesn't matter , the way to stop terrorist is to Attack something, not arrest people and get intel, that's soft and crazy.

[revelarts]

If you want to be afraid about Nuke proliferation,
Read about the AQ Kahn network.
he worked pretty much in the open getting info for Pakistan nuke program the "Islamic bomb".
He has been a nuke player for many countries and God knows who knows who else. And he says that he's bought and paid for much of his info, materials and products from western companies (US and Europe) and he says they "would sell their mothers for money."




...In 2003, the seizure of sensitive nuclear equipment on a ship in an Italian port played a key role in the unraveling of a vast, international smuggling ring led by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan that supplied nuclear technology to some of the world's most dangerous regimes. Prosecuting those involved in this proliferation network, however, has proved difficult. Today none of the people associated with the so-called Khan network remain in prison.
This month, Swiss prosecutors announced that they were having another go at the network. They said that three central players in the Khan ring will finally face charges in the fall related to the sale of nuclear equipment and technical expertise to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The announcement follows a nearly decadelong investigation into Urs Tinner, his brother Marco and their father Friedrich that shows the complexities of nuclear-smuggling cases and the inadequacies of the legal systems in place to prevent them. (See TIME's video "10 Questions for Mohamed ElBaradei.") (http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,32550344001_1915195,00.html)
Efforts to prosecute black-market proliferators have been hampered by disputes between governments, the reluctance of intelligence agencies to hand over sensitive evidence to prosecutors and a lack of strong export-control laws; in many places, smuggling technology related to the development of nuclear weapons is not even illegal....


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2092585,00.html#ixzz220wcpChK



If your curious about a broader view of Kahn's connections and other nuke issues you might search:
former state dept official Marc Grossman, Brewster Jennings, Los Alamos secret leak and spies, the Tinner family, Pedro Mascheroni

And By the way The U.S. is selling even more weapons to Egypt now (http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/07/26/obama-okays-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missile-for-egypt/) when some in the new Egyptian Gov't have said much worse than Aminajab.

Why are we arming potential enemies?

[Dilloduck]

I guess the theory is that if we give the whole world weapons they might be able to defend themselves for awhile until the US police force has to get involved. ( How come we have enough money to arm the mideast but can't pay our own bills) ?

[Gaffer]

If you want to be afraid about Nuke proliferation,
Read about the AQ Kahn network.
he worked pretty much in the open getting info for Pakistan nuke program the "Islamic bomb".
He has been a nuke player for many countries and God knows who knows who else. And he says that he's bought and paid for much of his info, materials and products from western companies (US and Europe) and he says they "would sell their mothers for money."





If your curious about a broader view of Kahn's connections and other nuke issues you might search:
former state dept official Marc Grossman, Brewster Jennings, Los Alamos secret leak and spies, the Tinner family, Pedro Mascheroni

And By the way The U.S. is selling even more weapons to Egypt now (http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/07/26/obama-okays-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missile-for-egypt/) when some in the new Egyptian Gov't have said much worse than Aminajab.

Why are we arming potential enemies?

Well rev let's take this to a simpler level. Say the theater shooter had been advocating wiping people out in a theater and was known for making threats repeatedly and arming himself. You think preemptive measures might be called for? Attack, attack, attack? Your always of that mind set that we should wait for someone to strike first before we respond. I prefer taking the threat out before innocent people get hurt.

As for egypt, they are making threats of using conventional means to eliminate Israel. And it is backed by all the other arabs and muslims in the area. Iran's in a different ball game.

[jimnyc]

I know i won't get a real answer here. so I'll leave you to your rant's about how Dangerous Iran is because of the one misquoted statement by Aminajab.

I believe the quote was from one of his generals, looking for an excuse to wipe Israel from the planet. What was the actual quote then if it's been misquoted?

[Dilloduck]

Well rev let's take this to a simpler level. Say the theater shooter had been advocating wiping people out in a theater and was known for making threats repeatedly and arming himself. You think preemptive measures might be called for? Attack, attack, attack? Your always of that mind set that we should wait for someone to strike first before we respond. I prefer taking the threat out before innocent people get hurt.

As for egypt, they are making threats of using conventional means to eliminate Israel. And it is backed by all the other arabs and muslims in the area. Iran's in a different ball game.

If the goal is to protect Israel, arming Egypt makes no sense.

[jimnyc]

If the goal is to protect Israel, arming Egypt makes no sense.

According to the treaty, we don't have much of a choice but to support their military with funding and close to $2 billion in further aid. With the MB now taking the reigns, IMO, I don't think we should give them one single penny, but they have already stated that if we don't continue with aid, that they will attack Israel. Sounds like extortion to me.

[Dilloduck]

I bet Boeing loves this threaty.

[jimnyc]

I bet Boeing loves this threaty.

True, true, but I'm betting the radicals and extremists love it even more.

Seriously though, I think the US is absolutely nuts to send any money at all the a country that promises ANY type of retaliation if they don't get that money.

[Dilloduck]

Apparently that is American foreign policy or at least it has been since WWII. Give people money and weapons so they will be our friends and the world will be safe for democracy. Now if we move on to pre-emptively attacking those who saber rattle at either us our our allies things could get pretty hairy.

[Drummond]

I'm nnot sure why the comment by the General is that horrible and outrageous.

the guy is saying "IF ATTACKED" they'd have reason to retailate with both feet.

This is an example, revelarts, of your seeing only what you want to see.

I've noticed this affliction to be common amongst Lefties. How terrible for them.

Why, revelarts - apart from the magnitude of the threat !! - this 'is that horrible and outrageous' is because (a) it reaffirms the belligerence of Ahmadinejad's original threat, showing that between then and now their aggressive posture hasn't changed in the slightest, but perhaps even more importantly, (b), because it makes clear that they want AN EXCUSE to attack. Not a reason ... they're not simply considering action out of supposed 'necessity', but because THEY WANT TO ATTACK.

I've posted this already, and I'll post it again, just in case you're willing to see this, now ... !!! ....

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/02/iranian-general-israeli-attack-would-hand-us-an-excuse-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/


Any attack on Iran by Israel would “hand us an excuse to wipe them off the face of the earth,” Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said Sunday.

I hope the bigger font size gets around your selective viewing problem. I say again, I HAVE posted this before !!


... so I'll leave you to your rant's about how Dangerous Iran is because of the one misquoted statement by Aminajab.

I've no need to 'rant' on this at all. The truth is widely known, and by those in sufficient authority to be completely certain of the facts.

Here's evidence of the reaction to this so-called 'misquote' ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.21:


There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.CON.RES.21 for the 110th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.

1 . Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... (Introduced in House - IH)[H.CON.RES.21.IH][PDF]
2 . Whereas the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly referred to as the `Genocide Convention') defines genocide as, among other things, the... (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.CON.RES.21.EH][PDF]
3 . Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... (Referred in Senate - RFS)[H.CON.RES.21.RFS][PDF]

I suppose - let me guess - everyone involved in this took these measures because they were all having 'bad days' ?

Still, never mind, revelarts, if I'm right, you'll see only what you want to. Come on ... prove me wrong, why don't you, and start to concede the truth that's staring you in the face !!

[Dilloduck]

How many countries do you wish to wipe out because they pose a threat to Israel ?

[Dilloduck]

This is an example, revelarts, of your seeing only what you want to see.

I've noticed this affliction to be common amongst Lefties. How terrible for them.

Why, revelarts - apart from the magnitude of the threat !! - this 'is that horrible and outrageous' is because (a) it reaffirms the belligerence of Ahmadinejad's original threat, showing that between then and now their aggressive posture hasn't changed in the slightest, but perhaps even more importantly, (b), because it makes clear that they want AN EXCUSE to attack. Not a reason ... they're not simply considering action out of supposed 'necessity', but because THEY WANT TO ATTACK.

I've posted this already, and I'll post it again, just in case you're willing to see this, now ... !!! ....

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/02/iranian-general-israeli-attack-would-hand-us-an-excuse-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/



I hope the bigger font size gets around your selective viewing problem. I say again, I HAVE posted this before !!



I've no need to 'rant' on this at all. The truth is widely known, and by those in sufficient authority to be completely certain of the facts.

Here's evidence of the reaction to this so-called 'misquote' ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.21:



I suppose - let me guess - everyone involved in this took these measures because they were all having 'bad days' ?

Still, never mind, revelarts, if I'm right, you'll see only what you want to. Come on ... prove me wrong, why don't you, and start to concede the truth that's staring you in the face !!

Would you have attacked the USSR when Kruschev announced that he would bury the US ?

[revelarts]

How many countries do you wish to wipe out because they pose a threat to Israel ?

See that is what I get.
If I say Many people here want to Wipe this or that country off the map many will say "Nooo that's what i want at all."
But if I dug back through enough post here i could find selective quotes that would to amount to as much.

Off this board i don't know how many times i've heard we should turn the M.E. into a parking lot.
I've posted here statements of a US general who has seen plans to invade 7 countries in the M.E. WITHOUT an excuse. Just because we can. Many US officials former (and current?) are on record proposing it.

But an Iranian general says similar (not really, but read that way) and "it's the end of the world as we know it. he's part of Evil that must bet stopped at all cost BEFORE they Strike. they said they would"
It's double standard, and it stinks real bad.

[Drummond]

How many countries do you wish to wipe out because they pose a threat to Israel ?

This is a rather curious question, because I fail to see what possible basis you can have to ask it.

You ask 'how many countries'. Can you point to any post of mine where I've ever considered a wish to wipe out ANY at ALL ?

Dilloduck, I leave genocidal threats to the likes of Ahmadinejad. I do not utter them myself, nor do I advocate genocide be perpetrated against any race.

But here's something for you to mull over.

Those arguing that we should hold to views that have the effect of being supportive to Ahmadinejad and his regime, in arguing them, are effectively subsidising a power that has advocated genocide. Ahmadinejad is on record as threatening Israel with genocide, regardless of what anyone else says, so to try and sanitise his reputation, or, to argue his regime be allowed all possible latitude to develop its nuclear program, is itself a position which defers to a greater future prospect of genocide being perpetrated.

All that's needed for evil to flourish is for good men to stand back and do nothing ... hasn't that been said, and isn't there truth in this ??

[Drummond]

See that is what I get.
If I say Many people here want to Wipe this or that country off the map many will say "Nooo that's what i want at all."
But if I dug back through enough post here i could find selective quotes that would to amount to as much.

Off this board i don't know how many times i've heard we should turn the M.E. into a parking lot.
I've posted here statements of a US general who has seen plans to invade 7 countries in the M.E. WITHOUT an excuse. Just because we can. Many US officials former (and current?) are on record proposing it.

But an Iranian general says similar (not really, but read that way) and "it's the end of the world as we know it. he's part of Evil that must bet stopped at all cost BEFORE they Strike. they said they would"
It's double standard, and it stinks real bad.

I don't know what US general you're referring to, or the PRECISE context .. but I'd be willing to bet that prosecuting the War on Terror had a lot to do with it. Am I right ?

If so, then sure, 'excuses' wouldn't be involved. But REASON, would ! And did those 7 invasions you refer to at any time constitute genocidal attacks ?

But be clear. Both the Iranian general recently, and Ahmadinejad years previously, had genocide in mind when making their remarks.

.. Or, through the power of selective viewing, could it be that you'd rather not acknowledge that critical difference ?

[Dilloduck]

This is a rather curious question, because I fail to see what possible basis you can have to ask it.

You ask 'how many countries'. Can you point to any post of mine where I've ever considered a wish to wipe out ANY at ALL ?

Dilloduck, I leave genocidal threats to the likes of Ahmadinejad. I do not utter them myself, nor do I advocate genocide be perpetrated against any race.

But here's something for you to mull over.

Those arguing that we should hold to views that have the effect of being supportive to Ahmadinejad and his regime, in arguing them, are effectively subsidising a power that has advocated genocide. Ahmadinejad is on record as threatening Israel with genocide, regardless of what anyone else says, so to try and sanitise his reputation, or, to argue his regime be allowed all possible latitude to develop its nuclear program, is itself a position which defers to a greater future prospect of genocide being perpetrated.

All that's needed for evil to flourish is for good men to stand back and do nothing ... hasn't that been said, and isn't there truth in this ??

The US is already doing something. What more do you want ?

[Drummond]

The US is already doing something. What more do you want ?

The US is preventing Iran from proceeding further with its nuclear program ? Really ??

Perhaps the UK media is censoring news more than I'd suspected !! Dilloduck, if you can provide a link that shows Obama is taking meaningfully, effective actions, that Iran is being STOPPED, and he's not just sitting on his hands instead, go to it !!!

[Dilloduck]

The US is preventing Iran from proceeding further with its nuclear program ? Really ??

Perhaps the UK media is censoring news more than I'd suspected !! Dilloduck, if you can provide a link that shows Obama is taking meaningfully, effective actions, that Iran is being STOPPED, and he's not just sitting on his hands instead, go to it !!!

Are you completely unaware of the sanctions in place ?
What else do you want to see ? Go ahead---admit it---you want the US to act militarily. You want war. We just did that in Iraq and what happened ? The WMDs went safely to Syria.

[revelarts]

Why are we even concerned about Syria?
General Wesley Clark
HEARD that there was a plan to attack 7 governments of 7 countries in 5 years . back in 2001-02 from people in the pentagon and directly from Wolfawitz. The policy really hasn't changed it seems.
Countries listed below !

Iraq, CHECK
Libya, CHECK
Syria, CHEC.....
Lebanon,
Samolia,
Sudan
and Iran CHE... CHE... CHE...
( 7 countries in 5 years)

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


I don't know what US general you're referring to, or the PRECISE context .. but I'd be willing to bet that prosecuting the War on Terror had a lot to do with it. Am I right ?

If so, then sure, 'excuses' wouldn't be involved. But REASON, would ! And did those 7 invasions you refer to at any time constitute genocidal attacks ?

But be clear. Both the Iranian general recently, and Ahmadinejad years previously, had genocide in mind when making their remarks.

.. Or, through the power of selective viewing, could it be that you'd rather not acknowledge that critical difference ?

So it's OK to attack and go to war any "reason" if not attacked as long as you don't Intend genocide?
I'm not sure what kind of viewing your using to see that as a gigantic distinction.

Drummond many of your post imply that the U.S. and U.K. will fall into the sea if the U.S. doesn't send a load troops to every possible spot on the planet that MIGHT POTENTIALLY cause ANY problems for us.
i don't understand that view at all. There's no such thing as perfect sercurity we agree. but troops are not the only option. real intel, covert action, diplomacy, can be MORE effective than troops pointing guns in every nations face everytime were a little afraid of what MIGHT happen.

i don't want any bombs going of anywhere, but i think we ned to grow-up and put forth a posture that tells the world that We will seek out specific terrorist like cancer and surgically deal with them but that we will not bend or bow or change our standards if an attack sadly does get through. We were a free country and there's NO reason that we can't live more like our pre 9-11 days and still have better REAL security than the faux security we have now. As far as other countries are concerned If our intel is REAL we will know when they have had a hand in trying anything against us but we don't Bully folks because THEY might that's a cowardly act of a frighten bully IMO.

As I mentioned before we knew all of the players invlved in 9-11 and we knew of the plot it could have been stopped. NONE of the New Tatics of War or airport Security have made us any better off than then. the real need is quality intel and honest politicians that don't use a real problem to promote empire and pump up votes on the fears the people.

[jimnyc]

I think the USA should hop on the rhetoric bandwagon. Tell Iran that our centuries worth of nuclear bomb building will fall on their planet if they don't cooperate. Tell NK to open their society up, free their citizens and stop hassling SK, or we will drop a few dozen nukes in their lap. And then just tell the entire Middle East that we are sick and tired of all their fighting and riling up of other countries, and giving birth to terrorism. Tell them ALL that they are responsible for themselves AND their neighbors, that if one screws up we consider them all to have screwed up, in which case we "turn the middle east into a huge parking lot".

Put a little weight behind our words and maybe scare off enemies and/or scare them into being more peaceful. Most don't seem to have a problem with the threats, which are of course considered benign or holding no water, so we should one up them at the game.

[Roo]

As I mentioned before we knew all of the players invlved in 9-11 and we knew of the plot it could have been stopped. NONE of the New Tatics of War or airport Security have made us any better off than then. the real need is quality intel and honest politicians that don't use a real problem to promote empire and pump up votes on the fears the people.

Moron alert.

You need to quit reading your kook lefty sites and start thinking for yourself friend.

[gabosaurus]

I think we should all stand clear and allow the Middle East participants to settle their own difficulties.
Various countries in the Middle East have been threatening to annihilate Israel for more than 60 years. The one time they tried, Israel was able to fend for themselves.
The U.S. needs to stop throwing billions of dollars per year down the Middle East rat hole. I am surprised that you fiscal conservatives feel the need to continue this.
No more financial or military aid of any kind should be sent to ANY Middle East nation.

[revelarts]

As I mentioned before we knew all of the players invlved in 9-11 and we knew of the plot it could have been stopped. NONE of the New Tatics of War or airport Security have made us any better off than then. the real need is quality intel and honest politicians that don't use a real problem to promote empire and pump up votes on the fears the people.

Moron alert.

You need to quit reading your kook lefty sites and start thinking for yourself friend.
Roo
You need to read more widely than left/right, like the testimony of FBI agents, FBI translators, army officers, army intel, congressional testimony from several U.S. intel people. Reports of sources from Turkey, France, Israel and other countries.

the info is out there. but if you just want to defend an administration, you can of course believe that all of those people working day to day trying to defend our country are liars AND somehow all leftist, if that fits your small world view of how things work, Roo.

[Roo]

Roo
You need to read more widely than left/right, like the testimony of FBI agents, FBI translators, army officers, army intel, congressional testimony from several U.S. intel people. Reports of sources from Turkey, France, Israel and other countries.

the info is out there. but if you just want to defend an administration, you can of course believe that all of those people working day to day trying to defend our country are liars AND somehow all leftist, if that fits your small world view of how things work, Roo.

Its your assertion, prove it.

Don't quote me Wesley Clarke or any other leftwing talking head either.

Be thorough Rev, I'll look forward to it.

I am not defending any administration, I'm just calling you out on your silly assertion.

[jimnyc]

Its your assertion, prove it.

Don't quote me Wesley Clarke or any other leftwing talking head either.

Be thorough Rev, I'll look forward to it.

I am not defending any administration, I'm just calling you out on your silly assertion.

Oh boy, now you asked for it! Rev is gonna blast you with about 98 stories from 25 witnesses and Lord knows how many videos, and remember, you asked! LOL

I'll admit this much, Rev is very thorough with his documentation, even if I don't always agree with his sources or their facts/hearsay and what not. I'm learning to agree to disagree on certain topics like this with Rev. I think even earlier in this very thread he made a few of those posts that make you give up based on the volume alone! LOL

[revelarts]

Its your assertion, prove it.

Don't quote me Wesley Clarke or any other leftwing talking head either.

Be thorough Rev, I'll look forward to it.

I am not defending any administration, I'm just calling you out on your silly assertion.


Soooo Wesly Clark , whose left no doubt, is Lying here I guess.
and the left assumes everything a right wing general says is a lie to.
it's sad.
But we can agree that you can't prove him wrong here, you just assume he made up the story to beat down the right, EVEN THOUGH the plan he mentions seems to be Going forward even under Obama.
You said something about thinking for your self. It seems plausible to me with the facts at hand.

As far as proving, OK I'll be back later in the week, and my sources will be as good an a lone Iraqi general's book how about that?

[Roo]

Soooo Wesly Clark , whose left no doubt, is Lying here I guess.
and the left assumes everything a right wing general says is a lie.
it's sad.
But at we can agree that you can't prove him wrong here you just assume he made up the story to beat down the right, EVEN THOUGH the plan he mentions seems to be Going forward even under Obama.
You said something about thinking for your self. It seems plausible to me with the facts at hand.

As far as proving, OK I'll be back later in the week, and my sources will be as good an a lone Iraqi general's book how about that?

LMAO, hearsay won't work with me...you can't prove Clarke was telling the truth either...we do know he leans heavily left....I won't take anyone's word for anything...and you won't be able to brow beat me with disinformation Rev.

It ain't my first rodeo.

[Dilloduck]

I think we should all stand clear and allow the Middle East participants to settle their own difficulties.
Various countries in the Middle East have been threatening to annihilate Israel for more than 60 years. The one time they tried, Israel was able to fend for themselves.
The U.S. needs to stop throwing billions of dollars per year down the Middle East rat hole. I am surprised that you fiscal conservatives feel the need to continue this.
No more financial or military aid of any kind should be sent to ANY Middle East nation.

Agreed--total bullshit. When we got politicians kissing up to Israel so they can get Jewish Americans to vote for them, something is very wrong.

[jafar00]

Agreed--total bullshit. When we got politicians kissing up to Israel so they can get Jewish Americans to vote for them, something is very wrong.

The Jewish vote is only a small fraction though. What he really wants is the Zionist Christian, Israel Sympathy and holocaust guilt vote.

[Kathianne]

The Jewish vote is only a small fraction though. What he really wants is the Zionist Christian, Israel Sympathy and holocaust guilt vote.

What they all want is money. What most politicians, (both parties), Obama excepted, are also looking at a democratic state and a bulwark against Muslim extremism.

[Drummond]

Are you completely unaware of the sanctions in place ?
What else do you want to see ? Go ahead---admit it---you want the US to act militarily. You want war. We just did that in Iraq and what happened ? The WMDs went safely to Syria.

I am aware of those sanctions, yes. But there are times when I wonder if Iran itself is. Iran is so good at ignoring them ..

Dilloduck, what's the good of INEFFECTIVE sanctions ?? We can all see that they're having no effect in slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama, too, can see as much, yet, he does nothing else but apply them.

This is what I mean by a President who's sitting on his hands. He knows sanctions are ineffective, but he has no interest in measures which can be effective. Why exactly this is, you tell ME.

OK, so sanctions are useless. We see that. What alternative do YOU have to offer ?

Military action is the one alternative I can see myself. If that prevents Iran from committing genocide, isn't it a better option ?

... and, no, I don't see this as a matter of 'admitting' I want military action. I want a solution to the Iran problem. Military action would be one. It's as simple as that. You can think of something else, can you ? So TELL ME WHAT THAT IS.

[Dilloduck]

I am aware of those sanctions, yes. But there are times when I wonder if Iran itself is. Iran is so good at ignoring them ..

Dilloduck, what's the good of INEFFECTIVE sanctions ?? We can all see that they're having no effect in slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama, too, can see as much, yet, he does nothing else but apply them.

This is what I mean by a President who's sitting on his hands. He knows sanctions are ineffective, but he has no interest in measures which can be effective. Why exactly this is, you tell ME.

OK, so sanctions are useless. We see that. What alternative do YOU have to offer ?

Military action is the one alternative I can see myself. If that prevents Iran from committing genocide, isn't it a better option ?

... and, no, I don't see this as a matter of 'admitting' I want military action. I want a solution to the Iran problem. Military action would be one. It's as simple as that. You can think of something else, can you ? So TELL ME WHAT THAT IS.


You could work on your paranoia. Or you could work on your frustration. I'll put you on record for supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Let's cross our fingers that they won't secretly move them to Syria.

[Drummond]

So it's OK to attack and go to war any "reason" if not attacked as long as you don't Intend genocide?
I'm not sure what kind of viewing your using to see that as a gigantic distinction.

Well, it CAN be, certainly !! History shows us this.

How about World War 2 ? Hitler embarked on his genocidal program against Jews, and killed six million of them before he was stopped ? And, guess what it was that stopped him ?

.. that's right. WAR fought against his regime was what stopped him. Now, are you seriously telling me that you can't see a difference between what the Germans were doing, and what Americans did, by fighting against Germany and helping to defeat Hitler ??

I'm guessing that in fact you DON'T see a difference. Iran has threatened genocide against the State of Israel, but, you evidently think it's wrong to wage war to stop it. Now, tell me, how big a death toll do you imagine the Jewish race would've suffered, if your approach to Iran today had been replicated all those years ago, against Hitler ???

Do you GET IT ? History teaches us valuable lessons. If we don't heed them, then we're doomed to repeat history ...

.. in this case, with the population of Israel as the victims.


Drummond many of your post imply that the U.S. and U.K. will fall into the sea if the U.S. doesn't send a load troops to every possible spot on the planet that MIGHT POTENTIALLY cause ANY problems for us.

Well, its ashes might, I'll give you that ...

Your 'approach' advocates laxity to WMD threats. This increases the likelihood of being attacked by them, which in turn makes it more likely that, one day, Western cities will be nuked. Ashes from mushroom clouds may well fall into the sea. So yes, you may indeed be right !!

I wish you Lefties could wake up to the reality that's out there. If you did but realise it, you're in a perpetual race to keep terrorists from getting, then using them. You CANNOT be soft on this (!!) ... unless, of course, you welcome those death tolls resulting from WMD attacks ?? Well, DO YOU ?


i don't understand that view at all. There's no such thing as perfect sercurity we agree. but troops are not the only option. real intel, covert action, diplomacy, can be MORE effective than troops pointing guns in every nations face everytime were a little afraid of what MIGHT happen.

Your approach only works IF you can always guarantee near-perfect capacities for information-gathering, but I fail to see how you can. Besides, are you really going to tell me that troops on the ground never make discoveries, when in hostile territory, and that their presence is never an asset in that regard ?


i don't want any bombs going off anywhere, ..

Fine, then work to prevent it, by some realistic action !!


but i think we ned to grow-up and put forth a posture that tells the world that We will seek out specific terrorist like cancer and surgically deal with them but that we will not bend or bow or change our standards if an attack sadly does get through.

... which would be a message of WEAKNESS, INTERPRETED AS SUCH. You'd be saying this ...

1. There are limits as to how much we will fight you, and we won't use any more force against you than we absolutely HAVE to ... and ..

2. If we could toughen up our security against you, we'll compromise the effort by refusing to go on a proper war footing !!

Revelarts .. you're just not getting it, are you ? You want to apply peacetime niceties to a WAR situation. I don't care if you don't see yourself as at war with terrorist-infested countries, the fact of the matter is that THEY consider themselves at war with YOU, whether you like it or not !

My one piece of advice is that you WAKE UP, and adapt to a reality you apparently don't want to face.


We were a free country and there's NO reason that we can't live more like our pre 9-11 days and still have better REAL security than the faux security we have now.

Oh, really ?

Ok, then, let's review.

You don't want to fight anyone unless absolutely forced to.

You have a touching, absolute, faith in intel-gathering, which you think you can magically always acquire, regardless of how you hamper your options for getting it.

You don't accept that limiting intel-gathering scenarios is a bad thing.

You believe that peacetime conditions work well as a way of meeting war conditions !!

Folks, can anyone see what's wrong with this picture ????

It may well be that the answer to this will only become apparent if, or rather, WHEN, terrorists succeed in deploying a WMD against you. Then, only then, will Lefties find it in them to WAKE UP and see where their ostrich laxity has led them !!

[Drummond]

You could work on your paranoia. Or you could work on your frustration. I'll put you on record for supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Let's cross our fingers that they won't secretly move them to Syria.

My paranoia, my frustration ? Is this the best you can do ?

And .. YES, let's indeed hope that they don't secretly move any WMD's to Syria. Because, guess what ? It was because Saddam had enough OPPORTUNITY to do such a thing, that he may indeed have managed it !

Now, you're apparently advocating a thumb-twiddling exercise instead of something more direct ? Rings a bell, does it, just maybe ?? Just how much of a chance to act ARE you intent upon believing that Iran should have granted to it, anyway ?

[Dilloduck]

My paranoia, my frustration ? Is this the best you can do ?

And .. YES, let's indeed hope that they don't secretly move any WMD's to Syria. Because, guess what ? It was because Saddam had enough OPPORTUNITY to do such a thing, that he may indeed have managed it !

Now, you're apparently advocating a thumb-twiddling exercise instead of something more direct ? Rings a bell, does it, just maybe ?? Just how much of a chance to act ARE you intent upon believing that Iran should have granted to it, anyway ?

I'm just against killing everyone that has the capabilty of killing Americans or our allies. It's barbaric but it's what you think must be done to keep America secure.

[Dilloduck]

My paranoia, my frustration ? Is this the best you can do ?

And .. YES, let's indeed hope that they don't secretly move any WMD's to Syria. Because, guess what ? It was because Saddam had enough OPPORTUNITY to do such a thing, that he may indeed have managed it !

Now, you're apparently advocating a thumb-twiddling exercise instead of something more direct ? Rings a bell, does it, just maybe ?? Just how much of a chance to act ARE you intent upon believing that Iran should have granted to it, anyway ?

War should ALWAYS be our last resort.

[jafar00]

Well, it CAN be, certainly !! History shows us this.

How about World War 2 ? Hitler embarked on his genocidal program against Jews, and killed six million of them before he was stopped ? And, guess what it was that stopped him ?

According to the official Red Cross report, many died from starvation and exposure that was caused by the Allied campaign cutting off German supply lines so you could say the war was the cause of all those deaths. The number of deaths as well as the accepted gas chamber story is also under dispute since no gas chambers were found and neither have the bones of the 6 million. The auschwitz memorial has the figure set at 1.5 million not 6 btw.

[Drummond]

I'm just against killing everyone that has the capabilty of killing Americans or our allies. It's barbaric but it's what you think must be done to keep America secure.

So, you have been against the death of every terrorist ?

How about bin Laden, then ? Do you regret his death ? From the logic of your statement, you surely must do ?!?

Have you even mourned his death ???

Dilloduck, with such a lack of willingness to mete out to your enemies that which their actions prove they deserve ... well, you might just as well wave a white flag at them and be done with it.

[jimnyc]

According to the official Red Cross report, many died from starvation and exposure that was caused by the Allied campaign cutting off German supply lines so you could say the war was the cause of all those deaths. The number of deaths as well as the accepted gas chamber story is also under dispute since no gas chambers were found and neither have the bones of the 6 million. The auschwitz memorial has the figure set at 1.5 million not 6 btw.

You come awfully close to sounding like a holocaust denier in that post.

[Drummond]

War should ALWAYS be our last resort.

Ah, so you always think that should be an option ?

Well ... that's progress, of a sort.

By the way, I'm waiting for your solution to the Iranian problem which doesn't involve war (given, as is clear, the ineffectiveness of sanctions). You DO have one .. yes ?

Or - is this one of those times when your always-allowed-for option of war is the only option you can offer ?

[Dilloduck]

So, you have been against the death of every terrorist ?

How about bin Laden, then ? Do you regret his death ? From the logic of your statement, you surely must do ?!?

Have you even mourned his death ???

Dilloduck, with such a lack of willingness to mete out to your enemies that which their actions prove they deserve ... well, you might just as well wave a white flag at them and be done with it.

Drum---You wanna kill the enemy before they kill us. When you figure out a sure fire way of identifying who is a killer before they kill, call 911. Until then you are recommending the genocide of Muslims.

[Drummond]

You come awfully close to sounding like a holocaust denier in that post.

... wow. Yes - agreed !

Jafar, do you want to reconsider your comment ?

[Dilloduck]

... wow. Yes - agreed !

Jafar, do you want to reconsider your comment ?

Questioning the details of the holocaust is not the same thing as denying it.

[Roo]

According to the official Red Cross report, many died from starvation and exposure that was caused by the Allied campaign cutting off German supply lines so you could say the war was the cause of all those deaths. The number of deaths as well as the accepted gas chamber story is also under dispute since no gas chambers were found and neither have the bones of the 6 million. The auschwitz memorial has the figure set at 1.5 million not 6 btw.

According to Muslim propagandists like yourself you mean.

[Drummond]

Drum---You wanna kill the enemy before they kill us. When you figure out a sure fire way of identifying who is a killer before they kill, call 911. Until then you are recommending the genocide of Muslims.

I want to kill the enemy if there's a perceived need to. Such as, for example, the perception of the consequences should that enemy NOT die.

And kindly explain your use of the word 'genocide'. Show me where I've advocated genocide, AT ALL. Rather, in point of fact, I've advocated necessary action against those THREATENING it !

As for calling 911 .. I wouldn't find that very helpful, since all I'd get would be an automated 'number not recognised'. In the UK, we use '999' ...

[Dilloduck]

I want to kill the enemy if there's a perceived need to. Such as, for example, the perception of the consequences should that enemy NOT die.

And kindly explain your use of the word 'genocide'. Show me where I've advocated genocide, AT ALL. Rather, in point of fact, I've advocated necessary action against those THREATENING it !

As for calling 911 .. I wouldn't find that very helpful, since all I'd get would be an automated 'number not recognised'. In the UK, we use '999' ...

Go for it--Kill all the bad guys you want. You're a lot closer to Syria than I am too so go get those WMDs. Save the world from badness.

[jimnyc]

Questioning the details of the holocaust is not the same thing as denying it.

"The accepted gas chamber story"

What do you think that meant, Dillo? Do you think all we have learned since those days about the gas chambers were "stories"? Perhaps questioning numbers with official documents and other proofs, I see no problem with that. But to refer to it as if it's some sort of myth or something for storytelling time, is wrong, and unfair to the very minimum "1.5 million" who died. I'm happy to have Jafar clarify what he meant by the comment, and will retract if I'm reading it wrong.

[Drummond]

Questioning the details of the holocaust is not the same thing as denying it.

Much of the basis for the deaths from the holocaust was questioned in that post. I'm not sure the post constituted an actual denial as such .. I do not claim as much. Nonetheless, to question to such an extent is surely what a denier would seek to do, as preparation for a 'case' created for the purpose of denial.

[Drummond]

Go for it--Kill all the bad guys you want. You're a lot closer to Syria than I am too so go get those WMDs. Save the world from badness.

Should I take this post as an admission that you've no alternative to offer, then ? I have asked you for that alternative. Where is it ?

[Dilloduck]

"The accepted gas chamber story"

What do you think that meant, Dillo? Do you think all we have learned since those days about the gas chambers were "stories"? Perhaps questioning numbers with official documents and other proofs, I see no problem with that. But to refer to it as if it's some sort of myth or something for storytelling time, is wrong, and unfair to the very minimum "1.5 million" who died. I'm happy to have Jafar clarify what he meant by the comment, and will retract if I'm reading it wrong.

We still have free speech in America as far as I know. He can deny the existence of gravity for all I care.

[Dilloduck]

Should I take this post as an admission that you've no alternative to offer, then ? I have asked you for that alternative. Where is it ?

You are the one insisting there is no alternative. Tell us how you are going to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. I'm all ears.

[Drummond]

We still have free speech in America as far as I know. He can deny the existence of gravity for all I care.

With freedom comes responsibility. Free speech is a product of freedom, and the same consideration applies.

Untruths are expressions of irresponsibility .. I'd say at minimum. Worse, they can do great damage. From them, wholly false beliefs can spring. Lessons which the truth would teach us may be subverted or lost entirely.

Does free speech extend to libel, Dilloduck, or slander ?

[jimnyc]

We still have free speech in America as far as I know. He can deny the existence of gravity for all I care.

I never said anyone couldn't speak their POV, no matter how far out there it may be to me, or how far out there mine is to them. I just find it in bad taste if someone would deny it happened.

[Dilloduck]

With freedom comes responsibility. Free speech is a product of freedom, and the same consideration applies.

Untruths are expressions of irresponsibility .. I'd say at minimum. Worse, they can do great damage. From them, wholly false beliefs can spring. Lessons which the truth would teach us may be subverted or lost entirely.

Does free speech extend to libel, Dilloduck, or slander ?

Politicians lie like there is no tomorrow. It's an American tradition. Question the accuracy of something isn't libel nor slander.
Questioning things is the basis of all learning.

[Roo]

I never said anyone couldn't speak their POV, no matter how far out there it may be to me, or how far out there mine is to them. I just find it in bad taste if someone would deny it happened.

He is a Muslim coward what would you expect?

[Drummond]

You are the one insisting there is no alternative. Tell us how you are going to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. I'm all ears.

You continue to evade my question. Very well. I shall take this as evidence that you know you have NO alternative to offer.

As for your latest question, I'd say that this depends on circumstances. What your enemy says. What your enemy does. Who your enemy has dealings with. To what extent they defy you, and especially, why.

Taking Ahmadinejad as an example, I'd say his publicly expressing a desire for genocide against Israel most definitely doesn't make him one of the good guys !!! So, I'd say he's comprehensively sorted 'himself'. Wouldn't you ?

And having identified what he is, and also having identified a need to deal with him, and the regime he speaks for ... well ... shall I ask you AGAIN for your alternative to warfare, or are we agreed I'm wasting my time when I do ?

[Dilloduck]

I never said anyone couldn't speak their POV, no matter how far out there it may be to me, or how far out there mine is to them. I just find it in bad taste if someone would deny it happened.

As I grew up I discovered how much I was lied to as I was going to school. In my book that's even worse than bad taste. My goverment and education system flat out lied to me and my classmates. Over 20 million people were killed in WWII and it gets debated all the time. You know who collaborated with the Nazis ? Millions of average European citizens.

[jafar00]

You come awfully close to sounding like a holocaust denier in that post.

Questioning is not the same as denying. ;)


According to Muslim propagandists like yourself you mean.

Last I checked, the Red Cross is Christian.


"The accepted gas chamber story"

What do you think that meant, Dillo? Do you think all we have learned since those days about the gas chambers were "stories"? Perhaps questioning numbers with official documents and other proofs, I see no problem with that. But to refer to it as if it's some sort of myth or something for storytelling time, is wrong, and unfair to the very minimum "1.5 million" who died. I'm happy to have Jafar clarify what he meant by the comment, and will retract if I'm reading it wrong.

The only Gas Chambers in existence were built after the war. I just find it hard to believe without the physical evidence. Is there something wrong with that?


I never said anyone couldn't speak their POV, no matter how far out there it may be to me, or how far out there mine is to them. I just find it in bad taste if someone would deny it happened.

I don't deny it happened. I only question how it happened. A lot of Jews and a lot more non-Jews died in the war.
Over 6 million Russians died in WWII (over 13million if you include deaths due to violence) either under German occupation or in German labour camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Civili an_losses

That's as many as the 6million figure we are given for the Jewish Holocaust so why didn't the Russians also get given a chunk of someone else's country as compensation as well as a huge guilt trip to lay on everyone who wasn't able to stop it?

[Drummond]

Politicians lie like there is no tomorrow. It's an American tradition. Question the accuracy of something isn't libel nor slander.
Questioning things is the basis of all learning.

Depends on how, and/or why, it's done. If it's done to subvert accepted truth, the goal may be to replace the truth with falsehood ... to promote a weakening, say, of what belief in the truth might've otherwise guaranteed.

[jimnyc]

Questioning is not the same as denying. ;)

Fair enough, as to the rest as well. I have no issue with questioning, from an educational POV. And you're right, there's a difference between that and the many that outright deny it and proclaim it never happened at all. You clarified, and now I feel better. :beer:

[Drummond]

That's as many as the 6million figure we are given for the Jewish Holocaust so why didn't the Russians also get given a chunk of someone else's country as compensation as well as a huge guilt trip to lay on everyone who wasn't able to stop it?

Let me be clear on that last point, Jafar. You're saying that the Nazis were following a program of systematic extermination of Russians, with the objective of genocide ?

[Dilloduck]

Depends on how, and/or why, it's done. If it's done to subvert accepted truth, the goal may be to replace the truth with falsehood ... to promote a weakening, say, of what belief in the truth might've otherwise guaranteed.

Do you understand how many times the accepted truth has turned out to be bullshit ? When we are forbidden to question things we may as well slit our own throats.
now-----tell me again how you are going to sort out terrorists so we can kill them all before they kill us.

[Drummond]

now-----tell me again how you are going to sort out terrorists so we can kill them all before they kill us.

This is getting ridiculous. I've already answered you ! I know Lefties have selective vision, though. H'mm ... so, do I need to repost my prevous answer in larger font ?

And for YOU to press ME for an answer when I've already given one, is rather funny ! This from someone who keeps evading my question about effective alternatives to warfare !

Still, I'm being unkind. I've already accepted that you have NO alternative to offer ....

[revelarts]

Well, it CAN be, certainly !! History shows us this.

How about World War 2 ? Hitler embarked on his genocidal program against Jews, and killed six million of them before he was stopped ? And, guess what it was that stopped him ?

.. that's right. WAR fought against his regime was what stopped him. Now, are you seriously telling me that you can't see a difference between what the Germans were doing, and what Americans did, by fighting against Germany and helping to defeat Hitler ??

I'm guessing that in fact you DON'T see a difference. Iran has threatened genocide against the State of Israel, but, you evidently think it's wrong to wage war to stop it. Now, tell me, how big a death toll do you imagine the Jewish race would've suffered, if your approach to Iran today had been replicated all those years ago, against Hitler ???

Do you GET IT ? History teaches us valuable lessons. If we don't heed them, then we're doomed to repeat history ...

.. in this case, with the population of Israel as the victims.



Well, its ashes might, I'll give you that ...

Your 'approach' advocates laxity to WMD threats. This increases the likelihood of being attacked by them, which in turn makes it more likely that, one day, Western cities will be nuked. Ashes from mushroom clouds may well fall into the sea. So yes, you may indeed be right !!

I wish you Lefties could wake up to the reality that's out there. If you did but realise it, you're in a perpetual race to keep terrorists from getting, then using them. You CANNOT be soft on this (!!) ... unless, of course, you welcome those death tolls resulting from WMD attacks ?? Well, DO YOU ?



Your approach only works IF you can always guarantee near-perfect capacities for information-gathering, but I fail to see how you can. Besides, are you really going to tell me that troops on the ground never make discoveries, when in hostile territory, and that their presence is never an asset in that regard ?



Fine, then work to prevent it, by some realistic action !!



... which would be a message of WEAKNESS, INTERPRETED AS SUCH. You'd be saying this ...

1. There are limits as to how much we will fight you, and we won't use any more force against you than we absolutely HAVE to ... and ..

2. If we could toughen up our security against you, we'll compromise the effort by refusing to go on a proper war footing !!

Revelarts .. you're just not getting it, are you ? You want to apply peacetime niceties to a WAR situation. I don't care if you don't see yourself as at war with terrorist-infested countries, the fact of the matter is that THEY consider themselves at war with YOU, whether you like it or not !

My one piece of advice is that you WAKE UP, and adapt to a reality you apparently don't want to face.



Oh, really ?

Ok, then, let's review.

You don't want to fight anyone unless absolutely forced to.

You have a touching, absolute, faith in intel-gathering, which you think you can magically always acquire, regardless of how you hamper your options for getting it.

You don't accept that limiting intel-gathering scenarios is a bad thing.

You believe that peacetime conditions work well as a way of meeting war conditions !!

Folks, can anyone see what's wrong with this picture ????

It may well be that the answer to this will only become apparent if, or rather, WHEN, terrorists succeed in deploying a WMD against you. Then, only then, will Lefties find it in them to WAKE UP and see where their ostrich laxity has led them !!

that sound kinda like a paranoid warmongering.

Sounds like you have ZERO faith in intel and the ONLY
ONLY "realistic" thing in your fearful mind is to attack every wiff of smoke and stray comment that falls from the lips of a Muslim. you want to attack BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE A WEAPON TO STRIKE. With ZERO regard to any other factors. one of which is the EXTRA animosity and NEW enemies we are creating every day. We've not won any freinds in the region. Even our allies are truning against us. the pakistani people are becomeing MORE anti American there miltary as well. they DO have NUKES without a doubt but we bomb their homes and cheer and with little to no regard for the innocents that have relations in all parts of pakistani culture. that's just to name one country.

Dummond it's been 11 years since 9-11. 11 years man. we are still here and we did not need to attack Iraq to make that happen and we do not need to attack Iran or Syria to keep it that way.
You GOT ZERO proof of ANY eminet attack coming at us from either of those countries. ZERO.
all you have is hyped up Fearmongering it sounds like
"one of them said they want to commit genocide... 5 years ago... or at least it sounded that way to me.. WE HAVE TO GET THEM OR WERE GONNA DIIIIIE!!!!!"

Syria's Got some weapons and they MIGHT go to Hellbolah or might go to Alquida and it Might Come here and it might go to the US one day soon.. we better ATTACK BEFORE ITS" TO LATE WERE FOOLS IF WE DON"T."

Classic fear mongering.

As far as the difference between Germany and genocide.

Here a difference for you. we did not get into the war until we were attacked. how about that even with Hitler and japan on the march REALLY ATTACKING other countries.

And my my, look at this, IRAN has yet to ATTACK ANYONE. They have NEVER attacked any other country. And they haven't committed Genocide on their own people or even harmed the 25,000+ Jews that still live fairly peacefully in Iran today.
(Don't tell me they support Muslim terrorist ,so do we, Jundula, and Alquida in Libya and formally in Afghanistan to name 2, double standard much?)

Drummond the point is this
it is a war crime to attack a country -(as Germany did to Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland , Belgium France, etc- for excuses/reasons) Before you are attacked or have a Solid threat of eminent attack.
Tyrannies and Empires attack other countries 1st Drummond.
Don't be used as a tool of the forever war propaganda.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you understand how many times the accepted truth has turned out to be bullshit ? When we are forbidden to question things we may as well slit our own throats.
now-----tell me again how you are going to sort out terrorists so we can kill them all before they kill us.

I am not my great friend Drummond and do not claim to have his knowledge on the subject but will answer anyways .
I've always held the firm belief that killing all of the enemy thats trying to kill you is damn good thing!
Call me crazy but the guys that fought and WON WW2 thought the same way!
If it was good enough for those heroes its damn good enough for me!
As to accepted truth turning out to be bullshit, that is only true when it turns out that it was a lie!
So if it comes to having to kill all of them or else we perish-- which shall you choose?
Survival has a way of forcing the cold hard truth out , right?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

This is getting ridiculous. I've already answered you ! I know Lefties have selective vision, though. H'mm ... so, do I need to repost my prevous answer in larger font ?

And for YOU to press ME for an answer when I've already given one, is rather funny ! This from someone who keeps evading my question about effective alternatives to warfare !

Still, I'm being unkind. I've already accepted that you have NO alternative to offer ....

Show me any evidence that I am a lefty. You're so far off base it's hysterical.
There is nothing we can do to protect ourselves from WMDs. I was told in school that I could hide under my desk from nukes. :laugh2:
I was of the first generation that had to deal with being blown to bits from thousands of miles away by nuclear weapons and we have come frighteningly close twice. Kill all the people you want. It won't protect you.

There is your answer--like it or not--there is NOTHING you can do.

[Dilloduck]

I am not my great friend Drummond and do not claim to have his knowledge on the subject but will answer anyways .
I've always held the firm belief that killing all of the enemy thats trying to kill you is damn good thing!
Call me crazy but the guys that fought and WON WW2 thought the same way!
If it was good enough for those heroes its damn good enough for me!
As to accepted truth turning out to be bullshit, that is only true when it turns out that it was a lie!
So if it comes to having to kill all of them or else we perish-- which shall you choose?
Survival has a way of forcing the cold hard truth out , right?-Tyr

I'm gonna go out on a limb and choose to not kill everyone. If you don't get them all they you will be accuse of being a crazy mass murderer --and worse maybe.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and choose to not kill everyone. If you don't get them all they you will be accuse of being a crazy mass murderer --and worse maybe.

Yep and we didnt kill every German or Jap either did we?
With that admitted I say we kill those attempting to murder us by any means possible and do so until they stop with the insane religious belief that thier Allah gets to rule the entire world and make us blind bot slaves or else dead infidels!
They have declared the war and set their terms. Either we surrender or we do not for they seek no middle ground.
Quite easy to decide if one merely looks back to WW2 and see why and how we fought that war IMHO..-TYR

[Drummond]

Drummond you sound like a paranoid warmonger.

Charming ! OK, you sound to me like a Leftie determined to appease at any and all opportunities !


Sounds like you have ZERO faith in intel

To the contrary, I have every faith in it .. IF every possible chance to gather it is explored. That, whether you like it or not, frequently means personnel within spitting distance from its source.


and the ONLY ONLY "realistic" thing in your fearful mind is to attack every wiff of smoke and stray comment that falls from the lips of a Muslim.

... meaning that you'd rather ignore a lot of it altogether ? Where, revelarts, is YOUR faith in intel ???


you want to attack BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE A WEAPON TO STRIKE. With ZERO regard to the EXTRA animosity and NEW enemies we are creating every day.

Do I take this to be an admission that you want Iran to have ALREADY ARMED ITSELF WITH NUKES, BEFORE YOU SEE A NEED TO TACKLE THEM ??

In which case ... I take it you're against inspections, and totally against sanctions ? You actually want genocide-threateners to acquire the means to carry out their threat, before lifting a finger against them ??


We've not won any freinds in the region.

Since was the implementation of justice dependent on the outcome of a popularity contest ?


Even our allies are truning against us. the pakistani people are becomeing MORE anti American there miltary as well.

Yes, well, America was 'naughty' enough to take down Osama bin Laden ... from within their own territory ... where he'd apparently been living, unmolested, for years !!

Why, how DARE America think they have any right whatever to deal with the worst, nastiest, most disgusting terrorist s**tbag they've encountered since the 1940's, the creature who masterminded the slaughter of 3,000 of their citizens, and who'd have dearly loved to kill far more !

WHERE WAS PAKISTAN'S ABJECT APOLOGY FOR THEIR ATTITUDE ???


they DO have NUKES without a doubt but we bomb their homes and cheer and with little to no regard for the innocents that have relations in all parts of pakistani culture. that's just to name one country.

I take it from this rant that you're an apologist for Pakistan. Considering their proven anti-Americanism, I suggest you rethink that.


Dummond it's been 11 years since 9-11. 11 years man.

SO WHAT (and it's Drummond, by the way) ?


we are still hear and we did not need to attack Iraq to make that happen and we do not need to attack Iran or Syria to keep it that way.

You have to be joking ! OK, we all trust to the Gods, do we, that there's never a need to round up any rogue WMD's, that nobody, anywhere, will ever think about doing a dodgy deal to acquire WMD's, that an attack with them is as physically impossible as your building a faster-than light spaceship in your backyard before winter arrives ??

Your complacency is simply staggering !


"one of them said they want to commit genocide... 5 years ago... or at least it sounded that way to me.. WE HAVE TO GET THEM OR WERE GONNA DIIIIIE!!!!!"

... and they've been working on the means to arrange it, ever since. YES.

You're finally getting the picture ? Well done !


Syria's Got some weapons and they MIGHT go to Hellbolah or might go to Alquida and it Might Come here and it might go to the US one day soon.. we better ATTACK BEFORE ITS" TO LATE WERE FOOLS IF WE DON"T."

The alternative, I suggest, is to unnecessarily play Russian Roulette with innocent civilians' lives. You've absolutely no way of proving to me that the scenario you derisorily express won't actually HAPPEN, have you ?

Perhaps, given your determination (which I find baffling) to shove complacency down our throats, it's time to ask you if you WANT to see America attacked !!!

As far as the difference between Germany and genocide.


Here a difference for you. we did not get into the war until we were attacked. how about that even with Hitler and japan on the march REALLY ATTACKING other countries BTW we did not get into the war until we were actually attacked, for real.

True.

As grateful as us Brits were for your helpful intervention when it came, you might also like to know that we have a running joke over here about how America is always late for World Wars. You think of WW I as being 1917-1918, don't you ? For us, it was 1914-1918. Similarly, we consider WW II to have lasted from 1939-1945, and for you, it's 1942-45.

You see, we had a different reality to address. And address it, we did. Better that, than surrender !!


And my my, look at this, IRAN has yet to ATTACK ANYONE.

YOU'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO DO THAT ???


They have NEVER attacked any other country. And they haven't committed Genocide on their own people or even harmed the 25,000+ Jews that still live fairly peacefully in Iran today.

Revelarts, I'm getting really sick and tired of your complacency.

You're evidently totally determined to see Iran actually ARM itself with nukes, and if I read your latest correctly, you also want to see them launch an attack, before you consider that something might be a tad amiss !!!!!!

.. so OK, I've had enough of this.

Some of us want genocide PREVENTED, not PERMITTED ! DO YOU NOT GET THE JUSTICE IN THAT ???

Evidently not.

I'm not going to waste further time debating this with you.

[Dilloduck]

Yep and we didnt kill every German or Jap either did we?
With that admitted I say we kill those attempting to murder us by any means possible and do so until they stop with the insane religious belief that thier Allah gets to rule the entire world and make us blind bot slaves or else dead infidels!
They have declared the war and set their terms. Either we surrender or we do not for they seek no middle ground.
Quite easy to decide if one merely looks back to WW2 and see why and how we fought that war IMHO..-TYR

Better thank Russia for that one. Now which Muslim country do you propose we attack first ?

[gabosaurus]

They have declared the war and set their terms. Either we surrender or we do not for they seek no middle ground.
Quite easy to decide if one merely looks back to WW2 and see why and how we fought that war IMHO..-TYR

First of all, how do you decide who all you should kill. Anyone who looks the part? Perhaps they are dressed wrong?
And I don't recall anyone "declaring war." Except you, perhaps.
Why did we fight WWII? Because the Japanese attacked us and Germany was swallowing up countries.
In the current conflict, we are not fighting a country. You seem to think we are fighting a religion, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Most Americans don't even know who we are fighting. Or why. And they have good points. There are hundreds of splintered militant groups out there. Millions of others of the same religion want nothing to do with the whole thing.

I am not happy that so many Catholic priests abuse children. Should I form a militia and start killing every Catholic I see?
Some of you are too busy hating that you fail to think.

[Dilloduck]

First of all, how do you decide who all you should kill. Anyone who looks the part? Perhaps they are dressed wrong?
And I don't recall anyone "declaring war." Except you, perhaps.
Why did we fight WWII? Because the Japanese attacked us and Germany was swallowing up countries.
In the current conflict, we are not fighting a country. You seem to think we are fighting a religion, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Most Americans don't even know who we are fighting. Or why. And they have good points. There are hundreds of splintered militant groups out there. Millions of others of the same religion want nothing to do with the whole thing.

I am not happy that so many Catholic priests abuse children. Should I form a militia and start killing every Catholic I see?
Some of you are too busy hating that you fail to think.

The BAD GUYS-----Don't you understand, Gabby ? They want us to send soldiers to kill BAD GUYS. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Better thank Russia for that one. Now which Muslim country do you propose we attack first ?

My friend, I am not the President nor am I a general in our army. I do not attack nations.
Perhaps you forget that we ALMOST waited too late to get into WW2. Had we entered a year later its very likely it would have been us fighting alone without our Brit allies that fought so damn well with us! Even with our combined forces it was still touch and go several times before we gained the upper hand!
I propose that we remain alert, vigilant and ever ready to strike at a moments notice!
Or is being adequately prepared and willing to defend ourselves too ghastly a thing to do?
You have that wrong Russia had better thank USA and Britian or else they'd be speaking german right now IMHO.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

My friend, I am not the President nor am I a general in our army. I do not attack nations.
Perhaps you forget that we ALMOST waited too late to get into WW2. Had we entered a year later its very likely it would have been us fighting alone without our Brit allies that fought so damn well with us! Even with our combined forces it was still touch and go several times before we gained the upper hand!
I propose that we remain alert, vigilant and ever ready to strike at a moments notice!
Or is being adequately prepared and willing to defend ourselves too ghastly a thing to do?
You have that wrong Russia had better thank USA and Britian or else they'd be speaking german right now IMHO.-Tyr

Oh damn--I really thought you were a general or the president. I guess you're just some raving lunatic that wants to kill bad guys before they kill us. Good luck with that !

How much territory did Russia wind up with as spoils of war BTW and how did our deal with them about Poland work out ?

[gabosaurus]

My friend, I am not the President nor am I a general in our army. I do not attack nations.
Perhaps you forget that we ALMOST waited too late to get into WW2. Had we entered a year later its very likely it would have been us fighting alone without our Brit allies that fought so damn well with us! Even with our combined forces it was still touch and go several times before we gained the upper hand!
I propose that we remain alert, vigilant and ever ready to strike at a moments notice!
Or is being adequately prepared and willing to defend ourselves too ghastly a thing to do?
You have that wrong Russia had better thank USA and Britian or else they'd be speaking german right now IMHO.-Tyr

Had the U.S. entered the war a year later, we wouldn't have had any British allies. Or perhaps you are unaware of how close the Brits came to signing an armistice with the Germans.
And you have things COMPLETELY wrong about the Russians. Without the Russians holding off the German invasion, there is no doubt that Hitler would have ruled all of Europe. Including England. The Russians played a much more vital role in defeating the Germans than the Brits or French.

And if we were speaking German right now, all of you would be my household staff. Being the blonde hair, blue eyed perfect Teutonic girl I am. :cool:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

........

How much territory did Russia wind up with as spoils of war BTW and how did our deal with them about Poland work out ?

Too DAMN much thanks to his great friend FDR! Had the idiot FDR not tried to play footsie with the insane murdering Stalin and instead listen to Churchill Russia would have likely never became the number 2 power in the world. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Too DAMN much thanks to his great friend FDR! Had the idiot FDR not tried to play footsie with the insane murdering Stalin and instead listen to Churchill Russia would have likely never became the number 2 power in the world. -Tyr

Harry couldn't do anything about it either. The Russians have WMDs, BTW---wanna attack em ?

[Gaffer]

Wow what an amazing thread. Rev once again shows his Chamberlain impression. Just be nice and they will all go away. For your information rev, intel is used to determine if military action is needed and how much. It identifies targets and what strength the enemy has. It's not used as a political tool. That's what diplomats are for.

Jafar needs some serious history lessons. 1.5 million? Yes, that's true. At Auschwitz alone. There were hundreds of death camps set up. To say the ovens were built after the war is an out right lie. There were over 50 million people killed in WW2. And that is a conservative estimate. 6 million Jews were slaughtered, another 3 million gypsies, homos and mentally handicapped were also slaughtered.

Dillo I too grew up in the days of duck and cover. Even at a young age I was able to figure out that it was a waste of time. They didn't lie about it. They were just playing the usual political game of appearing to do something about something they had no control over.

If you go to the pentagon and check out the war plans room, you can find plans for the invasion of every country in the world, including allies. They are called contingency plans and it would be foolish not to have them. They are updated based on intel.

Now I will have to put aside some time to look for those 25,000 Jews living peacefully in iran. I'm sure they live as well as the ones in saudi arabia.

[Dilloduck]

Wow what an amazing thread. Rev once again shows his Chamberlain impression. Just be nice and they will all go away. For your information rev, intel is used to determine if military action is needed and how much. It identifies targets and what strength the enemy has. It's not used as a political tool. That's what diplomats are for.

Jafar needs some serious history lessons. 1.5 million? Yes, that's true. At Auschwitz alone. There were hundreds of death camps set up. To say the ovens were built after the war is an out right lie. There were over 50 million people killed in WW2. And that is a conservative estimate. 6 million Jews were slaughtered, another 3 million gypsies, homos and mentally handicapped were also slaughtered.

Dillo I too grew up in the days of duck and cover. Even at a young age I was able to figure out that it was a waste of time. They didn't lie about it. They were just playing the usual political game of appearing to do something about something they had no control over.

If you go to the pentagon and check out the war plans room, you can find plans for the invasion of every country in the world, including allies. They are called contingency plans and it would be foolish not to have them. They are updated based on intel.

Now I will have to put aside some time to look for those 25,000 Jews living peacefully in iran. I'm sure they live as well as the ones in saudi arabia.

So what's your suggestion in dealing with the Syrian/Iraqi WMD's that could be used on Americans?

( Remember the Gulf of Tonkin lie ? )

[revelarts]

Charming ! OK, you sound to me like a Leftie determined to appease at any and all opportunities !

To the contrary, I have every faith in it .. IF every possible chance to gather it is explored. That, whether you like it or not, frequently means personnel within spitting distance from its source.

Yes it does, and IF any attacks are needed it's from intel that we'll know it. to date we DO NOT have it.
Even GW Bush in his book said that the Intel reports he got about Iran told him that Iran was not anywhere close to making nukes so that HE said He "could not justify and Attack on Iran."
Much less Syria. But many here" KNOW" that Iran IS -WITHOUT DOUBT- GOING TO ONE DAY COMMIT GENOCIDE. that bs fear mongering propaganda talk. Is it a concern... a small one, should be be viligent? yes. should we attack? Heck NO. for what? it'd be an aggressive action against a country that any objective viewer will see is at peace with us.

I'm not sure anyone with the glasses of war on can see them in that light, but they have Never attacked anyone. Or seriously threatened to do so. many state dept people who personal know the mullahs have stated thet they have NO intention of attacking the U.S. or israel. But Drummond you no better.
so why debate it, you know the future, and they will kill all the Jews the U.S. and the U.K. if they one day get 1 or 2 nukes, our nukes. our combined intel forces will be be be powerless to know anything about an eminet attack and will never be able or stop them, unless we ATTACK NOW. Iran is so dangerous the US, Israel and the UK have zero chance to stop it if it has a nuke or 2. we are doomed dooomed i tell ya..




... meaning that you'd rather ignore a lot of it altogether ? Where, revelarts, is YOUR faith in intel ???
Do I take this to be an admission that you want Iran to have ALREADY ARMED ITSELF WITH NUKES, BEFORE YOU SEE A NEED TO TACKLE THEM ?? [:rolleyes: oboy]

In which case ... I take it you're against inspections, and totally against sanctions ? You actually want genocide-threateners to acquire the means to carry out their threat, before lifting a finger against them ??

You seem to think not attacking is doing nothing, But inspection is doing something the intel reports Bush read where partly from inspections. Other spying is doing something, sabtaobe is doing something, plain old talking to the enemy is doing something, it's leaders, is doing something. it will be on going, there is no perfect peace with Iran as it is right now but there NO NEED for war. I personally would prefer an imperfect peace to a really stupid so-called PRE-Emptive (aggressive) War.
“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/23920.Dwight_D_Eisenhower)


Since was the implementation of justice dependent on the outcome of a popularity contest ?

Pre-emptive war is not justice, it's a war crime.


Yes, well, America was 'naughty' enough to take down Osama bin Laden ... from within their own territory ... where he'd apparently been living, unmolested, for years !!
yes apparently..



Why, how DARE America think they have any right whatever to deal with the worst, nastiest, most disgusting terrorist s**tbag they've encountered since the 1940's, the creature who masterminded the slaughter of 3,000 of their citizens, and who'd have dearly loved to kill far more !

WHERE WAS PAKISTAN'S ABJECT APOLOGY FOR THEIR ATTITUDE ???

I take it from this rant that you're an apologist for Pakistan. Considering their proven anti-Americanism, I suggest you rethink that.
I've never said ANY country is a bag of virtue, but they are suppose to be our ally at this point, Would you like it if we Bombed a few london homes a week to kill terrorist and happen to kill a few of you innocent family by mistake, and just chlked it up to calteral dammage and said you should be harboring terrorist. BTW there are a lot of Muslims in the UK I bet we could find a terrorist or 2 drone strike. do you have any muslim nieghbors Drummond?





You have to be joking ! OK, we all trust to the Gods, do we, that there's never a need to round up any rogue WMD's, that nobody, anywhere, will ever think about doing a dodgy deal to acquire WMD's, that an attack with them is as physically impossible as your building a faster-than light spaceship in your backyard before winter arrives ??

Your complacency is simply staggering !
Again you seem to think NOT ATTACKING is doing nothing.
That's very small thinking.



... and they've been working on the means to arrange it, ever since. YES.

who Exactly are "they". Do you have any evidence of tanks on the boarder, or missle pointed in our direction, or uncovered any terror plots that deeserve INVASION? I don't think so.




The alternative, I suggest, is to unnecessarily play Russian Roulette with innocent civilians' lives. You've absolutely no way of proving to me that the scenario you derisorily express won't actually HAPPEN, have you ?

Perhaps, given your determination (which I find baffling) to shove complacency down our throats, it's time to ask you if you WANT to see America attacked !!!

You have no way of proving to me your scenrio will happen Drummond. not sure why your Baffled i'm not buying you truckload of fearmongering.

it's more likey thet you or i will be struck by lighting than die in a terrorist attack, that's a fact.
It's Many times more likey that we will die in a car accident. Cancer, heart attack, being shot by a local cop are all more likey than and American or British person being hurt or killed by a terrorist or and Attack by Iran. I'm baffled your not more concerned about high blood pressure from your worrys over the terrorism.




As far as the difference between Germany and genocide.
True.

As grateful as us Brits were for your helpful intervention when it came, you might also like to know that we have a running joke over here about how America is always late for World Wars. You think of WW I as being 1917-1918, don't you ? For us, it was 1914-1918. Similarly, we consider WW II to have lasted from 1939-1945, and for you, it's 1942-45.

You see, we had a different reality to address. And address it, we did. Better that, than surrender !!

True, but i done discount when the fight started in Europe. i'm a fan of churchill and his foresight and stediness. However the UK was bound by treaty to fight and Hitler was an obvious and active aggressor he had to be stopped. Building a war machine is one thing rolling tanks/planes over the boarder and saying this is all i want is another. what was good for the goose...





And my my, look at this, IRAN has yet to ATTACK ANYONE.
YOU'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO DO THAT ???

Um, your the only one here who knows the future, that they will attack. But see Eisenhowers quote above.




Revelarts, I'm getting really sick and tired of your complacency.

You're evidently totally determined to see Iran actually ARM itself with nukes, and if I read your latest correctly, you also want to see them launch an attack, before you consider that something might be a tad amiss !!!!!!

.. so OK, I've had enough of this.

Well you dodged my points here in frustration altogether, they must have been good i'll repeat them.
"...And they haven't committed Genocide on their own people or even harmed the 25,000+ Jews that still live fairly peacefully in Iran today.
(Don't tell me they support Muslim terrorist ,so do we, Jundula, and Alquida in Libya and formally in Afghanistan to name 2, double standard much?)

Drummond the point is this
it is a war crime to attack a country -(as Germany did to Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland , Belgium France, etc- for excuses/reasons) Before you are attacked or have a Solid threat of eminent attack.
Tyrannies and Empires attack other countries 1st Drummond.
Don't be used as a tool of the forever war propaganda."



Some of us want genocide PREVENTED, not PERMITTED ! DO YOU NOT GET THE JUSTICE IN THAT ???
Evidently not.
I'm not going to waste further time debating this with you.
I see justice in preneting genocide when there's ample evidence that it's about to be committed , but you have not provide anything close to that and the U.S. joint inteligence reports from all agencies for the past several years does NOT back you up. Whne you've got some evidence MAYBE we can talk about Attacking people until then it's just war mongering and unsubtantiated fears. We'd both probably live longer if we placed that concern on our own and our childrens weight and diets, more of threat of death there than from terrorist, Iran or Syria.

[jafar00]

Let me be clear on that last point, Jafar. You're saying that the Nazis were following a program of systematic extermination of Russians, with the objective of genocide ?

No more than they were with the Jews.


Yep and we didnt kill every German or Jap either did we?
With that admitted I say we kill those attempting to murder us by any means possible and do so until they stop with the insane religious belief that thier Allah gets to rule the entire world and make us blind bot slaves or else dead infidels!
They have declared the war and set their terms. Either we surrender or we do not for they seek no middle ground.
Quite easy to decide if one merely looks back to WW2 and see why and how we fought that war IMHO..-TYR

Who exactly has declared war on you?


Fair enough, as to the rest as well. I have no issue with questioning, from an educational POV. And you're right, there's a difference between that and the many that outright deny it and proclaim it never happened at all. You clarified, and now I feel better. :beer:

Glad we understand each other :2up:

[Gaffer]

So what's your suggestion in dealing with the Syrian/Iraqi WMD's that could be used on Americans? ( Remember the Gulf of Tonkin lie ? )Locate them, then do a fly over, similar to what Israel did a few years ago concerning a nuclear site with some N. Korean material and rockets. And then say it was just a flight that went off course on a training mission. Just like before, the overflight is an embarrassment and they are not going to admit to having huge stock piles of WMD's. They have admitted to having some, but not how much.I've made a suggestion, feel free to use it next time you're asked the same question.As for strikes against the US, I've already put forth the scenario of using hizbollah and iran's revolutionary guard and Qom's Force agents infiltrating our country and waiting for the orders to strike. If the drug cartels can get tons of drugs across the border to sell on the streets of US cities, why couldn't iran's agents get chemical and biological weapons in as well. Imagine the north hollywood shoot out on a national scale.

[jimnyc]

Anyone believing the Jews aren't mistreated in Iran, as second class citizens, are the same who believe that Christians in Egypt aren't mistreated by their own government. After 1979, the Jews scrambled to get out of Iran, but unfortunately not everyone has the means to up and leave a country.

[revelarts]

Wow what an amazing thread. Rev once again shows his Chamberlain impression. Just be nice and they will all go away. For your information rev, intel is used to determine if military action is needed and how much. It identifies targets and what strength the enemy has. It's not used as a political tool. That's what diplomats are for.

....

....

...

Now I will have to put aside some time to look for those 25,000 Jews living peacefully in iran. I'm sure they live as well as the ones in saudi arabia.
Ahh the old chamberlain tag, Well lets see, what did Chamberlain do, he agreed that the German annexation of Austria was A-OK and that Hitler's request for the Sudetanland of Czechoslovakia just fine too as long as that was it. that's Crazy.

But please tell me what lands have the Iranians taken, annexed or invaded?
i expect no answer here.
The answer is NONE.
How many jews are in concentration camps in Iran.
NONE.

so WHY you, Drummond and others want to attack Iran or Syria or whoever? oh yeah , because they MIGHT one day, soon ,maybe, probably for sure will attack somebody if they get a or enough wmds and can maybe do that thing with them....
Right.

As far as the jews living in Iran are concern , please do look it up. Jews have been living in Persia since Bible days with varying degrees of peace and hassle. just like in most countries around the world. you mention Suadi Arbia, heck they were living pretty well in Germany until hilter showed up. But the crazy fanatical Islamic Iranian republic took over in the 70's you'd think they'd start the jewish slaughter by now if that was there REAL Goal to destroy all the Jews. and Iranian leadership are such uncontrolled religious fanatics that they are compelled to destroy every non Muslim ASAP. at least that's what i've been told here.

i'm not saying that Jews are living in paradise there at ALL, but heck tell me where Jews are not going to have to deal with some level of crap. Sadly Antisemitism is not an exclusively Muslim trait.

[Dilloduck]

Locate them, then do a fly over, similar to what Israel did a few years ago concerning a nuclear site with some N. Korean material and rockets. And then say it was just a flight that went off course on a training mission. Just like before, the overflight is an embarrassment and they are not going to admit to having huge stock piles of WMD's. They have admitted to having some, but not how much.I've made a suggestion, feel free to use it next time you're asked the same question.As for strikes against the US, I've already put forth the scenario of using hizbollah and iran's revolutionary guard and Qom's Force agents infiltrating our country and waiting for the orders to strike. If the drug cartels can get tons of drugs across the border to sell on the streets of US cities, why couldn't iran's agents get chemical and biological weapons in as well. Imagine the north hollywood shoot out on a national scale.

Bomb Syrian WMDs ? No thanks. I don't think people would like that very much. Who do we bomb to prevent a massive cyber attack on our infrastructure ?

[jafar00]

Anyone believing the Jews aren't mistreated in Iran, as second class citizens, are the same who believe that Christians in Egypt aren't mistreated by their own government. After 1979, the Jews scrambled to get out of Iran, but unfortunately not everyone has the means to up and leave a country.

If you would do a little research you would find that apart from being restricted in visiting Israel, the Jews of Iran are living there quite happily and in peace.

[Drummond]

Or perhaps you are unaware of how close the Brits came to signing an armistice with the Germans.

Well, I am unaware of it (unless you're referring to Chamberlain ?). Churchill was completely clear about the great need to fight and defeat Hitler's forces.

You assume that the Russians were responsible for seeing to it that the Germans failed to conquer England. Nope, I'm not buying it. We defeated Hitler's Luftwaffe in 1940, and Hitler gave up his thoughts then of invading us.

[Drummond]

The BAD GUYS-----Don't you understand, Gabby ? They want us to send soldiers to kill BAD GUYS.

He gets it ! By George, HE GETS IT !!

CONGRATULATIONS !

.. after all, this is altogether much better than sending soldiers to kill good guys, wouldn't you agree ?

Here's the thing, Dilloduck ...

You see, a murderous terrorist (is there any other kind ?) would love to kill GOOD guys. Such as, for example, the victims who perished in the Twin Towers attacks.

But, you see, those terrorists had to be alive to commit their terrorism.

Now, here's something to consider.

A DEAD terrorist would find it very much more difficult to commit terrorism than a living one ! Can you identify for me so much as ONE of those 9/11 terrorists who you feel could've attacked America, had they actually been dead ?

So you see, Dilloduck, it makes considerable sense to send soldiers to kill the bad guys.

Honestly .. yes .. it DOES ... just think about it.

Give it enough thought, and I'm sure you'll see there's a certain logic at work to the proposal. Yes .. really ...

[Drummond]

Bomb Syrian WMDs ? No thanks. I don't think people would like that very much.

Well, can you name me one American who'd actually like to be at the business-end of a deployed Syrian WMD ?

Perhaps you'll tell me that this is a better outcome ?


Who do we bomb to prevent a massive cyber attack on our infrastructure ?

I've an idea about that one.

How about .. the terrorist trash PLANNING such an attack ?

It sort of follows. Don't you think ?

[Dilloduck]

He gets it ! By George, HE GETS IT !!

CONGRATULATIONS !

.. after all, this is altogether much better than sending soldiers to kill good guys, wouldn't you agree ?

Here's the thing, Dilloduck ...

You see, a murderous terrorist (is there any other kind ?) would love to kill GOOD guys. Such as, for example, the victims who perished in the Twin Towers attacks.

But, you see, those terrorists had to be alive to commit their terrorism.

Now, here's something to consider.

A DEAD terrorist would find it very much more difficult to commit terrorism than a living one ! Can you identify for me so much as ONE of those 9/11 terrorists who you feel could've attacked America, had they actually been dead ?

So you see, Dilloduck, it makes considerable sense to send soldiers to kill the bad guys.

Honestly .. yes .. it DOES ... just think about it.

Give it enough thought, and I'm sure you'll see there's a certain logic at work to the proposal. Yes .. really ...

So what country has the most bad guys in it ?

[Dilloduck]

Well, can you name me one American who'd actually like to be at the business-end of a deployed Syrian WMD ?

Perhaps you'll tell me that this is a better outcome ?



I've an idea about that one.

How about .. the terrorist trash PLANNING such an attack ?

It sort of follows. Don't you think ?

You don't seem to understand the concept of identifying your target. Remind me to never take you hunting. You will either have way too many or you will be dragging home cows.

[Drummond]

Ahh the old chamberlain tag, Well lets see, what did Chamberlain do, he agreed that the German annexation of Austria was A-OK and that Hitler's request for the Sudetanland of Czechoslovakia just fine too as long as that was it. that's Crazy.

But WHY is there any 'craziness' involved ?

After all ... Chamberlain was trying to avoid war. AS YOU ARE.

And he saw appeasement to be an excellent method to achieve that aim. AS YOU DO.

Who knows, perhaps if he were alive today, he'd be inclined to believe that pre-emptive war was a 'war crime', as you apparently do ??

[... Oh, and by the way .. did I correctly note your DISapproval of the mission to take out Osama bin Laden, earlier ?]

I suggest that the following conclusion can be drawn, following your 'logic' about 'war crimes' ..

If in fact pre-emptive war is a 'war crime', do you suggest that the bombing of Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a 'war crime' ? After all, Afghanistan itself hadn't declared war on you .. not as such. So, surely, according to your Leftie sensibilities, it was wrong to act against Al Qaeda as America did ?

Ditto Iraq, Saddam hadn't formally declared war on the US, but his country was nonetheless invaded. So was that, too, a 'war crime' ... according to you ?

Here's the thing.

Following this - I hesitate to call it 'logic' - through to a conclusion ... wouldn't that mean that pretty much everything the US has done to prosecute the War on Terror is viewable by Lefties as a 'war crime' ?

... and if that's 'true' ... that puts Left-wing thinkers in the position of defending terrorists against the interests of America, and the West !!!

Revelarts, tell me I've got this wrong, that in fact Left-wing sensibilities do NOT veer off in the direction of outright treachery !! And from this, I ask this of you ...

... start to adopt policies and beliefs that are TOUGH on your enemies, not those that keep on working to their advantage !!

Try it. You may find the change of direction therapeutic.

[Drummond]

You don't seem to understand the concept of identifying your target. Remind me to never take you hunting. You will either have way too many or you will be dragging home cows.

Sorry, you've lost me. I would be very well aware that the WMD's were the target (and if in the hands of terrorists by that time, then they would be, too !)

But anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about. Dragging home some cows would surely be an especially tasty end to the day !

... I mean ... is there really NO end of advantages to Conservative thinking .. ???

[Drummond]

So what country has the most bad guys in it ?

Meaning what, that you'd leave all the other countries alone ??

Dilloduck, do you regard a War on Terror that only neutralises, say, 35 percent of all terrorism, a resounding success ?

[Dilloduck]

Meaning what, that you'd leave all the other countries alone ??

Dilloduck, do you regard a War on Terror that only neutralises, say, 35 percent of all terrorism, a resounding success ?

Its a very simple question that doesn't mean anything. Listen closely--

" Which country has the most bad guys in it "

[Dilloduck]

Sorry, you've lost me. I would be very well aware that the WMD's were the target (and if in the hands of terrorists by that time, then they would be, too !)

But anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about. Dragging home some cows would surely be an especially tasty end to the day !

... I mean ... is there really NO end of advantages to Conservative thinking .. ???

You wouldn't get two feet before the owner of the cows shot you between the eyes.

[jimnyc]

If you would do a little research you would find that apart from being restricted in visiting Israel, the Jews of Iran are living there quite happily and in peace.

I've read about BOTH, the treatment of Christians in Egypt and Jews in Iran, for many years. Here's a quick round-up of Jewsih in Iran. It's not daily genocide, but it's lots of discrimination and otherwise unsavory way of life. I'm not sure why you think I don't do research, I don't accuse you of the same. And simply being a Muslim doesn't make you an authority figure on Jews in Iran. In fact, I would say it would make you biased.


Despite the official distinction between "Jews," "Zionists," and "Israel," the most common accusation the Jews encounter is that of maintaining contacts with Zionists. The Jewish community does enjoy a measure of religious freedom but is faced with constant suspicion of cooperating with the Zionist state and with "imperialistic America" — both such activities are punishable by death. Jews who apply for a passport to travel abroad must do so in a special bureau and are immediately put under surveillance. The government does not generally allow all members of a family to travel abroad at the same time to prevent Jewish emigration. Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions im posed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.

Iran's official government-controlled media often issues anti-Semitic propaganda. A prime example is the government's publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious Czarist forgery, in 1994 and 1999.2 Jews also suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations.

The Islamization of the country has brought about strict control over Jewish educational institutions. Before the revolution, there were some 20 Jewish schools functioning throughout the country. In recent years, most of these have been closed down. In the remaining schools, Jewish principals have been replaced by Muslims. In Tehran there are still three schools in which Jewish pupils constitute a majority. The curriculum is Islamic, and Persian is forbidden as the language of instruction for Jewish studies. Special Hebrew lessons are conducted on Fridays by the Orthodox Otzar ha-Torah organization, which is responsible for Jewish religious education. Saturday is no longer officially recognized as the Jewish sabbath, and Jewish pupils are compelled to attend school on that day. There are three synagogues in Tehran, but since 1994, there has been no rabbi in Iran, and the bet din does not function.

Following the overthrow of the shah and the declaration of an Islamic state in 1979, Iran severed relations with Israel. The country has subsequently supported many of the Islamic terrorist organizations that target Jews and Israelis, particularly the Lebanon-based, Hezbollah. Nevertheless, Iran's Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel.

On the eve of Passover in 1999, 13 Jews from Shiraz and Isfahan in southern Iran were arrested and accused of spying for Israel and the United States. In September 2000, an Iranian appeals court upheld a decision to imprison ten of the thirteen Jews accused of spying for Israel. In the appeals court, ten of the accused were found guilty of cooperating with Israel and were given prison terms ranging from two to nine years. Three of the accused were found innocent in the first trial.5 In March 2001, one of the imprisoned Jews was released, a second was freed in January 2002, the remaining eight were set free in late October 2002. The last five apparently were released on furlough for an indefinite period, leaving them vulnerable to future arrest. Three others were reportedly pardoned by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

At least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution, most of them for either religious reasons or their connection to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

[revelarts]

But WHY is there any 'craziness' involved ?
After all ... Chamberlain was trying to avoid war. AS YOU ARE.
And he saw appeasement to be an excellent method to achieve that aim. AS YOU DO.
Who knows, perhaps if he were alive today, he'd be inclined to believe that pre-emptive war was a 'war crime', as you apparently do ??
[... Oh, and by the way .. did I correctly note your DISapproval of the mission to take out Osama bin Laden, earlier ?]

I suggest that the following conclusion can be drawn, following your 'logic' about 'war crimes' ..
If in fact pre-emptive war is a 'war crime', do you suggest that the bombing of Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a 'war crime' ? After all, Afghanistan itself hadn't declared war on you .. not as such. So, surely, according to your Leftie sensibilities, it was wrong to act against Al Qaeda as America did ?

Ditto Iraq, Saddam hadn't formally declared war on the US, but his country was nonetheless invaded. So was that, too, a 'war crime' ... according to you ?

Here's the thing.

Following this - I hesitate to call it 'logic' - through to a conclusion ... wouldn't that mean that pretty much everything the US has done to prosecute the War on Terror is viewable by Lefties as a 'war crime' ?

... and if that's 'true' ... that puts Left-wing thinkers in the position of defending terrorists against the interests of America, and the West !!!

Revelarts, tell me I've got this wrong, that in fact Left-wing sensibilities do NOT veer off in the direction of outright treachery !! And from this, I ask this of you ...
... start to adopt policies and beliefs that are TOUGH on your enemies, not those that keep on working to their advantage !!
Try it. You may find the change of direction therapeutic.

Drummond
below are the definitions/explanation of war crimes, ---not the lefts or the rights--- but the legal definition from 1945 on.
If you apply that to what you propose, preemptive strikes on countries, does it fit objectively into the category of a war crime?
the answer is yes it does.


"Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war, or war in violation of international agreements. Aggressive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state. Wars fought in self-defense are not aggressive wars.

Following World War II (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/World+War+II), for example, the Allies prosecuted a number of leading Nazi officials at the Nuremberg Trials (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuremberg+Trials) for crimes against peace. During the war, the Nazis had invaded and occupied a series of sovereign states, including France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria. Because those invasions were made in an effort to accumulate wealth, power, and territory for the Third Reich, Nazi officials could not claim to be acting in self-defense. Thus, those officials who participated in the planning, initiation, or execution of those invasions were guilty of crimes against peace.

Hermann Göring, chief of the Luftwaffe (the German Air Force), was one Nazi official who was convicted of crimes against peace at the Nuremberg trials. The international military tribunal presiding at Nuremberg, composed of judges selected from the four Allied powers (France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States), found that Göring had helped plan and carry out the invasions of Poland and Austria and had ordered the destruction of Rotterdam, Holland, after the city had effectively surrendered...."



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/War+Crimes (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/War+Crimes)

Statement by Supreme court Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945
There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
The definitions under which we will try the Germans are general definitions. They impose liability upon war-making statesmen of all countries alike. If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.

This, too, is the first time that four nations with such different legal systems have tried to knit their ideas of just criminal procedure into a cooperative trial. That task is far more difficult than those unfamiliar with the differences between continental and Anglo-American methods would expect. It has involved frank and critical examination by the representatives of each country of the other's methods of administering justice. Our discussions have been candid and open-minded...."



http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imt_jack02.asp





Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 82 U.N.T.S. 280, entered into force Aug. 8, 1945.

...I : JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES Art. 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) ' Crimes against peace: ' namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) ' War crimes: ' namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to Wave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) ' Crimes against humanity.- ' namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
Art. 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment....

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1945a.htm


war of Aggression = War Crimes.

And again i'll quote my fellow Not "Tough" enough "leftie" that was so willing to let his countrymen die because he didn't believe in preemptive war.
Eisenhower
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower


I'm not going to tell you what to think but please just be honest with the facts.
A Just Country Does Not preventatively go to war. When there's NO JUSTification to do so.
No eminent threat, no war, that's how Just countrys do it.

[Drummond]

Its a very simple question that doesn't mean anything. Listen closely--

" Which country has the most bad guys in it "

You're right - your question is meaningless, certainly within the context of fighting a War on Terror effectively.

Afghanistan might have had far more bad guys in it than Iraq. But Iraq was nonetheless an important target to deal with in the War on Terror.

Imagine a country with a sparse population, but nevertheless, terrorists within it capable of infecting a single terrorist with a biological WMD agent. Said terrorist, just injected with that agent, then boards a plane, flies to the US, and proceeds to infect a city with the plague he's carrying. A month later .. a million dead, causing a death toll dwarfing that of 9/11 ...

So as you say, your question doesn't mean anything. But, what DOES MATTER, Dilloduck, is that the War on Terror is fought to the maximum possible effort, ALL the time, in ANY and EVERY way it CAN be.

So, yes. You have to kill the bad guys. If you don't - THEY will kill YOU.

Understood ?

[Drummond]

You wouldn't get two feet before the owner of the cows shot you between the eyes.

Assumptive in the extreme.

His aim might be off.

[Drummond]

Drummond
below are the definitions/explanation of war crimes, ---not the lefts or the rights--- but the legal definition from 1945 on.
If you apply that to what you propose, preemptive strikes on countries, does it fit objectively into the category of a war crime?
the answer is yes it does.




war of Aggression = War Crimes.

And again i'll quote my fellow Not "Tough" enough "leftie" that was so willing to let his countrymen die because he didn't believe in preemptive war.
Eisenhower
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower


I'm not going to tell you what to think but please just be honest with the facts.
A Just Country Does Not preventatively go to war. When there's NO JUSTification to do so.
No eminent threat, no war, that's how Just countrys do it.

I see that all this stuff goes back to 1945 ?

Those concerned with drafting it - did they envisage today's world, with murderous terrorist savages basing themselves within territories of Nation States, maybe under the protection of the rulers of it (as was true of the Taliban, for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan) ?

I really think not.

Would those involved in the drafting have wanted the US to be effectively powerless in meting out justice to terrorists ? Would it have been their intention to render a War on Terror incapable of being usefully fought ?

Perhaps there are Leftie terrorist apologists who'd like to think so.

What say you, revelarts ?

[Dilloduck]

You're right - your question is meaningless, certainly within the context of fighting a War on Terror effectively.

Afghanistan might have had far more bad guys in it than Iraq. But Iraq was nonetheless an important target to deal with in the War on Terror.

Imagine a country with a sparse population, but nevertheless, terrorists within it capable of infecting a single terrorist with a biological WMD agent. Said terrorist, just injected with that agent, then boards a plane, flies to the US, and proceeds to infect a city with the plague he's carrying. A month later .. a million dead, causing a death toll dwarfing that of 9/11 ...

So as you say, your question doesn't mean anything. But, what DOES MATTER, Dilloduck, is that the War on Terror is fought to the maximum possible effort, ALL the time, in ANY and EVERY way it CAN be.

So, yes. You have to kill the bad guys. If you don't - THEY will kill YOU.

Understood ?

You didn't answer my question.

[Dilloduck]

Assumptive in the extreme.

His aim might be off.


Says the man who assumes Syrian WMDs are being stolen as we speak. :lol:

[revelarts]

I see that all this stuff goes back to 1945 ?

Those concerned with drafting it - did they envisage today's world, with murderous terrorist savages basing themselves within territories of Nation States, maybe under the protection of the rulers of it (as was true of the Taliban, for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan) ?

I really think not.

Would those involved in the drafting have wanted the US to be effectively powerless in meting out justice to terrorists ? Would it have been their intention to render a War on Terror incapable of being usefully fought ?

Perhaps there are Leftie terrorist apologists who'd like to think so.

What say you, revelarts ?
-Cough- what?- so the Killing, experimentation, torture and starvation of millions of Jews, Poles. Gypsies and others is somehow less than what we are dealing with now? really?
And TODAY it would be Ok for Germany to invade England, because it's a new day your really thinking as a proper right winger. And it would only be wrong if you harbored some crazy left leaning views.
Your just being ridiculous now Drummond?
Evils been around a long time sir.

Look, We used the same standard on On every other country now. when Iraq invaded Kuwait Lawyers sited the above laws and treaties. When Bush sent Powell and others to the UN to make excuses to attack Iraq it was because OUR lawyers were already pointing to the above law and others more recent as reason why we couldn't legally just invade.
Invasion = war crime.

[jimnyc]

Just a little more reading to add to the subject, from the wiki page about Preemptive war, and just a small piece of course. But since it was recent I found it relevant. It certainly doesn't prove anything and might open more questions than it answers, but still some decent points.


The proliferation of WMDs by rogue nations gave rise to a certain argument by scholars concerning preemption. They argued that the threat need not be “imminent” in the classic sense and that the illicit acquisition of these weapons, with their capacity to unleash massive destruction, by rogue nations, created the requisite threat to peace and stability as to have justified the use of preemptive force. NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for WMD, Guy Roberts cited the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1998 US attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, (identified by US intelligence to have been a chemical weapons facility) and the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak as examples of the counter-proliferation self-help paradigm. Regarding the Osirak attack, Roberts noted that at the time, few legal scholars argued in support of the Israeli attack but notes further that, “subsequent events demonstrated the perspicacity of the Israelis, and some scholars have re-visited that attack arguing that it was justified under anticipatory self-defense.” Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, American forces captured a number of documents detailing conversations that Sadaam Hussein had with his inner sanctum. The archive of documents and recorded meetings confirm that Hussein was indeed aiming to strike at Israel. In a 1982 conversation Hussein stated that, "Once Iraq walks out victorious, there will not be any Israel." Of Israel’s anti-Iraqi endeavors he noted, "Technically, they [the Israelis] are right in all of their attempts to harm Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_war

[Dilloduck]

Read up on the Bush Doctrine for some lengthy discussion too.

[Drummond]

You didn't answer my question.

I've answered it in the most useful way possible.

But my questions to you, are these ... WHY do you think it so important to single out just the one source of bad guys ? Isn't it more important to neutralise them in other locations as well ?

Or does the War on Terror need to be as incompletely fought as possible .. to meet Leftie preferences ?

I invite your expert opinion on such preferences.

[Dilloduck]

I've answered it in the most useful way possible.

But my questions to you, are these ... WHY do you think it so important to single out just the one source of bad guys ? Isn't it more important to neutralise them in other locations as well ?

Or does the War on Terror need to be as incompletely fought as possible .. to meet Leftie preferences ?

I invite your expert opinion on such preferences.

I may have made a huge error in assuming something here. I thought you might wanna hit the place that had the most bad guys first.
Sorry--doing something incompletely as possible does not compute. Can't help ya there.

[Drummond]

Says the man who assumes Syrian WMDs are being stolen as we speak. :lol:

Really ?

I do not assume they are being stolen 'as we speak'. I lack the knowledge to know such a thing.

But that isn't the point.

The point is to act to ensure that such a thing CANNOT happen. They may not being stolen right now. But, in a week's time ? A month's time ?

Better to act BEFORE it's too late. At least, that's my thinking. But, needless to say, this would never be a Leftie's thinking.

No .. they'd rather assume the ostrich position, deny the danger entirely, giving terrorists yet MORE aid ... and wonder what hit them once terrorists deploy what they'd been ALLOWED TO ACQUIRE.

I'm sure the American people, suffering such an outcome, would fall over themselves in the rush to applaud the 'patriotism' of those who'd let such a destructive outcome happen ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've answered it in the most useful way possible.

But my questions to you, are these ... WHY do you think it so important to single out just the one source of bad guys ? Isn't it more important to neutralise them in other locations as well ?

Or does the War on Terror need to be as incompletely fought as possible .. to meet Leftie preferences ?

I invite your expert opinion on such preferences.

To win , a war must be fought all out with winning being the only objective. That is how we approached the struggle in WW2. AMERICA has not fought a war with that all out objective since WW2. And we have paid a heavy price for such foolishness. The lib/dems want us to continue down that road but we now face an enemy that will fight a thousand years to gain that which they believe God commands. There is no appeasement except total surrender to them . Thus we have but one real choice, fight all out to destroy them. For that is also what they force !!
Those that believe rational thought and appeasement will buy them off are engaging in stuff of fairy tales.
They simply dont play that way, not a hard concept to realise if one studies thier relIgion and its ever so bloody history.

BIG D CLEAR YOU MESSAGE BOX BRO' !!!--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

To win , a war must be fought all out with winning being the only objective. That is how we approached the struggle in WW2. AMERICA has not fought a war with that all out objective since WW2. And we have paid a heavy price for such foolishness. The lib/dems want us to continue down that road but we now face an enemy that will fight a thousand years to gain that which they believe God commands. There is no appeasement except total surrender to them . Thus we have but one real choice, fight all out to destroy them. For that is also what they force !!
Those that believe rational thought and appeasement will buy them off are engaging in stuff of fairy tales.
They simply dont play that way, not a hard concept to realise if one studies thier relIgion and its ever so bloody history.--Tyr

Okie Dokie----I'll meet you in St. Louis and we'll go kick some ass. Show me the way, bro.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Okie Dokie----I'll meet you in St. Louis and we'll go kick some ass. Show me the way, bro.

I've been to St Louis many times , its not the place to fight . The place to fight is wherever we find them hiding.
They are indeed spread out in many locations but that doesnt mean we simply give up. It means we hit 'em in those places too. TYR

[revelarts]

LMAO, hearsay won't work with me...you can't prove Clarke was telling the truth either...we do know he leans heavily left....I won't take anyone's word for anything...and you won't be able to brow beat me with disinformation Rev.

It ain't my first rodeo.

Ok I haven't got time to really bring all details that i could to bare here.
But the summary of Why we knew 9-11 was coming and could have stopped it this


the world trade center was attacked in 1993. From that point on we- especially the FBI- had all the links. The 1993 bombers told the FBI in a letter that they were coming back to finish the job.
the FBI had info from it's agents that connected the Blind Shiekh to many of the 911plotters/players.
The FBI Paid an informant a million , that informant helped them get the blind shaikh and the info they found in the day of terror plot it had 9-11 info and the names of the players. Including Ramsi Yousef and KSM.
Search Nancy Floyd FBI agent.
you might want to read the book Triple Cross by former ABC news guy Peter Lance.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/196869-1

the Filipino's told US what they found in -Bojinka plot- and they had info about 9-11 in 1995.
All the targets named, world trade, pentagon, white house and others.

We cut loose men we knew were planning another attack.

the Army's Able Danger project had plotted nearly all of the hijackers including Mohamed Atta.
Search Col Anthony Shaffer. Congressional testimony

The Fbi and others got warning from several countries as well. Which gave enough details along with what they we in hand to stop the 9-11 attacks.

You can blow it off and believe that our billion dollar Intel agencies and military didn't know jack and Bin laden was so trixy that we where caught completely off guard if you like.

[jimnyc]

But the summary of Why we knew 9-11 was coming and could have stopped it this

you might want to read the book

C'mon, Rev, I'll admit that a LOT of mistakes were made. I'll even say that perhaps a few underhanded things were done. But to make it so simple and say the US could have stopped this, as if they purposely allowed it to happen, is ridiculous. And you'll need a LOT more proof than a thousand blogs, youtube videos and book sellers. You want to place perhaps the worst crime in the history of the universe in the laps of some from 1993-2001, you better have more proof than the crap you've posted over the years. You HAVE posted a lot to give one pause, a reason to look into things, but NO WAY EVEN NEAR a full blown conspiracy and proof that the US was complicit in the crime. YOU may be convinced, but in a court of law for example, it wouldn't even reach trial, a judge would toss it aside after opening statements claiming not enough evidence to move forward. I've got no beef if you want to believe certain people while others don't. I've got no beef when people like myself believe official reports and tons of others, and you don't believe them. That's what debating is all about. But I get a little edgy when someone accuses "the higher ups" of the most treasonous crimes in the world, based on words from people who want to sell books, and no hard evidence.