0
   

Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 12:23 pm
McG, Have you looked into why the US supports Saudi Arabia? Prolly not. Do you know why the US attacked Iraq using WMDs as the primary justification? Prolly not.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 12:47 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I see the folly of your argument, and don't blame you a bit for wanting to move on to a different topic.


I've not moved to a different topic. My point all along is that short of permanent military occupation, we cannot prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Do you assert that the people of the United States will accept that we must invade and permanently occupy any nation which threatens to produce nuclear weapons? Can you provide any irrefutable evidence that our Idiot in Chief's miliatry adventurism has stopped anyone from engaging in a nuclear weapons program? Does it not just slap you in the face that the Persians have been pursuing such a program while we've been enmired in Iraq, slowly bleeding? I despair for your powers of reasoning.

Quote:
What about the "few well placed bombs" from Israel, and their effect upon Iraq's nuclear ambitions?


That occured in 1978, if it were a definitive, then there would have been no reason to invade Iraq in 2003. You're making my argument for me, though. The Israelis bombed a breeder reactor near Baghdad in 1978 (whicih i believe the Germans has supplied them, although that is merely interesting detail). Nevertheless, the Iraqis continued to develop womd, the evidence for which was their use in the war with ther Persians. Of course, after the Isrealis bombed them, we had the spectacle of Rummy with the sh!t-eatin' grin shakin' Hussein's hand in Baghdad, and tellin' him just how much Ronny Ray-gun just loved his new look. So the evidence is bery good that "a few well-placed bombs" will not end a nation's ambitions to possess womd.

So, if the Isreali bombing in 1978 were definitive as you claim, then you must acknowledge that the yellow cake story which the Shrub trotted out in his casus belli was just horsie poop, eh? Refreshing honesty on your part.

Quote:
You obviously fear alienating the Persians more than you do their having nuclear weapons.


No, such a conention is not at all clear. What is clear, is taht you are attempting a playground insult suggesting that fear motivates those who have enough sense not to stir up hornet's nests. The Persians justifiably consider Israel a potential threat. Were there no American presence in the middle east, and you didn't have a dry drunk half-wit in the White House rattling a sabre, there is no reason to fear that the Persians have any plans to threaten us with nuclear weapons.

Quote:
But if diplomacy fails, and Iran continues its quest for nukes, someone needs to take out their capability for doing so, and if that job falls to the US, so be it.


There is no reason for me to assume that the Pesians should not have nuclear weapons when the Pakistanis do, when the Indians do, when the Israelis do, when the Ukrainians so, when the South Aricans do--when a host of small nations of dubious diplomatic morals and stablitiy possess such weapons. The contention that those nations and their nuclear weapons can be ignored, but that the Persians must not be allowed to possess them is completely unfounded. Why aren't you so concerned about North Korea? We know the have nukes and other womd, and they've been selling long-range ballistic missles to the rest of the world for decades--i read in 1988 for the first time about Iraq's purchase of North Korean Scuds, and that was in a war-gaming magazine fer chrissake.

Oh yeah, silly me--the Koreans don't have any petroleum, and they could really put up a fight. Forget i asked.

Quote:
Your argument that doing so would "make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation," is ridiculous.


That is not my argument--that is a strawman you attempting to erect. Look out ! ! ! It's wobbling, it's about to fall over.

My point is that the invasion of Iraq, and then necessity of turning over operations in Afghanistan to other nations, whle the civil stability in Iraq deteriorates on a daily basis, with that nation spiraling into civil war shows the United States to be incompetent to achieve such ends by military means. Your argument, which appears to be what O'Bill was advancing and which seems to be what McG is advancing, is that having effected "regime change" in Iraq, there will never, ever be any reason in the future to fear that anyone in Iraq will develop womd, world without end amen. There is not only no reason to believe that, but your example of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 gives good reason to believe that the thesis is fatally flawed.

Quote:
What certainly would demonstrate that would be to do nothing in the fact of Iran stepping up it's pursuit of nukes.


You mean like we've been doing with regard to the North Koreans? Oh damn, i keep forgetting, they don't have vast lakes of petroleum just under the sun-blasted desert landscape . . .
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 12:48 pm
The reasons why China is sort of holding up the sanctions against Iran really don't matter. We can't afford another war with the intimated and the bribed. I mean who else are we going to borrow money from to finance wars if we keep making accusations against everybody?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 12:59 pm
revel, Excellent point; China owns a good portion of US treasury notes now, and our government put us into this catch-22 situation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 12:59 pm
BTW, China can destroy the value of the US dollar at their whim.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 01:10 pm
Is bin Laden dead?

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:40 a.m. EST
Curt Weldon: Bin Laden Is Dead


Rep. Curt Weldon, who broke the Able Danger story last year revealing that military intelligence had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat before the 9/11 attacks, now says that Osama bin Laden has died.

Weldon made the stunning claim during an interview Wednesday with the Philadelphia Inquirer, which reported: "Weldon is making explosive new allegations. He says a high-level source has told him that terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has died in Iran, where he has been in hiding."

Weldon cited as his source an Iranian exile code-named Ali, telling the paper: "Ali's told me that Osama bin Laden is dead. He died in Iran."
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 02:14 pm
Quote:
revel, Excellent point; China owns a good portion of US treasury notes now, and our government put us into this catch-22 situation.


Which brings up the situation of what will we do if China attacks Taiwan?

We have shown China that we a grossly incompetent militarily. We attacked two countries and lost control of both.

Are we to expect that our military adventures in the Middle East is going to impress China?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 02:17 pm
The only people the US military impresses are neocons. Everybody else in this world have come to the same conclusion: we are biting off more than we can chew. The fat lady is waiting in the wings to start her song.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 03:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I see the folly of your argument, and don't blame you a bit for wanting to move on to a different topic.


I've not moved to a different topic. My point all along is that short of permanent military occupation, we cannot prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Do you assert that the people of the United States will accept that we must invade and permanently occupy any nation which threatens to produce nuclear weapons? Can you provide any irrefutable evidence that our Idiot in Chief's miliatry adventurism has stopped anyone from engaging in a nuclear weapons program? Does it not just slap you in the face that the Persians have been pursuing such a program while we've been enmired in Iraq, slowly bleeding? I despair for your powers of reasoning.


I dispute your premise that we must occupy the country.

Quote:
Quote:
What about the "few well placed bombs" from Israel, and their effect upon Iraq's nuclear ambitions?


That occured in 1978, if it were a definitive, then there would have been no reason to invade Iraq in 2003. You're making my argument for me, though. The Israelis bombed a breeder reactor near Baghdad in 1978 (whicih i believe the Germans has supplied them, although that is merely interesting detail). Nevertheless, the Iraqis continued to develop womd, the evidence for which was their use in the war with ther Persians. Of course, after the Isrealis bombed them, we had the spectacle of Rummy with the sh!t-eatin' grin shakin' Hussein's hand in Baghdad, and tellin' him just how much Ronny Ray-gun just loved his new look. So the evidence is bery good that "a few well-placed bombs" will not end a nation's ambitions to possess womd.


I'm not making your argument for you, but applying your (in the sense of all you anti-Iraq invasion folks) argument in Iraq to the situation in Iran. The 1978 strike in Iraq was effective, was it not? Or, are you now going to tell me Iraq had nuclear weapons following that strike?

And I am by no means asserting that the "few well-placed bombs" will end a nations ambitions to possess WMD. On the contrary, I am well-aware it will do no such thing (see Iraq). But I fail to see how this is in any way supportive of your insistence that the effort should not be made.

Quote:
So, if the Isreali bombing in 1978 were definitive as you claim, then you must acknowledge that the yellow cake story which the Shrub trotted out in his casus belli was just horsie poop, eh? Refreshing honesty on your part.


You first: Were the few well-placed bombs in 1978 effective or not?

Quote:
Quote:
You obviously fear alienating the Persians more than you do their having nuclear weapons.


No, such a conention is not at all clear. What is clear, is taht you are attempting a playground insult suggesting that fear motivates those who have enough sense not to stir up hornet's nests. The Persians justifiably consider Israel a potential threat. Were there no American presence in the middle east, and you didn't have a dry drunk half-wit in the White House rattling a sabre, there is no reason to fear that the Persians have any plans to threaten us with nuclear weapons.


I think the contention is clear from what you've said thus far. I'll use a different word than "fear," if that's your beef. You obviously are more concerned with alienating the Persians than you are with their having nuclear weapons.

Quote:
Quote:
But if diplomacy fails, and Iran continues its quest for nukes, someone needs to take out their capability for doing so, and if that job falls to the US, so be it.


There is no reason for me to assume that the Pesians should not have nuclear weapons when the Pakistanis do, when the Indians do, when the Israelis do, when the Ukrainians so, when the South Aricans do--when a host of small nations of dubious diplomatic morals and stablitiy possess such weapons. The contention that those nations and their nuclear weapons can be ignored, but that the Persians must not be allowed to possess them is completely unfounded. Why aren't you so concerned about North Korea? We know the have nukes and other womd, and they've been selling long-range ballistic missles to the rest of the world for decades--i read in 1988 for the first time about Iraq's purchase of North Korean Scuds, and that was in a war-gaming magazine fer chrissake.

Oh yeah, silly me--the Koreans don't have any petroleum, and they could really put up a fight. Forget i asked.


The list of declared nuclear countries is this: Russia, US, UK, France, China, Pakistan, India, N. Korea. Isreal neither confirms nor denies it has nuclear weapons. Ukraine transferred all of its nukes to Russia in 1996. What is the basis of your claim that South Africa has nuclear weapons? The Vela Incident?

The leader of Iran has publically proclaimed that Israel should be wiped off the map. Iran is a state-supporter of terrorism. You think they should have nukes?

I am concerned with N. Korea having nukes -- thank you Bill Clinton. What possibly gave you the thought that I'm not? But I fail to see why N. Korea having nukes means we ought to allow Iran to get them.

Quote:
Quote:
Your argument that doing so would "make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation," is ridiculous.


That is not my argument--that is a strawman you attempting to erect. Look out ! ! ! It's wobbling, it's about to fall over.


If it's not your argument, my confusion is a result of your inarticulate phrasing. You said:
    "[i]Your "few well placed bombs" [sic] ...[/i]
[And by the way ... is your "sic" because of the missing hyphen? Laughing Hell, I'd be at it all day if I typed "sic" in every quote of yours where you make an error.]
    [i]"... will solve nothing, and will likely make solutions even more remote through the effect of alienation specifically of the Persians, and of Muslims in general. In fact, [u]the likeliest consequence of the [b]Shrub's idiotic policies [/b]is to make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation[/u][/i]."

It was hard to ascertain what you meant by the "Shrub's idiotic policies." Thank you for clarifying ....

Quote:
My point is that the invasion of Iraq, and then necessity of turning over operations in Afghanistan to other nations, whle the civil stability in Iraq deteriorates on a daily basis, with that nation spiraling into civil war shows the United States to be incompetent to achieve such ends by military means. Your argument, which appears to be what O'Bill was advancing and which seems to be what McG is advancing, is that having effected "regime change" in Iraq, there will never, ever be any reason in the future to fear that anyone in Iraq will develop womd, world without end amen. There is not only no reason to believe that, but your example of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 gives good reason to believe that the thesis is fatally flawed.


Wrong. Iran is on notice that the US is not afraid to take military action to prevent it from acquiring nukes. The US is certainly NOT impotent. You advocate a form of impotency, however, buy suggesting the US should just allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, apparently because you think it would be the "fair" thing to do, and you are more concerned with "alienating" the Persians than you are with their having nukes. You are the one advocating a policy of impotency.

And I doubt either O'Bill or McG are suggesting Iraq will never develop WMD, but one thing's for certain: Saddam Hussein never will.

Quote:
Quote:
What certainly would demonstrate that would be to do nothing in the fact of Iran stepping up it's pursuit of nukes.


You mean like we've been doing with regard to the North Koreans? Oh damn, i keep forgetting, they don't have vast lakes of petroleum just under the sun-blasted desert landscape . . .


We never should have allowed N. Korea to acquire nukes. But that doesn't mean we should allow Iran to get nukes just because Clinton allowed N. Korea to get them. And Iran has petroleum, and that negates their ridiculous claim they need nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 03:53 pm
Tico, You keep using the plural "we" like all Americans agree with your POV. WRONG! Thnk again, revise, and post again.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 04:00 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Tico, You keep using the plural "we" like all Americans agree with your POV. WRONG! Thnk again, revise, and post again.


Try again, c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 04:40 pm
I don't need to, but you do. You just can't see the opposition to your position on Americans vs "we."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 04:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't need to, but you do. You just can't see the opposition to your position on Americans vs "we."


I did not use "we" in the sense that all Americans agree with my POV. And you are in desperate need for remedial reading comprehension lessons if you think otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 04:49 pm
Your point is well taken, C.I., about Tico's use of the royal pejorative. You should know by now, though, that he will be more likely to argue a silly justification for that than address the actual issue of how inappropriate it is for him to think to speak for us all.

I do find it hilarous that he's trying to drag Clinton into all of this, though. That's an old, old conservative wheezer, and evidence of the breakdown of a rightwingnut's argument.

My contention is that we cannot prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons if they have the will and the means, other than by military invasion and indefinitely protracted military occupation. Tico has already pointed to the evidence that Israel's "few, well-placed bombs" in 1978 did not prevent Iraq from pursuing the acquisition of womd--and, of course, it was just a few short years later that Ronny Ray-gun sent his toad-eater Rummy to Baghdad to let them know just how eager we were to help them out. As there is no evidence that Hussein had any left, though, at the time of the invasion, the contention about him having any is a ludicrous coming from Tico as it is coming from O'Bill. Yes, everything that Hussein did not have in 2003 he does not have now--except, of coruse, for a defense team, an acquistion i feel confident in saying less than charms him.

I see nothing in the drivel, and "logic"-chopping in which Tico indulges which makes the point any less pertinent or forceful.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 04:52 pm
Tico continues to insult himself about "remedial reading" when he wrote:

We never should have allowed N. Korea to acquire nukes.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 05:07 pm
It looks like it might not be Iran to become the first country with nukes to pose a direct threat...

Quote:
Pakistani Taliban take control of unruly tribal belt

A powerful new militia dubbed "the Pakistani Taliban" has effectively seized control of swaths of the country's northern tribal areas in recent months, triggering alarm in Islamabad and marking a big setback in America's "war on terror".

The militants are strongest in North and South Waziristan, two of seven tribal agencies on the border with Afghanistan. Strict social edicts have been handed down: shopkeepers may not sell music or films; barbers are instructed not to shave beards. Yesterday a bomb blew up a radio transmitter in Wana, taking the state radio off the air.

Militants collect taxes from passing vehicles at new checkpoints, and last week an Islamic court was established in Wana to replace the traditional jirga, or council of elders. [..]

The violent puritanism is spreading. On Sunday a remote-controlled bomb ripped through a police vehicle in Dera Ismail Khan, near South Waziristan, killing seven people. More than 100 pro-government elders and politicians have been killed in the past nine months, said a diplomat.

The Pakistani military deployed 70,000 troops to Waziristan two years ago to rein in the militants. But the campaign is faltering. An army assault against an alleged al-Qaida training camp outside Miran Shah on March 1 left more than 100 dead. [..]

Comparisons to the emergence of the Afghan Taliban in the early 1990s are increasing. Although they have distinct identities, the groups are strongly linked - both are ethnic Pashtun - and Afghans use Waziristan as a rear base.

Analysts say the Pakistani Taliban is a loose alliance of tribal militia operating under radical clerics such as Sadiq Noor and Abdul Khaliq. Many are angered by heavy-handed Pakistani military attacks against suspected al-Qaida hideouts, which are thought to have killed hundreds of civilians over the last two years.

The tribesmen are allied with al-Qaida fugitives, mostly from Uzbekistan and Chechnya. The foreigners have blended into the tribal structures, buying loyalties and marrying local women.

Foreign reporters are banned from the area and most local journalists have fled. One, Hayatullah Khan, 32, was abducted in December and is still missing.

The US is impatient to catch more senior al-Qaida figures. Unmanned Predator drones, now armed with Hellfire missiles, sweep over the tribal areas on surveillance missions so often that villagers now recognise their engine noise.

In January American forces destroyed a house in Bajaur tribal agency where it thought al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was hiding. Thirteen villagers were killed. The US has carried out several strikes, said a well-placed diplomat, but it has let Pakistan claim responsibility.

Such attacks have won the militants much support. "These are not the proper Taliban," said the refugee Mr Khan. "They are the common people who have revolted against the [Pakistani] government and targeted killings by Americans." [..]
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 05:12 pm
Mentioning Clinton seems to me evidence of Tico's desparation. I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I never voted Clinton. Who might be alleged to be responsible for the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korean is not germane to this topic. That North Korea has them, and the current administration is not gung ho to go get 'em is germane, however.

Iraq was invaded on the basis of an accusation that the nation possessed weapons of mass destruction, and was engaged in programs to produce them, in particular, a silly charge about acquiring yellow cake uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. However, the Iraqis denied it, and the inspectors said they had no evidence of it. On the other hand, the North Koreans proclaim without the least demur that they have these weapons, and that they intend to use them upon provocation. The only significant difference between these two nations, leaving aside that the accusations against Iraq have proven false, and the North Koreans don't deny possessing womd--is that Iraq sits atop the world's second largest proven reserves of petroleum.

Which is why i consider 95% of the arguments that people like Tico attempt to foist on others to be pure horsie poop.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 05:15 pm
May I remind all of you that the former regime in Iraq had a history of actually using WMD.

I personally,was not willing to take the chance that they wouldnt use nukes if they got them.
If they didnt,fine.
But,the cost would have been enormous if they had.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 05:20 pm
Quote:
May I remind all of you that the former regime in Iraq had a history of actually using WMD.

I personally,was not willing to take the chance that they wouldnt use nukes if they got them.
If they didnt,fine.
But,the cost would have been enormous if they had.


Just a load of if's

Sorry, but i couldn't resist. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 05:21 pm
Good point, Habibi . . . Pakistan has always been a potential threat unacknowledged by this administration . . . which has been too intent on maintaining the coalition of the bought and paid for . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 06:51:13