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.
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.
Tico continues to insult himself about "remedial reading" when he wrote:
We never should have allowed N. Korea to acquire nukes.
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.
WASHINGTON -- A former top CIA official said Thursday that despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is likely to be looking for weapons of mass destruction within the next five to 10 years.
Paul Pillar, who until last year was in charge of intelligence assessments for the Middle East, said the CIA warned the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion in 2003 that a change of regimes would not necessarily solve any WMD problem.
In a speech at the Middle East Institute here, Pillar said Iraqis live in "a dangerous neighborhood," with rival countries pursuing weapons of mass destruction. So the CIA had warned that a future Iraqi government would likely want the very weapons Hussein was (wrongly) suspected of hiding, including nuclear weapons, he said.
"Iraq may turn once again to ... a WMD program," Pillar, who is retired from the CIA, said Thursday. "And wouldn't that be ironic?"
Pillar recently published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that for the first time fully laid out the CIA's side of the battle with the Bush administration over Iraq intelligence.
Pillar charges that the administration never sought strategic assessments from the CIA about Iraq. He said in his article that the Bush administration made its decision to go to war and then "cherry-picked" items from intelligence assessments in an effort to justify the decision to the public.
The biggest discrepancy between the CIA's intelligence and the administration's line on Iraq was the claim by Bush that there was a relationship between Hussein and al-Qaida, Pillar wrote. There was no intelligence supporting that theory, Pillar said, but the administration wanted to capitalize on "the country's militant post-9/11 mood," he wrote.
Pillar wrote that the intelligence community, on its own initiative, warned the administration before the war that there was a significant chance of violent conflict in Iraq and that the war would likely boost radical Islam throughout the Middle East.
In his speech, Pillar said Iraq is serving the same purpose that Afghanistan once did, as an inspiration and a base for radical Islam.
Maybe it is time to try something else. Like maybe negotiating and diplomacy. I don't see how we much choice unless Russia and China sign on anyway. We simply can't go after Iran like we did Iraq, we don't have the resources to bribe other countries and pay their way. Nor can we borrow money from China if they are against it in the first place.
revel wrote:Maybe it is time to try something else. Like maybe negotiating and diplomacy. I don't see how we much choice unless Russia and China sign on anyway. We simply can't go after Iran like we did Iraq, we don't have the resources to bribe other countries and pay their way. Nor can we borrow money from China if they are against it in the first place.
You don't think negotiating and diplomacy has been tried?
And you think our choices are limited by the views of Russia and China? (Gosh, that sounds like we're being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China.) We obviously have options if the Security Council does not elect to take action against Iran's nuclear ambitions. You may not think taking out their nuclear reactors is a good long-term solution, but what's the alternative? The alternative is hope diplomacy works, and if it doesn't, wring our hands and sit back and wait for Israel or someone else to get nuked.
That latest load of sh!t from Tico is a perfect example. The Shrub did not invade Iraq because he alleged an emerging threat--he said they had the weapons. Hence, the analogy to North Korea is perfectly sound. I understand why Tico and his ilk will indulge any idiotic rhetorical gymnastics to attempt to avoid admitting the obvious, however.
The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.
Countering proliferation of WMD requires a comprehensive strategy involving strengthened nonproliferation efforts to deny these weapons of terror and related expertise to those seeking them; proactive counterproliferation efforts to defend against and defeat WMD and missile threats before they are unleashed; and improved protection to mitigate the consequences of WMD use. We aim to convince our adversaries that they cannot achieve their goals with WMD, and thus deter and dissuade them from attempting to use or even acquire these weapons in the first place.
Ah, re-writing history--you have joined the ranks with Winston, eh, Tico?
I wasn't babbling. I'm not surprised, though, that you fail to recognize the central character of 1984, who was employed in re-writing history.
'US could wipe out Iran nukes in 2 days'
YIGAL GRAYEFF, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 20, 2006
Another voice has been added to those who believe that air strikes should halt Iran's quest to develop nuclear weapons.
Gary Berntsen, the former senior CIA operative who led the search for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 2001, believes the United States has the ability to easily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. He said the US could use bunker-buster bombs and other weapons to carry out the operation.
"We can dig those things out. We can destroy them," he told The Jerusalem Post in an interview.
"We can take care of it in a couple of days with air strikes and they wouldn't be able to stop us," he added. "It wouldn't be difficult to plan. They'd be some dangers but I think the United States can do it." Berntsen, who left the CIA in June last year after more than 20 years of service, believes it will be difficult to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear program.
"I know the Iranians. I've worked against the Iranians for years. They are determined to get this no matter what, and they will lie and cheat and do whatever they have to do to get themselves a weapon," he said.
Berntsen ruled out covert action because of the scale of Iran's nuclear program.
"This is a huge system of facilities they have. This is not going to be a small sort of engagement. We are probably going to have to destroy 30 facilities in 30 locations. Or at least 15," he said.
Berntsen's comments came after former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said earlier this month that Iran's prime nuclear facilities could be devastated in one night by a small fleet of US B-2 bombers.
In addition, Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's former chief of General Staff, said the IDF has the capabilities to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and could do it in conjunction with the US and some EU countries. However, Berntsen believes Israel should not carry out any operation.
"It's better for the United States to do it. If you (Israel) do it, we'll have all sorts of problems in the Middle East, all sorts of countries that will align themselves with the Iranians over this. Politically it makes more sense for the US to do it," he said.
Berntsen also ruled out a ground operation.
"This is huge country. There are 70 million people there. It's gigantic. We don't need to be getting into something like that," he said.
However, Berntsen believes that the US should first exhaust all the political options before carrying out a strike.
"We should do what we're doing right now. That means taking them to the United Nations and make this 'the world against Iran,' because the Iranians appear determined to create a weapon," he said.
"If by chance they disarm, then we can avoid this, but if they don't disarm we will need to take care of this ourselves," he said.
"The Iranians have to know that we mean business. They will either disarm or we will destroy their facilities. No ifs, ands, or buts. They present a threat to peace in the Middle East. They present a threat to Israel. We cannot accept that," he added.
Berntsen predicted that if Iran doesn't disarm, President George Bush would carry out an attack regardless of domestic opposition.
"I think that President Bush has demonstrated that he says what he means and he means what he says. A lot of people didn't think he would do Iraq. This is a guy who doesn't put his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. President Bush means business.
"The problem right now is that the Iranians are going to miscalculate. They are going to believe that because 2006 is an election year (in Congress), and due to all this political opposition to the president because of Iraq, they're going to think that he's weak in the knees, he can't do it and they're not going to negotiate.
"That would be a very serious mistake for them. They're going to miscalculate. They think he's politically weak and George Bush won't care. He's going to do it anyway when it comes down to it," Berntsen said.
"I believe that we'll get past the mid-term election in 2006 and then the Iranians ought to disarm themselves or suffer the consequences," he added.
'US could wipe out Iran nukes in 2 days'
I think that President Bush has demonstrated that he says what he means and he means what he says. A lot of people didn't think he would do Iraq.