Ooops! Little George was right

[mildawg]

So then youre willing to admit the NIE was wrong about Iraq and that W never should have gone there and that we should immediately pull all our troops? Because if youre so willing to admit the NIE is wrong about Iran, then obviously it must have been wrong about Iraq too. Or, from what I can deduce, you guys believe anything just as long as it comes from W's mouth, regardless of who else presents FACTS otherwise.

Nope. Quite the contrary. I know people who authored parts of the NIE and fully believe we were justified to go into Iraq. It will all be clear one of these days; I'm perplexed as to why is isn't already public knowledge.

BTW, Bush doesn't write the NIEs, so whether I believe one is accurate or not really doesn't say anything about my feelings toward Bush. It does, however, say a lot about my belief in my co-workers, whether they be conservative or liberal... in the end, we're still all professionals doing what's in the best interest of the nation and its people.

What FACTS have you posted? The only "FACT" you could even claim is that--to YOUR knowledge--no WMDs were recovered in Iraq. But is that really a FACT that they never existed? No. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nice try, though. One of these days one of you guys may come up with a coherent argument instead of the "I know you are, but what am I?" routines.

[mildawg]

So let's see...

Bush wants to go to war with Iraq. Several credible intelligence sources say there are no WMDs in Iraq, while some others that are more closely tied to the government say there are. Bush goes in anyways, finds nothing, thousands of Americans die.

Bush wants to go to war with Iran. NO credible sources say Iran has nuclear weapons... Do you see where they are different, and where this is headed if we go to Iran? I feel very sorry for you if not.

But hey, keep believing in media conspiracies. Because killing thousands of American troops for no reason is awesome. I mean, W must think so, if he wants to go to Iran.

And what credible intelligence sources said there were no WMDs in Iraq? What, were these Russian intelligence services? Hell, Colin Powell even marched into the GC of the UN and presented physical evidence gathered from US Intelligence sources that indicated there were WMDs.

As it turns out, Saddam was not renewing his WMD program -- big difference. He was doing it to throw the Iranians off and maintain the image that he was still a power in the region. I am not disputing that fact. However, ithe fact that that he had no program does not mean that that were no WMD in Iraq. Doesn't matter if they are 20 years old or whether he bought them from the Russians in 2003. The fact of the matter was and still is the existence of WMD-equipped munitions that could fall into the hands of terrorist elements.

However, one thing none of you guys ever seem to mention -- none of this would have ever happened had Saddam complied with the weapons inspectors. Had we been given access, none of this would have ever happened because an international team could have verified that no WMD program was being reinstated. But because of his own ego and desire to be feared by the international community--and even his own people--we went in and did what we had to do after he kicked the inspectors out for, what, the 10th time?

No, there's no one on this end of the computer that's brainwashed. I am well aware of the facts and of what has been and what is going on. You go ahead and keep your head buried. I'm just curious whether or not you and your cronies will ever poke your heads up long enough to acknowledge you were wrong once the real stories about Iraq and Iran come out.

[saltydawg]

And what credible intelligence sources said there were no WMDs in Iraq? What, were these Russian intelligence services? Hell, Colin Powell even marched into the GC of the UN and presented physical evidence gathered from US Intelligence sources that indicated there were WMDs.

As it turns out, Saddam was not renewing his WMD program -- big difference. He was doing it to throw the Iranians off and maintain the image that he was still a power in the region. I am not disputing that fact. However, ithe fact that that he had no program does not mean that that were no WMD in Iraq. Doesn't matter if they are 20 years old or whether he bought them from the Russians in 2003. The fact of the matter was and still is the existence of WMD-equipped munitions that could fall into the hands of terrorist elements.

However, one thing none of you guys ever seem to mention -- none of this would have ever happened had Saddam complied with the weapons inspectors. Had we been given access, none of this would have ever happened because an international team could have verified that no WMD program was being reinstated. But because of his own ego and desire to be feared by the international community--and even his own people--we went in and did what we had to do after he kicked the inspectors out for, what, the 10th time?

No, there's no one on this end of the computer that's brainwashed. I am well aware of the facts and of what has been and what is going on. You go ahead and keep your head buried. I'm just curious whether or not you and your cronies will ever poke your heads up long enough to acknowledge you were wrong once the real stories about Iraq and Iran come out.

The one thing you fail to point out that it is stated policy of the US that the use of biological or chemical weapons against us will be answered with nuclear weapons. EVen if Saddam had any deployable WMD, he would never have used the same against us.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

The one thing you fail to point out that it is stated policy of the US that the use of biological or chemical weapons against us will be answered with nuclear weapons. EVen if Saddam had any deployable WMD, he would never have used the same against us.

Come on Salty, how do you know? Of course he could have. If Saddam could have loaded it on a tanker ship and exploded it in New York City or Houston habor he would eventually have done it just like that Iran President and AlQaeda will try something as sinister?

We now live in a very different world! We did when the Slickmister was President as well but he just didn't know it or care about it .....you chose.

[saltydawg]

Come on Salty, how do you know? Of course he could have. If Saddam could have loaded it on a tanker ship and exploded it in New York City or Houston habor he would eventually have done it just like that Iran President and AlQaeda will try something as sinister?

We now live in a very different world! We did when the Slickmister was President as well but he just didn't know it or care about it .....you chose.

Your problem TT is that you way over-estimate the power of chemical and biological weapons. They are bulky and difficult to deploy in all but the best weather conditions. Notice that Saddam did not use chemical or biological weapons against Coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm, and that is a time that he probably still had some usable weapons. Who in his or her right mind would use such poor weapons against an opponent with a huge nuclear weapon inventory??

As far as Iran is concerned, it is a small country that can be totally destroyed by the USA in half an hour. You are probably afraid of your own shadow.

[mildawg]

Salty, I could see your response when Tyler responded to you, so here's my reply: the reason Saddam having WMD was so dangerous was not because of the potential that HE would use them against us or our allies. You are correct, he would have seen hellfire like no one before him. This issue, which was clearly stated by the administration prior to our invasion, was the possibility that terrorists could get their hands on such weapons.

Yes, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, and India have WMD, to include nuclear weapons, and we haven't invaded. So why Iraq or why threaten Iran if they try to produce weapons-grade uranium? Well, that answer is pretty simple -- Russia, Pakistan, Israel, and India have control over their weapons and would stand to suffer just as much or even more if they fell into the hands of terrorists. Iraq and Iran? First of all, we aren't too confident in the controls that would be placed on such weapons -- both countries have been known to lose track of or sell weapons to less-than-savory partners. See the Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) in Iraq right now. These are all Iranian-made IEDs that have been killing our troops. Yes, the GOVERNMENT OF IRAN has been providing these devices to the terrorists and training them on how to use them.

Normally, it would go against the grain that Shiites (Iran) would support any Sunnis (al-Qa'ida in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna, 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, etc). However, that is exactly what Iran is doing. So, if they were to ever produce a weapons-grade uranium any other type of nuclear material, what assurances do we have that they wouldn't turn it over to terrorists for use in dirty bombs against us? Absolutely none.

This was the same boat we were in with Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam would not let our inspectors in and did everything he could to convince us that he had restarted his WMD program (as it turns out, he had all the necessary components to restart his program, to include the scientists, but he had not reinstated it). Now, here's a guy who has gassed his own people and has been known to align himself with whomever provides the biggest benefit to him. We also know that he has WMD-equipped munitions in his inventory. So, what's to stop him from selling these to a terrorist with deep pockets as long as they aren't turned on his own country? How do we know that some low-paid, disgruntled Colonel in Saddam's army isn't going to sell some warheads when approached by a fellow Muslim carrying stacks of cash?

We had only a little over a year earlier been hit by one of the worst terrorist attacks in the history of mankind. We're in Afghanistan already fighting against these guys, who have already stated that they will attack us again and it will be worse than 9/11. Now you're faced with knowing that the most dangerous threat to your country and its people comes in the form of a WMD attack in a major metropolitan area. Given that you have a rogue leader known to have WMD, he has apparently just restarted his WMD program to acquire nuclear material, and he refuses to let anyone in to inspect -- what do you do? Stand by and hope that none of the above is true, or do you act to avert terrorist acquisition of WMD?

Of course, it was all just a bunch of BS Bush was using to justify going back in to get Saddam on behalf of his daddy. Why should he be worried about Saddam Hussein?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Salty, I could see your response when Tyler responded to you, so here's my reply: the reason Saddam having WMD was so dangerous was not because of the potential that HE would use them against us or our allies. You are correct, he would have seen hellfire like no one before him. This issue, which was clearly stated by the administration prior to our invasion, was the possibility that terrorists could get their hands on such weapons.

Yes, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, and India have WMD, to include nuclear weapons, and we haven't invaded. So why Iraq or why threaten Iran if they try to produce weapons-grade uranium? Well, that answer is pretty simple -- Russia, Pakistan, Israel, and India have control over their weapons and would stand to suffer just as much or even more if they fell into the hands of terrorists. Iraq and Iran? First of all, we aren't too confident in the controls that would be placed on such weapons -- both countries have been known to lose track of or sell weapons to less-than-savory partners. See the Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) in Iraq right now. These are all Iranian-made IEDs that have been killing our troops. Yes, the GOVERNMENT OF IRAN has been providing these devices to the terrorists and training them on how to use them.

Normally, it would go against the grain that Shiites (Iran) would support any Sunnis (al-Qa'ida in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna, 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, etc). However, that is exactly what Iran is doing. So, if they were to ever produce a weapons-grade uranium any other type of nuclear material, what assurances do we have that they wouldn't turn it over to terrorists for use in dirty bombs against us? Absolutely none.

This was the same boat we were in with Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam would not let our inspectors in and did everything he could to convince us that he had restarted his WMD program (as it turns out, he had all the necessary components to restart his program, to include the scientists, but he had not reinstated it). Now, here's a guy who has gassed his own people and has been known to align himself with whomever provides the biggest benefit to him. We also know that he has WMD-equipped munitions in his inventory. So, what's to stop him from selling these to a terrorist with deep pockets as long as they aren't turned on his own country? How do we know that some low-paid, disgruntled Colonel in Saddam's army isn't going to sell some warheads when approached by a fellow Muslim carrying stacks of cash?

We had only a little over a year earlier been hit by one of the worst terrorist attacks in the history of mankind. We're in Afghanistan already fighting against these guys, who have already stated that they will attack us again and it will be worse than 9/11. Now you're faced with knowing that the most dangerous threat to your country and its people comes in the form of a WMD attack in a major metropolitan area. Given that you have a rogue leader known to have WMD, he has apparently just restarted his WMD program to acquire nuclear material, and he refuses to let anyone in to inspect -- what do you do? Stand by and hope that none of the above is true, or do you act to avert terrorist acquisition of WMD?

Of course, it was all just a bunch of BS Bush was using to justify going back in to get Saddam on behalf of his daddy. Why should he be worried about Saddam Hussein?

Well stated.

[saltydawg]

Salty, I could see your response when Tyler responded to you, so here's my reply: the reason Saddam having WMD was so dangerous was not because of the potential that HE would use them against us or our allies. You are correct, he would have seen hellfire like no one before him. This issue, which was clearly stated by the administration prior to our invasion, was the possibility that terrorists could get their hands on such weapons.

Yes, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, and India have WMD, to include nuclear weapons, and we haven't invaded. So why Iraq or why threaten Iran if they try to produce weapons-grade uranium? Well, that answer is pretty simple -- Russia, Pakistan, Israel, and India have control over their weapons and would stand to suffer just as much or even more if they fell into the hands of terrorists. Iraq and Iran? First of all, we aren't too confident in the controls that would be placed on such weapons -- both countries have been known to lose track of or sell weapons to less-than-savory partners. See the Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) in Iraq right now. These are all Iranian-made IEDs that have been killing our troops. Yes, the GOVERNMENT OF IRAN has been providing these devices to the terrorists and training them on how to use them.

Normally, it would go against the grain that Shiites (Iran) would support any Sunnis (al-Qa'ida in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna, 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, etc). However, that is exactly what Iran is doing. So, if they were to ever produce a weapons-grade uranium any other type of nuclear material, what assurances do we have that they wouldn't turn it over to terrorists for use in dirty bombs against us? Absolutely none.

This was the same boat we were in with Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam would not let our inspectors in and did everything he could to convince us that he had restarted his WMD program (as it turns out, he had all the necessary components to restart his program, to include the scientists, but he had not reinstated it). Now, here's a guy who has gassed his own people and has been known to align himself with whomever provides the biggest benefit to him. We also know that he has WMD-equipped munitions in his inventory. So, what's to stop him from selling these to a terrorist with deep pockets as long as they aren't turned on his own country? How do we know that some low-paid, disgruntled Colonel in Saddam's army isn't going to sell some warheads when approached by a fellow Muslim carrying stacks of cash?

We had only a little over a year earlier been hit by one of the worst terrorist attacks in the history of mankind. We're in Afghanistan already fighting against these guys, who have already stated that they will attack us again and it will be worse than 9/11. Now you're faced with knowing that the most dangerous threat to your country and its people comes in the form of a WMD attack in a major metropolitan area. Given that you have a rogue leader known to have WMD, he has apparently just restarted his WMD program to acquire nuclear material, and he refuses to let anyone in to inspect -- what do you do? Stand by and hope that none of the above is true, or do you act to avert terrorist acquisition of WMD?

Of course, it was all just a bunch of BS Bush was using to justify going back in to get Saddam on behalf of his daddy. Why should he be worried about Saddam Hussein?

Mildawg, that was a long post. Let me try to give some specific responses.

1. Just before our invasion of Iraq, UN inspectors went into Iraq and found zero evidence of WMD or manufacturing facilities. All those places that Colin Powell CLAIMED were connected to WMD were inspected and searched and nothing was found. In fact, the places had been abandon for many years, dust covered, basically falling apart. The UN inspectors asked the US gov't where were these claimed stockpiles of WMD. No response from US Gov't. So we had zero evidence that Iraq had usable stockpiles of WMD before the invasion.

2. It's clearly established that Iraq was not playing a role in the international islamic terrorist network except to provide $25k "life insurance" for Palestinian suicide bombers, a decision seen by many as Saddam's way to appear to care about the Arab struggle. The dictator with a golden heart. The reality is that Saddam was a ruthless, secular gangster that didn't give a hoot about bin Laden or other idealistic bullshit. So the argument that somehow Saddam was going to supply WMD (which can be trace to their manufacturing source) to terrorists is absurd since he would be the one to ultimately pay the price.

3. Iran has not "lost" any military hardware. Sure, they are supplying military hardware to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq which are being used against us. But that is war. The USA doesn't have have clean hands in that regard since we supplied military hardware to insurgents (terrorists?) in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

4. If Iran would ever be able to build a nuke, the last thing that they would do is turn it over to some wild-eyed terrorist group. It's well known that nuclear weapons can be trace to their origin. If Iran did supply a nuke to terrorists who used it, Iran would be turned into a sea of glass. I'm sure that you appreciate the fact that the Iranians do not want that to happen.

5. Bush uses the fear generated by the 9-11 attack to present bogus information to the American people about the threat Iraq posed to the USA. His motive to invade Iraq was not to advance the national security of the US but something else.

[Guisslapp]

Mildawg, that was a long post. Let me try to give some specific responses.

1. Just before our invasion of Iraq, UN inspectors went into Iraq and found zero evidence of WMD or manufacturing facilities. All those places that Colin Powell CLAIMED were connected to WMD were inspected and searched and nothing was found. In fact, the places had been abandon for many years, dust covered, basically falling apart. The UN inspectors asked the US gov't where were these claimed stockpiles of WMD. No response from US Gov't. So we had zero evidence that Iraq had usable stockpiles of WMD before the invasion.

2. It's clearly established that Iraq was not playing a role in the international islamic terrorist network except to provide $25k "life insurance" for Palestinian suicide bombers, a decision seen by many as Saddam's way to appear to care about the Arab struggle. The dictator with a golden heart. The reality is that Saddam was a ruthless, secular gangster that didn't give a hoot about bin Laden or other idealistic bullshit. So the argument that somehow Saddam was going to supply WMD (which can be trace to their manufacturing source) to terrorists is absurd since he would be the one to ultimately pay the price.

3. Iran has not "lost" any military hardware. Sure, they are supplying military hardware to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq which are being used against us. But that is war. The USA doesn't have have clean hands in that regard since we supplied military hardware to insurgents (terrorists?) in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

4. If Iran would ever be able to build a nuke, the last thing that they would do is turn it over to some wild-eyed terrorist group. It's well known that nuclear weapons can be trace to their origin. If Iran did supply a nuke to terrorists who used it, Iran would be turned into a sea of glass. I'm sure that you appreciate the fact that the Iranians do not want that to happen.

5. Bush uses the fear generated by the 9-11 attack to present bogus information to the American people about the threat Iraq posed to the USA. His motive to invade Iraq was not to advance the national security of the US but something else.

To quote TylerTechsas: "Great Post!"

[Guisslapp]

[mildawg]

To quote TylerTechsas: "Great Post!"

\

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Mildawg, that was a long post. Let me try to give some specific responses.

1. Just before our invasion of Iraq, UN inspectors went into Iraq and found zero evidence of WMD or manufacturing facilities. All those places that Colin Powell CLAIMED were connected to WMD were inspected and searched and nothing was found. In fact, the places had been abandon for many years, dust covered, basically falling apart. The UN inspectors asked the US gov't where were these claimed stockpiles of WMD. No response from US Gov't. So we had zero evidence that Iraq had usable stockpiles of WMD before the invasion.

Yes we did, and yes, they did. Nice try, though. Oh, and those "places" Colin Powell showed satellite imagery of -- those were mobile labs, not hardened facilities. So how were they abandoned, "dust covered," and "falling apart?"

2. It's clearly established that Iraq was not playing a role in the international islamic terrorist network except to provide $25k "life insurance" for Palestinian suicide bombers, a decision seen by many as Saddam's way to appear to care about the Arab struggle. The dictator with a golden heart. The reality is that Saddam was a ruthless, secular gangster that didn't give a hoot about bin Laden or other idealistic bullshit. So the argument that somehow Saddam was going to supply WMD (which can be trace to their manufacturing source) to terrorists is absurd since he would be the one to ultimately pay the price.

Really? You are a Saddam Hussein expert now? So you know definitively that he would not have supplied anyone else with weapons? You also know that every single military officer under his command would never have sold weapons to the highest bidder? Clairvoyance is a wonderful thing. Maybe the US Government should just hire you, because you're obviously smarter than everyone in the DoD and CIA. Here you go again purporting to be stating fact when you're just giving nothing more than your viewpoint.

3. Iran has not "lost" any military hardware. Sure, they are supplying military hardware to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq which are being used against us. But that is war. The USA doesn't have have clean hands in that regard since we supplied military hardware to insurgents (terrorists?) in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

Who said that they HAD lost any? I am pretty sure I was discussing their willingness to equip and train people who are from a completely different sect of Islam. Usually, this is something that would cause a war, not spur one side to cooperate with the other. My point is simply that you cannot trust Iran to properly control their weapons.

Of course, I guess you think that Ahmadinejad is a stand-up guy, along with Castro and Chavez. I mean, anyone who can make the US look bad and hurt our economy must be a great guy, eh comrade?

4. If Iran would ever be able to build a nuke, the last thing that they would do is turn it over to some wild-eyed terrorist group. It's well known that nuclear weapons can be trace to their origin. If Iran did supply a nuke to terrorists who used it, Iran would be turned into a sea of glass. I'm sure that you appreciate the fact that the Iranians do not want that to happen.

And again, Salty is the authority on what Iran WOULD do if they build a nuke. And how did you come to this deduction, saltyballs? Years of foreign relations experience, I presume.

Why would Iran care if we were to "trace" the nuclear weapon back to them? First of all, that's largely Hollywood bullshit. Only if there is a specimen on file would they be able to trace the origin. Of course, in a dirty bomb, the nuclear materials could come from a variety of sources. Secondly, the Iranians are already thumbing their noses at us and daring us to do anything. Of course, with liberal tree huggers like you guys, we'll stand by and let them do whatever they want and then invite Ahmadinejad to a State Dinner.

5. Bush uses the fear generated by the 9-11 attack to present bogus information to the American people about the threat Iraq posed to the USA. His motive to invade Iraq was not to advance the national security of the US but something else.

Really? Another great reading of a world leader's mind. Yes, you are right. Bush orchestrated everything, to include satellite photos, NSA communications intercepts, and CIA human intelligence showing that Saddam was up to no good. And then, Colin Powell decided to stake his entire reputation in taking what he knew was doctored evidence in front of the UN and the entire world to state our reasons for invading Iraq. Yes, that seems pretty plausible.


Yes, great post! (sarcasm) Another salty special. Same shit you post every single time. Looks official and factual, but contains between 0-10% fact and 90-100% bullshit. Now I have another liberal antagonist to add to my ignore list.

[mildawg]

Now, I pose the same question to you two that I posed to DB2 yesterday -- once it is proven that Iraq does have stockpiles of WMD and that Iran is seeking to enrich uranium for NON-PEACEFUL reasons, will you come on here and admit that you were wrong? Simple question. My bet is that we wouldn't hear from you ever again.

[Guisslapp]

If it is proven, SURE. But I would also like an explanation as to why the evidence had been kept a secret up until then. Bush should have known he would lose all his credibility in claiming Iraq had WMDs and then never proving the claim. And this is not just a matter of Bush's credibility but also the credibility of our country.

How many more years are you willing to wait on this evidence until you admit that YOU are wrong?

[Guisslapp]

BTW. Why do you think I should believe WMDs were in Iraq when there has been no publicly available evidence for it? I can only evaluate the evidence that is in front of me.

[saltydawg]

\

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Mildawg, that was a long post. Let me try to give some specific responses.

1. Just before our invasion of Iraq, UN inspectors went into Iraq and found zero evidence of WMD or manufacturing facilities. All those places that Colin Powell CLAIMED were connected to WMD were inspected and searched and nothing was found. In fact, the places had been abandon for many years, dust covered, basically falling apart. The UN inspectors asked the US gov't where were these claimed stockpiles of WMD. No response from US Gov't. So we had zero evidence that Iraq had usable stockpiles of WMD before the invasion.

Yes we did, and yes, they did. Nice try, though. Oh, and those "places" Colin Powell showed satellite imagery of -- those were mobile labs, not hardened facilities. So how were they abandoned, "dust covered," and "falling apart?"

2. It's clearly established that Iraq was not playing a role in the international islamic terrorist network except to provide $25k "life insurance" for Palestinian suicide bombers, a decision seen by many as Saddam's way to appear to care about the Arab struggle. The dictator with a golden heart. The reality is that Saddam was a ruthless, secular gangster that didn't give a hoot about bin Laden or other idealistic bullshit. So the argument that somehow Saddam was going to supply WMD (which can be trace to their manufacturing source) to terrorists is absurd since he would be the one to ultimately pay the price.

Really? You are a Saddam Hussein expert now? So you know definitively that he would not have supplied anyone else with weapons? You also know that every single military officer under his command would never have sold weapons to the highest bidder? Clairvoyance is a wonderful thing. Maybe the US Government should just hire you, because you're obviously smarter than everyone in the DoD and CIA. Here you go again purporting to be stating fact when you're just giving nothing more than your viewpoint.

3. Iran has not "lost" any military hardware. Sure, they are supplying military hardware to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq which are being used against us. But that is war. The USA doesn't have have clean hands in that regard since we supplied military hardware to insurgents (terrorists?) in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

Who said that they HAD lost any? I am pretty sure I was discussing their willingness to equip and train people who are from a completely different sect of Islam. Usually, this is something that would cause a war, not spur one side to cooperate with the other. My point is simply that you cannot trust Iran to properly control their weapons.

Of course, I guess you think that Ahmadinejad is a stand-up guy, along with Castro and Chavez. I mean, anyone who can make the US look bad and hurt our economy must be a great guy, eh comrade?

4. If Iran would ever be able to build a nuke, the last thing that they would do is turn it over to some wild-eyed terrorist group. It's well known that nuclear weapons can be trace to their origin. If Iran did supply a nuke to terrorists who used it, Iran would be turned into a sea of glass. I'm sure that you appreciate the fact that the Iranians do not want that to happen.

And again, Salty is the authority on what Iran WOULD do if they build a nuke. And how did you come to this deduction, saltyballs? Years of foreign relations experience, I presume.

Why would Iran care if we were to "trace" the nuclear weapon back to them? First of all, that's largely Hollywood bullshit. Only if there is a specimen on file would they be able to trace the origin. Of course, in a dirty bomb, the nuclear materials could come from a variety of sources. Secondly, the Iranians are already thumbing their noses at us and daring us to do anything. Of course, with liberal tree huggers like you guys, we'll stand by and let them do whatever they want and then invite Ahmadinejad to a State Dinner.

5. Bush uses the fear generated by the 9-11 attack to present bogus information to the American people about the threat Iraq posed to the USA. His motive to invade Iraq was not to advance the national security of the US but something else.

Really? Another great reading of a world leader's mind. Yes, you are right. Bush orchestrated everything, to include satellite photos, NSA communications intercepts, and CIA human intelligence showing that Saddam was up to no good. And then, Colin Powell decided to stake his entire reputation in taking what he knew was doctored evidence in front of the UN and the entire world to state our reasons for invading Iraq. Yes, that seems pretty plausible.


Yes, great post! (sarcasm) Another salty special. Same shit you post every single time. Looks official and factual, but contains between 0-10% fact and 90-100% bullshit. Now I have another liberal antagonist to add to my ignore list.

Thanks for the red color. Reminds me of reading the New Testament.

1. Colin Powell is totally repentant of his UN presentation. He calls it a "blot" on his career that will never be erased. The US claimed that Iraq had WMD and presented the UN inspectors will places to look. They looked and found nothing. The public position of the US Gov't is that Iraq did not have ANY deployable WMD when the US invade it. You must believe in fairy tales if you think that the US Armed Forces found WMD in Iraq and are keeping it a secret..

2. Its 10 times better than your baseless speculation sourced solely on fear. I'm worried that you might piss in your pants the next time you see an Iranian on TV.

3. Do you have any evidence that the command and control in the Iranian Armed Forces is any weaker than that of the US Armed Forces? Or are you just pandering to our fears again? I do happen to remember a certain Marine Lt. Col. who sold a lot of anti-aircraft missiles to Iran without the knowledge of senior military officials. Your main problem is that you based your opinions on opinions, not facts.

4. What evidence do you have that the Iranians would supply radioactive materials to a terrorist organization? And yes, any radioactive material produced by iran could be tracked. If, by nothing else,the process of elimination. A big threat are terrorists stealing or buying radioactive material on the black market. There are plenty of nuclear reactors in the world. Perhaps they could use medical radioactive matter to build a dirty bomb. You still have not provided a credible reason why Iran would supply radioactive matter to a terrorist group since there is a strong probability that it would be tracked by to them.

5. Finally, you got something right! Congratulations.

6. Good. I doubt that you really have any military experience. Just another chickenhawk.