" Inside 911 " premiers tonight

[word]

I read a review on this and it's suppose to be kick ass.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/preview.html

[j-6]

Hard to believe that less than four years after the 9/11 tragedy that there's movies and TV shows being made about it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Hard to believe that less than four years after the 9/11 tragedy that there's movies and TV shows being made about it.
dude, 9-11 spawned a war! movies and tv shows are nothing

[Vashner]

I don't get that channel... just basic cable + cable modem...
Would like to see this program.

[Murphy]

i'm watching it right now

[Hook Dem]

i'm watching it right now
Me too! It's very enlightening.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

i'm watching it right now



MURPHY----It's you!!!!!


(great screenname, 2 :tu)

[word]

I had no idea Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds ( operations chief for AQ and I believe now captured) , nephew. You know Terry Nichols ( OKC bomber ) supposedly met with Yousef in the phillipines where Yousef taught him how to make an ammonia nitrate bomb. The two bombs, ( 93 WTC and 95 OKC ) were built exactly the same way using exactly the same materials except they put, I believe sarin gas, in the first WTC (truck) bomb, but the blast burned it up.

OKC bombing is a fascinating topic and a huge coverup, imho.

[SWC Bonfire]

I had no idea Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds ( operations chief for AQ and I believe now captured) , nephew. You know Terry Nichols ( OKC bomber ) supposedly met with Yousef in the phillipines where Yousef taught him how to make an ammonia nitrate bomb. The two bombs, ( 93 WTC and 95 OKC ) were built exactly the same way using exactly the same materials except they put, I believe sarin gas, in the first WTC (truck) bomb, but the blast burned it up.

OKC bombing is a fascinating topic and a huge coverup, imho.

Somebody had to teach him how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb? It's pretty damn simple.

This is probably bullshit, every two-bit pyromanic knows how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb, even before the advent of the internet.

[JoeChalupa]

I watched it and found it very interesting.

[Jelly]

It was very interesting. It's unfortunate that when we get a truly decent man in office, like Colin Powell, he ends up getting screwed by our less honorable politicians.

[MannyIsGod]

What was the program about?

[JoeChalupa]

911. Starting from back in 1980.

[MannyIsGod]

I was hoping for a more indepth and detailed synopsis.

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/

Basically goes back to how Al Queda was formed beginning from around 1980 up to the 911. Part II is tonight.

"Inside 9/11" follows the footsteps of the terrorists as they formulated their plans, infiltrated our country and executed their suicide missions. Tracing the timeline that led up to the deadly attacks, the mini-series deconstructs the events of that fateful day, tracking the movements of all four terrorist teams and patching together the ad hoc response of government. It draws from a wide range of sources, including newly declassified documents from the 9/11 Commission investigation; over 60 original interviews with experts, whistleblowers, investigators and survivors -- some speaking out for the first time; eyewitness materials including footage culled from a rarely seen 400-hour archive; and chilling audio recordings from on board the doomed planes and inside air traffic control.

"Inside 9/11" also paints an unvarnished picture of fear and bravery, recounted in the first person. Heartbreaking interviews include that of Richard Picciotti, a battalion chief for the New York City Fire Department who was buried under the rubble for four hours and eventually rescued; Stanley Praimnath, who was in the South Tower when the plane hit, the wing smashing right into his office; and the widows of the fallen heroes of United Airlines Flight 93, who share their final conversations with the passengers right before they attempted to overtake the hijackers.

The show spans decades and circles the globe to lay bare the roots of al Qaeda, beginning with the 1978 Soviet-Afghan War and the transformation of Osama bin Laden from fundraiser to terrorist mastermind. Viewers will delve into the inner workings of al Qaeda and come to know the architects of the plot as they plan and execute the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

"Inside 9/11" also tackles the difficult questions about our intelligence efforts and their failure to protect us despite early warning signs that pointed to al Qaeda terrorists living in Tucson, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, Atlanta and Brooklyn as early as 1988. Expert analysis comes from inside the intelligence community, including Michael Scheuer, former CIA senior intelligence analyst and bin Laden expert, who says in the mini-series, "America has never had an enemy who has been more precise in warning us what we're in for."

The show also includes testimony pinpointing missed opportunities, such as that of former senator and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham, who laments that "early on there was an FBI agent who had suspicions about flight centers in Arizona ... none of those recommendations was followed ... the fact is that the FBI, from 1998 onward, had several of its own people saying that there was a very real, very specific threat involving Middle Eastern men in U.S. flight schools."

Investigative journalist and terrorism expert Steve Emerson adds, "9/11 occurred with 19 guys living here under their own names, registering their own driver's licenses, and yet able to outmaneuver a 30 billion dollar law enforcement intelligence agency network."

Why did the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suppress information on security lapses identified by its own investigators and not take action after receiving 52 warnings that specifically mentioned attacks intended by bin Laden? "Inside 9/11" includes the first-person recollections of an FAA whistleblower, whose testimony to the 9/11 Commission was omitted from the final report. He testified that, "although we breached security with ridiculous ease up to 90 percent of the time, the FAA suppressed these warnings. Instead we were ordered not to write up our findings (in some cases) and not to retest airports where we found particularly egregious vulnerabilities to see if the problems had been fixed."

"Inside 9/11" asks the important questions: How did this happen? How can we make sure it never happens again? The mini-series looks at the work of the men and women who must answer these questions and figure out what's next in a much-changed world. This is the story of individual lives touched by tragedy, and of a nation that was forced to move in a few hours from delusions of invulnerability to belated vigilance.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's a two-night series. Last night was devoted to the genesis of al Queda and the birth of bin Laden's desire to attack the United States, including the development of the plan to use commercial planes as bombs. Last night basically ran from 1979 through 9/10/01. Tonight will just be about the attacks of 9-11

Last night, the program made the argument that bin Laden truly aimed his sights at the United States after the Saudi royal family refused his offer to defend the Saudi homeland against Saddam in 1990-91, and chose the protection offered by the United States instead. It contends that bin Laden was emboldened by the success of the Mujahedeen in thwarting the Soviets in Afghanistan and believed that the same coalition of Islamic fighters could sufficiently repel Saddam's efforts to invade the Kingdom. According to the program, bin Laden believed that only Muslims should be permitted to defend the most holy sites in Islam from invasion. (as an aside, that theory certainly does cast some doubt about the validity of claims that bin Laden and Saddam were ever allied; bin Laden was, apparently, more than willing to fight Saddam to the death over Islamic ideals).

That's a bit simplistic, but it certainly seems to present a case that al Queda's terroristic intents, before the 1990-1991 timeframe, were primarily aimed at Jewish interests. For example, several interviewees on the program contend that the fall 1990 assassination of Mayer Kahane (a rabbi who was the leader of the Jewish Defense League; assassinated at a Manhattan hotel by a member of the al Farood mosque in Brooklyn) was among the first al Queda efforts. But, the program suggests that after Kahane's assassination -- the shooter was acquitted of murder charges -- the al Queda program became further emboldened.

Meanwhile, Khalid Sheik Mohammed ("KSM"), who had apparently been hazed while attending a Baptist college in North Carolina, and his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, had begun developing an interest in blowing up buildings in the United States. Yousef was a Wales-educated engineer who was keenly interested in bomb making. The program suggests that while KSM knew bin Laden while the Afghani war was ongoing, he wasn't a member of al Queda from its inception. Only when Yousef and KSM wanted funding to carry out their plans did they go back to bin Laden and ally with him directly.

The program contends that 9-11 was the consequence of Yousef's 1993 failure to bring down the Twin Towers. Yousef badly wanted to succeed and kept that idea at the top of his mind. In trying to devise a manner for succeeding, they batted around ideas for a while, eventually settling on the planes idea because one of bin Laden's confidants was licensed to fly commercial planes in the United States. They apparently tried the idea before 9-11 in France, desiring to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. But when that team tried to execute its plan, after hijacking the plane, they realized that nobody within their group could actually fly the plane. The pilots tricked the team, landed the plane, and the terrorists were killed. The failure in France lead to the idea of training pilots, along with muscle men, to carry out a wide-ranging attack.

I thought another interesting part of the story was something I had heard before, but never in such detail. The program explains that Zaid Jarrah, one of the 9-11 pilots, had some massive anxiety about the attack, and had even told his family that he had bought a new suit because he would be attending a wedding in Lebanon on 9-22-01. Apparently, Mohammed Atta, the 9-11 leader, had some misgivings about Jarrah's commitment and had some big-time concerns that Jarrah would pull out of the plot and might tell authorities about the plan. It doesn't make clear what, if anything, truly changed Jarrah's mind (if it needed changing at all).

There's much, much more, but that seems to me to detail the case the program makes for why 9-11 happened from al Queda's end. The program also details the opportunities that US intelligence missed to capture bin Laden and to uncover the 9-11 plot; most of that, though, was material that has been reported extensively in other contexts.

It's worth watching. It will replay tonight at 6, with the second part airing at 8 on National Geographic Explorer (if you have Time Warner Cable, it's on channel 57).

[MannyIsGod]

Bummer, no cable. But maybe I can get somebody to record it for me. It sounds pretty much like information that is already avaiable and been read to death, but maybe a mainstream production for the American people and they'll realize that there is a method to the madness that should be understood rather than played off as "evil".

[JoeChalupa]

I found it very enlightening. I guess I haven't been doing my reading.
I learned some new information.

[Murphy]

exactly, lots of facts I never heard, especially that one where Pakistani New York school students said "Next week those towers wont be there". That scared the shit out of me.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Somebody had to teach him how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb? It's pretty damn simple.

This is probably bullshit, every two-bit pyromanic knows how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb, even before the advent of the internet.



i think it requires a little more skill to make a bomb capable of the disaster that was the OKC bombing

or else i would have blown something up long ago

[Useruser666]

i think it requires a little more skill to make a bomb capable of the disaster that was the OKC bombing

or else i would have blown something up long ago

Uh, nope. It's quite easy to do. The scale of it makes it a little harder.

[spurschick]

I could be wrong, but I thought they said that they were making the channel available to non-cable subscribers for the two nights the show is on. They're replaying part one tonight before they show part two.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Uh, nope. It's quite easy to do. The scale of it makes it a little harder.


i guess i did a shitty job of making that my point

[smeagol]

Bummer, no cable. But maybe I can get somebody to record it for me. It sounds pretty much like information that is already avaiable and been read to death, but maybe a mainstream production for the American people and they'll realize that there is a method to the madness that should be understood rather than played off as "evil".
No doubt there is a well thought out method behind the madness of Osama and the terrorists . . . but it is also evil (I know manny you don't like the word, but it fits the description of the terrorists as a key fits a lock).

[SWC Bonfire]

Uh, nope. It's quite easy to do. The scale of it makes it a little harder.

It makes it harder only from a logistical/cost standpoint. The ingredients are quite simple, and anyone can do a simple reaction equation to get the right ratios, which are the same if it is 1 lb or 10,000 lbs.

[FromWayDowntown]

No doubt there is a well thought out method behind the madness of Osama and the terrorists . . . but it is also evil (I know manny you don't like the word, but it fits the description of the terrorists as a key fits a lock).

Are they evil because they injure or kill innocent civilians? or is it because they use force in an effort to get across their ideas? In either case, wouldn't the same logic apply to any nation's forces that get involved in a theater of war? I mean, where do you draw the line between a righteous (and thus justified?) killing of civilians and an innocent (and thus evil?) killing of civilians?

[word]

i think it requires a little more skill to make a bomb capable of the disaster that was the OKC bombing

or else i would have blown something up long ago

The FBI said in the OKC bombing that making a bomb like that requires a lot of expertise. Hell, before 911 there was instructions on the web of how to make a nuke, but that didn't mean it was easy.

[word]

addendum:

You want to see a kick ass movie based on the 1993 WTC bombing, watch 'Path to Paradise' which was an HBO production.

Basically they had an arab dude that worked for that 'blind mullah' screaming to high heaven to the FBI...'THEY'RE GONNA BLOW UP THE WTC.'

The part that caught my eye, was the travels in China that KSM and Yousef did, to get money and expertise for their operations.

[word]

Somebody had to teach him how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb? It's pretty damn simple.

This is probably bullshit, every two-bit pyromanic knows how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb, even before the advent of the internet.

You can't even build a campfire, aggie.

[MannyIsGod]

No doubt there is a well thought out method behind the madness of Osama and the terrorists . . . but it is also evil (I know manny you don't like the word, but it fits the description of the terrorists as a key fits a lock).
You contradicted yourself in your own post.

The evil that is implied by the constant rhetoric is one of good vs. evil. Thats not the case. They have an agenda, and are trying to kill people to meet that agenda. As was pointed out to you above, that is something all countries and armed forces do.

Along the same lines, Jess picked up a book for me at Borders tonight.

Dying To Win
http://www.playahata.com/images/bookpics/dyingtowin.jpg

It breaks down suicide terrorism and provides a indepth look at the problem and goes on to provide possible prevention measures etc etc.

Evil? Or motivated with political agendas?



Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks ahve in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root casue, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader objective.
Should be a good read. Anyhow, the word evil is great for speeches and for motivating the masses, but holds little to no value in an objective view of terrorist actions.

[spurschick]

All I know is, looking at the faces of the hijackers over and over and seeing how freely they moved in the US is creepy.

[2pac]

You can't even build a campfire, aggie.

Come say that to one of the Aggies on here face to face. Make sure your parents paid up your dental insurance first.

[word]

Ooooh that's scary. My parents are dead, kid. I'm scared of a lot of things, aggies aren't one of 'em. Any size any shape any age. Now, go blo' yourself, kiddo.

aTm=nitwit U

[Cant_Be_Faded]

can anyone who's watched this show tell us more about it

[2pac]

Ooooh that's scary. My parents are dead, kid. I'm scared of a lot of things, aggies aren't one of 'em. Any size any shape any age. Now, go blo' yourself, kiddo.

damn it feels good to be an internet gangsta

thats why you have to try to be the internet tough guy - protected through a screen

[word]

damn it feels good to be an internet gangsta

You're the one gonna 'bust out teefs', son. You started it.



Come say that to one of the Aggies on here face to face. Make sure your parents paid up your dental insurance first


every two-bit pyromanic knows how to make an ammonium nitrate bomb, even before the advent of the internet.

RUN FORREST RUN !!!!

[spurschick]

The show went into details about the hijackers, how the plan came about, how they were able to move about, get passports, go to flight school, etc. Then it talked about the policy makers, who did what, who didn't, what was missed. It covered the attacks in detail, timelines, some of the heroes who helped people out and died in the buildings. Lastly, there were comments made by former FBI/CIA types who said that we just didn't understand all that was involved and what was still to come. The last thing they showed was a quote from Bin Laden from November 2001 -
"We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

[Murphy]

I just got through watching the second half of it, other than bringing me flashbacks of 9/11 , it once aghain made me realize the absolute importance of keeping up the fight against terrorism. Never again must we let this happen to us, regardless of anything!

[Murphy]

"We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."That sent chills down my spine

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

-Osama bin Laden, 2001.

You know what's the saddest part about that quote? Given the absolute bluntness conveyed by OBL, dumbfuck liberals still won't get it, and stupid bitches like Cindy Sheehan will still run around with their heads up their fucking asses oblivious to the fact the only good American is a dead one in the eyes of those we are fighting.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You can't even build a campfire, aggie.

Wow I missed this the first time, congratulations on proving you're a grade A asshole.

[Ginofan]

You can't even build a campfire, aggie.

Dude that is fucking uncalled for! People died, it's nothing to make a joke or an insult about and definitely not for this trivial bullshit aggie vs longhorn rivalry.

Moving on...

I just now caught the 2nd part and I'm watching the 1st part right now (out of order I know). The 2nd part was pretty much everything I had read about and seen post 9/11 but it still gave me the chills while watching. Hearing all the widows tell the stories of their husbands was pretty heartwrenching just as it has been since 2001. There's a quote sometime in the program where someone says that we didn't have the imagination for something like this to happen. I somewhat agree. General public, everyday average joe american, myself included, can't fanthom this type of event. I still can't even after watching it with my own eyes. It's unreal. But then they show you these FBI guys who are saying "we're devestated, but not surprised at the magnitude of things" It's fucking insane. But the program is informational and I think well-made.

[spurschick]

4 years later, I still haven't been able to wrap my brain around the whole thing. Every time I see the second plane, it still shocks me.

[MannyIsGod]

-Osama bin Laden, 2001.

You know what's the saddest part about that quote? Given the absolute bluntness conveyed by OBL, dumbfuck liberals still won't get it, and stupid bitches like Cindy Sheehan will still run around with their heads up their fucking asses oblivious to the fact the only good American is a dead one in the eyes of those we are fighting.
Ok. This really pissed me off AHF. Dumbfuck liberals? Dumbfuck liberals is right. Dumbfuck liberals who came aboard to be Sec of State and made a dumbfuck liberal presentation at the dumbfuck liberal UN. Those dumbfuck liberals that voted for the Iraqi war resolution when the real fight was really far fucking north of there. John Edwards was an idiot to cosponsor that piece of legislation. Dumbfuck liberals that have no idea how to win the so called war on terror but are instead more interested in doing whatever bullshit it takes to ensure election.

Dumbfuck liberals that allow dumbufuck "feel good" security measures such as consentiual random searches and throwing away that dumbfuck writ of habeous corpus while our borders are patroled by one dumbfuck per state. Oh, and lets not forget the dumbfuck liberals that allow policies of shooting potential suicide bombers because everyone knows suicide bombers can't build a trigger that requires a loss of pressure as opposed to pushing a button. Grenades, dumbfucks?

Well I have news for you. There surely are lots of dumbfuck liberals. But for everyone of the dumbfuck liberals in this country, there is one equally dumbfuck conservative. And the sad thing? There's a HUGE dumbfuck conservative president.

The solution is out there. Unfortunetly, dumbfuck liberals and dumbfuck conservatives are too busy calling each other dumbfucks amid the clusterfuck they both created to look pass the bullshit and see the real solutions and causes of the problems they are trying to solve.

Yeah, Cindy sure isn't solving any of the problems of the war on terror. But here's a fucking newsflash:

Neither did her son in Iraq.

Dumbfuck.

[j-6]

Come say that to one of the Aggies on here face to face. Make sure your parents paid up your dental insurance first.


Hell, I was looking for an excuse to visit Jim and his nitrous tank!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Oh come off it Manny. You know I don't mean most moderate libs. You know I'm referencing the idiots like Michael Moore, George Soros, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, etc. that think that some brilliant idea of isolationism is going to solve the current militant Islam problem in this world.

Those are the ones who would watch mushroom clouds go up over NYC, DC, LA, etc. and say 1) it's Bush's fault and 2) they're just misunderstood, if we just leave them alone they'll leave us alone.

We're at war with the ideology of radical Islam. It's not going to be solved in George W. Bush's lifetime. Not yours or mine either. At least not if we're going to win. The problem is I see far left libs that don't seem to get it.

Far left libs that read that quote from OBL and think it's all his hate for George W. Bush and that a democratic president will somehow make things better, etc.

I don't agree with everything Bush does, I just wish that those on the far left would get a freakin' clue.

You're smarter than that Manny, and you know me better than to come on here and spout that bullshit rhetort you just threw out.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

By the way, for all the venom that exists between the libs and conservatives, I've seen Kerry, Hillary, etc. come out in support of us finishing the job in Iraq and appreciate them for having enough intelligence to realize and acknowledge that.

[JoeChalupa]

By the way, for all the venom that exists between the libs and conservatives, I've seen Kerry, Hillary, etc. come out in support of us finishing the job in Iraq and appreciate them for having enough intelligence to realize and acknowledge that.

We have to finish the job but do it right.
Republican Hagel is wrong, IMO.

[whottt]

Should be a good read. Anyhow, the word evil is great for speeches and for motivating the masses, but holds little to no value in an objective view of terrorist actions.


In an objective view the terrorists are murderous power hungry and opressive thugs...


What's holding up the Iraqi constitution...I know it's not the muslims arguing over Oil money...Couldn't be.

[TheIf Of jUStiCE]

In an objective view the terrorists are murderous power hungry and opressive thugs...



murderous power hungry and oppressive, this sounds familiar.


oh wait, we haven't killed a single innocent in iraq
oh wait, the guys calling the shots in this country are not power hungry
oh wait, we're not oppressing several ethnic groups that most US citzens know SHIT about

oh wait, we are doing this stuff

objective indeed

[boutons]

We're fucked if we stay ("the course") and we are certainly fucked if we leave soon.

If 130K US forces, well commanded and better equipped, can't control all of Iraq (the north and south are controlled by militias, the west is out of conrol) and its borders after 2+ years, then the much less equipped, much less professional, weakly commanded, and much weaker-now-and-forever Iraqi army/police won't be able to control Iraq.

The charade over the Iraqi constitution is risible. More US BS, as if a piece of paper was gonna stop the jihad, and US could declare victory. That piece of paper won't be honored, can't be enforced, won't mean shit to the jihadis who will keep pouring in, more sophisticated, better organized, bigger bombs, more inflamed, and more motivated than the US. Jihadis everywhere will see the fall of Iraq as a huge defeat of the US, just like Viet Nam, and will be encouraged to take the jihad elsewhere, eg, into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan.

Much more probable than Iraq metamorphosing into a beacon of democracy and freedom is Iraq descending into a hell of an yet another Islamic Republic, another brick in International Muslim Caliphate, riddled with terrorist training camps and financed by Irani and Saudi/Wahabbi oil money and dominated by Irani theocrats, de-stabilizing the region for decades, making the world, and therefore the USA, less safe than without the fucking bogus Iraqi war.

shrub fucked it up, shrub can un-fuck it, but of course shrub can't and won't un-fuck anything by Jan 2008 when shrub retires to the rubber-chicken speech/money-raising circuit to be sucked off by red-staters and other true believers, as the M/E goes up in flames.

The Repugs have opened the gates of hell with this bogus war and its's clear they don't have a fucking clue how to deal with it.

[whottt]

murderous power hungry and oppressive, this sounds familiar.


oh wait, we haven't killed a single innocent in iraq

:sleep


Yet again a moral equalizer lacks the brain power to differentiate between deliberate targeting of civillians to influence political change, and civillian casualties caused by civillians deliberately being put in danger by guerillas and undeliberate military action.

It's not that we are no different...it's that you lack the ability to differentiate...







oh wait, the guys calling the shots in this country are not power hungry

Most world leaders are...however, not all of them force you to pray to Allah...

Again...you exhibit a retarded ability to differentiate.

I can't help you...all I can do is say that I am sorry you are too stupid to see the differences.

[cecil collins]

Dude, they had several different churches over there. You wouldn't mind if they were all forced to be christians. Also, you call them guerillas, but what the fuck would you do if they smashed into this country trying to dominate you. It's like you are part of Bush's cabinet. Your view is generally the view they try to give to the public, only angrier, and mixed up. I guess we are all stupid for not believing everything we are told.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The Repugs have opened the gates of hell with this bogus war and its's clear they don't have a fucking clue how to deal with it.

Dude, Osama opened the gates of hell 9/11. This war will outlast the lifetimes of everyone reading this board today.

Militant Islam isn't going anywhere. Call me when you read a history book or two. I am so tired of this myopic Bush hate. Osama has played the first card in the final battle.

It's either going to end up with the whole world bowing to Mecca five times a day, or the civilized nations of the world wiping radical Islam off the face of the earth.

Personally, I'll root for the West thanks. Damn, people rag on Republicans for the way they went after Clinton with the Lewinskigate thing, but that doesn't hold a candle to the amount of venom I see towards W.

[boutons]

"Osama opened the gates of hell 9/11."

Then, duh, go after Osama.

I know, I know, it was too hard to find him, and wasn't a "slam dunk" completed by election day Nov 03, so the Rove/Repugs said "Iraq and Saddam are toothless and castrated, have been since the Gulf War. So let's tell lies about Saddam co-operating with jihadis, blame 9/11 on Saddam, trump up charges about WMD, and hurry up and go knock off Saddam in spring of 03 so shrub can run as the victorious war president and defender of USA during the election. THAT's why the Iraq war was unavoidably immediate in early 03. AND!! if the war was to drag on through Nov 03, the naive, simplistic, trusting USA red-staters won't change battle horses in the middle of the war, so shrub gets elected anyway (but by the tiniest margin). Starting the Repug's Iraq war was win-win for the Repugs, and that was their calculation.

Osama and jihadis weren't in Iraq until shrub invaded. Now Iraq is crawling with jihadis, terrorists, and Iraq is a huge recruiting poster for Islamic terrorism, and the US military is exposed as a huge sitting duck in the backyard of the jihadis.

"Dude", getting a blow-job (like any other man inside the beltway) and getting crucified /impeached for it (how many US military were killed by that blow job?) have NO COMPARISON with starting a bogus war that kills and maims 1000's of US military. Support our troops? GMAFB

Monica got cum on her dress.
shrub/dickhead/rummy/rice/rove/wolfy/powell have US military blood on their hands
(and have replaced Saddam as the prmary cause of death for 10' of 1000's of innocent Iraqis.)
And you red-state super-patriots think they are equivalent acts.

If only the Repugs had pursued evidence of Iraq-as-terror-state with the same rabid viciousness with which they pursued the Clintons, the Repugs, we see now, and as many of us suspected before the the war, would have come up as empty-handed as they did against the Clintons.

[Hook Dem]

"Osama opened the gates of hell 9/11."

Then, duh, go after Osama.

I know, I know, it was too hard to find him, and wasn't a "slam dunk" completed by election day Nov 03, so the Rove/Repugs said "Iraq and Saddam are toothless and castrated, have been since the Gulf War. So let's tell lies about Saddam co-operating with jihadis, blame 9/11 on Saddam, trump up charges about WMD, and hurry up and go knock off Saddam in spring of 03 so shrub can run as the victorious war president and defender of USA during the election. THAT's why the Iraq war was unavoidably immediate in early 03. AND!! if the war was to drag on through Nov 03, the naive, simplistic, trusting USA red-staters won't change battle horses in the middle of the war, so shrub gets elected anyway (but by the tiniest margin). Starting the Repug's Iraq war was win-win for the Repugs, and that was their calculation.

Osama and jihadis weren't in Iraq until shrub invaded. Now Iraq is crawling with jihadis, terrorists, and Iraq is a huge recruiting poster for Islamic terrorism, and the US military is exposed as a huge sitting duck in the backyard of the jihadis.

"Dude", getting a blow-job (like any other man inside the beltway) and getting crucified /impeached for it (how many US military were killed by that blow job?) have NO COMPARISON with starting a bogus war that kills and maims 1000's of US military. Support our troops? GMAFB

Monica got cum on her dress.
shrub/dickhead/rummy/rice/rove/wolfy/powell have US military blood on their hands
(and have replaced Saddam as the prmary cause of death for 10' of 1000's of innocent Iraqis.)
And you red-state super-patriots think they are equivalent acts.

If only the Repugs had pursued evidence of Iraq-as-terror-state with the same rabid viciousness with which they pursued the Clintons, the Repugs, we see now, and as many of us suspected before the the war, would have come up as empty-handed as they did against the Clintons.
You are one bitter individual aren't you?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

buotons, you just don't get it.

We are in an age of pre-emption post-9/11. We're not going to sit around waiting for another 9/11, we're going to seek out those who harbor similar ideas and deal with them accordindly.

And again, I've said this many times... would you rather have the jihadis sneaking into this country taking shots at you and me while we're on our way to work or in a business meeting, or would you rather have them flocking to Iraq and getting their express ticket to the 72 virgins courtesy of the US Army, Navy, AF, and Marines?

I'll take the latter thank you.

Lots of venom being spewed, what got your panties in a bunch?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

buotons, you just don't get it.

We are in an age of pre-emption post-9/11. We're not going to sit around waiting for another 9/11, we're going to seek out those who harbor similar ideas and deal with them accordindly.

And again, I've said this many times... would you rather have the jihadis sneaking into this country taking shots at you and me while we're on our way to work or in a business meeting, or would you rather have them flocking to Iraq and getting their express ticket to the 72 virgins courtesy of the US Army, Navy, AF, and Marines?

I'll take the latter thank you.

Lots of venom being spewed, what got your panties in a bunch?

Then why in the hell haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia? Huh?

[FromWayDowntown]

Then why in the hell haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia? Huh?

Or Iran?

And, assuming the program is correct, I wonder again, why we try to link Osama with Saddam when Osama's bitterness toward the West arises, at least in part, from the Saudi royal family's unwillingness to let his Mujahedeen repel Saddam's invading forces in 1990. Are we to believe that somehow, the Osama who was willing to fight Saddam to the death to protect Mecca in 1990 was, by 2001, a fast friend with his former enemy? I find that hard to believe, and the dearth of evidence to support the theory is shocking.

Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different wars, fought for totally different purposes under totally different circumstances. I don't think there are many on the left who would dispute the justifications for going to war in Afghanistan. I do think there are many on the left who fundamentally dispute the "justifications" for going to war in Iraq -- largely because those "justifications" have largely been debunked while the Administration plays a shell game of ends-justify-the-means with secondary rationales.

[MannyIsGod]

I love how whottt loves to claim that we are so different from the terrorists when we have engaged in acts of war that delibertly target civilians in the past. The only reason we do not do that now, is because of technology not because of some vast social enlightenment.

In the thread were people are talking about why the world dislikes America, they go to lengths to point out that America's faults are not unique to America. Well, that is a two way street my friends.

As is always the case when I make a post like this, I want to point out that this is not support for terrorist actions. I just hate to see bullshit fly.

For once, take an objective look at the world. For ONCE.

[MannyIsGod]

In an objective view the terrorists are murderous power hungry and opressive thugs...


What's holding up the Iraqi constitution...I know it's not the muslims arguing over Oil money...Couldn't be.
Thats because you're talking about imposed borders by the United fucking States of America!!! If you wanted to let the 3 groups form their own countries, then you wouldn't have this squabble going on. But the US is still trying to ram those 3 groups into one fucking country regardless of how stupidly it has worked out in the past. We're still trying to ram a square fucking peg in a round hole.

[SWC Bonfire]

Thats because you're talking about imposed borders by the United fucking States of America!!! If you wanted to let the 3 groups form their own countries, then you wouldn't have this squabble going on. But the US is still trying to ram those 3 groups into one fucking country regardless of how stupidly it has worked out in the past. We're still trying to ram a square fucking peg in a round hole.

Iraq isn't being broken into 3 countries because Turkey and the northern middle east would be scared shitless of what a Khurdish state would mean.

[MannyIsGod]

Iraq isn't being broken into 3 countries because Turkey and the northern middle east would be scared shitless of what a Khurdish state would mean.
Yes, and they are facilitating their influence through the US to then influence Iraqs supposedly sovreign constitution.

There is also the case of the Iranian ties to a Shiite state that scares the western world as well.

Look, I couldn't care less at this point. I want that clusterfuck settled one way or another, and our troops home where they belong. But I'm tired of people here putting things out of fucking context for the purpose of their arguements.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The problem is Britain and France fucked it up when they set up all the borders back after WWI.

Yet again, it's France's fault ;)

I don't think letting them form three seperate countries would solve anything.

Next thing you'd know, Turkey would crush the Kurds from the north, Syria would absorb the Sunni west, and Iran would make the grab for the Shi'ite south/east.

THEN you'd see Syria and Iran sparring over borders, another mess.

BTW, those clamoring for the US to go after Saudi Arabia should read George Freidman's book America's Secret War (George is the director of Stratfor, and if you don't know what that is you probably shouldn't be involved in this thread).

He argues that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, and Co. realized after 9/11 that SA was no longer our allie, and that part of the Iraq campaign is to intimidate SA into working with us on squashing AQ for good, and if not then it is a staging ground for the US of A heading south and knocking heads in the Arabian peninsula.

I disagree in part with all that though. If you guys think we've got a shit storm in Iraq the day that we roll into Saudi Arabia we might as well go ahead and declare war on all of Islam because that's how it would be viewed over there.

[MannyIsGod]

Turkey woudln't do shit without our approval. Turkey would have more internatl problems with their Kurds, but quite frankly I could give a rats ass about that. Turkey hasn't dealt their Kurds a fair hand most of the time and if they suffer because of that, so be it.

Syria intimidate someone? HA! They can't even fuck with Lebannon now.

I think Iran would have some serious influence over the Shiites, however. But if the Shiites love us as much as we think now, then we would have the same.

Either way, the moment you fuck with self determination, its no longer self determination.

But like I said, I understand the reasoning, and I don't really agree with it, but at least keep the arguments in context.

[whottt]

Then why in the hell haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia? Huh?




Or Iran?


Chalk up two more libs that are too stupid to differentiate...

Iraq= In violation of umpteen cease fire agreements over the past decade....and therefore tecnically at war with the other parties to the cease fire agreement.


Iran and Saudi= Not in violation of cease fire agreements.





Again...I think my point is proved...liberals lack the mental capacity to see the differences. Whether they have law degrees or not.


Again...it's not that there are no differences...it's that ya'll are too stupid to see them.

Cannot tell right from wrong.


But let's just retard our ability analyze, and lose the capacity to tell right from wrong...in short...let's all dumb ourselves down and be liberals for a second, and pretend that there were no differences between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia...


Let's do what liberals do and pretend that they are all the just the same bunch of camel jockies(that cannot be a racist statement because I am pretending to be a liberal and everyone knows liberals are never racists, no matter how racist they are)....


We didn't invade Japan at the start WWII either....

Militarily it makes the most sense to go after Iraq....


Iraq was in a weakened condition and therefore they were the easiest to take out...




Iran has a relatively strong military...

And invading Saudi Arabia...in addition to causing a world wide economic collapse...would have definitely been considered an act of war against all Muslims...


So let's see what we have learned about liberals in this discussion.

1.They, universally, are incapable of seeing right and wrong.
There is a fine line that separates causes sometimes...and liberals can definitely not see it.


2.They are ignorant when it comes to military tactics.

[FromWayDowntown]

Chalk up two more libs that are too stupid to differentiate...

Or one more poster who is too lazy to read the discussion. Had you bothered to read what has been posted, you would have seen that the questions about Saudi Arabia and Iran are referrable to AHF's post, which made no mention of any concerns about violations of UN resolutions (not cease fire agreements, by the way) and spoke about the need to strike preemptively against Iraq:


We are in an age of pre-emption post-9/11. We're not going to sit around waiting for another 9/11, we're going to seek out those who harbor similar ideas and deal with them accordindly.

AHF's sentiment is the most sincere justification for the Iraq war that I've heard. I don't support the idea, because IMO it is reminiscent of the Domino Theory of Cold War fame, which had questionable effect. But, rather than trumping up some sort of evidentiary support or meaninglessly distinguishing Iraq's violations of UN resolutions from other violations, the preemption argument is at least rooted in reality and aimed at actually trying to fashion a a cure to the problem. Again, I disagree with it, but I understand the rationale.

I think the biggest problem with the preemption strategy is the lack of consistency it breeds. That, whottt is why, in probing AHF's argument, Johnny Marzetti and I suggested other nations that fit the definition that AHF put on the table.


Again...I think my point is proved...liberals lack the mental capacity to see the differences. Whether they have law degrees or not.

That, or "liberals" choose to stay on the topic at hand, bothering to read what has been posted, rather than trying to find some non sequitur to throw bombs at the other side of the debate. I don't know though. I can't speak for all "liberals."

[whottt]

Also posted by Whottt and ignored by the you know whos:


Let's do what liberals do and pretend that they are all the just the same bunch of camel jockies(that cannot be a racist statement because I am pretending to be a liberal and everyone knows liberals are never racists, no matter how racist they are)....


We didn't invade Japan at the start WWII either....

Militarily it makes the most sense to go after Iraq....


Iraq was in a weakened condition and therefore they were the easiest to take out...

Hey...and if all we wanted was Oil...we would have gone after Saudi Arabia first. Saddam was giving out better deals in the OFF program than the Saudis are giving...

[MannyIsGod]

Who said anything about wanting oil? I swear, you guys can go all over the place sometimes.

[FromWayDowntown]

Let's do what liberals do and pretend that they are all the just the same bunch of camel jockies(that cannot be a racist statement because I am pretending to be a liberal and everyone knows liberals are never racists, no matter how racist they are)....

We didn't invade Japan at the start WWII either....

Flash: we didn't invade any nations at the start of WWII. In fact, we were basically the last ones in, IIRC. I don't see what the isolationist policies of the Roosevelt Administration have to do with the "selectively preemptive" policies of the Bush Administration. They are polar opposites in political and military terms.


Militarily it makes the most sense to go after Iraq....

Iraq was in a weakened condition and therefore they were the easiest to take out...

Iran has a relatively strong military...

And invading Saudi Arabia...in addition to causing a world wide economic collapse...would have definitely been considered an act of war against all Muslims...

Right. So what you're really talking about, then, from a preemption standpoint, is not a full-blown commitment to preemptively striking against nations we perceive to be potential supporters of terrorists, but an ad-hoc, willy-nilly, "we'll attack when its easiest on us" concept. If that's true, you've answered the questions that Johnny and I posed. Thanks.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Whottt you are just as STUPID as anyone else on this board.
You are too freackin' ignorant and stupid to see shit right before your own eyes. Dubya has pulled the wool over your eyes and all the way down to your stupid face, err...ass!

You are one of the best spin doctors on this board.

No matter evidence is thrown at you, you still think Dubya walks on water but you'd better open your eyes because he is sinking faster than you can post you BS posts.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

AHF's sentiment is the most sincere justification for the Iraq war that I've heard.

Welcome to the Bush Doctrine :spin


But, rather than trumping up some sort of evidentiary support or meaninglessly distinguishing Iraq's violations of UN resolutions from other violations, the preemption argument is at least rooted in reality and aimed at actually trying to fashion a a cure to the problem.

The UN violations thing is (IMO) the one mis-step this administration has made since 9/11. I think history will show the administration felt it couldn't just come out and say "we're going to go into Iraq because they are a threat, and we aren't going to sit around waiting for Saddam to do something stupid (when the guy already said he would)."

That they were still operating in essence under the post-Cold War doctrine of coalition building, and trying to get the UN to come along. It's my big beef with Bush's national security team.

Afghanistan made it perfectly clear to me that the usual suspects wouldn't step up to help (France, Germany, etc.), so why ask them to again for Iraq? 9/11 war was declared on America, and Bush should have just come out and said if we deem you a threat, we will deal with you, and if you want to help us, fine. If not just stay the hell out of the way and shut up.

Of course, that's not the best way to deal in world politics, but Afghanistan and Iraq (moreso) have proven to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type thing for the U.S. No matter what we do, people in other countries worldwide are going to criticize us anyway, so why not just say the hell with them and do what we need to do to ensure our safety?

But I also see where the Bush camp was coming from on this - they wanted world support for one thing. For another, if we just came out and said we're taking down any threats and then started going after these Mideast regimes, it would have given Osama even more legitimacy and more momentum.

So we went the UN route, hoping that our old friends would at least step up to the plate with us in rhetoric, but got burned, in large part due to the Oil-For-Food scam that was putting millions in the pockets of the French, Germans, and Russians.

To answer the questions on Iran and Saudi Arabia...

Again, the strategy WRT SA is to make them comply by them being incredibly uncomfortable with us in their backyard. Plus, we negotiate a favorable oil deal with the new Iraq, and suddenly we're less dependant on the House of Saud (something that scares the shit out of them).

You go into SA, you get the Iraqi insurgency x100, and like I said - may as well just declare war on all of Islam. The Arabian peninsula is the birth place of Islam, and that would be a shitstorm the likes of which we have never seen.

As for Iran, the reason we don't go there is simple (well there's a couple).

Revolution is already in its infancy internally in Iran - there is a movement with momentum that wants to see that country normalize relations with the West. You let that movement take down Tehran from the inside out.

The moment you go into Iran, you galvanize all of Iran against the West, including those who now want to do away with their current regime.

To put it another way: right now Iran is a country divided, invading would unite the hell out of it and be akin to swatting the hornet's nest and then sticking around to have a really bad day.

The other reason we don't go into Iran is Israel. Long before Iran becomes a WMD threat, the Israelis will out and out destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel's got the best spies in the world, and you can bet your ass they know where every single nuclear weapon related facility is in Iran and how to make it go boom.

So before Iran really becomes a threat, Israel will do the Iraqi Reactor raid all over again, and that settles that problem.


-----------
To an extent I agree with Manny, federalism is not a problem with me (it's one of the solutions I thought had the best chance of working when we decided we were going into Iraq).

I can understand why the folks in DC don't want to go down that route though, particularly WRT Iran and the Shi'ites in the South. I imagine behind the scenes Turkey has also been doing a lot for us in the war on terror, and one of the few conditions they seem to be adamant about with us is no Kurdistan/Kurdish republic.

Yeah it sucks and its politics, but that's the way the game's played in the world today.

[FromWayDowntown]

Welcome to the Bush Doctrine :spin

Understood. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do find it to be the most plausible justification for being in Iraq in the first place.



The UN violations thing is (IMO) the one mis-step this administration has made since 9/11. I think history will show the administration felt it couldn't just come out and say "we're going to go into Iraq because they are a threat, and we aren't going to sit around waiting for Saddam to do something stupid (when the guy already said he would)."

Perhaps, had the Administration done that, the effort in Iraq would have more domestic support. Bush Doctrine aside, the issue for the Administration is a lack of credibility about the reasons for the war in Iraq. I think, though, that it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I mean had the Administration set forth preemption as the essential argument for invading Iraq (with no specific mentions of WMD) I wonder if it would have obtained Congressional support to begin hostilities. Instead of trying to win over Congress by putting out that argument and justifying the strategy, though, the Administration set forth on a campaign of relying on sketchy and inaccurate intelligence and cobbling together a justification for war that proved to have little basis in fact. It is the lack of evidence to support the original justifications that, I think, has many people upset and disfavoring the war.


That they were still operating in essence under the post-Cold War doctrine of coalition building, and trying to get the UN to come along. It's my big beef with Bush's national security team.

It worked for his father to great success in 1990-91. But, then again, his father's war wasn't a U.S. first strike and it was a wildly popular idea with most of the world, including a number of Arab states. It's very easy to build a coalition against an invader -- it's much harder to build a coalition to invade.


Afghanistan made it perfectly clear to me that the usual suspects wouldn't step up to help (France, Germany, etc.), so why ask them to again for Iraq? 9/11 war was declared on America, and Bush should have just come out and said if we deem you a threat, we will deal with you, and if you want to help us, fine. If not just stay the hell out of the way and shut up.

Again, I think this is where the credibility problem arises and explains much of the criticism for both the Administration and the Iraq war today.


Of course, that's not the best way to deal in world politics, but Afghanistan and Iraq (moreso) have proven to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type thing for the U.S. No matter what we do, people in other countries worldwide are going to criticize us anyway, so why not just say the hell with them and do what we need to do to ensure our safety?

I think you're right to put the moreso with Iraq. My belief is that most of the world sees our campaign in Afghanistan to be a supportable war based on the rationale that people within the protection of the Taliban's government were solely responsible for the attacks on 9/11, just as the world largely supported Gulf War I, based on the fact that Saddam had unilaterally begun hostilities against a sovereign nation. The fact that the focus of the Afghan war will be the capture or killing of bin Laden, I think, is also a measure that the world can support, given the continuing specter of bin Laden's threat to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the Administration seems to be spending its public time and energy to retrospectively justifying the Iraq war, rather than focusing its effort on the far more important task of hunting bin Laden in Afghanistan. With the hullaballoo about Iraq, the Afghan War is almost a forgotten issue.


But I also see where the Bush camp was coming from on this - they wanted world support for one thing. For another, if we just came out and said we're taking down any threats and then started going after these Mideast regimes, it would have given Osama even more legitimacy and more momentum.

Which makes me wonder why we didn't just focus our efforts on Osama and, when that task was completed, leave a clear example of how we'll deal with those who attack us. If you complete that task successfully and other regimes still pose a threat, you don't have to worry about emboldening bin Laden by your actions and can, instead, fight a single front war aimed at the evil you seek to eradicate. That strikes me as a logical solution to the dilemma.


To answer the questions on Iran and Saudi Arabia...

Again, the strategy WRT SA is to make them comply by them being incredibly uncomfortable with us in their backyard. Plus, we negotiate a favorable oil deal with the new Iraq, and suddenly we're less dependant on the House of Saud (something that scares the shit out of them).

You go into SA, you get the Iraqi insurgency x100, and like I said - may as well just declare war on all of Islam. The Arabian peninsula is the birth place of Islam, and that would be a shitstorm the likes of which we have never seen.

I understand that. I think any political-military strategy is part brute force and part intense wisdom. Just as the consequences of deposing Saddam in 1991 would have been immensely negative (thus, not justifying anything other than capitulation by Saddam in Gulf War I), the consequences of invading Saudi right now are incalculably bad.

But, to me, that speaks more to the selective implementation of the Bush Doctrine, and suggests that the Bush Doctrine doesn't truly have application beyond Iraq. Hence, the criticism. It's not much of a doctrine if it only applies to one place at one time for one purpose.


As for Iran, the reason we don't go there is simple (well there's a couple).

Revolution is already in its infancy internally in Iran - there is a movement with momentum that wants to see that country normalize relations with the West. You let that movement take down Tehran from the inside out.

The moment you go into Iran, you galvanize all of Iran against the West, including those who now want to do away with their current regime.

To put it another way: right now Iran is a country divided, invading would unite the hell out of it and be akin to swatting the hornet's nest and then sticking around to have a really bad day.

I agree with this as well. It's definitely worth seeing whether the revolution will take hold in Iran. But it makes me wonder whether the Bush Doctrine would be more tenable if it was a doctrine that supported revolutionary movements against hostile governments in the Middle East with arms and money. Of course, I guess you could argue that we've been there and done that with both the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and our support of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War. Nevertheless, it strikes me as a wise foreign policy choice to support internal revolutions like the revolution in Iran while devoting our forces entirely to the cause of capturing or killing the true cause of 9/11 and virtually every other terrorist attack we've faced since about 1996.


The other reason we don't go into Iran is Israel. Long before Iran becomes a WMD threat, the Israelis will out and out destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel's got the best spies in the world, and you can bet your ass they know where every single nuclear weapon related facility is in Iran and how to make it go boom.

So before Iran really becomes a threat, Israel will do the Iraqi Reactor raid all over again, and that settles that problem.

There is no doubt, in that regard at least, that Israel is a tremendous ally.

[whottt]

Yes, and they are facilitating their influence through the US to then influence Iraqs supposedly sovreign constitution.

There is also the case of the Iranian ties to a Shiite state that scares the western world as well.

Look, I couldn't care less at this point. I want that clusterfuck settled one way or another, and our troops home where they belong. But I'm tired of people here putting things out of fucking context for the purpose of their arguements.


Geez...stop being scared of life...

You think Iran is the only mid-east country trying to influence the direction of the New Iraq?

You think that is the only country it has potential ties with?

The Saudis have a vested interest in it as well...and they don't like the Shias or Iran.

Every country over there...and most of the Western World is trying to influence things...

Iraq is not going to embrace Iran like everyone thinks...I don't care if Ayatollah Khomeni is the new President of Iraq....

They will have separate ageneda and it's not going to be to be Iran's bitch.

They are not going to want to jump from years of sanctions and war right to pariah sanctioned status from getting into bed with Iran...


They are going to want El Deniro...and the US and the West is the place to get it...Iran can't even fucking feed their own people...much less the Iraqis.

Iran has a lot of offer Iraq in terms of Oil refining arms etc....not to mention a peaceful powerful neighbor...It's only smart for the Iraqis to want good relations with them...

But for example...if you think Iraq is going to side with Iran if we should declare war on them...you are wrong. They won't have any part of that. And they are going to stay a respectful distance from Iran...

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Stop being scared of life?

You're insights to anything deterioriate on a daily basis.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, Israel does not have a capability to hit Iran in the manner it hit Iraq. It's aircraft do not have that kind of range.

[Extra Stout]

Revolution is already in its infancy internally in Iran - there is a movement with momentum that wants to see that country normalize relations with the West. You let that movement take down Tehran from the inside out.You know, I've been hearing about this "movement" and its "momentum" for like eight years now. Not much seems to happen. They're weaker now than they were in the late '90s when it appeared that the mullahs might actually lose control.

Now they've consolidated their grasp on the government and purged all the dissidents.

I think the headquarters of the "insurgency" in Iran is in Los Angeles these days, not Tehran.

[whottt]

Flash: we didn't invade any nations at the start of WWII. In fact, we were basically the last ones in, IIRC. I don't see what the isolationist policies of the Roosevelt Administration have to do with the "selectively preemptive" policies of the Bush Administration. They are polar opposites in political and military terms.


Are you saying there was never a point at which WWII started for us?

We most certainly did invade a country at that time...and it wasn't Japan or Germany.




Right. So what you're really talking about, then, from a preemption standpoint, is not a full-blown commitment to preemptively striking against nations we perceive to be potential supporters of terrorists, but an ad-hoc, willy-nilly, "we'll attack when its easiest on us" concept.

Right...we'll attack smartly not stupidly....I know libs have a problem with that but that just makes me happier that they don't have control of the country right now.





If that's true, you've answered the questions that Johnny and I posed. Thanks.


Ya....and when you have discovered the color of the sky...be sure to let me in on it, but shhhh let's keep it our little secret. :wink


Basically we'll conduct the mid-east revamp in an intelligent way and not a blind berzerkers rage...I know that bothers you...but again...that doesn't mean you are using much common sense.





Iran is surrounded on all sides...and all those Sunni countries aren't really crazy about Iran...and the PLO "victory" in Gaza is a lot more about Israel making sure it can defend it's flank in the event it has to use all those bunker buster, or should I call them underground nuclear facility busting, bombs purchased from us last year...



If you recall...at the beginning of the war on terror...the US said it would be a fluid war of changing coalitions and alliances...there will be countries that are allies at certain points and then turn around and be enemies at others...


But just remember...these guys hate each other almost as much as they hate us and Israel.

[whottt]

You know, I've been hearing about this "movement" and its "momentum" for like eight years now. Not much seems to happen. They're weaker now than they were in the late '90s when it appeared that the mullahs might actually lose control.

Now they've consolidated their grasp on the government and purged all the dissidents.

I think the headquarters of the "insurgency" in Iran is in Los Angeles these days, not Tehran.


You do realize that Iran has had to beef up it's military presence in certain areas of Iran due to political unrest?

Their move to a hardline government(via fraudulent elections by the way) shows the unrest is growing...

Iran has 40% unemployment and rampant poverty while sitting on a huge reserve of oil with billions upon billions of dollars doing nothing...

Exactly how happy do you think any country is with a government that sits on 40% unemployment?


And unlike the rest of the middle east....they've been at war with the great Satan for 30 years now...I am sure that(blame America) excuse is wearing a little thin...

[whottt]

BTW, Israel does not have a capability to hit Iran in the manner it hit Iraq. It's aircraft do not have that kind of range.

LOL you are kidding right?


Why do you think they purchased all those bunker busters? To use in Gaza?

[whottt]

Whottt you are just as STUPID as anyone else on this board.
You are too freackin' ignorant and stupid to see shit right before your own eyes. Dubya has pulled the wool over your eyes and all the way down to your stupid face, err...ass!

You are one of the best spin doctors on this board.

How? Why?

I am pro choice...

I am not a religious fanatic.

I am environmentally concerned...genuinely...


It's just none of that stuff is as important right now as our foreign policy...

You guys have one example for your view of being against this war as the correct one....and it's a weak one at best....Vietnam.

I can show you thousands of other times it's been the wrong view.




No matter evidence is thrown at you, you still think Dubya walks on water but you'd better open your eyes because he is sinking faster than you can post you BS posts.


I don't think W walks on water...

I just think he loves America and still thinks it's a great country and leader of the Free World. Perhaps he is just too dumb to be cynical or above patriotism...but it is sincere, his love of this country...and that's more than I can say for any of the Democrats these days.


I'll take a dumb patriot over a smart anti-american terrorist appeaser any day of the week.

[FromWayDowntown]

Are you saying there was never a point at which WWII started for us?

We most certainly did invade a country at that time...and it wasn't Japan or Germany.

Within the partisan drivel, a morsel!!

I'm suddenly fascinated. Are you suggesting that our involvement in WWII began with the invasion of a foreign nation other than Japan or Germany? I'm really interested to hear the answer to that.

The history I know is that our involvement in WWII began defensively, after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. In that way, our introduction to WWII is analogous to our involvement in Afghanistan (which I have repeatedly said is a justifiable engagement, IMO) because each was started only after an attack by another force. Iraq, you'll note, had not attacked us, thus making our participation in a war in that country the result of our own hostilities toward that sovereign nation.

Again, from both a political and a military standpoint, WWII is not an apt precedent for justifying what we've done in Iraq or what we should or should not do elsewhere as a preemptive measure.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL you are kidding right?


Why do you think they purchased all those bunker busters? To use in Gaza?
They don't have an aircraft capable of reaching Iran. Can you understand that? Actually, I take it back, they do have aircraft capable of reaching there but it would be a one way mission. There would be no return flight.

[SWC Bonfire]

They don't have an aircraft capable of reaching Iran. Can you understand that? Actually, I take it back, they do have aircraft capable of reaching there but it would be a one way mission. There would be no return flight.

Doolittle's raid on Tokyo comes to mind. There is precedent, not to mention them getting their hands on a long-range aircraft.

[whottt]

Within the partisan drivel, a morsel!!

I'm suddenly fascinated. Are you suggesting that our involvement in WWII began with the invasion of a foreign nation other than Japan or Germany? I'm really interested to hear the answer to that.

The history I know is that our involvement in WWII began defensively, after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. In that way, our introduction to WWII is analogous to our involvement in Afghanistan (which I have repeatedly said is a justifiable engagement, IMO) because each was started only after an attack by another force. Iraq, you'll note, had not attacked us, thus making our participation in a war in that country the result of our own hostilities toward that sovereign nation.

Again, from both a political and a military standpoint, WWII is not an apt precedent for justifying what we've done in Iraq or what we should or should not do elsewhere as a preemptive measure.


Our first conventional military ATTACK was against the Vichy French in North Africa...


Are you saying going after the French military is going after the strongest element?

Please take a history class.

A muslim kindergarten would have been a stronger element.

[whottt]

They don't have an aircraft capable of reaching Iran. Can you understand that? Actually, I take it back, they do have aircraft capable of reaching there but it would be a one way mission. There would be no return flight.


Do you understand how advanced the US bomb technology is?


Why do you think the Israelis bought those bombs?

All they have to do is take out the reactors.

And that's the only use for those bombs that Israel could have.

[MannyIsGod]

Whottt, are you fucking dense? Are the bombs going to fly themselves there? You can strap a fucking laser cannon to an F16 but if it can't there wtf good is it going to do?

[Clandestino]

in flight re-fueling.

[Clandestino]

In 1985, Israeli F-15s refueled in flight and bombed the headquarters of the PLO near Tunis, Tunisia, at a distance of more than 2,000 kilometers from their bases.

[Clandestino]

The distance between Jerusalem, Israel and Teheran, Iran is 968.0 miles(1558.0 km)

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if they indeed have the ability to refuel and F15 without American assistance (I wasn't aware they had tankers) then it would be possible. But they still won't do it. It won't be nearly as easy to as in Iraq.

[MannyIsGod]

Did they use American tankers for the inflight refueling?

[SWC Bonfire]

Did they use American tankers for the inflight refueling?

I am sure that the United States had nothing to do with the operation. *cough* *cough*

[MannyIsGod]

We probably didn't, actually. Tanker support is really front line support in an attack.

[whottt]

Uh Manny...try and keep up with current events if you are going to be a regular on the political forum:

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/palestine/092104_israel_to_buy_500_bunkerbuster.htm

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-tech.htm

[whottt]

Oh and since the Anti-Bush's are behind on the news....

The leading evidence US had that Iran was attempting to produce weapons grade uranium has been proven to be faulty...and therefore so is our justification for going into Iran....which means we won't be doing it...but Israel might.

Link:No evidence of Iran Nuke Program (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050823-08173300-bc-iran-nukes.xml)

[1369]

Well, if they indeed have the ability to refuel and F15 without American assistance (I wasn't aware they had tankers) then it would be possible. But they still won't do it. It won't be nearly as easy to as in Iraq.

I would think that since we effectively own the skies above Iraq, that they would get overflight permission (unlike the warm receptioin the frogs gave us during the Libya raid).

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh and since the Anti-Bush's are behind on the news....

The leading evidence US had that Iran was attempting to produce weapons grade uranium has been proven to be faulty...and therefore so is our justification for going into Iran....which means we won't be doing it...but Israel might.

Link:No evidence of Iran Nuke Program (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050823-08173300-bc-iran-nukes.xml)

Since when has faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction stopped the Administration from declaring war on sovereign nations?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Bush Doctrine aside, the issue for the Administration is a lack of credibility about the reasons for the war in Iraq. I think, though, that it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I mean had the Administration set forth preemption as the essential argument for invading Iraq (with no specific mentions of WMD) I wonder if it would have obtained Congressional support to begin hostilities.

I guess I didn't make myself clear on this. I don't think the preemption argument would have flown with Congress here at home, and I know it wouldn't have flown at the UN at all, and probably would have resulted on sanction on us.


But, to me, that speaks more to the selective implementation of the Bush Doctrine, and suggests that the Bush Doctrine doesn't truly have application beyond Iraq. Hence, the criticism. It's not much of a doctrine if it only applies to one place at one time for one purpose.

Here's where I disagree. History will show that preemption was the right course to deal with threats like what we are facing. The problem is the world has never dealt with a problem like this in a preemptive fashion before. Look at Hitler - people knew Naziism was a problem, but no one dealt with Hitler until he started taking over all of Europe. Countries historically have been averse to dealing with problems until they reach criticial mass.

It's just after WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc., the world was highly negative towards preemption. Look at 41's war. We had support because Saddam was an invading force.

I think you could apply the same logic to Iraq. The US would have been greeted much differently as invaders by the people of Iraq than it was going in as liberators.

All that said, I think you're seeing Bush Doctrine starting to take root and be more of a solution, whether folks realize it or not.

What do I mean by that?

The French and Brits have started expelling radical clerics from their own countries, for starters. That's a slippery slope due to freedom of religion in this country, but one that we will have to slide down sooner or later.

There are also operations going on throughout the world that you and I don't hear about WRT radical terrorists. We've been operating in the Phillipines against AQ-allied groups for a good two years now.

The Australians, British, Polish, and others have also been a part of similar ops elsewhere in the world that we're not privvy to.

One you rarely hear anything about is the Chinese. Despite all this Cold War hate between the two countries, they are also dealing with Muslim separatists in their southern provinces.

We just don't hear about it because they have a lock down on the press over there, and do as they please.

Ironically despite all our present day rhetoric, when this whole militant Islam problem comes to a head, I expect to see a joint effort between Russia, China, France, Germany and the U.S. (along with our normal allies in Britain and Poland).

Yep, you read that right - USA, red China, and Russia working together.

[whottt]

Since when has faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction stopped the Administration from declaring war on sovereign nations?

Could you be more speciffic?

Are we talking about sovereign nations that at one time had WMD and were in violation of cease fire agreements, or ones that have never had WMD and weren't?

[MannyIsGod]

Whottt, from you're own fucking site:



Complementing the upgraded weapon systems is a dorsal compartment containing enhanced mission avionics and chaff and flare dispensers, enabling it to conduct either pilot training or combat missions. In addition, removable conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) have been added along the fuselage and above the wing roots, freeing-up underwing hard points for additional armaments. The F-16I has an unrefueled combat strike radius well in excess of 500 miles. The extended flight range allows Israeli forces to attack targets well within Iran and Libya without having to refuel. In addition, the cockpit of the F-16I has been expanded to provide for the addition of an onboard weapons officer situated behind the pilot. It has a 820 non-refueling radius of operation.



And what Clandestino said above



The distance between Jerusalem, Israel and Teheran, Iran is 968.0 miles(1558.0 km)


So once again, the only way they can do this is if they have inflight refueling. The 16s are capable of it, but does the Israeli AF have in flight refuelers?

You can spew all the bullshit you want about bunker busters but that is not the pertinent issue.

[MannyIsGod]

I would think that since we effectively own the skies above Iraq, that they would get overflight permission (unlike the warm receptioin the frogs gave us during the Libya raid).
Inflight refueling using American planes would be a step way above letting someone go through airspace. And from what I've read on the situation, the US isn't even considering that option (officialy).

[Clandestino]

in one of the links he posted, it said their new f16s have the capability to hit iran.. if they didn't have the capability they were going to buy more f15s..

[Clandestino]

it is a modified f16

[whottt]

The extended flight range allows Israeli forces to attack targets well within Iran and Libya without having to refuel.


I don't think the jews just spent a bundle on bunker busters and long range jets just to take out Hamas.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/f-16I_i2.jpg

Also from your site, Whottt. Take a look at that tail insignia from the refueling plane. What country does it belong to?

And even though the radius of the F16i unrefueled is 820 miles, that also drops the load it can carry. Bunker busters are heavy bitches, and that doesn't mean an F161 can fly that far with a bunker buster, conformal fuel cells, and wing tanks.

[Clandestino]

one picture doesn't mean all israeli jets are re-fueled by the u.s.

[MannyIsGod]

Within Iran does not = The entire country of Iran.

[MannyIsGod]

one picture doesn't mean all israeli jets are re-fueled by the u.s.
No, not at all. And tanker planes really aren't all that sophisticated so they probably do have some. You install tanks in the cargo hold of a tanker plane and you attatch a boom, its not rocket science to make one.

But, I haven't seen any info that Israel has them either.

[whottt]

Within Iran does not = The entire country of Iran.


I don't think Israel has any intention of going one on one with Iran...

I think they'll do to Iran what they did to Saddam when the French government supplied Iraq with nuclear technology...take out the reactor.

I don't think the reactor is based in Tehran...

But it is underground...hence the bunker busters.

[FromWayDowntown]

I guess I didn't make myself clear on this. I don't think the preemption argument would have flown with Congress here at home, and I know it wouldn't have flown at the UN at all, and probably would have resulted on sanction on us.

No, you did make it clear. My point was a reiteration of yours, suggesting that Bush setting out a straightforward strategy of preemption likely would not have received the votes necessary to begin hostilities in Iraq. But I think that is where the Administration has, rightly so, drawn criticism. Rather than setting forth that clear case, they chose instead to manufacture a case for going to war based on, at best, incomplete or inconclusive evidence. It lead to people feeling mislead and resulted in the disputes over the propriety of the conflict. The White House articulated a basis for going to war that was difficult to counter, knowing that its real reasons for going to war would not win widespread support. When the basis proved to be inaccurate, the White House simply reverted to what appears to have been the internal rationale in the first place, leaving many to wonder about the shifting justifications for this engagement and feel as if they cannot trust the Administration.

History will tell whether Bush's Gambit was justified or not. Contemporary society is very clearly divided on that subject.

[MannyIsGod]

They do have some tanker planes. They are old fuckers, American 40s and 50s technology, but they have them. So that 16 does have the ability to strike anywhere in Iran

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think Israel has any intention of going one on one with Iran...

I think they'll do to Iran what they did to Saddam when the French government supplied Iraq with nuclear technology...take out the reactor.

I don't think the reactor is based in Tehran...

But it is underground...hence the bunker busters.
You misunderstood my point. I was saying that just because they can reach parts of Iran, it does not mean they can reach ALL of Iran, including the part of Iran where their nuclear programs are located.

But, it is moot, because with the refuel capability they probably can reach that point.

They would have to refuel somewhere over Iraq or Syria though, and while I'm not currnet on Syrias air defense network by anymeans, I'm sure they have Radar and I'm not too sure they'd be too happy about Israel flying through their airspace.

They could fly low with the fighers and theoreticaly avoid radar detection, but theres no way in hell they could do that with tanker planes. Also, flying low and fast burns fuel fast as all hell, which would lower the combat radius of the planes.

There are several obstacles to this mission, even in theory, being able to be pulled off.

[whottt]

The Israeli Airforce is pretty bad ass....and their tactics are magnificent...I am sure they have a plan.

And I don't know where the reactor is located...I'd hope that the Iranians were stupid enough to put it close to Israel....but you never know.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and FWD and AHF, I think you are both wrong there.

I think this administration along with the rest of the world simply did honestly believe there were WMD to be found in Iraq. Really, all of the intelligence pointed to that. I don't believe it was simply used as an excuse. I believe that they thought while getting rid of those WMD and setting a tone on the subject, they could also convert Iraq into a democracy.

My problem has been with their adamant refusal to admit the fuck up and their constant changing of the reason. The reason was WMD, but they won't come out and say they were wrong. They just wont.

[MannyIsGod]

The Israeli Airforce is pretty bad ass....and their tactics are magnificent...I am sure they have a plan.

And I don't know where the reactor is located...I'd hope that the Iranians were stupid enough to put it close to Israel....but you never know.
The Israelie air force is bad ass because they have American hardware. Soviet shit was horrible compared to ours. We always thought it was simillar, but everytime a pilot defected with one of their planes we discovered just how shitty they were. Their newest designs are on par with the 16, 15, and 18 and probably better than the navy's 14, but the 22 will kick the shit out of any other plane on this planet.

Europe's got some nice fighters too, but really nothing out there can compare with the air force we have.

Anyhow, as bad ass as Israel's airforce maybe, that is still a bitch of a mission. People here don't understand how difficult it is to attack anotehr country because we can lob cruise missles at will to any point on this planet but it really is much more difficult when you have to do it with planes.

And in addition, the plans I've read also involve the use of comando teams. I would assume that is to ensure the destruction of underground facilities.

This mission would be a bitch, and really runs contrary to what both the Israelis and US government have been saying.

[Jelly]

Oh, and FWD and AHF, I think you are both wrong there.

I think this administration along with the rest of the world simply did honestly believe there were WMD to be found in Iraq. Really, all of the intelligence pointed to that. I don't believe it was simply used as an excuse. I believe that they thought while getting rid of those WMD and setting a tone on the subject, they could also convert Iraq into a democracy.

My problem has been with their adamant refusal to admit the fuck up and their constant changing of the reason. The reason was WMD, but they won't come out and say they were wrong. They just wont.

I agree totally. And I think Sadam Hussein wanted everyone, including his own people, to believe he had WMD. The whole charade of throwing the weapons inspectors out constantly was just to send the message that they had serious weapons to hide. It was all a lot of posturing. A really bad bluff gone wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Furthermore:



"In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran ... air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq."


That means no element of suprise. An alerted air defense network is going to play hell with any planned attacks. And if there isn't one location to be attacked, but dozens, how do they know for sure they've gotten them all? You think Syria is continuously going to allow overflights of it's airspace?

Also, Iran has balistic missles capable of reaching Israel. And while Israel has the arrow ABM system, do they really want to fuck around with the possiblity of missing a missle loaded with chemical weapons?

Yeah, the days of simple strikes like the Osiraq strike are done. If they ever exisisted

How would the Shiites in Iraq react to an attack on Iran by Israel as well?

[whottt]

Oh, and FWD and AHF, I think you are both wrong there.

I think this administration along with the rest of the world simply did honestly believe there were WMD to be found in Iraq. Really, all of the intelligence pointed to that. I don't believe it was simply used as an excuse. I believe that they thought while getting rid of those WMD and setting a tone on the subject, they could also convert Iraq into a democracy.

My problem has been with their adamant refusal to admit the fuck up and their constant changing of the reason. The reason was WMD, but they won't come out and say they were wrong. They just wont.


Why doesn't anyone ever consider the possiblity that Saddam might have moved the WMD projects?

It seems to me that the countries that supplied him with it wouldn't want it to be traced back to them...so they probably had a plan to get rid of it quickly if necessary.


We only gave him 3 months of warning...he's not totally stupid.


I mean there is a nuclear arms race going on over there in Asia...I don't know why Saddam would be exempt from getting the technology..he had a lot more to offer than the other small countries that have gotten it so far...

[MannyIsGod]

This is a good page on a possible Israeli strike on Iran.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iran.htm


As for what Sadaam did with his WMD, where the fuck was he going to move them without notice? To move huge stockpiles that he was mentioned having, one does not eliminate trace of them without someone notice. Especially when that someone is watching you with the worlds most advanced intelligence gathering equipment.

Sure, I suppose its a possiblity, but not a very likely one.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

A couple of things...


The distance between Jerusalem, Israel and Teheran, Iran is 968.0 miles(1558.0 km)


Who says the planes will be flying out of Jerusalem, and have to make it to Tehran? They've just got to fly from somewhere on Israeli soil to the appropriate target in Iran.



So once again, the only way they can do this is if they have inflight refueling. The 16s are capable of it, but does the Israeli AF have in flight refuelers?

You can spew all the bullshit you want about bunker busters but that is not the pertinent issue.

Yes, Israel has tankers (even KC-135s we sold them).

I think any such strike against Iran would be a joint air/land assault. I'd bet even money Israel has the ways and the means to have commando units on the ground in Iran. It probably already has special squads already inside Iran monitoring things and staging for a future assault.

They will use commando units to hit sites that cannot be taken out from the air.

And on the subject of Israeli capabilities, their engineers have tweaked a lot of our weapons/platform designs.

I'd be willing to bet they already have the capability from a range and ordinance standpoint to hit what they want to hit in Iran.

And regardless of all that, should it get to that point, Israel will be coming from the north through Turkey. They even prepped for such an attack.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23260


The three air forces will be rehearsing a Turkish-U.S. response, should Syria, Iraq and Iran – together or singly – launch a surface missile assault on Turkish and U.S. military bases inside Turkey, as part of an overall offensive against Israel.

This offensive might come in the form of a missile raid or a ground invasion through Jordan or Syria. The 1995 Turkish-Israel military pact provides for Israel to use Turkish air bases if attacked.

The basic premise underlying the air force exercise is that in the event of a full-blown Middle East war, either of those three neighbors of Turkey will send missiles against military installations in southern Turkey, primarily the big base at Incerlik, for the purpose of demolishing any Israeli warplanes that are on the ground and preventing the Israeli air force from using Turkish soil as a launch pad for reaching targets in Syria, north Iraq, northeast Iran, Iraq's western desert and northeast Iraq.

It sounds to me like there may already quietly be Israeli planes on the ground in Turkey, but I have heard elsewhere that Turkey has given Israel overflight rights.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Oh, and there are also rumors in the defense sector of this country that Israel will be ponying up for 2 air craft carriers and aircraft to outfit said ships.

[Jelly]

Why doesn't anyone ever consider the possiblity that Saddam might have moved the WMD projects?

It seems to me that the countries that supplied him with it wouldn't want it to be traced back to them...so they probably had a plan to get rid of it quickly if necessary.


We only gave him 3 months of warning...he's not totally stupid.


I mean there is a nuclear arms race going on over there in Asia...I don't know why Saddam would be exempt from getting the technology..he had a lot more to offer than the other small countries that have gotten it so far...

I've always thought that was very plausible. And I recall in the months before we invaded Iraq, some analyst on TV insisting that Iraq was in the process of sending a its WMDs to Lybia. I don't know why no one ever considers that this might be true. But at the end of the day, our intelligence really did drop the ball.

[MannyIsGod]

We're not selling aircraft carriers, and we better not sell them to a country who is so fucking dependent on foreign aid from us.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

No one said the aircraft carriers would be coming from America ;)

And you're missing the bigger point - Turkey having a mutual defense pact with Israel.

Turkey is no ally of Tehran either, and if the nuclear threat is close to being realized, you'll be seeing Turkey turning a blind eye to Israeli fighters as they fly over, refuel, and even stage from Turkish soil.

[MannyIsGod]

Either way, the intitial strike option really isn't an option for Israel because of the other factors

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Huh? Turkey says if their security is a threat Israel has free reign of their air space and land bases.

I'd say it would be very easy for Turkey to consider a nuclear Iran a threat to their national security and give Israel it's blessings, runways, and air space.

[whottt]

I didn't realize Turkey and Israel had a military pact...that's odd...most of the Turks I have met are very anti-Israel.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Whott, they're not huge allies by any stretch, but when you've got common enemies who are pursuing WMD programs, you tend to agree on shit sometimes.

[smeagol]

Oh, and FWD and AHF, I think you are both wrong there.

I think this administration along with the rest of the world simply did honestly believe there were WMD to be found in Iraq. Really, all of the intelligence pointed to that. I don't believe it was simply used as an excuse. I believe that they thought while getting rid of those WMD and setting a tone on the subject, they could also convert Iraq into a democracy.

My problem has been with their adamant refusal to admit the fuck up and their constant changing of the reason. The reason was WMD, but they won't come out and say they were wrong. They just wont.
I'm with Manny on this one.