FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


NATO in final stages of prepping for strikes against Iran





S3nd K3ys
Nukes are being considered and have been prepared.

GlobalResearch.ca wrote:
Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

...

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:


It's been endorsed by NATO. The US will basically be in charge. France and Germany are included in the discussions. Some of the 'front line' Arab states are also quietly supporting the strikes.

The use of low yield nukes is being considered as a deterrent. Who knows if the US/Israel/NATO has the balls to do it if needed. Israel has been planning and preparing (with the US' help) for a couple years now to attack Iran.

With Iran clearly stating their intentions to retalliate against Israel, this could possibly lead to an all out war.

If the US declares war, there will be nothing held back. Get some good sun-block, boys and girls, it's going to be bright out.

maclui
Quote:
If the US declares war, there will be nothing held back. Get some good sun-block, boys and girls, it's going to be bright out.


This crazy president you have I hope he understands that going to war and using A-Bombs is the last thing to consider, Do not they have nogotiation skills or other non destructive and more creative ways to achieve results in the US??
S3nd K3ys
maclui wrote:
Quote:
If the US declares war, there will be nothing held back. Get some good sun-block, boys and girls, it's going to be bright out.


This crazy president you have I hope he understands that going to war and using A-Bombs is the last thing to consider, Do not they teach nogosiation skills or other non destructive and more creative ways to achieve results in the US??


It's not just the US, friend. Besides, how, exactally, would you 'nogosiate' with terrorists hell bent on the destruction of Israel and Western Civilization?

Let me predict how this will turn out...



SunburnedCactus
What an awesome GIF.
igor123d
ALthough I am certain that mnay NATO countries are considering potential strikes against Iran, even nuclear attacks in the case of direct hostilities from that country, I doubt that anyone is contemplating commencing an immediate assault. More likely, the case will pass through the Security Council first, so that everyone will see where all the major players stand, and only then will more concrete actions be taken in order to neutralize the potential threat posed by Iran.
Soulfire
If it comes to this, we must nuke them before they nuke us. Simply put. And we've tried to negotiate with them, repeatedly, it never works, they won't stand down.
Valleyman
This issue will not come to blows, not in the immediate future anyways. The issue of Iran has been sent on to the Security Council where no action will be taken due to the opposition of Russia and China, who both have veto power, and who are both working towards a diplomatic solution, namely performing the uranium enrichment in Russia. So the UN will niether take nor endorse any action, at least not of the kind you're talking about.

NATO, I realize, is a different story. However, though niether Russia not China has veto power within NATO, they both have tremendously strong world influence. Thus NATO will not take any serious action contrary to their stance. Although Russia's an China's commitment to the Iran situation isn't all consuming they will certainly be willing to apply pressure so as to prevent the application of force by NATO.

Though the US has been unyielding to international pressure in the past (ie. the war in Iraq) now there is both international and domestic pressure against any sort of military action. Until the situation in Iraq improves the US cannot take any serious military action, especially not with such international pressure turned against them. In sum: no military action.
Valleyman
Soulfire wrote:
If it comes to this, we must nuke them before they nuke us. Simply put. And we've tried to negotiate with them, repeatedly, it never works, they won't stand down.


I'd like to point out that Iran does not, in fact, have the technology to nuke us. Even if they do have nukes already, they certainly don't have a delivery system that will get them all the way over here. If they have nukes, and are stupid enough to fire them, they will be directed at Israel. In which case Israel will fire back, we need not participate. As to what kind of turmoil in the Middle East this will cause and whether or not we will be dragged into it, I can not say (at least not without more sleep).
maclui
Quote:
how, exactally, would you 'nogosiate' with terrorists


Do not do that, who is talking about terrorists?? Iran is a democracy and its government is legitimately elected.

Quote:
Though the US has been unyielding to international pressure in the past (ie. the war in Iraq) now there is both international and domestic pressure against any sort of military action. Until the situation in Iraq improves the US cannot take any serious military action, especially not with such international pressure turned against them. In sum: no military action.


I do not agree, I strongly believe that the US is considering to attack Iran to redeem their actions gone bad in Irak, mainly because it is easier to assume that Iran has weapons of mass destruction. In this case with a frightened society a military action has big chances of support of the US people.
lyndonray
as if Iraq wasn't enough, now the Coalition of the frigging Willing has to be re-deployed to stir it up in Iran. Is there something I am missing here? Is there an memo which I was intentionally left out of the list of recepients?

Since i don't know i guess i will just guess. We trying to end the world before the China olympics, right? Coz honestly, that's what it seems like. This rush to war seems like de ja vu, and we all know what happened the last time. Hell, its still happening, just watch the news- a car bomb a day, sometimes even three times if there is a march somewhere!!!

And people already want to go somewhere else to "Nuke them before they nuke us". Its that kind of attitude that caused this mess in Iraq.

But since the U.S. is the only country with first hand experience in real Nuclear Weapons usage, they shouldn't have much of a problem.

Happy Nuking Fellas!!!! I hope you get what you want!!
Lennon
So that's Iran and North Korea, maybe China in the kill zone.
I just think as a Global Community that World Powers should be responsible role models for smaller nations by diplomatic negotations and the democratic belief that you're innocent until proven guilty.
S3nd K3ys
maclui wrote:


Do not do that, who is talking about terrorists?? Iran is a democracy and its government is legitimately elected.



WHAT!?!?!


Damn, dude. The Iranians PREVENTED HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE FROM RUNNING in that election because they would be too much of a fight for the current leader.

He was NOT legitimately elected.

Quote:
I do not agree, I strongly believe that the US is considering to attack Iran to redeem their actions gone bad in Irak, mainly because it is easier to assume that Iran has weapons of mass destruction. In this case with a frightened society a military action has big chances of support of the US people.



So now we're gonna go beat up Iran because of what is going on in Iraq?

Dude, is there a GAS LEAK in your house? Get out now, it's starting to seriously affect your thought process.
Dan77
Reminds me of the scandals around the last two American elections that put bush in power and kept him there.

Bottom line is it's their country and it's up to them how they run it.

That they want nuclear technology is not suprising.
If the American Government wants to ban nuclear weapons then it should include their own.
S3nd K3ys
Dan77 wrote:
Reminds me of the scandals around the last two American elections that put bush in power and kept him there.




Old and busted.


Bush got put into power because the Dems are ignorant when it comes to the American Public.

Quote:
That they want nuclear technology is not suprising.
If the American Government wants to ban nuclear weapons then it should include their own.


The reason they want nukes is, (and Iran said this PUBLICLY), is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and “destroy the Anglo-Saxon civilization” (meaning England and the US)

Also, the US does not threaten, nor intend, to use nukes. (Unless some country *cough*Iran*cough* does something stupid like threaten a holocaust with nukes.)
polarBear
It's just a matter of time until some wacko begins buying thermobarics and making them blow all along the US. And I will indeed applaud that action. A lot.


Can't you realize that by FORCING violence you only get MORE violence? Is that TOO hard to understand?
S3nd K3ys
polarBear wrote:
It's just a matter of time until some wacko begins buying thermobarics and making them blow all along the US. And I will indeed applaud that action. A lot.


Can't you realize that by FORCING violence you only get MORE violence? Is that TOO hard to understand?


So you're a terrorist? You support the murder of women and children? You applaud it?



The self-ownage here is PRICELESS!
polarBear
They are just some worthless and minor collateral damage.
Besides, the half millon families YOUR army -not mine- has reaped so far didn't get a much nicer treatment, you know.

Quote:

So you're a terrorist? You support the murder of women and children? You applaud it?
I'm not a terrorist. It's simple: An eye for an eye. It's THE SAME logic you, my dear junkie, use to justify the terrorism when it comes from a country. Cool huh? Sounds so much fun... If you support the terrorists that work on the White House, you are a terrorist too. And you deserve the same treatment that terrorists get. Period.

Quote:

The self-ownage here is PRICELESS!
You are just as much fun as you are smart.
maclui
Quote:
Dude, is there a GAS LEAK in your house? Get out now, it's starting to seriously affect your thought process.


So that is how you ended up like this. I will be careful thanks for the warning.
horseatingweeds
polarBear wrote:
They are just some worthless and minor collateral damage.
Besides, the half millon families YOUR army -not mine- has reaped so far didn't get a much nicer treatment, you know.


The difference is the families our army killed were being used as shield by your precious heros.

polarBear wrote:
Quote:

So you're a terrorist? You support the murder of women and children? You applaud it?
I'm not a terrorist. It's simple: An eye for an eye. It's THE SAME logic you, my dear junkie, use to justify the terrorism when it comes from a country. Cool huh? Sounds so much fun... If you support the terrorists that work on the White House, you are a terrorist too. And you deserve the same treatment that terrorists get. Period.


Does that mean we get twenty virgins if we die killing woman and children too?
polarBear
Quote:

The difference is the families our army killed were being used as shield by your precious heros.
My precious heros? What are you talking about? Did you have meningitis as a child? Leave the PC and go look for your brain, only then try and answer me.

Oh, yeah, like those bombed when sleeping just because they lived in the same city that some 'terrorist' did, those shot when trying to leave the same cities, those killed on the invasion and anexion of Iraq, those killed because of Israeli's 'made in USA' army, those killed all along Latin America just 'cause USA felt like too much freedom was a bad thing for them, those maimed by the Saudi crapocracy, those killed by the pakistani paratroopers, those killed by the NATO all over the world... Oh, yes, they all 'were being used as shield by my precious heros'. Really, go get a brain, I saw one really cheap on eBay last Sunday.

Quote:

Does that mean we get twenty virgins if we die killing woman and children too?
Not really, but you get a Rush Limbaugh doll so you can satisfy your libido.
S3nd K3ys
horseatingweeds wrote:
polarBear wrote:
They are just some worthless and minor collateral damage.
Besides, the half millon families YOUR army -not mine- has reaped so far didn't get a much nicer treatment, you know.


The difference is the families our army killed were being used as shield by your precious heros.

polarBear wrote:
Quote:

So you're a terrorist? You support the murder of women and children? You applaud it?
I'm not a terrorist. It's simple: An eye for an eye. It's THE SAME logic you, my dear junkie, use to justify the terrorism when it comes from a country. Cool huh? Sounds so much fun... If you support the terrorists that work on the White House, you are a terrorist too. And you deserve the same treatment that terrorists get. Period.


Does that mean we get twenty virgins if we die killing woman and children too?


LoL! hey polarbear, you should take a break. Or a nap. You just got ridden hard and hung up wet.
polarBear
(?????) I don't get it... you quote a tard shouting "oh, I'm so idiot, I will go babble somewhere, I can't think, wow, it's cool" and come up with "You just got ridden hard and hung up wet. " which not only confirms you two should be a couple, but also means you would be the passive one. How does this constitute some kind of 'ownage'??
riv_
I try not to get involved in political debate. But I have to say, I'm really not surprised.
I remember way back in the days of the first "Persian Gulf War"... you know, the time the US attacked Iraq to defend Iran (not the time they attacked them for that other reason)...
People were speculating way back then that the US was interested in Iraq as a strategic point for acquiring military presence in the Middle East.
Of course, it was all dismissed as paranoid rantings.
And obviously it was...
They're obviously over there now fighting for just cause to eliminate terrorism. And terrorism is not a subjective term. (Ever notice how terrorists always seem to view themselves as armed, but otherwise innocent civilians defending themselves against tyranny?)
Anyways, we'll see what happens.
But, surprised... I think not.
withaar
Soulfire wrote:
If it comes to this, we must nuke them before they nuke us. Simply put. And we've tried to negotiate with them, repeatedly, it never works, they won't stand down.

Praise the God of all Creation, God of mercy and compassion
~No Jesus, No Life~
~Know Jesus, Know Life~
::Joyful, all ye nations rise, join the triumph of the skies!::


What a rediculous character you put forward. Read the second half of your holy book again pilgrim. The world would be a better place if you practiced what you apparantly like to preach. Would jesus go "nukular"?
horseatingweeds
withaar wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
If it comes to this, we must nuke them before they nuke us. Simply put. And we've tried to negotiate with them, repeatedly, it never works, they won't stand down.

Praise the God of all Creation, God of mercy and compassion
~No Jesus, No Life~
~Know Jesus, Know Life~
::Joyful, all ye nations rise, join the triumph of the skies!::


What a rediculous character you put forward. Read the second half of your holy book again pilgrim. The world would be a better place if you practiced what you apparantly like to preach. Would jesus go "nukular"?


Maybe if you count raining down fire as nuclear. He has flooded the plant once and promised not to again. Then after getting fed up with our evil he chose a nice plot of land and had the Hebrews wipe all the people off of it. The Hebrew misbehaved so he gave them plagues. Later he decided it was about time to end things but first he decided to take human form as his own son and be sacrificed as a gift to all people who would accept the gift and become one of his children them selves.

So, I guess this is a good question. Literally, he does us nukes to power the sun and stars but that is not the question here. I don't think he needs nukes but that is not the question either. The question is whether or not the Lord would destroy a people to protect his own. In the bible, if this is the book being referred to, he has.... So I guess Jesus would us nukes.

I don't speak for him directly though. I merely try to listen.

Additionally, the fact that the all powerful Lord would do something does not give his people the right to do it. I like to look at the way I interact with my dogs to understand how my creator may see things. I correct them when they go against my will, like when Stormee gets in the trash or chews on the wall. However, I get angry when they get upset with each other and attempt to correct each other. There are exceptions though. Stanly, a rescue of ours, is timid and for a while wouldn’t get his share of the food. The other dogs would push him out of the way and he wouldn’t protect it. Later, he started to protect it; I saw him and told him he was a good boy. Now, nobody messes with his food.

I think we can learn from this as well.
withaar
horseatingweeds wrote:
Maybe if you count raining down fire as nuclear. He has flooded the plant once and promised not to again. Then after getting fed up with our evil he chose a nice plot of land and had the Hebrews wipe all the people off of it. The Hebrew misbehaved so he gave them plagues. Later he decided it was about time to end things but first he decided to take human form as his own son and be sacrificed as a gift to all people who would accept the gift and become one of his children them selves.

So, I guess this is a good question. Literally, he does us nukes to power the sun and stars but that is not the question here. I don't think he needs nukes but that is not the question either. The question is whether or not the Lord would destroy a people to protect his own. In the bible, if this is the book being referred to, he has.... So I guess Jesus would us nukes.

Well, all your examples are old testament, and jesus is not - he in fact makes a departure from the old texts. Also, the post I responded to, along the vain of your own, would have americans play god - I am glad you don't intend to.
horseatingweeds wrote:
I don't speak for him directly though. I merely try to listen.

Unlike gw.
horseatingweeds wrote:
Additionally, the fact that the all powerful Lord would do something does not give his people the right to do it. I like to look at the way I interact with my dogs to understand how my creator may see things. I correct them when they go against my will, like when Stormee gets in the trash or chews on the wall. However, I get angry when they get upset with each other and attempt to correct each other. There are exceptions though. Stanly, a rescue of ours, is timid and for a while wouldn’t get his share of the food. The other dogs would push him out of the way and he wouldn’t protect it. Later, he started to protect it; I saw him and told him he was a good boy. Now, nobody messes with his food.

I think we can learn from this as well.

I'd say god has been very absent from the debate, in a litteral, corporeal sense than. Are you equating pulling lessons from the bible to others learning from how you treat your dogs? I assume you are not. If you can be nice to your animals - and I think you are a more decent person for it - how much better can you be to human beings (there is a parabel to this effect in the new testament I think). You'd like your dogs to leave eachother alone and not impose their wills on one another, seems to me (and you) like those that would use violence to make the world in their own image should do the same.
Lied
Things Turn around, there will be the time where the rest of the world will have enough with the US policy about doing everything it likes, and nuke US.The thing you afraid the most,without reason is the thing you are gonna brough upon yourselfs. 52 countries are attacked by varius reasons by the US army and the rest of the world is fed up with it.Wake up from the American dream of the all powerful US because its a lie.Exept UK, Israel and turkey which are the only support you have near EU, the rest of the world HATES you. You terrorise many nations,finding excusis like Nclear weapons.
HISTORY LEASON: US WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY THAT USED THEM!

Don't try to play the nice guy,protector of the world here.namy countries that needed your help, you turned your backs to them and let thousands die in civil wars.For example or you righteusness,Israel, you help it to form a Nation by killing and taking Palestinian Territory, and now,Palestinians,without army, are fighting for thier freedom with the only weapon left to them,thier lifes and some explosives.You are creating Terrorism.Have a nice day and expect to pay for it.
withaar
Lied wrote:
Things Turn around, there will be the time where the rest of the world will have enough with the US policy about doing everything it likes, and nuke US.The thing you afraid the most,without reason is the thing you are gonna brough upon yourselfs. 52 countries are attacked by varius reasons by the US army and the rest of the world is fed up with it.Wake up from the American dream of the all powerful US because its a lie.Exept UK, Israel and turkey which are the only support you have near EU, the rest of the world HATES you. You terrorise many nations,finding excusis like Nclear weapons.
HISTORY LEASON: US WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY THAT USED THEM!

Don't try to play the nice guy,protector of the world here.namy countries that needed your help, you turned your backs to them and let thousands die in civil wars.For example or you righteusness,Israel, you help it to form a Nation by killing and taking Palestinian Territory, and now,Palestinians,without army, are fighting for thier freedom with the only weapon left to them,thier lifes and some explosives.You are creating Terrorism.Have a nice day and expect to pay for it.

With attitudes like yours, we'll see the end of the world in no time. You sound like you would like to repeat what you are critticizing and do it over a bit worse; revenge - how primitive. Sure, the us has had its hand in many matters where it should not have, and this will have consequences, but don't expect the most powerful military nation to sit back and let it happen.

If you want to get out of this unintelligent repetition of history, you'll have to change your thinking. Also, the us is not the first nor unfortunately the last nation to use its power for its own political ends - just about every single region has such in their history. China, russia, indonesia, the netherlands, england, france, japan, germany, the ottoman empire, the roman empire. I am only limited by my lack of knowledge of history in listing more.
S3nd K3ys
withaar wrote:
Lied wrote:
Things Turn around, there will be the time where the rest of the world will have enough with the US policy about doing everything it likes, and nuke US.The thing you afraid the most,without reason is the thing you are gonna brough upon yourselfs. 52 countries are attacked by varius reasons by the US army and the rest of the world is fed up with it.Wake up from the American dream of the all powerful US because its a lie.Exept UK, Israel and turkey which are the only support you have near EU, the rest of the world HATES you. You terrorise many nations,finding excusis like Nclear weapons.
HISTORY LEASON: US WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY THAT USED THEM!

Don't try to play the nice guy,protector of the world here.namy countries that needed your help, you turned your backs to them and let thousands die in civil wars.For example or you righteusness,Israel, you help it to form a Nation by killing and taking Palestinian Territory, and now,Palestinians,without army, are fighting for thier freedom with the only weapon left to them,thier lifes and some explosives.You are creating Terrorism.Have a nice day and expect to pay for it.

With attitudes like yours, we'll see the end of the world in no time. You sound like you would like to repeat what you are critticizing and do it over a bit worse; revenge - how primitive. Sure, the us has had its hand in many matters where it should not have, and this will have consequences, but don't expect the most powerful military nation to sit back and let it happen.

If you want to get out of this unintelligent repetition of history, you'll have to change your thinking. Also, the us is not the first nor unfortunately the last nation to use its power for its own political ends - just about every single region has such in their history. China, russia, indonesia, the netherlands, england, france, japan, germany, the ottoman empire, the roman empire. I am only limited by my lack of knowledge of history in listing more.


Exactally.

Also...

Quote:
HISTORY LEASON: US WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY THAT USED THEM!


That was over 50 years ago. If we wanted to take over the world, we could have long ago. But instead, we freed most of it. We are still freeing parts of it. We STILL do not threaten nukes unless provoked with them. And they are ALWAYS a last resort. I'm still waiting for somone to post a war the US started for no reason. (A valid reason being defense of itself or one or more of it's allies, or their protection.)
withaar
S3nd K3ys wrote:
That was over 50 years ago. If we wanted to take over the world, we could have long ago. But instead, we freed most of it. We are still freeing parts of it. We STILL do not threaten nukes unless provoked with them. And they are ALWAYS a last resort. I'm still waiting for somone to post a war the US started for no reason. (A valid reason being defense of itself or one or more of it's allies, or their protection.)

One might also argue that the first use of atomic weapons was under very different circumstances, and that its use, certainly of the 1st of the 2, was justified.

The decision to invade iraq, in my opinion, was made for the wrong reasons. If the us had indicated that it invaded because a brutal dictator oppressed his people, that would have been a good reason. They did not, at least not initially, because that would have put them on a road that would have been coopted quickly by other (middle) powers. The us is not interested in firmly tying its foreign and/or military strategies to a public agenda, such as the removal of dictators. The rhetoric from the white house changed only later, when the wmd arguments finally went poof. The poignant and painful end was gw on camera looking for wmd under the couch in the white house. What an insult to the intelligence of the americans that put him there and as well those who wanted to keep him out.

South america has little reason to be pleased with us forreign policy over the years. Although no armies were sent to most, there was meddling to put dictators in place where before left leaning democratic governments were, with the attrocious concequences.
Soulfire
Okay, so, we went under the pretense that there were nukes. All of your intelligence was telling you that nuclear weapons were there, in the hands of an unstable terrorist society. Would you just sit back and put your feet up on the table and say "Well, we'll wait until they nuke us before we nuke them."

There is a huge difference between non-existant and not found. Do you honestly think we've covered every square inch of that desert? And Iraq could've transported the weapons away temporarily or whatever, I mean the whole world knew we were going to invade.

On the positive side, we removed a tyrannical dictator from power. Lots of democrats seem to overlook this. Maybe Bush should've waited, and then we could've been nuked with the liberals in office. But no, everyone just continues to overlook the good and focus in on the bad.
withaar
Soulfire wrote:
Okay, so, we went under the pretense that there were nukes. All of your intelligence was telling you that nuclear weapons were there, in the hands of an unstable terrorist society. Would you just sit back and put your feet up on the table and say "Well, we'll wait until they nuke us before we nuke them."

There is a huge difference between non-existant and not found. Do you honestly think we've covered every square inch of that desert? And Iraq could've transported the weapons away temporarily or whatever, I mean the whole world knew we were going to invade.

Well, that is naive. Quite clearly your government is capable of deceiving you. Consider the whitehouse wiretaps and the reports on how flawed the "intelligence" really was. Even people from within the intelligence community of the us have come out along those lines.
Soulfire wrote:
On the positive side, we removed a tyrannical dictator from power. Lots of democrats seem to overlook this. Maybe Bush should've waited, and then we could've been nuked with the liberals in office. But no, everyone just continues to overlook the good and focus in on the bad.

Note that there are republicans who also are starting to look at the other side of this argument. What you are doing is justifying something after the fact. Why was this then not used as the original reason? Because it was not strong enough. In other words, you have been deliberately hoodwinked by your government.
S3nd K3ys
withaar wrote:

Well, that is naive. Quite clearly your government is capable of deceiving you. Consider the whitehouse wiretaps and the reports on how flawed the "intelligence" really was. Even people from within the intelligence community of the us have come out along those lines.


Um, hate to burst your bubble, but nearly the ENTIRE civilized world had the same intel. Besides, you seem to still be in denial.

Quote:
Note that there are republicans who also are starting to look at the other side of this argument. What you are doing is justifying something after the fact. Why was this then not used as the original reason? Because it was not strong enough. In other words, you have been deliberately hoodwinked by your government.


I think you'll find these (constantly surfacing) bits of verification of WMD, their use, and their removal just prior to the invastion enlightening. Then again, you may dismiss them as lies because to really see and accept the truth means you have to face the fact that the hard core dems lied.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/15/90950.shtml?s=ic
Secret Saddam Tapes on ABC 'Nightline'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827
Saddam general: WMDs in Syria

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48249
New evidence on Saddam's WMDs?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40946
Duelfer: 'A lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777
Is this one of Saddam's mobile bio-weapons labs?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38447
Inspector: Saddam had WMD on 'short notice'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Saddam's WMD have been found

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35634
Secret intelligence memo links Saddam, bin Laden
withaar
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
Note that there are republicans who also are starting to look at the other side of this argument. What you are doing is justifying something after the fact. Why was this then not used as the original reason? Because it was not strong enough. In other words, you have been deliberately hoodwinked by your government.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/15/90950.shtml?s=ic
Secret Saddam Tapes on ABC 'Nightline'

I'll ignore the worldnet links - since their front page advertises a real estate scam with the other "news", just below a plug for ms coulter.

The ABC tapes are correct. No one denies that the regime in iraq had terrible weapons and used them too. Iraq was not attacked when weapons were used against the kurs or the . By the time the us came around to a 2nd gulf war, the proof was at best thin. The true motives for going in therefore were not the same as the explanations that were sought publicly. Here is another new piece. You may consider the pbs too "liberal", but it is quite nuanced.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html
You are right, I simply don't believe it. I had the same position then as I do now. Although the us has the military power to police the world, they lack the moral credibility. A dictator sitting on a pile of oil is removed, while others remain where they are. As they say, follow the money.

It is also not helping us security. The argument is simple: the us is breeding hatred and disenfranchised, increasing the number of possible terrorists. Here is another article, from Noam Chomsky, a fellow american, from 2002 and with some foresight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,788508,00.html
S3nd K3ys
withaar wrote:

I'll ignore the worldnet links - since their front page advertises a real estate scam with the other "news", just below a plug for ms coulter.


I thought you might. If it doesn't fit your adjenda, it is to be discounted or ignored, regardless of if it's true. Wink

Quote:
No one denies that the regime in iraq had terrible weapons and used them too.


Um... wow. Just wow.

Yes they do.

Have you been listening to Kennedy, Kerry, and most of the other TOP DEMOCRATS saying Bush lied about WMD? About how it's the wrong war at the wrong time but it was the right war at the right time when it started?
Quote:

Here is another new piece. You may consider the pbs too "liberal", but it is quite nuanced.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html


I spend lots of time on left wing news sites. How do you think I make my decisions? By only reading right wing sites?


Quote:
Although the us has the military power to police the world, they lack the moral credibility. A dictator sitting on a pile of oil is removed, while others remain where they are. As they say, follow the money.


Consider what would happen if we just allowed all the hard core evil dictators to do what ever they wanted. Build nukes, bioweps, etc etc etc.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the US has worked in progression, taking on the hardest battles first, and removing the biggest threats. Any other strategy would simply fail.
Related topics
Thierry Henry
Justification for War in Iraq
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Farkash sets deadline for strike on Iran
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
BReaking News (India votes against Iran at IAEA)
Rudra to counter 'Kamasutra' VIRUS
US & Iran
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
Bush's Reign
Tony Blair
U.S. takes up military position against Iran
Are sanctions against Iran a good idea?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.