REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Spy plane recons over Iran; Guess who's next?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Thursday, July 7, 2005 14:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3922
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:20 AM

CHRISISALL


Maybe this is old news, but I just heard of it.
If it's news to you, and you're reading it here first, you can tell everyone, uhh, well, that you...read it here first.
This + what Bush 'talked about' the other night = Draft to me.
For link aficionados, I don't have one, but it was in The New Yorker.
Buckle up, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Hope I'm wrong Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There was a reported crash of a U-2 spy plane in UAE on landing. The mission was over Afghanistan, according to the military. I tried finding your article but couldn't locate it. Here's another one.

http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/06/23/60432.html

The drumbeat to war is beating- again. This time, it's Iran. I don't think we would actually invade, tho. It would be impossible to round up enough troops to suport a THIRD front! I think Bush will settle for dropping a number of "bunker buster" bombs on "suspect facilities". Of course, Bush, Cheney and Rummy didn't do anything sensible in Iraq, so.... who knows what they will choose to do next? It's certainly not limited by reality!

BTW- Arianna Huffington's name for the most-wanted terrorist? Osama been Forgotten

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:36 PM

CHRISISALL


According to former Marine and U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter the US is currently and secretly using the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, trained years ago by Saddam's intelegence services to carry out bombings in Iran in an attempt to destabilize, while a base in Azerbaijan is being set up for larger scale strikes.
Nothing funny in there, just typed what a local paper was saying from other sources.
Yes, a leftist paper, for the ones who'll say it can't happen...we'll see, won't we?

New Yorker correspondent Seymour Hersh is quoted "...the US war with Iran has already begun."

That would suck Chrisisall
Edit: Osama who? The Ice Cream magnate?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 1, 2005 7:30 AM

HKCAVALIER


What a load of ! The Iranian president-elect might have been one of the hostage takers 26 years ago. Gee, sure looks like another country with an evil madman for a leader. What's the world's last remaining super-power to do? And gosh the timing couldn't be better for us, now that the Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes" and all

I'm sorry but this sure smells like another swift boat veteran-style smear job to me. Only this one is even better because it cannot ever be disproven, because even if every other hostage says they didn't see this guy, it wouldn't prove a thing. And nothing Iran says about the guy's actions or whereabouts 26 years ago is gonna mean a thing to us. Same argument they used with WMD, you can't prove something doesn't exist by not seeing it! Just brilliant!

And they sure know how to keep Scott McClellan busy! Every last word from the administration needs a spin doctor these days!

Quote:

"I have no information" to confirm or refute the allegation, Bush said. "But obviously his involvement raises many questions, and knowing how active people are at finding answers to questions, I'm confident they'll be found."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the president, who had been speaking to four news organization including AFP, was referring to Ahmadinejad's "reported involvement" and was not confirming the accusation. (Emphasis mine)



Thanks for clearing that up, 'cause otherwise I woulda thought Bush was trying to imply that Ahmadinejad really was involved in taking hostages! Guess he's just misinformed again...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050630/wl_mideast_afp/u
siranhostages_050630231256


(My apologies for all the sarcasm, but this stuff is really pissing me off. I have friends living in Tehran and I don't want them to be killed in a new war.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 1, 2005 8:08 AM

CHRISISALL


Wait! Now I get it! The heretofore unfindable WMD's of Saddam's are now in Iran! That's why we must blast them! And when we're done there the WMD's may well migrate to another targ- , er, evil nation that desires our wrath!
I never understood before, how STUPID of me!

Should have known Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 1, 2005 11:57 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


" Gee, sure looks like another country with an evil madman for a leader "

That's besides the US right ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 2, 2005 7:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wait! Now I get it! The heretofore unfindable WMD's of Saddam's are now in Iran! That's why we must blast them! And when we're done there the WMD's may well migrate to another targ- , er, evil nation that desires our wrath!
I never understood before, how STUPID of me!

Should have known Chrisisall



Saddam sent his fighter planes to Iran during Gulf War 1 to keep them from being blown up by the USAF. But you're cynical that Iran received any of Iraq's WMD before the takin down of Saddam?

As Mal would say... ' Huhh!'

But maybe so. It's more likely that the WMD stash was buried and/or sent to Syria instead of Iran.

And WMD would be down the list of reasons why to attack Iran. Which I don't think we'll do. At all.
And why is it that only Democrats like Charles Rangel are talking 'DRAFT' and yet every liberal wahoo under the sun thinks Bush is plotting some sort of devious surprise Draft ?? Hell, he's been in office for 5 yrs now, and narry a word about any Draft has come from the W.H. Recruiting is doing fine in the armed services. Air Force and Navy recruiting is actually up, w/ the Marines hitting their projection numbers just about right on. Only the Army is lagging. Quite odd, imo.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2005 3:16 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you're cynical that Iran received any of Iraq's DEATH STARS before the takin down of Saddam?
But maybe so. It's more likely that the DEATH STAR stash was buried and/or sent to Syria instead of Iran.
And DEATH STARS would be down the list of reasons why to attack Iran. Which I don't think we'll do. At all.


I made a substitution. I figger he had as many of those as he did useable WMD's.


All whimsical in the brainpan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2005 6:10 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

... because no matter what happens "it is all Bush's fault" right?


If you say so.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2005 6:51 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
PS, the leftists better prepare their "Bush should have stopped Iran when he had chance" mantras because no matter what happens "it is all Bush's fault" right?



To quote a former president, "There you go again." Lynch, what is it exactly that Bush will not have stopped Iran from doing? Is Iran gonna start building an empire? Drop bombs on Iraq? Supply WMD to Osama? Of the nuclear powers in the world, which have actually dropped bombs? Is it possible that you're being a little paranoid?

Seems to me you explained Iran's motivations perfectly with this, "...they are effectively invasion proof." Don't you think they might be a little paranoid themselves with all the ruckus next door and all?

Oh, and lordy, what the heck is a "rogue regime" anyway? They had their revolution 27 years ago and the fundies are in decline (not their "last throes" exactly, unless you go by the Rumsfeld Measure, but in decline). When does a regime cease to be "rogue?" When they agree with us?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2005 1:30 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
A draft would just bring a bunch of unmotivated, untrainable, and discontented into the ranks. Adding a draft would probably do more harm than good, raise costs, and diminish capability.


This is what you think of the average American?! Were all our soldiers in Vietnam of such poor quality? Be very carefull how you answer, you could be branded an 'American-hater'!!
Why don't you move to a country where a draft would get a collection of able-bodied (and minded) people that would be respected by you?


I play chess, too Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 6:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you're cynical that Iran received any of Iraq's DEATH STARS before the takin down of Saddam?
But maybe so. It's more likely that the DEATH STAR stash was buried and/or sent to Syria instead of Iran.
And DEATH STARS would be down the list of reasons why to attack Iran. Which I don't think we'll do. At all.


I made a substitution. I figger he had as many of those as he did useable WMD's.


All whimsical in the brainpan Chrisisall



It's clear that you live in a world not rooted in reality. Replace WMD w/ Death Stars or Koala Bears, Iraq was in violation for 17 UN Resolutions, and failed countless times to abide by the cease fire agreements of Gulf War 1.

Make your case that even all that didn't require military action in Iraq, fine. But don't try to rewrite history ( or in your case, replace WMD for Death Stars ) and expect your point to be taken seriously. It won't.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 6:30 AM

SERGEANTX


Duh! Death Stars ain't even real. You can't rewrite history like that Chrisisall!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 9:31 AM

JADEHAND


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, and lordy, what the heck is a "rogue regime" anyway?
HKCavalier


Well, A Rogue Regime is an idea I had several years back in which "Rogue", having the ability to drain powers from other mutants, drains Jamie Maddrox AKA "Multiple Man" (He makes duplicates of himself up to 40 or so) and then makes several more of herself. With her flight, nigh invunerability, and super strength, she'd be...
oh, nevermind, not what you meant.


Hey, it's the 4th of July. Don't forget to thank a soldier for your freedom to protest.

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live
Visit www.TheInside.org and see Tim Minear's show Weds. 9:00pm EST.....ah FUX nevermind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 10:53 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And why is it that only Democrats like Charles Rangel are talking 'DRAFT' and yet every liberal wahoo under the sun thinks Bush is plotting some sort of devious surprise Draft ??



We're all aware of Ron Suskind's article in the NYTimes Magazine from last October with the infamous "reality-based community" paragraph, yes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&e
n=890a96189e162076&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland


Quote:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''


I think the reason so many who oppose Bush assume he's got a draft in the works is because they can see no other way for Bush to continue escalating his "War on Terror" without it. But they forget that this is the same Bush who exponentially increases the military budget while giving tax breaks. I think it's the impossibility of his project that, deep down, appeals to Americans who, deep down, despair of ever feeling safe or free again.

A lot of people in this country want Bush to succeed against all odds, they want him to beat reality at its own game, so to speak. Reality says a "War on Terror" is a meaningless pose like all the other "Wars on" have been. Reality says we can never control our borders enough to be absolutely safe from terrorist attack. Reality says we cannot destroy the terrorist urge by killing terrorists. Reality says we cannot wage war on an idea.

But we want to. We want to be "safe" again. We want American pluck and tenacity to prevail, just 'cause it should. 'Cause we're the good guys. We have a destiny. Bush and Rove understand this and that's why they have chosen such an absolutist stance on absolutely everything. When Bush dodges another nay-saying media bullet, a part of us sees him sticking it to reality and we applaud. Unable to give us reality-based solutions to insoluble problems, they give us the dream of a triumphant America, black and white politics, state of the art new clothes on the emperor and we the people eat it up.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 11:01 AM

SERGEANTX


Well said, HK. I just wish I didn't have to be there when these nitwits wake up from their little dream.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 1:20 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Make your case that even all that didn't require military action in Iraq, fine. But don't try to rewrite history ( or in your case, replace WMD for Death Stars ) and expect your point to be taken seriously. It won't.


"Lighten up, jerk!!"

Sorry, I couldn't resist using that Marty McFly line. You're no jerk, I was only trying to say that IMO the WMD's are like the Death Star: ficticious.
And if I can't rewrite history, WHO CAN??

Oh, that's right. Washington (London, Bejing, Moscow, etc.) can.

Everything depends richly on your point of view Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 1:23 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Duh! Death Stars ain't even real. You can't rewrite history like that Chrisisall!


Sorry. Won't happen again.

Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 2:32 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

Hmmmmmmmmmm

And since Bush didn't allow the security council to vote on this little adventure, lets not bring the UN into this anymore. The US had/has its own reasons to invade/occupy/install puppet government in Iraq, they acted alone ( well with the bought and paid for allies ) and rightfully they should stand alone.


When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 4:39 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

Because all the UN resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians are under Chapter Six of the UN charter, meaning that they are unbinding, unenforceable recommendations, not like those under Chapter Seven, which are binding and enforceable. All the UN resolutions concerning Iraq since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait are Chapter Seven resolutions.
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And since Bush didn't allow the security council to vote on this little adventure, lets not bring the UN into this anymore. The US had/has its own reasons to invade/occupy/install puppet government in Iraq, they acted alone ( well with the bought and paid for allies ) and rightfully they should stand alone.

You mean as opposed to those allies who were bought and paid by the Oil for Food Program?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 4:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You mean as opposed to those allies who were bought and paid by the Oil for Food Program?


The Oil for food program was a CIA cover to extract the componants of WMD's to warehouses in Langly in exchange for Saddam lettin' us find him alive so he could at least enjoy Doritos and satelite TV- hey, it's better'n bein' dead.

Bet you didn't know that Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 5:01 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


It's news to me.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 4, 2005 6:18 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

Because all the UN resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians are under Chapter Six of the UN charter, meaning that they are unbinding, unenforceable recommendations, not like those under Chapter Seven, which are binding and enforceable. All the UN resolutions concerning Iraq since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait are Chapter Seven resolutions.
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And since Bush didn't allow the security council to vote on this little adventure, lets not bring the UN into this anymore. The US had/has its own reasons to invade/occupy/install puppet government in Iraq, they acted alone ( well with the bought and paid for allies ) and rightfully they should stand alone.

You mean as opposed to those allies who were bought and paid by the Oil for Food Program?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.



Your points are goods ones, but probably not in the way you intended. It is more a statement of why the UN doesn't work, as this nice article discusses

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577



When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:06 AM

CHRISISALL


I've been instructed by the very nice (and very large) fellas standin' behind me to let everyone know that my last post was merely a joke, and should in no way be taken seriously.
In return, I get to live in my house, and do not have to go anywhere scary (although I have to pay for a new front door myself).


Ix-nay on the onspiracy-Kay Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 7:27 AM

IMEARLY


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

Hmmmmmmmmmm




I believe that it's against contemporary US policy to invade or bomb nations who have verifiably working nukes.




Go sign my Guest Book, http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity, http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 7:40 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
I believe that it's against contemporary US policy to invade or bomb nations who have verifiably working nukes.



Dang, another country rendered "effectively invasion proof!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But we want to. We want to be "safe" again. We want American pluck and tenacity to prevail, just 'cause it should. 'Cause we're the good guys. We have a destiny. Bush and Rove understand this and that's why they have chosen such an absolutist stance on absolutely everything. When Bush dodges another nay-saying media bullet, a part of us sees him sticking it to reality and we applaud. Unable to give us reality-based solutions to insoluble problems, they give us the dream of a triumphant America, black and white politics, state of the art new clothes on the emperor and we the people eat it up.


Right on the mark. And it works because many Americans are so addicted to their fiction of America that they will deny ANYTHING- even reality... especially reality- to maintain the addiction.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:43 AM

SERGEANTX


HK, you mind if I quote you over on the OB? AB needs to see this. (don't ya love the browncoat lingo?)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:43 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
I believe that it's against contemporary US policy to invade or bomb nations who have verifiably working nukes.


Nuke them before they nuke you: Another quality home game from Butler Brothers.

Teach 'em young Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:14 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
HK, you mind if I quote you over on the OB? AB needs to see this. (don't ya love the browncoat lingo?)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock



I'm all for it, never got over to the OB myself, not since Firefly was cancelled anyway

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:42 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Make your case that even all that didn't require military action in Iraq, fine. But don't try to rewrite history ( or in your case, replace WMD for Death Stars ) and expect your point to be taken seriously. It won't.


"Lighten up, jerk!!"

Sorry, I couldn't resist using that Marty McFly line. You're no jerk, I was only trying to say that IMO the WMD's are like the Death Star: ficticious.
And if I can't rewrite history, WHO CAN??

Oh, that's right. Washington (London, Bejing, Moscow, etc.) can.

Everything depends richly on your point of view Chrisisall



Perhaps Obi Wan said it best,
"....many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Except in this case, point of view is irrelevent when it comes to 17 U.N. Resolutions passed against Iraq, a cozy connection w/ Saddam by the very folks who were trying to reel him in ( U.N. Food for Oil scandal )... those things really can't be debated. You can debate that military action was the best way to solve this problem, but trying to paint the WMD issue as being as ficticioius as a Death Star ?

Ya can lead a horse to water,.....


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 1:03 PM

CHRISISALL


I'm sure that WMD's were being seriously R&Ded, it's just that if they existed as viable threats why have we found everything we sought to find in Iraq EXCEPT a trace of them? Why weren't/aren't they being used? They put more energy into hiding them than keeping Saddam himself hidden?!?
I'm as certain as I can be that WMD's were a 'plot device' in the bad story handed to us by the Bush administration.

?Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

but trying to paint the WMD issue as being as ficticious as a Death Star ?
Yup. As fictitious as Panama being a a major drug-smuggling nation, and as fictitious as Grenada being a significant threat.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:23 PM

GUNRUNNER


I doubt any U-2 mission over Iran would work since Iran possess both missiles and interceptor aircraft capable of taking one down. So yea this U-2 was flying over Afghanistan.

Anyways any strike against Iranian nuclear sites could result in Iran conducting unrestricted submarine warfare against oil shipping bound to the US. For those not 'in the know' (IE people who know about as much about naval forces as former Air Farce puke President Bush) Iran operates three Russian built Kilo (Project 877-EKM) class submarines (Tareq SS-901, Noor SS-902, and Yunes SS-903), and a number of Mini-Subs. The Kilos are armed with six torpedo tubes and 18 torpedoes and missiles or 24 mines in addition to a SA-N-8 ‘Gremlin’ SAM position on the sail for defending against anti-sub helos and low flying aircraft. At speeds of around 5 knots or less they are damn near invisible, earning it the nickname "The Black Hole". One NATO commander said on the subject of the Kilo “that you only know ones around when they snorkel". Just the other day I read that the Russians are going to sell Iran a supply of 'Klub' submarine launched cruise missiles.

People who are familiar with modern Anti-Submarine warfare know just how much damage these boats could do if they wanted and how much resources it would take to find and neutralize them. Just look at the trouble a handful of strike fighters, skimmers (surface ships) and subs caused the Royal Navy in the Falklands.

I don’t care about how many troops you can draft, they don’t mean S*hit if the ships transporting them get sunk. Of course the current administration is cutting funding to the navy, closing its most important bases, slashing ship building programs, reconfiguring sub-hunting aircraft to other duties (And welding their sonar buoy hatches shut!!), and totaly getting rid of carrier based interceptor aircraft.

On behalf of the US Navy: President Bush

End this PROSUBRANT...

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:38 PM

CHRISISALL


I tried tellin' my bank that just 'cause they couldn't find any money in my account, doesn't mean there ain't none.
It seems financial institutions ain't as easy to fool...

$ for nothing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:48 PM

SERGEANTX


The real clincher for me, the thing that convinced me that he didnt' have them was that there was no indication of testing at all. The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them. It's their announcement to the world that they've arrived and a powerful disincentive for anyone who would invade.

Even if you can imagine some reason Hussein would have kept this a secret at first, when things got hairy and he saw us coming, he would have tested. It just makes no sense whatsoever not to.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by GunRunner:
the current administration is cutting funding to the navy, closing its most important bases, slashing ship building programs, reconfiguring sub-hunting aircraft to other duties (And welding their sonar buoy hatches shut!!), and totaly getting rid of carrier based interceptor aircraft.


I read about some of this. WTF sence does this make at a time of escalating fronts? Are they producing unmanned drones to do the work of conventional Naval forces without telling us?
Or is this thing with Iraq gonna be the last real conflict, then we're done?
Is that in the interest of national security??
(Hey, I may hate war, but as Bruce Willis said, "Always be prepared, son. Always be prepared.")

NO CLUE Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:59 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them.


In my little corner of the world the conventional wisdum is that his WMD's were mostly non-nuke in nature, that's why no testing ( I prefer Occam's Razor as to why there was no nuclear testing), and the bio-active s#*t to destroy the world needs less room to store than an average house has, so it could be anywhere, and delivery systems were dis-assembled and moved in trucks into Iran months before Saddam was found.
'Liberal' Massachusetts has it's share of delerium; not most share this view here, but enough to irritate.

Live the Fantasy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 3:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The real clincher for me, the thing that convinced me that he didnt' have them was that there was no indication of testing at all. The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them. It's their announcement to the world that they've arrived and a powerful disincentive for anyone who would invade.



So by this logic, Israel doens't have any nukes. Wanna bet?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 3:24 PM

SERGEANTX


Haven't they tested though? I thought they had. If I'm wrong on that, I stand corrected.

I'd still say Saddam had considerably more reason to test than to not. Israel is in a considerably different situation, existing essentially under the umbrella of the US nuclear deterrant.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 3:32 PM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by GunRunner:
the current administration is cutting funding to the navy, closing its most important bases, slashing ship building programs, reconfiguring sub-hunting aircraft to other duties (And welding their sonar buoy hatches shut!!), and totaly getting rid of carrier based interceptor aircraft.


I read about some of this. WTF sence does this make at a time of escalating fronts? Are they producing unmanned drones to do the work of conventional Naval forces without telling us?
Or is this thing with Iraq gonna be the last real conflict, then we're done?
Is that in the interest of national security??
(Hey, I may hate war, but as Bruce Willis said, "Always be prepared, son. Always be prepared.")

NO CLUE Chrisisall



Simply put Bush supports the Air Force (as he’s a former Air Force Reservist). Know all the bad press the USAF’s missile defense system has been getting, well the US Navy has a already operational (and in tests successful) system call the SM-1, 2 and 3 Standard Missiles that can take down a variety Ballistic Missiles (From tactical missiles like the SS-N-16 or SCUD to big @$$ Nuclear ICBMs) and sea skimming cruise missiles and even attack LAND TARGETS!! Yet the current administration is buying a lightly armed Destroyer (really a over rated Frigate) one at a time and at a slower rate than they are decoming current Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates, the same goes for the POS Virginia class submarines. (For crying out loud they basically want a nuclear sub that can operated in areas that smaller Diesel subs excel in and still it must operate as a Hunter Killer, and Carrier Escort. Buy a nucs for the open ocean and a smokeboats for the littorals, but Rickover’s ghost is still giving orders in the USN.)

Also President Clinton kept funding for navy projects like the Seawolf class SSN, and bases like Groton and Portsmouth are in blue states so…

Personally I think Bush Jr. wasn’t listening when daddy was telling him how the submarine USS Finback pulled him out of the ice cold Pacific after he bailed out of his aircraft in WWII.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:07 PM

CHRISISALL


Thanks GunRunner, very informative.

Learnin' new stuff all the time Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 5:13 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Your points are goods ones, but probably not in the way you intended. It is more a statement of why the UN doesn't work, as this nice article discusses

Actually I think they are goods points exactly as I intended them. The UN’s corrupt and inept handling of affairs like Iraq is, in my mind, one of the strongest arguments in favor of the US/UK lead coalition invasion of Iraq.

Arguing that UN resolutions concerning Israel are tantamount to those concerning Iraq since 1991 is a product of either ignorance or pretense. Many people are probably unaware of the difference between the two resolutions or that even two different types of UN resolutions exist. So it is important information to be aware of. On the other hand, intentionally confusing the two types of resolutions is intellectually dishonest.

As far as Israel having nukes, so does France. In fact France has one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet, larger certainly then Israel’s.
Quote:

Originally posted by GunRunner:
Simply put Bush supports the Air Force (as he’s a former Air Force Reservist). Know all the bad press the USAF’s missile defense system has been getting, well the US Navy has a already operational (and in tests successful) system call the SM-1, 2 and 3 Standard Missiles that can take down a variety Ballistic Missiles (From tactical missiles like the SS-N-16 or SCUD to big @$$ Nuclear ICBMs) and sea skimming cruise missiles and even attack LAND TARGETS!!

The SM system is an area defense, designed to protect ships from air attack. It’s similar to the PAC. It’s effectiveness in intercepting ICBMs is a part of the integration of national and theater missile defense. Essentially, Navy Midcourse is part of Missile Defense.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 5:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

and the bio-active s#*t to destroy the world needs less room to store than an average house has, so it could be anywhere
The problem with biologicals is that once released, one way or another (either through person to person transmission or environmental contamination, depending on the organism) they hit everyone (assuming you have not vaccinated your population en masse). They are truly the option of last resort. Chemicals are easier to control, but harder to deploy correctly, not something you do on the run and expect to work. Both the nuclear 'a' option (a bona fide bomb) and nuclear 'b' option (dirty bomb) on home soil would leave significant areas uninhabitable or unworkable.

OTOH, if you have them, and you have nothing left to lose, they make sense. If you use them, the country becomes in effect a poison pill the victor can't swallow. Or, even worse, the invader launches massive (CBN or conventional) retaliation, which makes the real estate value go down even more.

Before the US attacked Iraq, what convinced me there were no WMDs, was that if WMDs really were there in the quantities claimed, Bush was sending tens of thousands of US troops to certain death. (And without adequate sensing, protective gear, decontamination and medical capacity - ALL were lacking.) That would certainly have been unsupportable militarily, economically, and politically.

But say he was crazy enough to gamble that WMDs were there in vast quantities, and that they wouldn't be used for some reason. You'd THINK he'd put a high priority on finding and neutralizing them. But he didn't do that. He had to be goaded (belatedly) into sparing a few folks to look for them by the international and internal murmuring of the question - what about the WMDs?

It calls to mind Afghanistan. Remember that Bush fingered al Qaeda as the culprit within a couple of weeks. And in fact he said they had proof. It was only months afterward, when US troops were searching for documentary evidence, that they found a video of al Qaeda members celebrating the attack. I remember at the time the news agencies quite innocently reporting the news as given them by the military, that the US FINALLY had 'proof' al Qaeda was responsible. No one seemed to remember Bush claimed to have had proof months before.

What I surmise (which I've said before, so pardon the repetition) is that Bush went to Afghanistan on a hunch, and was lucky to be able to back it up after the fact. And that he expected the same thing of Iraq. He assumed he would find SOMETHING, somewhere, somehow, in order to justify his claims which he knew going in were substantially false. But it didn't work that way. And after some retroactive shifting of rationale (it was programs, or perhaps intentions ..... does it matter now that they're free?) they finally realized they didn't need to deny, explain, or excuse ... they'd gotten away with it. No on cared.

What's scary is how easily it happened. Somehow the reason to attack another country became a non-issue. As serious sociopaths, I'm sure this success will only embolden the administration.

My only question is - how unhinged are they? Iran doesn’t look do-able at the time. As badly as things are going at the moment, Iraq was actually an easy military target, and internationally politically isolated. Iran is anything but. Plus, it may be possible to whip the US into another war-lather by playing on fear and the promise you can provide certainty, but it won't make any US war-allies. The rest of the world ain't that stoopid - they've seen this once before. Plus there is no legal pretense that can be brought before the UN. (BTW, the US attack of Iraq was illegal, as no country can attack another country under the banner of the UN without a specific resolution allowing it. General resolutions don’t count.) The US is trying to provoke Iran, but Iran isn't biting. So, while I'm sure the administration is just itching to go after Iran, I don’t think they've found the means just yet.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 5:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


GunRunner,

I too appreciate the information.

I'm curious - it's been claimed that only the army is falling short of recruitment goals, that the other branches of the military are doing just fine. Does that square with what you know?

Thanks ahead of time,
Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
As serious sociopaths, I'm sure this success will only embolden the administration.


rue, while I agree totally with the bulk of what you said, don't you think the term 'sociopaths' is a little strong?
I prefer 'Highly motivated Capitalist Fundementalist Extremists".

That which we call a rose Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 7:06 AM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
You should check your facts. True, the USAF has a piece of NMD like the ABL, etc but NMD is NOT an USAF program. It is a DOD level program with pieces in all the services and DOD management.


I was not talking about the DOD level system I was talking about the USAF's ‘Stage Three’ Interceptor AKA The ABL. But the basic facts are that the Navy can take out ballistic missiles earlier and during the more vulnerable stages of launch (1 and 2), yet are receiving fewer ships to do this.

Quote:

You are asserting President Bush is somehow biased toward the USAF but I don't see anything backing that up either.

What about the Joint Strike Fighter program? The Air Force got basically what it wanted- a single engine air superiority fighter while the Navy is forced to use it in place of its twin engine Strike Fighters and relegate its F/A-18 Super Hornets to the interception role, which are slower, have less range and can't carry the AIM-54 compared to the F-14.

How about the "Downgrade" of the Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates? Their MK 13 Mod 4 (SM-1 Missile/Harpoon) launchers are removed and replaced with nothing. So basically every battle group that has a force of FFG-7s (Which is almost all of them) has 40 less Standard missiles for fleet air defense while the current AEGIS ships need to carry more SM-3s for anti-ballistic missile duty.

Or the Navy is receiving less funding to operate their carrier force while special political considerations are being made so the Air Force can have air bases in nations that are less than upstanding members of the international community.

Large numbers of sailors are now being told they either need to take a discharge or join the ARMY because the damn funding isn’t there to maintain our current force levels.

Oh but the Navy gets purdy new uniforms so the current administration can’t be against the Navy.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 7:15 AM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
GunRunner,

I too appreciate the information.

I'm curious - it's been claimed that only the army is falling short of recruitment goals, that the other branches of the military are doing just fine. Does that square with what you know?

Thanks ahead of time,
Rue



I heard that the USMC is also short of its recruiting goals.

Well I don't have any hard numbers in front of me but the Navy's personnel levels are being lowered so recruiting could be down but on paper they look to be doing ok.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 8:45 AM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:

Originally posted by GunRunner:
What about the Joint Strike Fighter program? The Air Force got basically what it wanted- a single engine air superiority fighter while the Navy is forced to use it in place of its twin engine Strike Fighters and relegate its F/A-18 Super Hornets to the interception role, which are slower, have less range and can't carry the AIM-54 compared to the F-14.




I find it strange you should bring up the JSF. That is essentially a Navy run program. The management does rotate between USAF and Navy every two years but the heart and guts of the program are run by Navy. Yes, it is single engine design but technological changes have made them more reliable than the two engine models it is replacing -- and then there is the cost and LCC aspects to deal with. As I recall the last twin engine Navy aircraft program didn't turn out so great either. Life ain't perfect.


Just because the Navy managed it doesn’t mean the USAF didn't lay down the law on the engine issue. The Navy was the only branch that had a need for a twin-engine system and it came down to no aircraft or one engine. Anyways a single reliable engine doesn’t matter much when you have to fly it home with a dozen 20mm holes through it.

Which is the "last twin engine Navy aircraft program" your talking about? The F/A-18? I didn't realize that turned out bad?

Quote:

As for carrying the Phoenix, well, every service has taken its share of cut backs over the years. I thought the AIM-120 was supposed to replace it. Practically speaking, Phoenix is an old system and expensive to maintain. Sorry, that is just the way it works. No one said it was going to be fair. Ask the B-2 folks what they think of a 21 aircraft fleet. For a service whose entire mission is offensive air power that represents a major cut in capability.
The AIM-120 is meant to replace the AIM-7, if its meant to replace the Phoenix its totally the wrong system for it, it lacks he range and can't be carried on the same launchers. It maybe old but its still one of the best systems to intercept strike aircraft with.

Quote:

However, I highly doubt that the administration is "against the Navy". Its called Transformation to move to a lighter more flexible and responsive force. Some systems are going to have to change and it is painful.
It may not be against it but its certainly ignorant of it. "Lighter", "Flexible" and "More Responsive" are common buzz words they say when their are going to screw you on something. Everyone is saying the Cold War is over and we don't need all these warships but they fail to realize that all those submarines the Russians were going to flood the North Atlantic with are just changing hands and going to China, Iran ETC and nations like France, Russia, Germany, and Sweden are selling cutting edge submarines to anyone with deep pockets. The Swedish submarine HMS Gotland just arrived in San Diego so we can do some ASW training with it, one of the US Navy Admirals responsible for arranging the transfer was quoted as saying “He’s glad they are on our side”. Russia is starting a program to build a small SSG (Guided Missile Submarine) for export called the Amur Project 950, its capable of carrying 10 land attack and or anti-ship cruise missiles- basically anyone with sufficient money can get a little carrier killer submarine. Simply put we need to go up against greater numbers of highly advanced boats while doing it with less numbers in every department.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

You also should check your facts. The US military has prepared for NBC conflicts since WWII. We were anticipating an Iraqi NBC attack in Mar 2003.

Was everything perfect? Of course not but neither was President Bush sending "tens of thousands of US troops to certain death" in case they did encounter WMD. A few unanticipated shortfalls does not "ALL were lacking" make.

As a scientist in part tasked with WMD detection and protection, and backgrounded in deployment, I KNOW what the state of the art was at the time the US attacked Iraq. Even IF the troops had 'state of the art' it would not have been sufficient. But rather than state of the art, they had inferior left-overs in vastly insufficient quantities (bought at top-notch cost).
Preparations were a farce.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL