Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by johnny: The point was that you said that Americans were being killed BECAUSE of the invasion in Iraq, which is simply not true, don't try to change the subject.

I'm afraid it is.

Now, assuming the US had not attacked Iraq, would there be more terrorist attacks on the US killing US civilians? I'm thinking no, since as far as I'm informed, extremely few reported terrorists prior to the Iraq invasion were Iraqi, Saddam kept his country clamped down pretty hard and he was not a friend of the religious fanatics. Saddam being able to actually attack the US was completely impossible, he lacked an air force, ICBM's and also every kind of non-conventional weaponry it was claimed he had.

So we can assume that no Americans would be dying for Iraq/Saddam-related reasons had Iraq not been invaded.

However, at the moment many Americans are dying in Iraq, and the destruction of the country is quite likely to spawn a lot of Iraqi recruits for Al Qaeda that will view America in a rather bad light. So invading Iraq has already lead to a lot of American deaths and is likely to lead to more in the future, both directly and indirectly.

Now, check your PM's, TL.

[ 02-12-2007, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Iraq was invaded only after people died in the US, already forgot about that ?

Yes, those damned Iraqis who flew into the tower, damn them all.

Guys, if you're going to discuss the TREATY, then maybe you should READ IT. It allows signatories to develop peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Under that treaty, Iran is allowed to develop civilian uses for nuke tech. In order to deny them that right you must assume that they are not developing civilian nuke tech, but rather military. Now, normally I'm not happy with presuming guilt, but with Iran I'm pretty cool with it. [/QUOTE]Why would we want to make a false assumption? In 2006 Iran announced they had constructed a complex of 164 centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Now, centrifuges are pretty old-school as far as nuclear technology goes, but that's the most advanced method they have available. Considering that weapons-grade material requires at least an 80% enrichment to U-238, it would take that many centrifuges years to enrich it to that degree. Enrichment for civilian purposes, however, is only 2-3%, and would subsequently take much less time. If they were going for weapons, it would make sense that they would be going for quicker methods rather than what they have. As it is, their infrastructure will limit them to civilian usage.

Also, you're joking about the Iraqis flying into the tower, right?

[ 02-12-2007, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]

[robertthebard]

How do we know it's a false assumption? If I wanted to cover purchases of Uranium, I might do a press release saying something totally innocent to cover why I'm making the purchase. It's no more a stretch to say that than it is to say Iran is shipping explosives, or other supplies, including people, to the insurgency in Iraq.

The fact is, we can assume innocence, or we can assume guilt, it's no matter, since we don't know what's really going on, and asking won't do us any good either.

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Sure, we could assume guilt. That worked out great for us last time, didn't it? Yeah, let's drive ahead, with no hard evidence, and barrel into another country, while we're still bogged down from our last assumption of guilt.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Man Who Fights Like Woman: Also, you're joking about the Iraqis flying into the tower, right?

I am absolutely not. I damn every Iraqi who flew into the towers.

If there were any, of course.

[PurpleXVI]

The majority were Saudis, with representation from the UAE, Lebanon(One guy) and Egypt, at least according to all the information I can dig up.

Which I suppose means that you should have declared war on Saudi Arabia instead. Ah well, you can hardly be blamed, all those places down there look the same, don't they? Funny things on people's heads, camels and sand.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Man Who Fights Like Woman: Sure, we could assume guilt. That worked out great for us last time, didn't it? Yeah, let's drive ahead, with no hard evidence, and barrel into another country, while we're still bogged down from our last assumption of guilt.

Look dude, it's really simple. Assume which ever way you wish.

http://www.mrc.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp

Even if you want to take the Liberal view that, "these aren't the WMD's we were looking for", the fact that they were found at all is significant. The fact of the matter is, the press can twist the facts any way they want to, and paint a picture any way they want, and most people are going to snatch it up.

BTW, I consider myself to be pretty much middle of the road, politics wise, but ignoring any facts in any discussion, and just saying, "Bush lied" is BS. The president isn't the only one that sent us to war in Iraq. Congress voted for it too, and while it was a Republican body, in both houses, it wasn't enough so to say that's the reason.

[PurpleXVI]

Oh, right, they found it in 2003 but despite all the criticism they were facing, it wasn't disclosed till 2006? Why would anyone believe that? They were getting shit from everyone for not having found something, if they really had, they would have plastered it all over the news the moment they found a vial containing the common cold.

And here's another thing: Why would Saddam's forces not have used the chemical weapons against the US invasion if they had them?

Finally: Considering the fact that this is nothing near what was claimed(What was it? Attemped nuclear capabilities? Anthrax? Sarin?), still means it was a false accusation that turned out badly. And even if something was found, there wasn't any evidence of it beforehand, it was pure luck that they stumbled across something.

PS: How does it matter who lied? The fact is that it was a false accusation that turned into a huge screw-up, and it's the same thing happening now. At least against Iraq they had the decency to doctor up some "evidence," but now they're just accusing without even attempting to prove.

PPS: If the US government actually believed Iran was on the verge of nuclear weapons, or actually had them, they wouldn't be attacking, because then they know it would probably end up being used against them or their forces in Iraq.

[robertthebard]

Hmm, the document was set for immediate release June 23, 2006, when it the information it refers to was partially declassified. However, as I have pointed out before, please do carry on with the bashing, because even when faced with evidence to the contrary, it has to be a lie.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmustard.htm

Here's the not mass destruction weapon they found in Iraq. You tell me.

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Here's something interesting you may have missed.

Experts agree that the WMD discussed in the report are older weapons, not new ones generated in the late 1990s

Sure sounds like the ones the US sold the Iraqis and not like ones they made themselves to me. So, not only was there no production as suspected, but they were probably no good. Not only that, but while we're making all these wild assumptions here, it's possible to assume that it was a lost stockpile.