"Yes, it was Rossevelt who was the war monger not Hitler, Tojo, not Muslini who started WWII."

Examples of your twists...

"If we put all our energy in finding UBL we won't notice Iran. Notice that when we started to get close to restricting Iran's nuclear program we had a dust up in Lebanon."

Currently we aren't putting "all our energy in finding UBL", simply because finding him doesn't remove the threat of Extremist activity.

As for restricting Iran's nuclear program, the political pressure has been steady, and how you can make the claim of "we" in regards to Israel attacking Hezbollah because they have been firing thousands of rockets into their country from Lebanon is unfounded and silly.

"First the United Nations was who ordered us into Korea not the United States"

Uh huh, and it's the United Nations that have troops based there and have had for the last 50 years right?

"You keep harping on the Intelligence being bad or sexed up. Iraq was in clear violation of the surrender agreement and on top of that he was harboring known terrorist involved with 9/11."

The intel was both bad and sexed up. In order to fit the policy of invastion in Iraq are you mentally deficient or unable to see that because you are clouded by your political views, and how they perhaps can never be wrong.

Additionally the AQ links were not solid, and pre-invasion nothing more then "suggested" By kicking in the door in Iraq and stirring a hornets nest of insurgent violence because of a piss poor post war plan with no exit strategy whatsoever, we've attracted not only AQ, but other foreign fighters from the neighboring countries to attack us not only for their own causes and political goals but because of our handling of the detainnees and perceived Islamic intolerance by our country. The surveys support it more so then even the support for homocide bombings, so what of it?

Rather then defend the original case for this war, which is clearly no longer why we are there, yet we still are there, you are defending it now, well how many more years or decades do you intend to support our remaining in Iraq in force? How many more years do we need to act as a police force because the Iraqi's refuse to police their own country fairly?

Debating with you when you make up facts is neithter a good allocation of my time or efforts, let me lay it out for ya real simple.

There are WMD, the programs to build them were either non existent or years from becomming capable of even low rate production. The documents used as evidence were forged or made up entirely, CIA didn't know their ass from page 2 when it came to what was happening inside Iraq, because of this the post-war plan has gone south and insurgent violence is as bad as it ever was. Iraq was made the battlefield upon which AQ has fought along with thousands of foreign fighters, the end in sight isn't near at the present rate, the casualties though, not catastrophic, also seem to not have any end in sight either. If you go to war and the goal is to build a nation, you make that clear before you go, that wasn't the goal, the goals as stated before the war, have been achieved, The Iraqi people live in freedom, under a democratically elected official, they have soverignity, but not yet security. That's their problem not ours, they are not American citizens. It's as simple as that.


"What makes you think that we stand a chance of stopping Iran from getting them?"
Covert ops based on good intel, not intel that's molded to fit the policy by civillian leadership.

I'm finished debating with you on this issue in this thread.

Say we send in a team to Iran or Korea, and we did some nasty things. If anyone is captured it is a defacto declaration of war. They can start dropping bombs on us any time after we have been captured. If the troops are not caught then who is going to believe that the Korean nuclear facility just blew up on its own without our help? What you suggest is what you see in movies, bad novels as well as stupid news paper reports.

You are so full of hate and b.s. it is undeniable. Obviously there is no conventional force solution to a war in Iran, without sustaining critical numbers of casualites, so you don't send in the marines and army, you don't spend months building up a force, hoping that their leader will crumble and then invading anyway like was done in Iraq.

Option 1 What you do is use your satellite technology to your advantage. Locate the general sites suspected of nuclear manufactuing, use the internet to find out who works at the sites, intercept their phone calls using the NSA, find out what they are doing or likely doing, then have the CIA insert a few operatives of middle-eastern origin. Do some scouting, then set up a network of defectors with visa and citizenship offers to come to the USA, yea most urban Iranians would give that a shot rather then living in Iran, Find the sites that need action. Then you move a carrier into region, and you fly B-2's and F-22's into the area to perform total stealth strikes on targets lazed from the ground, using the carrier as a rescue platform should a stealth bird get shot down, not too likely since the F-22 hardly enters the weapons engagement zone, and in a stealth operation it would be total surprise.

Assuming 10-20 strikes carried out simultaneously with maybe 75% hit and kill ratio on the targets which is pessimistic considering the JDAM's success thus far, Iran wouldn't be building any nuclear weapons. It's not a question of will but when they'll target Iran. If diplomatic efforts fail then the strike is the only option.

Option 2 Do all of the above, but rather then using the airforce, use a sizable ground force of covert agents and demolition teams to destroy the critical infastructure and steal documents, whatever is available on the ground at the time. This would be less costly in terms of $$ and possibly offer the same chance of success, if it fails you could always fall back on option 1 either within in the next few hours or months.

"If anyone is captured it is a defacto declaration of war."

If you automatically assume that to be the case, then would that not be better, having a small group of infiltrators captured, then the dozens or even hundreds we see in Iraq having being captured. This isn't the 1970's the mission to rescue the hostages went south not because of the enemies' abilities but because of our own mistakes, i.e. helicopters flying to close, and 2 of them having to turn back, aborting the entire mission. Today there wouldn't need to be any Americans on the ground during the actual airstrikes, only before confirming the targets. Iranians could even do the lazing or the targets could be gps located by American's on the ground before the attack. There are unlimited options. I'm just suggesting something I know is capable by the airforce.

"If the troops are not caught then who is going to believe that the Korean nuclear facility just blew up on its own without our help?"

I'm not suggesting North Korea be targeted in this way, we've lost that battle, why? Because we were too busy searching for WMD that wasn't/isn't there. Now it's a conflict about oil, and about freedom for the Iraqi's who don't want freedom, they want stability. So if follow your suggetion, we'll fight endlessly for their freedom meanwhile they're country goes to hell in a handbasket. If their top priority was freedom then they would be shooing us out to be free of their occupiers, and coming down hard on anyone who would do them harm. But their top priority is security and because of that they are willing to sacrifice their own newly given freedom and even reject it. No North Korea needs to be further sanctioned, and isolated, even cut off from the rest of world, and it also needs to be a Chinese problem, since the country sits on their southern border. The only reason we were there was to prevent them from going nuclear. Well TOOOO LATE!

The same thing cannot happen in Iran which is really more potentially dangerous then North Korea. One interesting thing the DPRK hasn't done is demand American pull out of troops in South Korea, under threat of nuclear war. Iran would probably make that threat and even perhaps carry it out, considering the mad nature of their leader.

"What you suggest is what you see in movies, bad novels as well as stupid news paper reports."

What I suggest?, Hell Paladin, you didn't even know what I suggested before I said it, unless you can read my mind from a few hundred or thousand miles away with perfect precision. So why don't you take a pill man rather then jumping the gun.

"The war with Iraq used each option you outlined pretty much in the order you listed and yet you complain that it was poorly planned and executed."

I didn't say the war was poorly planned and executed. It was over in 3 weeks, the post war has been a utter failure. The REASONSSSSSSSS for war, were poorly gathered and incorrectly represented by the President to the People. STOP TWISTING MY WORDS AND MEANING JERK!

"we have had two carrier groups in the area since the first Gulf war I don't think that it has slowed them down."

Using them as a military force to destroy military infastructure rather then just power projection, sitting out in the gulf, will accomplish alot in a short time.

"The president is using diplomacy at the moment because if we attack now then all the people that would normally side with us would run away and we will be all alone"

GEE KINDA LIKE IN IRAQ? Genius, that's another part of the post war plan in Iraq that has failed, being largely the only force in country, certainly not the only force, but the only meaningful invasion as well as occupying force in the region.

"Your assumption is that we know where these sites are. Since the media was kind enough to share with the world our abilities to find stuff, Iran and Korea have read the papers and had 15 years to build and hide their facilities. Look how hard it has been to find the Nuclear equipment we know was sold to Iraq, or to find the WMD Iraq said they have. We know they have the equipment because we have found the bills of sale from France, Germany, and Russia and the receipt documents."

OMG... you mean the fake bills of sale of nuclear centrifuges? You mean to total lack of nuclear weapons lab equipment in Iraq found to date? You are making up facts! CITE SOME DOCUMENTATION LOL.

Of course an operation to strike targets would require us knowing where they are, well that intelligence gathering has already been ongoing I would imagine. If one had to start today it could still be accomplished, as Iraq has a regime change, and North Korea already has the bomb, then Iran is last country left on the list of the new axis of evil. Where else would you rather put the time and effort in intelligence?

"Ok, here is the problem with options 1 & 2; first you have to understand the national mentality. any attack on any Arab nations will provoke an automatic reaction of religios pride and solidarity. This means to attack Iran it must be done in thirty days or less. To ensure success we must first have the locations of the sites that need to be destroyed. At this time I don't think we have located more than 5% of them. Until we locate 85% or more we need to be diplomatic."

If you had read the plan I outlined, as a military option 1 and 2, the strikes would be over and down with in a single night/day. Not 30 days. National mentality in Iran is already somewhat hostile both to the United States, and the western world. Even if they were openly at war with us, they have no means of attacking the United States at present. They are too far away. If they tried to go the route of state sponsored terrorism well that threat would have to be met with a larger UN force occupying their country.

"If you only knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous."

Would that be more or less dangerous then North Korea with the bomb, and us completely invested in a failed post war Iraq with no way out? Instead of making up facts, explain to me why I don't know I'm talking about yet, North Korea has a nuclear weapon, and facilities to build more intact, Iran is less then 5 years maybe 3 away from being the same and we are decades from being out of IRAQ? Answer me how this is not a failure.

"I have stated several times that WMD as been found in Iraq on several occasions yet you maintain that they are not there and never were there. Again I ask you what do you call WMD? North Korea only has one friendly nation and that is China. China has been supporting North Korea since the Korean conflict began in 1950, how do you make North Korea a problem for the Chinese? The only reason we are on the border with North Korea is becasue it was mandated by the United Nations that South Korea be supported and we got stuck with the bill. Once again you show your ignorance to history. History did not begin when you were in High School."

China is North Korea's biggest trading partner, and they are communist allies, but to say the Chinese really like North Korea sitting with nukes on their border, and wanting to go to war with Japan, it's rather unlikely. WMD are Nuclear Chemical and Biological weapons with delivery systems. To date, the mobile weapons labs have been discounted as hydrogen gas producers, there was no meaningful nuclear weapons program in production, no chemical weapons, as they were largely destroyed by UN mandate.

HERES SOME REALITY FOR YOU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

"There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance."

Sounds like stockpiles, and mutiple eminent threats of WMD were readily available to be used. So if they had WMD right Paladin, if all my facts and evidence were incorrect... Why were absolutely none of the WMD Iraq continued to posess used againt troops during the invasion?

Answer: BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY!!!

"I was in on the after action report of Eagle claw. It was poor leadership that caused that mess. Each of the three branches of the military could have pulled that one off without a hitch. The biggest mistake was that it was a joint forces operation. Refulers from the Air Force, Navy and Marine chopper pilots, Marine ground forces lead by an Army Colonel. Each branch does things differently, they work because they thing the same. Mixing the three caused confusion and when the Colonel panicked he ordered everyone out. This has to be coordinated when you deal with things that fly. The Colonel did not bother with that tiny detail. In all fairness this was the second time in modern US military history that they had tried a joint forces operation and for the second time it failed."

Oh you are so full of it. Joint operations, have been used since WW2,
Korea Navy, Airforce, Army
Cuban Missile Crisis Navy, Airforce
Vietnam Army, Marines, Airforce, Navy
The Gulf war saw the heavy use of Join Operations, though because the conflict was so large in scope less efficient.

In operation to rescue the hostages, two choppers collided, and the entire group of 8 had to turn back, because there wasn't adaquate fuel to pick up the entire group of hostages on the other six choppers. In the slums of Mogodishu, there was no air support or heavy rescue force in the back up to secure the downed chooper. There are lots of incidents of tactical follies but to blame it on joint ops. Maybe in that particular incidence before the era of "information warfare" which we now exist in the possibilty of joint operations being a failure was likely, but if so, then the mission wouldn't have been executed in the first place. In this case, we cannot failr, and we wouldn't if a strike was called on.

"If Iran has a nuclear weapon we can't bomb them with nuclear weapons because the rest of the world will be mad at us."

Listen up Barry Goldwater... I never suggested using nuclear weapons on any target ever. That's just stupid. Conventional weaponry is more then enough to destroy or degrade their nuclear manufacture infastructure enough. If Iran developes a nuclear weapon and gives it away to a terrorist organization, or uses it on its own, even developed a nuclear weapon we will have lost any war in which we have to fight. Nobody wants to envision a world with nukes in the hands of suicidal regimes or mad regimes, or suicidal terrorist organizations. That is what is likely to happen if Iran developes the bomb. Acts of war or not, if Iran won't disarm, then "we'll disarm them" right?

No what you should do, is have a little respect for a dissenting opinion, and not consider everybody elses ideas completely crap, but do as you will. I don't care. I'm just sick of you making up facts, and twisting what I have to say.

OMG... you mean the fake bills of sale of nuclear centrifuges? You mean to total lack of nuclear weapons lab equipment in Iraq found to date? You are making up facts! CITE SOME DOCUMENTATION LOL.

Scott Ritter:
"There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war."

His facts are correct his opinion about going to war is worthless unless he is President of the United States. One grain of anthrax is not a threat but it can be used to grow more which will become a threat.


from wikipedia
On June 20, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that tons of uranium, as well as other radioactive materials such as thorium, had been recovered, and that the vast majority had remained on site. There were several reports of radiation sickness in the area.

This was in Iraq but I guess tons of uranium does not count right?


again from wikipedia:
After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home — buried in the front yard — awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed. He said, "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end." In his book, "The Bomb in My Garden," the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program. However it would require a massive investment and a re-creation of thousands of centrifuges in order to reconstitute a full centrifugal enrichment program.

Yup, I told wikipedia to put that in because I made it all up. I remember the broadcast and news reports of this but you don't seem to be able to Mr. Greene. You quoted Scott Ritter but you did not seem to read what he said. When it came to facts he was ok, his opinions are what you harped on but they seem to contradict what was found. Sure I grant that Iraq was not an immediate threat with WMD but he was working on them as best he could and when the inspectors were kicked out. Iraq supported terrorist which was the other reason we went in there. So to sum it up Iraq violated the surrender agreement, and supported terrorist just like the president said they did.

Perhaps you just see things differently looking at the same facts, and the blanks are filled in via imaginary ones you create.

As I said before I'm finished debating you.

Lets start 1 by 1. Name one "fact" I haven't supported. I'll go get you some supporting evidence.

But I'm not going to spend the rest of my life debating with a guy who's advocating we make finding a way out of the solar system "top priority" to the solution of global warming, and who denies that second hand smoke causes cancer.

"Why did he have tons of Urainum?"

Show me evidence of this a link, anything to support that.

I admit that the statement that Iraq had absolutely no Weapons of Mass Destruction is incorrect, according to your link. If I have stated that in an argument, then that is wrong I admit being wrong in any case of that.

Let me be more specific and demaning in your proof, even though they apparently discovered some WMD, some "degraded", "hazaradous", "potentially lethal", that is description could equally apply to motor oil, or thousands of household items, and hardly, hardly Paladin, amounts to either the NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM that was implied to supposedly be in progress, and neither does it contradict my statement in hardly any meaningful way, "pretty clear Iraq didn't have a massive stock pile of WMD"


A. A quantity of 500 old, not ready for battle munitions degraded, but potentially lethal, that doesn't hold up to where we are now, which is nearly 3,000 dead servicemen and women. There deaths were lethal as a result of the decision to take the war to Iraq, the decision to stay after, the search and verificaion of WMD's destruction was over, elect a government. Now we run from battle to battle putting down insurgent and sectarian violence. For what? Just because we are that nice?

B. 500 is not a massive stock pile, in all likely hood these were forgotten by the Iraqi's or lost, sorta like the lost BILLIONS of dollars over there, that we've invested in this unsold to the American people enterprise of creating a nation of democracy in Iraq.

C. According to your smoking gun and earth shattering document of proof, the document also proclaims "chemical munitions are assessed to still exist". Where the hell are they? If the Iraqi's don't know how the hell are we expected to find them?
I'll answer that question, they don't exist.

D. Because we've chosen to get neck deep and rapidly progressing to over our heads in Iraq, the opportunity cost, is North Korea has a nuclear weapon if not mutiple nuclear weapons. Also, Iran is perhaps two and six years of having their own Nuclear weapon. Rather then getting in and out and ready to deal with a hostile threat militarily we are tied up in Iraq today, tomorrow, for the foreseeable future, and beyond that even. As you have stated, as long as it takes, and nobody, NOBODY is giving us numbers, not one more year, or two more years, or even five, we're going to be in Iraq for a dozen more years or more?

"The websites you listed did not say that second hand smoke causes cancer"

You mean like right here?

"Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma."

Or here...

"Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."

"Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."

"Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

I suppose the American lung association is just a propaganda movement right?
What planet are you on right no Paladin are you plugged in?

One more for ya just in case you think the rest of BS.
www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

Let me be more specific and demaning in your proof, even though they apparently discovered some WMD, some "degraded", "hazaradous", "potentially lethal", that is description could equally apply to motor oil, or thousands of household items, and hardly, hardly Paladin, amounts to either the NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM that was implied to supposedly be in progress, and neither does it contradict my statement in hardly any meaningful way, "pretty clear Iraq didn't have a massive stock pile of WMD"

It was not the point that Iraq had a massive stockpile or a minimum stockpile. He admitted he had WMD, he agreed to let the UN destroy them in order to stop the war, and then refused to do so. This is where you fell into the lie Mr. Greene. No one has threatened to kill us with motor oil. Saddam had the raw materials to make nuclear weapons, which was proven. All the stockpiles of WMD have not been located and that worries us and he had said he would use them on us. The fact that he had nuclear material and was trying to get the rest of the equipment to make a bomb is not good. We trusted Korea to keep their word with the Clinton Administration and in 4 short years he took his nuclear materials and made 6 bombs then tested one. The Gulf war ended and 12 years passed without any intelligence people on the ground all we had was satellite data to go on. Based on what we saw Iraq was more advanced than North Korea. Would it be prudent to ignore what we saw, what we knew he had and what he was capable of doing with what he SAID he had? If we go after a country that is trying to get the bomb it is easier than going after a county that already has the bomb. You see if we went after North Korea two nations would get hit. South Korea and Japan. Both of those countries wanted to avoid being nuked for some strange reason, and since the direct threat was theirs not ours we did things their way. It did not work out as well as we would have hoped in both case but such is life. We now have positive proof that Iraq does not have the use of WMD. Next step is Iran, making the same threats as Iraq and doing the same things as North Korea. What do you think we should do here?

BS, it was implied that he was pursuing a nuclear weapon. No honest evidence of that exists. The intel that did suggest that was fake, some of it created or forged to look that way, again manipulation of intel to fit the POLICY!

So the article I posted where the head of the Iraqi nuclear program had the plans and parts hidden in his garden meant Saddam was not planning to start his nuclear program up again.

Paladin wrote: "Saddam had the raw materials to make nuclear weapons" Mr. Greene replied: Wrong.

So the tons of nuclear material that was found meant he was building a big birthday cake right?

I ask you directly which intel was faked, which was manipulated, and which was forged.

There is no nuclear bomb or potential development of nuclear bomb, yet even though the country is erupting into a multi-facted civil war, with no hope of maintaining the integrity of the nation of Iraq, we are sill there. Not searching for nukes but searching for a way to get that light sweet crude shipped world wide for the next 200 years.

Oh, back to the oil thing again. lol

"What do you think we should do here?" I think I should stop talking to you, because you enjoy making up facts way too much.

What is the use? You are so correct here, I mean I post news reports and you ignore them and look for some other thing I wrote to claim it is made up.

Wow you sure seem to talk about the sun a lot, almost as if you had created it yourself.

Yes Mr. Greene, I in my spare time invented the sun, something you have yet to notice. You are not a stupid person yet you act like on on so many levels.

You can stick your head in the sand, up your ass, I don't care, I've listed a few sites, all of them concluding the same thing. If you wish to deny the truth be my guest. But what you believe doesn't make it a fact. I'm finished speaking with you for good.

You have listed websites that did not have any scientific value other than they were politically motivated.

If we had these dweebs {read liberals} in the 1700's while trying to create a nation we would still be under Englands rule.

Don't forget the Patriots, no shortage of Patriots in Iraq either.