Say Anything Blog

In order for diplomacy to work, you have to try some. These guys you support should crack open a history book or two. By the way, at what point did Iran become our sworn enemy? They’re a bunch of homicidal kooks for sure, but if you’re going to go on about sworn enemies you may want to talk about the people who killed 3,000 Americans. It wasn’t Iran.

I wonder if bush has ever invited them out for a nice dinner.

In order for diplomacy to work, you have to try some.

Diplomacy hasn’t been tried with Iran?  So what the hell has the UN and all those European nations been doing?

By the way, at what point did Iran become our sworn enemy?

When they threatened to wipe Israel off the map?  When they’ve supported terrorists in Iraq?  How far back do you want to go?  The hostage situation during Carter’s term?

These people are our enemies whether you want to admit it or not. 

if you’re going to go on about sworn enemies you may want to talk about the people who killed 3,000 Americans. It wasn’t Iran.

Just more indication of how people like you don’t get it on national security.  Al Qaeda isn’t the only threat this country faces.  Just because we haven’t caught Osama doesn’t mean we can’t take this threat from Iran seriously.

If your feelings on this subject make their way up to the mainstream Democrats you guys are going to lose election after election.  This threat is real, and you all look like a bunch of fools running around screeching "don’t look behind the curtain!" 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I didn’t say the threat wasn’t real. I just said that Iran isn’t any way our "sworn enemy". Diplomacy requires subtlety, not a contest to see who has the biggest one. At the end of the day it ends up saving lives and keeping us on top of the world.

I just said that Iran isn’t any way our "sworn enemy".

So they are a threat, but they aren’t our enemy?

That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Diplomacy requires subtlety, not a contest to see who has the biggest one. At the end of the day it ends up saving lives and keeping us on top of the world.

You keep pretending like diplomacy hasn’t been tried.  The UN is involved.  All the major global political players are involved.  We’ve gone to the security council.  Iran doesn’t give a whoop, they’re charging ahead with nuclear weapons anyway.

You know, I find it interesting that a bunch of people you described as "madmen" are one step away from a nuclear weapon…but all you can talk about is how President Bush is the real threat.

All due respect, but you need to set aside the politics and get with the program. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

The Pakistanis, Russians ,Chinese ,Indians and  Isrealis  all have bombs. Somehow we have all survived.

Only one country is threatening the use of nuclear weapons in the region. Care to guess who? 

The Iranians could have a bomb in 4 hours  if they would contact their old arms dealer Oliver North .

The Pakistanis, Russians ,Chinese ,Indians and Isrealis all have bombs. Somehow we have all survived.

Those countries want to survive. Willing to take the chance with a country headed up by a leader who believes that sowing destruction and discord will speed up the process of the 12th Imam’s return? I don’t. You seem to think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a sane individual. I don’t.

Only one country is threatening the use of nuclear weapons in the region. Care to guess who?

Only one? Try again.

The Iranians could have a bomb in 4 hours if they would contact their old arms dealer Oliver North .

Glad to see that you’re taking this seriously.

Iran has historically been one of the bad boys on the block in that region and will continue to be so. Comparing Iran to the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Israelis and Indians is like comparing chalk and cheese. These are religeous fananatics that base their political and every day decisions on religeon. That makes them volatile. Commom sense doesn’t come into it.Anyone thinking that the Iranians are developing nuclear projects for civilian use is at best being optomistic in the extreme or at worsed very naive.

Doc…I don’t believe I have ever seen anyone like Michael. He is so far out there that I am not sure there is a catagory other than lunatic??? Honestly, I think he is so inconsiderate and could be a danger to our world. He is scary!

Wow…sixteen days. You can toss me on the leftist ranter pile too I guess because you’d have to be a fool to believe that based on all of the other timeframes we’ve heard.

Be honest…doesn’t anyone here ever question some of the more outrageous claims, if even only for a minute? There’s enough to worry about in the world today without this kind of nonsense.

Flame away. 

Note that that’s a fairly heavily qualified statement:

...may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant…

They may be capable of building a bomb (then again, maybe not), but only if they install the centrifuges…which they haven’t (yet).

That said, it’s somewhat naieve to claim that Iran has been anything but a self-declared enemy of the United States since at least 1979. It’s equally Pollyannaish to refuse to recognize their apparent thirst for nuclear weapons. Based on recent behavior and statements, to believe that the present regime in Iran is a rational actor and would be trustworthy with a nuclear strike capability is a rather big leap of faith.

dave…nothing wrong with being prepared but put yourself in the place of someone who doesn’t automatically believe the claims of the Administration. Hyperbolic statements such as this do nothing to increase my confidence in the reliability of American pronouncements.

 Iran Could Have The Bomb In 16 Days

Spare me the rhetoric please.

Diplomacy hasn’t been tried with Iran?  So what the hell has the UN and all those European nations been doing?

I know we don’t have an Embassy in Tehran.  I don’t think we even have diplomatic relations with Tehran.  I believe the Brits and the Aussies are our middle men.

It is quite hard to have effective diplomacy when the two parties themselves aren’t on speaking terms.

It’s childish, like when the mom and dad aren’t speaking they tell the kid to tell the other parent something.

When they threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

While I will be the first to defend Israel philosophically, I also know that if that’s is in the list of why we need to bomb Iran, we better just throw that thinking out right now.

First, when it hits the fan, Israel WILL take care of things themselves. 

We don’t need to be defending them.  They can take care of themselves.

And why would we help them anyway, we’ve been aiding their enemies in taking their territory that was rightfully won back away for decades.

Comparing Iran to the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Israelis and Indians is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Not really, the India and Paki have been at eachothers throats for decades, and to the edge of the nuclear cliff in the past decade.

While they are good at math and computer science, they suck at running their nations.

The Russians wanted to destroy us.  The Chinese are looking to destroy us.  And the Israelis are the only ones that are consistent (other than when they bombed the USS Liberty in 1967 I think it was).

The ‘powers that be’ better think ‘effing hard about this one.

Get your kids ready for the Draft, cuz it’s a comin’!

Get your kids ready for the Draft, cuz it’s a comin’!

<script language="javascript" xsrc="http://www.conservativepunk.com/bunkvoter.js"></script>

So that did’t work, jsut go here: 

http://www.conservativepunk.com/bunkvoter.js

No, the Russians never wanted to destroy us; they wanted to win the Cold War. That’s not the same thing as destroying us (or anyone else, for that matter).

As far as letting Israel face fate alone, that’s no way to treat one of our best allies, and doing so would have serious repercussions for our nation in the long term.

They currently have the capacity to produce 3% enriched U235.  You need 90% enriched U235 for weapons grade material.  They are a long way from that.

The 16 day number is simply pie in the sky. It may take 10 years for them to develop that capacity according to any expert I’ve heard, and Rademaker (prounced RAID MAKER) is not one by any account.  Uranium-based bombs are a very inefficient means of stockpiling bombs in any case, so the most you’d likely see is one or two, not exactly a major deterrant.

Hyperbolic is a good description of the claim that Iran could have a bomb in 16 days.  Still it would be a good test of the CONVENTIONAL-MUNITIONS nuclear-bunker busters I’ve been hearing about (note the hyphen).

In principle, enriched uranium can be used in conventional nuclear reactors.  Only problem is, Iran doesn’t have any nuclear reactors, and the only other use besides nuclear reactors is nuclear bombs.  So the threat is real, in any case, even if an actual bomb is not.

Again, git yer kidz ready for the draft!  They are ginning up the need for an attack, first it was 5-10 years, now it’s 16 days, within the next couple of days it will be 45 minutes, Coondi will go to the UN and ask for a resolution, Bush will make a plea to the country, 9-11 will be invoked, here we go again. 

"The bombing begins in 5 minutes."

I guess we can make believe that the Nuclear non-ProliferationTreaty was never signed and ratified, How dare Iran   yea they dont deserve the right or benefits of neclear capabilities that this treaty granted them.

Again, git yer kidz ready for the draft!

Typical liberal liar.

You guys tried this during the election and it didn’t work. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

"Again, git yer kidz ready for the draft!"

And if we are ever unfortunate enough to have a Democrat in the White House and Democrat-controlled Congress, that is probably what will happen.

And of course, they’ll try to blame it on the Republicans who put them in the situation where they just had to honor those silly comittments.

By the way, can anyone tell me just what our "exit strategy" was supposed to be in Kosovo? 

By the way, can anyone tell me just what our "exit strategy" was supposed to be in Kosovo? 

Yeah, let’s talk about Clinton again!  That’s much easier than dealing with reality!

Yeah, let’s talk about Clinton again!  That’s much easier than dealing with reality!

"Reality"? You’re like a clown who is asking for no jokes.

I forgot that we had lost 2,300 lives in Kosovo. Oh wait, we didn’t. We didn’t lose anyone.

Mi,

Didn’t mean to get you all hostile and beligerent.  Really!  I just find it odd that those that rag on about an "exit strategy" apparently seem to believe its important only when a Republican administration sends US troops into harms way.

The US forces in Kosovo have been deployed ten years beyond when we were told that they’d be home.  So what’s so important about an exit strategy now?  Hmmm? 

Well then, Oliver.  How many troops lives do we need to "lose" before an exit stategy becomes necessary?  I thought the point of having an exit strategy was to define exactly when and under what circumstances the troops were to be withdrawn… before they are placed in harm’s way.  :Cause if that’s the case, then the number of deaths by combat can’t mean anything at all to a discussion of exit strategy, can it?

If that isn’t correct, then what is the point that the left is trying to make by braying and yammering about it now for Iraq?  Did we have one for Kosovo, or is it a necessity only after a certain number of troops are killed?  Is the proper measure a certain fixed number of troops, or is it a percentage of the overall number of personnel deployed?  Does it include support personnel?  What about the guys aboard a Navy carrier task force stationed in the Med?  Do they all count too?

Fact is, this "stuff" about exit strategy is kind of a new age approach to military hostilities.  I mean, I don’t think I’d ever heard of it before, despite all the history I have read over the years.   My recollection is that the idea has always been to win first, then talk about going home.  Simplistic, I know.  But it seems to have worked in the past.

Oliver states:

I forgot that we had lost 2,300 lives in Koosovo. Oh wait, we didn’t. We didn’t lose anyone.

Just as long as we’re talking about Kosovo, let’s be accurate: there were at least 2 American non-combat deaths over a 77 day deployment. Now, if you’re going to assert that non-combat deaths (ie: accidents and such) don’t count, then you had best be prepared to adjust that figure of 2,300 US dead in Iraq donward by several hundred.

Just so we’re be honest about things.

The headline is somewhat misleading.  It can only create such once it has that many centrifuges; it only has a few hundred at this point.

Of course, they’ve probably exaggerated that number, but even if the reailty is just 25% of what is being claimed we’re talking about 12,500 centrifuges all working toward making Iran a nuclear power.

If you had read further into the article you would have noticed this:

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,’’ he said.

It will be interesting to see if they have the technical ability to create such a large number of them in such a short period of time.

Now is not the right time for America to be taking on another massive ground invasion, but if diplomacy isn’t working (and it certainly hasn’t deterred Iran to this point) force is the only other option we have.

We already blew our wad on Iraq; apparently the concept of oppurtunity costs is foreign to hawks.

Epicurus: just how small do you think our "wad" is?

Seth Williams,

Sometimes committing yourself to one thing keeps you from dedicating yourself to another thing. 

As to the difficulty regarding a mere airstrike against Iran, that is well known.

I really would have thought that with the knowledge that the illegal invasion of Iraq was based on a pack of lies, not false intelligence but a deliberate mis-interpretation of intelligence, the USA wouldn’t be wanting to make the same mistake again.But it seems not, in Rob’s first post he writes "They are telling us that they have 50,000 centrifuges and are enriching uranium" but that’s clearly not true and it seems none of you even have the gumption to question it. Although Satellite images suggest the enrichment plant at Natanz could house 50,000 centrifuges they only in fact have 164, no where near enough to produce a nuclear weapon and although the Iranians have said they intend to increase to 3,000 by the end of the year, once again that’s not enough.There’s no evidence at all that Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons and even if they did even US "intelligence" suggest that it would take between 5 to 10 years. Have any of you stopped to think for a moment what Iran is supposed to do with a nuclear bomb even if they had one. Attack Israel perchance? Killing as many Arabs as Jews and forgetting that Israel has enough nuclear weapons to turn Iran into glass. The American interpretation of the words spoken by the Iranian President from the original Persian concerning his statement to "Wiping Israel from the face of the map" is also false and incorrect. The reality is of course is that it’s Israel who are literally wiping the Palestinians from the face of the map. A report today suggests that they are pumping 300 shells into Gaza each and every day. My advice is to relax and take some time to actually check the facts for yourselves before being taken for mugs again by Bush and hos cronies.

I really would have thought that with the knowledge that the illegal invasion of Iraq was based on a pack of lies, not false intelligence but a deliberate mis-interpretation of intelligence, the USA wouldn’t be wanting to make the same mistake again.

It wasn’t "illegal". They weren’t "lies". There was no "deliberate mis-interpretation".

There’s no evidence at all that Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons…

If you don’t count what they say.

Killing as many Arabs as Jews and forgetting that Israel has enough nuclear weapons to turn Iran into glass.

And that matters why? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man who believes that major war will harken the return of the 12th Imam. You are assuming that he is thinking logically.

The reality is of course is that it’s Israel who are literally wiping the Palestinians from the face of the map.

The reality is, of course, that the "Palestinians" population has steadily increased.

A report today suggests that they are pumping 300 shells into Gaza each and every day.

Source? Does it "suggest" that or does it say that?

My advice is to relax and take some time to actually check the facts for yourselves before being taken for mugs again by Bush and hos cronies.

Yeah okay whatever there chief.

In a way, I’m looking forward to the day when the democrats and all their liberalism makes it into the big white house. I’ll sit back and watch them pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch them make nice with the Iranians, etc etc. And then I’ll watch with glee when the bombs start flying in the oposite direction and the lefties sit there and say "Who’d o thunk it"?Now I have a small question for y’all. I’m a Brit but as you know, American and British foreign policy is irrevocably intertwined. The other day I wrote a piece in my own blog about the possible plans of nuking Iran. A sweet little lefty tried to take me to task about it. Among all the insults and condescending remarks she threw about, (yes I know that is their standard operating procedure) she insisted she WASN’t a Liberal but was infact, a "progressive Moderate". Could someone enlighten me as to exactly what the hell a "progressive moderate" is?

 If you don’t count what they say.

Well below is my source Likwidshoe, where’s yours for the claim they want to produce nuclear weapons.

As I wrote, the intelligence about Iraq wasn’t wrong, Bush just chose to lie about it.

Despite the fact that Saddam was NO threat and had no links with terrorism. Neither was the intelligence false, he had made up his mind to invade Iraq for the oil and chose the intelligence to suit his purposes.

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
(p. 13).

Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.7-8). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?"

Kamel replied: "nothing remained".

He confirmed that destruction took place "after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq." (p.7)

Kamel added: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p.8)

Furthermore, Kamel describes the elimination of prohibited missiles: "not a single missile left but they had blueprints and molds for production. All missiles were destroyed." (p.8)

On VX, Kamel claimed: "they put it in bombs during last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the programme was terminated." (p.12).

Ekeus asked Kamel: "did you restart VX production after the Iran-Iraq war?"

Kamel replied: "we changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine [...] We gave instructions [sic] not to produce chemical weapons." (p.13).

Despite the significance of these claims, it was not known that Kamel made this assertion until February 2003. Kamel’s claim was first carried on 24 February 2003 by Newsweek, who reported that Kamel told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims (Newsweek, 3/3/03). Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Newsweek reported.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845

Kamel’s defection has been cited repeatedly by George W. Bush and leading administration officials as evidence that 1) Iraq has not disarmed; 2) inspections cannot disarm it; and 3) defectors such as Kamel are the most reliable source of information on Iraq’s weapons.

• Bush declared in an October 7, 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
  
  
• Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council claimed: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein’s late son-in-law."
  
  
• In a speech last August (8/27/02), Vice President Dick Cheney said Kamel’s story "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself."
  
  
• Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley recently wrote in the Chicago Tribune (2/16/03) that "because of information provided by Iraqi defector and former head of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it cheated on its nuclear non-proliferation commitments."
  

And that matters why? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man who believes that major war will harken the return of the 12th Imam. You are assuming that he is thinking logically.  

The reality of course is that it’s the USA who might be embarking on a major war, not Iran. As for a requirement to think logically, that’s not a requirement necessary to be the President of the USA. Bush is simply a liar, the biggest danger to world peace since the German guy with the funny moustache.

Michael said, Well below is my source Likwidshoe, where’s yours for the claim they want to produce nuclear weapons.

Here, try this one.

There was no UN Resoltion authorising an invasion of Iraq therefore it was illegal.

I don’t bow down to the UN elites and the U.S. doesn’t either. We don’t have to ask for permission to go after a terrorist dictator. The war is legal in my country.

As I wrote, the intelligence about Iraq wasn’t wrong, Bush just chose to lie about it.

Where is the "lie"? You need to work on that part.

Despite the fact that Saddam was NO threat and had no links with terrorism.

Right. Saddam was just a peachy guy who liked to feed people into plastic chippers feet first. He was "NO threat" who attempted an assassination on one of the U.S.’ former Presidents.

Neither was the intelligence false, he had made up his mind to invade Iraq for the oil and chose the intelligence to suit his purposes.

There you go again making claims.

Bush often claimed that the information provided by Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, (in an interview with Western security services in 1995) on the extent of Iraq’s attempts to develop weapons proved that Iraq still had WMD.This was a straight lie, there’s absolutely NO way that the US Intelligence Services believed otherwise.

Lie lie lie lie lie.

The reality of course is that it’s the USA who might be embarking on a major war, not Iran. As for a requirement to think logically, that’s not a requirement necessary to be the President of the USA. Bush is simply a liar, the biggest danger to world peace since the German guy with the funny moustache.

Great argument. "You’re an idiot, you’re a liar, you’re an idiot, you’re a liar."

Goodness. Just shut up already.

Nice Hitler reference by the way.

Your link doesn’t say that Iran is producing nuclear weapons or indeed that they want them.

I don’t bow down to the UN elites and the U.S. doesn’t either. We don’t have to ask for permission to go after a terrorist dictator. The war is legal in my country.  

Hitler thought the same, the fact is without a UN Resoltion authorising an invasion it was illegal.

Where is the "lie"? You need to work on that part.

I think you need to read and understand what I wrote. There were many instances of Bush and his henchmen lying about Iraq, what I have detailed is the most obvious and undeniable instance. An Iraqi defector saying that all Saddam’s WMD had been destroyed by 1995 and yet Bush, Cheney deliberately turning that on its head.

Despite the fact that Saddam was NO threat and had no links with terrorism.

Right. Saddam was just a peachy guy who liked to feed people into plastic chippers feet first. He was "NO threat" who attempted an assassination on one of the U.S.’ former Presidents.

Plastic chippers, another myth, but you just love myths don’t you?

Neither was the intelligence false, he had made up his mind to invade Iraq for the oil and chose the intelligence to suit his purposes.

There you go again making claims.

Undeniable fact.

Bush often claimed that the information provided by Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, (in an interview with Western security services in 1995) on the extent of Iraq’s attempts to develop weapons proved that Iraq still had WMD.This was a straight lie, there’s absolutely NO way that the US Intelligence Services believed otherwise.

Lie lie lie lie lie.

You are in denial, frightened of the truth and unwilling to accept it.

Great argument. "You’re an idiot, you’re a liar, you’re an idiot, you’re a liar."

More personal abuse, always the same story when extreme right are faced with the truth.

The US forces in Kosovo have been deployed ten years beyond when we were told that they’d be home.

Well, that’s the whole fallacy of the "we’ll stand down when they stand up" facade, in’it?  We’re staying in Iraq.  We used to have bases in Saudi Arabia.  We knew we needed a new home for those forces, so we went into Iraq.  Permanent bases have been under construction in Iraq since the mission was accomplished. 

The "we only went into iraq for the oil" argument is perhaps the one that gets up my nose the most. It is possibly the most naive, ill-informed and illogical arguments.The state of disrepair of Iraq’s oil infrastructure is regularly cited by the left to demonstrate how we are not interested in regenerating their country. Now surely, if we really did only invade Iraq for it’s oil, wouldn’t the first thing we would have done after the "occupation", would have been to repair and make sure that all those nodding donkeys, pipelines, refineries etc were brought up to speed, and pumping oil out like there was no tomorrow?Please give that argument up. It’s one of the more pathetic arguments in the whole misinformation campaign.

Michael said, Your link doesn’t say that Iran is producing nuclear weapons or indeed that they want them.

No, it just details how they lie about their nuclear program to gullible Europeans. Apparently they don’t have to.

Hitler thought the same, the fact is without a UN Resoltion authorising an invasion it was illegal.

Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. Where is your argument without Hitler?

I think you need to read and understand what I wrote. There were many instances of Bush and his henchmen lying about Iraq…

Apologies. I tend to nod off when you start on the condescending and rhetoric.

Plastic chippers, another myth, but you just love myths don’t you?

Right. Saddam was a good guy. All documentations that prove otherwise are "myths".

You are in denial, frightened of the truth and unwilling to accept it.

Oh, I’m frightened huh? Ohh..I’m shaking in fright!

More personal abuse, always the same story when extreme right are faced with the truth.

You are in denial, frightened of the truth and unwilling to accept it.

Btw - I didn’t know that "extreme right" meant recognizing truth and recognizing evil (that good guy Saddam) when one sees it.

Now go on about how smart you are, how stupid everybody else is, how good of a guy Saddam was while comparing everybody who disagrees to Hitler. Don’t forget to play the victim card when your own tactics are thrown back into your face.

.The state of disrepair of Iraq’s oil infrastructure is regularly cited by the left to demonstrate how we are not interested in regenerating their country. Now surely, if we really did only invade Iraq for it’s oil, wouldn’t the first thing we would have done after the "occupation", would have been to repair and make sure that all those nodding donkeys, pipelines, refineries etc were brought up to speed, and pumping oil out like there was no tomorrow?Please give that argument up. It’s one of the more pathetic arguments in the whole misinformation campaign.

That is because you wish to ignore the facts, that being that it’s not a case of disrepair, it’s a case of sabotage, even the puppet government admits that. If your memory stretches back far enough you would remember the first thing the US did on occupying Iraq was to enter the oil Ministry building.

That is because you wish to ignore the facts…

Any disagreement with Michael is hereby declared to be "ignoring the facts".

If your memory stretches back far enough you would remember the first thing the US did on occupying Iraq was to enter the oil Ministry building.

And that proves what Michael?

No, it just details how they lie about their nuclear program to gullible Europeans. Apparently they don’t have to.  

Well I’m still waiting in that case for you to provide a link saying that the Iranians want nuclear weapons other than nuclear power. The only people I know who lie about nuclear programs are the USA, have you forgotten already?

Hitler thought the same, the fact is without a UN Resoltion authorising an invasion it was illegal.

Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. Where is your argument without Hitler?

The excuses made, fabricated evidence and real motives were exactly those Hitler used before the invasion of Poland

Apologies. I tend to nod off when you start on the condescending and rhetoric.

Be honest, it’s not exactly what you wanted to read. But it proves conclusively that Bush lied.

Right. Saddam was a good guy. All documentations that prove otherwise are "myths".

Certainly in the case of your plastic chippers, originally refereed to as "human shredder". It was an accusation made by an Iraqi dissident, a criminal in fact, that now has a position in the puppet Government. It was originally mentioned by a British MP, Anne Clywd, but it has since been determined as a fallacy, no evidence could be found to confirm it. Still I’m sure it’s something you want to hold on to regardless.

Btw - I didn’t know that "extreme right" meant recognizing truth and recognizing evil (that good guy Saddam) when one sees it.

It clearly doesn’t mean recognising the truth, and you are the living proof.

Now go on about how smart you are, how stupid everybody else is, how good of a guy Saddam was while comparing everybody who disagrees to Hitler. Don’t forget to play the victim card when your own tactics are thrown back into your face.

Well I haven’t said how smart I am, that’s merely an opinion you have formed. Neither have a said that Saddam was a good guy, but when it comes down to killing Iraqis, the USA has killed far more than Saddam ever did.

If your memory stretches back far enough you would remember the first thing the US did on occupying Iraq was to enter the oil Ministry building.

And that proves what Michael?

It clearly proves that the USA had oil on their mind.

 http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/04/news/international/iraq_lost.dj/index.htm

Iraq’s oil losses put at $11.4 billion

BAGHDAD -(Dow Jones)- Iraq has lost around $11.35 billion in damages to oil sector infrastructure and lost revenue since oil exports resumed after the war two years ago, an Iraqi oil ministry spokesman said Sunday.

Assem Jihad said there were 300 acts of sabotage against Iraqi oil installations since Iraq resumed exports in June 2003 until May 31 .

And the fact that the military isn’t all over those oil facilities like a bad rash in order to protect them at all costs doesn’t tell you anything?

I see Mexico as one of the biggest threats to the U.S. post 9/11 and nobody calls them our sworn enemy, in fact we are facing an invasion from the south right now.

Oh and fuck Isreal! God will understand that we are not their big brother and we do not need to fight their battles. I suggest if Isreal gets attacked by Iran then Isreal take care of that shit on their own.

When and if we ever are attacked by Iran then we will take care of our shit. If they start attacking oil tankers easy fix. Reflag the tankers with American flags and stick a big grey ship next to it with big ass loaded guns pointing towrds Iran. 

And the fact that the military isn’t all over those oil facilities like a bad rash in order to protect them at all costs doesn’t tell you anything?

They are of course, but these pipelines stretch for hundreds of miles, they are practically impossible to protect. Clearly another indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly before it was undertaken.

But if you can provide just one news source which confirms your wild theory that it’s down to a lack of maintenance I would surely be interested in seeing it, but I’m certainly not going to hold my breath.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=910752003

THE US administration in Iraq is to double the number of guards protecting oil installations in a bid to halt sabotage attacks that are seriously damaging attempts to export crude oil.

An international security company has been awarded a contract for 6,500 guards to ensure no further damage is done to the main oil pipeline to Turkey. The new recruits will be in addition to the 5,000 Iraqis already protecting the 600-mile structure.

Michael continues, Well I’m still waiting in that case for you to provide a link saying that the Iranians want nuclear weapons other than nuclear power.

All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans.

The only people I know who lie about nuclear programs are the USA, have you forgotten already?

Yeah. And we compare disfavorably to the Iranian mullahs and are infinitely more evil. Good point to bring up.

The excuses made, fabricated evidence and real motives were exactly those Hitler used before the invasion of Poland

There you go making up reality again.

Be honest, it’s not exactly what you wanted to read. But it proves conclusively that Bush lied.

Don’t be an asshole. I was being honest. Your rhetoric turns me off. And no, it didn’t prove conclusively that Bush lied.

Certainly in the case of your plastic chippers, originally refereed to as "human shredder". It was an accusation made by an Iraqi dissident, a criminal in fact, that now has a position in the puppet Government. It was originally mentioned by a British MP, Anne Clywd, but it has since been determined as a fallacy, no evidence could be found to confirm it.

Okay.

Still I’m sure it’s something you want to hold on to regardless.

Why would I need to? Saddam imprisoned and tortured those who disagreed with him, his sons went to local high schools to pick out girls they wanted to rape, and Saddam paid suicide bomber families among many other things. So even if the plastic shredders stories turn out to be not true, big whoop. There is plenty of other evidence to counter your claim that Saddam was "NO threat and had no links with terrorism".

It clearly doesn’t mean recognising the truth, and you are the living proof.

More personal abuse, always the same story when moonbat left are faced with the truth or dissenting opinions. (How do you like that? It’s your material.)

Well I haven’t said how smart I am, that’s merely an opinion you have formed.

Not too bright I see. I don’t have the opinion that you are smart. Sorry.

Neither have a said that Saddam was a good guy, but when it comes down to killing Iraqis, the USA has killed far more than Saddam ever did.

Really? Source?

It clearly proves that the USA had oil on their mind.

Because we entered into the Oil Ministry building? Why wouldn’t we enter into that building?

They are of course, but these pipelines stretch for hundreds of miles, they are practically impossible to protect. Clearly another indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly before it was undertaken.

So even though they are "practically impossible to protect", this is an indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly. Nice bit of facetious logic.

All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans.

So you don’t actually have any link, although you claimed that you did. There is , as I’ve said, no indication that Iran actually want nuclear weapons. Also we don’t actually have any proof that they "hoodwinked" Europeans, we just have an American allegation of that. Hardly a reliable or credible source.

Yeah. And we compare disfavorably to the Iranian mullahs and are infinitely more evil. Good point to bring up.  

Well you undoubtedly kill more people, can that be considered a measure of good or evil?

The excuses made, fabricated evidence and real motives were exactly those Hitler used before the invasion of Poland

There you go making up reality again.

Not really, Hitler claimed that Poland was planning an attack, he claimed the purpose of the invasion was to liberate a part of the Polish population, he actually invaded to steal Poland coal reserves.

Be honest, it’s not exactly what you wanted to read. But it proves conclusively that Bush lied.

Don’t be an asshole. I was being honest. Your rhetoric turns me off. And no, it didn’t prove conclusively that Bush lied.

There you go again, clearly Bush deliberately misquoted this Iraqi dissident, you cannot draw any other conclusion from it. Of course that would require you to be honest.

Why would I need to? Saddam imprisoned and tortured those who disagreed with him, his sons went to local high schools to pick out girls they wanted to rape,

According to who? The same people that said he used human shredders, WMD, link with terrorism? You have full confidence in what originates either from the White House or from the Iraqi National Congress?

 and Saddam paid suicide bomber families among many other things. So even if the plastic shredders stories turn out to be not true, big whoop. There is plenty of other evidence to counter your claim that Saddam was "NO threat and had no links with terrorism".

There’s no evidence at all that Saddam was a threat or that he had links with terrorism.

More personal abuse, always the same story when moonbat left are faced with the truth or dissenting opinions. (How do you like that? It’s your material.)

You wouldn’t know what the truth was if it bit you on the ass. You’ve made up your mind to accept myths, fantasies and downright lies and the only alternative left is for you to accept your own stupidity. 

Neither have a said that Saddam was a good guy, but when it comes down to killing Iraqis, the USA has killed far more than Saddam ever did.

Really? Source?

The source is common knowledge for those that are interested. 1.3 million due to the sanctions, 100,000 during Powell’s "turkey shoot" and at least 130,000 with the current illegal invasion.

Because we entered into the Oil Ministry building? Why wouldn’t we enter into that building?

No reason, but to make that the first priority certainly suggests a reason.

So even though they are "practically impossible to protect", this is an indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly. Nice bit of facetious logic.

I think the USA thought it would be a "cakewalk" that there wouldn’t be any resistance, that jerk of a President practically announced the war was over within a few weeks. It wasn’t thought out properly that must be obvious even to you, do you seriously believe that in march 2003 anyone foresaw what state Iraq would be in 2006

So you don’t actually have any link, although you claimed that you did.

Actually I didn’t claim that I had any such link.

There is , as I’ve said, no indication that Iran actually want nuclear weapons. Also we don’t actually have any proof that they "hoodwinked" Europeans, we just have an American allegation of that. Hardly a reliable or credible source.

Okay. Well you trust the Mullahs of Iran and are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt while I do not. That’s one of our differences.

Well you undoubtedly kill more people, can that be considered a measure of good or evil?

No.

Not really, Hitler claimed that Poland was planning an attack, he claimed the purpose of the invasion was to liberate a part of the Polish population, he actually invaded to steal Poland coal reserves.

Right. But for me to buy your comparison, I’d have to agree with you that Hitler and Bush/America compare. I don’t. I do find it telling that you equivocate the two.

There you go again, clearly Bush deliberately misquoted this Iraqi dissident, you cannot draw any other conclusion from it. Of course that would require you to be honest.

That’s your opinion. How many times are you going to question my honesty?

According to who? The same people that said he used human shredders, WMD, link with terrorism? You have full confidence in what originates either from the White House or from the Iraqi National Congress?

According to many more sources than just the White House or INC. It really does seem like you think that Saddam was a nice guy with no links to terrorism.

There’s no evidence at all that Saddam was a threat or that he had links with terrorism.

He paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000. No links to terrorism though? No threat? Are you for real dude? Would house Saddam if he were sprung from jail?

You wouldn’t know what the truth was if it bit you on the ass. You’ve made up your mind to accept myths, fantasies and downright lies and the only alternative left is for you to accept your own stupidity.

More personal abuse, always the same story when moonbat left are faced with the truth or dissenting opinions.

The source is common knowledge for those that are interested. 1.3 million due to the sanctions, 100,000 during Powell’s "turkey shoot" and at least 130,000 with the current illegal invasion.

Source? "Common knowledge for those that are interested" isn’t a source. Also, explain how the sanctions are the fault of the U.S. If you bring up the Lancet "study", I’m going to laugh.

No reason, but to make that the first priority certainly suggests a reason.

Oh…so it is just a "suggestion". Well that is certainly solid.

I think the USA thought it would be a "cakewalk" that there wouldn’t be any resistance, that jerk of a President practically announced the war was over within a few weeks. It wasn’t thought out properly that must be obvious even to you, do you seriously believe that in march 2003 anyone foresaw what state Iraq would be in 2006

Egh. Blame us for not being perfect like all of the other wars in history.

"They are of course, but these pipelines stretch for hundreds of miles, they are practically impossible to protect. Clearly another indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly before it was undertaken."*shakes head* They are "practically impossible to protect" with the resources currently being thrown at them BECAUSE there are other priorities right now. IF oil was our main motive for going to Iraq you can be sure that our troops would be highly concentrated on providing that protection.And this obsession with links you have. Anyone can find a link to another site where someone will back up your story. that doesn’t make THAT web site true. it just means you choose to believe it because it fits your belief. We can sit here all day throwing links at each other.

Well Likwidshoe when I wrote "There’s no evidence at all that Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons… " you wrote "If you don’t count what they say."

Presuming now that you are not claiming that there’s an internet link confirming your claim it must mean that you are fluent in Persian and have been listening to Iranian news broadcasts. Otherwise I will have no alternative but to presume that you simply made it up and that you are unwilling to admit your error.

Well you undoubtedly kill more people, can that be considered a measure of good or evil?

No.

So in your view it’s not evil to illegally invade another country on false pretences and kill at least 130,000 people over half of which are women and children?

Right. But for me to buy your comparison, I’d have to agree with you that Hitler and Bush/America compare. I don’t. I do find it telling that you equivocate the two.

I know it’s difficult to accept, many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was, in fact some still do. But I’m not the only one making the comparison.

That’s your opinion. How many times are you going to question my honesty?

Until you start being honest.

According to many more sources than just the White House or INC. It really does seem like you think that Saddam was a nice guy with no links to terrorism.

I have never said Saddam was a nice guy. Most of the fictitious evidence about Iraq/Saddam came from the INC, encouraged of course by the Bush regime, perhaps even instructed by the Bush regime to say it. The INC were of course in the main a bunch of Iraqi dissidents, many with criminal convictions, whose only ambitions were to return to Iraq and become a part of the puppet government.

He paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000. No links to terrorism though? No threat? Are you for real dude? Would house Saddam if he were sprung from jail?

He supported the Palestinian resistance, I wouldn’t call that terrorism with or without suicide bombers. They have a right to defend themselves. But Saddam wasn’t the main financier of Palestinian Resistance, that came and comes from Saudi. It was certainly a rather pathetic excuse to invade Iraq.

More personal abuse, always the same story when moonbat left are faced with the truth or dissenting opinions.

So words like "moonbat left" is not personal abuse?

Source? "Common knowledge for those that are interested" isn’t a source. Also, explain how the sanctions are the fault of the U.S.

They were of course UN Sanctions, but it was the USA that threatened to veto any attempt to relinquish them when the huge death toll was realised.

 If you bring up the Lancet "study", I’m going to laugh.

The Lancet study, plus another study conducted after Falluja from Iraq itself which came up with 130,000. Both estimates completely in sympathy with each other. Of course the USA wants to keep the admitted deaths to a minimum, but they can’t blame anyone for not believing their under reporting. They are of course obligated under the Geneva Convention as an occupying force to keep records of all deaths. Their choice not to do body counts certainly doesn’t add to their credibility.

I think the USA thought it would be a "cakewalk" that there wouldn’t be any resistance, that jerk of a President practically announced the war was over within a few weeks. It wasn’t thought out properly that must be obvious even to you, do you seriously believe that in march 2003 anyone foresaw what state Iraq would be in 2006

Egh. Blame us for not being perfect like all of the other wars in history.

So you now have changed your mind and you agree that the war was not thought out properly before it was undertaken?

Lik, nah, we not asking for perfection, just honesty and fairness.  Not even his boots on the ground are coming to his defense now that they are no longer on the ground:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201114.html

I prefer links to back up my views Nemesis simply because I prefer facts to fantasies. Have you found any link yet to confirm your theory that Iraqi oil production is being limited due to lack of maintenance. Like I said , no hurry, I’m not holding my breath. I have to say though it’s probably one of the most ludicrous suggestions I’ve heard for some time.

You write that anyone can find a link to back up their story, well go right ahead let’s see if you can.

Yes of course resources are being thrown at oil installations, pipelines. They are certainly not being thrown into keeping law and order

Err re-read my post, my boy. I said, and I quote, "The state of disrepair of Iraq’s oil infrastructure is regularly cited by the left to demonstrate how we are not interested in regenerating their country."Where did I mention lack of maintenance? Where did I make a differentiation between lack of maintenance and damage from insurgent atacks?.... I did not.

Err re-read my post, my boy. I said, and I quote, "The state of disrepair of Iraq’s oil infrastructure is regularly cited by the left to demonstrate how we are not interested in regenerating their country."Where did I mention lack of maintenance? Where did I make a differentiation between lack of maintenance and damage from insurgent atacks?....

Well then we agree that Iraq’s lack of oil production, lower now than before the illegal invasion started , is almost totally due to the resistance. Why didn’t you say before? All you need now is proof that the "left" claims it’s all due lack of interest in regenerating Iraq’s oil production.

 I do agree of course that there is a lack of interest in regenerating Iraq’s infrastructure but not in regards to oil.

Michael asserts, Presuming now that you are not claiming that there’s an internet link confirming your claim it must mean that you are fluent in Persian and have been listening to Iranian news broadcasts.

"Presuming"? I never had a link. Never said I did. And no, I’m not fluent in Persian or listening to Iranian news broadcasts. Good grief.

Otherwise I will have no alternative but to presume that you simply made it up and that you are unwilling to admit your error.

You mean assume. And I’ll say it again: All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans. You happy? The Iranians convinced the all important self annointed elites such as yourself and the UN that they had no nuclear program. You bought it and defended them. Now we see how you were duped. They’re rubbing it in your face. And you continue to defend them and are willing to continue to trust them. They want you dead, but you think that people like me are your bigger enemy. I don’t get it, but I guess it doesn’t matter. You’re shrill, insulting, and people don’t trust you and your kind to make decisions in my country.

So in your view it’s not evil to illegally invade another country on false pretences and kill at least 130,000 people over half of which are women and children?

Not in and of itself. There are certainly situations where it wouldn’t be evil. Namely, where one was fighting a greater evil.

In any regard, that isn’t the situation here.

I know it’s difficult to accept, many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was, in fact some still do.

Why would that be difficult to accept? You’re so damn condescending.

But I’m not the only one making the comparison.

So what? Many Germans fail to see just how evil Hitler was. Is that a point in their favor? No? So why would it be a point in your favor that you have company in what you believe?

Until you start being honest.

There you go being a condescending ass again. You’re a real piece of work.

He supported the Palestinian resistance, I wouldn’t call that terrorism with or without suicide bombers.

The "Palestinian resistance" is all about terrorism. That area produces nothing but terrorism and rocks. Compare that to Israel. Think about that as you type out a moral equivalence response using computer technology designed in part by the Israelis.

But Saddam wasn’t the main financier of Palestinian Resistance, that came and comes from Saudi. It was certainly a rather pathetic excuse to invade Iraq.

What?

So words like "moonbat left" is not personal abuse?

Aww. I just removed the "extreme right" from your comment and substituted "moonbat left". I was playing your game bud.

They were of course UN Sanctions, but it was the USA that threatened to veto any attempt to relinquish them when the huge death toll was realised.

So why don’t you blame the UN? You want to give them all of the authority and then when they do something that you don’t agree with, blame America. In any regard, why don’t you blame Saddam or the UN for not agreeing to an invasion? No Saddam - no sanctions.

I blame you! How about that? You believe that taking out Saddam is "illegal" for whatever reason and we were certainly not going to enrich him any more than the European elites were with the scandalous "Oil for Food" program. You’re like Hitler! 1,300,000 people died because people like YOU wouldn’t allow the removal of Saddam! How about that? Do you like this kind of rhetoric? It’s yours. You evil Hitler incarnate.

And Michael, I know it’s difficult to accept, but many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was. In fact, some still do. So you might not be able to recognize just how evil you are for allowing 1.3 million Iraqis to die under the sanctions. If you could have just agreed to let us finish the job in 1991, they wouldn’t have died. But they did die. And instead of blaming Saddam or his government like a rational person would do, I’m going to blame you.

Don’t complain. This is the kind of argument you bring. Now it will be applied to you. And I am now officially questioning your honesty.

The Lancet study, plus another study conducted after Falluja from Iraq itself which came up with 130,000.

This makes me wonder about your reasoning capabilities. From the link:

That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

    We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn’t an estimate. It’s a dart board.

I emboldened the important part for you. You’re welcome.

So you now have changed your mind and you agree that the war was not thought out properly before it was undertaken?

No. Did I say that? I’m merely saying that the war hasn’t been perfect.

And to answer your question Michael - no I didn’t forsee what state Iraq would be in in 2006. I would have never guessed that there would have been three wildly successful elections. I would have never guessed that casualties would have been so low. I would have never guessed that some people would have come forth (such as yourself) so quickly to defend the enemy. I guess you would say that I didn’t think it out "properly" because I didn’t accurately predict the future.

Well then we agree that Iraq’s lack of oil production, lower now than before the illegal invasion started…

Once again and real simple: the war isn’t "illegal".

Lol. Nice try. Again, I did not say that was MY opinion. I said that was the left’s ofton quoted argument. Please don’t try putting words into my mouth to back your own lacklustre arguments. And again, please don’t keep asking for quotes from other websiites.running off to find quotes from other websites isn’t a discussion. it’s a competition on who can most effectively use Google. Honestly, arguing with a lefty is like arguing with a brick.I’ll repeat myself once more just to make myself absolutly clear. You have stated your insistence that our overwhelming reason for going to Iraq was for it’s oil.Let’s just supose for one second that this ludicrous claim is correct. It would be logical therefore that we would stop at nothing to secure those facilities so that we could pump Iraq dry. BUT by your own admition, these facilities are regularly sabotaged. Now please don’t sit there and tell me that if the oil was our "real" motivation, that we couldn’t protect them if they were that important. Otherwise there would have been no point going in in the first place.No, the reason we are not protecting them sufficiently is because with the sources at our disposal we have to prioritise and the protection of the oil facilities is NOT our priority. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

I have to say that arguing over Iraq is a rather pointless affair.  For those oppposed to the war, the die has been cast, we’ve crossed the Rubicon, etc., so arguing over its merits is rather futile.  For those in favor of it, well, we’re likely going to leave the country pretty soon and it won’t be the hopeful place many hawks expected it to be. 

Ultimately we’ve been chastened about our ability to recast entire societies via fiat.  That’s about as good an outcome as we could expect.  Indeedn, if they are going to change its going to be in interaction with Western culture and commerce and not so much at the barrel of a gun.

"Presuming"? I never had a link. Never said I did. And no, I’m not fluent in Persian or listening to Iranian news broadcasts. Good grief.  

So when I wrote "There’s no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons" and you wrote in response "If you don’t count what they say". You agree that they didn’t actually say that, was it was voices in your head?

Otherwise I will have no alternative but to presume that you simply made it up and that you are unwilling to admit your error.

You mean assume.

No I mean presume.

And I’ll say it again: All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans. You happy? The Iranians convinced the all important self annointed elites such as yourself and the UN that they had no nuclear program. You bought it and defended them.

But you are overlooking the fact that they are entitled to have a nuclear program  for the purposes of nuclear power. It’s not the USA who gets to decide India and Israel have them and Iran shouldn’t. I don’t think the Iranians have tried to hide that fact at all, they are members of the IAEA and it’s permitted..

 Now we see how you were duped. They’re rubbing it in your face. And you continue to defend them and are willing to continue to trust them. They want you dead, but you think that people like me are your bigger enemy.

Typical American paranoia, it’s not Iran that’s going round massacring innocent people and illegally invading other countries. It’s Bush the madman and frankly i would love to see him dead.

I don’t get it, but I guess it doesn’t matter. You’re shrill, insulting, and people don’t trust you and your kind to make decisions in my country.

No you trust a proven liar like Bush instead.

Not in and of itself. There are certainly situations where it wouldn’t be evil. Namely, where one was fighting a greater evil.

But in the world right now there’s no bigger evil than Bush and his cronies.

I know it’s difficult to accept, many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was, in fact some still do.

Why would that be difficult to accept? You’re so damn condescending.

I don’t think many Germans at the time of WW11 or even a majority of Americans today that are willing to accept their Goverment or their leaders were/are evil. In the case of the Germans they were forcibly shown round the concentation camps and made to look for themselves. That I believe will be necessary for Americans too once Bush is got rid of..

So what? Many Germans fail to see just how evil Hitler was. Is that a point in their favor? No? So why would it be a point in your favor that you have company in what you believe?

Just as many American today fail to see the evil of the Bush junta, the false pretenses he used to invade Iraq. If they did of course he wouldn’t be trying to pull the same trick against Iran.

There you go being a condescending ass again. You’re a real piece of work.

No need to be personal.

The "Palestinian resistance" is all about terrorism. That area produces nothing but terrorism and rocks. Compare that to Israel. Think about that as you type out a moral equivalence response using computer technology designed in part by the Israelis.

I avoid all produce by Israelis and the USA of course. The Israelis continue to kill Palestinians with or without suicide bombers. In 2004 there was a gap of 8 months between the usual bi-annual suicide bomber and in that time the Israeli terrorists killed over 400 palestinians, more than half of those were children. Do you seriously expect the Palestinian not to retaliate? 

Aww. I just removed the "extreme right" from your comment and substituted "moonbat left". I was playing your game bud.

You initiated it.

So why don’t you blame the UN? You want to give them all of the authority and then when they do something that you don’t agree with, blame America.

The Sanctions were originally agreed by the Security Council but it became apparent that they were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. The USA insisted the sanctions continue regardless. You must remember Mad. Albright saying it was "worth it"?

n any regard, why don’t you blame Saddam or the UN for not agreeing to an invasion? No Saddam - no sanctions.

The UN didn’t authorise regime change, it’s against International Law and the Hague Convention. Mind you I would make an exception in Bush’s case.

I blame you! How about that? You believe that taking out Saddam is "illegal" for whatever reason and we were certainly not going to enrich him any more than the European elites were with the scandalous "Oil for Food" program.

Most of the illegal oil for food transactions were actually handled by American individuals , american companies or overseas subsidaries of American companies. I fully understand Saddam’s wish to do other transactions outside the UN Sanctions Committee headed by the USA, who kept Iraq short of medical supplies and food. There’s no evidence of course to suggest Saddam actually kept any money personally, unless of course you have some evidence in that regard?

You’re like Hitler! 1,300,000 people died because people like YOU wouldn’t allow the removal of Saddam!

It’s no good trying to pass your guilt on to other people. There was of course no attempt to get rid of Saddam at that time, but it didn’t stop the mass murderers of Washington killing 500,000 Iraqi children.

How about that? Do you like this kind of rhetoric? It’s yours. You evil Hitler incarnate.

More personal abuse, but a ploy often used by neo-nazis

And Michael, I know it’s difficult to accept, but many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was. In fact, some still do. So you might not be able to recognize just how evil you are for allowing 1.3 million Iraqis to die under the sanctions. If you could have just agreed to let us finish the job in 1991, they wouldn’t have died.

I know you are anxious for the USA to commit genocide, but there was no UN approval to get rid of Saddam in 1991 just like there wasn’t in 2003. The USA is guilty of genocide, not of acourse for the first time in history, ask the Vietnanese. Clearly the USA is the biggest danger to world peace since 1939, Bush like Hitler, must be stopped.

But they did die. And instead of blaming Saddam or his government like a rational person would do, I’m going to blame you. Don’t complain. This is the kind of argument you bring. Now it will be applied to you. And I am now officially questioning your honesty.

I’m always honest whilst people like you can simply make it up as you go along, like "hearing the Iranians say they want Nuclear weapons"  

The Lancet study, plus another study conducted after Falluja from Iraq itself which came up with 130,000.

Yes I noticed you copied this from some right wing site, right up to the dartboard quote. But as I said the results of the Lancet study has been found to be in rough complaince with following estimates. For the Americans to quibble in this way over the number of casualties that have to be far higher than their ridiculous misundeestimates can only be described as obscene.

So you now have changed your mind and you agree that the war was not thought out properly before it was undertaken?

No. Did I say that? I’m merely saying that the war hasn’t been perfect.

And to answer your question Michael - no I didn’t forsee what state Iraq would be in in 2006. I would have never guessed that there would have been three wildly successful elections. I would have never guessed that casualties would have been so low. I would have never guessed that some people would have come forth (such as yourself) so quickly to defend the enemy. I guess you would say that I didn’t think it out "properly" because I didn’t accurately predict the future.

WelI don’t think much of your guesses, hopefully you are not a betting man. Clearly Iraq is much worse shape now that before the illegal invasion, clearly many people have died as a result. Yet I see no remorse in your tone.

Once again and real simple: the war isn’t "illegal".

Unless there’s was a UN Resolution authorising the invasion it was illegal. Seen through your ignorant perspective, you are in affect saying that it’s legal for any country to decide to invade another.

Nice try. Again, I did not say that was MY opinion. I said that was the left’s ofton quoted argument.

Yes i understand what you meant. I was simply pointing out that I’ve never seen the left voice that opinion and I of course represent that view. Seems like you are inventing straw arguments. 

Please don’t try putting words into my mouth to back your own lacklustre arguments.

That’s exactly what you did, not me, when you made the ridculous claim concerning the left.

And again, please don’t keep asking for quotes from other websiites.running off to find quotes from other websites isn’t a discussion. it’s a competition on who can most effectively use Google. Honestly, arguing with a lefty is like arguing with a brick.

I understand your dislike of factual evidence, it doesn’t help your case, but clearly when you have two people with totally conflicting views you are unable to get agreement. You make, as we have seen, totally off the wall remarks concerning opinions held by the left without the slightest bit of evidence and I’m supposed to take it seriously.

I’ll repeat myself once more just to make myself absolutly clear. You have stated your insistence that our overwhelming reason for going to Iraq was for it’s oil.Let’s just supose for one second that this ludicrous claim is correct. It would be logical therefore that we would stop at nothing to secure those facilities so that we could pump Iraq dry. BUT by your own admition, these facilities are regularly sabotaged. Now please don’t sit there and tell me that if the oil was our "real" motivation, that we couldn’t protect them if they were that important.

All possible resources are being thrown at protecting oil facilities/pipelines, the problem is the resistance is doing the same thing. I’m surprised to be honest that there are still people walking this earth who imagine that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than oil. What’s your theory then, the Americans love Iraqis so much they wanted to free them from the naughty Saddam by killing hundreds of thousands of them, destroying whole towns and the infrastructure?

 Otherwise there would have been no point going in in the first place.No, the reason we are not protecting them sufficiently is because with the sources at our disposal we have to prioritise and the protection of the oil facilities is NOT our priority. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

You can’t be any more simple than that. The priority is protecting the oil, but sometimes you can throw as many resources as you have against a problem but it doesn’t get solved. The Americans were counting on the oil revenue to finance the illegal invasion, clearly is hasn’t worked.

Yes we have right wing loonies in Britain as well, thankfully not too many of them. There’s not the slightest chance Blair will be allowed to support your maniac of a president for a second time. So that leaves just you and the peaceloving Israelis.

Doc,

You make a good point.  If the US government has contingency plans for Iran, good!  They should.  That is part of their job.

Another point worth considering is this:  In the past week we have heard estimates ranging from 16 days (above) to ten years.  This should tell us that it is what we DON’T know that should scare us.

Incidentally, the best assessment I have seen to date of Iran’s capabilities and a resaonable timeline is at the site Arms Control Wonk (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/)... which also notes that contrary to the wishful thinking of the self-righteous lunatic left, Iran’s stated initial goal of 3,000 centrifuges is way more than would be needed to produce fuel for nuclear power generation, as claimed by the Iranians.  Never mind their ultimate goal of 50,000 such cascaded centrifuges. 

In the past week we have heard estimates ranging from 16 days.

Overlooking the fact that they first need to build 5,000 centrifuges. If that happened I’m sure the IAEA would know about it.

Just to recap, there’s no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons, but if they had one they couldn’t attack Israel which already has 200 and refuses IAEA inspections, it would be suicide and not only that would kill more Arabs than Jews.

Michael,

I’d say nuclear weapons fits well within the "Persian" nationalist mindset.  One of the biggest differences between Iran and Iraq is that Iran actually has a sense of historical nationalism and empire building that Iraq lacks.  This is why national power is a constant thread running through the foreign policy programs of both the regime of the Shah and now the mullahs.

modern instances states:

We used to have bases in Saudi Arabia.  We knew we needed a new home for those forces, so we went into Iraq. 

Yes we had bases in Saudi Arabia, and do you know why? We got bases there solely for the purpose of "keeping Saddam in his box", a situation that for over a decade caused the needless deaths of Iraqi civilians and increased ill-will throughout the Middle East. Now that we have Saddam in a much smaller box and we’ve been able to pull most (all?) of our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Deposing Saddam was always going to be a necessary precondition for drawing down military operations in Saudi Arabia.

Regale me: You’ve just been elected and sworn in, how would President Instances have handled the Iraqi question circa January 2001?

modern instances also asserts:

Permanent bases have been under construction in Iraq since the mission was accomplished.

Do you know that for a fact, and can you tell me where I can find out more about these alleged permanent bases? I’m not saying it’s not true, but this sure is the first I’ve heard of it and would appreciate knowing what reputable source you base this statement on.

" If that happened I’m sure the IAEA would know about it."

No doubt just like they did with North Korea… or maybe Libya?

"Just to recap, there’s no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons.."

So, in your precious world there is no reason to worry about an Iranian nuclear weapons program because they haven’t announced their intention to build such weapons?  Is that like the North Koreans announced their intentions, Kid?  If I recall correctly, the Koreans publicly foreswore their nuclear weapons program in 1994, thanks to the twin twits, Albright and Carter, and then went right ahead and built them anyway… right under the noses of el-Baradei’s UN/IAEA inspectors.  Then when they had the weapons, then they announced their accomplishment to the world and kicked out the inspectors.

Now, it may well be that you are sufficiently judgementally impaired to think that there is nothing to fear because the Iranians haven’t announced their intention to build nuclear weapons.   But I doubt that the accomplishments in this area of the North Koreans, and the manner in which they succeeded, has been lost on the Mullahs of Tehran.  And I doubt that those who live in Tel Aviv or Haifa or Jerusalem are as blithely sanguine about an Iranian nuclear weapons program as you are.

Hey Seth, I think that Bush only made one mistake. The shock and awe never happened, Rather than say mission accomplished he should of said we still got some ass kicking to do and then proceeded to set a blazing example of American fire power for all of the rock throwers to see.

Wait now that I think about it maybe there were two mistakes. He should have leveled Sadr City the second that crazy fuck started ranting.

Michael, you assert that Saddam had NO connection to terrorism. Since you like links, here’s a post link to a post with many links about Saddam’s links to terrorism (sorry, but my browser won’t let me make active links at sayanythingblog, so you’ll have to copy and paste):

http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/12/24/saddams_connection_to_terrorism/

I’ll give you the short version, in case you opt not to be properly informed and do the reading I’ve provided for you: you’re flat out wrong, Saddam had very extensive links to terrorist organizations, individual terrorists, and acts of terrorism.

Perhaps Richard, but you know and I know that domestic considerations prevent any president to do that nowadays.

Also, Richard, I have to disagree rather strongly with your sentiment of "screw Israel, let them defend themselves" (I’m paraphrasing, not quoting). Israel is a strong ally in an important region, and cutting them loose would be an extremely shortsighted policy with lasting repercussions for our foreign policy worldwide.

Ok I did not say screw them per se I said let them fight there own battles there being threatened is not us being threatened. And as far as their being a strong ally. This is the sameIsreal that was caught spying on us about ten fifteen years ago right. So our strong allies spy on us Great. Isreal’s only allegiance to us is the fact that we keep the Arabs at bay if we didn’t the wouldn’t give a rats ass about us, I am not really sure they give a rats ass now.

Michael - I’m done with you. You’re too hateful and impolite. I have no respect for anybody who labels all dissenting opinions as coming from "Nazis" nor do I have time to rebute your nurmerous insulting accusations. You’re just not worth my time.

I will now pay your comments the same respect I pay spam and I will treat any article submissions as spam.

Michael also states:

The source [of Michael’s claim] is common knowledge for those that are interested. 1.3 million [Iraqis killed by America] due to the sanctions…

First, I’m afraid that "common knowledge" isn’t an a reputable source for this sort of thing, and I think that number is disputable. A more conservative estimate would be 350,000 iraqis killed by sanctions (and even that’s disputable):

http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/11/21/morality_and_the_iraq_war/ 

Second, it’s intertesting to me that you put all of the onus for Iraqis killed by sanctions on the US. Tell me, what moral calculus did you employ to come to the conclusion that all the blame rests on the US (and, perhaps apropos of nothing, largely on a Democratic administration). Why do you choose not to share the blame between the rest of UN’s security council which, via its resolutions, gave the stamp of legality to the deadly sanctions—in fact, actually created them? Why do you also choose not to share the blame with Saddam who intentionally manipulated the sanctions to be leathal for political capital at home and abroad? These are all questions that deserve answers.

You really ought to read the article "The Politics of Dead Children" for a more rational introduction to sanctions deaths and culpability:

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

Michael, let me add that even The Nation (no neocon outpost, that) agrees with me that your number and assignation of blame are out of whack with reality:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

Time for you to re-evaluate "common knowledge".

WHOOPS!

Common knowledge???  This from the individual who wrote,

“I prefer links to back up my views Nemesis simply because I prefer facts to fantasies.”

There is a word for those who self-righteously insist on their right to design rules for everyone else’s behavior, while ignore those same common covenants themselves.  The word is hypocrisy.

Richard, you say that Israel only cares about us because we keep the Arabs at bay…and that may be so. Allow me to advance the proposition, however, that we only care about them because they are in a strategic location in an otherwise generally hostile region. It would be fair to say that, at worst, it’s a mutually self-interested arrangement. My question for you is: aren’t most, if not all, alliances based on self-interest? And what is wrong with that?

Insofar as Israel spying on us, you have to ask yourself whether that relatively minor incident of perfidity on their part outweighs the strategic benefits of our relationship. Obviously, our strategic planners have come to the conclusion that it does not.

By the way, the genesis of the the 1.5 million dead Iraqis "factoid" (which the above cited 1.3 million killed "common knowledge" "fact" is almost certainly derrived from): the Iraqi Ministry of Health under Saddam Hussein. Doesn’t that source give anyone (anyone being you, Michael) at least a little pause?

Take a break from trying to minimise American genocide in Iraq and watch this cute video. Soon perhaps you can be doing this in Iran as well.

Although I whole heartedly agree the self interest factor, I think on our side there is God factor involved as well but that is just me.

I have to say that I do not see any spying as minor, and any spying by an ally needs to be addressed, which I am not confident it was in Isreals case, my perception was it was kind of laughed off and the checks were still cut.

My only reweal problem with Isreal is the same that I have with a lot of our "allies", they always seem to benefit far more than we do and it is my opinion that we need to be of the  mind that we need to see some love too. 

Sorry Michael, but there’s no way that I want to sign up for yet another online site. Just don’t want to, not going to do it. Why don’t you describe to me what I should be seeing.

By the way, you’re misapplying the term "genocide". It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

That’s it, I’m taking this right to the UN?

[Sorry for the follow on post, I guess I got anxious with the "Post" button.]

Michael: I’ve criticized your claims that: A) Saddam had NO links to terrorism, and B) 1.3 million Iraqis died by sanctions that were the sole culpability of America.

Your response was a less than clever dodge, somewhat in the spirit of: "Ignore the facts! Look! I have video [presumably of America doing something that evokes an emotional response, yet isn’t representative of our policy as a whole and/or is taken out of context]!".

I take it by the fact that you haven’t debunked a single assertation of mine (all of which were backed up with sources for your evaluation), that you realize the coruption inherent in your initial position. Otherwise, if your case had any foundation, you would have tried to refute my statements. You didn’t.

Whistler: Huh?

Richard: unfortunately, America is probably always going to be the more giving side of of less-than-reciprocal relations with other nations. It’s easy to be dissatisfied with that until you realize how much we really do need friends.

I don’t mean to minimize spying, I don’t like it either. But the impact and scope of Israel’s actions seem to me fairly minor in the grand scheme of things, and mindful of the fact that we can’t go into a major snit every time an ally crosses us even a little. If we did overreact every time, we really would be friendless.

Besides, what makes you so sure we’re not spying on them?

doc, I could tell ya, but then I’d have to kill ya!

Subtle hint: they are somewhere wet. I think I may have said too much already.

Ahh, I think they’re in the Sahara Desert.  Am I warm?

Seth I’m rather tired of you simply declaring black is white and total disregarding the truth. I don’t think even Bush or Rumsfeld are still claiming that Saddam had any serious links with terrorism. As far as the genocide caused by the sanctions, even Mad Albright didn’t try and deny it, simply stated it was worth it.

To be honest I’m not in a good mood, I received a request tonight from a person that lives in Baghdad, he used to be a civil engineer before the illegal invasion. He’s Iraqi but not a Muslim in fact he’s a Christian, in fact now because of the new regime you’ve installed he’s actually been turned down for work because of his religious beliefs and of course he’s unemployed now like most Iraqis. Well now he’s got a real problem, his Mother has gone into hospital with heart problems and is in intensive care. In Iraq now if you don’t have the money to pay for hospital care you simply get kicked out, probably the American system, before the illegal invasion all Iraqis had adequate health care regardless of the ability to pay.

So now I’ve got a real problem, how much money will he need, how do I get it to the hospital?

Meantime you right wing jerks had better continue without me discussing the Iranian equivalent of being attacked within 45 minutes so you can turn another part of the world into a desolate waste-ground because of your gas guzzlers. As far as I’m concerned you are all just arrogant scum in any case.

I hope he stays away! What a eunuch…

Naw! It will be back. Trolls love being trolls.

As for his assertion that the mid-east is a vast waste land because of oil production is about the funniest thing I have seen in years. What a moron.

Twohotel9…As for his assertion on anything. What I have gathered most from him is his fondness for calling others arrogant and stupid. As if he is the all knowing demure one?

Gone quiet now init, lol?

Hey? Nemesis? Is that you in your gravatar? And if it is, is that a Queen’s Own Highlanders tropical beret?

Aw, Michael, don’t go away mad…especially not with your ideology hanging out like that. Far be it from me to ruin a good emotional diatribe—and hey, I understand it’s an emotional thing when one’s world view doesn’t hold up to established facts and simple logic—but consider a few things:

I sent you a link to an extensively researched article which is sourced with further links to reputable sources, all so you could educate yourself to the very real and very extensive connections Saddam Hussein’s regime had to terrorism. You didn’t dispute even one single cite, let alone the bulk of the cites. From this we can conclude one of two things: either you chose not to follow the link, or you rejected the information out of hand based on a deeply held ideological bias and a need to protect your ego after having been called out as being flat wrong.

As far as genocide, that’s a rather particular term that implies intent towards a particular result (ie: the elimination of a class of people). While without question the sanctions were leathal, they were not targeted at a particular identifiable class outside of "the Iraqi regime". You no doubt are quite aware that "Iraqi" denotes a rather arbitrary patchwork of ethnic and religious groups—and therefore sanctions targeted at the government of such a diverse group is, by definition, not genocide because A) it lacks intent to eliminate the people, merely the government and B) it’s not targeted at a particular identifiable group, a regime not being considered a group for purposes of defining genocide. Is this all just semantics? Yes, but words matter. By your standards, there are few countries that aren’t guilty of genocide.

As for your claim about 1.3 million killed by the sanctions, using a grossly inflated number like that may make good propaganda in some quarters, but most people can small horse manure when it’s around. Using that bit of propaganda does disservice to the hundreds of thousands that DID actually die—it’s a disservice because when you hide the terrible truth with a more terrible lie, people reject the lie and lose the truth. Understand?

Perhaps it’ll interest you to know that I supported the war as a way to end the sanctions and draw down our military presence in the Middle East. It wasn’t going to happen any other way.

TwoHotel. No it isn’t me, lol but you were right about the beret. The person in my Gravatar is a British actor called Windsor Davies and the picture is of when he played a bungling Sgt. Major in an old Army comedy called "It ain’t half hot, Mom". He looked after an entertainment troop in the jungle of Borneo in WWII. It’s a bit dated now but it was one of my fav programs as a kid.My own beret is a sky blue colour as I was in the British Army Air Corps.