'US overstated Iran nuclear threat'

oscarBravo

purplengold wrote: »

My apologies if I overstepped the mark, but by nature I find it difficult to hold my mouth when I read what I consider is absolute rubbish.

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Likewise.

Apologies appreciated. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with a robust rebuttal of the points presented. Just don't resort to namecalling.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

And from your response it would seem you are not capable of debating the matter...

The warning applies across the board. I would have thought that was clear.

Dirk Gently

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.

I think maybe you need to broaden your study beyond right wing revisionist propaganda of American participation, direction and support for such things. I'm unsure as to how genuine your posts here are. I know there are some people who actually think as you do but it's still hard to accept that people can genuinely believe what you claim to believe. Most supporters of extremist governments like the one in the US at least (wrongly) cite real politick as a justification for such crimes but you seem completely oblivious to any kind of intention at all on their behalf to do such things.

Manic Moran

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And the question must be asked then: why was there so many disenfranchised voters? Interference, perhaps?

Something like that. Most usually local officials affiliated with one party or another who are not particularly scrupulous about their morals.

As far as the original issue of Iran, can anyone give me a reason as to why we should not continue to pursue inspections and compliance? NEIs have been wrong before, and I can't see what harm they would do.

NTM

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

In fairness there is no way you know that for certain at all.

Lets admit what this really is

Your uninformed theory of what happened.

Conspiracy theory forum for those kind of replies please.

Are you seriously trying to imply, with this preposterous response, that your opinion is more informed than mine or that somehow yours is more truthful?

I counter that yours is misinformed, propaganda eating garbage and I echo the sentiments of the previous poster calling on you to broaden your thinking a little.

I think that all the reputable agencies, investigative reporters, civilian testimony & numerous FBI investigations say it enough for me to back up my claim.

I'm really beginning to think that you have no idea what you're talking about and/or you are taking these stances just for laugh. No other reason makes sense for me and, believe me, I'm a very open-minded person.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Something like that. Most usually local officials affiliated with one party or another who are not particularly scrupulous about their morals.

As far as the original issue of Iran, can anyone give me a reason as to why we should not continue to pursue inspections and compliance? NEIs have been wrong before, and I can't see what harm they would do.

NTM

No problem with inspections, but arranged through diplomatic channels only.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i think the Eu should try to inspect some of the Us's choicer military facilities... Far more danger of the Us arsenal being used to kill innocent people than the Iranian.

AngryHippie

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.




So tell me why British troops are struggling as well they have plenty of experience of peacekeeping from Northern Ireland the intensity of this insurgency is not caused from American mistakes [though I'm sure that plays a part] or from how the troops act but is from Iranian financial and military support[training] and yes a lot of these insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but where are they getting the vast majority of the arms and training........IRAN.

Okay, on your first paragraph :
See: Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile (pinochet), Iran (last Shah era), Iraq(sale of chemical & bio weapons, rumsfeld & co.), Afghanistan not to mention the V country & the use of Nuclear weapons against a civilian population centre (1945, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)
Don't suggest that these were acts of "war" they were intentional crimes against humanity, conducted against a civilian population, that the US used their media machine to demonize, in order to escape prosecution for their murderous acts

America has always sought to interfere in foreign politics and liberties, to suit their own anti-communist, zionist, capitalist, Oil Guzzling policies. I'm not saying that it isn't the most prudent course of action for a nation as messed up as theirs is, but the facts are all there. As regards middle east politics, the US not to covertly supported Saddam Hussein up until his invasion of Iran, (with US bought weapons), They then turned around and sold Iran the weapons to hold off Saddam, but instead of taking direct payment, forwarded the money to Nicaragua to finance a little revolution and bloodletting over there. These are documented facts. Get your head out of your Ar5e and stop defending them.

The neo-conservative administration in power at the moment, has managed to earn the resentment of the entire Islamic population of the world, most of the Arab population and most of the literate population of Europe. This was accomplished through their ridiculous "war on terror", rendition, heavy handed tactics and complete lack of understanding of their so-called enemy.

As for Britain, as a former colonial power in the middle east, and the prime initiators of the national divisions that have made the region an absolute pressure cooker since world war 1, They were bound to struggle in their campaign, but it is important to note that the areas under their command in Basra and Fallujah were some of the quieter and least violent in the early stages of the insurgency, while the yanks were black bagging suspects and kicking down doors, the British kept their patrols orderly and behaved as they had learned to from previous experience in the region. Peacekeeping in Ireland was a totally different kettle of fish, 50% of the population there supported a British military presence, They all spoke the same language, The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, and other various associations of militant republicans were nowhere near as well funded or commited as the Islamic Jihadis are. Just how many Suicide attacks were performed by republicans ???? Discounting Hunger strike, as it is a peaceful protest, I cannot remember a single one, SO without getting off topic, it is nothing short of pointless to even compare the two. The only similarity was that the conflicts both arose from lines drawn around the same time, by the same group of people, They have been dealing with the consequences ever since, We in Ireland have been lucky enough to be able to reconcile the minor differences between the two communities.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done. I'm also sure those same soldiers would have no problem invading Iran seeing as they can see first hand the damage Iranian training and weapons is doing to civilians in Iraq everyday.

Iran is more or less directly responsible for supporting the intentional mass murdering of civilians and as such the government should not be allowed remain in power let alone have nuclear weapons.

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.




So tell me why British troops are struggling as well they have plenty of experience of peacekeeping from Northern Ireland the intensity of this insurgency is not caused from American mistakes [though I'm sure that plays a part] or from how the troops act but is from Iranian financial and military support[training] and yes a lot of these insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but where are they getting the vast majority of the arms and training........IRAN.




Once America is allowed to finish it's job we will see a much more stable Middle East. The Balkans was once a warzone until America came in and stabilized the region I don't see why the same won't happen with the Middle East.

I would be of the opinion that most US troops simply wish to come home. Post me a link to a reputable poll (NOT a Fox one) that backs up your claim that they wish to move onto Iran from Iraq? You seem to have glossed over the fact, stated in this thread, that over half of the supplies/manpower for the destabilising forces come from countries other than Iran, so your argument to invade Iran falls on its own sword immediately. I argue, using your logic, that they should prioritise Saudi Arabia as their next target. I'll also answer why they won't do that: Saudi oil reserves. The main reason they want to get into Iran, and the underlying reason they went into Iraq. See the pattern?

What about the US use of agent orange in Central America? Was that not mass murder to you? Any answer other than 'yes' shows you do not have a grasp of US foreign policy history.

A lot of the forces you refer to are untrained men, so it does not cost as much as you imply. It can be done with any of the manpower coming in from other countries. It is funny how you continue harping on about Iran as the major supplier of all things evil, they've barely enough money in the country to feed their own people, let alone wage a silent, guerilla war on US troops. In addition, Senators in the US' Congress defence oversight committee have gone on record saying that they have yet to see concrete evidence of Iranian involvement. It's hyped up rhetoric from Perino. Lastly, the British troops are not struggling. There is relative quiet in Basra, but the reason for that is that the target for the Sunni and Sh'ia populations is the capital. I also want to emphasise that I refer to the indigenous populations.

How many more innocent people have to die in order to allow the US to achieve your stated goal?

Oh, and the US did not stabilise the Balkan region, the UN did. :o

AngryHippie

"Ladies and gentlemen,
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society, And we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.
On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine, that combines military, diplomatic, Intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations, its preparations are concealed, not published, Its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed, that is why the Athenian lawmaker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, confident that with your help man will be what was born to be,
Free and independent."

John F Kennedy

Have a think about that, The man was assasinated by who knows for some unknown reason within a month of that speech. If you're fond of conspiracy, It'll blow you away, If you just read it, You'll clearly see the situation he desribed has undfolded with a tragic and tedious inevitability

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wasn't he talking about communists?

kaiser sauze

AngryHippie wrote: »

Okay, on your first paragraph :
See: Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile (pinochet), Iran (last Shah era), Iraq(sale of chemical & bio weapons, rumsfeld & co.), Afghanistan not to mention the V country & the use of Nuclear weapons against a civilian population centre (1945, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)
Don't suggest that these were acts of "war" they were intentional crimes against humanity, conducted against a civilian population, that the US used their media machine to demonize, in order to escape prosecution for their murderous acts

America has always sought to interfere in foreign politics and liberties, to suit their own anti-communist, zionist, capitalist, Oil Guzzling policies. I'm not saying that it isn't the most prudent course of action for a nation as messed up as theirs is, but the facts are all there. As regards middle east politics, the US not to covertly supported Saddam Hussein up until his invasion of Iran, (with US bought weapons), They then turned around and sold Iran the weapons to hold off Saddam, but instead of taking direct payment, forwarded the money to Nicaragua to finance a little revolution and bloodletting over there. These are documented facts. Get your head out of your Ar5e and stop defending them.

The neo-conservative administration in power at the moment, has managed to earn the resentment of the entire Islamic population of the world, most of the Arab population and most of the literate population of Europe. This was accomplished through their ridiculous "war on terror", rendition, heavy handed tactics and complete lack of understanding of their so-called enemy.

As for Britain, as a former colonial power in the middle east, and the prime initiators of the national divisions that have made the region an absolute pressure cooker since world war 1, They were bound to struggle in their campaign, but it is important to note that the areas under their command in Basra and Fallujah were some of the quieter and least violent in the early stages of the insurgency, while the yanks were black bagging suspects and kicking down doors, the British kept their patrols orderly and behaved as they had learned to from previous experience in the region. Peacekeeping in Ireland was a totally different kettle of fish, 50% of the population there supported a British military presence, They all spoke the same language, The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, and other various associations of militant republicans were nowhere near as well funded or commited as the Islamic Jihadis are. Just how many Suicide attacks were performed by republicans ???? Discounting Hunger strike, as it is a peaceful protest, I cannot remember a single one, SO without getting off topic, it is nothing short of pointless to even compare the two. The only similarity was that the conflicts both arose from lines drawn around the same time, by the same group of people, They have been dealing with the consequences ever since, We in Ireland have been lucky enough to be able to reconcile the minor differences between the two communities.

It is reassuring to note that there are people thinking, at exactly the same time, the exact same things and wording them in their own way that actually ends up saying much the same thing. I specifically refer to how both of us cross our posts and point out to SpacedOut that Basra is termed by both of us {I corrected my tired mis-spelling!} "quiet".

I also thank you for the detailed accounts of some of the more major, but innumerable, civilian transgressions that the US has engineered/performed over the decades. I decided to point out only the one; very poignant due to the abject poverty of the people it was used to silence.

Dirk Gently

The report itself. (pdf format)

NIE: Iran report

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that most US troops simply wish to come home.

I would be of the opinion that both of you are deciding what you want US soldiers to be feeling / thinking, and that neither of you have access to any sort of reliable, unbiased information regarding the feelings of the troop corps in general.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but seriously....it helps neither of your cases to be arguing what you think these people are thinking.

Anyone can make **** up. The convincing arguments are made by those who can stick to what is known. Ironically, this is why its a bad idea to even consider supporting the notion of an invasion of Iran.

When BushCo wanted to invade Iraq, they offered reason after reason, based on "hard evidence" that turned out to be either overstated, misinterpreted, or flat-out made up. Finally, they went with what amounts to the same logic that SpAcEd OuT is offering here....Saddam is a very bad man and deserves to be taken out of power.

If that was a good enough reason, then the whole issue of nuclear weapons would never have even made it onto the radar. That it did, and was heartily overstated and embraced by BushCo and their ideologues shows that they fundamentally understand that the argument SpAcEd OuT is offering - that Iran is run by very very bad men who deserve to be taken out of power - is insufficient. That's why it was never the primary reason in Iraq...until as much paranoia, hatred and fear as possible had been stoked up amongst the US populace so that they were gung ho to quickly follow on the "success" of the Afghanistan war.

It might be sufficient if we allow the same pattern as happened with Iraq to continue. Nuclear threat will be replaced with allegations of WMD usage in the Iran-Iraq war. Ties with 911 will be hinted at. And so on and so forth, until one day its all summed up into the notion that "Iran is run by very very bad men, so its ok to invade".

What seems to be overlooked here, however, is that this time things really are different. When going into Iraq, the US could point to Afghanistan and claim it to be the most comprehensively successful and cost-effective war ever waged. This was used as the shield against all criticism that going into Iraq was dumb because there was no plan to win the peace. No-one doubted the US could win the war....but the peace was a problem which Afghanistan was the response to.

Now, 4 years later, Afghanistan is no longer a shining example of how to do it right. Iraq is a shining example of how to do it wrong. The "war bill" runs to hundreds of billions already spent (and estimated trillions in total)...and for what?

Invading Iran on the "bad bad people" argument....not gonna happen...at least not yet.

But the pattern..

Look at what we were told...

Iran must be stopped because they're lying to us and are secretely building nukes.

Then we get the report...

Iran are not lying to us and have stopped their nuclear weapons program just like they said they were.

The response?

Iran can't be trusted. They lie and make things up. We might need to bomb them anyway...but not until we find a new pretext.

And why can't we trust Iran? Why...because they told us the truth, while those saying they can't be trusted made **** up.

It makes perfect sense. Iran tell the truth - they're untrustworthy. US government make **** up....they should be listened to. Why? Because we don't want to live in fear of being ruled by some foreign culture. Because we love McDonalds, Ben & Jerrys, and all that other All-American goodness. Because Americanism is an intrinsic part of our Irish way of life.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that both of you are deciding what you want US soldiers to be feeling / thinking, and that neither of you have access to any sort of reliable, unbiased information regarding the feelings of the troop corps in general.

No reason that both cannot be correct.

There's little doubt that the troops, and the Army as an institution want out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity, but I have also little doubt that the vast majority want to do so only when the situation feasibly allows it. I was still in my previous unit when it received its marching orders for another tour next year, and I would certainly not call the overall attitude a negative one. More of a resigned "OK, let's knuckle down and git 'r done."

NTM

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

No reason that both cannot be correct.

And equally no reason both cannot be wrong.

Both posters are basically saying "I have no solid information, but here's what I am going to claim their mindset is". That's my objection. kaizer, at least, made it clear that he was offering opinion. SpAcEd offered his opinion as fact.

I was still in my previous unit when it received its marching orders for another tour next year, and I would certainly not call the overall attitude a negative one. More of a resigned "OK, let's knuckle down and git 'r done."

Assuming that your personal outlook is typical of a US soldier...would you describe that as being "happy to be rebuilding Iraq" as SpAcEd OuT did?

SpAcEd OuT

AngryHippie wrote: »

"Ladies and gentlemen,
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society, And we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.
On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine, that combines military, diplomatic, Intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations, its preparations are concealed, not published, Its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed, that is why the Athenian lawmaker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, confident that with your help man will be what was born to be,
Free and independent."

John F Kennedy

Have a think about that, The man was assasinated by who knows for some unknown reason within a month of that speech. If you're fond of conspiracy, It'll blow you away, If you just read it, You'll clearly see the situation he desribed has undfolded with a tragic and tedious inevitability

He was talking about communist spy networks in America


Please no more conspiracy ****e take your fantasys to the conspiracy forum.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to imply, with this preposterous response, that your opinion is more informed than mine or that somehow yours is more truthful?

I counter that yours is misinformed, propaganda eating garbage and I echo the sentiments of the previous poster calling on you to broaden your thinking a little.

I think that all the reputable agencies, investigative reporters, civilian testimony & numerous FBI investigations say it enough for me to back up my claim.

I'm really beginning to think that you have no idea what you're talking about and/or you are taking these stances just for laugh. No other reason makes sense for me and, believe me, I'm a very open-minded person.

Has anything ever been proved from all of this.....


No.

Therefore you cannot state as fact that the elections were rigged if they were, all of these investigative organisations [and there were independent ones as well] would have stated the elections were rigged following their investigation. None of them stated the elections were rigged and as such your opinion on the matter is little more than a conspiracy theory.

SpAcEd OuT

AngryHippie wrote: »

Okay, on your first paragraph :
See: Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile (pinochet), Iran (last Shah era)

They at the time of support had no idea that these leaders and groups were going to do what they did. They never intentionally said ''hey these guys are going to mass murder people lets back them''. As I said America has made mistakes in choosing who they have backed in the past this however is different from Iran who are supplying training and weapons to groups THEY KNOW are involved is the mass murdering of civilian populations.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Iraq(sale of chemical & bio weapons, rumsfeld & co.),

To use in conventional warfare not against civilian populations.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Afghanistan

To use in conventional warfare against Russia

AngryHippie wrote: »

not to mention the V country & the use of Nuclear weapons against a civilian population centre (1945, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)

Firstly do you even know how many millions upon millions of lives were saved by this act. Japan had no intention of surrendering and for those who say Japan was about to surrender had no airforce etc. BULL**** the Japanese people had no intention of surrendering as they didn't want to lose honour the nuclear bombing gave the emperor the excuse to surrender.

Secondly this was WW2 era. bombing civilian cities was a tatic employed by people on every side of the war. During that time it was a winning at all costs mentality. It wasn't a nice time to be living in but those were the times.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Don't suggest that these were acts of "war" they were intentional crimes against humanity, conducted against a civilian population,
that the US used their media machine to demonize, in order to escape prosecution for their murderous acts

...Yeah... Japan during the 40s.... good country... It wasn't like it was involved in genocide or anything.

AngryHippie wrote: »

America has always sought to interfere in foreign politics and liberties, to suit their own anti-communist, zionist, capitalist, Oil Guzzling policies.

You make it sound like being anti-communist, have a strong zionist community[Are you racist], being captalist and using oil are something to be ashamed of which is ridiculous. In fact Ireland ticks all the boxes apart from having a large jewish population [which there is nothing wrong with by the way]

Now

Oil Guzzling Policies - Nope not true OPEC owns most of the oil not America even if they invade a country they don't own the oil so the theory that they are invading countries to take all their oil is simply false, just because you read it on indymedia doesn't make it true

Captalist/Anti-Communist - In fairness that was during the cold war when the domino theory was in effect. They were effectively fighting a war against Russia except never directly. And I think we will all agree that a captalist society is a better one to live under than a communist society [see South Korea/North Korea, Western Germany/Eastern Germany etc.]

AngryHippie wrote: »

As for Britain, as a former colonial power in the middle east, and the prime initiators of the national divisions that have made the region an absolute pressure cooker since world war 1, They were bound to struggle in their campaign, but it is important to note that the areas under their command in Basra and Fallujah were some of the quieter and least violent in the early stages of the insurgency, while the yanks were black bagging suspects and kicking down doors, the British kept their patrols orderly and behaved as they had learned to from previous experience in the region. Peacekeeping in Ireland was a totally different kettle of fish, 50% of the population there supported a British military presence, They all spoke the same language, The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, and other various associations of militant republicans were nowhere near as well funded or commited as the Islamic Jihadis are. Just how many Suicide attacks were performed by republicans ???? Discounting Hunger strike, as it is a peaceful protest, I cannot remember a single one, SO without getting off topic, it is nothing short of pointless to even compare the two. The only similarity was that the conflicts both arose from lines drawn around the same time, by the same group of people, They have been dealing with the consequences ever since, We in Ireland have been lucky enough to be able to reconcile the minor differences between the two communities.

Britain got the quieter regions to begin with yet still Basra is a hostile region today.

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done.

Actually there was a poll of soldiers and %70 want out of there yesterday.

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Iran is more or less directly responsible for supporting the intentional mass murdering of civilians and as such the government should not be allowed remain in power let alone have nuclear weapons.

There is no evidence of this.

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.

Before Fallujah all males of a certain age were not allowed to leave and when the US military entered the city the rules of engagement were everyone was a militant.

Once America is allowed to finish it's job we will see a much more stable Middle East.

Saddam's Iraq is much more stable and the vast majority of Iraqis were better off then. No one wants the US occupying their country.
The Middle East is much more unstable since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and there is no reason to think it will get better before it gets worse.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Has anything ever been proved from all of this.....


No.

Therefore you cannot state as fact that ....

If only you'd apply teh same reasoning to your own arguments....

faceman

Mordeth wrote: »

i think the Eu should try to inspect some of the Us's choicer military facilities... Far more danger of the Us arsenal being used to kill innocent people than the Iranian.

And you know this because?? What threat does it pose?

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that most US troops simply wish to come home. Post me a link to a reputable poll (NOT a Fox one) that backs up your claim that they wish to move onto Iran from Iraq?

I have seen many interviews with soldiers on various news channels in which they all state that despite the hardship they want to stay until the job is done. There was a poll on C4 news awhile back that said something like 80pc [give or take] wanted to stay in Iraq until the job is done. CNN had a news piece that was saying that the majority of soldiers would support an invasion of Iran if it meant stabalizing the Iraqi region.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

You seem to have glossed over the fact, stated in this thread, that over half of the supplies/manpower for the destabilising forces come from countries other than Iran, so your argument to invade Iran falls on its own sword immediately. I argue, using your logic, that they should prioritise Saudi Arabia as their next target.

Nope. Those governments aren't supporting insurgents. They aren't supplying weapons to insurgents to kill civilians with. They aren't training insurgents in how best to effectively kill civilians. Under your notion we should invade Britain for supplying insurgents. It doesn't work like that those countries aren't intentionally supplying insurgents in fact they are trying to prevent it.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What about the US use of agent orange in Central America? Was that not mass murder to you? Any answer other than 'yes' shows you do not have a grasp of US foreign policy history.

Agent Orange was used to kill foilage they never used it to intentionally kill civilians and weren't aware at the time the damage it was doing.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

It is funny how you continue harping on about Iran as the major supplier of all things evil, they've barely enough money in the country to feed their own people, let alone wage a silent, guerilla war on US troops.

Either had North Korea, yet they still managed to build a nuclear weapon.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Oh, and the US did not stabilise the Balkan region, the UN did. :o

Look at the level of US involvement then look at the other countries level of involvement I think you will find it was a largely US force in the Balkans and that the US did pretty much 90pc of the work. :o

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote: »

As far as the original issue of Iran, can anyone give me a reason as to why we should not continue to pursue inspections and compliance? NEIs have been wrong before, and I can't see what harm they would do.

NTM

Inspections should continue after the aggressive actions of the Bush regime are terminated. Iran was complying and allowing inspections before Shrub started threatening them. In fact I'm all for inspections and compliance with the NPT in regards to all countries..chiefly the US and the UK.

sovtek

bonkey wrote: »

Feel free to prove me wrong, but seriously....it helps neither of your cases to be arguing what you think these people are thinking.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_72_percent_of_troops_want_0228.html

sovtek

faceman wrote: »

And you know this because?? What threat does it pose?

Because the American government is the only one to threaten use of nuclear weapons against states that have no such weapons.

SpAcEd OuT

sovtek wrote: »

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_72_percent_of_troops_want_0228.html

Zogby is run by a democrat who is openly opposed to the war.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I prefer getting information from actual interviews with soldiers rather than relying on a biased persons account of the information

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

faceman wrote: »

And you know this because?? What threat does it pose?

are you serious?

it's no threat to us, here.. we're mostly white and pretty rich. But lots of people all over the world are going to die because of these weapons, not all of them 'enemy combatants'.

If it's wrong for Iran to do it, why is it ok for the Americans?

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Zogby is run by a democrat who is openly opposed to the war.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

You mean John Zogby? You have any credible evidence of that?
Then how come when American opinion largely supported Bush zogby polls reflected that? Oh and it was good enough for Stars and Stripes to quote it.

I prefer getting information from actual interviews with soldiers rather than relying on a biased persons account of the information

Is that a biased source for the interviews you or are you able to access all available interviews? The information from a poll is extrapolated from interviews with soldiers using a scientific method. You're method is anecdotal at best.

bonkey

Mordeth wrote: »

If it's wrong for Iran to do it, why is it ok for the Americans?

Because its our way of life they're bombing into other countries.

Remember...its fine to use force to push agendas we approve of, but unconscionably immoral to use the same force to push agendas we disapprove of.

Oh yea...and don't forget that the winners retroactively write the rules. Until there's someone around who can beat America, what America do is right.

Simple case in point...post WW2, America convicted several japanese for the torture of US soldiers . The method of torture used? Waterboarding.