Yankees (as you call them) are just playing their game in the region and if you think they are doing this for the sake of world peace you are either extremely naive or indoctrinated. Iran with nuclear weapons is much bigger concern for the countries in Middle-East, Europe and Asia, than for the US
Your Drones are belong to us!
- Thread starter Glassfan
- Start date
Shaihulud
Deity
Im reminded that the USAian with the British destabilized the Iran and help installed the dictatorship of the Shah, im sure that the Iranians do too. When the Shah proved difficult, they allowed the Ayattollahs to overthrow the Shah, this is also besides the fact that USA supported Iraq and possibly supplied Saddam Hussien with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran has a right to be afraid of the USA and to arm itself for a likely conflict.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
You mean that when the UK and the US declared war on Iraq, they were "preserving peace"?
I don't think anyone here is advocating that extreme position. There are millions of shades of grey between the stark white of doing nothing (as you laid out above) and the utter black of first-strike go-it-alone military adventurism.Lord Of Elves said:
The USA has 2 goals in the region: do whatever Israel wants, and keep the oil flowing. All else is window dressing.
Yes, because if Saddam had been left to his own sanctions-be-damned devices with weapons of mass destruction,which all the evidence said he more than likely had (also, all the business about supporting terrorism which was rather tacked on at the end) there would have been a far bigger fallout than the relatively bloodless invasion (the Iraqis fielded over half a million and lost at most 30,000, although other estimates are more like 13,000, and the Allies lost about 200 from well over 200,000).
aelf
Ashen One
You actually think that Saddam actually had substantial WMDs and was going to use for nefarious purposes until Bush and co. intervened? Or you inserting a sly reference to first Gulf War here?
Flying Pig said:
Nope.
Not by a long shot.
The weapons inspection team UNMOVIC concluded that, despite Iraq not moving as fast as required on disarmament programs, there was very little proscribed materiel in Iraq as of March 2003.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/cluster_document.pdf
The US and UK 'intelligence' agencies disagreed even though they didn't have anything like the access to sites, documents, and personnel that UNMOVIC had.
Not questioning the UN's... fantastic record... at finding things out when those concerned don't want them to be found out, but - I rest my case.
But that's not what happened here.
Iraq was not restricting access to any sites at all.
To think otherwise is to have an inaccurate impression of what was known at the time.
Iraq was not restricting access to any sites at all.
To think otherwise is to have an inaccurate impression of what was known at the time.
No, but it's very naive to assume that those sites, people and documents were viewed by the UN exactly as they would have been on a normal working day.
Did you read the report?
I suspect not. It deals with those sorts of objections.
I suspect not. It deals with those sorts of objections.
I don't much feel like reading all 173 pages of it - care to give a summary of how they think they've gotten around those? I'd be more inclned to trust the views of the intelligence services, since they are after all very good at finding information sneakily.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It did eliminate an enemy of Iran, but then, too late, the US realized that two Irans side by side may be worse.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,142
what is more insulting about the weapons of mass destruction search is that Americans didn't even bother to come up with fake evidence . Until late in the game . They were so full of it , with this righteousness where might equalled right and they were like a century back , right in the beginning of the 20th Century .
Maybe they truly believed there to be WMDs?
I mean, surely if the WMDs were simply a false pretext for war, the Americans would have used their military dominance and control over areas of Iraq in order to smuggle in some "evidence", and thereby justify their operations to the world.
As it stands, it kind of seems like they were actually trying to do some genuine good, but ended up getting it somewhat wrong.
Here's some (from page 1062 of the Compendium):
And it's important to remember that various intelligence services were supplying UNMOVIC with leads.
Yeah, perhaps. I'd like to think that, but whenever Cheney and his vultures are involved I find it hard to give them the benefit of a doubt.Defiant47 said:
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,142
my point revolves entirely around that only thing the Western military heads and civlians masters care about is PR in their own country , once in they don't have any need for further justification . The late inventions centring around artillery shells buried in the desert even when they were numbered by UN came at a time when elections were not going well .
So you can't make 'masses of nukes' turn into 'what's a nuke?' But... well, I think I'll stop there.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.... please elaborate..?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
So you are assuming this was 'an effective and comprehensive UN inspection and verification system'.
Well, they did get it right in that nothing was there, but they could have arrived at that conclusion by sitting at home watching South Park and eating cheezy poofs.
