If Iran's goal is world domination they had better think twice. Neither the United States, nor the chinese, or Isreal, will allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It just isn't likely to happen.

Really? You think that is the case? I disagee with you. Look at the crap we had to go through to stop Iraq from gaining nuclear equipment. Look at how we are being fought by China and Russia when we tried to stop North Korea from getting atomic weapons that they now have proven they have. What makes you think that we stand a chance of stopping Iran from getting them? Iran says they will get them and I believe them.

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

Examples of your twists...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Great so what you are saying is we go to war! Sending in the military to any country on a covert mission is an act of war. Most presidents don't like to do covert acts because Congress in not informed of them prior to the mission. Mr. Carter, and Mr. Clinton are exceptions to that rule. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush both were kind enough to notify Congress on at least a few missions I know of. Mr. Carter sent me to Cuba, North Korea, and the Philippines and in those cases Congress was not notified until after. It is legal to do this as Congress says that the president has the right to send the militay anywhere in the world without prior notification but must notify Congress if the troops are deployed longer than 180 days. What this means is that if the president wanted to go to war in Iraq or anywhere else in the world he can do it on his order and does not need the Congress or the peoples permission first. The president does not need a reason to go to war if he does not want to give a reason, he can just say go. Not the most prudent thing to do but he is legally allowed to do it and all Congress can do to stop him is to cut off funding for it after the first 180 days and not before. That is the most Congress has the power to do under current laws as written by Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not hate or BS. This is how most presidents look at covert Ops. That is the yard stick covert operations is measured by. Having been associated with the community I understand what you fail to understand that every covert action is an act of war. The president must weigh the cost and benefit of each action. The war with Iraq used each option you outlined pretty much in the order you listed and yet you complain that it was poorly planned and executed.

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

Nice try but in the case of Iran they use landlines without satellites or repeaters for military phone lines. This means we have to be on the ground and actually attach wires to wires in order to listen in on the phones. The CIA operatives they would use are military special forces or their own paramilitary people. In either case the minute one of them sets foot on the ground it is an act of war if they carry any weapons, if they don't carry weapons of any kind then they are spies and it is still an act of war if they want it to be. Though it is true that most Iranians want to be friendly to America getting in and finding some that will help is not as easy as the movies. Since we have had two carrier groups in the area since the first Gulf war I don't think that it has slowed them down. Yes, it would work and be a total surprise. The political results would be a sneak attack on Iran and that would inflame the entire Arab world. It seems that you want us to go to war with Iran no matter what. The president is using diplomacy at the moment because if we attack now then all the people that would normally side with us would run away and we will be all alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you only knew what you were talking about you would be dangerous. First the Iraqis have not had a generation in the last century that was free. It will take time to learn just like it did in America. It took almost 100 years for America to set up what you expect the Iraqis have been doing for less than five and you call it failure! I have stated several times that WMD as been found in Iraq on several occasions yet you maintain that they are not there and never were there. Again I ask you what do you call WMD? North Korea only has one friendly nation and that is China. China has been supporting North Korea since the Korean conflict began in 1950, how do you make North Korea a problem for the Chinese? The only reason we are on the border with North Korea is becasue it was mandated by the United Nations that South Korea be supported and we got stuck with the bill. Once again you show your ignorance to history. History did not begin when you were in High School.

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

The DPRK has not done it yet! Mostly because if any threat is made DPRK will begin to glow in the dark. The last time we faced a nuclear show down in Korea was in the 1950's first the Soviet Union tried it and backed down then the Chinese tried it and backed down. The real danger of DKRK having nuclear weapons is they need money and selling them is less dangerous to North Korea than using them. If Iran has a nuclear weapon we can't bomb them with nuclear weapons because the rest of the world will be mad at us. America only has enough oil within our borders to last us 150 to 200 years, Europe does not.

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

Don't do pills man, and since your bright options are cartoonish as I suspected I guess I was correct. I should change my name to clair, Clair Voyant. lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree the post war is a mess but that does not mean that we lost. The reasons for going to war were and are valid.

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

Only if you want to foster hate and discontent around the world. The nuclear facilities that have been identified are civilian not military. Do you love war so much that you want to jump into it without cause?

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

Well, any war we are involved in we will be the largest force in country. Iraq had a half million man army the 4th largest in the world and was swept aside in a matter of hours both times. We still have 10 nations in iraq helping us as well as others not in country. But you are correct I am a genius. Thank you for noticing.

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

Oh you are so ignorant! I was writing about covert operations as you described. It was used once in Vietnam resulting in 200 Marine deaths, and again in operation eagle claw killing more of our people and both operations were failures.

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

Ok, where ever you are getting your information slap the person or learn to read better. Here is the short version of the official report. They needed a minimum of six choppers in order to pull off the rescue. They started with eight choppers; two had to turn around for mechanical reasons, after flying through a sand storm one mechanicaled at the first way point where the choppers were refueled. The teams were spotted by a bus, the commander; a colonel in the army later to head the Delta Force (wimps) did not have the minimum requirements to complete the mission, aborted. In getting the choppers up and out he did not allow an orderly lift off he instead ordered all of them to lift off. One of the refueling C-130’s was in the way causing the crash. The point is they had already aborted the mission at that time. I just finished watching national geographic's final report on the hostage crisis. Try watching it you will find something strange called facts. You can buy a copy or wait until they show it again.

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

You are correct you did not suggest using nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the bunkers that have been identified so far are so deep that the only way to ensure they are destroyed is by nuclear weapon or by invasion. That part was in the media a few months ago did you not read it? Iran will not give it away, they will use it. North Korea will sell it. If they develope the bomb yes, we will have to go in and it will be a mess for at least a few months before it goes to insane. The President of Iran has already said in public that when he gets nuclear weapons he will use it on Israel first us next. I take it as a complement that you liken me to the honorable Senator Goldwater.

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

I have no problems with dissenting opinions as long as they are based on facts not myths. I even remember being wrong once, no wait I was mistaken. I did not twist what you said, I used information to refute your argument I foolishly assumed you knew. If you don't know the basics then your ideas are ignorant because they lack the basic facts to support them.

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Could be the same reason he was not in his bunker when we launched the war. He was out of place and the troops came in faster than he expected. Remember that some of the facilities had U.S. special forces guarding them the day the war began. Keep in mind that Joint Special Forces has had 30 years to work out the bugs and now it works great.

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

As I said before I'm finished debating you.

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

I think the same can be said of you. I am still waiting for facts to back up your side of the debate. I guess I better not hold my breath waiting.

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

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

Lets start 1 by 1. Name one "fact" I haven't supported. I'll go get you some supporting evidence. But I'm not going to spend the rest of my life debating with a guy who's advocating we make finding a way out of the solar system "top priority" to the solution of global warming, and who denies that second hand smoke causes cancer.

The websites you listed did not say that second hand smoke causes cancer at least not the EPA what they said was it was potentially dangerous for childern.


Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

WWW Link">Link

I know that quoting some right wing nutcase orginazation like the World Health Orbanization won't help my cause but it is all I could find on short notice.

Mr. Greene wrote: The bottom line here, within a month of the invasion Tommy Franks was lighting a cigar in every palace Saddam had, within 6 months it was pretty clear Iraq didn't have a massive stock pile of WMD, the semi-trucks supposed mobile weapons labs, turned out to be well read it...

And had he allowed the inspectors to finish the job we would have had one less reason to invade. [link="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf"]WWW Link

If Saddam says he has them are we to call him a lier? He stated he had WMD and listed what he had. The inspectors were kicked out by Saddam before the work was completed. The same thing happened in Korea, five years later he tests one to see if it works. Did our intelligence see it coming? Nope. Why not? North Korea hid it well. Had we left Saddam alone would he have reconstituted his nuclear program? Yup if not why did he bury the plans for such weapons? Why did he have tons of Urainum? He gave his word that if we stopped the war he would cooperate. He did not and we continued where we left off.

"Why did he have tons of Urainum?"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I'm not sure if you are playing the devils advocate, an idiot, or just want me to lay it out for you on cancer.

Does smoking cause cancer? Eventually Yes.

Does the smoke cause the cancer? The smoke as well as the chemicals inside the cigaratte that are inhaled cause cells to mutate, after a certain number of mutations they divide out of control and form tumors, i.e. cancer.

If you are in a room, and there is a fire, obviously you cannot breathe the smoke, it's lethal, people die of smoke inhalation and asphyxiation before they die from flames or burning.

The same is true of cigaratte smoke, only the ratio of smoke to oxygen in the air is lower for a smoker, then someone in a room with a fire, it is also lower for second hand smoke, but it still is possible even probably that someone who routinely is exposed to second hand smoke will develope cancer at a higher rate then someone who is not. To purport otherwise, is irresponsible. I do not care what your study says on this topic, because for the last 50 years up until the lawsuits began against the tobacco industry, the tobacco industry was allowed to sell a known addictive lethal substance.

The WHO, probably hasn't published the study for good reason, I would guess political bias, the same kinda political bias that you purport in your examination of global warming.

What is clear is the relationship between smokers and non-smokers life expectancy, and actuary tables, I sold life insurance for about 3 months at one time, and the only two questions I had to ask if I was going to give someone a quote knowing nothing about them, would be if they were male or female, and if they were smoker, or non-smoker. The data about being a smoker or non-smoker and it's effect on your likely hood of living longer or shorter is scientifically proven enough so that you can legally offer non-smokers a lower rate for the same amount of coverage.

As you purchase higher amounts of life insurance, there are other factors that come into play but nothing out in the field that directly is so concrete.

As you are farther along in life, and probably have life insurance, you probably already know this. Now you know why.

If you want to disbelieve the data suggesting that dangers of both smoking and second hand smoke, and the facts and logic of the whole mess, do as you please.

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

You mean like right here?

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

Or here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WHO, probably hasn't published the study for good reason, I would guess political bias, the same kinda political bias that you purport in your examination of global warming.

This view disturbs me. An orginazation whos sole purpose is the study of human health issues is playing politics. I don't have a political bias when it comes to science. Facts are facts. When it comes to global warming as well as second hand smoke you are taking unproven theories and calling them scientific fact is what I don't agree with. When less than 50% of the people who smoke have a chance at getting cancer it means at best it is a contributing factor nothing more, you can not call it a cause for the problem. When man made polution makes up less than 1% of the pollutants in the air you can't say that it is even a contributiong factor in global warming. It has nothing to do with politics. As much as I dislike what the EPA has done to this nation I have to admit that it was created by the Nixon Administration. Politically I should be for the EPA and all they say. I don't like a lot of the crap they have put out in the last 20 years because it is junk science. There are less smokers today than 40 years ago yet there are more people dying of cancer today than 40 years ago. Logically this would lead a sane person to look in other directions for the root cause. Little things like the SUN putting out more radiation now than in the past, or maybe the radioactive dust spread from nuclear test. Every person on this planet has plutonium in their body from the tests in the 50' and the destruction of three space probes that were destroyed in the upper atmosphere in the 60's, both are known carcinogens but why focus on the obvious when you can focus on the obscure. Now if 60% of the people that smoked came down with some form of cancer then you can say there is a problem. But when 40% have a chance not a certainty of having some healh problems then I agree it is a risk that people take but their own choice.

When an extensive study that was looking to prove that second hand smoke causes health risks and cancer and a host of other problems is finished and it did not get the results it was looking for it tells you two things. First that the study was done correctly because it got results that are opposite of what was sought. Second the researchers were honest in their conclusions even though they did not get what they wanted. This is what being scientific means. Now if they were looking to prove that there was no health risk and proved it I would hold that report suspect.

When it comes to global warming all I have presented was information that has been out in the public for 30 years that the tree huggers choose to ignore. when you have astrophysicists, paleontologists, geologists’, paleo-geologists, paleo-botanist’, and meteorologists’ all come to the same conclusion to explain questions in their specific fields, they were not looking for global warming at all. It was an entomologist that discovered how the ice ages happen 25 years ago and the entire scientific community laughed at him because he studies bugs and said he made a breakthrough in another field. Now that theory is accepted as the most logical. My point is that all of these different disciplines had a piece of the puzzle and no one knew it until they began to talk to each other. Man can do nothing to influence global warming. It has happened before and will happen again. If it happened before man was dominant on the planet than how can man be the reason for it or cause it or stop it from happening? Mankind puts out less pollution today than it did 100 years ago but for some strange reason the people that bow down at the religion of saving the earth ignore that fact. 25 years ago it was believed that oil was a fossil fuel, this has been disproved because of scientist looking at one of the moons of Jupiter and what did they find with their probe? Hydrocarbons, the beginnings of oil. How can you have hydrocarbons on a moon with no oxygen, no heat, and no dinosaurs? It was only then did they bother to look at oil on the Earth and find out that the microbes they thought was a byproduct of oil is what produces oil. This blows the thinking of the last 100 years that said that we have a limited amount of oil because it is a fossil fuel and when it is gone we won’t have any more. Now that we know this we know better where to look to find more oil, we now know how to produce our own oil. The Air Force tested this fuel about 5 months ago and it works. The only problem is it costs $1.50 a gallon to produce. When that news hit the market the price of oil fell like a stone and is only now starting to recover. What you read is religious zealotry not scientific fact. ELF tries to save the planet by burning down housing complexes, and car dealerships. Isn’t fire a pollutant? Won’t that help speed the world to global disaster? These people are against capitalism and if it means stopping progress by claiming that the capitalist will destroy the Earth then that is the lie they will use.

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

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

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

As for WMD

"The Gulf war ended and 12 years passed without any intelligence people on the ground all we had was satellite data to go on."

We had inspectors in country up until 1998, and unimpeeded inspections until around 1996. The bottom line is Ritter was right, there isn't any MASS destruction potential in what was left over to be found.

"It was not the point that Iraq had a massive stockpile or a minimum stockpile."

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

"Saddam had the raw materials to make nuclear weapons"

Wrong.

"If we go after a country that is trying to get the bomb it is easier than going after a county that already has the bomb."

It was never about the bomb it's about the OIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, back to the oil thing again. lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I'm finished speaking with you for good."

Well at least on this topic.

If it were true, and fact, and there was more to find, I think a really huge case would have been made by the Republicans regarding that, considering they made the case in the beginning. It was the primary reason for this war.

If you are in the military or inside the government and have access to more then I do then that's great. My question to you and those who hold that information is why not share it not only with the citizens of this country who have given their moms, dads, brothers, sisters, to this cause. Why not share it with the other nations of the world who have decided to go with us in an effort to boost support for the cause, and maintain it's "justness" Why not share it with the other nations of the world who were offered a part in the plan for Iraqi freedom but declines, reinvite them or rub it in their face, the fact that hell yeah, Iraq was rearming for another war, and we shut Saddam Hussein down?

Because the stockpile, of credible, usable, deliverable weapons simply has not been located. Because it isn't there. The real danger is in North Korea, and growing rapidly in Iran. Now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and the opportunity to remove their ability to produce them is gone, we are stuck with a nation wanting re-unification with the south, a regime, the sworn enemy of a highly advanced and industrialized nation in Japan, and bordering the nation with the largest army in the world.

Not exactly sure how you think this is less of a threat then Iraq was, considering even if everything you say is absolutely true, which I find very hard to believe when I look at your statements regarding "smoking and how it doesn't cause cancer" and "global warming" and how for suredly the human race has less then 150,000 years to get of the planet, even if everything you said about Iraq is true. Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear weapon, had a limited capacity to deploy a chemical substance.

Let me show you something else about your supposed SMOKING GUN because the arguement of WMD is bogus ok.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html

Here is foxnews perhaps the most "fair and balanced" and best extension of the Presidency and white house in a media organization ever.

Here are some quotes from the article...

"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas."

So we've found 500 definetly degraded and potentially ineffective munitions.

"Well, they can still hurt people. I mean, I don't know enough to know for sure that they're useless. I mean, I think they can still hurt people. They're not going to work as well as they would have when the materials were fresh.

One thing I would like to add, though, is I do believe what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said is inaccurate. The inspectors started with a declaration by Iraq that it had over 100,000 chemical weapons either filled or unfilled. And Iraq tried to explain what it had done with those weapons. The inspectors investigated extensively what happened to, again, over 100,000 filled and unfilled chemical weapons.

Iraq said, very clearly, we don't know where all of them are. They even gave a case of 550 that they could not find after the Gulf War. So..."

Did you read that last paragraph. They didn't know where they were as a nation. So how in the hell could Saddam have used something if nobody in their nation knew where they were? Not only that, but read this...

"Well, we knew that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and we knew he used chemical weapons against Iranians. But it's clear, or it seems to be clear, that these weapons were not available to Saddam in 2003 when we were going to war. They seem to have been available to him in the early '90s."

"Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion."

So you see, Saddam didn't know they had these, because nobody knew in his country they had them, just like the United States GAO can't account for BILLLIONS of dollars over there even though that's their g*ddamn job.

This article by the propaganda machine that is Fox News Channel, and clearly, clearly, any reasonable person both in and out of the political realm can see that if the WMD argument is central to your war plan as it was, and that after three years of war/post war you've recovered not a nuclear weapon, not a nuclear weapons production facility, not chemical or biological weapons labs, not mobile camoflaged weapons labs but hydrogen production vehicles exactly what the Iraqi's said before the invasion they were, not a massive WMD rearming effort, but 500 degraded munitions left over from the 1980's and still dangerous, yes about as dangerous as any chemical with a 4 in the health diamond, don't drink it, don't breath it, don't get any on you, any reasonable person, not you of course Paladin, can see that North Korea, with real nuclear weapons production facilities in existence, as evidenced by oh what's this A g*ddamn nuclear weapon's detonation demonstration under a mountain, just bold enough to let us think twice about "regime change" anytime soon in North Korea, anyone can see that the WMD argument is a failed argument. A failed policy, failed credibility, a failure of "SLAMDUNK" intel, hmmmm k?

Now as for whether or not, it was justified. I supported the war, figured it would be over in a few days/weeks, figured we'd be smart enough to stay out of the cities, and let the police restore order after the Anti-Saddam riots I though we would be hunting for nukes for a few months, and I got a little uneasy when I heard about all the rioting, and looting, and how the civillian leadership's ultimate response was "well this is how freed people act." No sir, that is how people act when there are no rules, no order, no law, nobody in charge.

Obviously that fact escaped Rumsfeld. In fact in the leadership busying themselves so much in attempting to control the situation with insufficient numbers of troops and inadaquate post war planning for contingenices, sufficient to the extent that colonels and majors and captains on the ground were talking about how they hadn't wargamed for this. Just reinforced the sad reality that we didn't train or prepare nearly enough for the post war "you fight how you train" Gulf war 1 was in and out. This war and post war occupation has become a very very long war already. There have been some, I think they include you who say we should be building stone houses rather then tents in the desert, and plan on spending a few generations teaching the Iraqi's how to live Democratically. Well that all and wonderful except for the many different civil wars that are beginning to fracture the system as a whole over there.

I supported this war and post war effort even beyond Abu Gharib, you say there was no mis-treatment of detainees, no torture, yet there are photos, and journals, and protests, and facts saying otherwise. Perhaps your definition of torture is only if it is done to you. But clearly any reasonable person would accept that what happened wasn't right and ethical treatment of people. Detainees, soldiers, or humans its sad no matter who or how someone is categorized. I call into question your patriotism as well as your mental capacity to be reasonable if you honestly think that nobody there was psychologically or physically harmed by the treatment.

As you have said, it is criminal and those criminals have been sentences. Generals have been removed for the conduct.

By our direct and indirect actions as a nation. We have killed thousand or tens of civillians, launched a war on a tyrant to search for and verify the elmination of his WMD's and WMD manufacturing capability, in the time there we have not found what we set out to find, we have overseen the election of a government that the Iraqi's have voted into power, the country of Iraq now expriences daily bombings by insurgents as well as foreign fighters, and of course Al Qaeda as if it isn't too disruptive a place for them by now, we have implanted ourselves into this situation, without enough forces to prevent the country from slipping into this daily chaos, and civil strife, and we have also not drawn up any exit strategy should the situation require us to throw in the towel.

In fact the President won't admit that anything isn't proceeding just as perfect as apple pie.

Yet meanwhile North Korea built the bomb they said they were committed to build on Bush's watch, Iran has openly said they are pursuing the same. This is even possible to occur during Bush's watch.

I also supported that war when we were setting out to do more good then harm, but remaining in Iraq is doing more harm for our country then we are doing good for theirs. They also need to pick up the fight, as we did as a nation for our independence. Had we not done that, America would be the most prosperous colony of the United Kingdom ever, as opposed to the strongest independent and most unique nation in the world.

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

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

Erm, Modman....it was liberals that formed the nation.

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

If it were true, and fact, and there was more to find, I think a really huge case would have been made by the Republicans regarding that, considering they made the case in the beginning. It was the primary reason for this war.

This is where you are incorrect. I think I understand what you are taliking about but you took a right turn someplace and missed the road you need to be on.

K.I.S.S.

The stated reason for going to war with Iraq was the unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD (in violation of the cease fire agreement), Saddams' active support of terrorism, (new policy that America would go after nation states that supported terrorism) and the enforcement of all the UN resolutions Saddam had so far ignored and refused to comply with. The stockpiles you harp upon does not mean that there were warehouses full of nukes or other forms of WMD as hyped by the media. On top of that there was growing worry that with Saddam's open support of terrorism he might give some of his WMD to terrorist. There was intelligence suggesting that he was rebuilding his weapons program. This intelligence came from France, Germany, Russia, the UK, as well as our own CIA, and NRO. Not having people on the ground we did not KNOW for sure but as the President stated he was not going to wait until it happened to deal with it. Keep in mind that France, Germany, and Russia provided the same intelligence until they started to get paid by Iraq then they backed off. Based off of what we KNEW he had, (we know this because he said he had it) and the intelligence given to us from other nations it was prudent to stop him for that reason alone.

Mr. Greene, you state that the weapons found were degraded and of little value. You are partially correct. In combat they would have done little. If on the other hand just one of those shells showed up in the states and killed one person on a subway or office building I believe you as well as the rest of the country (me included)would but up in arms screaming that the President did nothing to protect us. The President failed to protect us. Why didn't he connect the dots and stop it when he had the chance. All the things that was said after 9/11. The President had two choices, get him now, before he did something that would harm Americans or get him later, after he did something that harmed Americans. Saddam had said he would use these weapons on America if he had the chance. (public statement) He had demonstrated his ability and willingness to use them on Iran as well as his own people. So it could not be taken as an weak or boastful threat.

The fact that WMD was not found in mass quantities is not the point. A one pound ball of uranium placed in the ventilation system of an office building would do more human damage than a nuclear explosion over a city. Saddam had tons of uranium and doing it this way you don't have to enrich the stuff. Do that in a few cities and you shut down those cities, it does not have to kill many. The fact that Iraq had WMD was the problem not the quantity or quality.

US policy on WMD attack. The US only has one form of WMD Nuclear Weapons. If attacked with NBC Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons the US will respond with Nuclear Weapons. If some nutcase lets loose with anything and it is traced back to Iraq do you think it is fair to nuke an Iraqi city because of it? I don't either but the policy is clear and we will have little choice but to respond or risk everyone playing that game. Giving WMD to a terrorist organization makes it hard to respond against a nation since it was not the nation that did the deed.

Were mistakes made? Yes, on both sides. Was the risk real? YES! It was real. There were terrorist walking the streets of Bagdad prior to the war so we knew Saddam was helping AQ to some extent. Providing medical service to the wounded and providing a place for AQ to hide. Would the next logical step be to hand over some goodies from his bag of WMD? Don't know. Is it worth the risk to find out the hard way? I don't think it is. If a person is responsible for the safety and well being of his people then making stupid statements and threaten the biggest guy on the block has consequences. On the other hand it is the Presidents responsibility to safeguard the American people. It is better to err on the sided of keeping Americans safe.

Because the stockpile, of credible, usable, deliverable weapons simply has not been located. Because it isn't there. The real danger is in North Korea, and growing rapidly in Iran. Now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and the opportunity to remove their ability to produce them is gone, we are stuck with a nation wanting re-unification with the south, a regime, the sworn enemy of a highly advanced and industrialized nation in Japan, and bordering the nation with the largest army in the world.

We were stuck with that threat because we as a nation refused to do anything about it. The last time I was in North Korea was in the 80's. They have been working on getting the Bomb for decades but the Soviet Union kept them in check and China kept us out. Remember the reconnaissance plane that was forced to land in China? Remember all the flack that the President took for going into Iraq? His had was forced by politics to go slow and easy. The South Koreans wanted to negotiate, Japan wanted to negotiate, and China wanted to negotiate. They live there we don't. This is what happens when you negotiate with a nut job. Saddam was just as bad as Kim but we had evidence of terrorist on Iraqi soil not in North Korea so we have no policy that will allow us to go in there. As long as North Korea does not cross the DMZ, set up by the UN, we can’t do anything other than declare war on North Korea. North Korea has only 6 to 10 small bombs and the only people he can hit are local so far. That means he is not a threat to America just our friends and they say they want to talk instead of fight.

With Iran, they are making the same mistake as Saddam. They are making public statements that threaten America. I think it is funny in a sad way that the countries that Congress said we had to pull our intelligence people out of back in 1975 are the nations we are having trouble with today. United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975. Thank you Senator Church.
You see Mr. Greene, we had legal cause to go into Iraq, we don't have legal cause to go into Iran or North Korea so there is noting we can do about them other than talk and hope they do what is right for us.