WTF Iran?

[Drisco]

Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman dismissed a suggestion Wednesday by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that Britain should resolve the crisis by admitting that its personnel had made a "mistake" and crossed into Iranian waters

"We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place,"' said the spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

Britain's Ministry of Defense released coordinates that it said proved the captured naval personnel were seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.


It proves we werent in your waters give us our sailors back simple as that.
What they are doing is having a fight over who did what, when really the main concern shouldnt be about who is right it should be getting the sailors back.

Really IMO what the President of Iran is doing is saying :nono: all of you. Especially with the commont made about all the world powers. What needs to happen is we need to see some action takened. If he doesnt wanna cooperate then screw him, We should already be in there stopping their nucular project. I can see from there point how its unfair everyone else gets to have a nuke why not us.... Um your president is crazy maybe for starters?

I think he is trying to get a war started with Muslim saying look they're attacking Iraq, Afghanistan , Now Us? This isnt about the Sailors and us making nucular weapond its really about us being muslim and them trying to eraticate us all, and I bet you they will belive it too.

[TheEschaton]

Listen, man, I don't know who you are or what side you espouse, but if you're looking to be a regular poster, which it seems like you are, you should work on your grammar. Clarity of thought is augmented by clarity of structure.

As to what you posted, I don't think people realize what a tense situation this is. If the English react against Iran, it'll trigger all the old alliances, and suddenly we'll be plunged into a new World War, especially based on the kind of governments we have now. A new war on that scale would be disasterous.

It seems right now that everyone is trying to be ridiculously diplomatic in the light of that fear, for now. Hopefully Iran will release the soldiers and there will be no further need on the UK's part to escalate.

-TheE-

[Gan]

It concerns me that Admedenejhad (Iran's President) has been pretty much silenced by the supreme ruler/cleric/Ayatollah Khemene (sp). Furthermore that the Ayatollah has stated that since the rest of the world (through the UN) is sanctioning Iran, then Iran will defend itself illegally as best it can.

Bottom line, usually when Iran says its going to do something, its more than just posturing. Time will tell...

[Gan]

Listen, man, I don't know who you are or what side you espouse, but if you're looking to be a regular poster, which it seems like you are, you should work on your grammar. Clarity of thought is augmented by clarity of structure.-TheE-


This hypocritical moment brought to you by...


Proper grammar and spelling (and sentence structure) is for editors. I just come up with the literary gold.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And yet I still make an effort to have proper grammar and spelling, Gan. ;) The quote you chose refers to when normally coherent, cohesive writers make a rare mistake....those are for editors to catch.

-TheE-

[Drisco]

It Is a tense situation, but what is Britian suppose to do? Furthermore I think Iran is trying to start a war. I dont really think they wanna end it peacefully.

And on this note....

I'm not a grammer kinda guy and Ill be the first to admit it. I usually speak and write in french. That being said I usally try and read over what I write and fix any glaring mistakes. As far as anything else if it bothers people I can try a bit harded on my grammer.

Like espouse? Heh had to look it up.

[Gan]

And yet I still make an effort to have proper grammar and spelling, Gan. ;) The quote you chose refers to when normally coherent, cohesive writers make a rare mistake....those are for editors to catch.

-TheE-

Translation: Its ok to be a hypocrite if you're almost perfect like TheE.

Gotcha.

:lol:

[Drisco]

coherent, cohesive? Like can we break it down into words I can understand. I think what im gonna have to do is bring a dictionary with me when I come to this forum. ;)

[Parkbandit]

The problem with today's politician is that they are all trying to be politically correct.

Fuck that.

Return the hostages. Period. There is no negotiations. We're not going to lessen the sanctions against you... in fact, we're going to increase them.

You think we're kidding? Here, let me show you what we can do to your nuclear facility.

[Bobmuhthol]

Because brinkmanship is an awesome policy in today's world.

America is not as much of a superpower as it was 30-40 years ago.

[Drisco]

I agree with Bob. Even though America does have the best trained soldiers and equipment that doesnt matter now. If you have a nuke your just as strong as the next guy, your even stronger/stupider if you have the balls to use it.

[Gan]

Everything now is a measured and 'appropriate' response.

Gone are the days of an overwhelming and catastrophic response that America was known for.

[Parkbandit]

Everything now is a measured and 'appropriate' response.

Gone are the days of an overwhelming and catastrophic response that America was known for.

Gee.. I wonder why piss ant little fucking countries and groups of thugs think they can fuck with us.

Correlation?

[Latrinsorm]

Because if there's anything international politics needs, it's a return to froth-mouthed jingoism.

[Ignot]

coherent, cohesive? Like can we break it down into words I can understand. I think what im gonna have to do is bring a dictionary with me when I come to this forum. ;)

If you post on a political thread the regulars tend to use large, unecessary, complicated words to confuse and validate their debate. That is why i rarely post on these threads. One wrong word and your thrown into a big debate in which you must defend yourself and you don't even understand what is going on.

That being said, please continue.....

[Nieninque]

Because if there's anything international politics needs, it's a return to froth-mouthed jingoism.

It doesnt happen very often, but...QFT

[Methais]

This situation needs more Vice President Noah Daniels if you ask me.

[Tsa`ah]

Really IMO what the President of Iran is doing is saying :nono: all of you. Especially with the commont made about all the world powers. What needs to happen is we need to see some action takened. If he doesnt wanna cooperate then screw him, We should already be in there stopping their nucular project. I can see from there point how its unfair everyone else gets to have a nuke why not us.... Um your president is crazy maybe for starters?

The problem with placing this at the feet of Ahmadinejad is that he has no control of the situation. He didn't order it, nor could he ... just like he can't order the release. The 15 British marines were captured by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, not the Iranian military.

The IRG is a completely separate military entity operating independent of the Iranian government. For all intents and purposes, they're just as large and just as (if not better) equipped than the Iranian regulars.

Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government are actually 1/3 of the power in Iran ... and in this case, the wrong go to person.

[Drisco]

Really.. hmm I was toatly under the impression that it was that military. Might have to look more into that.




If you post on a political thread the regulars tend to use large, unecessary, complicated words to confuse and validate their debate. That is why i rarely post on these threads. One wrong word and your thrown into a big debate in which you must defend yourself and you don't even understand what is going on.


Well after reading all of the post and understanding only probly 75% and the rest I was like :wtf: I will agree with yah.

[Mistomeer]

The problem with placing this at the feet of Ahmadinejad is that he has no control of the situation. He didn't order it, nor could he ... just like he can't order the release. The 15 British marines were captured by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, not the Iranian military.

The IRG is a completely separate military entity operating independent of the Iranian government. For all intents and purposes, they're just as large and just as (if not better) equipped than the Iranian regulars.

Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government are actually 1/3 of the power in Iran ... and in this case, the wrong go to person.

Actually, since he is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard he could probably arrange the release. He rose to prominence through the guard.

[Gan]

Ahmadinejad was also one heavily involved in the student takeover and hostage situation of the US embassy back in the late 70's.

[Drisco]

So getting back on topic heh, All 15 sailors have confessed that they were in Iranian waters... Forced confession? or Lie? If it was a forced confession Id be a little pissed off at Iran for making them do that. If they lied, I completely understand.

[Gan]

My impression is that all the 'confessions' that have come from the captives are coerced (forced). This has always been a ploy of 'enemy' forces, examples of which can be seen as far back as the Vietnam and Korean wars.

That being said, how will Iran punish the 15 sailors who were caught? How much of a threat can 15 people in rubber rafts be to a soverign country, in open waters?

Answer? Its a political show, designed to inflame the Iranian people in order to justify Iran's entrance into the Iraq conflict. This is a lame attempt to prevent those who are against Admedenejad's foreign policy from gaining popularity and orchestrating another overthrow.

[Jesuit]

I thought this story about Iran was interesting too.


The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

The revelation comes amid rising tensions over the past week since Iran captured 15 British Navy personnel in waters between Iran and Iraq. Analysts have suggested that some Iranian officials have argued against speedily returning the Brits, preferring to use them as a bargaining chip in Tehran's efforts to free five of its own officials captured by the U.S. in Erbil earlier this year. News that an Iranian soldier had been killed in a clash with American forces would do little to ease those tensions.

In the months after the incident, U.S. forces have kept up joint patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, where their movements are closely monitored by Iranian outposts. Increasingly, however, U.S. troops stationed in Diyala Province are moving to help counter-insurgency efforts in the Baqubah area, leaving a thinner American presence at the border. On some days, says Lt. Col. Ronald Ward, the U.S. commander tasked with helping Iraqi units maintain border security in the area, no U.S. troops appear there at all.



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

[xtc]

Ahmadinejad was also one heavily involved in the student takeover and hostage situation of the US embassy back in the late 70's.

No he wasn't. This was a nice piece of propaganda put out when Ahmadinejad was running for President. Many of the people who were involved in the hostage taking are now reformers and against conservatives like Ahmadinejad yet they say Ahmadinejad was not one of the hostage takers.

If the U.S. really believed Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers they would have arrested him when he was in New York last speaking at the U.N.

Also the CIA has stated he wasn't a hostage taker.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah right.

X get a clue.

[Gan]

No he wasn't. This was a nice piece of propaganda put out when Ahmadinejad was running for President. Many of the people who were involved in the hostage taking are now reformers and against conservatives like Ahmadinejad yet they say Ahmadinejad was not one of the hostage takers.

If the U.S. really believed Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers they would have arrested him when he was in New York last speaking at the U.N.

Also the CIA has stated he wasn't a hostage taker.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

It might help if you actually read the links you post. Here's a nifty little quote you seem to have glossed over XTC.



The officials cautioned that the analysis is not final.

Here's an interesting synopsis from Wikipedia, which is not an official authority, but an interesting read and credible in its depiction of the early Admenejhad.



Ahmadinejad was politically active as a student during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis), and represented the University of Science and Technology in the Students Movement at the Central Committee for the “Office of Growth of Unity of the Students” where the plan for the embassy takeover was presented. [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-10) Reportedly, he first opposed the take-over .[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-11) [18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-12) or supported a larger plan that included the simultaneous take-over of the Soviet Union embassy [19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-13) until the Ayatollah Khomeni gave his approval of the US embassy take-over.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-14) Several former hostages and the former President of Iran have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy. [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-15) In a secret report specifically investigating this issue, the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA) declared this identification "Not proven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven)". [22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-16) [23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#_note-17)

[Stanley Burrell]

Ahmadinejad strolling around FDR on 34th is just more terror alert purple, liberal propaganda run by sleeper cells of new age cybernetic demon ninjas producing this so called "photographic evidence." Liberal propaganda.


http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

Liberal Propaganda.


Seasoned Gulf War I & II vets agreeing for the recent congress bill? (http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/03/31/democratic.radio.address.cnn&wm=11)

Liberal Propaganda.


Wikipedia making an extra space after "take-over" on that article snippet?

Lack of proof reading.

.

I mean liberal propaganda.

.


In summation, a-liberal propaganda.

[Back]

Iran 'to release British sailors' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm)


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.
He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they would be freed as a "gift" to Britain.

He made the announcement at a news conference, in which he also awarded medals to the commanders who captured the British personnel in the Gulf.

He said the Britons would be released immediately and taken to an airport.

--------------------------------------------------

Looks like Blair listened to his people and toned down the rhetoric. You know there were serious back channel negotiations on this one and the mysterious release of an Iranian official conveniently coincides.

Good news.

[Sean of the Thread]

By serious back channel negotiations you mean they were about to get bitch slapped.

Good news they're being released at any rate.

[Kranar]

I'm glad they're being released.

Man it gives me serious chills seeing videos of those soldiers being paraded around and exploited.

[ElanthianSiren]

By serious back channel negotiations you mean they were about to get bitch slapped.

Good news they're being released at any rate.

Actually, he may mean Syria acting as a mediator between Britain and Iran. It'll be interesting to see what they expect in return.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, he may mean Syria acting as a mediator between Britain and Iran. It'll be interesting to see what they expect in return.


LOL. You make Syria sound like a peace loving nation.

I should call you Pelosi Jr.?

[ElanthianSiren]

LOL. You make Syria sound like a peace loving nation.

I should call you Pelosi Jr.?

Actually, I have no delusions that Syria is out for anyone but Syria; I just find fascinating what their next step will be. Nice try though. You may call me Pelosi Jr. if you so choose. She's quite an influential woman; I wouldn't mind having her kind of power.

[xtc]

It might help if you actually read the links you post. Here's a nifty little quote you seem to have glossed over XTC.

I provided the link so I glossed over nothing. I noticed you didn't mention this

"A CIA report has determined with "relative certainty" that Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was not involved in the taking of U.S. hostages 26 years ago

or"the tone of the report is that there is no evidence to date that the new Iranian president was among those who held U.S. diplomats hostage"

"Two weeks ago, a CIA analysis of a photograph of one of the hostage-takers determined that the man was not Ahmadinejad.

....and the hostage takers themselves have stated Ahmadinejad was not one of them. Many of the hostage takers are now reformers opposed to Ahmadinejad.

This is the CIA's take on the situtation not some liberal think tank.



Here's an interesting synopsis from Wikipedia, which is not an official authority, but an interesting read and credible in its depiction of the early Admenejhad.

As you know anyone can edit wikipedia. Some pages change daily.

[Gan]

I provided the link so I glossed over nothing. I noticed you didn't mention this

"A CIA report has determined with "relative certainty" that Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was not involved in the taking of U.S. hostages 26 years ago

or"the tone of the report is that there is no evidence to date that the new Iranian president was among those who held U.S. diplomats hostage"

"Two weeks ago, a CIA analysis of a photograph of one of the hostage-takers determined that the man was not Ahmadinejad.

....and the hostage takers themselves have stated Ahmadinejad was not one of them. Many of the hostage takers are now reformers opposed to Ahmadinejad.

This is the CIA's take on the situtation not some liberal think tank.




As you know anyone can edit wikipedia. Some pages change daily.

Funny how you can deify the CIA's analysis for this and demonize their analysis (and the Brit's analysis) on yellowcake.

Whatever lets you sleep at night I guess. :lol:

And yes, Wikipedia has open editing, in which content can be changed, sometimes often. Thats the concept of open source, perhaps you should research that a little more before slamming Wiki as a non-credible source.

[Parkbandit]

I think this story shows that freedom of expression is alive and well in Iran.

:yes:

[TheEschaton]

Ummm, who's demonizing the CIA's analysis on yellowcake?

Oh, you're talking about demonizing the grad thesis paper that Bush used as evidence for WMD after telling the CIA to manufacture the evidence of WMD. All the CIA analysis's before that said there were no WMD in Iraq, let alone that they were getting nuclear material from Africa.


-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I wonder when we'll learn that Iran got their uranium from Nigeria.

[Gan]

Ummm, who's demonizing the CIA's analysis on yellowcake?

Oh, you're talking about demonizing the grad thesis paper that Bush used as evidence for WMD after telling the CIA to manufacture the evidence of WMD. All the CIA analysis's before that said there were no WMD in Iraq, let alone that they were getting nuclear material from Africa.


-TheE-


DONT MAKE ME GET OUT THE HAT!!!!!!

:lol: at the conspiracy theory.

[Gan]

I wonder when we'll learn that Iran got their uranium from Nigeria.

Doubtful that they need Nigeria for their source. They're progressing pretty well on their own at this point.

[Parkbandit]

Ummm, who's demonizing the CIA's analysis on yellowcake?

Oh, you're talking about demonizing the grad thesis paper that Bush used as evidence for WMD after telling the CIA to manufacture the evidence of WMD. All the CIA analysis's before that said there were no WMD in Iraq, let alone that they were getting nuclear material from Africa.


-TheE-


I know.. it was Bush and Bush alone that believed Iraq had WMD.

Oh wait.. wall of text says you are full of shit (again)



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Gan]

Henry Waxman FTW!!!

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

"Intelligence" passed by a trusted American general about Iraqi uranium from Nigeria. There were WMDs! It was our duty to take out countries with WMDs (despite our total chicken-heartedness towards actually doing so).

...and then post all that...no WMDs to be found!

[xtc]

DONT MAKE ME GET OUT THE HAT!!!!!!

:lol: at the conspiracy theory.


The CBC ran a documentary comparinf the CIA's analysis on Iraq before and after the Cheney visits. They differ greatly. The show featured an anonymous CIA employee who told them it was clear what Cheney was looking for and what would happen to you career if you didn't produce it.

I don't believe a flurry of visits by Cheney preceded the CIA analysis of Ahmadinejad.

[Gan]

Nice 6 day bump there fella.

I think we've moved on from this topic, for the most part. Please do try and keep up.

[xtc]

I know.. it was Bush and Bush alone that believed Iraq had WMD.

Oh wait.. wall of text says you are full of shit (again)



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


Your quotes from 1998 are a little dated. Interestingly leaders of enough many other nations including Canada didn't believe that Saddam had WMD. Neither did the UN believe invading Iraq was a good idea. I guess now that we are in the 5th year of a sectarian war that could spill over into the rest of the region, it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

[xtc]

Nice 6 day bump there fella.

I think we've moved on from this topic, for the most part. Please do try and keep up.


Sorry if I can't live here. I think my post was quite relevant despite the time lag.

[Parkbandit]

Your quotes from 1998 are a little dated. Interestingly leaders of enough many other nations including Canada didn't believe that Saddam had WMD. Neither did the UN believe invading Iraq was a good idea. I guess now that we are in the 5th year of a sectarian war that could spill over into the rest of the region, it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

Hey dipshit.. they have to be dated.. since I'm providing quotes to those who claim we're in Iraq because Bush lied about WMD.

Jesus... it's annoying to have to explain the simplest of things.

[xtc]

Hey dipshit.. they have to be dated.. since I'm providing quotes to those who claim we're in Iraq because Bush lied about WMD.

Jesus... it's annoying to have to explain the simplest of things.

I will spell it out like I am talking to a child. Your quotes from 1998 aren't relevant to Bush's decision in 2003. Why? Because in 1998 America entered Iraq with military force and destroyed any threat remaining.

Take your quote from Scott Ritter former UN weapons inspector from 1998. What did Scott say in 2002?

"the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence"

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Also I have never given the Dems a free pass on the Iraq war even though I believe the intelligence was dubious.

[Goretawn]

"...and then post all that...no WMDs to be found!

I agree that we did not find the quantity of WMD we were looking for, but we did find several Artillery shells with serin (sp). This shows one of two things: they are good at hiding their equipment; they have poor accountability of their equipment.

[xtc]

I agree that we did not find the quantity of WMD we were looking for, but we did find several Artillery shells with serin (sp). This shows one of two things: they are good at hiding their equipment; they have poor accountability of their equipment.


If I remember correctly they found one shell with very little sarin in it. We have had five years and haven't found a WMD. I would hardly call one shell with a little sarin a WMD. Bush was making a case for nuclear arms in Iraq in 2002, not a single small relic from the Iran/Iraq with a little sarin in it.

[Goretawn]

There were actually upwords around 20 found. There was a single one found mixed in with a failed IED. The others were found in a storage container.

[xtc]

There were actually upwords around 20 found. There was a single one found mixed in with a failed IED. The others were found in a storage container.

There were 16 found and they had no sarin gas in them. Two others were found and had small quantities of sarin but were "so deteriorated" that they would have had "limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html

Again not a threat.