Attack on Iran

[mael]

[sarcasm]Yes, I'm sure that was the cause. [/sarcasm]

Well it's not the only reason.

[stillnosheep]

And how did that work out, BTW?

Really well I hear. They got rid of the baddie, changed the regime and destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction without too much trouble, if I remember correctly. Of course it wasn't all flowers in the streets and I seem to remember it taking rather longer than the 1 1/2 yrs that were predicted might be needed before the US troop presence could be scaled down to "several thousand" and "free-ing the people of Iraq" didn't lead to quite as much respect from 'the Arab world' as hoped for.

Oh, and I seem to remember that the cost climbed slightly over the initial budget of $24billion or so. But apart from such minor quibbles....

[PanicInducingGaijin]

Well it's not the only reason.

Really? You mean there were other factors that made Shrub want to depose Saddam Hussein? It wasn't just because, the consumnate economic theorist he was, he was enraged by Iraq's decision to accept purchases in currencies other than the US dollar? Are you sure? I think Dubya wrote his PhD thesis on this very topic.

[PanicInducingGaijin]

Really well I hear. They got rid of the baddie, changed the regime and destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction without too much trouble, if I remember correctly.

So, Ahmadi's gone? That's great.

[Lovelynice]

Really well I hear. ....

If you believe the propaganda rather than looking at the reality, sure

Let's look at what's happened in Iraq so far instead of trying to make any false comparisons with far stronger, far bigger, far more capable Iran.

They got rid of the baddie, ..

The one that they'd put into government and supported in the first place

changed the regime .

Destabilised the entire country, destroyed the society, ruined millions of lives, slaughtered heaps of kids and other innocents, got themselves in a massive quagmire which they still can't disentangle themselves from

destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction without too much trouble..

There were none in Iraq in 2003. What planet are you from again?

if I remember correctly. .

Since it's obvious that you don't remember very much correctly at all......

Of course it wasn't all flowers in the streets .

What flowers? Those were bombs exploding and people dying..

I seem to remember.

Looking back at your post so far, maybe you should drop this reliance on your extremely faulty memory just to be on the safe side. Your premature senility is embarrassing.

it taking rather longer than the 1 1/2 yrs that were predicted .

It took a lot longer, and it hasn't finished yet, so keep counting. Maybe you forgot that detail too.

Oh, and I seem to remember that the cost climbed slightly over the initial budget of $24billion or so. But apart from such minor quibbles....

Yeah, what is it now? It's not a "slight" increase, is it? More like a massive blow out. Might be a big part of that huge debt that's now threatening to crash the US Dollar any day now, and leave the USA in financial ruin.



.

[edin日本]

LN you should be afraid, very afraid. The United States is building an Empire for its corporate handlers. When you are empire building the destruction of a few little backward societies means nothing.

[stillnosheep]

Really? You mean there were other factors that made Shrub want to depose Saddam Hussein? It wasn't just because, the consumnate economic theorist he was, he was enraged by Iraq's decision to accept purchases in currencies other than the US dollar? Are you sure? I think Dubya wrote his PhD thesis on this very topic.

No, that was the theme of his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. His PhD thesis was on the role of Structured Credit Derivatives in creating a fair and equal society for all.

[speedboat]

No, that was the theme of his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. His PhD thesis was on the role of Structured Credit Derivatives in creating a fair and equal society for all.

...oh crap...you used too many big words for PiG to understand...this may take several hours for it to find a dictionary on the internet...and then have someone explain to it what the big words mean...


Take for example its next contribution in the records of abusing the English Language....

[Lovelynice]

LN you should be afraid, very afraid. The United States is building an Empire for its corporate handlers. When you are empire building the destruction of a few little backward societies means nothing.

If they wanted to build an empire they stuffed up by ruining their currency, destroying their wealth and industries, and waiting too long to do it. The USA has blown their chance already, and historically no nation ever gets a second chance. Waging wars against more than one nation at a time has also been a killer of empires, especially when trying to do 2 or 3 at the same time.

In another decade (or two at the most), you'll be reading about the USA only in history books or seeing it in historical documentaries.

[edin日本]

If they wanted to build an empire they stuffed up by ruining their currency, destroying their wealth and industries, and waiting too long to do it. The USA has blown their chance already, and historically no nation ever gets a second chance. Waging wars against more than one nation at a time has also been a killer of empires, especially when trying to do 2 or 3 at the same time.

In another decade (or two at the most), you'll be reading about the USA only in history books or seeing it in historical documentaries.

You mean Canada will have to deal with an influx of 300 million new citizens? That sounds nasty, maybe we should just go burn down the White House again.

And then we'll have all those surplus rednecks and anarchists to deal with. Guess we'll just have to start a war with a troublesome country or two, like say Australia or New Zealand.

[Jacque_S]

historically no nation ever gets a second chance.

Excluding Germany and Japan, right Lonelynuts?

[OtoriOsaka]

if bush is going to move on Iran he is going to have to do it relatively quickly. Waiting much longer could spell doom for the next GOP candidate for the white house. (if he hasn't done that already)

I think Obama wants to attack Iran.

[Jacque_S]

If only.

...

[jinseinosensei]

I think Obama wants to attack Iran.

Nahhh... He WANTS to attack Israel. Those among his advisors not chosen by him want to attack Iran's nuke sites or at least support an Israeli attack. Which would be nothing less than self defense.

[mechatron]

Nahhh... He WANTS to attack Israel. Those among his advisors not chosen by him want to attack Iran's nuke sites or at least support an Israeli attack. Which would be nothing less than self defense.

So Obama is out to get Israel too? You'd think that Zionist paranoia would be all but extinct now after the debacle in Iraq but reality is apparently never going to set in for some.


If Israel is going to attack Iran in the name of "self defense" it should at least be required to first name the last time in history that Iran actually attacked another country. That would give those of us who are reality based some breathing space to prepare for the world-wide depression which would follow the Strait of Hormuz being shut down overnight, large swaths of the world's primary oil producing region being contaminated with radioactive fallout Chernobyl-style and Iraq coming apart at the seams again.

[Jacque_S]

If Israel is going to attack Iran in the name of "self defense" it should at least be required to first name the last time in history that Iran actually attacked another country.

You've never heard of Hamas and Hezbollah?

That would give those of us who are reality based some breathing space to prepare for the world-wide depression which would follow the Strait of Hormuz being shut down overnight, large swaths of the world's primary oil producing region being contaminated with radioactive fallout Chernobyl-style

Heard the same thing before Saddam was removed.

and Iraq coming apart at the seams again.

Again? Never even happened the first time.

[mechatron]

. . . Heard the same thing before Saddam was removed.

That's true but probably not in the way you mean it:

Friday, January 24, 2003 - WASHINGTON - The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon.

. . . U.N. inspectors have found no proof Iraq is hiding weapons, but the U.S. insists they are there and is massing troops in the Persian Gulf for a possible war. . . .

If soldiers are killed by "something like smallpox in which bodies cannot be decontaminated, we would have to cremate them right there," Kuykendall said. He said he recently discussed the option in detail with Brig. Gen. Steve Reeves, program executive officer for the Army's chemical and biological defense office. Reeves declined to comment.

"You would have to protect the living, so you'd have to get rid of the (contaminated) bodies as quickly as possible," Kuykendall said. "You don't want to contaminate any survivors who are not already contaminated."

It is possible to decontaminate bodies, but such efforts would be "very sensitive, expensive and time-consuming," particularly for corpses infected with contagious biological agents, Kuykendall said.

But even if a body was believed to be decontaminated, it could not be sent stateside for fear it might still contain lethal germs or viruses that could fester deep inside and seep out later, he said. "That just would not be worth the risk."

If bodies contaminated with biological agents such as smallpox or anthrax were flown home, they could pass potentially lethal contaminants to every vehicle, aircraft, building and person that came in contact with them, Kuykendall said.

Bodies infected with chemical agents such as VX and mustard gas, which are very persistent, could also contaminate others, said Jonathan Tucker, a Washington-based senior scholar at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who has written extensively about chemical and biological agents.

It is easier to decontaminate chemically contaminated bodies for shipment and traditional burials than those infected by biological agents, Tucker said. . . .

"It makes sense" to bury or burn contaminated bodies, Robinson said, "but it's still going to be hard on the families. ... If you are told your son was killed in Iraq but buried in a mass grave, you are going to be forever speculative on how he died." . . .

. . . Tucker said the Iraqis are believed to have large, hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons, including "very high quality" mustard gas, a blistering agent, and nerve agents such as sarin, cyclosarin and VX. The chemicals are liquids that can be administered in person, or by aircraft, missiles or artillery shells.

"A drop (of VX) on the skin can kill within 15 to 20 minutes unless antidotes are immediately administered," Tucker said. "In the case of smallpox it would be impossible to decontaminate the body ... or the linens or anything else the body comes in contact with."

Iraq also has produced "significant quantities" of highly lethal biological agents such as anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflotoxin, gas gangrene and ricin, Tucker said. The Iraqis are also believed to harbor lesser amounts of smallpox. . . .

"I'd have to refer you to the Defense Department," Sean McCormick, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, repeated several times during a brief telephone conversation. "We don't comment on military plans, operations or procedures."

A final decision on the option would have to be made by President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Kuykendall said.

"Not everybody's going to support whatever we do," he said.

Fortunately the U.S. and its war-mongering chorus were completely full of ____.

[Jacque_S]

They weren't the only ones...here's Moan Chumpsky in '03:

Right now Saddam has every reason to keep under tight control any chemical and biological weapons that Iraq may have...

And administration hawks understand that, except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction that it has -- and risk instant incineration.

Under attack, however, Iraqi society would collapse, including the controls over the weapons of mass destruction. These could be "privatized," as international security specialist Daniel Benjamin warns, and offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers." That really is "a nightmare scenario," he says.

[jinseinosensei]

So Obama is out to get Israel too? You'd think that Zionist paranoia would be all but extinct now after the debacle in Iraq but reality is apparently never going to set in for some.


If Israel is going to attack Iran in the name of "self defense" it should at least be required to first name the last time in history that Iran actually attacked another country. That would give those of us who are reality based some breathing space to prepare for the world-wide depression which would follow the Strait of Hormuz being shut down overnight, large swaths of the world's primary oil producing region being contaminated with radioactive fallout Chernobyl-style and Iraq coming apart at the seams again.

You're so "reality-based" that you pretend that Iran hasn't been attacking other countries for decades, just because they've done so secretively and by proxy. You're about as reality-based as Fantasy Island and you probably consider that a compliment.

[mechatron]

They weren't the only ones...here's Moan Chumpsky in '03:

Right now Saddam has every reason to keep under tight control any chemical and biological weapons that Iraq may have...

And administration hawks understand that, except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction that it has -- and risk instant incineration.

Under attack, however, Iraqi society would collapse, including the controls over the weapons of mass destruction. These could be "privatized," as international security specialist Daniel Benjamin warns, and offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers." That really is "a nightmare scenario," he says.

"Moan Chumpsky's" biggest mistake was believing the neochumps' claims because they ended up making a chump out of him too.

Question is who wants to go back for second helpings of the same bogus "evidence" served by the same neosuspects now?

[mechatron]

You're so "reality-based" that you pretend that Iran hasn't been attacking other countries for decades, just because they've done so secretively and by proxy. You're about as reality-based as Fantasy Island and you probably consider that a compliment.

What frequency is your tinfoil hat tuned to? I'd like to get in on some of this secret information. I hear the coordinates of Saddam's elusive weapons of mass destruction arsenal are available on NCR.