Looks like Iran might need those missles...

[erynthered]

Maybe we should have waited for UN inspectors to finish there job. Would have been better than this disasterous occupation.

 

 

Highnsight is 20/20

 

“If I known then what we know now there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give the president that authority,” said H. Clinton.

 

 

 

Geez, you think, Hill?

[Alaska Darin]

Ah, yes, now your evidence is unnamed sources saying the Pentagon is "seriously" looking at Iran, and Al-Maliki saying he is "sure Iran is behind some attacks" (tacked on to the same article as before, but with a new headline...the evidence is truly mounting).

Theories by unnamed sources and assurances from al-Maliki. Let's go to war.

 

The issue is that we're not interested in the truth...we're more interested in finding a way, any shred of evidence will do, to go to war. That is the issue I have with the drum-beaters, and that is the issue I have with your initial post.

Uh, wars have been fought for much less. Do you honestly expect to see "named sources"? That's not how the game has ever been played.

[Johnny Coli]

Uh, wars have been fought for much less. Do you honestly expect to see "named sources"? That's not how the game has ever been played.

I would think that the evidentiary bar for the next war should be raised a bit higher than the last one, don't you?

[Alaska Darin]

I would think that the evidentiary bar for the next war should be raised a bit higher than the last one, don't you?

You mean like you libs favor raising the evidentiary bar for the next social program, based on the fiscal disasters you've already thrust upon us?

[Johnny Coli]

You mean like you libs favor raising the evidentiary bar for the next social program, based on the fiscal disasters you've already thrust upon us?

 

I see we're moving the discussion away from apples towards oranges, eh?

[RkFast]

Uh, wars have been fought for much less. Do you honestly expect to see "named sources"? That's not how the game has ever been played.

 

Darin...why bother?

 

A mushroom cloud over Manhattan and a notarized affidavit from Achmeninutjob that he did the deal wouldnt be enough to convince them. And even if it was, their response would be "we had it coming...we provoked him."

[Alaska Darin]

I see we're moving the discussion away from apples towards oranges, eh?

Both are exercises in the failures of imposing bureaucratic will. Not surprised you'd miss that connection. Just once, I'd love for you ideological liberals to turn your glaring eye on the crap you love so much. You'll find it eerily similiar it is to the crap you supposedly despise.

[pdh1]

Maybe we should have waited for UN inspectors to finish there job. Would have been better than this disasterous occupation.

 

Uh, does the Oil for Bribes UN fiasco ring a bell, anyone?

[Alaska Darin]

Darin...why bother?

 

A mushroom cloud over Manhattan and a notarized affidavit from Achmeninutjob that he did the deal wouldnt be enough to convince them. And even if it was, their response would be "we had it coming...we provoked him."

It's my duty to point out folly, whether it's something like: We're going to impose democracy on someone, or: if we just had more money, this faceless bureaucracy could create heaven on earth.

 

My most recent favorite was the "Majority should always rule" and because of that we should do away with the Electoral College. As if watching Iraq line up along religious boundries isn't enough "fact" to show how bad an idea that truly is.

[Alaska Darin]

Uh, does the Oil for Bribes UN fiasco ring a bell, anyone?

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

[erynthered]

Darin...why bother?

 

A mushroom cloud over Manhattan and a notarized affidavit from Achmeninutjob that he did the deal wouldnt be enough to convince them. And even if it was, their response would be "we had it coming...we provoked him."

 

 

After all, we're an international pariah.

[DC Tom]

I'm sorry, what did you mean by this then?

Really seems like you are saying the Shiite death squads are controlled by Iran. Or are they bucking the trend? Are they? And no, they wouldn't be the first nor only. Insurgent groups are notorioulsy independent. Sure, they take supplies and fight, but they don't simply bend overbacwards to make outsiders happy. That was a silly point you made. Cute historical/theoretical framework you got there, too bad its basically worthless

 

Not "controlled by". "Backed by". Big difference. It is entirely possible for an organization (e.g. the Taleban) to be backed by another organization (e.g. Pakistani intelligence) without being controlled by them.

 

Cute historical/theoretical framework I've got there, too bad your reading comprehension skills are basically worthless.

[molson_golden2002]

Not "controlled by". "Backed by". Big difference. It is entirely possible for an organization (e.g. the Taleban) to be backed by another organization (e.g. Pakistani intelligence) without being controlled by them.

 

Cute historical/theoretical framework I've got there, too bad your reading comprehension skills are basically worthless.

LOL! You done run yourself up a stump, haven't you? Now you are saying its "entirely" possible. Hell, I agree with that, and have said so but you said more than that before. You argued that if they didn't do it they would be breaking with your silly historical paradigm, and you rolled your eyes:

 

You think the militias and death squads are independent?

.....

 

You honestly think that the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ias are the first insurgent groups in history to buck this trend? <--note the eye rolling, lol!

 

So what is it? 'Entirely possible' or did they buck your stupid historical/theoritical paradigm, which is very useless, btw?

 

Please do tell us.

[molson_golden2002]

Uh, does the Oil for Bribes UN fiasco ring a bell, anyone?

So, has there been more money lost to corruption in the years of UN oil for food, or the shorter period of US occupation?

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/dailyUpdate.html

 

 

A former senior advisor to the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq until the election of an interim Iraq government last January, says that the US government's refusal to prosecute US firms accused of corruption in Iraq is turning the country into a " free fraud zone."

Newsweek reported earlier this week that Frank Willis compared Iraq to the "wild west," and that with only $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion that the US government set aside for the reconstruction of Iraq having been spent, the lack of action on the part of the government means "the corruption will only get worse."

 

More than US money is at stake. The administration has harshly criticized the United Nations over hundreds of millions stolen from the Oil-for-Food Program under Saddam [Hussein]. But the successor to Oil-for-Food created under the occupation, called the Development Fund for Iraq, could involve billions of potentially misused dollars.

[chicot]

Would it need to? There's a lot else that has to happen on the Iranian side before you have to worry about Phalanx vs. Sunburn. It doesn't matter how many how many missiles they have of what kind if their command and control is shot up, their radars are smoking craters, and their air force is a pile of ashes.

 

Professionals worry about command and logistics. Amateurs worry about tactics. Idiots worry about technology.

 

Obviously, if you can prevent the flying sharks with lasers from being launched in the first place then you have no problem. However, this idiot is not quite as confident as you seem to be that that is necessarily a given.

[Alaska Darin]

Obviously, if you can prevent the flying sharks with lasers from being launched in the first place then you have no problem. However, this idiot is not quite as confident as you seem to be that that is necessarily a given.

Then you'd be wrong.

[chicot]

Then you'd be wrong.

 

Hopefully, we never get to find out.

[Bungee Jumper]

LOL! You done run yourself up a stump, haven't you? Now you are saying its "entirely" possible. Hell, I agree with that, and have said so but you said more than that before. You argued that if they didn't do it they would be breaking with your silly historical paradigm, and you rolled your eyes:

 

 

 

So what is it? 'Entirely possible' or did they buck your stupid historical/theoritical paradigm, which is very useless, btw?

 

Please do tell us.

 

 

Are you high? It's entirely possible, even likely, that Iran was behind this specific attack we've been discussing, because they are involved in the insurgency, and it is folly to believe that they are not involved in the insurgency as any insurgent campaign requires support from outside the theater of operations.

 

That is what I've been saying. That is all I've said. I've said nothing otherwise. I haven't said Iran controls the insurgency, I haven't said Iran is responsible for every insurgent attack. Again, it's just you're complete lack of reading comprehension.

[Bungee Jumper]

Obviously, if you can prevent the flying sharks with lasers from being launched in the first place then you have no problem. However, this idiot is not quite as confident as you seem to be that that is necessarily a given.

 

It's not necessarily a given. It just has jack sh-- to do with the type of missiles. Iran would have to evidence superior (and heavily redundant) command, control, and intelligence (i.e. both finding US forces, and hiding their own) before their "Oh my God, they go Mach 3!" missiles become any more effective than rocks.

 

And the US military is organized and trained specifically to utterly wreck command and control systems at the outset of a conflict (which is what "Shock and Awe" actually means)...and smart enough to not go anywhere near the Iranian coast with a carrier until Iran's ability to strike warships is severely degraded. Iran would have to launch everything, all at once, without warning, in a single attack on a carrier battle group that was just stupid enough to get within range of everything they had...but I thought the whole point of this stupid discussion was that Iran was going to defend itself against the US reaction against their presumed involvement in an insurgent attack? So now you're postulating that a US attack against Iran won't actually involve attacking Iranian assets that threaten US forces doing the attacking?

 

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous, anyway. Iran isn't going to engage any US units in a straight-up fight, because then they lose deniability and will get the snot pounded out of them...and it'll completely wreck the strategic position in southern Iraq they've worked to build over the past few years. The US isn't attacking Iran over a single incident in Iraq...otherwise we already would have quite some time ago. We probably won't even bomb them over their nuclear program; if we won't bomb an honest-to-God international pariah like North Korea over an actual test, we're probably not bombing a country who has international backing over the installation of centrifuges.

[pdh1]

So, has there been more money lost to corruption in the years of UN oil for food, or the shorter period of US occupation?

 

So, that means the UN is great organization to watch over our very lives?

If they aren't taking bribes, their peacekeepers are raping women in Africa.

 

But hey, it was you liberals that use to say our sanctions were starving Iraq babies.

 

Now the we find out that money that was to used on food and medical care was used bribe french and russian crooks, do you guys ever plan a protest march against that?