Avoiding WWIII

You ought to put Sadam and his situation behind and think about Iran. And as you should know, the whole world thought sadam had a level of nuclear capability, threatening stability in the middle east. Just because it appears he didn't, doesn't change the fact that intervention was called for.

 

You are so correct, BiR. Anyone who doesn't believe that is being foolish, in my opinion.

 

In case you have'nt noticed:
Our Marine barracks in Lebenon was bombed.
The twin towers was bombed before they were brought down by the 747's
a battleship in Yemen was bombed.
Osama Bin Laden made an official declaration of war against the United States.
Iran and Syria have been supplying money,materials(guns, explosives,ect..)and manpower in Iraq and Afganistan.
We have an Amim in Washington D.C. whose stated published plan(in thier own publication)is to take over the U.S. by 2050 and he has 7 other amims in 7 other major U.S. cities working with him.

We did'nt start the war but we are in it like it or not. It won't go away just because we refuse to fight or react, anybody who thinks so is just plain stoopid( my word for beyond regular stupid). As long as we are forced to fight it we should fight to win!:BangHead:

 

Iran is Shiite. Al Qaeda is Sunni.

Iran helped us in Afghanistan after 9/11/2007. It would have continued to help us in our war with al Qaeda but the Bush administration refused to allow it to do so.

 

Are the any shiites in Iraq? Did and is Iran still sending money,material, and manpower into Iraq?

 

Evidently the answer is no.


British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Troops in Southeast Iraq Test U.S. Claim of Aid for Militias
[SIZE=-1]By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; A21[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
ON THE IRAQ-IRAN BORDER -- Since late August, British commandos in the deserts of far southeastern Iraq have been testing one of the most serious charges leveled by the United States against Iran: that Iran is secretly supplying weapons, parts, funding and training for attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

A few hundred British troops living out of nothing more than their cut-down Land Rovers and light armored vehicles have taken to the desert in the start of what British officers said would be months of patrols aimed at finding the illicit weapons trafficking from Iran, or any sign of it.
There's just one thing.

"I suspect there's nothing out there," the commander, Lt. Col. David Labouchere, said last month, speaking at an overnight camp near the border. "And I intend to prove it."

Other senior British military leaders spoke as explicitly in interviews over the previous two months. Britain, whose forces have had responsibility for security in southeastern Iraq since the war began, has found nothing to support the Americans' contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, several senior military officials said.

"I have not myself seen any evidence -- and I don't think any evidence exists -- of government-supported or instigated" armed support on Iran's part in Iraq, British Defense Secretary Des Browne said in an interview in Baghdad in late August.

- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

 

So when exactly did it stop? Do you think they will start again?

 

So when exactly will it start? Or will it never start?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baptist in Richmond
So, starting a war will prevent World War III?

And as for Iraq's WMD, they do not exist. They didn't exist when we went into this war, and they don't exist today. There is NO WAY these WMD could have gotten across the border, and there is NO WAY Saddam would have parted with them if he had them. If he had them, he would have used them.

Rush?

12 years is not exactly what I'd call being in a "rush".

 

I think that Dagwood is referring the war drums being beaten by neo-cons, such as Norman Podhoretz, to start a war with Iran.

 

Could be. Same problem.

How many years have we been working through the UN concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions?

How many years have the Europeans been meeting with them diplomatically concerning their nuclear program?

"Rush" to war? Even if war was imminent, it would hardly have been in a "rush". No invasion of Iran is in the immediate future.

 

1) It is hard to work through something that hasn't been proven exists.

2) I hope that you are correct but I don't trust President Bush to not start another foolish conflict.

 

So where is the "rush" to war some are complaining of?

It doesn't exist.

Whether you trust him or not doesn't matter. All you have to do is observe troop movements. No invasion of Iran is in the immediate future.

 

I don't think it will be the U.S. that goes to war with Iran, it will be Israel and I think it will be sometime in the next 18 months if they have really solid evidence on the Nuclear weapons.
I read the other day where a team of Syrian and Iranian techs were trying to load nerve gas into a SCUD warhead and it got out and killed the whole team.

 

By one of the chief, if not the chief, neo-cons:

www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm?id=10882&page=all

And he has met with the President about this.

 

1) Israel doesn't have a large enough air force to pull it off. Iran learned from when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear plant and it has dispersed its research far and wide throughout the country and placed lots of it deep underground.

2) Any proof? Link? Or just a rumor?

 

So what?

How many years have we been using diplomatic channels to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions?

"Years" not months. Hardly a "rush".

 

Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

 

And through all of these years no evidence has been produced that Iran has an intention other than to use nuclear power to produce electricity.

 

Nope - just the simple fact that we didn't find anything. Think about that: we didn't find anything.

And make no mistake: it's most likely going to happen. After all, it didn't stop them the first time. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until we attack Iran. You ain't seen nothing yet. [sic]

You are wrong. Iraq had absolutely NOTHING. The IAEA was very clear on that point, and we invaded anyway. Turns out they were right. Ritter said there was nothing and he was right. Blix said he couldn't find anything and he was right.

As for Saddam, what was it that caused the pot to boil? We knew he was a bad guy when we armed him. We knew he was crazy when we sold him weapons. We continued to support him when Iraq attacked one of our ships back in the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam was neutralized after the first Gulf War. He wasn't even in control of his country. We had him so contained that he couldn't even challenge the "no-fly zone" we placed over his country. Yet the POTUS claimed that he was an "immediate threat." The "whole world thought sadam [sic] had a level of nuclear capability" based upon the evidence we provided.

Now that he is gone, the same people who took us to war over nonexistent WMD are claiming that Iran is a threat. I didn't believe them back then and I don't believe them now.

Regards,
BiR