Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, Iran

[Resolver]

So why do you guys think the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do you think our leaders really thought Iraq had WMD? And do you think they actually cared?

Who benefited from the war? Which industries, which money/power interests, which lobbying groups, etc?

Why is the US posturing so strongly against Iran?

Are they really concerned about WMDs? What would Iran do with WMDs that would scare the US so much? Iran taking great control and spreading rebellion against US? Regional arms race? Iran using the bomb?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Resolver

So why do you guys think the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why don't you read the congressional authorizations for war. They contain an explanation of the reasons.

Quote:

Do you think our leaders really thought Iraq had WMD? And do you think they actually cared?

Yes and yes.

Quote:

Who benefited from the war?

Which war? You mentioned two.

Quote:

Why is the US posturing so strongly against Iran?

Because they are probably working on nuclear weapons. The evidence for such a program is far more direct than anything we had on Iraq in 2003.

Quote:

Are they really concerned about WMDs?

Hell yes. And we're not alone.

Quote:

What would Iran do with WMDs that would scare the US so much?

Step up its support for international terrorism, safe in the knowledge that we won't strike back directly as long as they have the bomb. Start a nuclear arms race in a politically unstable and generally undemocratic region. I'm sure there are more reasons, but those two are more than enough.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why don't you read the congressional authorizations for war. They contain an explanation of the reasons.



Yes and yes.



Which war? You mentioned two.



Because they are probably working on nuclear weapons. The evidence for such a program is far more direct than anything we had on Iraq in 2003.



Hell yes. And we're not alone.



Step up its support for international terrorism, safe in the knowledge that we won't strike back directly as long as they have the bomb. Start a nuclear arms race in a politically unstable and generally undemocratic region. I'm sure there are more reasons, but those two are more than enough.

no its not, holy crap dont you people learn enything from your past failures in Iraq?

if there is any evdience, show it to the IAEO, they are still saying, no evidence. Experts say, no evidence,politicans say Evidence.
Déjà-vu?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Resolver

Why is the US posturing so strongly against Iran?

To stop a nuclear arms race in that region, for one. Beyond that, we've been at odds for over thirty years, since the Iranians decided that taking hostages among our embassy staff is an act of diplomacy.

Quote:

Are they really concerned about WMDs?

Yes, specifically nuclear weapons.

Quote:

What would Iran do with WMDs that would scare the US so much?

Good question, but you might want to ask the Germans, who are also involved in this program to stop proliferation. Ask also the King of Saudi Arabia. It isn't just the US who is concerned.

Quote:

Iran taking great control and spreading rebellion against US? Regional arms race? Iran using the bomb?

They already do the first two.

Using the bomb? I don't think that's very likely. I think their intent is to use the nuclear weapons as a deterrent, seeing as how that has worked well, alongside Chinese support, for North Korea.

DR

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by DC

if there is any evdience, show it to the IAEO, they are still saying, no evidence.

It's the IAEA. Try at least to get that right.

They are waiting alright, waiting for Iran to comply with international agreements.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

It's the IAEA. Try at least to get that right.

They are waiting alright, waiting for Iran to comply with international agreements.

oh im so sorry for using the German word.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by DC

oh im so sorry for using the German word.

It's an English speaking board.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

It's an English speaking board.

didnt hear anyone speaking english

[DC]

and what agreements are they not comply with?

[Pardalis]

Read it for yourself

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...gov2010-10.pdf

[D'rok]

The issue with Iran's activities is transparency. They have violated NPT Safeguard Agreements regarding reporting (which is not the same thing as violating the NPT itself, although it is part of the verification process). So far, their unreported activities, when discovered, have been within the letter of the NPT. In other words, although everyone more or less agrees that they are working towards developing weapons capability, there is no direct evidence that they have violated the NPT while doing so. However, they continue to obstruct and obfuscate.

There is intense pressure on Iran to sign on to additional protocols and to submit to intrusive monitoring. They will never agree to this, and they will continue to point to the apparent legality of their reported activities. They will also continue to point to the blatant hypocrisy of the nuclear powers (those that are NPT signatories) who show little interest in disarming or ceasing to proliferate. (Maybe Obama will change this somewhat).

My personal take: I think we can live with a nuclear armed Iran. It is not on a national suicide mission. Nuclear weapons would bring Iran into the fold of the international community, where the only real currency is power. I don't think westernization is a likely alternative, although it would be preferable.

[Pardalis]

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, might as well throw the NPT in the trash.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, might as well throw the NPT in the trash.

It's there already. It has been a dead letter regime since the start.

[Bikewer]

From listening to various pundits (mostly on NPR talk shows) for many years...

Afghanistan. To most minds, a good idea to depose the Taliban and try to capture/destroy Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not well carried out. The Taliban were not defeated so much as they left. Our efforts in the Al Qaeda line were slow and though by most accounts "we almost got him"; he boogied.
Then....Huge amounts of resources (including most all the few drones available at the time) were diverted to Iraq.
Iraq.... After listening to all and sundry, including many Bush administration defectors and tell-all writers, I think they "Neo-Con Agenda" folks have it right.

Bush intended to invade Iraq all along. The notion, pushed by the neo-cons, was that Iraq, a secular country after all, would be quickly and easily defeated. (true) After a brief spate of dancing in the streets (true) they would quickly establish a nice, stable pro-Western democracy (not so much) and be a shining beacon of same in the Middle East from which we could also expect a nice and continuing source of oil.
This may work out at some point, but I'm not holding my breath. Civil war seems almost as likely.
Our current adventuring into nation-building in Afghanistan seems doomed. Unless the NATO countries contribute massively to the effort (unlikely) or we are willing to commit further blood and treasure to the effort.
Meanwhile, by all accounts, Sudan has become the current Al Qaeda breeding ground.

As to Iran... Again, the pundits are unanimous in saying that Iran wants to be a "Power" in the area. That by having a nuclear threat they insulate themselves from attack to a large degree. They agree that the scenario of lunatic Islamic fundies giving away bombs to all and sundry is ludicrous.
Most think the above is a Very Bad Idea, one that would lead to a nuclear arms race in the region that would have little possibility of a good outcome.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by DC

no its not, holy crap dont you people learn enything from your past failures in Iraq?

Who are you talking to? You responded to my post, but this response makes no sense if you're addressing it to me.

Quote:

if there is any evdience, show it to the IAEO, they are still saying, no evidence. Experts say, no evidence,politicans say Evidence.
Déjà-vu?

Other posters have given pretty good responses to this part. I'll add one additional bit of trivia: the IAEA has never, in its entire history, discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program. And that isn't because there haven't been any.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who are you talking to? You responded to my post, but this response makes no sense if you're addressing it to me.



Other posters have given pretty good responses to this part. I'll add one additional bit of trivia: the IAEA has never, in its entire history, discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program. And that isn't because there haven't been any.

oh and this time they do even after the CIA saying Iran has no Active Nuclear weappon programm?

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Resolver

So why do you guys think the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do you think our leaders really thought Iraq had WMD? And do you think they actually cared?

Who benefited from the war? Which industries, which money/power interests, which lobbying groups, etc?

Why is the US posturing so strongly against Iran?

Are they really concerned about WMDs? What would Iran do with WMDs that would scare the US so much? Iran taking great control and spreading rebellion against US? Regional arms race? Iran using the bomb?

You have asked several different questions which one could easily spend a considerable amount of time and effort in answering.

However, if you actually want specific answers to your questions, then I suggest that you ask specific questions and refrain from questions that are so numerous and so broad.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by DC

oh and this time they do

Nope. The IAEA has not claimed that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has, however, pointed out that Iran has violated their NPT requirements. They have circumvented the oversight requirements that are supposed to prevent non-nuclear members from starting nuclear weapons programs. Perhaps you don't think that's significant. I do.

Quote:

even after the CIA saying Iran has no Active Nuclear weappon programm?

Well, if you want to go by what the CIA says, keep in mind that the 2007 NIE report says that they thought Iran had suspended a nuclear weapons program which they had. Even if that report is correct that they stopped, it should be rather obvious that they could simply restart. And in fact, an update to that 2007 NIE is currently in the works, and the conclusion might be quite different.

Iraq had the motive for a nuclear weapons program, and it also had the opportunity to run such a program after 1998, but it appears that sanctions prevented Saddam from acquiring the means to run one. But Iran has the motive, the opportunity, and the means. What on earth do you think would keep them from working on nuclear weapons?

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by DC

if there is any evdience, show it to the IAEO, they are still saying, no evidence. Experts say, no evidence,politicans say Evidence.
Déjà-vu?

The IAEA already has its own evidence, and is very concerned:

Quote:

The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday expressed concern for the first time that Iran may currently be working on ways to turn enriched uranium into a nuclear warhead, instead of having stopped several years ago.

Or, if you don't trust a Jewish newspaper to correctly summarize the IAEA findings, here is the IAEA report.

Quote:

40. In order to confirm, as required by the Safeguards Agreement, that all nuclear material in Iran is
in peaceful activities, the Agency needs to have confidence in the absence of possible military
dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the
outstanding issues and the actions required of Iran,12 including, inter alia, that Iran implement the
Additional Protocol and provide the Agency with the information and access necessary to: resolve
questions related to the alleged studies; clarify the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium
metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies
that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear related equipment and components
by companies belonging to the defence industries.

41. The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive
and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in
terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and
organizations involved. Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or
current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These
alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related
aspects, run by military related organizations.

42. Among the activities which the Agency has attempted to discuss with Iran are: activities
involving high precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives
and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 to UF4, known as “the
green salt project”; and various procurement related activities. Specifically, the Agency has, inter alia,
sought clarification of the following: whether Iran was engaged in undeclared activities for the
production of UF4 (green salt) involving the Kimia Maadan company; whether Iran’s exploding
bridgewire detonator activities were solely for civil or conventional military purposes; whether Iran
developed a spherical implosion system, possibly with the assistance of a foreign expert
knowledgeable in explosives technology; whether the engineering design and computer modelling
studies aimed at producing a new design for the payload chamber of a missile were for a nuclear
payload; and the relationship between various attempts by senior Iranian officials with links to military
organizations in Iran to obtain nuclear related technology and equipment.

43. The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged
activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged
projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and
experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons. Addressing these issues is important
for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to
have continued beyond 2004.
44. Since August 2008, Iran has declined to discuss the above issues with the Agency or to provide
any further information and access (to locations and/or people) to address these concerns, asserting
that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and
that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forgeries.

[DC]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

The IAEA already has its own evidence, and is very concerned:


Or, if you don't trust a Jewish newspaper to correctly summarize the IAEA findings, here is the IAEA report.

well why dont you quote parts that actually talk about said evidence? the parts you quoted talks about alleged, and they want to clarify this and that.... nothing like evidence.

so where is that evidence? i guess you just quoted the wrong parts.

[Resolver]

In regards to the Iraq war, some assert that the entities that benefited from the Iraq war transcend international boundaries, to some degree, and also that the, eg, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, whose CEOs and advisors have include the Bushes and Cheney, came up big.

1) Foreign companies can have significant impact on US policies, as well.

I'm not sure how exactly such influence can be exerted. Anyone?

2) Carlyle Group

"$84.5 billion of equity capital under management...The firm operates four fund families"

Ie, huge and concentrated interest of members had close ties to the Bush administration, or were the Bush administration(s)

- George H. W. Bush, former U.S. President, Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003.
- George W. Bush, former U.S. President. Was appointed in 1990 to the Board of Directors of one of Carlyle's first acquisitions, an airline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle...s_and_advisors

2) Halliburton

Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[41]

"Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon's inspector general...After her testimony, Greenhouse was demoted for poor performance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Controversies

All of these groups came up big from the Iraq war. This is no proof, but some conflicting interests (or at least old ties) and motive.

On the other hand, there IS proof that we fought the wars for the stated reasons, right? This is mainly the arguments, themselves, put forth by Bush et al and then espoused by congress, right?

One would have to be pretty imaginative to believe that the portion of the congress that was for the wars was all part of a big conspiracy to cover up the real reasons in discussing eg the danger of Saddam. However, after key players like Bush pushed the 'official' justification, others in congress would then follow without having to conspire, especially when a lot of business and other interests were backing the war.

Ie, I don't believe in big conspiracies, but I don't doubt that people with similar interests often work together towards a goal without having to conspire or even communicate.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Resolver

2) Carlyle Group
...
All of these groups came up big from the Iraq war.

The Carlyle Group probably lost more money from the cancellation of the Crusader artillery system than it gained from the Iraq war. And it would have been basically no risk, politically or otherwise, to have continued such programs instead of going to war. Hell, it wouldn't have cost a lot politically to ALSO keep it. Yet Rumsfeld axed it. Why?

Perhaps because profit wasn't really the motive for Bush.

[quixotecoyote]

As someone who was against the Iraq war, it will be especially frustrating if the legacy ends up being a "boy who cried wolf" when the wolf actually arrives.

[Resolver]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The Carlyle Group probably lost more money from the cancellation of the Crusader artillery system than it gained from the Iraq war. And it would have been basically no risk, politically or otherwise, to have continued such programs instead of going to war. Hell, it wouldn't have cost a lot politically to ALSO keep it. Yet Rumsfeld axed it. Why?

Perhaps because profit wasn't really the motive for Bush.

Oh, interesting. What alternative system did they end up using, if any?

I guess we should tally up the times the administration did go with Carlyle Group and Halliburton vs times they did not and analyze the specifics, if we are to continue with this line of inquiry.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Resolver

Oh, interesting. What alternative system did they end up using, if any?

They ended up just keeping the paladin.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Resolver

Oh, interesting. What alternative system did they end up using, if any?

See Mike's link. But the Crusader wouldn't have been deployed to Iraq. Even if it hadn't been canceled, actual deployment would still have taken years, and it might never have been sent to Iraq, since after the invasion there wasn't much need for mobile artillery.

It's also not the only expensive weapons system canceled by the Bush administration. They also killed the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter.

Quote:

I guess we should tally up the times the administration did go with Carlyle Group and Halliburton vs times they did not and analyze the specifics, if we are to continue with this line of inquiry.

That alone wouldn't be enough to get a clear picture, since that doesn't take into account how often they were the best provider for something the government legitimately needed.

[Resolver]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That alone wouldn't be enough to get a clear picture, since that doesn't take into account how often they were the best provider for something the government legitimately needed.

Agreed. That's one reason why I said we'd also have to analyze the details of each particular case.

BTW, speaking of Rumsfeld, did the Pentagon ever find the $2.3 trillion that he said, on September 10 2001, might be missing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in325985.shtml

Keeping in mind the following finds on memos and Pentagon documents:

1) Bush and Blair decided to go to war regardless of finds on WMDs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush-Blair_2003_Iraq_memo

2) According to documents provided by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, ten days after taking office in January 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.[84]

What happened with this petroleum exploration?

As for serious (nuclear) WMDs, the administrations repeated refusal to heed negative finds in the intelligence community is a bit suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Wa...ss_destruction

I suppose it could be that the administration was simply paranoid that it kept thinking Iraq had nuclear WMDs etc and that Saddam was a bad guy, but then it is interesting that so little was done about N Korea, India, Pakistan, and that there are lots of bad guys that the US could have probably toppled more easily in, say, Africa.

It would still be nice, though, to follow the defense, oil, etc. contracts in more detail.

I don't blame people TOO much for believing that oilfield contracts and possible other riches might have been part of the reasons for the war, though I guess even things like this don't prove it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110401025.html

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Resolver

Keeping in mind the following finds on memos and Pentagon documents:

1) Bush and Blair decided to go to war regardless of finds on WMDs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush-Blair_2003_Iraq_memo

The Manning memo? It's a boring document where Bush requests Blair's opinion on various aspects of regime change in Iraq. Given that congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and Clinton announced it on TV, it's hardly a surprise that the US was looking to overthrow the Iraqi regime, given that it was national policy to do so. Tony Blair had always said the regime should be removed. He was saying that since the Slobodan Milosevic was dealt with. Personally, I never cared for WMD. I wanted the regime gone because it was a fascist dictatorship that outdid most others in depravity and barbarism.

Originally Posted by Resolver

2) According to documents provided by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, ten days after taking office in January 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.[84]

Again, given that the removal of Saddam was official US policy since 1998 and unofficial policy since 1991 that's not really much of a revelation.

I don't know what's so sinister about an oil map. I know the anti-war movement can be made to boo and hiss at the mere mention of the "O" word, but Iraq's oil would obviously be the key to the country's economic recovery.

Originally Posted by Resolver

As for serious (nuclear) WMDs, the administrations repeated refusal to heed negative finds in the intelligence community is a bit suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Wa...ss_destruction

I suppose it could be that the administration was simply paranoid that it kept thinking Iraq had nuclear WMDs etc and that Saddam was a bad guy, but then it is interesting that so little was done about N Korea, India, Pakistan, and that there are lots of bad guys that the US could have probably toppled more easily in, say, Africa.

Yeah but if the government said "We're going after Pakistan" you could just as easily say "What about Iraq?" Since it's not possible to overthrow every undemocratic government in the world simultaneously, you could play that game forever.

Originally Posted by Resolver

It would still be nice, though, to follow the defense, oil, etc. contracts in more detail.

I don't blame people TOO much for believing that oilfield contracts and possible other riches might have been part of the reasons for the war, though I guess even things like this don't prove it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110401025.html

If America was so desperate for Iraqi oil why didn't they just lift the sanctions and buy it? Or run some dodgy deals under the UN's table like Russia, France and China were doing?

[Resolver]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

See Mike's link. But the Crusader wouldn't have been deployed to Iraq. Even if it hadn't been canceled, actual deployment would still have taken years, and it might never have been sent to Iraq, since after the invasion there wasn't much need for mobile artillery.

It's also not the only expensive weapons system canceled by the Bush administration. They also killed the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter.

Missed this great point. Thanks.

Was the Comanche also under Carlyle Group?

On Halliburton: "Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million"

I know CEOs make lots of money, so this $36 million doesn't, to me, suggest payment for future backscratching, as if an arrangement like that would even ever be made, anyhow.

Now that we covered Carlyle group pretty well, and covered at least Cheney's disinterest, though not any lost contracts for Halliburton (because that company was really best positioned for the jobs required?), it would be nice to have some more debunking of the possibility of much war-mongering influence from international industries (eg foreign oil companies, etc).

Something I just though of: The increase in global oil prices due to reduction in supply of oil increased profits for oil companies around the world (including US ones, etc), no? Obviously, this cui bono doesn't prove this was a driving force for the war, but something that would be nice to get more debunking on. For one thing, by this logic we'd have wars in oil rich counties all the time, and other purposeful disruptions in supply. This doesn't seem to be exactly the case. One might say it depends on who is in office. Ie, various dems and repubs each cater to different interests.

I had an otherwise very brilliant Anarcho-Syndicalist buddy in college that I met up with recently that is still arguing that the war was brought on by independent, not conspiratorial, influence of a certain international 'capitalist class', as he refers to it in his terminology. I'd love to get him on these forums himself, so that I don't have to guess at by what exact process he believes this corruption takes place, rather than imagine up all this crap to get it all knocked down for me to have as ammunition for our next encounter It would be awesome if someone might know the best arguments that such people might try to make, and then knock these arguments down. I know this is a pretty vague request; I'll see if I can get him on the phone to narrow it down.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Resolver

Was the Comanche also under Carlyle Group?

Boeing and Sikorsky were the primary contractors. It's possible that they might have been involved in some subcontract, but not to the same degree they were involved with the Crusader.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Resolver

BTW, speaking of Rumsfeld, did the Pentagon ever find the $2.3 trillion that he said, on September 10 2001, might be missing.

As I understand it, the money was spent on all the things the Pentagon has in its budget--guns, bombs, planes, payrolls, fuel, ships, food, copier-machine paper, dentists, medicine, blankets, earplugs, porta-potties, etc. There's probably a bit of corruption in there as well. There's certainly a bunch of stuff that would seem questionable to some people.

Rumsfeld's complaint was that the Pentagon's accounting system did not adequately record budgetary expenditures in sufficient detail. Therefore it was very difficult to accurately track specific expenditures on specific items, from Congressional defense budget legislation down to the dollar in the contractor's hand or the soldier's wallet.

As a result, for certain auditing purposes, the Pentagon's budget over several years looks like one big undifferentiated pile of money being spent on one big pile of undifferentiated military stuff. Ideally, we'd like the Pentagon to use an accounting system that makes it easy to deal with it as a bunch of clearly-defined stacks of money being spent on easily-distinguished piles of stuff.

Or something like that. The point is, the money was never "missing" per se (and I wonder if Rumsfeld ever even characterized it that way). It's all been spent on all the stuff the Pentagon spends money on. It's just hard to get a clear idea of the details.

I'd apologize for you thinking the money had all just disappeared, but your confusion on the topic wasn't really my fault. You should consider writing a letter of complaint to Rumsfeld.

[Zach Aviv]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why don't you read the congressional authorizations for war. They contain an explanation of the reasons.



Yes and yes.



Which war? You mentioned two.



Because they are probably working on nuclear weapons. The evidence for such a program is far more direct than anything we had on Iraq in 2003.



Hell yes. And we're not alone.



Step up its support for international terrorism, safe in the knowledge that we won't strike back directly as long as they have the bomb. Start a nuclear arms race in a politically unstable and generally undemocratic region. I'm sure there are more reasons, but those two are more than enough.

Nice to see someone believes our propaganda.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Zach Aviv

Nice to see someone believes our propaganda.

Nice to see someone can present an argument to back up their position.

Oh, but you didn't. So sorry.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Resolver

Missed this great point. Thanks.

Was the Comanche also under Carlyle Group?

No.

Sikorsky (subsidiary of UTC) and Boeing.

Dueling primes.

Good fun.

Actually, not.

DR