Spy plane recons over Iran; Guess who's next?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, July 20, 2026 16:44
VIEWED: 6287
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Make your case that even all that didn't require military action in Iraq, fine. But don't try to rewrite history ( or in your case, replace WMD for Death Stars ) and expect your point to be taken seriously. It won't.
"Lighten up, jerk!!"
Sorry, I couldn't resist using that Marty McFly line. You're no jerk, I was only trying to say that IMO the WMD's are like the Death Star: ficticious.
And if I can't rewrite history, WHO CAN??
Oh, that's right. Washington (London, Bejing, Moscow, etc.) can.
Everything depends richly on your point of view Chrisisall
Perhaps Obi Wan said it best,
"....many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
Except in this case, point of view is irrelevent when it comes to 17 U.N. Resolutions passed against Iraq, a cozy connection w/ Saddam by the very folks who were trying to reel him in ( U.N. Food for Oil scandal )... those things really can't be debated. You can debate that military action was the best way to solve this problem, but trying to paint the WMD issue as being as ficticioius as a Death Star ?
Ya can lead a horse to water,.....
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sure that WMD's were being seriously R&Ded, it's just that if they existed as viable threats why have we found everything we sought to find in Iraq EXCEPT a trace of them? Why weren't/aren't they being used? They put more energy into hiding them than keeping Saddam himself hidden?!?
I'm as certain as I can be that WMD's were a 'plot device' in the bad story handed to us by the Bush administration.
?Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yup. As fictitious as Panama being a a major drug-smuggling nation, and as fictitious as Grenada being a significant threat.
but trying to paint the WMD issue as being as ficticious as a Death Star ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I doubt any U-2 mission over Iran would work since Iran possess both missiles and interceptor aircraft capable of taking one down. So yea this U-2 was flying over Afghanistan.
Anyways any strike against Iranian nuclear sites could result in Iran conducting unrestricted submarine warfare against oil shipping bound to the US. For those not 'in the know' (IE people who know about as much about naval forces as former Air Farce puke President Bush) Iran operates three Russian built Kilo (Project 877-EKM) class submarines (Tareq SS-901, Noor SS-902, and Yunes SS-903), and a number of Mini-Subs. The Kilos are armed with six torpedo tubes and 18 torpedoes and missiles or 24 mines in addition to a SA-N-8 ‘Gremlin’ SAM position on the sail for defending against anti-sub helos and low flying aircraft. At speeds of around 5 knots or less they are damn near invisible, earning it the nickname "The Black Hole". One NATO commander said on the subject of the Kilo “that you only know ones around when they snorkel". Just the other day I read that the Russians are going to sell Iran a supply of 'Klub' submarine launched cruise missiles.
People who are familiar with modern Anti-Submarine warfare know just how much damage these boats could do if they wanted and how much resources it would take to find and neutralize them. Just look at the trouble a handful of strike fighters, skimmers (surface ships) and subs caused the Royal Navy in the Falklands.
I don’t care about how many troops you can draft, they don’t mean S*hit if the ships transporting them get sunk. Of course the current administration is cutting funding to the navy, closing its most important bases, slashing ship building programs, reconfiguring sub-hunting aircraft to other duties (And welding their sonar buoy hatches shut!!), and totaly getting rid of carrier based interceptor aircraft.
On behalf of the US Navy: 
President Bush
End this PROSUBRANT...
EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I tried tellin' my bank that just 'cause they couldn't find any money in my account, doesn't mean there ain't none.
It seems financial institutions ain't as easy to fool...
$ for nothing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The real clincher for me, the thing that convinced me that he didnt' have them was that there was no indication of testing at all. The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them. It's their announcement to the world that they've arrived and a powerful disincentive for anyone who would invade.
Even if you can imagine some reason Hussein would have kept this a secret at first, when things got hairy and he saw us coming, he would have tested. It just makes no sense whatsoever not to.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
the current administration is cutting funding to the navy, closing its most important bases, slashing ship building programs, reconfiguring sub-hunting aircraft to other duties (And welding their sonar buoy hatches shut!!), and totaly getting rid of carrier based interceptor aircraft.
I read about some of this. WTF sence does this make at a time of escalating fronts? Are they producing unmanned drones to do the work of conventional Naval forces without telling us?
Or is this thing with Iraq gonna be the last real conflict, then we're done?
Is that in the interest of national security??
(Hey, I may hate war, but as Bruce Willis said, "Always be prepared, son. Always be prepared.")
NO CLUE Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them.
In my little corner of the world the conventional wisdum is that his WMD's were mostly non-nuke in nature, that's why no testing ( I prefer Occam's Razor as to why there was no nuclear testing), and the bio-active s#*t to destroy the world needs less room to store than an average house has, so it could be anywhere, and delivery systems were dis-assembled and moved in trucks into Iran months before Saddam was found.
'Liberal' Massachusetts has it's share of delerium; not most share this view here, but enough to irritate.
Live the Fantasy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The real clincher for me, the thing that convinced me that he didnt' have them was that there was no indication of testing at all. The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them. It's their announcement to the world that they've arrived and a powerful disincentive for anyone who would invade.
So by this logic, Israel doens't have any nukes. Wanna bet?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Haven't they tested though? I thought they had. If I'm wrong on that, I stand corrected.
I'd still say Saddam had considerably more reason to test than to not. Israel is in a considerably different situation, existing essentially under the umbrella of the US nuclear deterrant.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME