Features

mburbank · #1

So they start up their nuclear program and on the very same day Rumsfeld holds a press conference stating that bombs recovered in Iraq are 'clearly, unambiguosly' from Iran.

The most dangerous aspect of this, is he may be right. maybe the Iranians ARE dliberately destabalizing Iraq (if you can destabalize a situation that isn't stable). But Mr. Rumsfeld has zero credability about things he publicly states are clear and unambigous. Why, especilly in the absence of any proof, would anyone believe anything he has to say about known knowns?

This is the gift that keeps on giving aspect of the Iraq debacle. Even if we give Rummy the benefit of the doubt (and why would anyone) why would we think that his intelligence sources are right? Why would he for that matter, seeing as how this administration blames our crap inteligence and not themsleves for us being wrong about Iraqs WMD "Weapons related program activities"?

Rummy should have been shown the door months ago. Instead, this inept, untrustworthy hack is still the public voice of American foreign policy and at a time when we (and the rest of the world) despeartely need a figure we can at very least give the benefit of the doubt, we are forced to once more go to war with the secretary we've got.

ziggytrix · #2

More like posturing than a countdown to war, IMO.

You know what tho? I bet there are tons of weapons in Iraq that are 'clearly, unambiguosly' from America. How old are these bombs? If we're talkin 20 years old tech, Rummy needs to shut the fuck up before someone asks him how many and what kind of weapons he personally oversaw delivery to Iraq under Reagan.

Even if they're brand spankin new, you don't need state sponsorship to make a bomb. So what kinda bombs are we talkin about anyway?

Zero Signal · #3

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

More like posturing than a countdown to war, IMO.

You know what tho? I bet there are tons of weapons in Iraq that are 'clearly, unambiguosly' from America.

Let's not leave out France and Russia; two of the most vocal opponents of the invasion.

Zhukov · #4

I'm a pretty vocal opponent, and I didn't sell any waeapons to iraq.

Maybe people would care more about france and russia if there were some french or russians on this message board, or if france and russia were world superpowers that invaded the country in question and were complaining about weapons being found that were bought from america.

Until france and russia matter, let's leave them out.

Zero Signal · #5

Ah yes, let's ignore the other countries that didn't want an invasion that also sold Iraq weapons. How convenient for them. Okie dokie.

KevinTheOmnivore · #6

I'd say that since France pretty much assisted in building Iran's nuclear facilities, as well as those in Iraq, they matter just a tiny bit. :/

And where would the middle east be without the AK-47???

mburbank · #7

Who hasn't sold weapons to Iran and Iraq? Selling weapons is one of the must lucrative businesses you can be in, for individuals, corporations and governments.

ziggytrix · #8

OK, you totally missed my point, Zero. While I admit I'm taking a cheap shot at former US administrations for selling (giving?) Iraq weapons, my point is that if the insurgents had some American made weapons, it wouldn't mean they have American support.

Zero Signal · #9

The Mujahadeen had American support, and look what they turned into.

So it's not direct guilt. Perhaps just the sins of the fathers.

mburbank · #10

Yeah, see, but in this case the father who commited the sin is also named Bush.

KevinTheOmnivore · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

OK, you totally missed my point, Zero. While I admit I'm taking a cheap shot at former US administrations for selling (giving?) Iraq weapons, my point is that if the insurgents had some American made weapons, it wouldn't mean they have American support.

But they don't have simply that. Look, Russia and France (and Germany) have had extensive relationships with middle eastern countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/cr...macy/58568.stm

Here's an old BBC article on the French/Iraqi relationship.

I don't think this means that these nations oppsed the war b/c they built a reactor or something. I think it was more complex (and less sinister) than that.

El Blanco · #12

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I'd say that since France pretty much assisted in building Iran's nuclear facilities, as well as those in Iraq, they matter just a tiny bit. :/

And where would the middle east be without the AK-47???

Buying American made Colts, thats where. Lousy fucking commies.