Quote:

---

"I have no information" to confirm or refute the allegation, Bush said. "But obviously his involvement raises many questions, and knowing how active people are at finding answers to questions, I'm confident they'll be found."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the president, who had been speaking to four news organization including AFP, was referring to Ahmadinejad's "reported involvement" and was not confirming the accusation. (Emphasis mine)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wait! Now I get it! The heretofore unfindable WMD's of Saddam's are now in Iran! That's why we must blast them! And when we're done there the WMD's may well migrate to another targ- , er, evil nation that desires our wrath!
I never understood before, how STUPID of me!

Should have known Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you're cynical that Iran received any of Iraq's DEATH STARS before the takin down of Saddam?
But maybe so. It's more likely that the DEATH STAR stash was buried and/or sent to Syria instead of Iran.
And DEATH STARS would be down the list of reasons why to attack Iran. Which I don't think we'll do. At all.

---

Quote:

---

... because no matter what happens "it is all Bush's fault" right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
PS, the leftists better prepare their "Bush should have stopped Iran when he had chance" mantras because no matter what happens "it is all Bush's fault" right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
A draft would just bring a bunch of unmotivated, untrainable, and discontented into the ranks. Adding a draft would probably do more harm than good, raise costs, and diminish capability.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you're cynical that Iran received any of Iraq's DEATH STARS before the takin down of Saddam?
But maybe so. It's more likely that the DEATH STAR stash was buried and/or sent to Syria instead of Iran.
And DEATH STARS would be down the list of reasons why to attack Iran. Which I don't think we'll do. At all.

---

I made a substitution. I figger he had as many of those as he did useable WMD's.


All whimsical in the brainpan Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, and lordy, what the heck is a "rogue regime" anyway?
HKCavalier

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And why is it that only Democrats like Charles Rangel are talking 'DRAFT' and yet every liberal wahoo under the sun thinks Bush is plotting some sort of devious surprise Draft ??

---

Quote:

---

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Duh! Death Stars ain't even real. You can't rewrite history like that Chrisisall!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And since Bush didn't allow the security council to vote on this little adventure, lets not bring the UN into this anymore. The US had/has its own reasons to invade/occupy/install puppet government in Iraq, they acted alone ( well with the bought and paid for allies ) and rightfully they should stand alone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You mean as opposed to those allies who were bought and paid by the Oil for Food Program?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

---

Because all the UN resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians are under Chapter Six of the UN charter, meaning that they are unbinding, unenforceable recommendations, not like those under Chapter Seven, which are binding and enforceable. All the UN resolutions concerning Iraq since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait are Chapter Seven resolutions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And since Bush didn't allow the security council to vote on this little adventure, lets not bring the UN into this anymore. The US had/has its own reasons to invade/occupy/install puppet government in Iraq, they acted alone ( well with the bought and paid for allies ) and rightfully they should stand alone.

---

You mean as opposed to those allies who were bought and paid by the Oil for Food Program?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hmmmmm

If UN resolutions must be obeyed.....

How come Israel wasn't bombed ever by the US for its many violations ?

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

Hmmmmmmmmmm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImEarly:
I believe that it's against contemporary US policy to invade or bomb nations who have verifiably working nukes.

---

Quote:

---

But we want to. We want to be "safe" again. We want American pluck and tenacity to prevail, just 'cause it should. 'Cause we're the good guys. We have a destiny. Bush and Rove understand this and that's why they have chosen such an absolutist stance on absolutely everything. When Bush dodges another nay-saying media bullet, a part of us sees him sticking it to reality and we applaud. Unable to give us reality-based solutions to insoluble problems, they give us the dream of a triumphant America, black and white politics, state of the art new clothes on the emperor and we the people eat it up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImEarly:
I believe that it's against contemporary US policy to invade or bomb nations who have verifiably working nukes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
HK, you mind if I quote you over on the OB? AB needs to see this. (don't ya love the browncoat lingo?)

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

but trying to paint the WMD issue as being as ficticious as a Death Star ?

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The first thing any country does when they get nukes is test them.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Your points are goods ones, but probably not in the way you intended. It is more a statement of why the UN doesn't work, as this nice article discusses

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GunRunner:
Simply put Bush supports the Air Force (as he’s a former Air Force Reservist). Know all the bad press the USAF’s missile defense system has been getting, well the US Navy has a already operational (and in tests successful) system call the SM-1, 2 and 3 Standard Missiles that can take down a variety Ballistic Missiles (From tactical missiles like the SS-N-16 or SCUD to big @$$ Nuclear ICBMs) and sea skimming cruise missiles and even attack LAND TARGETS!!

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
As serious sociopaths, I'm sure this success will only embolden the administration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
You should check your facts. True, the USAF has a piece of NMD like the ABL, etc but NMD is NOT an USAF program. It is a DOD level program with pieces in all the services and DOD management.

---

Quote:

---

You are asserting President Bush is somehow biased toward the USAF but I don't see anything backing that up either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
GunRunner,

I too appreciate the information.

I'm curious - it's been claimed that only the army is falling short of recruitment goals, that the other branches of the military are doing just fine. Does that square with what you know?

Thanks ahead of time,
Rue

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GunRunner:
What about the Joint Strike Fighter program? The Air Force got basically what it wanted- a single engine air superiority fighter while the Navy is forced to use it in place of its twin engine Strike Fighters and relegate its F/A-18 Super Hornets to the interception role, which are slower, have less range and can't carry the AIM-54 compared to the F-14.

---

I find it strange you should bring up the JSF. That is essentially a Navy run program. The management does rotate between USAF and Navy every two years but the heart and guts of the program are run by Navy. Yes, it is single engine design but technological changes have made them more reliable than the two engine models it is replacing -- and then there is the cost and LCC aspects to deal with. As I recall the last twin engine Navy aircraft program didn't turn out so great either. Life ain't perfect.

---

Quote:

---

As for carrying the Phoenix, well, every service has taken its share of cut backs over the years. I thought the AIM-120 was supposed to replace it. Practically speaking, Phoenix is an old system and expensive to maintain. Sorry, that is just the way it works. No one said it was going to be fair. Ask the B-2 folks what they think of a 21 aircraft fleet. For a service whose entire mission is offensive air power that represents a major cut in capability.

---

Quote:

---

However, I highly doubt that the administration is "against the Navy". Its called Transformation to move to a lighter more flexible and responsive force. Some systems are going to have to change and it is painful.

---

Quote:

---

You also should check your facts. The US military has prepared for NBC conflicts since WWII. We were anticipating an Iraqi NBC attack in Mar 2003.

Was everything perfect? Of course not but neither was President Bush sending "tens of thousands of US troops to certain death" in case they did encounter WMD. A few unanticipated shortfalls does not "ALL were lacking" make.

---