BF2S Forums If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

bush era propaganda now doubles as concrete facts.  a new low.

I still don't want to go to war with Iran. I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

FEOS wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Here's to you not knowing what you're talking about.

see powells speech at the un

and lol at defending the iraq war. it makes you look like an idiot

Who's defending the Iraq war?

I'm merely laying out facts. As opposed to emotion-laden arguments from others.

You don't know what you're talking about because of what you posted. There was intel provided by multiple other nations, as well. The issue was not whether the multinational intel community believed Iraq had an active WMD program--it was in the manner chosen by which to deal with it.

For you to say other countries didn't have the means to gather reliable intel themselves is you just talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

you're saying there was hard proof that iraq had wmd's, which would kinda justify the attack. by that, you're defending the iraq war

the only country among the glorious coalition of the willing that has a decent intel service is the uk. the other countries had to believe what the us government was telling them. one of the main reasons why germany and france (who are generally pretty well informed when it comes to the arab region) didn't want to go to war was that they knew there was no hard proof for wmd's in iraq (see curveball and the fake contract between the iraqi government and niger)

so, if you know better, which country other than the us provided intel that said iraq had wmd's?

ps: there is no proof that saddam tried to convince the world that he had wmd's (see mearsheimer's why leaders lie)

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

see powells speech at the un

and lol at defending the iraq war. it makes you look like an idiot

Who's defending the Iraq war?

I'm merely laying out facts. As opposed to emotion-laden arguments from others.

You don't know what you're talking about because of what you posted. There was intel provided by multiple other nations, as well. The issue was not whether the multinational intel community believed Iraq had an active WMD program--it was in the manner chosen by which to deal with it.

For you to say other countries didn't have the means to gather reliable intel themselves is you just talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

you're saying there was hard proof that iraq had wmd's, which would kinda justify the attack. by that, you're defending the iraq war

Where exactly have I defended the Iraq war?

Where did I say there was "hard proof"?

Dilbert and Reaper said there were no photos. I provided the photos they said didn't exist.

the only country among the glorious coalition of the willing that has a decent intel service is the uk. the other countries had to believe what the us government was telling them. one of the main reasons why germany and france (who are generally pretty well informed when it comes to the arab region) didn't want to go to war was that they knew there was no hard proof for wmd's in iraq (see curveball and the fake contract between the iraqi government and niger)

If its not obvious enough by now, none of those photos or sigint cuts had anything to do with Curveball.

so, if you know better, which country other than the us provided intel that said iraq had wmd's?

What do you mean by "provided"? You have no idea what it took to release what was released by the US. Other countries aren't going to share their capabilities outside of intel channels.

ps: there is no proof that saddam tried to convince the world that he had wmd's (see mearsheimer's why leaders lie)

Except for his own words and those of others who were interviewed well before Saddam was captured and before the results of the interrogations were made public. But I suppose Mearsheimer is a trained interrogator, was there for the interviews, and was able to read all the "tells" of the interviewees...whose stories stayed consistent, regardless of the method of questioning. So probably his word over everyone else's...

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So how was none of that found after the invasion?

Were all those text bubbles made up by drunk interns? They might as well have been given how much connection they had with reality.

'Sanitised bunker' 'decontamination truck' since we now know for certain Iraq's WMD programs had been closed down ten years prior all you're really doing is proving how poor the analysis of the supposed 'intel' really was.

Nope. No photos. Not corroborated by signals intelligence (from multiple nations). Not corroborated by Saddam and other regime officials after the invasion.

Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.

How was anything 'corroborated' if there was never anything there?

You're not paying attention.

I already explained that. I'm not going to enable your self-imposed reading comprehension problem by explaining it...again.

What have you 'explained'?
They were satellite images of exactly nothing. I could obtain satellite images of, say, Paris and stick lots of text bubbles based on the ramblings of some hobo all over them - it still wouldn't be proof of anything and I don't know why you're still trying to claim there was any concrete evidence of anything when its crystal clear there never was.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-03-02 17:42:06)

Lol if you wont except satellite imagery than what exactly would count as "proof" before the invasion?

Not afterward, not the with the beauty of hindsight, what evidence do you require from before we got involved?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Some evidence of something would have been nice, not flawed analysis of meaningless satellite pics.

It was arguably some evidence of something.

Be specific what is it you want to see? Otherwise you are just going to carry on dismissing whatever is posted.

human sources of intel are mostly better than the technical ones

curveball doesn't count, the us government had been warned that he is definitely not trustworthy

If the US attacks Iran, then then a major oil supply to the EU will be interrupted. I seriously doubt they will let that happen.


/thread

Dilbert_X wrote:

Some evidence of something would have been nice, not flawed analysis of meaningless satellite pics.

Bush Whitehouse cherry-picked their sources, decided to believe unreliable humint sources, and sacrificed Colin Powell's reputation on the altar of expediency.

I was not talking of any of the WMDs the Bush people "saw from their back yard", as it were.

I was speaking of the WMDs Saddam used against Kurdish Iraqis, which is spectacularly documented by an Arab that was 'martyred' from his exposure to said chemical warfare agents apparently.

Or of the chemical payload modified SCUD missiles I've seen, and seen close-up pictures of.
Not pictures on CNN - pictures taken by soldiers that were on the ground.

Or of the soldier I knew who had his immune system essentially eat his nerve tissue, in reaction to something he was exposed to during the 1st Gulf War.
He died rather painfully.

Saddam had chemical warfare agents,
used chemical against his own people,
used them during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war that killed over 500,000 Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqis,
then turns around and annexes Kuwait for their oil reserves.
most probably used chemical warfare artillery shells and SCUDs against coalition troops in the 1st Gulf War,
and was exceptionally uncooperative with the UN arms inspectors after the 1st Gulf War
(Which put him in non-compliance with the terms of cease fire from the 1st Gulf War).

ALL of the above is very well documented, by on-the-ground sources, from multiple sides.
You have American troops from the 1st Gulf War, Iranians from the Iran-Iraq war, and Kurds - all with photographic and personal evidence of the same damn thing.
There's probably some truth to it.

Saddam rather liked using his chemical warfare agents.
I doubt he would give them up out of the "goodness of his heart".
He used them against the Iranians.
He used them against the Kurds.
He used them against the US & coalition forces in the 1st Gulf War.
All of this is known, clearly documented fact.

Bush & Sons, Inc. overstating their 'evidence' of WMDs in Iraq for an excuse for Gulf War II was just stupid.

What they should have said was,
"Saddam is a genocidal maniac,
killed 500,000 Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqis in a pointless war,
committed genocide against whole villages of his own Kurdish people with chemical warfare agents,
invaded and annexed Kuwait for their oil reserves,
and is in violation of the terms of cease fire from the 1st Gulf War regarding UN inspection of weapons storage facilities.
For the sake of regional stability, and for humanitarian reasons, we are removing Saddam from power.
We will send in troops, remove Saddam from power, and (hopefully within 3 months) leave the region after completing our objective.
The Iraqi people and surrounding neighbors can decide Iraq's next government"

Having Colin Powell give a Power Point full of half-truths only served to cover Saddam's real atrocities in a thin veneer of bullshit.

Here's a pile of civilian bodies, dead from chemical warfare;


Here's a few more civilian Kurds, dead in the streets from a chemical warfare attack;


Here's iraqwatch.org
Look at the table at the bottom of the page.

More chemical warfare victims


But, y'know, Americans were just in it for the oil.
That's why we gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitis

If you want the stories from Iranians, Iraqis, and Kurds, look here, here, here, or here

Saddam was a fucking monster, and the world's biggest sin (in regards to Saddam) was that we didn't remove him from power sooner.
His sons were even worse. At least they never got to run Iraq.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-03-04 06:49:14)

you know, coming from you, rdx, it'a all fine and dandy - i'd say that i know a little bit about you and all - but whenever an american politician stands up and starts talking along those similar lines everybody and his mother and law sees wall street and their friends grinning from behind that person. you, personally, might not have been in this for oil, but make no mistake - your nation has. that's the legacy of bush and his crew, and you'll have to deal with that shit for years and years to come.

European oil companies made a shit ton more money in oil field acquisitions than American ones.