10-15 B-2s shot down? You are aware that the B-2 can plink runways and runway infrastructure from height? Iran currently has no solution to such a bomber force roaming in its skies. One of the first things to go in the run up to OIF was the Iraqi antenna fields associated with their experiments with OTH radar. Similar OTH radar facilities in Iran would also be gone.

I never said they could/ would shoot down 10-15 B-2’s, I was talking about F-15/16/18’s, and as I was saying the B-2 couldn’t hit what they don’t know exist thats what I’m trying to say to you.

If you think that Iran can build off-base operating infrastructure in such a short period then you definately are living in a fantasy world. Aircrew require to be trained to operate from such strips. I know it is what you think and you are entitled to your opinion, but in all reality it is fantasy talk. Iran is in exactly the same position as Iraq was in 1991 in relation to their airfields and airfield infrastructure.

Well like I said they can’t hit what they can’t see or know is an airbase, for all we know Iran could have already built these bases 2003/4 so one would have to post a U.S. military links showing “No construction has be built in odd area’s as off today”

In 2003 the US was a global hegemonic super power still lashing out after the worst attack launched against its mainland since the civil war, it did not need an excuse. The US govt made it perfectly clear that regime change was the objective, if you had actually read my post rather than just look at my avatar you would have realised that I party agree with you.:rolleyes:

Anyway I have given you a list of reasons why Saddam did not have WMD, let me put this in terms that you might understand IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD IN 2003, I GAVE YOU THE MAIN REASONS FOR THAT, get it now?

Well what’s to argue about now, you’ve addmited that U.S.’s invasion is a lie.

The main reasons why WMD was not found in Iraq:

1) The UN had destroyed 90% of the program in the 1990s.

2) The regimes income had been massively reduced and funding was concentrated to keeping it in power and and in comfort.

3) This is links with point 2, whilst Saddam was still in power his actual exercising of that power had become very weak and sporadic he had really made the transition from Stalin to Hitler and the state had become fractured yet still held together with the common purpose of stying in power. The regime was probably at its weakest since 1991 (if not weaker) but this down to Saddam’s mentality and age rather than any other factor and would likely have been reversed had he have died and one of his sons taken over. Thus the will to recreate the WMD program at that stage was limited.

4) The utility of Iraqi WMD was now highly limited. Events in Iraq were now closely monitored and the country was surrounded by Western armed forces who would have certainly responded very severely to any internal security use of WMD. Even is a national defence weapon its utility was limited to non-existent for the simple reason that any use of it would result in massive retaliation- this lesson had been learned in 1991. Therefore there was very little doctrinal motivation for the renewal of WMD.

The Syrian theory is not inconceivable but it is highly unlikely. Iraq is unlikely to have had anything that Syria does not, and there is virtually no other evidence for there having been WMD in Iraq.

Frankly I always found the whole WMD argument as an excuse for war rather pathetic anyway, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have real (ie strategic rather than tactical capability) WMD programs of far greater complexity than Iraq and equally questionable legality. Before any of the Indians get upset I regard the whole idea of legalising who can have what weapons as completely absurd too.

BLA BLA BLA BLA, this is just the kind of excuses (cover story) the U.S. would need to justify an invasion, nothing of truth to it ALL.
In 2003 UNSCOM report to the U.S. they basically were saying “so far no WMD’s were found and if the U.S. would want us the keep looking we can”, but we know what the U.S. did don’t we.

If the theory Iraq was a threat to U.S.A. were are the rocket boasters that can travel 6000 miles 😮

We supposedly had images of WMD-related stuff going on that turned out to not be all that reliable, it’s not out of the question to think that something like that could have been covered using denial and deception techniques. Not saying that this is what happened, but it is possible.

And who knows, maybe that’s really what Israel blew up…

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan haven’t been held accountable, for example, why should Syria? If we were going to take that seriously, we’d have started in Afghanistan, continued into Pakistan, went from there to Iran, and THEN gone into Iraq. I think Bush saw an easy opportunity to rid us of the thorn in our side of Saddam, and whoops, it kinda went haywire, because of really retarded goals and plans if you ask me.

Why didn’t it happen? If it was true, then probably because we barely have enough to cover what we’re doing right now.

That’s asinine, I already told you that a single canister is not necessarily indicative of an entire cache somewhere; if we wanted to fake it we’d find a hangar full of the things and tell the world off!

You do realize that a lot of former Iraqi military personnel are insurgents, right? They might have been able to find one of these things with ease. Then we bomb an insurgent position a day or so later and end up not knowing that we just offed the guy who knew where he got that shell, and we’re still in the dark!

Blowing holes in the Afghanistan/9-11 conspiracy theories has become very easy. Someone sent people over here and had them do something sinister. Enter Afghanistan campaign; I had no problems going over there to eliminate the people behind it. Me personally, I would’ve left the Taliban alone and perhaps offered them economic aid to assist in their development and make them less likely to invite the next bunch of morons inside Tora Bora, but that’s another story. Iraq, military action was justified as Saddam was violating numerous UNSC resolutions, but regime change and occupation was not. As for the reasons behind Iraq, they may be suspect, but in the military we have taken the WMD threat in the region from Iraq seriously for over a decade. It is possible that the entire thing was based on flawed perceptions and incorrect information, but Saddam wasn’t helping himself by not letting inspectors inspect and verify the destruction of everything. And where are the rest of his SSM launchers, anyway?

I think your perception of my viewpoints might be off a little bit, so let me clarify a few things:
1. Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but it needn’t have involved “spreading democracy”, that’s just a stupid concept.
2. Iraq was fine with me personally, I was getting tired of going over there for SOUTHERN WATCH all the time anyway, but neither regime change nor occupation was justified in my opinion.
3. As far as I am aware yes Iraq did have, if not active development programs as Colin Powell’s famous photos proved to probably be massive misinterpretations, then some unaccounted for WMDs and delivery systems. But somebody tried to make a grand political thing out of it, thinking it’d be an “easy win” in my opinion to get people’s minds off of the fact that one man in some caves was still being elusive. The plan was retarded, however, and now you get the mess we’re in now.
4. Yes, we should get out of Iraq, but I think we do have a responsibility, as I explained to PLA earlier, to clean up the mess we made before we leave them to their own devices.

No Afgahn was to build a pipeline and bring in Heroine

There are no Arab names on flight 77

Just go to the link I posted, and please read with an open mind.

According to at least one Iraqi general, Syria. And there have been WMD incidents in Iraq, when I was there in the summer of ’04 there was a chemical artillery shell used as an IED. Failed to go off completely, but its existance is certainly interesting. If Iraq had no WMDs and was in full compliance, where did that thing come from? One shell in no way justifies the war, that’s not what I’m saying, but if one was there it could have come from a cache somewhere. Or it could have been in someone’s garage, Vixen 03 style. What we need in Iraq is less tanks and more metal detectors.

1. The military uses it’s Satelites when going to war to watch certian important things, they would have watched/recorded those WMD’s going into Syria if that was true (which it’s not) In Oct 2001 U.S. said that if any nation helped “terrorists” in anyway they will be held accountable, now if the “Official” reason for this war were true (which it’s not) then U.S.A. would have attacked Syria for “helping” Iraq because Iraq moved thier WMD’s into it, ( and had a connection to O.B.L.) Now take a guess why that didn’t happen, use your smart and figure it out.

2. The U.S. Military put that “canister” there inorder to justify “evidence” Iraq had WMD’s 1 canister would not have been found but thousands, if Iraq had WMD’s, oh but wait, you’ll have to stay there another 10 years to find the rest right;)

Well next time be productive and tell us something we don’t know already 😀

Well if you KNOW this then you should be researching about the LIES that are starting these (IRAQ/ AFGHANISTAN) WARS

What secret locations? Iran is a big country. Its air assets are stationed where they are in order to protect that part of the country. Are they simply going to fly the Bushehr F-14s and hide them under the tails of commercial aircraft at Teheran International? Are they going to do the same with the F-4s at Bandar Abbas? Aircraft repositioned hundreds of miles away from where they would be needed. Plink Tehrans runways and taxiways and the job is complete. Do you not think that is job done for the US/Coalition? How are they going to hide their tanker fleet and any AWACS (ex-Iraqi) that they might have re-instated?

Aircraft such as F-14s and F-4s and F-5s require to be operated from proper runways. With the Iranian early warning radars and command and control in shreds how are these ‘secretly located’ aircraft going to operate effectivley? Anything getting off the ground in those circumstances is going to be milling around and easy meat? The Iranian Air Force simply wouldn’t be able to get out of the same predicament that the Iraqis suffered in 1991. No doubt, 1man, you’ll be hanging on to everyword from ‘Tehran Bob’ as he informs the world of how secretly located F-14 and F-4s are slicing the infidels from the sky! Obvioulsy, 1man, you have all the answers. Would you like to expand?

Yes airbases can be built somewhere else and made small, for an imediate war, scince the U.S. will be coming from the west, they can put the planes closer to Iraq, and away from there normal bases, the U.S. wouldn’t know were they’re at unless they’re seem putting the planes, there, and ofcourse your gonna reply with that same excuse of “The U.S. will be watching evrywhere they’ll be no room to move” well that doesn’t happen in the real world, I’m not saying they will do this exactly like I’m describing, but they’ll do things that won’t be expected.

You have obviously never heard of PAC-3, THAAD or KEI.

The oil hunter argument doe not work. If the US just wanted oil out of Iraq they would have adopted the Saudi model, it works much better, costs less and is far more subtle. Hell Iraq already had an evil, oppressive, authoritarian regime to insure order and control you would only have had to have built a few pipelines and signed a few contracts. I am not suggesting that either approach is morally justifiable but the first one is far easier and more effective.

The oil is for Isreal, not U.S.A., and go to Google and other search engines you’ll see the U.S. Gov installed and armed Saddam ( 1968-1996) American Free Press had lsit of all the U.S. companies the U.S. Gov aloud to sell Chemical Weapons to Iraq from 1980’s till 1996, remember Iran Contra affair, well you see Oliver North in jail, or is he hosting on FOX like he’s a American hero?