More hostility between the US and Iran

[MTAFFI]

Hostile" Iran Sparks U.S. Attack Plan
Pentagon Wary Of Tehran's Expanding Nuclear Program And Support Of Iraqi Insurgents

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2008

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tours the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, April 8, 2008. (ISIS)

U.S. Develops Iran Attack Plan

Concerned over Iran's disputed nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon has ordered military commanders to develop to options for attacking Iran. David Martin reports.

(CBS) A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.

"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.

No attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has warned Iran not to assume the U.S. military can't strike.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4056941.shtml

[Muezzin]

Approved, sorry for the extreme delay. I wish I could say the delay was due to me doing something exciting like searching for Nessy in a puddle in the park, but really I've just been busy with uni work.

[MTAFFI]

John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:35PM BST 06/05/2008
John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq.

John Bolton was an influential member of President Bush's inner circle

Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.

“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”

Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.

A US military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanon’s Hizbollah to train fighters from Iraq’s Shia militias.

Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.

The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according to coalition officials.

The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hizbollah guerilla, last year yielded a treasure trove of information on Hizbollah’s activities in Iraq.

“Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hizbollah were providing training to Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be improved,” said Col Bacon. “In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.”

Five Britons kidnapped in Iraq are believed to have been put under the control of Quds Force agents after failed attempts to barter the men for Khazali and Daqduq’s freedom.

The importance of the Quds Force to stability in Iraq was demonstrated last week when a five-member Iraqi delegation was sent to Tehran to meet with its commander, General Ghassem Soleimani. The delegation was despatched by the Iraqi government to plead for an end to Iranian meddling in its enfeebled neighbour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1931...ian-camps.html

[Keltoi]

Bolton has made these statements before, but I don't think Bolton and President Bush see eye to eye at this moment in time. I say that because this issue has been raised on the Sunday morning talk shows and the White House talking heads have stated clearly that they do not agree with Bolton on this issue.

I'm sure the military is clamoring for the green light to attack Iranian assets linked to the Iraq insurgency, but that is probably a complication Bush doesn't want to hand off to the next president. I'm sure there will be a long report handed off to either McCain or Obama detailing the best strategy for that scenario though.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[MTAFFI]

Bolton has made these statements before, but I don't think Bolton and President Bush see eye to eye at this moment in time. I say that because this issue has been raised on the Sunday morning talk shows and the White House talking heads have stated clearly that they do not agree with Bolton on this issue.

I'm sure the military is clamoring for the green light to attack Iranian assets linked to the Iraq insurgency, but that is probably a complication Bush doesn't want to hand off to the next president. I'm sure there will be a long report handed off to either McCain or Obama detailing the best strategy for that scenario though.

it is getting freakin crazy though, everyday the media perpetuates it further. I used to think that the situation would fizzle out and go away, but as time continues on I am starting to think differently.

[mustafaisb]

It's Shock Doctrine economics really.
Read the book, shows what is really going on in the world today.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine...0096144&sr=1-2

[Keltoi]

it is getting freakin crazy though, everyday the media perpetuates it further. I used to think that the situation would fizzle out and go away, but as time continues on I am starting to think differently.

The reason the media is picking up on it all the time is because the generals and other high ranking officials at the Pentagon are mumbling about Iran being responsible for American deaths in Iraq, and they want action taken sooner rather than later. The civilian leadership doesn't want complications with Iran while they are trying to make them see reason on the nuclear issue. It is a powder keg, primarily because the U.S. military leadership seems to want to take action before the end of Bush's presidency...for obvious reasons.

[TrueStranger]

Bolton has made these statements before, but I don't think Bolton and President Bush see eye to eye at this moment in time. I say that because this issue has been raised on the Sunday morning talk shows and the White House talking heads have stated clearly that they do not agree with Bolton on this issue.

I'm sure the military is clamoring for the green light to attack Iranian assets linked to the Iraq insurgency, but that is probably a complication Bush doesn't want to hand off to the next president. I'm sure there will be a long report handed off to either McCain or Obama detailing the best strategy for that scenario though.

It really doesn’t matter who becomes the president, American foreign policy never changes.

sadly, I will take McCain over Obama any day.

[Keltoi]

It really doesn’t matter who becomes the president, American foreign policy never changes.

sadly, I will take McCain over Obama any day.

McCain has my vote at this point as well, mainly due to his experience and service. Obama is still a mystery to me.

[Ninth_Scribe]

It really doesn’t matter who becomes the president, American foreign policy never changes.

Too true. Hillary made her debute commentary suggesting she would obliterate Iran if it messed with her precious Israel and Obama said that, while he's all for bringing troops home from Iraq, he intends to make use of the unmanned drones to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan, if the new government doesn't do it for him. McCain is a warlord too. None of them want peace, not if it means they have to admit that they were... wrong!

[Keltoi]

Too true. Hillary made her debute commentary suggesting she would obliterate Iran if it messed with her precious Israel and Obama said that, while he's all for bringing troops home from Iraq, he intends to make use of the unmanned drones to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan, if the new government doesn't do it for him. McCain is a warlord too. None of them want peace, not if it means they have to admit that they were... wrong!

Wrong about what? Targeting Al-Qaeda is not wrong and defending Israel against foreign attack is not wrong. Atleast not to the majority of Americans out there.

[Cabdullahi]

Iran can't be accused of anything because no one is 100% percent sure they are making nuclear weapons and when israel is not part of the global treaty to curb the spread of the atomic bombs

[TrueStranger]

McCain has my vote at this point as well, mainly due to his experience and service. Obama is still a mystery to me.

I will take McCain over Obama simply because McCain is easily predictable. I already know his philosophy, as for Obama he seems to be running away from everything/everyone who might cost him some votes. McCain is almost like Bush, a little bit more intelligent that is all. But I won’t vote for any candidate, democrat or Republican.

There are thousands of people around the world who have the same experiences as McCain if not more profound experiences, such experiences and services shouldn’t be used to elect a President for a nation which is solely interested in blowing people which they label as “terrorist” using their own rigidly bias definition.

[TrueStranger]

Wrong about what? Targeting Al-Qaeda is not wrong and defending Israel against foreign attack is not wrong. Atleast not to the majority of Americans out there.

The majority of Americans also "elected" Bush twice.

Israel needs to stop oppressing and occupying Palestinian territory. They can't speak about defending themselves when they continuously attack and target innocent Palestinians.

Carpet bombing innocent people from the sky in the middle of the night is a terrorist act, and one that is extremely cowardly. Americans think that everything they do is "right" and all that oppose them are "wrong" :blind:

[Keltoi]

The majority of Americans also "elected" Bush twice.

Israel needs to stop oppressing and occupying Palestinian territory. They can't speak about defending themselves when they continuously attack and target innocent Palestinians.

Carpet bombing innocent people from the sky in the middle of the night is a terrorist act, and one that is extremely cowardly. Americans think that everything they do is "right" and all that oppose them are "wrong" :blind:

I love how on the one hand you dismiss the will of the American majority because they elected Bush, then in the same sentence suggest that Bush stole the elections. Brilliant

Oh, and the U.S. hasn't carpet bombed anything. That requires a large bomber aircraft dropping thousands of pounds of conventional explosives. That hasn't happened since Vietnam.

[Keltoi]

I will take McCain over Obama simply because McCain is easily predictable. I already know his philosophy, as for Obama he seems to be running away from everything/everyone who might cost him some votes. McCain is almost like Bush, a little bit more intelligent that is all. But I won’t vote for any candidate, democrat or Republican.

There are thousands of people around the world who have the same experiences as McCain if not more profound experiences, such experiences and services shouldn’t be used to elect a President for a nation which is solely interested in blowing people which they label as “terrorist” using their own rigidly bias definition.

It doesn't matter how many people "around the world" supposedly have the same experience as John McCain. McCain spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp and has experienced war first hand. Add to that 20 plus years of political experience and you have a very decent package.

[MTAFFI]

Americans think that everything they do is "right" and all that oppose them are "wrong" :blind:

just playing the devils advocate here, but do you know of any other group that does the same?

[MTAFFI]

It doesn't matter how many people "around the world" supposedly have the same experience as John McCain. McCain spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp and has experienced war first hand. Add to that 20 plus years of political experience and you have a very decent package.

Except for the fact that he wishes to continue a pointless campaign in Iraq... Personally he strikes me as the next figure to further deminish our countries reputation, but what are you going to do ya know? I am not voting for a democrat who 1) I know nothing about 2) has no balls 3) has no foreign policy experience 3) has limited political experience 4) his former preacher (maniac).... I will say thought Keltoi, I believe a while back you were predicting HRC (+o()for the democratic nominee... do you still think so? Or can I say "I told you so" ;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D j/k

[Keltoi]

Except for the fact that he wishes to continue a pointless campaign in Iraq... Personally he strikes me as the next figure to further deminish our countries reputation, but what are you going to do ya know? I am not voting for a democrat who 1) I know nothing about 2) has no balls 3) has no foreign policy experience 3) has limited political experience 4) his former preacher (maniac).... I will say thought Keltoi, I believe a while back you were predicting HRC (+o()for the democratic nominee... do you still think so? Or can I say "I told you so" ;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D j/k

Hey that could still happen!:D It would take a major Obama blunder between now and the convention, but I don't write her off just yet. We are dealing with the Clinton's here.

As for McCain, he will continue the campaign in Iraq but I would expect a different approach. Those looking for a complete and total pull out will be disappointed of course.

[TrueStranger]

I love how on the one hand you dismiss the will of the American majority because they elected Bush, then in the same sentence suggest that Bush stole the elections. Brilliant

Oh, and the U.S. hasn't carpet bombed anything. That requires a large bomber aircraft dropping thousands of pounds of conventional explosives. That hasn't happened since Vietnam.

“The majority of Americans also "elected" Bush twice.” I think I recognized the fact that the Americans willingly elected Bush, and I haven’t said anything about Bush stealing any elections.

The U.S hasn’t carpet-bombed anything??? Denying it won’t change the fact that America did in fact carpet-bombed Iraq during the Gulf-war using B-52s, and America does use it in Afghanistan and in some cities in Iraq today.

Iraq: A Criminal Process
Carpet bombing, cluster bombs and napalm against Iraqi civilians

by Ghali Hassan

November 27, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca

http://www.pissedoffcombatveterans.com/id589.html

[TrueStranger]

It doesn't matter how many people "around the world" supposedly have the same experience as John McCain. McCain spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp and has experienced war first hand. Add to that 20 plus years of political experience and you have a very decent package.

You have a trigger-happy candidate, who is comfortable with staying in Iraq for 100 years. He is hell-bent on provoking war against Iran, and trying to link Iran with AQ. His views are as radical as Bush if not worse. A decent package for the crusaders.

[TrueStranger]

just playing the devils advocate here, but do you know of any other group that does the same?

There are plenty of groups out there that are flexible, and don’t consider everything they do is completely right while others who disagree with them are always wrong.

But we barely see them these days.

[Keltoi]

If the U.S. carpet bombed Baghdad there wouldn't be a Baghdad left. They have used cluster bombs in limited situations, usually in the mountains of Afghanistan, but also in Iraq.

[Keltoi]

You have a trigger-happy candidate, who is comfortable with staying in Iraq for 100 years. He is hell-bent on provoking war against Iran, and trying to link Iran with AQ. His views are as radical as Bush if not worse. A decent package for the crusaders.

McCain isn't trying to link Iran with Al-Qaeda, he is referring to the link that already exists between Iranian agents and the IED devices popping up in Iraq.

[Izyan]

“The majority of Americans also "elected" Bush twice.” I think I recognized the fact that the Americans willingly elected Bush, and I haven’t said anything about Bush stealing any elections.

The U.S hasn’t carpet-bombed anything??? Denying it won’t change the fact that America did in fact carpet-bombed Iraq during the Gulf-war using B-52s, and America does use it in Afghanistan and in some cities in Iraq today.

Iraq: A Criminal Process
Carpet bombing, cluster bombs and napalm against Iraqi civilians

by Ghali Hassan

November 27, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca

http://www.pissedoffcombatveterans.com/id589.html

Do you know what carpet bombing is? If the US used carpet bombing there would be no more Iraq. Look at Dresden as an example of carpetbombing. As for Napalm, Napalm was manufactured by the Dupont company. They haven't manufactured since the 80's and it doesn't have a long shelf life. Napalm hasn't been used since Vietnam. Trust me if Napalm was used it would be impossible to hide considering the high visiblity of a Napalm bomb.

[Idris]

Do you know what carpet bombing is? If the US used carpet bombing there would be no more Iraq. Look at Dresden as an example of carpetbombing. As for Napalm, Napalm was manufactured by the Dupont company. They haven't manufactured since the 80's and it doesn't have a long shelf life. Napalm hasn't been used since Vietnam. Trust me if Napalm was used it would be impossible to hide considering the high visiblity of a Napalm bomb.

It don't really matter what the US used to bomb Iraq with.Do you really think that Iraq is better of now then b4 the US started this mad war on WOMD?

[Izyan]

It don't really matter what the US used to bomb Iraq with.Do you really think that Iraq is better of now then b4 the US started this mad war on WOMD?

It does matter. Carpet bombing in this day and age would be an act of malice due to the ordinance available now. Saying the US carpet bombed a city is saying they went the total destruction route.

Is Iraq better now before the US was invaded? If you would have asked me before the invasion I would have welcomed US troops in Iraq.

[MTAFFI]

i am totally against the war in Iraq, anymore, but I will say that complaining about what the US does there is kind of ridiculous considering what could be done. Nothing is really owed to the Iraqis by America, the US went in to remove a dictator, Iraq was dismantled in 7 days, no other was has a country stayed to police after the war like the US has in Iraq.(except maybe Vietnam) I guess it is a plan to setup a US friendly country and establish a US interest in the mid east, however the way it is being gone about is completely botched

[snakelegs]

did we go in to remove a dictator? why do we get along so well with many other dictators in the world? was it our place to go in and remove a dictator?
we created the circumstances that allowed anarchy to prevail and because of that, i think we do bear responsibility for what is happening there now.

[mustafaisb]

did we go in to remove a dictator? why do we get along so well with many other dictators in the world? was it our place to go in and remove a dictator?
we created the circumstances that allowed anarchy to prevail and because of that, i think we do bear responsibility for what is happening there now.

Exactly

[barney]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

Modern version of Gunboat Diplomacy IMHO

[MTAFFI]

did we go in to remove a dictator?

YES, was it the only reason, probably not

why do we get along so well with many other dictators in the world?

Go back and read SH rhetoric towards america, the threats went on for years. Our country was attacked, he was really one of the only leaders of any country in the world threatening the US. Not to mention the fact that if he did eventually coordinate with the real threat, the consequences would have had a severe impact on US security. Not saying that he did already (like our president said he did) since he clearly did not, but the potential was there.

Again, I dont agree with the war, but that isnt the issue being discussed here either.

was it our place to go in and remove a dictator?

It was when our country was attacked and he was practically the only leader of any country making constant threats to our security.

we created the circumstances that allowed anarchy to prevail and because of that, i think we do bear responsibility for what is happening there now.

Any war creates a circumstance for anarchy to prevail, it is a purpose for war, to give people something else to do other than attack your country. My point is not whether or not the war is right or wrong, my point is the US is doing a service in Iraq right now by at the very least attempting to restore some sort of infrastructure, government and law. Granted, it is not working well, but there is the attempt, regardless of whatever other goals there may be after the aforementioned is accomplished. The US has every right to simply leave them to it, without paying or restoring everything... the phrase "war is hell" comes to mind when talking about this

Again, I am not for this war, I say leave them to it, they dont want us there and never will, the US will always be the "invader", I am merely offering an alternative point of view that many hold around the world, which might not be seen on this forum as often because of the "type" (<-- not just 1 type) of people that visit this board.

[MTAFFI]

a short list of Saddams infamous quotes and a probable reason he was removed after the events of 9/11

The Gulf War, February 1991
"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."
Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991

"[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world."
Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991 (State-controlled)

"What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."
Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991 (State-controlled)

"Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge...They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed no matter how long it takes.
Baghdad Domestic Service, February 15, 1991 (State-controlled)

Iraq Masses Troops Against Kuwait, October 1994
"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

"[W]hen peoples reach the verge of collective death, they will be able to spread death to all..."
Al-Jumhuriyah, October 4, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

Release of UNSCOM Report, April 10, 1995
"Although Iraq's options are limited, they exist...Iraq's present state is that of a wounded tiger. Its blow could be painful, even if it is the last blow..."
Al-Quds Al-'Arabi, June 9, 1995 (State-controlled newspaper)

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996

Operation Desert Fox, December 1998
"If [other Arab nations] persist on pursuing their wrongful path, then we should — or rather we must — place the swords of jihad on their necks..."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999

"Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price."
Saddam Hussein, February 16, 1999

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001

[barney]

That is simply CIA agents dressed up as Saddam pretending to be him on Iraqi National TV in order to spread discord amongst the Ummah and feebly veil the real reasons for the Invasion. OIL...which is now being pumped on a daily basis to ...err...Russia and ...ummm...China...?????

[snakelegs]

MTAFFI,
are you saying that you believe that saddam hussein, after 10 years of crippling sanctions, was a serious threat to u.s. national security???
if you remember in the weeks leading up to our invasion of iraq, the reasons it was so necessary changed a few times a week: WMD, freedom, and even 9/11!

[MTAFFI]

MTAFFI,
are you saying that you believe that saddam hussein, after 10 years of crippling sanctions, was a serious threat to u.s. national security???
if you remember in the weeks leading up to our invasion of iraq, the reasons it was so necessary changed a few times a week: WMD, freedom, and even 9/11!

SH and Iraq were largely accepted as the most powerful military force in the middle east. 10 years of crippling economic sanctions didn't stop him from doing business deals with Russia and other countries that did not abide by the sanctions that restricted any military equipment to be sold to the country. If you care to go back and research it you will find that SH himself, wouldn't allow food and humanitarian aid into the country unless the sanctions restricting military weapons into his country was lifted. You may also find that while his people were suffering, he was living a life of luxury in his many palaces and his mounds and mounds of gold, which is what he used to pay the Russians, the Chinese and the Koreans, and a few others i believe.

The quotes themselves I would think would provide enough evidence, particularly when coupled with the daily military exercises and parades, showing off all of their "military might"

[Keltoi]

SH and Iraq were largely accepted as the most powerful military force in the middle east. 10 years of crippling economic sanctions didn't stop him from doing business deals with Russia and other countries that did not abide by the sanctions that restricted any military equipment to be sold to the country. If you care to go back and research it you will find that SH himself, wouldn't allow food and humanitarian aid into the country unless the sanctions restricting military weapons into his country was lifted. You may also find that while his people were suffering, he was living a life of luxury in his many palaces and his mounds and mounds of gold, which is what he used to pay the Russians, the Chinese and the Koreans, and a few others i believe.

The quotes themselves I would think would provide enough evidence, particularly when coupled with the daily military exercises and parades, showing off all of their "military might"

Of course Saddam's military might wasn't what worried the U.S., but his threats of financing an attack on Americans on American soil. Which doesn't take a genious to figure out meant terrorism with WMD.

[MTAFFI]

Of course Saddam's military might wasn't what worried the U.S., but his threats of financing an attack on Americans on American soil. Which doesn't take a genious to figure out meant terrorism with WMD.

right, he obviously didnt have the capability to launch an invasion or airstrike on the US, but he did have the capacity to strike US interests in the region and as you said, easily finance anyone to take one of his weapons, which in turn made him a security threat. Not to mention, those last 7 quotes I gave (which there are many more that) were all in relation to 9/11