Bush Budget Plans for Iran Attack

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Semantic nit-pickery

always a good characterization of your posts

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Semantic nit-pickery

always a good characterization of your posts

Perhaps - but then so is the surprising level of childishness from a supposedly middle-aged man that characterises yours.

Let me know when you get close to addressing the topic.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Semantic nit-pickery

always a good characterization of your posts

Perhaps - but then so is the surprising level of childishness from a supposedly middle-aged man that characterises yours.

Let me know when you get close to addressing the topic.

doing so - now put away your crayons and get back to topic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Well there was a lengthy list of peopel who voiced their concerns about the quality of intelligence used to justify Iraq - including the then head of MI6.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Well there was a lengthy list of peopel who voiced their concerns about the quality of intelligence used to justify Iraq - including the then head of MI6.

now for the million dollar question - how often does it happen that intel is interpreted and there is someone with a dissenting view?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Well there was a lengthy list of peopel who voiced their concerns about the quality of intelligence used to justify Iraq - including the then head of MI6.

now for the million dollar question - how often does it happen that intel is interpreted and there is someone with a dissenting view?

Probably quite often - but surely something depends on the number and quality of the people holding the dissenting view.

[Otto 83]

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Well there was a lengthy list of peopel who voiced their concerns about the quality of intelligence used to justify Iraq - including the then head of MI6.

now for the million dollar question - how often does it happen that intel is interpreted and there is someone with a dissenting view?

Probably quite often - but surely something depends on the number and quality of the people holding the dissenting view.

you're on the right track. pretty much every time. in my experience there's always been a dissenting opinion. it's kinda like economists, if you put a bunch of intel people in the same room they'd all reach a different conclusion. and yes, it's due to experience, training, instinct, personal interpretation, and other factors.

[AmericanGentleman 0]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

a link like that isn't what i had in mind. again, explain why it's unconstitutional.

[Caladan 19]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)

i'm still baffled how intel can be forged. it can be interpreted wrong, yes. it buy the deception operation by the other guys hook line and sinker, yes. but falsified without a lengthy list of people voicing their concerns is beyond me.

Well there was a lengthy list of peopel who voiced their concerns about the quality of intelligence used to justify Iraq - including the then head of MI6.

now for the million dollar question - how often does it happen that intel is interpreted and there is someone with a dissenting view?

Probably quite often - but surely something depends on the number and quality of the people holding the dissenting view.

you're on the right track. pretty much every time. in my experience there's always been a dissenting opinion. it's kinda like economists, if you put a bunch of intel people in the same room they'd all reach a different conclusion. and yes, it's due to experience, training, instinct, personal interpretation, and other factors.

That won't fly, charles. Disagreements is the nature of the game, but that's not enough to justify saying 'well, everyone disagrees with my assessment of the intel, including the head of intelligence of our closest ally, but everyone disagrees all the time, so we can do what we want.' To believe that would be to make intel just worthless pageantry.

[AmericanGentleman 0]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

a link like that isn't what i had in mind. again, explain why it's unconstitutional.

Well, the constitution is what I had in mind when I make assertions concerning the constitution. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go read it, arm yourself with the knowledge, then come back and explain your position if you think otherwise.

[nivesito 0]

I'm for world piece.

It's easy to discuss about war when it's not on your own territory. Imagine to live in a country where everything is destroyed by the war. In Europe where wars were part of everyday life for centuries the main aim is peace keeping and development of diplomacy.

I'm completely against attacking anybody because look what war in Iraq did to Iraqi people.

But this is just my opinion. War was never the best option and it should be the last one.

[Sinergy 3]

The bottom line is Bush is war hungry, and hes not going to be happy until he causes chaos somewhere else in the world before he is out of office.

[mawilson 2,133]

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

I agree. Which is why we have to take out their nuclear capability NOW - in one shot,

with minimal collateral damage, while we still can.

We have already missed that chance with China, and possibly N. Korea.

We need unimpeded access to the Middle East's natural resources, and Iran stands in

the way of that goal. With Iraq's Saddam Hussein gone, Iran is the last man standing

and they have to go.