Bush is deploying a Patriot (anti-)missile battalion to Baghdad....this can only mean one thing

[jpak]

He intends to go to war with Iran.

[porphyrian]

1. It could also mean he intends to appear that way, so it can mean more than one thing.

This doesn't account for all of the things we aren't even aware of happening, which could go either way or another way entirely. You may be right that he intends to go to war with Iran, but you're wrong that it can only mean one thing.

[jpak]

3. Iraqi insurgents do not possess hundreds of ballistic missiles - Iran (and Syria) do(es)

They can be used in retaliatory strikes against US bases in Iraq.

There is no other reason why Bush would do this now...

[porphyrian]

4. Again, you are making assumptions based on only a few facts.

I doubt most of us know every, if even most, of the things really happening over there, and what we do know is very intentional. Making definitive statements based only on these is not a good idea.

[jpak]

9. The facts are these - Bush made thinly veiled threats against Iran and Syria the other night

and he is deploying the weapons needed to back them up.

The attack against the Iranian consulate in Irbil was the opening gambit.

A cornered Chimp is a dangerous animal...

[porphyrian]

10. Those are some of the facts, not all of them.

I doubt you know all of them.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. So what is your explanation, given the facts at hand?

Or do you just prefer to not try to understand what is going on until after it has already happened?

[jpak]

13. The WH is already preparing the Home Front...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3106321

[porphyrian]

14. I'm not the one making presumptuous claims based on limited data, you are.

I have no idea what's going on for sure outside of my small life. My point was that you are wrong claiming a military deployment can "mean only one thing." It can mean many things, so your statement was wrong.

Edit: sorry, you aren't the OP, but substitute them for "you"

[Warren Stupidity]

15. No, we and others are saying that deploying the patriots

to Baghdad, along with the other alarming statements from the Bush HQ, the attack on the Iranian consulate immediately after the hideous speech, the slow naval buildup in the region, are pointing in one direction.

But specifically what is your explanation for the deployment of the patriot antimissile system to baghdad?

[porphyrian]

16. You didn't hear me. Listen.

Again, my point was that claiming the deployment of patriot missiles does not "mean only one thing." That is a claim I proved false by suggesting it could mean the intent to fool people into thinking that's what the deployment means. I'm right about that. That was my only point.

I made no speculation as to what it actually means, and I have said so more than once now.

I don't need to provide an explanation, because I am not the one making the unsupported claim.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Is that a reasonable explanation?

"it could mean the intent to fool people into thinking that's what the deployment means."

Why would that make sense? Fool what people?

Just because you can come up with silly explanations does not falsify the posters claim. His claim is of course overblown, there may be other reasonable explanations, however I can't think of one. Can you?

[porphyrian]

38. It doesn't matter. I responded to a false statement and proved it false.

I made no other claim.

[MyNameGoesHere]

33. ok ok i am sure the "other"

thing it could mean is...
1. Some of the missile crews are looking pale so * thought a nice suntan in the desert would help them.
2. They have some really big flies that only a missile could knock down.
3. * is dumber than a fence post and wants to bring on the armageddon.


ok now yours.

[porphyrian]

35. You didn't listen. I responded to a false statement. I make no other claim. - n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

42. You've descended into sophistry.

Yes you provided a silly explanation. Yes that falsified the poster's unqualified assertion. Great. You win three debate points.

Did you have anything productive to contribute to the discussion?

[porphyrian]

45. I haven't descended because you are incapable of understanding my post.

I made one point, and was challenged for it in a number of ridiculous ways. My contribution was to correct the OP on making a false absolute. I don't care what you got or didn't get from it.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Badgering: you lose a point.

Now you are down to only two debate points.

So I was wondering if you had any non-silly explanations for why Bush is deploying patriot systems to Baghdad other than we are preparing for war, or at least making a credible threat that we are preparing for war, with Iran?

[porphyrian]

48. I'm not playing your game, I'm simply responding every time you comment on my posts.

I'd ignore you, but I have nothing better to do and it keeps the thread kicked.

[jpak]

17. The Patriot deployment has nothing to do with The Surge or anti-insurgent operations

in Baghdad.

The Iraqi insurgents do not have an air force to defend against - so what's left to conclude here???

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Well that is a good question.

Still waiting for a reasonable response.

[jpak]

26. Here's your answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3106817

[ieoeja]

27. I'll bite.

Lost in all the political noise and terrorist attacks in Baghdad is that there is on-going "active" guerrila war taking place in outlying areas of Iraq. A few weeks back the local US Marine commander said, "Anbar province is lost". Anbar province, which that local US military commander acknowledges we no longer control, is within striking distance of Baghdad.

The OP says the guerrilas/insurgents/militias do not possess thousands of missiles. Aside from the obvious -- they don't need "thousands" -- I would refer him to the recent Israeli-Hamas conflict in which everybody was surprised to learn that Hamas, a terrorist organization much smaller than the insurgency in Iraq, *does* have thousands of missiles. If the Iraqis don't have missiles yet, it is a pretty good bet that will change in the not too distant future.

So, no, invading Iran (or Syria) is NOT the only possible, reasonable, or even most likely reason for sending additional anti-missile systems to Baghdad. The most likely reason is to protect Baghdad from Iraqi forces that are closing in.

This is in some ways scarier. Are we really sending 20k more troops to Baghdad to keep the peace? Or are we sending them their in anticipation of Iraqi forces laying seige to the capital?

[jpak]

37. Iranian SCUD and Shahab missiles are a different breed of critter

They are not the same as the Katyushas used by Hezbullah in Lebanon (which the Patriot cannot defend against anyway)...and...if Iraqi insurgents had "thousands" of them - they would have used them already.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Hama has thousands of missiles?

You mean the unguided Qassam rockets? Those are not much more of a threat than an RPG or a light mortar and are not going to be defended against by a patriot system. I believe the 'sandbag' is the chosen method of defense, but I could be wrong.

Yet another silly explanation for the patriot deployment. The only threat this can defend against is a ballistic missile attack from Iran. Iran and Iraq barraged each other's capitals toward the end of their nasty and long war.

[One_Life_To_Give]

25. Israel?

Since you asked for other possibilities.

If it is true that Israel has been planning raids against Iranian Nuclear facilities. And that the Pentagon leaked such information or is otherwise opposed to any possible strike by Israel, nuclear or otherwise. Then the deployment of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles to Iraq could be intended to deter any such possible actions as this would present a risk to any Israeli aircraft from overflying Iraq en route to a strike on Iran.

As to the likelihood of one versus the other?
Both are pretty scary scenarios?

[jpak]

28. US combat aircraft already in theater control Iraq's airspace

If Israeli aircraft were to transit Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, we would have to be complicit in the attack, either by providing the IFF codes or standing down while the attacks were in progress.

Iran has also stated that any Israeli attack would be considered an attack by the US.

Either scenario sucks...

[Warren Stupidity]

43. anti missile not anti aircraft.

and I find your theory that the patriot system deployment is intended to deter an Israeli air attack against Iran, even if the patriot's were usable as an anti aircraft system, as silly as the theory that the deployment is intended to fool some unspecified people for some unspecified reason.

Still waiting for a good explanation other than: defend against Iranian attack.

[NeedleCast]

52. Defense

What says Iran doesn't make the first move? Were we to go to war with Iran, their air assets would probably not last long. Best to use them in a first strike if they thought we were going to make a move.

As I'm sure other ex-military members would agree, it's best to be prepared. Better to have the asset in theater before you need it, vice realizing you need it after you're bleeding. Additionally, many combat units have organic air-defense assets that would deploy with them, regardless of enemy air/missile threat.

You asked for possible explanations...there's one.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. "What says Iran doesn't make the first move? "

They are neither stupid nor suicidal. They are absolutely no match for our army, airforce, or navy. They will not be starting this war, we will, and the clear signs are all around, from blunt threats from Dumbass, to naval deployments, to an outrageous attack on the Iranian consulate in Kurdistan, to the deployment of patriot missile systems to defend the green zone.

[feistydem]

2. I thought that was pretty clear in his speech.

Create chaos in the Middle East and maybe we'll all forget about his failures in Iraq.

He needs a new bogey man.

[Spoon]

5. Where did you hear this?

Was it in the surge speach? I haven't watched it.

[jpak]

6. NPR this AM

n/t

[Spoon]

7. Ahh ok thanks!

[TZ]

8. Naval deployment

I have a brother in law who was in the navy during Desert Storm. I think he would probably tell you that the deployment of naval vessels in the Persian Gulf is a more telling statement. I do believe I might have heard something about more air craft carriers being sent there but I could be wrong...

[Strelnikov_]

11. I figured they were going to KSA, Kuwait and Qatar

to protect the spice (Abqaiq, Ras Tanura, etc.).

And they still could be. These batteries can be moved and set up fairly quickly.

Baghdad also makes sense, in the context of protecting the Green Zone.

But not from mule-cart launched hobbyist rockets, as you allude to.

[scarletwoman]

18. The planning for going to war against Iran has been going on for a VERY long time.

They are obviously putting the final touches into place for implementing it, the first bombing runs will happen within a very few months, if not within weeks.

They're moving fast, under the cover of all the bright shiny distractions constantly dangled in front of the stuporous masses. This "surge" isn't about fixing Iraq, it's about getting more pieces into place for the coming Iran war. Bet on it. Why do you think they've put an Admiral as head of Centcom? Not to fight the 2 ground wars already have, but to direct the coming air and naval war.

It's coming, sure as shit. After all, who's going to stop them?

sw

[jpak]

20. Who will stop them??? President Pelosi

After Cheney and Bush are impeached...

:evilgrin:

[scarletwoman]

24. Cute. But that will be WAY too late. (nt)

[leftchick]

21. indeed sw

who indeed is going to stop them? :scared:

[mmonk]

19. Anti missile battalions

makes no sense if you're just battling an insurgency movement in a country that has no national army with ballistic missiles to fire.

[ieoeja]

32. Is Hamas a "country" with a "national army"?

You may recall the Israeli-Hamas conflict two or three months ago in which it turned out Hamas had several thousand missiles at their disposal. The Iraqi insurgency is bigger than Hamas if not as old and established. It is only a matter of time til they also get missiles.

[MyNameGoesHere]

40. i am sorry

but if that were true then the isaraelis would have shot them down with the American patriots we loaned them. they were rockets.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. small unguided rockets that pose at best a minor military threat. nt.

[mmonk]

46. I stand by my statement and I don't trust people who lie

and threaten others all the time. All I know is they don't face a ballistic missile threat from the insurgency.

[scarletwoman]

49. Do you know what the hell you're talking about?

"Israeli-Hamas conflict" -- are you talking about Hamas, the Palestinian resistance group? The ones who won the last Palestinian Authority election? The ones who may or may not responsible for some or all of the small rockets that are regularly fired into Israel from Gaza?

Or are you confusing "Hamas" in Palestine with "Hizbullah" in Lebanon? The Israel-Hizbullah "conflict" was this past summer, with Hizbullah turning out to have more ROCKETS (NOT "missiles") in their arsenal than previously thought.

If you're going to try to rebut something, you really ought to first find some, like, actual *facts* with which to do so.

sw

[ieoeja]

51. My bad for confusing the two.

Your bad for the 'tude.

[Kelly Rupert]

29. Or, instead, could mean

he intends to negate Iran's missile capability, tilting the balance of negotiations slightly towards the United States.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. negate Iran's missle capability? How's he going to do that?

Certainly not with patriot missles.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. Diminish, then.

Semantics don't change the point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. They don't change the point...

that patriot missles don't work.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. If you think that Patriot "missles" are useless,

then why bother being concerned about this? To you, this story should be as threatening as "Bush deploys Missile Command arcade machines to Iraq."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Oh, there's not useless.

They make their manufacturers a pretty penny.

"To you, this story should be as threatening as "Bush deploys Missile Command arcade machines to Iraq.""

I don't find it threatening at all, except to my tax dollars.

[jpak]

50. Patriot PAC-3 is (supposedly) much improved over the Gulf War Patriot missiles

www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2004/space-041210-army01.htm

or so they claim (yes, I realize they lied about the Patriot's performance in the GW 1)...