Iran General Staff fear U.S. attack while Bush in power

[December]

06/ 02/ 2008

http://img.rian.ru/images/6953/63/69536367.jpg

TEHRAN, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - A U.S. military attack on Iran is possible while George Bush is U.S. president, a deputy chief of Iran's General Staff said Wednesday.

"The threat from the U.S. has existed ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran [in 1979]. And the threat only got worse during the Bush presidency era," the General Staff said in a statement.

"While Bush is in power, that is throughout 2008, U.S. military action against the Islamic Republic is still likely," Gholamali Rashid said.

Rashid said Iran's Armed Forces are ready to repel any external attack. "We will defend our national interests at any cost and will defeat the enemy with our shocking might."
The media reported last fall that the Bush administration was planning to bomb Iran following the failure of U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem.
In October, Bush said a third world war could erupt if Iran obtained nuclear weapons.

The White House has denied reports about a possible attack on Iran and has stressed its adherence to a diplomatic settlement to the problem.
In early January patrol boats of the Iranian Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps approached U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran said the boats did so to request identification, but the Pentagon insisted that the Iranian speedboats had threatened to attack them.

READ MORE - http://en.rian.ru/world/20080206/98564293.html

[Wndrtch]

06/ 02/ 2008

http://img.rian.ru/images/6953/63/69536367.jpg

TEHRAN, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - A U.S. military attack on Iran is possible while George Bush is U.S. president, a deputy chief of Iran's General Staff said Wednesday.

"The threat from the U.S. has existed ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran [in 1979]. And the threat only got worse during the Bush presidency era," the General Staff said in a statement.

"While Bush is in power, that is throughout 2008, U.S. military action against the Islamic Republic is still likely," Gholamali Rashid said.

Rashid said Iran's Armed Forces are ready to repel any external attack. "We will defend our national interests at any cost and will defeat the enemy with our shocking might."
The media reported last fall that the Bush administration was planning to bomb Iran following the failure of U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem.
In October, Bush said a third world war could erupt if Iran obtained nuclear weapons.

The White House has denied reports about a possible attack on Iran and has stressed its adherence to a diplomatic settlement to the problem.
In early January patrol boats of the Iranian Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps approached U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran said the boats did so to request identification, but the Pentagon insisted that the Iranian speedboats had threatened to attack them.

READ MORE - http://en.rian.ru/world/20080206/98564293.html


One can only hope.

Lord knows, the Dems won't have the stones to deal with them effectively. They practice the Nevil Chamberlan appeasment doctorine.

[December]

One can only hope.

One only hope for what?

[Wndrtch]

One can only hope.

One only hope for what?


That Iran will be dealt with before the November elections. If you truly want to make a dent in Global Terrorism, you will ultimately need to change the government in Iran. They are the primary instigators and supporters of the war against the West.

[December]

Wndrtch, you must be some military guy who is sitting inside the base and post this goofy stuff.
Most Americans don't want any more wars, but you do. What's up with that?

America didn't spend enough money on the war with Iraq?
Probably not....

[Wndrtch]

Wndrtch, you must be some military guy who is sitting inside the base and post this goofy stuff.
Most Americans don't want any more wars, but you do. What's up with that?

America didn't spend enough money on the war with Iraq?
Probably not....


I don't WANT war, but I don't want barbarian terrorists to nuke Boston either. It's only a matter of time before some nut-job gets a nuke, and realizes all he has to do is sail it into any US harbor. I don't care how much it costs, doing nothing about Islamic Terrorism is not an option in the post 911 World. Did you already forget about the 3,000 people who lost their lives that day? Have you forgotten about the countless thousands killed around the World, due to Islamic Terrorism? How many people need to die, before you realize these barbarians are for real, and need to be routed? Would a mushroom cloud in your back yard be convincing enough? How about a Serin gas cloud headed for your family house?

The reason we Americans are involved in this struggle, is because the UN has failed to act in the past and deal with the growing threat of Global Terror. It sadly took the loss of 3,000 people on our soil, before a World leader decided to do something about the problem.

It's easy to be anti-war, when it's not your kids being killed.

[exigent]

We cannot afford another war, look at what its doing to our economy. Barbarian terrorists are gonna attack us whether we attack Iran or not. As long as our ports and borders are wide open, its possible.

I thought the terrorists who attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabian...so why not go after them there? Why not finish the job in Afghanistan? Where is Osama? Lets finsh ONE job before taking on even more than we can chew, huh?

[Go Fish]

Our avowed enemies SHOULD fear an attack by the US. That's the whole idea behind the DOD.
What this word from Tehran means is that they want you to vote for Barak Obama.
On a side note, what the Hell would have happened if the Kremlin didn't believe that Kennedy was ready to go to war over Cuba?
Why do you think that Khadaffi rolled? Why do you think that Hussein is dead? What do you think the difference is between an epileptic oyster shucker and a prostitute with diarrhea?

[just a grunt]

11/07 NIE indicates that international pressure is driving the slowdown in Iran's nuke program. Their concern with attack is a result of pressure. The sabre rattling may be helping.

Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

If anybody has a response to Go Fish's final question, please keep it to yourself. :)

[exigent]

Our avowed enemies SHOULD fear an attack by the US. That's the whole idea behind the DOD.


Remember Osama? That guy we arent looking for anymore? Anyway HE says their mission is to bankrupt us with these endless wars. To support an invasion of Iran only pleases them more because it means more national debt that our grandkids will have to foot.

[apdst]

I thought the terrorists who attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabian...so why not go after them there?

I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't invade Saudi Arabia. We should've started in Saudi Arabia, then worked our way to Iran.

Where is Osama?

Meat for the worms.

Lets finsh ONE job before taking on even more than we can chew, huh?

Good thing we didn't take that attitude during WW2.

[Elrathin]

Lets finsh ONE job before taking on even more than we can chew, huh?

Good thing we didn't take that attitude during WW2.


Each additional front we fight on is a disadvantage for us. How many fronts do you want to fight on?

Besides, while we could bomb Iran into the stone age, the only thing that would accomplish is creating an insurgent recruitment tool against the U.S. bolstering the enemies numbers about 100 fold I would think.

[Cobra]

Last thing we need is war wih Iran. It wont happen, not the way the country feels now. Only thing that will get us into war with Iran in the near future is if they directly attack us.

As for the nukes they are supposed to be building, I bet money Israel wll take care of that when the threat becomes great. They have more than us to lose.

[apdst]

Each additional front we fight on is a disadvantage for us. How many fronts do you want to fight on?

Everywhere that a threat exists.

Besides, while we could bomb Iran into the stone age, the only thing that would accomplish is creating an insurgent recruitment tool against the U.S. bolstering the enemies numbers about 100 fold I would think.

Again, I'm glad we didn't take that attitude during WW2.

[Elrathin]

Again, I'm glad we didn't take that attitude during WW2.


We had more "ally" support in WW2 then we do now as well.

[Cobra]

Also more of a threat.......

[apdst]

We had more "ally" support in WW2 then we do now as well.

Uh, yeah! You mean those same allies that were getting their asses handed to them?? The same ones that were kicked out of Europe, Africa and Asia?

Also more of a threat.......

How so? ICBMs didn't exist in 1941. There were no aircraft large enough, with enough range to make it to North America with an invasion force. A water born froce would have been too easily detected, and therefore destroyed. There were no bombers, anywhere in The World with enough range to reach North America.

The Germans executed NO attacks on American soil. The Japanese executed a few pointless attacks. To date, the most costly attack upon American citizens, on American soil has been conducted by Muslim extremists. The Germans and The Japanese were developing the hardware to attack the mainland United States. The IslamoFacists showed up with the ability to attack the mainland United States. They don't need to do any developing.

And where is the greater threat, again?

[Elrathin]

Uh, yeah! You mean those same allies that were getting their asses handed to them?? The same ones that were kicked out of Europe, Africa and Asia?

Compared to the so called "Coalition of the willing" that we have for the war on terror, the allies in WW2 were far more helpful.

[apdst]

Compared to the so called "Coalition of the willing" that we have for the war on terror, the allies in WW2 were far more helpful.

Helpful? We bailed THEM out. They were beaten till we entered the war.

Who were our allies during WW2? There was England...and...well...England...and...gee, that's it. By 1941 The Germans were bombing the Brits into the stone age.

Back to your multiple front argument, we fought WW2 on four different fronts: Italy, Africa, The Pacific Islands and China. Had we invaded Saudi Arabia--as many Libs insist we should have done--we would still be fighting a war on only two fronts. So, taking all that into consideration, the multiple fronts argument doesn't hold water.

[Go Fish]

"Besides, while we could bomb Iran into the stone age, the only thing that would accomplish is creating an insurgent recruitment tool against the U.S. bolstering the enemies numbers about 100 fold I would think." - Elrathin

So our battle-cry should be "Don't fight back, you'll just piss them off!!"

Sorry, but there's an assembly line of mentally-deficient muslims betting their lives on finally getting to rape 72 little kids in the afterlife. We need to be playing Whack-A-Mole with these turds instead of sucking up to them.
Seriously, do you really think that they'll just go away?

[Elrathin]

Back to your multiple front argument, we fought WW2 on four different fronts: Italy, Africa, The Pacific Islands and China. Had we invaded Saudi Arabia--as many Libs insist we should have done--we would still be fighting a war on only two fronts. So, taking all that into consideration, the multiple fronts argument doesn't hold water.


Our forces and makeup of the military was far different in WW2, then it is now. We can't get Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized in 6 years without a full military presence there, what makes you think we can add Iran to that list?

Also, tell me this, with the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now, how the hell do you think we will pay for an all out invasion and regime change for Iran? Do you think money comes from trees?[hr]
So our battle-cry should be "Don't fight back, you'll just piss them off!!"

Sorry, but there's an assembly line of mentally-deficient muslims betting their lives on finally getting to rape 72 little kids in the afterlife. We need to be playing Whack-A-Mole with these turds instead of sucking up to them.
Seriously, do you really think that they'll just go away?


So Al-Q is now in Iran?

[apdst]

We can't get Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized in 6 years without a full military presence there

How long have we been in Germany and Japan??

Also, tell me this, with the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now, how the hell do you think we will pay for an all out invasion and regime change for Iran? Do you think money comes from trees?

The ME is the most oil rich region of The World. It doesn't take a genius to figger out how we're going to pay for it.

So Al-Q is now in Iran?

No, but Hamas is. Close enough.

[MrHappy]

Well, we can't any chances. So the next we spot a Filipino Monkey (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/) let's just nuke 'em. And their yellow cake, too!

[Elrathin]

We can't get Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized in 6 years without a full military presence there

How long have we been in Germany and Japan??

Hmmm I was in Japan for an exercise in Aug 2001. I think comparing the force we have in Japan compared to Iraq is apples and oranges.


Also, tell me this, with the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now, how the hell do you think we will pay for an all out invasion and regime change for Iran? Do you think money comes from trees?

The ME is the most oil rich region of The World. It doesn't take a genius to figger out how we're going to pay for it.

You're correct about that, but if you bomb Iran into Oblivion and destroy their infrastructure, you will just create an amount of insurgents that you will NEVER get the oil going. Do you really believe that after the U.S. bombs Iran and destroys their infrastructure, they will just say "Thank you"? Keep in mind the hearts and minds of Iranians may not be exactly for their goverment, but it is nothing like Iraq and they actually like their country more than the U.S.

[lily]

Someone asked:
Lets finsh ONE job before taking on even more than we can chew, huh?


Good thing we didn't take that attitude during WW2.


Apdst........correct me if I'm wrong........but wasn't there a draft then?
Great supply of men, if you want to start a third war. I'm not that big of a
history buff......but has any country actually won a war when they were
fighting on 3 fronts, with a limited amount of men....or were you going to
ask these men to leave Iraq and fight in Iran, like we asked them to leave
Afganistan and fight in Iraq...so that now we have to go back into
Afghanistan.........I forgot who said wack-a-mole........but this describes
it to a T.

We're hearing the same rhetoric that we heard when Bush wanted to go into
Iraq.....nobody is going to fall for that one twice. The Republicans ran on
fear in 2004.........and the public wised up. Iran's elections are coming up also.
More than likely Ahmadinejad will be gone.[hr]


The ME is the most oil rich region of The World. It doesn't take a genius to figger out how we're going to pay for it.

Now where have I heard that before.......was it Wolfowitz? How's that working out?



[hr]
Well, we can't any chances. So the next we spot a Filipino Monkey (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/) let's just nuke 'em. And their yellow cake, too!


.......ah they finally gave him a name. Brings back memories of Baghdad Bob.

[apdst]

I think comparing the force we have in Japan compared to Iraq is apples and oranges.

There's not exactly a shooting war going in Japan. Is there? So, obviously force size is going to be smaller. But, there's still a presence, 60 odd years after WW2.

You're correct about that, but if you bomb Iran into Oblivion and destroy their infrastructure, you will just create an amount of insurgents that you will NEVER get the oil going. Do you really believe that after the U.S. bombs Iran and destroys their infrastructure, they will just say "Thank you"? Keep in mind the hearts and minds of Iranians may not be exactly for their goverment, but it is nothing like Iraq and they actually like their country more than the U.S.

Man! It's a good thing you folks weren't around during WW2. Damn! Hell, let's just surrender now. Fuck it.

I'm not that big of a
history buff......but has any country actually won a war when they were
fighting on 3 fronts, with a limited amount of men

No country has entered into a war with an infinite amount of manpower. Manpower resources, for any nation, are finite. It all boils down to how you use those personel. And, again, it depends on the expenditure ratio of combat power, as compared to your enemy. You can't speak in broad terms when talking about warfare. However, to answer your question, yes, there has been a war where a country fought on 3 fronts, with a limited amount of manpower and won. One good example is The American Civil War. The United States Army was operating in four different theaters: The Frontier, The Trans-Mississippi, The Gulf Department and in Virginia. Let us not forget the brutal guerilla war that was going on in Missouri. If you count that action, that makes five.

were you going to
ask these men to leave Iraq and fight in Iran, like we asked them to leave
Afganistan and fight in Iraq

Which men do you mean? Which units were redeployed from Afghanistan to Iraq. I know I'm wasting my breath, but I can't help but ask, because it's very relevant.

[lily]

Which men do you mean? Which units were redeployed from Afghanistan to Iraq. I know I'm wasting my breath, but I can't help but ask, because it's very relevant.



Link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010530.php)

AFGHANISTAN....According to the Baltimore Sun, "a U.S. Army infantry
battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be
withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq." Apparently this
battalion is about to become a key part of President Bush's surge strategy.
However, the results in Afghanistan could be dire:

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S.
commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash
a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The
official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's
second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the
1990s.

[Elrathin]

Man! It's a good thing you folks weren't around during WW2. Damn! Hell, let's just surrender now. f_ck it.


Now, how does we shouldn't attack Iran now (unless they declare war on us) equate to "let's surrender"? You just swung from one extreme to the other.

[jafar00]

I'm late into this thread unfortunately. It appears that some people hold everyone else accountable for 9/11, even those countries like Iran that had absolutely no involvement in it?
Yet, nobody dares to question Israeli involvement. Dozens of Israeli agents including ones dancing happily as the towers fell, to others caught red handed with moving vans that had explosive residue in them. Instead of questioning and detaining such blatantly obvious suspects, they were instead flown back to Israel and forgotten about.
Go bomb Israel instead. Leave others who were not involved out of it![hr]
Man! It's a good thing you folks weren't around during WW2. Damn! Hell, let's just surrender now. f_ck it.


Are will still talking about Iran? Surrender? I was unaware you were fighting a declared war against them already.

[Cobra]

There's not exactly a shooting war going in Japan. Is there? So, obviously force size is going to be smaller. But, there's still a presence, 60 odd years after WW2.
and they also surrendered and there wasn't a huge insurgency fighting our presence for 60 yers aftaer the surrender.

Apples to oranges........

[exigent]

Where is Osama?

Meat for the worms.


You know that for a fact? If theres a chance he's in pakistan or afghanistan planning his next attack on us, we wouldnt know it cuz we arent looking for him...our eyes are on a different prize.

[Wndrtch]

Each additional front we fight on is a disadvantage for us. How many fronts do you want to fight on?

I know one thing is for certain. If we pull out of Iraq prematurely, then we will be forced to fight terrorism in every country, because there are terror cells in every country. At least until Obama is elected, these barbarians think it's cool to drive to Iraq and take a shot at a US soldier, who will kill them right quik.

Besides, while we could bomb Iran into the stone age, the only thing that would accomplish is creating an insurgent recruitment tool against the U.S. bolstering the enemies numbers about 100 fold I would think.

Good! Our soldier are able to take them out at that rate as well. I say bring it on! Every one of those barbarians we take out now, is one less nut-job to take out a US city later with a nuke.

[apdst]

AFGHANISTAN....According to the Baltimore Sun, "a U.S. Army infantry
battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be
withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq." Apparently this
battalion is about to become a key part of President Bush's surge strategy.
However, the results in Afghanistan could be dire:

I'm sorry, Lilly, but you're going to have to better than that. "An infantry battalion", doesn't tell me anything. It also makes zero sense to redeploy a single infantry battalion to another theater of operations. I think even Elrathin can agree with that. It they were talking some sort of service/support unit, it would make sense.

It appears that some people hold everyone else accountable for 9/11, even those countries like Iran that had absolutely no involvement in it?

Muslim terrorists were involved in 9/11. Last time I checked, Hamas and Hezbollah were Muslim terrorist groups and warrant destruction.

and they also surrendered and there wasn't a huge insurgency fighting our presence for 60 yers aftaer the surrender.

Because we used different tactics. Maybe we should have use the same tactics on Iraq. Whatcha' think?

You know that for a fact? If theres a chance he's in pakistan or afghanistan planning his next attack on us, we wouldnt know it cuz we arent looking for him...our eyes are on a different prize.

Over the past three, or so, years, there have been two reports of his death and no credible evidence that he isn't dead.

[jafar00]

It appears that some people hold everyone else accountable for 9/11, even those countries like Iran that had absolutely no involvement in it?

Muslim terrorists were involved in 9/11. Last time I checked, Hamas and Hezbollah were Muslim terrorist groups and warrant destruction.


You didn't even try to counter the fact that Iran had absolutely no involvement in 9/11. What has Hamas and Hizbullah (both legitimate resistance groups against Israeli aggression, and democratically elected government parties) got to do with it? They weren't responsible for 9/11 either.

[AnnEsthesia]

Don't you get it, jafar? Those groups are part of 'Them' that the 'Us' needs to be afraid of and fight against.

[apdst]

Hamas and Hizbullah (both legitimate resistance groups against Israeli aggression, and democratically elected government parties)

What little credibility you had just went out the window.

Hamas and Hezbollah are both illegal terrorist groups who target and murder innocents to further their twisted political and religious agenda, and deserve to be annihilated. If you and your fellow Muslims can't, or rather, won't do it, then someone else has to. I guess, as usual, that someone will be The United States.

[Go Fish]

"So Al-Q is now in Iran?" - Elrathin

Iran is in Iraq. They are trucking EFP's and other weapons in and providing intel to your "Freedom Fighters" so that they can more efficiently kill our "despicable" Marines.
I, for one, am not okay with that.

[Fishingriver]

We invaded Iraq without good reason. Regardless of all the fact twisting the right wing does to justify their incredible blunder...Iraq posed no threat. We are the invaders, not the protectors. The WMD, Uranium from Niger, Al Qaeda in Iraq...was all a right wing conspiracy theory that was proven false. The only theory that holds any water based on the reality of what has happened and is happening still in Iraq is that we went there to get control of their oil. So....from Iran's standpoint, sitting on huge oil reserves with US troops sitting on their border, they have to fear invasion. President Bush lied America into war with Iraq, and he lied about Iran's nuclear potential to get support for an invasion. He knew they had shut the program down but he persisted in lying to America. So it is understandable that Iran sees Bush as an imminent threat.
Hezbollah and Hamas may be concern to Israel, but they pose no threat to the United States. Neither was involved in 911, in fact, there are more unanswered questions about Bush Co involvement than Hezbollah's.
We could sit down with Iran and this conflict would end. The truth is that Republicans/right wingers don't want peace. They long for war. It is in their genes. They are the goats and this time in history is calling them out. Iran is a problem that diplomacy can answer. A larger threat than Iran is the enemies within who want to drag us into war. Unquestionably, the right wing is a greater threat than Iran. They are enemies within creating enemies abroad.

[jafar00]

Hamas and Hizbullah (both legitimate resistance groups against Israeli aggression, and democratically elected government parties)

What little credibility you had just went out the window.

Hamas and Hezbollah are both illegal terrorist groups who target and murder innocents to further their twisted political and religious agenda, and deserve to be annihilated. If you and your fellow Muslims can't, or rather, won't do it, then someone else has to. I guess, as usual, that someone will be The United States.


Hamas and Hizbullah are both legal resistance groups according to article 51 of the UN charter and additionally by Article 1(4) of the 1st Additional Protocol to the
Geneva Conventions, 1977. Both the UN charter and the Geneve Conventions allow resistance against foreign occupation by the indigenous population.

Both Hamas and Hizbullah are also democratically elected to their respective governments.

Collective punishments in order to quash resistance such as practiced by Israel against both the Palestinians and Lebanese and by the US in Iraq, are war crimes and only serve to fuel further resistance against them.
Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention states that No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

The more you do this, the more resistance against you will happen.

International Law makes the struggle by Hamas and Hizbullah a legitimate one. No amount of name calling by you, or threats of genocidal annihilation will change the law will it?[hr]
"So Al-Q is now in Iran?" - Elrathin

Iran is in Iraq. They are trucking EFP's and other weapons in and providing intel to your "Freedom Fighters" so that they can more efficiently kill our "despicable" Marines.
I, for one, am not okay with that.


Do you have proof Iran is in Iraq? Or just accusations?

[Elrathin]

"So Al-Q is now in Iran?" - Elrathin

Iran is in Iraq. They are trucking EFP's and other weapons in and providing intel to your "Freedom Fighters" so that they can more efficiently kill our "despicable" Marines.
I, for one, am not okay with that.


And you can prove that it is the government of Iran doing this and not rogue elements in Iran? I'd love to see the proof to this.

[Go Fish]

"So Al-Q is now in Iran?" - Elrathin

Iran is in Iraq. They are trucking EFP's and other weapons in and providing intel to your "Freedom Fighters" so that they can more efficiently kill our "despicable" Marines.
I, for one, am not okay with that.


And you can prove that it is the government of Iran doing this and not rogue elements in Iran? I'd love to see the proof to this.


I can't take you over there and introduce you to them (Which will probably be the bar on this one) but here's something to consider. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003562.html[hr]"We invaded Iraq without good reason. Regardless of all the fact twisting the right wing does to justify their incredible blunder...Iraq posed no threat."- Fishing River

Umm..... There was no disconnect between the Bush administration's policy WRT Iraq and the previous one. President Bush received overwhelming support (Think "tsunami") from the democrats when he asked for, and received clearance to hold Hussein accountable for his violations of the terms of the cessation of ass-whupping which came about as a result of news reports from the Highway to Hell. Operation Desert Storm was just the first phase. Hussein screwed up, and Bush 42 held him accountable. What alternative did he have, considering that it was the national will that he show leadership and not dick around like the Clintons did.

You analysis of jihadist capabilities flies in the face of the attacks of Sept 11, 2001. You need to take the emotion out of your review of the facts in our recent history.[hr]Oh, that's right here..... http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

[Elrathin]

I can't take you over there and introduce you to them (Which will probably be the bar on this one) but here's something to consider.


Oh I've considered it Go Fish and it may indeed be a possibility, but to claim it outright as fact is too premature to say Iran's government is behind it, which is what you seem to have implied.

[Trish]

The article that started this thread states "A U.S. military attack on Iran is possible while George Bush is U.S. president, a deputy chief of Iran's General Staff said Wednesday." What a brilliant observation!

It is "possible" for us to attack damn near anyone we please whether George Bush is president or not. It's "possible" that just about any country can attack just about any other country. Just because it is "possible" doesn't mean it's going to happen. What is "possible" and what is "probable" are not the same thing. I've been hearing talk about an imminent attack on Iran for a long time. Even read things where people "guaranteed" that it would be happening within weeks based on credible "inside" information, and that was 2 years ago! Haven't seen an attack yet, nor will we see an attack unless Iran really screws up and attacks us or it is confirmed they have nukes.

The US is always accused of using rhetoric to stir up anti-Iran sentiment, of deliberately ratcheting up the level of "threat" Iran poses. It's quite surprising that all these people that see American boogey-men behind every bush (pun intended) can't also see that this kind of talk by Iran is the deliberate ratcheting up of anti-American sentiment, stiring up folks needlessly over a threat that will not exist unless THEY (Iran) screw the pooch!

[jafar00]

I can't take you over there and introduce you to them (Which will probably be the bar on this one) but here's something to consider. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003562.html


Pure speculation. Without evidence, nobody is going to believe it. And I'm not talking about the "Iranian" shells paraded before the media last year. The "Iranian" shells with english writing and dates instead of Farsi and of a type not manufactured in Iran. That was quickly forgotten about wasn't it?

[Go Fish]

I can't take you over there and introduce you to them (Which will probably be the bar on this one) but here's something to consider.


Oh I've considered it Go Fish and it may indeed be a possibility, but to claim it outright as fact is too premature to say Iran's government is behind it, which is what you seem to have implied.


I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as proven fact. Just give me
thea number of reports and sources you want, and I can sit here all night trying to convince everyone. Better yet, do your own research. I expect no one to believe what I say, but I would hope that they find out for themselves. I had a similar discussion once regarding Chinese artillery units firing on US forces in Afghanistan, and while it never got any press here, it happened.
We have captured Iranian squads operating independently in Iraq. That Chris Matthews and that idiot Olbermann haven't reported on it comes as no surprise.[hr]

I can't take you over there and introduce you to them (Which will probably be the bar on this one) but here's something to consider. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003562.html


Pure speculation. Without evidence, nobody is going to believe it. And I'm not talking about the "Iranian" shells paraded before the media last year. The "Iranian" shells with english writing and dates instead of Farsi and of a type not manufactured in Iran. That was quickly forgotten about wasn't it?


I don't believe in an afterlife. I DO believe this, however. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin



[hr]http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2007/5904

[Elrathin]

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as proven fact.


Show me the U.S. reports saying CONCLUSIVELY that the Iranian Government sanctioned it and was responsible for it. Go right ahead. I'm waiting.

[Go Fish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901510.html

Should I go on? Research it yourself, Jafar. This why I put no stock in arguments like "Iran never attacked us" or "Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia?" Islam knows no borders. The free world is at war with jihadists, and we have been for scores of years. Canada tried to attack us in 2000. Should we invade them? Jose Padilla was just found guilty. Should we nuke Florida?

[Elrathin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901510.html


That's not evidence the Iranian government sanctioned it. Not even a good try there, try again.

[Go Fish]

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as proven fact.


Show me the U.S. reports saying CONCLUSIVELY that the Iranian Government sanctioned it and was responsible for it. Go right ahead. I'm waiting.

You're new to this, aren't you?

[Elrathin]

You're new to this, aren't you?


You stated it as fact that the Iranian government sanctioned it, so it is up to you to provide the evidence of such stated fact. Now if you want to speculate it was sanctioned, be my guess. But your so called "fact" is not proven. You only have speculation.

[Go Fish]

http://lugar.senate.gov/iraq/pdf/CRS_IraqRS22323.pdf

When you find a memo from Achmedinejad to his government stating that he does not want any arms or troops to be sent to Iraq to kill our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, we can continue discussing this. A little curiosity in place of outright denial is all I'm asking.
Later we can get into the Chinese scientific community's involvement in the Iraqi WMD programs.
Seriously, I AM here to help.

[Elrathin]

A little curiosity in place of outright denial is all I'm asking.


I didn't deny it outright, but you did. You have already convicted the Iranian government and declared it as fact when it isn't. Take your own advice and be open that it could also be just rogue elements, not the Iranian government. I even stated it is possible that it could be, but right now there is no facts proving it. That is the truth that we know right now.

[apdst]

Hamas and Hizbullah are both legal resistance groups according to article 51 of the UN charter and additionally by Article 1(4) of the 1st Additional Protocol to the
Geneva Conventions, 1977.

Neither group falls into that category, since they are both supported by a foreign government. Both groups cannot be allowed protection under Article 51, AND violate international law that forbids the targetting of civilians and the use of civilians as human shields.

Both the UN charter and the Geneve Conventions allow resistance against foreign occupation by the indigenous population.

Again, neither Hamas, nor Hezbollah fall under that definition. Hamas is a creation of Iran and they are fighting in Israel. Since Palestine was never a sovereign nation. Hezbollah, a creation of Syria, is fighting in Lebanon. Hezbollah is also assissinating Lebanese political opponents; another violation of the law. Nice try at defending the murdering bastards. It's nice to know that you support the terrorists. That goes to show that ALL Muslims are responsible for the terrorists.

[Go Fish]

Don't you get it, jafar? Those groups are part of 'Them' that the 'Us' needs to be afraid of and fight against.

Come on, Anne. I'm actually working here, and you post "Troll Spray"?

[AnnEsthesia]

Has nothing to do with you, Go Fish.

[Go Fish]

A little curiosity in place of outright denial is all I'm asking.


I didn't deny it outright, but you did. You have already convicted the Iranian government and declared it as fact when it isn't. Take your own advice and be open that it could also be just rogue elements, not the Iranian government. I even stated it is possible that it could be, but right now there is no facts proving it. That is the truth that we know right now.


You wouldn't believe anything I could post, so this is the end.[hr]
Has nothing to do with you, Go Fish.

I believe you. Trying to watch the Pro Bowl game, golf, and color pictures with my grandson all at once here.....

[Elrathin]

You wouldn't believe anything I could post, so this is the end.


Lol you tell me to be open minded yet you aren't. Ok, whatever. It's not my fault that you just don't have the facts to back up your claim. You have a good speculation, but that's it, not fact.

[Go Fish]

The Lugar report wasn't good enough, so I'm done. Have you picked out a bhurka yet?

[Elrathin]

The Lugar report wasn't good enough, so I'm done. Have you picked out a bhurka yet?


The Lugar report didn't say it was sanctioned by the Iranian government. Again, nice try and your little "bhurka" comment just negates your credibility.

[Fishingriver]

I can't take you over there and introduce you to them (Which will probably be the bar on this one) but here's something to consider. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003562.html[hr]"We invaded Iraq without good reason. Regardless of all the fact twisting the right wing does to justify their incredible blunder...Iraq posed no threat."- Fishing River

Umm..... There was no disconnect between the Bush administration's policy WRT Iraq and the previous one.

The disconnect is that Clinton didn't invade Iraq with 145,000 ground troops and take over. That's about as serious a disconnect as a policy can have.


President Bush received overwhelming support (Think "tsunami") from the democrats when he asked for, and received clearance to hold Hussein accountable for his violations of the terms of the cessation of ass-whupping which came about as a result of news reports from the Highway to Hell.

I assume you are talking about W here. No offense, but your message is a little garbled. Once again, the Democrats authorized Bush to use force if necessary. He didn't wait until it was necessary. He wanted to invade. He was "gleeful when the bombs began dropping". The Democrats should be faulted for trusting Bush.

Operation Desert Storm was just the first phase. Hussein screwed up, and Bush 42 held him accountable. What alternative did he have, considering that it was the national will that he show leadership and not dick around like the Clintons did.

The Clintons "dicking around" amounted to not getting us into an unneccessary war. Only right wing nuts assume Clinton was too passive. You are agreeing with yourself more than making a point.

You analysis of jihadist capabilities flies in the face of the attacks of Sept 11, 2001.


The jihadist cpabilities are what concern me about having invaded a country without cause. We are provoking more terrorism than we are solving. If they attack us again, it may very well be out of revenge for what we have done in Iraq.

You need to take the emotion out of your review of the facts in our recent history.[hr]Oh, that's right here..... http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Do you want this exchange to be exceedingly rude or are you rude all the time?

[apdst]

The Clintons "dicking around" amounted to not getting us into an unneccessary war.

Instead of getting us into an unneccessary war, Bill sat on his laurals, allowing us to be attacked eight times and missing at least three chances to ice UBL.

[Fishingriver]

The Clintons "dicking around" amounted to not getting us into an unneccessary war.

Instead of getting us into an unneccessary war, Bill sat on his laurals, allowing us to be attacked eight times and missing at least three chances to ice UBL.



Three thousand plus more Americans have died because Bush decided that invading Iraq was more important than catching the culprits of 911. Osama, meanwhile, is still making videos. Considering that Osama attacked us on Bush's watch and Bush has failed to capture him, even mentioning Clinton is laughable. You are helping me in this debate.

[apdst]

Three thousand plus more Americans have died because Bush decided that invading Iraq was more important than catching the culprits of 911.

Three thousand plus American CITIZENS died because Bill thought it was more important to win a popularity contest than to protect the country.

Osama, meanwhile, is still making videos.

UBL hasn't put out a credible vid in over three years. He's dead.

Considering that Osama attacked us on Bush's watch and Bush has failed to capture him, even mentioning Clinton is laughable.

Bill had UBL in his sights three+ times and failed to kill him each and everytime.

What I find laughable, is how Bill--the most brilliant dude in The World, according to the Libs--couldn't capture, or kill UBL in eight years, yet Bush was supposed to capture, or kill UBL in less than eight months. In eight years, Americans were attacked eight times, byt terrorists and Bill screwed the pooch fighting the threat. Since 9/11, we haven't been attacked a single time. Whose helping who in this discussion??

[Fishingriver]

UBL hasn't put out a credible vid in over three years. He's dead.

Considering that Osama attacked us on Bush's watch and Bush has failed to capture him, even mentioning Clinton is laughable.

Bill had UBL in his sights three+ times and failed to kill him each and everytime.

What I find laughable, is how Bill--the most brilliant dude in The World, according to the Libs--couldn't capture, or kill UBL in eight years, yet Bush was supposed to capture, or kill UBL in less than eight months. In eight years, Americans were attacked eight times, byt terrorists and Bill screwed the pooch fighting the threat. Since 9/11, we haven't been attacked a single time. Whose helping who in this discussion??


Bush has hadseven years and all he has managed to do is kill the republican party. Bush failed and your unprovable claim that he is dead is just silly. Ok.... Then we must also consider that Bush planned and executed 911. That is on a parr with your "Osama is dead" claim. If you accept that Bush planned 911, I'll accept that Osama is dead.

[apdst]

Bush has hadseven years and all he has managed to do is kill the republican party.

Along with over 40,000 Muslim terrorists.

your unprovable claim that he is dead is just silly.

Prove he's alive. Bhutto said he was dead. Is she a liar, too?

If you accept that Bush planned 911, I'll accept that Osama is dead.

That's completely ignorant.

[Fishingriver]

Bush has hadseven years and all he has managed to do is kill the republican party.

Along with over 40,000 Muslim terrorists.

your unprovable claim that he is dead is just silly.

Prove he's alive. Bhutto said he was dead. Is she a liar, too?

If you accept that Bush planned 911, I'll accept that Osama is dead.

That's completely ignorant.


"Prove he's alive" isn't ignorant? LOL

I don't think Bush killed 40,000 terorists. More like 200,000 innocents. Of course I can't "prove they were innocent"!


Bhutto made a gaff. I played the tape. She mispoke....obviously.

[apdst]

"Prove he's alive" isn't ignorant? LOL

No, not really. All you have to do is produce some evidence; a photo, a vid. However, you can't do it. Can you?

She mispoke....obviously.

Oh, yeah, obviously. What about the Paki report last year that claimed UBL is dead. Did they misspeak, too? We seem to hear alot about misspeaking from ya'll.

Of course I can't "prove they were innocent"!

And, you sure as hell can't prove that there have been 200,000 of them killed, either.

[Go Fish]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[Elrathin]

Bhutto said he was dead. Is she a liar, too?


This woman is the same person that Conservatives called an Al-Q supporter when Musharraf declared Marshall Law, but you'll believe her when she says OBL is dead? As Pres would say HOO-BOY!

[apdst]

This woman is the same person that Conservatives called an Al-Q supporter when Musharraf declared Marshall Law, but you'll believe her when she says OBL is dead?

I never said that and doubt anyone else did, either.

[jafar00]

Hamas and Hizbullah are both legal resistance groups according to article 51 of the UN charter and additionally by Article 1(4) of the 1st Additional Protocol to the
Geneva Conventions, 1977.

Neither group falls into that category, since they are both supported by a foreign government. Both groups cannot be allowed protection under Article 51, AND violate international law that forbids the targetting of civilians and the use of civilians as human shields.

Both the UN charter and the Geneve Conventions allow resistance against foreign occupation by the indigenous population.

Again, neither Hamas, nor Hezbollah fall under that definition. Hamas is a creation of Iran and they are fighting in Israel. Since Palestine was never a sovereign nation. Hezbollah, a creation of Syria, is fighting in Lebanon. Hezbollah is also assissinating Lebanese political opponents; another violation of the law. Nice try at defending the murdering bastards. It's nice to know that you support the terrorists. That goes to show that ALL Muslims are responsible for the terrorists.


Both Hamas and Hizbullah are made up of the native populations of their respective countries. They could not be elected to government if they were Iranians. Both exist only to counter Israeli aggression.

[apdst]

Both Hamas and Hizbullah are made up of the native populations of their respective countries.

Why did The Hezzies invade Israel? That's not in keeping with the, "resistance fighter", argument. Why does Hamas launch rocket INTO Israel? "resistance", fighters don't invade other countries.

No, they are a buncha murdering ass holes, who don't deserve to live. They should be hunted down and killed like the trash they are.

It's people like you that encourage terrorism by giving it some goofball justification.

[jafar00]

Both Hamas and Hizbullah are made up of the native populations of their respective countries.

Why did The Hezzies invade Israel? That's not in keeping with the, "resistance fighter", argument. Why does Hamas launch rocket INTO Israel? "resistance", fighters don't invade other countries.


Hizbullah have never invaded Israel. If Israel wasn't occupying part of southern Lebanon and attacking the civilian population, there would be no need for Hizbullah to exist as a military force at all.

Hamas launch rockets into Israel in retaliation for Israeli artillery, helicopter missile, and tank attacks as well as Israeli soldiers invading Palestine and killing and terrorising the population with impunity.

You are neglecting to mention that the Israelis currently have Gaza under an illegal siege and have forcefully removed Palestinians from their lands then built a wall around it to stop them from taking their homes back.

It can't all be Hamas bad, Hizbullah bad. There has to be some mention of Israel bad to balance the equation.


No, they are a buncha murdering ass holes, who don't deserve to live. They should be hunted down and killed like the trash they are.

It's people like you that encourage terrorism by giving it some goofball justification.


Talking about the Israeli Occupation Force?

[Go Fish]

Ummm, the only thing Israel enforced a siege upon was electricity for a few hours every night in specific areas. What are your feelings over the fact that the palestinians had to cut down a wall to be embraced by their brothers in Egypt? Talk about a "siege".

[jafar00]

Ummm, the only thing Israel enforced a siege upon was electricity for a few hours every night in specific areas.


Actually, the power cut is a lot worse than you make it appear. It affects sewage and water treatment plants, not mention it being a form of collective punishment which is a violation of international law and the UN charter.

It not just power either. Fuel, food, medical supplies, and economic starvation are what they are doing. What the Israelis are doing is worse than the Nazis with their Warsaw Ghettos.

[apdst]

Hizbullah have never invaded Israel. If Israel wasn't occupying part of southern Lebanon and attacking the civilian population, there would be no need for Hizbullah to exist as a military force at all.

Jafar,

What propaganda rag have you been reading? The reason that The IDF went into Lebenon, in 1982, to begin with, was because The PLO was launching missions from inside Lebanon.

You are neglecting to mention that the Israelis currently have Gaza under an illegal siege and have forcefully removed Palestinians from their lands then built a wall around it to stop them from taking their homes back.

The Egyptians have a wall on their border with The Gaza Strip, as well. AND won't allow the Pals to cross, to get good and medicine. I don't hear you crying about that. Or is it a Muslim thang, and we wouldn't understand?

When you wake up an realize just how bad you've been lied to, we'll be here for you, my friend.

[jafar00]

Hizbullah have never invaded Israel. If Israel wasn't occupying part of southern Lebanon and attacking the civilian population, there would be no need for Hizbullah to exist as a military force at all.

Jafar,

What propaganda rag have you been reading? The reason that The IDF went into Lebenon, in 1982, to begin with, was because The PLO was launching missions from inside Lebanon.


PLO is not Hizbullah. Anyway that Lebanon war was the result of a complicated series of incursions BOTH by Israel and PLO forces. A terrorist attack by Abu Nidal(Mossad) within Israel didn't help matters. It all ended in Israel using it as an excuse to occupy part of southern Lebanon. They still do.


You are neglecting to mention that the Israelis currently have Gaza under an illegal siege and have forcefully removed Palestinians from their lands then built a wall around it to stop them from taking their homes back.

The Egyptians have a wall on their border with The Gaza Strip, as well. AND won't allow the Pals to cross, to get good and medicine. I don't hear you crying about that. Or is it a Muslim thang, and we wouldn't understand?


Most Muslims have no love for President Mubarak and his love affair with the Zionists either. The only reason they are playing lapdog is to stop Israel attacking Egypt and to keep getting generous economic benefits from the US.


When you wake up an realize just how bad you've been lied to, we'll be here for you, my friend.


Hugz :dork: