Invading Iran: Insanity continues

[ECW]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran, but refused to rule out the possibility, bucking pressure from several senators who said the administration is not authorized to do so.

Asked whether the United States is preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, the president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically."

But, on ABC's "This Week," Hadley would not rule out the possibility of such an attack and would not say whether he agrees with those senators who say that the Bush administration would need congressional backing for such a move.

The sharp questioning about U.S. plans for Iran followed Bush's address to the nation Wednesday night announcing his strategy for Iraq, in which he vowed the United States "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The Bush administration accuses Iran of sending fighters into Iraq and attacking U.S. troops. Tehran denies the charges.

"The priority is what's going on in Iraq," Hadley told ABC. "That's the place where the activity's occurring. That's the best place... for us to take this on."

Asked repeatedly whether the United States has the authority to enter Iran if it believes doing so would help prevent attacks, Hadley did not answer. Then came this exchange:

Host George Stephanopoulos: "So, you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"

Hadley: "I didn't say that. This is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal issues."

Several senators have voiced opposition to the idea of the United States entering Iran.

Last week, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a hearing on Iraq, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that."

Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, told Rice, "No one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border."

Comparisons to Vietnam war

"When our government lied to the American people and said, 'We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia,' in fact, we did," Hagel said, referring to the Vietnam war. "So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

During the Vietnam war, the Nixon administration denied U.S. troops were conducting raids into neighboring Cambodia to stop the flow of weapons to South Vietnam's communist insurgency.

The Bush administration says dramatic action must be taken in Iraq to halt alleged Iranian meddling.

Vice President Dick Cheney took that message to "Fox News Sunday," saying, "It's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters, if you will, inside Iraq. And the president has responded to that. ... I think it's exactly the right thing to do."

more...

The insanity continues. Escalating the quagmire in Iraq was bad enough but now there is serious talk about expanding the war into Iran as well? Unbelievable.

link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

[Stoner]

The insanity continues.

Of course you think it's insane.

1.Â*Â*You're anti-war.
2.Â*Â*Your partisan views make you bash Bush everytime you hear his name mentioned in the news.

This isn't rocket science here.Â*Â*And for future knowledge, criticism means more from an unbias source.

[Nemo]

It would seem that the Republicans are beginning to break ranks over President Bush’s so-called “surge� plan. Certainly, Sen. Hagel’s scathing criticism was a blow to the White House. It does not bode well.

[Stoner]

It would seem that the Republicans are beginning to break ranks over President Bush’s so-called “surgeâ€� plan.Â*Â*Certainly, Sen. Hagel’s scathing criticism was a blow to the White House.Â*Â*It does not bode well.


Doing the popular thing is rarely the right thing. I admire Bush for having the courage to stand up and do what's right regardless of what others think. Shows character.

[BoogyMan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran, but refused to rule out the possibility, bucking pressure from several senators who said the administration is not authorized to do so.

Asked whether the United States is preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, the president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically."

But, on ABC's "This Week," Hadley would not rule out the possibility of such an attack and would not say whether he agrees with those senators who say that the Bush administration would need congressional backing for such a move.

The sharp questioning about U.S. plans for Iran followed Bush's address to the nation Wednesday night announcing his strategy for Iraq, in which he vowed the United States "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The Bush administration accuses Iran of sending fighters into Iraq and attacking U.S. troops. Tehran denies the charges.

"The priority is what's going on in Iraq," Hadley told ABC. "That's the place where the activity's occurring. That's the best place... for us to take this on."

Asked repeatedly whether the United States has the authority to enter Iran if it believes doing so would help prevent attacks, Hadley did not answer. Then came this exchange:

Host George Stephanopoulos: "So, you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"

Hadley: "I didn't say that. This is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal issues."

Several senators have voiced opposition to the idea of the United States entering Iran.

Last week, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a hearing on Iraq, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that."

Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, told Rice, "No one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border."

Comparisons to Vietnam war

"When our government lied to the American people and said, 'We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia,' in fact, we did," Hagel said, referring to the Vietnam war. "So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

During the Vietnam war, the Nixon administration denied U.S. troops were conducting raids into neighboring Cambodia to stop the flow of weapons to South Vietnam's communist insurgency.

The Bush administration says dramatic action must be taken in Iraq to halt alleged Iranian meddling.

Vice President Dick Cheney took that message to "Fox News Sunday," saying, "It's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters, if you will, inside Iraq. And the president has responded to that. ... I think it's exactly the right thing to do."

more...

The insanity continues. Escalating the quagmire in Iraq was bad enough but now there is serious talk about expanding the war into Iran as well? Unbelievable.

link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)


There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen ECW, you know that.

[Nemo]

President Bush has the character of a fool; one who is both stupid and pigheaded.

[BoogyMan]

President Bush has the character of a fool; one who is both stupid and pigheaded.


Well thank you for your input! LOL

BDS? I think so.

[Stoner]

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

You're dead on, Boogy.Â*Â*It's called contingency plans.Â*Â*There are basic plans and details for invading many different countries.

My favorite line that ECW ignored was this - "The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran"

[Nemo]

Quicunque turpi fraude semel innotuit,
Etiamsi vera dicit, amittit fidem.
- Phaedrus, Fabulae Aesopiae, I. x. 1-2.

The trouble with George W. Bush is that he is dishonest; and this the more for the level of his dishonesty and the length he is willing to go to propagate his lies and deceit.Â*Â*“As man sows, so shall he reapâ€� for “the wretch that often has deceiv’d, though truth he speaks, is ne’er believ’d.â€�

[BoogyMan]

Quicunque turpi fraude semel innotuit,
Etiamsi vera dicit, amittit fidem.
- Phaedrus, Fabulae Aesopiae, I. x. 1-2.

The trouble with George W. Bush is that he is dishonest; and this the more for the level of his dishonesty and the length he is willing to go to propagate his lies and deceit. “As man sows, so shall he reap� for “the wretch that often has deceiv’d, though truth he speaks, is ne’er believ’d.�


You have every right to your own opinion Nemo.

[Nemo]

Thank you; and you yours.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my rights to an opinion checkmates all others!
2. We need to put some pressure on Iran and *Two Eyes Too Close Together*.
3. All you would need is one stick to poke him in both eyes.
4. This nut job of a leader needs to be brought down a peg.
5. We can only hope Israel does it before we do.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nemo]

Grammatici certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est.
- Horace, Ars Poetica, 78

[Viper2]

ECW:
The insanity continues. Escalating the quagmire in Iraq was bad enough but now there is serious talk about expanding the war into Iran as well? Unbelievable.

Please tell me that you are not nieve enough not to realize that the DOD has contingency plans for military actions against any nation-state that is a threat to our National Security ????? Please

So, this is a no brainer to start with. Whether or not these plans are implimented depends soley on Iran.

[Viper2]

It would seem that the Republicans are beginning to break ranks over President Bush’s so-called “surgeâ€� plan.Â*Â*Certainly, Sen. Hagel’s scathing criticism was a blow to the White House.Â*Â*It does not bode well.



Regretfully, politics is worse than prostitution.

[Viper2]

President Bush has the character of a fool; one who is both stupid and pigheaded.


Perhaps you could say that - however, at least he has the integrity to say he will do this - move toward accomplishing what he said, and when the shit hits the fan doesn't duck. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say of Clinton and Kerry.

[Viper2]

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

You're dead on, Boogy.Â*Â*It's called contingency plans.Â*Â*There are basic plans and details for invading many different countries.

My favorite line that ECW ignored was this - "The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran"


It must have been a slow news day at CNN (Consolidated Numbnuts National)

[Viper2]

Quicunque turpi fraude semel innotuit,
Etiamsi vera dicit, amittit fidem.
- Phaedrus, Fabulae Aesopiae, I. x. 1-2.

The trouble with George W. Bush is that he is dishonest; and this the more for the level of his dishonesty and the length he is willing to go to propagate his lies and deceit.Â*Â*“As man sows, so shall he reapâ€� for “the wretch that often has deceiv’d, though truth he speaks, is ne’er believ’d.â€�


Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

[Viper2]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my rights to an opinion checkmates all others!
2. We need to put some pressure on Iran and *Two Eyes Too Close Together*.
3. All you would need is one stick to poke him in both eyes.
4. This nut job of a leader needs to be brought down a peg.
5. We can only hope Israel does it before we do.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas



Perhaps it would be more prudent to assist the students and young adult population who seem to be in direct disagreement with Iran's President and the government as a whole, and want to lean toward a more democratic country. It would be far better for all concerned if the internal problems exploded into a revolution from within.

In-any-case, if it comes to it:

Lock & Load, Go In Hot, Take No Prisoners.

[BoogyMan]

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

You're dead on, Boogy. It's called contingency plans. There are basic plans and details for invading many different countries.

My favorite line that ECW ignored was this - "The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran"


It must have been a slow news day at CNN (Consolidated Numbnuts National)


I am fairly sure that if we wait a couple of days with little for them to report they will have us planning a massive invasion of Ireland.

[Stoner]

I am fairly sure that if we wait a couple of days with little for them to report they will have us planning a massive invasion of Ireland.


I say we invade Jamaica. After all they have the best herb!

[Viper2]

BoogyMan:
I am fairly sure that if we wait a couple of days with little for them to report they will have us planning a massive invasion of Ireland.

Perhaps, but I'm more inclined to feel they would pick on North Korea who has been off the front pages for some time now.

Besides, CNN could never deal with an Irish 7 course dinner :D:D

[Viper2]

I am fairly sure that if we wait a couple of days with little for them to report they will have us planning a massive invasion of Ireland.


I say we invade Jamaica.Â*Â*After all they have the best herb!



How about China - they have 55 varieties of rice and tea.

[ECW]

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

You're dead on, Boogy.Â*Â*It's called contingency plans.Â*Â*There are basic plans and details for invading many different countries.

My favorite line that ECW ignored was this - "The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran"


And the part you so convieniently ignored was this: Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

Furthermore:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, told Rice, "No one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border."

"When our government lied to the American people and said, 'We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia,' in fact, we did," Hagel said, referring to the Vietnam war. "So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

It's not beyond the capabilities of this administration to lie their asses off to accomplish one of their goals. They've done it a thousand times. When Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, has a problem with your conduct, you're in deep doo doo.

PS - Piss and bitch at will about the source of the story because that's just the neocon style of Shooting The Messenger of bad news instead of addressing what the message actually said. Do that all you want. It doesn't change the story itself. Bring contrary proof that the story is wrong or shut up.

[BoogyMan]

And the part you so convieniently ignored was this: Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

This is priceless ECW. Fallacy at its finest. Make up a position and try to force it down someones throat. When they don't buy it or refuse to take the bait, accuse them of secretly maneuvering for just such an action based on their absence of commentary.

There may be a situation in which our country would have to make incursions across that border, but limited operations to stop the flow of terrorist reinforcements IS NOT PLANNING AN INVASION OF IRAN.

It's not beyond the capabilities of this administration to lie their asses off to accomplish one of their goals. They've done it a thousand times. When Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, has a problem with your conduct, you're in deep doo doo.

Sure they have ECW, egads man. This really isn't worth a well thought out response.

PS - Piss and bitch at will about the source of the story because that's just the neocon style of Shooting The Messenger of bad news instead of addressing what the message actually said. Do that all you want. It doesn't change the story itself. Bring contrary proof that the story is wrong or shut up.

If the story is complete and utter tripe ECW, it doesn't need to be reproved.

[Viper2]

ECW:
And the part you so convieniently ignored was this: Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

First of you should know, you never take any options off the table. That is sheer stupidity.

Look at Korea, China knew that our Air Force could not persue their MIGs past the Yalu River - so what did they do ?? You're smart, you know.

Additionally, if in fact Iran is proven complicit it is within the President's War Time Powers to go into Iran.

We all know you're against killing, however, sometimes it's a necessary evil - if you want to protect the way of life, and the freedoms and rights you enjoy.

"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent. Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."
Theodore Roosevelt

"The ship of Democracy, which has weathered all storms, may sink through the mutiny of those aboard."
Grover Cleveland

"Freedom! No word was ever spoken that held out greater hope, demanded greater sacrifice, needed more to be nurtured,
blessed more the giver, cursed more its destroyer, or came closer to being God's will on earth. And I think that's worth fighting for."
-General Omar N. Bradley, US Army

[Viper2]

BoogyMan:
This is priceless ECW. Fallacy at its finest. Make up a position and try to force it down someones throat. When they don't buy it or refuse to take the bait, accuse them of secretly maneuvering for just such an action based on their absence of commentary.

This is the way of the appeasement, pacifist liberal, plain and simple.

[Stoner]

PS - Piss and bitch at will about the source of the story because that's just the neocon style of Shooting The Messenger of bad news instead of addressing what the message actually said. Do that all you want. It doesn't change the story itself. Bring contrary proof that the story is wrong or shut up.


You should take your own advice.
Seems to me every time an article is shown to you that doesn't fit into your liberal/socialist agenda you whine about it being biased.

[slappy]

I'd be in favour of any military action that might a) diminish Iranian nuclear capability, b) diminish Iranian ability to provide manpower or equipment to...well just about anyone they'd wish to assist, c) diminish Iran's ability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping or neighboring oil facilities, and especially d) overthrow the brutal regime of the Mullahs and see a new generation of moderates seize real political power.

The wisdom of that last option would, of course, depend on the existence of a viable moderate political machine at the ready to take control. You'd want to be working with a very structured, pre-existing internal movement. This is very difficult to imagine right now, with political oppression inside Iran being what it is. Yet if such a group did exist and were well organized, I highly doubt we'd know about it.

At any rate, I dearly hope that plans for each of the above are being constantly discussed and updated.

[BoogyMan]

I'd be in favour of any military action that might a) diminish Iranian nuclear capability, b) diminish Iranian ability to provide manpower or equipment to...well just about anyone they'd wish to assist, c) diminish Iran's ability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping or neighboring oil facilities, and especially d) overthrow the brutal regime of the Mullahs and see a new generation of moderates seize real political power.

The wisdom of that last option would, of course, depend on the existence of a viable moderate political machine at the ready to take control. You'd want to be working with a very structured, pre-existing internal movement. This is very difficult to imagine right now, with political oppression inside Iran being what it is. Yet if such a group did exist and were well organized, I highly doubt we'd know about it.

At any rate, I dearly hope that plans for each of the above are being constantly discussed and updated.


Slappy this is excellent commentary and well reasoned. I had hoped we would see more from the moderates that were recently voted in beneath Ahmadinejad and their quest to unseat the xenophobic nut. Maybe we will see the political machine you speak of come into existence, maybe not. Appeasement certainly won't bring it about though.

[Nemo]

. . .

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)

[BoogyMan]

. . .

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)


Nemo, I sure would like to have you post some of your own commentary. :P

[Buck Laser]

. . .

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)


Nemo, I sure would like to have you post some of your own commentary. :P


Actually, I like Nemo's posts just fine. The literary citations are never strained, and I think they're probably more relevant than the reams of news stories that other posters use to pad their post counts.

[lily]

BoogyMan Wrote:

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

Um........that explains that ship parked in the Gulf Coast with patriot missels on it.

[lily]

Nemo, I sure would like to have you post some of your own commentary. :P


Oh he does, in fact you thanked him for it. Don't know which I prefer more. Either way, his quotes always fit in, sometimes better than what people post! Don't know how he does it.

[lily]

Nemo Wrote:
It would seem that the Republicans are beginning to break ranks over President Bush’s so-called “surge� plan. Certainly, Sen. Hagel’s scathing criticism was a blow to the White House. It does not bode well.

Going off topic here for a minute. I watched the Ceney interview last night. When Hagel was brought up, Cheney couldn't vilify him fast enough.

[Viper2]

PS - Piss and bitch at will about the source of the story because that's just the neocon style of Shooting The Messenger of bad news instead of addressing what the message actually said. Do that all you want. It doesn't change the story itself. Bring contrary proof that the story is wrong or shut up.


You should take your own advice.
Seems to me every time an article is shown to you that doesn't fit into your liberal/socialist agenda you whine about it being biased.


Ouch. "Shooting the Messenger" - that is a familiar statement from someone who I remember on another forum who when challenged by me would beg off and complain because I pulled a Patton - Attack, Attack and Attack some more.

[Viper2]

I'd be in favour of any military action that might a) diminish Iranian nuclear capability, b) diminish Iranian ability to provide manpower or equipment to...well just about anyone they'd wish to assist, c) diminish Iran's ability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping or neighboring oil facilities, and especially d) overthrow the brutal regime of the Mullahs and see a new generation of moderates seize real political power.

The wisdom of that last option would, of course, depend on the existence of a viable moderate political machine at the ready to take control.Â*Â*You'd want to be working with a very structured, pre-existing internal movement.Â*Â*This is very difficult to imagine right now, with political oppression inside Iran being what it is.Â*Â*Yet if such a group did exist and were well organized, I highly doubt we'd know about it.

At any rate, I dearly hope that plans for each of the above are being constantly discussed and updated.


Rest assured that between the DOD, CIA, NSA, MI every item you mentioned and a hell of a lot more are included in a myriad of contingincy operational plans both overt as well as covert.

[Viper2]

. . .

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)


One day a man went sailing, and about 20 miles off shore his boat sprung a leak and sank.

Regretfully, he had forgotten to put on his life-vest and couldn’t reach it in time, so he started to tread water.

Being in good physical shape he wasn’t worried – God will help me.
After about 10 minutes, a helicopter came by, and hovered, the pilot said can I help you? And the man replied no thanks God will help me. So the pilot went on his way.

About 20 minutes later a speedboat came by, stopped, and the woman said – here come aboard, to which the man replied, no thank you God will help me. The woman went on her merry way.

Approximately 40 minutes later a launch came by and the man said, here come aboard and I’ll give you some dry clothes and take you to shore, to which the man said, thank you very much, but God will help me, and the man sailed off into the sunset.

It has now been about 1 hour and 20 minutes that he has been treading water, and now realizes that his strength is exhausted. So with his last breath, he cries out God why have you forsaken me??
Well, a short time later, he comes before God, and asks Why didn’t you help me?

To which God replies, I sent a helicopter, then a speedboat, and finally a launch – what about my help didn’t you understand?????

[Viper2]

BoogyMan Wrote:

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

Um........that explains that ship parked in the Gulf Coast with patriot missels on it.


Would you prefer we hold our forces in Okinawa like Murtha wanted to do :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[lily]

Viper, I don't know what your attraction to Murtha is, but this is the second time you've thrown his name into a discussion out of the blue.[/align]

[Thirdparty]

There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

You're dead on, Boogy.Â*Â*It's called contingency plans.Â*Â*There are basic plans and details for invading many different countries.

My favorite line that ECW ignored was this - "The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran"


And the part you so convieniently ignored was this: Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

Furthermore:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, told Rice, "No one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border."

"When our government lied to the American people and said, 'We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia,' in fact, we did," Hagel said, referring to the Vietnam war. "So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

It's not beyond the capabilities of this administration to lie their asses off to accomplish one of their goals. They've done it a thousand times. When Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, has a problem with your conduct, you're in deep doo doo.

PS - Piss and bitch at will about the source of the story because that's just the neocon style of Shooting The Messenger of bad news instead of addressing what the message actually said. Do that all you want. It doesn't change the story itself. Bring contrary proof that the story is wrong or shut up.




ECW,

Please!! The US government has a contigency plan for everything, including probably invading Novia Scotia.

The fact they don't rule it out is smart, what if Iran lobs a fat one at Tel Aviv tomorrow? WW3, pal. And Bush or Rice doesn't want to be on tape saying they would never nuke Iran.

Hell, if they have nukes, and are going to use them, we better strike first.

[Thirdparty]

I'd be in favour of any military action that might a) diminish Iranian nuclear capability, b) diminish Iranian ability to provide manpower or equipment to...well just about anyone they'd wish to assist, c) diminish Iran's ability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping or neighboring oil facilities, and especially d) overthrow the brutal regime of the Mullahs and see a new generation of moderates seize real political power.

The wisdom of that last option would, of course, depend on the existence of a viable moderate political machine at the ready to take control.Â*Â*You'd want to be working with a very structured, pre-existing internal movement.Â*Â*This is very difficult to imagine right now, with political oppression inside Iran being what it is.Â*Â*Yet if such a group did exist and were well organized, I highly doubt we'd know about it.

At any rate, I dearly hope that plans for each of the above are being constantly discussed and updated.


If they have nukes, and they are hot, we have no option but surgical strikes, and if necessary, repave Tehran.

[Thirdparty]

I'd be in favour of any military action that might a) diminish Iranian nuclear capability, b) diminish Iranian ability to provide manpower or equipment to...well just about anyone they'd wish to assist, c) diminish Iran's ability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping or neighboring oil facilities, and especially d) overthrow the brutal regime of the Mullahs and see a new generation of moderates seize real political power.

The wisdom of that last option would, of course, depend on the existence of a viable moderate political machine at the ready to take control.Â*Â*You'd want to be working with a very structured, pre-existing internal movement.Â*Â*This is very difficult to imagine right now, with political oppression inside Iran being what it is.Â*Â*Yet if such a group did exist and were well organized, I highly doubt we'd know about it.

At any rate, I dearly hope that plans for each of the above are being constantly discussed and updated.


Slappy this is excellent commentary and well reasoned.Â*Â*I had hoped we would see more from the moderates that were recently voted in beneath Ahmadinejad and their quest to unseat the xenophobic nut.Â*Â*Maybe we will see the political machine you speak of come into existence, maybe not.Â*Â*Appeasement certainly won't bring it about though.


Amen to that. That Iranian leader is more dangerous than the wackbill in North Korea.

[ECW]

Please!! The US government has a contigency plan for everything, including probably invading Novia Scotia.

The fact they don't rule it out is smart, what if Iran lobs a fat one at Tel Aviv tomorrow? WW3, pal. And Bush or Rice doesn't want to be on tape saying they would never nuke Iran.

Hell, if they have nukes, and are going to use them, we better strike first.


If I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country. There are very few people that would not want to defend Israel against an attack by Iran but Iran isn't that stupid. They are aware that the Israelis probably have a nuke or two sitting around. Maybe more than that, come to think of it. Would you want to take that chance?

Iran is another story. They are a Shia majority country, just like Iraq. There are similarities between the two countries. Our forces have taken hostile action against an Iranian embassy in the last few weeks and made war even more likely. It IS an act of war, by international law, to attack another country's embassy. Given how poorly the war in Iraq is going so far, how much sense does it make to open up ANOTHER front in Iran?

I swear, the man won't be happy until the whole damn region is at war.

[Nemo]

It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had, or was in the process of acquiring for imminent use against the United States; and that when this was shown to be based on false intelligence, the invasion and occupation was then justified as a war against terrorism, to liberate Iraq from a oppressive regime, and spread democracy throughout the Middle East; for which thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were maimed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated, and made to be enemies of the United States and its allies, and formenting civil war.Â*Â*And now, having failed in Iraq, the President would lead us to war against Iran.Â*Â*It is a fool’s parade.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But America is winning in Iraq.
2. And as far as wars go we won the war in less than a week.
3. The thing we can never win in Iraq, is the peoples hearts.
4. And as a matter of fact they are an unruly people who can not be won over by anyone or anything, even their own welfare doesn't forbid themselves from attacking each other.
5. So the war was won, long ago, but within the ending of this war, the Iraqi people are caught within it, like a time tunnel.
6. All the same people were there before we got there, and after we exit will still be there, at some point, they will have to make up, just when they will, will be based on their own black hearts.
7. How much longer can the blackened hearts of the Iraqi's keep this up?
8. The reason they are so black in the first place is Saddam, and those other evil rulers and kings in that part of the world.
9. Unless they have a better reality put into place to build off of, they will never escape this reality that they are presently in.
10 Our President, George w. Bush, sees the big picture, perhaps almost as good as I, *The Great CWN *, what he has put into affect is the only way out of the maze of the time tunnel that the Iraqi people are in.
11. Who knows for sure, if these blackened heart people will find their way out of this maze, unless they get some help from Gawd, I would say that they are doomed as a Nation, and a people.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Stoner]

Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country.

You should start using facts in your posts. Would benefit all of us.

#1. A country does not need to attack you first to warrant an invasion.

#2. We broke no international laws. If Bush broke international laws he would be on trial.

[lily]

Thirdparty Wrote:
Please!! The US government has a contigency plan for everything, including
probably invading Novia Scotia.

The fact they don't rule it out is smart, what if Iran lobs a fat one at Tel
Aviv tomorrow? WW3, pal. And Bush or Rice doesn't want to be on tape saying
they would never nuke Iran.

Hell, if they have nukes, and are going to use them, we better strike first.

If they have nukes, and they are hot, we have no option but surgical
strikes, and if necessary, repave Tehran.

Well, TP I'm glad you said IF in both of your statements. The fact is Iran under the NPA has every right to develop nuclear power. We don't know if they are developing nuclear arms. I know you don't want to hear it, but after the mis-information about Iraq, the United States and Bush have lost credibility. No country will stand behind us. It would be a fiasco to go into Iraq on our own. I think deep in the back of your mind, after having been to Iraq that even you realize this.

Amen to that. That Iranian leader is more dangerous than the wackbill in
North Korea.

Is he or is the "Liberal Media", not writing as much about N. Korea as they used to?

You know from the past how against Bolton I was. Well, I admitted I was wrong about him long ago. He turned into quite the diplomat, especially about North Korea. Maybe that was his downfall. I'd say partisan politics, but even the Republicans wouldn't vote for him. What a loss, I think he could have made some progress. Even not on the "job" he is saying what a threat North Korea is and how the meetings will not work out.

At least in North Korea, we KNOW he has the bomb, he tested it. The only difference here is, Bush has said that N. Korea should be handled by China, Japan and Russia as they have the most to loose if an attack would come their way. Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he does pick his battles. Battles that he thinks might have a chance......and North Korea isn't one of them, since China and Russia no longer agree with us..........oh I long for the day when they did, but he squandered this too.

[Sherri]

We do not seem to aid ourselves, when we arm our "enemies" thru a Pentagon surplus sale;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/

It makes one wonder, "who is minding the store" ?

[lily]

Sorry bout that,

1. But America is winning in Iraq.
2. And as far as wars go we won the war in less than a week.
3. The thing we can never win in Iraq, is the peoples hearts.
4. And as a matter of fact they are an unruly people who can not be won over by anyone or anything, even their own welfare doesn't forbid themselves from attacking each other.
5. So the war was won, long ago, but within the ending of this war, the Iraqi people are caught within it, like a time tunnel.
6. All the same people were there before we got there, and after we exit will still be there, at some point, they will have to make up, just when they will, will be based on their own black hearts.
7. How much longer can the blackened hearts of the Iraqi's keep this up?
8. The reason they are so black in the first place is Saddam, and those other evil rulers and kings in that part of the world.
9. Unless they have a better reality put into place to build off of, they will never escape this reality that they are presently in.
10 Our President, George w. Bush, sees the big picture, perhaps almost as good as I, *The Great CWN *, what he has put into affect is the only way out of the maze of the time tunnel that the Iraqi people are in.
11. Who knows for sure, if these blackened heart people will find their way out of this maze, unless they get some help from Gawd, I would say that they are doomed as a Nation, and a people.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Chess, we may have been winning the war, but we're not now. Even Bush admitted it.

Yes the country is fighitng against itself, but this started with the bombing of the Golden Mosque. When that happend Bush refused to believe that now we were not only fighting insurgents, but we were in the middle of a civil war. SOmething might even have been done to stave off the condition that we are now in, but Maliki sided with al-Sadr, whether it be to keep his power or they share the same religion, I don't know, probably both. Just another blunder, or not listenting to what people said, who knows?

But then, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.......

[lily]

We do not seem to aid ourselves, when we arm our "enemies" thru a Pentagon surplus sale;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/

It makes one wonder, "who is minding the store" ?


Sherri......while I would love to get on board and be outraged right along with you, this article just proves how much we need to put our money towards our ports.:

A Defense Department official, Fred Baillie, said his agency followed procedures.

“The fact that those individuals chose to violate the law and the fact that the customs people caught them really indicates that the process is working,� said Baillie, the Defense Logistics Agency’s executive director of distribution. “Customs is supposed to check all exports to make sure that all the appropriate certifications and licenses had been granted.�

[ECW]

Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country.

You should start using facts in your posts.Â*Â*Would benefit all of us.

#1.Â*Â*A country does not need to attack you first to warrant an invasion.

#2.Â*Â*We broke no international laws.Â*Â*If Bush broke international laws he would be on trial.


If you were able to bring up actual citations to back those claims up, you would be posting more than an opinion.

On the other hand:

Most teachers of international law have said (16 International Law Professors "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian March 7, 2003) that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. In particular, the U.S. and members of the U.S.-led coalition have signed (and ratified in the case of the U.S.) the UN Charter and are therefore bound by it. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_-_Legitimacy)

I brought some proof.

And, oh yeah, my head hits the pillow each night dreaming of Chimpy on trial. Maybe we can impeach him.

[Stoner]

I brought some proof.



Haven't seen any yet. Let me know when you find this "proof".

[Thirdparty]

Please!! The US government has a contigency plan for everything, including probably invading Novia Scotia.

The fact they don't rule it out is smart, what if Iran lobs a fat one at Tel Aviv tomorrow? WW3, pal. And Bush or Rice doesn't want to be on tape saying they would never nuke Iran.

Hell, if they have nukes, and are going to use them, we better strike first.


If I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country. There are very few people that would not want to defend Israel against an attack by Iran but Iran isn't that stupid. They are aware that the Israelis probably have a nuke or two sitting around. Maybe more than that, come to think of it. Would you want to take that

I swear, the man won't be happy until the whole damn region is at war.



Ah, ECW , dead wrong. Remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/chance?

He has called for the annihilation of Israel and every Jew. Funny, isn't it, that we won't know if he would nuke Israel until it is done.

[Thirdparty]

Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country.

You should start using facts in your posts.Â*Â*Would benefit all of us.

#1.Â*Â*A country does not need to attack you first to warrant an invasion.

#2.Â*Â*We broke no international laws.Â*Â*If Bush broke international laws he would be on trial.


If you were able to bring up actual citations to back those claims up, you would be posting more than an opinion.

On the other hand:

Most teachers of international law have said (16 International Law Professors "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian March 7, 2003) that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. In particular, the U.S. and members of the U.S.-led coalition have signed (and ratified in the case of the U.S.) the UN Charter and are therefore bound by it. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_-_Legitimacy)

I brought some proof.

And, oh yeah, my head hits the pillow each night dreaming of Chimpy on trial. Maybe we can impeach him.


ECW,
HAHAHAHAHHAHHA! Oh, this is SO RICH! THe UN, which dithered for 10 years and allowed Sadaam to violate everything and everyone , is going to say we broke international law......ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn, that was funny!

[Thirdparty]

It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had, or was in the process of acquiring for imminent use against the United States; and that when this was shown to be based on false intelligence, the invasion and occupation was then justified as a war against terrorism, to liberate Iraq from a oppressive regime, and spread democracy throughout the Middle East; for which thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were maimed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated, and made to be enemies of the United States and its allies, and formenting civil war.Â*Â*And now, having failed in Iraq, the President would lead us to war against Iran.Â*Â*It is a fool’s parade.


#1. Five other major intelligence agencies also believed he had WMD's.
#2 You make out Abu Gharib to be the focal point of the war, when it was rogue soldiers. I know, I was there, in a war this size there will be problems, but to say US soldiers all do this , or even a majority, is a liberal fallacy.

3. Who says we have failed in Iraq? It might be the bottom of the ninth, but the war is NOT OVER YET, Nemo-although i know for liberals, they wish it were and we lost, so Bush can be humilated.

[Stoner]

Who says we have failed in Iraq?

Neolibs and the drive-by media.

[NortheastCynic]

Okay, I've heard the term "drive by media" from Rush Limbaugh, but never an explanation, someone wanna help me out here?

In addition, it's no secret that we're doing a terrible job in Iraq, failure, however, is a bit strong as it implies that our effort is over.

-NC

[Viper2]

Viper, I don't know what your attraction to Murtha is, but this is the second time you've thrown his name into a discussion out of the blue.[/align]


I only see once – anyway:

BoogyMan Wrote:
There is serious planning put into all kinds of scenarios that most likely will never happen

lily Wrote:
Um........that explains that ship parked in the Gulf Coast with patriot missels on it.

Viper2 Wrote:
Would you prefer we hold our forces in Okinawa like Murtha wanted to do

It has to do with the positioning of forces for action – and I cited Congressman Murtha’s solution which refers to “Cut & Run�

[Nemo]

Who says I’m a “liberal�? Because I decline to follow a fool for a leader, I’m a liberal? I think not.

[Viper2]

It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had, or was in the process of acquiring for imminent use against the United States; and that when this was shown to be based on false intelligence, the invasion and occupation was then justified as a war against terrorism, to liberate Iraq from a oppressive regime, and spread democracy throughout the Middle East; for which thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were maimed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated, and made to be enemies of the United States and its allies, and formenting civil war.Â*Â*And now, having failed in Iraq, the President would lead us to war against Iran.Â*Â*It is a fool’s parade.


http://www.boston.com/dailynews/188/wash/U_S_flies_radioactive_material:.shtml
U.S. flies radioactive material, suitable for dirty bomb, out of Iraq
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, 7/6/2004 19:45

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004

National Security & Defense
WMDs Found in Iraq
Posted Nov 9, 2005

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/secretweapons.shtml

Jackie -- February 10, 2003
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal
By GORDON THOMAS*
Herald Sun - Sunday 02-feb-03

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004

http://www.americandaily.com/article/359
Yes Saddam Did Have WMD's
By Doug Hagin (04/28/2004)

http://www.lampholderpub.com/new_page_62.htm
Saddam's hidden biological, chemical,
and other WMD's?
(from a year 2001 Lampholder Newsletter article)
In a June 10, 2002, London Times article, it was reported that
Saddam Hussein was using a Syrian/Mosul/Baghdad to Basra rail line
(under the cover of oil-for-food) to smuggle military equipment/WMD's into and out of Iraq.
Just last year [2001], another rail line was conveniently under construction to connect
both Syria and Iran to Iraq. (1)


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon
Weapons transferred to Syria before war, then to Bekaa Valley
Posted: May 20, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Oh well, in the face of facts.........................

[Viper2]

Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country.

You should start using facts in your posts.Â*Â*Would benefit all of us.

#1.Â*Â*A country does not need to attack you first to warrant an invasion.

#2.Â*Â*We broke no international laws.Â*Â*If Bush broke international laws he would be on trial.


The Democrats would be frothing at the mouth for impeachment - and they, the Democratic members of Congress also authorized the Iraq deployment.

[Nemo]

Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Is that proof of anything? Does the fact that Congress was sold a bill of good warrant their buying into the whole scam? As you quoted P.T. Barnum, surely we are suckers!

[Stoner]

Who says I’m a “liberalâ€�?Â*

Your actions and words.

[Nemo]

Really?Â*Â*My “actionsâ€� - what actions?Â*Â*My “wordsâ€� - what words?Â*Â*

No, you are wrong - I am not a liberal. I subscribe to the principles of the Whig Party Platform of 1852 (except Article Eighth which was rendered nugatory with the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in 1864, and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865).Â*Â*Mine was the party of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.Â*Â*The last person elected President from my party was General Zachary Taylor; Vice President Millard Fillmore, who succeeded Taylor on his untimely death in office, was not reelected.Â*Â*Suffice it to say that I am a very traditional conservative.

[Stoner]

Â*Suffice it to say that I am a very traditional conservative.


Possibly but your words and actions haven't supported it. I can say I am 8 feet tall but I'm not. I can say today is Friday, but it's not.

You shouldn't be ashamed of what you believe in. And it's not just you. I've noticed a lot of people on here who try to pretend they are independent by placing that tag under their affiliation. They do that to make people think they are unbias. But their actions and words reveal them very quickly.

[Nemo]

Your political partisanship has clouded your judgment. You would do well to shed some of your false perspectives, and look at things in the light of the truth.

[NortheastCynic]

Am I in the the wrong place? Is this a thread about Nemo's political leanings or a possible war with Iran?

-NC

[Nemo]

It is about the President's determination to precipitate a war with Iran. For many, this is a partisan issue - for me it is an issue of the survival of our democratic republic!

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with you Nemo. I don't believe that we should invade Iran [or any country] unless we know that that country has the means and desire to harm the United States and/or a strategic ally. If we determine that Iran fits those criteria, than by all means. blow the country to nothingness, until then, we should probably focus on that thing that's going on in Iraq.

Now, does that make me a liberal? No, it makes me a non-interventionalist, which isn't such a bad word given the fact that it's antithesis is neoconservative.

-NC

[bobbylien]

1. You're anti-war.

Please tell me who isn't anti-war.

[Viper2]

Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers?Â*Â*Is that proof of anything?Â*Â*Does the fact that Congress was sold a bill of good warrant their buying into the whole scam?Â*Â*As you quoted P.T. Barnum, surely we are suckers!


Actually, no - I've been critically analytical since 16.

Now, perhaps you would like to disprove the information contained in the sources that I provided, and I can provide more.

And I still have friends in the military with whom I am in contact with.

So, now you are claiming that the Democrats who voted to authorize President Bush to deploy the troops are "suckers" and were stupid to believe the intelligence reports of 5 or more other countries - interesting, since the Democrats are in control of Congress do we now have a bunch of all-day-suckers ???

[Viper2]

Your political partisanship has clouded your judgment.Â*Â*You would do well to shed some of your false perspectives, and look at things in the light of the truth.


And just what might the "truth" actually be ???

[Nemo]

As you believe yourself - even unto this day.

[Viper2]

Am I in the the wrong place?Â*Â*Is this a thread about Nemo's political leanings or a possible war with Iran?

-NC


I would conclude that it is a little of both, but interesting none the less.

"Know your enemy" Sun Tzu

[Viper2]

I'm with you Nemo.Â*Â*I don't believe that we should invade Iran [or any country] unless we know that that country has the means and desire to harm the United States and/or a strategic ally.Â*Â*If we determine that Iran fits those criteria, than by all means. blow the country to nothingness, until then, we should probably focus on that thing that's going on in Iraq.

Now, does that make me a liberal?Â*Â*No, it makes me a non-interventionalist, which isn't such a bad word given the fact that it's antithesis is neoconservative.

-NC


Consider your opinion heard and heeded. We aren't going anywhere unless absolutely necessary.

The option of "possible invasion" is being becried as if it was going to actually happen - it's an "option / contingency" plain and simple. However, those politically correct, appeasement minded panty-waisted wimps of society can't deal with reality, and would rather bury their head in the sand and hope that the problem disappears by the time they come up for air.

You never tell your enemy or possibly enemy that you will not react in certain ways, it only emboldens them - like the Chinese Communists during Korea.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir. Winston Churchill

[Viper2]

1.Â*Â*You're anti-war.

Please tell me who isn't anti-war.


That, IMHO, would depend upon the prevailing circumstances.

[Viper2]

As you believe yourself - even unto this day.


:D:D:D cop out :D:D:D

[NortheastCynic]

Agreed Viper, it would be unintelligent to say "this is what we aren't prepared to do" to your opponent, so in that way I'm with you there and on the flipside, I don't see a need to invade Iran currently...But it definitely makes sense to say we aren't rulling anything out.

-NC

[Nemo]

Cop out? No. It’s you who have sold out to the establishment - you who have given up your principles for politics. How bitter it shall be when you finally realize that you have been betrayed. Unhappily it will take a major military defeat to convince you of the failure of the Bush administration. It is coming; and soon.

[Thirdparty]

Who says we have failed in Iraq?

Neolibs and the drive-by media.


Agreed. They have already concluded it is a failure. It must be terrible to be them.

[Thirdparty]

It is about the President's determination to precipitate a war with Iran. For many, this is a partisan issue - for me it is an issue of the survival of our democratic republic!



If Iran Nukes Israel first, we wont' survive, Nemo. I would rather repave Teheran than put up with them striking first.

[Thirdparty]

And, ECW and others did not respond to the Adimajahad quote about Israel. He is hell bent on attacking Israel, and warming up the nukes now.

[BoogyMan]

And, ECW and others did not respond to the Adimajahad quote about Israel. He is hell bent on attacking Israel, and warming up the nukes now.


I have pointed out what a xenophobic nutjob Ahmadinejad is time and again on these forums and have seen the left of center poo poo the idea and some have even tried to defend him.

It gets extremely funny when they try to blame the actions of Ahmadinejad on the president.

[Thirdparty]

And, ECW and others did not respond to the Adimajahad quote about Israel. He is hell bent on attacking Israel, and warming up the nukes now.


I have pointed out what a xenophobic nutjob Ahmadinejad is time and again on these forums and have seen the left of center poo poo the idea and some have even tried to defend him.

It gets extremely funny when they try to blame the actions of Ahmadinejad on the president.


Yes, Boogy, evidently they fail to read what he has said about the Holocaust and Israel. Denial is more than a river in Africa!

[Elrathin]

He is hell bent on attacking Israel, and warming up the nukes now.


So we go to war over rhetoric? Sorry but I think his bark is worse than his bite. I am part of the school of thinking we take action when they do something and then we blow them off the face of the Earth using whatever means necessary. Otherwise you're just playing a guessing game with people lives and in the long run you may find out they weren't going to do a damn thing.

I don't think he is hell bent on destroying Israel as much as he is a media whore to get attention over saying it. As it is he doesn't have a strong hold on his own country and I don't think he is quite ready to go to Allah.

[Thirdparty]

I am not suggesting a pre-emptive strike for the hell of it. I am suggesting if the nukes get done and we have indication he is going to strike, THEN we have to take them out, minimizing the loss of civilian life (repaving Tehran was a tad over the top!)

The reality is the West CANNOT allow Iran or anyone else a nuclear first strike . It will end life as we know it. If there is going to be a mushroom cloud, let it be over there rather than in NYC or Chicago.

[Elrathin]

I am suggesting if the nukes get done and we have indication he is going to strike, THEN we have to take them out, minimizing the loss of civilian life (repaving Tehran was a tad over the top!)


I have no problem with that IF we have reliable information that he is going to use them, however, does possession of nukes alone warrant an attack when their enemies already possess them?

[slappy]

It's far from clear how strong or weak Ahmadinejad's grip on power is, and even farther from clear whether it makes one lick of difference who sits in his chair, from year to year. The Iranian nuclear program has been championed by so-called moderates like Rafsanjani, who has also been quoted with regard to taking Israel out with nukes. At any rate, the real power in Iran has always been the Mullahs, and while some of them may be too in love with their ill-gained wealth to wish for war, others are so fanatical that they may indeed wish for it. This latest face of the Islamic Republic is very likely just that...a face. Talk to an Iranian and he will tell you that nobody wins the Presidency in Iran unless the Mullahs want him to. Regardless of which individual or group truly pulls the strings, enough crazy talk has come out of enough of these various political puppets to justify a very, very defensive ongoing stance toward the nuclearization of Iran.

[BoogyMan]

I am suggesting if the nukes get done and we have indication he is going to strike, THEN we have to take them out, minimizing the loss of civilian life (repaving Tehran was a tad over the top!)


I have no problem with that IF we have reliable information that he is going to use them, however, does possession of nukes alone warrant an attack when their enemies already possess them?


Elrathin, I think you are missing some vital facts.

First, the enemies of Iran are NOT threatening the existence of the country of Iran. Specifically Israel has only threatened to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran to keep it from becoming a threat, they are not threatening to try and get rid of the country of Iran.

Secondly, Iran and Ahmadinejad on what seems to be an ever more frequent basis threatens the existence of the country of Israel.

So to address your question of "does possession of nukes alone warrant an attack when their enemies already possess them?" My answer would have to be a definitive yes.

[Viper2]

Agreed Viper, it would be unintelligent to say "this is what we aren't prepared to do" to your opponent, so in that way I'm with you there and on the flipside, I don't see a need to invade Iran currently...But it definitely makes sense to say we aren't rulling anything out.

-NC


Thank you for your support. Your opponent / enemy must nor know or learn what you are or are not going to do in any situation. This prevents them from taking advantage because you won't.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
Sun Tzu

Consider President reagan and the cold-war. Now, if Iran truely believes that we will if necessary turn it into the world's largest parking lot, etc., they just may come to their senses in time before all hell breaks loose - or even perhaps the students and young adult disitants may even revolt saving us the trouble.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with you 100% in that regard, you're absolutely right.

-NC

[Viper2]

Cop out?Â*Â*No.Â*Â*It’s you who have sold out to the establishment - you who have given up your principles for politics.Â*Â*How bitter it shall be when you finally realize that you have been betrayed.Â*Â*Unhappily it will take a major military defeat to convince you of the failure of the Bush administration.Â*Â*It is coming; and soon.



"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
Daniel Webster

"Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.

The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the Nation's defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid."
5-Star General of the Army Douglas MacArthur

[Viper2]

And, ECW and others did not respond to the Adimajahad quote about Israel. He is hell bent on attacking Israel, and warming up the nukes now.


I have pointed out what a xenophobic nutjob Ahmadinejad is time and again on these forums and have seen the left of center poo poo the idea and some have even tried to defend him.

It gets extremely funny when they try to blame the actions of Ahmadinejad on the president.


The Democrats can't even agree on how to deal with Iraq now that what they wanted has been given them - Congress - so what makes anyone think they can agree on Iran or even North Korea.

Murtha will probably say "redeploy to Iceland" :rolleyes:

[Viper2]

Thirdparty:
Yes, Boogy, evidently they fail to read what he has said about the Holocaust and Israel. Denial is more than a river in Africa!

You got that right. It's sad in a way to listen to these appeasement types attempt to put up a strong front, all the while their knees are knocking so hard their teeth are chattering.

"A universal peace, it is to be feared, is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts."
James Madison, essay in the National Gazette, February 2, 1792

[Viper2]

Elrathin:
So we go to war over rhetoric? Sorry but I think his bark is worse than his bite. I am part of the school of thinking we take action when they do something and then we blow them off the face of the Earth using whatever means necessary. Otherwise you're just playing a guessing game with people lives and in the long run you may find out they weren't going to do a damn thing.

Without posting countless articles which disprove your conclusion, may I ask you a question ??

Have you been reading up on Ahmadinejad's actions aside from his rhetoric ??? IMHO, it would be a good idea because you would be more informed.

I don't think he is hell bent on destroying Israel as much as he is a media whore to get attention over saying it. As it is he doesn't have a strong hold on his own country and I don't think he is quite ready to go to Allah.

Are you completely and absolutely willing to bet your life, and those of your family and loved ones on that assumption ?????

[Viper2]

I'm with you 100% in that regard, you're absolutely right.

-NC


All right, Lock & Load - Go In Hot - Take no Prisoners :D:D

[Thirdparty]

It's far from clear how strong or weak Ahmadinejad's grip on power is, and even farther from clear whether it makes one lick of difference who sits in his chair, from year to year. The Iranian nuclear program has been championed by so-called moderates like Rafsanjani, who has also been quoted with regard to taking Israel out with nukes. At any rate, the real power in Iran has always been the Mullahs, and while some of them may be too in love with their ill-gained wealth to wish for war, others are so fanatical that they may indeed wish for it. This latest face of the Islamic Republic is very likely just that...a face. Talk to an Iranian and he will tell you that nobody wins the Presidency in Iran unless the Mullahs want him to. Regardless of which individual or group truly pulls the strings, enough crazy talk has come out of enough of these various political puppets to justify a very, very defensive ongoing stance toward the nuclearization of Iran.


Good point slappy. By the time the Mullahs have their way, Israel will be in ashes.

[Thirdparty]

I am suggesting if the nukes get done and we have indication he is going to strike, THEN we have to take them out, minimizing the loss of civilian life (repaving Tehran was a tad over the top!)


I have no problem with that IF we have reliable information that he is going to use them, however, does possession of nukes alone warrant an attack when their enemies already possess them?


Well, Israel took out the Osirak reactor in Iraq in the 90's or late 80's-oh, I forgot, Saddam had no WMD.....anyway, when they took out that reactor, it was pre-emptive. I say the same goes with Iran. Take them out in strikes that are limited to the weapons.

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

[lily]

It's far from clear how strong or weak Ahmadinejad's grip on power is, and even farther from clear whether it makes one lick of difference who sits in his chair, from year to year. The Iranian nuclear program has been championed by so-called moderates like Rafsanjani, who has also been quoted with regard to taking Israel out with nukes. At any rate, the real power in Iran has always been the Mullahs, and while some of them may be too in love with their ill-gained wealth to wish for war, others are so fanatical that they may indeed wish for it. This latest face of the Islamic Republic is very likely just that...a face. Talk to an Iranian and he will tell you that nobody wins the Presidency in Iran unless the Mullahs want him to. Regardless of which individual or group truly pulls the strings, enough crazy talk has come out of enough of these various political puppets to justify a very, very defensive ongoing stance toward the nuclearization of Iran.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, Slappy..........are you advocating going to war over a bunch of words?




Good point slappy. By the time the Mullahs have their way, Israel will be in ashes.



Thirdparty........as we found out in the summer, Israel is more than capable of taking care of herself.

[ECW]

Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country.

You should start using facts in your posts.Â*Â*Would benefit all of us.

#1.Â*Â*A country does not need to attack you first to warrant an invasion.

#2.Â*Â*We broke no international laws.Â*Â*If Bush broke international laws he would be on trial.


If you were able to bring up actual citations to back those claims up, you would be posting more than an opinion.

On the other hand:

Most teachers of international law have said (16 International Law Professors "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian March 7, 2003) that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. In particular, the U.S. and members of the U.S.-led coalition have signed (and ratified in the case of the U.S.) the UN Charter and are therefore bound by it. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_-_Legitimacy)

I brought some proof.

And, oh yeah, my head hits the pillow each night dreaming of Chimpy on trial. Maybe we can impeach him.


ECW,
HAHAHAHAHHAHHA! Oh, this is SO RICH! THe UN, which dithered for 10 years and allowed Sadaam to violate everything and everyone , is going to say we broke international law......ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn, that was funny!


Two wrongs don't make a right. Sorry. The fact that Saddam was wrong is no justification to also do wrong. Glad you find illegal wars so damn funny.

[ECW]

I brought some proof.



Haven't seen any yet.Â*Â*Let me know when you find this "proof".


It was in the link but I guess you were stoned and you missed it.

[ECW]

Please!! The US government has a contigency plan for everything, including probably invading Novia Scotia.

The fact they don't rule it out is smart, what if Iran lobs a fat one at Tel Aviv tomorrow? WW3, pal. And Bush or Rice doesn't want to be on tape saying they would never nuke Iran.

Hell, if they have nukes, and are going to use them, we better strike first.


If I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein, the guy that was made out to be a Third World Hitler, did not attack us before we broke international law to invade his country. There are very few people that would not want to defend Israel against an attack by Iran but Iran isn't that stupid. They are aware that the Israelis probably have a nuke or two sitting around. Maybe more than that, come to think of it. Would you want to take that chance?

I swear, the man won't be happy until the whole damn region is at war.



Ah, ECW , dead wrong. Remember this?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/chance?

He has called for the annihilation of Israel and every Jew. Funny, isn't it, that we won't know if he would nuke Israel until it is done.


Like I said, knowing that Israel has nukes will stop him cold. Ahmadinejad can talk shite all he wants. Saddam did and half the fools in this country believed him. If he had them he would have already been bragging about them. He doesn't and they are not close to making them. His talk is Muslim bravado and nothing more.

Iran and Syria are bosom buddies. Most of their anti-Israeli talk is to please the Syrians and bolster their standing. That whole area is rapidly becoming a cauldron because of our failed Iraq policy. Looking for trouble in Iran is a sure fire way to make sure it all goes south permanently.

[Stoner]

Haven't seen any yet. Let me know when you find this "proof".


It was in the link but I guess you were stoned and you missed it.

Oh, you mean that partisan, unsupported, left-wing opinion was "proof"????????

LOL, ok.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But last time we had a Hitler type in power, a lot of leaders at that time when Adolf wiped out 6 million Jews, and another 5 million or so in Russia and other places, those in power didn't do enough to stop it, when things started looking bad.
2. They gave a supposed good reason to stay in their homes, and let what happened happen.
3. Now that the World has Nuclear power, is this wise?
4. Not that I think Iran has it yet, I don't think they do, but still what if they some how buy a few from Russia or China?
5. Some people in Iran would be killing each other for the honor of driving a nuclear device into Israel by truck.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Thirdparty]

[quote=Thirdparty]
[quote=ECW]
[quote=Thirdparty]
Please!! The US government has a contigency plan for everything, including probably invading Novia Scotia.

The fact they don't rule it out is smart, what if Iran lobs a fat one at Tel Aviv tomorrow? WW3, pal. And Bush or Rice doesn't want to be on tape saying they would never nuke Iran.

Hell, if they have nukes, and are going to use them, we better strike first.



Iraq had nukes to at Osirak, which I have pointed out in several threads. Waiting and trusting Iran is not an option to me. We must be ready to strike if they go ahead with nuclear warheads.


You may trust Bush less than the leader of Iran, I don't.

[slappy]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Slappy..........are you advocating going to war over a bunch of words?
Words by themselves seldom justify preemptive action, but words and behaviour together can constitute such an unreasonable risk to another person (or another state) so as to justify a defensive first move.

Note that I said first "move" and not first "strike". A first move can be a rather minor show of military strength. It has been suggested that, had the French merely blocked Hitler's forces from entering the Rhineland in 1936--something that would not have been so difficult to pull of at that early stage of German rearmament--the political repercussions for Hitler in Germany might have been so disastrous as to utterly change the course of the next ten years in Europe.

If Iran gets much closer to developing nuclear capability, I feel that some manner of first move is absolutely required, absent a revolution and overthrow of the Mullahs. I dearly hope, as I'm sure all of us dearly hope, that Iran will see a radical transformation of its political landscape sooner rather than later (hopefully not too late!). Indeed, it may well be that some degree of showdown with Ahmadinejad (or whomever eventually replaces him) will spark some sort of youth counterrevolution in Iran and we'll see the entire Islamic Republic torn down from within.

It may be, of course, that something much less than a showdown will be required, along the lines of Israel's plans to take out certain nuclear facilities without engaging the Iranian army or navy at all. However, it may also transpire that the Mullahs, for whatever reason, decide to push for a real confrontation with Israel and/or the West (and/or the Saudis!), involving Iraq, involving the Persian Gulf or perhaps something else.

In that event, unless the rising tensions spur Iran's young people to take control of their country and their future, it could very well be necessary to shoot down Iranian planes, sink Iranian ships and kill Iranian soldiers. I don't necessarily mean full scale invasion, I certainly don't mean occupation and regime change from without, but I definitely take seriously the notion that Iran presents a real threat to just about every interest the West has in that region, and I think that we should take their words very seriously when we decide how to respond to their actions.

[Elrathin]

Slappy what "first move" would you say could be used against Iran if they develop a nuke that isn't bombing them?

You used the example of blocking Hitler's forces, but how do you block a nuke without using military force within the country?

[slappy]

I'm no military tactician, but I can imagine a range of first moves from blockades and no-fly zones to limited airstrikes on missile and nuclear enrichment facilities. Perhaps the sinking of one ship or the bombing of one airfield could send the right message. Perhaps a much more crippling blow might need to be dealt to Iran's war machine. My main point is that hostile/crazy rhetoric does and ought to figure into the calculations when we're talking about deciding to make that first move, whatever it might be. Regular Iranians need to see a cause and effect relationship between the attitudes of the people who run their country and the real possibility of war. So, for that matter, do the more pragmatic mullahs who do run the country, to a large extent.

[slappy]

Wait, sorry. I misunderstood your question. You mean do I think we can avoid bombing them if they actually develop a nuke?

I think that it might be too late for bombing once they develop a nuke. It might then be too late for anything other than the sort of MAD policy mentioned by Buck either in this thread or elsewhere. Unfortunately, some of the Mullahs aren't clearly the usual type of person who would be deterred by a nuclear threat. Some of them may be as anxious to meet their maker in a blaze of glory as any typical suicide bomber. After all, the reasoning is basically the same.

My position mainly concerns ways to prevent Iran from ever possessing a nuclear weapon. I'd rather not contemplate the failure of that project too intently just yet.

[lily]

Slappy, the problem I have with your arguement and others that are eager to have the first strike is there is no proof. Like it or not Iran did sign the NPA and they have every right to pursue nuclear power. I know people don't like to hear it, but Bush squandered away all credibility and good will this country had with other countries. No one is going to take his word on anything after Iraq.

Is Ahmadinejad crazy? I have no doubt that somewhere in Iran, people are doing the very same thing we are, typing and saying the same thing. Is Bush crazy? The USA needs a regime change.

I'm sorry, just saying the words Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, does not give anyone the right to bomb Iran. They are just words. As I've said many times, Isreal is perfectly capable of taking care of herself. As we found out this past summer, when we didn't say anything, the rest of the world is tired of Israel fighting with it's neighbors. Yes Israel has a right to exist, but so does Palestine.

Iran has made attempt after attempt to talk to this country, up to and including asking Saudi Arabia to intervene. Bush sees diplomacy as a sign of weakness.

Either way, IMO things are going to escalate as there is no other way to leave Iraq.

One thing I think we both can agree on, is it's going to be up to the youth in both countries to improve things and that's really a shame.

[BoogyMan]

Slappy, the problem I have with your arguement and others that are eager to have the first strike is there is no proof. Like it or not Iran did sign the NPA and they have every right to pursue nuclear power. I know people don't like to hear it, but Bush squandered away all credibility and good will this country had with other countries. No one is going to take his word on anything after Iraq.

Lily, I am quite sure that you don't know what proof the government actually does have that Iran is working towards a nuclear payload and a delivery capability for it.

I also know that many other countries intelligence said the same things ours did, a FACT that your side of the isle tends to try to sweep under the rug.

Is Ahmadinejad crazy? I have no doubt that somewhere in Iran, people are doing the very same thing we are, typing and saying the same thing. Is Bush crazy? The USA needs a regime change.

Yes, Ahmadinejad is a nut! I find it very telling that you can equate the president and Ahmadinejad. Very telling.

I'm sorry, just saying the words Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, does not give anyone the right to bomb Iran. They are just words. As I've said many times, Isreal is perfectly capable of taking care of herself. As we found out this past summer, when we didn't say anything, the rest of the world is tired of Israel fighting with it's neighbors. Yes Israel has a right to exist, but so does Palestine.

Ahmadinejad threatening Israel on a daily basis and doing so publicly helps to whip up hatred toward Israel among the other radical anti Israel factions in Iran and the surrounding countries that are all too willing to take action on their hatred.

The rest of the world is tired of seeing Israel fight with its neighbors? Egads, Lily I guess Israel just goes out there and picks on those people hoping to start something?

What does that old tired reference to Palestine have to do with this line of argumentation?

Iran has made attempt after attempt to talk to this country, up to and including asking Saudi Arabia to intervene. Bush sees diplomacy as a sign of weakness.

Either way, IMO things are going to escalate as there is no other way to leave Iraq.

One thing I think we both can agree on, is it's going to be up to the youth in both countries to improve things and that's really a shame.


Bush doesn't see diplomacy as a sign of weakness, he sees Iran stalling and looking for every delay tactic it can to get those centrifuges into place and producing.

[lily]

Lily, I am quite sure that you don't know what proof the government actually does have that Iran is working towards a nuclear payload and a delivery capability for it.

You're right, I don't know Boogy, and for the record, neither do you, it doesn't change the fact that Bush has no credibility . No country is going to fall for this a second time.

I also know that many other countries intelligence said the same things ours did, a FACT that your side of the isle tends to try to sweep under the rug.

Yep......and you know what? Soon we'll find out what was fact and what was cherry picked. It doesn't matter if the whole world saw the same information, if the information was cherry picked. Do the words yellow cake ring a bell?


Yes, Ahmadinejad is a nut!Â*Â*I find it very telling that you can equate the president and Ahmadinejad.Â*Â*Very telling.

I'm not sure, is this suppose to bother me?


Ahmadinejad threatening Israel on a daily basis and doing so publicly helps to whip up hatred toward Israel among the other radical anti Israel factions in Iran and the surrounding countries that are all too willing to take action on their hatred.

Boogy.........Israel does a fine job all by themselves.Â*

What does that old tired reference to Palestine have to do with this line of argumentation?

How many times has Israel invaded Palestine? Every one makes it seem Israel is the sweet little sister that can do no wrong. Speak against Israel and you get labeld an anti-semite. (No I'm not saying you did, it happens though)



Bush doesn't see diplomacy as a sign of weakness, he sees Iran stalling and looking for every delay tactic it can to get those centrifuges into place and producing.

Well........that's our opinion. Obviously I don't agree.

[ECW]

Haven't seen any yet.Â*Â*Let me know when you find this "proof".


It was in the link but I guess you were stoned and you missed it.

Oh, you mean that partisan, unsupported, left-wing opinion was "proof"????????

LOL, ok.


Since you obviously didn't click on the word "link" in my original post to see that what was posted therein was not my opinion but a citation, my original assertion stands. See, when you want to counter an argument, an "Oh, yeah?" post doesn't cut it. You have to bring something that counters what I posted and you did not do that. I guess you were stoned and you missed it.

[BoogyMan]

You're right, I don't know Boogy, and for the record, neither do you, it doesn't change the fact that Bush has no credibility . No country is going to fall for this a second time.

Hahahhahahah. No credibility eh? We shall see.

Yep......and you know what? Soon we'll find out what was fact and what was cherry picked. It doesn't matter if the whole world saw the same information, if the information was cherry picked. Do the words yellow cake ring a bell?

I hate to tell you this, but Bush cannot tell other governments intelligence agencies what to believe or what their intelligence means. I can't wait until you start saying that the armchair quarterbacking part-time hawks in the democrat party who were for going into Iraq were just mislead by Bush.

I'm not sure, is this suppose to bother me?

Nope. :D Just an observation.

Boogy.........Israel does a fine job all by themselves.

You are right, they do. My commentary in this regard is that is speaks to the state of mind of the nut in charge of Iran who is now thumbing his nose at the U.N. and pressing ahead with the production of nuclear fuel. I know you would like to make this about Israel, but it is about a xenophobic crazy person who fancies himself to be the man to bring about the appearance of the hidden imam.

How many times has Israel invaded Palestine? Every one makes it seem Israel is the sweet little sister that can do no wrong. Speak against Israel and you get labeld an anti-semite. (No I'm not saying you did, it happens though)

Nobody called you an anti-semite Lily, you might be going a bit overboard there. How many times has Israel been attacked by those around her who refuse to recognize her right to exist? When Israel goes into other areas of palestine there is usually a VERY good reason such as bombings, rocket attacks, etc.

Well........that's our opinion. Obviously I don't agree.


So you are actually going to tell me that there are NOT thousands of centrifuges being installed at a feverish pace in Iran, or are you talking about the part where you overlay your hatred for Bush onto the truth to get the outcome you want to see?

[lily]

Hahahhahahah.Â*Â*No credibility eh?Â*Â*We shall see.

Well, Boogy I guess we're even. I find it telling that you think this is funny. People's lives depend on it.


I hate to tell you this, but Bush cannot tell other governments intelligence agencies what to believe or what their intelligence means.

Yes, and I hate to tell you this......the rest of the world used to think when the President of the United States said something, then it was true. Yes, other countries had intelligence, but not the same as we did. Also other countries intellignece that didn't match Bush's was totally ignored.

I can't wait until you start saying that the armchair quarterbacking part-time hawks in the democrat party who were for going into Iraq were just mislead by Bush.

One last time.........if the intelligence you are getting is not the whole story and what an administration wants you to believe, how else are you going to make a decision? With the hearings that will soon be taking place, we will find out what we weren't told.......that is if a pundit doesn't take one sentence and spin it out of control, to distract from what is really being asked and answered. You know, the Rovepublicans. It's not like it hasn't happened already.



You are right, they do.Â*Â*My commentary in this regard is that is speaks to the state of mind of the nut in charge of Iran who is now thumbing his nose at the U.N. and pressing ahead with the production of nuclear fuel.Â*Â*I know you would like to make this about Israel, but it is about a xenophobic crazy person who fancies himself to be the man to bring about the appearance of the hidden imam.

I don't care how freikling crazy he is......it doesn't change the fact that as a signer on the NPA, he has every right to produce fuel.


Nobody called you an anti-semite Lily, you might be going a bit overboard there.Â*Â*How many times has Israel been attacked by those around her who refuse to recognize her right to exist?Â*Â*When Israel goes into other areas of palestine there is usually a VERY good reason such as bombings, rocket attacks, etc.

......and when Palestine goes into Isreal, in their minds they have a VERY good reason also.



So you are actually going to tell me that there are NOT thousands of centrifuges being installed at a feverish pace in Iran, or are you talking about the part where you overlay your hatred for Bush onto the truth to get the outcome you want to see?

your hatred for Bush ::skip::
your hatred for Bush ::skip::
your hatred for Bush ::skip::
your hatred for Bush ::skip::

Broken record. You can't differentiate a difference of opinion and have to pull out this old tired tactic, sad.

[BoogyMan]

Well, Boogy I guess we're even. I find it telling that you think this is funny. People's lives depend on it.

It is not funny, but the use of the old "he has no credibility anywhere in the world" skreed is.

Yes, and I hate to tell you this......the rest of the world used to think when the President of the United States said something, then it was true. Yes, other countries had intelligence, but not the same as we did. Also other countries intellignece that didn't match Bush's was totally ignored.

See the above commentary.

One last time.........if the intelligence you are getting is not the whole story and what an administration wants you to believe, how else are you going to make a decision? With the hearings that will soon be taking place, we will find out what we weren't told.......that is if a pundit doesn't take one sentence and spin it out of control, to distract from what is really being asked and answered. You know, the Rovepublicans. It's not like it hasn't happened already.

You used a very good word there Lily, the word is IF. I guess we will both be waiting for some answers.

I don't care how freikling crazy he is......it doesn't change the fact that as a signer on the NPA, he has every right to produce fuel.

You WILL care some day in the near future, I can assure you.

......and when Palestine goes into Isreal, in their minds they have a VERY good reason also.

Equivocation of terror? I think so.

your hatred for Bush ::skip::
your hatred for Bush ::skip::
your hatred for Bush ::skip::
your hatred for Bush ::skip::

Broken record. You can't differentiate a difference of opinion and have to pull out this old tired tactic, sad.


Bush is an evil scumbag ::skip::
Bush is an evil scumbag ::skip::
Bush is an evil scumbag ::skip::

Broken record. You can't differentiate a difference of opinion and have to pull out this old tired tactic, sad.

<Great Big Grin>

[ECW]

Bush is an evil scumbag ::skip::
Bush is an evil scumbag ::skip::
Bush is an evil scumbag ::skip::


You've finally said something I agree with. http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-14843.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[slappy]

Slappy, the problem I have with your arguement and others that are eager to have the first strike is there is no proof.
I'm not eager to have a first strike. Far from it. I'm simply extremely wary of a nation whose government is motivated, at least in part, by a fanatical religious agenda. When a religious fundamentalist starts talking about wiping countries off the map and declaring the censure of the world community to be mere scraps of paper, I get worried. I think that country has to be watched very carefully, and --just as a man with a history of mental illness ought not to be allowed to own a gun-- a nation with the potential for "mental illness" ought not to be allowed to own technology that can fairly easily be turned into nuclear weapons capacity.

Like it or not Iran did sign the NPA and they have every right to pursue nuclear power.
With all due respect, no they don't. All countries are not equal. Ideologues scare me. Ideologues from undemocratic, theocratic regimes scare me a lot. Ideologues from undemocratic, theocratic regimes with nuclear ambitions terrify me beyond description.

One thing I think we both can agree on, is it's going to be up to the youth in both countries to improve things and that's really a shame.
Well, there is hope that enough members of the current ruling class are corrupt (from the Islamic revolution POV) that they will somehow change the course that Ahmadinejad currently has Iran on. While I'd far prefer to see real democratic revolution take hold in Iran, I'd be satisfied to see sufficient evidence that the balance of power inside the Council of Guardians has firmly tilted in favour of the greedy pragmatists. :)

[lily]

I'm not eager to have a first strike.Â*Â*Far from it.Â*Â*I'm simply extremely wary of a nation whose government is motivated, at least in part, by a fanatical religious agenda.Â*Â*When a religious fundamentalist starts talking about wiping countries off the map and declaring the censure of the world community to be mere scraps of paper, I get worried.Â*Â*I think that country has to be watched very carefully,

Well then by those standards We should now attackÂ*Â*VenezuelaÂ*Â*since Chavez told us "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!" Or is there a double standard, because we accept lowered oil prices for our poor. They are just words. Words I might add that after using them over and over he knows will get attention. I'm not saying he doesn't need to be kept an eye on. What I am saying is this once a month sabre rattling is long past old and has lost it's effectiveness. One country can NOT go into another country and either do a regime change or bomb them, without expecting reprecussions.

I do have to laugh at your scraps of paper comment though. First thing that came to my mind was Bush saying the constitution was just a piece of paper.


--just as a man with a history of mental illness ought not to be allowed to own a gun-- a nation with the potential for "mental illness" ought not to be allowed to own technology that can fairly easily be turned into nuclear weapons capacity.

Sadly, that's how other countries now view us.

With all due respect, no they don't.Â*Â*All countries are not equal.Â*Â*Ideologues scare me.Â*Â*Ideologues from undemocratic, theocratic regimes scare me a lot.Â*Â*Ideologues from undemocratic, theocratic regimes with nuclear ambitions terrify me beyond description.

No, all countries are not equal and I think I can understand where you are coming from, since this administration has totally disregarded other treaties, when it didn't suit their purpose.


On a total side point......I still have not read an article where Halliburton closed up shop and came home. Why is an American company still doing business and making money for a country that we don't trust?

[BoogyMan]

Well then by those standards We should now attack Venezuela since Chavez told us "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!" Or is there a double standard, because we accept lowered oil prices for our poor. They are just words. Words I might add that after using them over and over he knows will get attention. I'm not saying he doesn't need to be kept an eye on. What I am saying is this once a month sabre rattling is long past old and has lost it's effectiveness. One country can NOT go into another country and either do a regime change or bomb them, without expecting reprecussions.

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the commentary at which it is directed lily. Once a month? LOLOLOL You don't read much on this particular topic do you?

Sadly, that's how other countries now view us.

Conjecture? Sure is. :D

No, all countries are not equal and I think I can understand where you are coming from, since this administration has totally disregarded other treaties, when it didn't suit their purpose.

All countries are NOT equal. Especially not a country whose leadership fancies itself the harbinger of the apocalypse.

[slappy]

When a religious fundamentalist starts talking about wiping countries off the map and declaring the censure of the world community to be mere scraps of paper, I get worried. I think that country has to be watched very carefully,
Well then by those standards We should now attack Venezuela since Chavez told us "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"
I'm afraid you've lost me. Hugo Chavez does not meet the "standards" I set out above. He is neither a religious findamentalist, nor has he threatened (AFAIK) any of his neighbours with extermination. He's goofy, though, I'll give you that.

[Elrathin]

Change Lily's example from Chavez to North Korea's leader and her point is quite valid.

[lily]

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the commentary at which it is directed lily. Once a month? LOLOLOL You don't read much on this particular topic do you?

I must not according to you.........but I did read some silly article that states the Ayatollah was going to replace him and another article where it states they were going to impeach him. So if the shoe fits......

[lily]

I'm afraid you've lost me.Â*Â*Hugo Chavez does not meet the "standards" I set out above.Â*Â*He is neither a religious findamentalist, nor has he threatened (AFAIK) any of his neighbours with extermination.Â*Â*He's goofy, though, I'll give you that.


My point was, and still is, Slappy......that they are just words.

[BoogyMan]

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the commentary at which it is directed lily. Once a month? LOLOLOL You don't read much on this particular topic do you?

I must not according to you.........but I did read some silly article that states the Ayatollah was going to replace him and another article where it states they were going to impeach him. So if the shoe fits......


I think I posted the article here about a faction of his government trying to impeach him, I cannot seem to find it now though.

[slappy]

Change Lily's example from Chavez to North Korea's leader and her point is quite valid.

He's a nut off a different tree, but I take your point. Still, wouldn't it have been wise to prevent the nuclearization of the DPRK if it could have been done without triggering the obliteration of Seoul in the process?