The Iran Thread

[Tron5000]

that's awesome... the man is running for president, with little more than this war that he so wholeheartedly supports as his main selling point, and he can't even get that right.

he's honestly just banking on the fact that everyone who voted for bush, and still supports him will see him as 'the next best thing' and vote for him because he's the only one who won't pull out.

yay! 4-8 more years of the same old crap!

It's not "4 more years of the same old crap." McCain is a war hero, has carved his own niche in the political spectrum in his 40 years of public service, and has butted heads with Bush on a great deal of issues, both during the 2000 election and in the 8 years that Bush has occupied the Oval Office.

The 2 men differ greatly. To equate them to one another both marginalizes McCain's beliefs and adds credence to those of Bush.

[Mr. Credible]

It's not "4 more years of the same old crap." McCain is a war hero, has carved his own niche in the political spectrum in his 40 years of public service, and has butted heads with Bush on a great deal of issues, both during the 2000 election and in the 8 years that Bush has occupied the Oval Office.

The 2 men differ greatly. To equate them to one another both marginalizes McCain's beliefs and adds credence to those of Bush.

mark my words: if mccain gets elected, nothing will change. gas prices will steadily rise, the economy will steadily fall, we'll spend another trillion dollars a year that we don't have on this pointless war, the rich will get tax breaks while average joe will take it up the pooper, and so on and so forth.

bush and mccain may differ on a few small points, but not nearly enough to make any kind of difference.

[rdh007]

It's not "4 more years of the same old crap." McCain is a war hero, has carved his own niche in the political spectrum in his 40 years of public service, and has butted heads with Bush on a great deal of issues, both during the 2000 election and in the 8 years that Bush has occupied the Oval Office.

The 2 men differ greatly. To equate them to one another both marginalizes McCain's beliefs and adds credence to those of Bush.

But McCain's bent over and played the party line for the last six years, saying that Bush is great. (Or all but saying that) His maverick status is lost.

Additionally, he's spent the primary more or less promising more of the same.

All in all, McCain 2008 sucks. I voted for the guy in our primary in 2000 because I thought he'd make a good adversary for Gore and I'd actually have to decide when I entered the voting booth. That is no longer the case.

[Tron5000]

mark my words: if mccain gets elected, nothing will change. gas prices will steadily rise, the economy will steadily fall, we'll spend another trillion dollars a year that we don't have on this pointless war, the rich will get tax breaks while average joe will take it up the pooper, and so on and so forth.

bush and mccain may differ on a few small points, but not nearly enough to make any kind of difference.

"The rich" are the people who supply jobs to this country. You ever been offered a job by a poor dude?

Gas prices rise muuuuuuuch slower than do the prices of most consumer products (due to inflation). We should consider ourselves lucky that gas is not more expensive than it is.

The economy will be fine. A free-market economy will always fix itself. Don't be confused; our country is not currently experiencing a recession, it is going through a market correction. Big difference between the two.

[Mr Sparkle]

You guys are acting like McCain is crazy and senile. He is far up in age (comparing him to previous presidents), but the man has his faculties about him. It's not like dude has Alzheimer's or anything.

yeah, you guys are just exaggerating, and if we have learned anything from these past elections is that exaggeration has no place in politics!:cmad:

[Superman4ever]

You guys are acting like McCain is crazy and senile. He is far up in age (comparing him to previous presidents), but the man has his faculties about him. It's not like dude has Alzheimer's or anything.

I'm not saying he's senile and lost all his facilities. Not at all! He's all up there, mostly, he's got all his marbles; every insane Joker-est, nitro-filled sphere just waiting to cater, it seems, as of late, to a war hawk agenda.

yeah, you guys are just exaggerating, and if we have learned anything from these past elections is that exaggeration has no place in politics!:cmad:

Soowy...:(

[Super_Ludacris]

You see kids.

As much as the problems for the democrats pile up, the republichumps always top the malarky in one fail swoop.

Take the pills grandpa.

[jaguarr]

mark my words: if mccain gets elected, nothing will change. gas prices will steadily rise, the economy will steadily fall, we'll spend another trillion dollars a year that we don't have on this pointless war, the rich will get tax breaks while average joe will take it up the pooper, and so on and so forth.

bush and mccain may differ on a few small points, but not nearly enough to make any kind of difference.

That's not entirely true. We'll also get a war with Iran if he's elected. BushCo started trying to find ways to justify a war with Iran, and now McCain is picking up the ball and running with it.

jag

[Excel]

Thing is...we hate war right now. no way congress lets him.

[jaguarr]

Thing is...we hate war right now. no way congress lets him.

Don't count on it. The neo-cons have already proven they're not above manufacturing evidence to justify invading a country and I see them laying the groundwork for all of that with Iran as we speak.

jag

[Superman4ever]

Don't count on it. The neo-cons have already proven they're not above manufacturing evidence to justify invading a country and I see them laying the groundwork for all of that with Iran as we speak.

jag

What are you talkin9 about, "manufactur1ng ev1dence"? What are you a terrorist? iRaan and Al Ka-iee-da are working together now.

BELIEVE IT! :cmad:

[That'ssuper!]

With all due respect Matt, I like the tactic he's using now! :O

That and it's a misinterpretation. I think he may be confused that Iran is supplying weapons for insurgents in Iraq, associating it with being Al-Queda.

[Superman4ever]

That and it's a misinterpretation. I think he may be confused that Iran is supplying weapons for insurgents in Iraq, associating it with being Al-Queda.

What the hell are you talking about? BOTH versions are wrong.

Firstly, he said, 3 times (in 24 hours) that Iran was training Al Queda...so easy on the interpretations there Ms. Cleo.

Also, Iran wouldn't supply Al Queda anyways (this is an impossibility). They'd ONLY give weapons to the Shia (and considering Saudi Arabia is giving weapons to Sunnis it increases this impossibility). The Wahabis (Al Queda) want to destroy the Shia, all of them, so Iran supplying them would be ridiculous.

ANY claim of either should be met with equal fervor because they show just how stupid, misinformed and easily manipulated these "leaders" are. These are the idiots that are going to be answering the phone at 3AM?

[Showtime]

"I see an old man's sick joke."

[Backdrifter]

Don't count on it. The neo-cons have already proven they're not above manufacturing evidence to justify invading a country and I see them laying the groundwork for all of that with Iran as we speak.

jag


I am not for any kind of war, first off. But, with Iran you don't have to manufacture anything. They are most definitely building a nuclear weapon, funding Hamas and Hezbollah as well as verbally supporting their efforts. Iran one of the largest supporters of terrorism in the world. The UN has just passed another round of sanctions on the country for their ongoing behavior. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made many damning remarks towards Israel, calling for its complete destruction. If there is a threat to our country and civilization as we know it is Iran.

[jaguarr]

I am not for any kind of war, first off. But, with Iran you don't have to manufacture anything. They are most definitely building a nuclear weapon, funding Hamas and Hezbollah as well as verbally supporting their efforts. Iran one of the largest supporters of terrorism in the world. The UN has just passed another round of sanctions on the country for their ongoing behavior. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made many damning remarks towards Israel, calling for its complete destruction. If there is a threat to our country and civilization as we know it is Iran.

Sources?

jag

[StorminNorman]

What are you talkin9 about, "manufactur1ng ev1dence"? What are you a terrorist? iRaan and Al Ka-iee-da are working together now.

BELIEVE IT! :cmad:

Please don't tell me you really think America executed 9/11 :lmao:

[Asteroid-Man]

:lmao:

Iran HATES Al Queda, Arabs, Taliban and Afghanistan oh and Iraq don't claim this ******** stuff to try and justify another invasion

[Backdrifter]

Sources?

jag

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/4993/1/

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/4787/123/

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3221901,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php

If you think Iran isn't a problem you are kidding yourself. The leaders of this country have time and again expressed their hatred for Israel and have called for its destruction. Ahmadinejad himself denies the holocaust ever took place. I don't want to spread hate, please understand. There are millions of innocent people involved here. However, its only going to take the actions of a few zealous political leaders to further destabilize the region. My only prayer for this area of the world is peace. But, we cannot sit here and pretend that Iran is not a problem.

[Superman4ever]

Please don't tell me you really think America executed 9/11 :lmao:

No idiot! I was referring to the 9/11-Iraqi/Saddam connection. Don't tell me you still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11!

Just to clairfy. Jag stated:

Don't count on it. The neo-cons have already proven they're not above manufacturing evidence to justify invading a country and I see them laying the groundwork for all of that with Iran as we speak.

jag

The "invading a country" bit was referring to Iraq. And so was I with that 9/11 remark. Manufacturing evidence (i.e. trying to connect Saddam and Iraq with September 11) to invade a country.

EDIT: Son of a *****...I changed it to how it was suppose to read!


What are you talkin9 about, "manufactur1ng ev1dence"? What are you a terrorist? iRaan and Al Ka-iee-da are working together now.

BELIEVE IT! :cmad:

[jaguarr]

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/4993/1/

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/4787/123/

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3221901,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php

If you think Iran isn't a problem you are kidding yourself. The leaders of this country have time and again expressed their hatred for Israel and have called for its destruction. Ahmadinejad himself denies the holocaust ever took place. I don't want to spread hate, please understand. There are millions of innocent people involved here. However, its only going to take the actions of a few zealous political leaders to further destabilize the region. My only prayer for this area of the world is peace. But, we cannot sit here and pretend that Iran is not a problem.

The National Council Of Resistance Of Iran? Gee, that doesn't sound biased at all. :whatever:

I'm not saying Iran isn't a problem, but good grief, let's not blow anything out of proportion or start parroting uber-biased info.

jag

jag

[Superman4ever]

The National Council Of Resistance Of Iran?
jag

I have trouble trusting a source with shoddy/weird English. Of resistance of Iran?

Really?

[kronos251]

Remember when Ahmadinejad visited a university in DC and after that - Ground Zero? Man that caused quite an indigestion... even when this country welcomed him in the airport And this was after he said he would wipe Israel off the map......

[That'ssuper!]

What the hell are you talking about? BOTH versions are wrong.

Firstly, he said, 3 times (in 24 hours) that Iran was training Al Queda...so easy on the interpretations there Ms. Cleo.

Also, Iran wouldn't supply Al Queda anyways (this is an impossibility). They'd ONLY give weapons to the Shia (and considering Saudi Arabia is giving weapons to Sunnis it increases this impossibility). The Wahabis (Al Queda) want to destroy the Shia, all of them, so Iran supplying them would be ridiculous.

ANY claim of either should be met with equal fervor because they show just how stupid, misinformed and easily manipulated these "leaders" are. These are the idiots that are going to be answering the phone at 3AM?

No duh :o. He believes in that too, that's what I generalized...

[Superman]

He has said it FIVE times over the past few days, Even after Joe Lieberman told him he was wrong, ON CAMERA no less, McCain then came out the very next day and said it again.

That's not a "senior moment" as his campaign people are trying to say, Nor is it because he's "senile" as some here are suggesting.

That is a LIE, Plain and simple. He is lying to us just like Bush did.


Now if some of you want more war in the Middle East, If you want more of our people killed for nothing, Then you go right ahead and vote for John {Bush Jr} McCain, I'm sure you'll get all the war you want with him, but I for one am tired of the lies from this "Bush/McCain War on a TACTIC" in Iraq and would like something alittle different.

[Superman4ever]

He has said it FIVE times over the past few days, Even after Joe Lieberman told him he was wrong, ON CAMERA no less, McCain then came out the very next day and said it again.

That's not a "senior moment" as his campaign people are trying to say, Nor is it because he's "senile" as some here are suggesting.

That is a LIE, Plain and simple. He is lying to us just like Bush did.


Now if some of you want more war in the Middle East, If you want more of our people killed for nothing, Then you go right ahead and vote for John {Bush Jr} McCain, I'm sure you'll get all the war you want with him, but I for one am tired of the lies from this "Bush/McCain War on a TACTIC" in Iraq and would like something alittle different.

He said it again the day after? WTH is going on here? Why isn't the media all over this idiot? And the fact that his campaign is making this out to be "senior moment" makes it worse. Not only is he dumber than ****, a lying war hawk, he's forgetful too.

[Superman4ever]

I think it's important as hell that you guys read this, since the Administration is hell bent on a ludicrous war with Iran, which would be absolutely disastrous. We know that it's NOT unfamiliar for the Bush administration to fabricate and falsify information to make a case for war. That has been proven! (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/)

Remember the British soldiers that were captured by the evil enemy Iran on Iraqi territory?

Well it was reported 2 weeks ago that those soldiers weren't in Iraq, but illegally trespassing on Iranian territory and the BRITS raised their weapons first. Iran said from the VERY beginning that the British soldiers were violating its territorial integrity, but we brushed that off as an excuse for their evil, sinister plans.

Moreover, the US designated imaginary maritime boundaries without telling Iran what they were or informing them. It sounds like they're TRYING, and desperately at that, to provoke Iran into an international incident that would require action against it.

American Media isn't even reporting this...most of the online articles are British/foreign.

Fifteen British sailors and Marines were seized by Iran in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq’s maritime territory as Parliament was told, according to new official documents released to The Times.

The Britons were seized because the US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for Iran’s territorial waters without telling the Iranians where it was, internal Ministry of Defence briefing papers reveal.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detail for the first time the blunders last spring that led to what an all-party committee of MPs came to describe as a “national embarrassment”.

The captured 14 men and one woman were paraded on Iranian TV for a fortnight before being freed a year ago by a smiling President Ahmadinejad, who gave them new suits and bags of presents.

Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that:

— The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;

— The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was;

— The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside;

— The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover.

Iran always claimed that it had arrested the Britons for violating its territorial integrity.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the Commons that the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters.

The MoD, in a televised briefing by Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, produced a map showing a line in the sea called “Iraq/Iran Territorial Water Boundary”. A location was given for the capture of the Britons inside what the chart said were “Iraq territorial waters”. But the newly released top-level internal briefing accepts that no such border exists.

The report, addressed to Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, blames the incident on the absence of an agreed boundary and a failure to coordinate between Iraq, Iran and the coalition.

Under the heading “Why the incident occurred”, the report examines the history of a border that has been disputed since a treaty between the Persian and Ottoman empires in 1639.

Professor Robert Springborg, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said yesterday that it was negligent to fail to clarify with the Iranians where the notional boundary was.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, The Times made requests about the events. The MoD released two documents, although parts are censored. One is the report to Sir Jock dated April 13, 2007, a week after the Britons returned home unharmed. It was compiled after they had been debriefed. The other is the communications log between the mother ship HMS Cornwall and the two seaboats used by the boarding party.

Hell it's more-or-less a whisper.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece
http://howrah.org/World/9553.html
http://www.1913intel.com/2008/04/17/report-reveals-iran-seized-british-sailors-in-disputed-waters/

They are trying to falsify another illegal war and this one, let there be no mistake, would be an "easy" win like in Iraq. ANY one who says Iran is winnable is kidding themselves and has NO idea what they're talking about.

[Matt]

Bush will never get Congressional approval for war with Iran, so fear not.

[The Senator]

We'll see what happens. Nothing surprises me about this administration anymore, so this is just another typical news item to me.

[DACrowe]

It's a sad news item. I wish this was on CNN right now, but nope. Anyway, I hope the best for them and something tells me there will be no major confrontation with Iran in Bush's last years. The man is too worried about his legacy at this point and is trying to be the man "who brought peace to Israel"

....

Yeah, that's not gonna' happen either.

[bell110]

It's pretty sad that I trust Iran more than I trust our government. :(



By the way, did anyone else read this?

The report, addressed to Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Strap,

It was hard to regain my thoughts after that.

[Matt]

Well, if he can't be remembered as a "great war president," he may as well be remembered as the lunatic who ****ed everything up.

[Superman4ever]

Bush will never get Congressional approval for war with Iran, so fear not.

Did he have approval for Iraq? I thought it was over Congress' head and that they only approved the finance.

Anyway, what concerns me is that this is being covered up by the media. It's NOT reporting it at all. Anderson Cooper spent 30-40 minutes on that IDIOT Wright. Really?

Iran is being spun to the American people...

[Superman4ever]

It's pretty sad that I trust Iran more than I trust our government. :(


That's a heartbreaking statement, but I really do question EVERYTHING this administration says.

[SuperFerret]

Uhh..... they're British, not American. And as much as they are our allies, I think that England should deal with it. The U.S. stepping in as some kind of international superhero is what got us in this mess as it is.

[Matt]

Did he have approval for Iraq? I thought it was over Congress' head and that they only approved the finance.

Anyway, what concerns me is that this is being covered up by the media. It's NOT reporting it at all. Anderson Cooper spent 30-40 minutes on that IDIOT Wright. Really?

Iran is being spun to the American people...

The President needs Congressional approval to go to war, Congress did approve a resolution to go to Iraq.

[DACrowe]

It's pretty sad that I trust Iran more than I trust our government. :(



By the way, did anyone else read this?



It was hard to regain my thoughts after that.

Now let's not start making wild exaggerations. A fascist dictator is no one to trust or admire.

[rdh007]

Bush will never get Congressional approval for war with Iran, so fear not.

He didn't get it for this one either. :confused:

[hippie_hunter]

He didn't get it for this one either. :confused:

Actually he did in 2002 with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution :dry:

[Matt]

He didn't get it for this one either. :confused:

He got a resolution authorizing the use of force, did he not?

[hippie_hunter]

He got a resolution authorizing the use of force, did he not?

The funny thing is that the resolution was down right called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.

I mean, I hate the Bush Administration as much as the next guy but damn, it seems like some people just like to ***** for the sake of *****ing.

[The Senator]

He didn't get it for this one either. :confused:

It's funny how we forget things which happened a mere six years ago.

Both the House and the Senate passed a war resolution with over two-thirds of the vote.

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

[SuBe]

Now let's not start making wild exaggerations. A fascist dictator is no one to trust or admire.
What is your definition of Fascist?

[bell110]

That's a heartbreaking statement, but I really do question EVERYTHING this administration says.

Yes, hence the frowny face. :(

Uhh..... they're British, not American. And as much as they are our allies, I think that England should deal with it. The U.S. stepping in as some kind of international superhero is what got us in this mess as it is.

The do have to deal with it, but I think we should get some answers as to why our government told us something that was false.

Now let's not start making wild exaggerations. A fascist dictator is no one to trust or admire.


I don't admire him, and I don't particularly trust him, but Bush has zero credibility.

[hippie_hunter]

Bush may have zero credibility but still:

Bush > Iranian government

[Superman4ever]

The President needs Congressional approval to go to war, Congress did approve a resolution to go to Iraq.

I know the first part. The second part is spun as if he didn't.

[Kelly]

It's pretty sad that I trust Iran more than I trust our government. :(



By the way, did anyone else read this?


Yeah, that is VERY sad......

[StorminNorman]

Are my eyes failing me or does it say BRITISH soldiers...not American?

I also love the way that some seem to sympathize more with a brutal, terrorizing, destructive, evil regime simply because they don't like Bush.



Also I would like to bring up an issue I have with your "Iraq and al Queda not linked story".

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/al_qaeda) in Iraq."

This report did not contradict this statement. There WERE al Qaeda in Iraq - just not at the behest of the Hussein regime.

[SuperFerret]

The do have to deal with it, but I think we should get some answers as to why our government told us something that was false.

What did they tell us that was false? (Regarding this one instance, not in general, I don't want to be bombarded with the lies the government has given us.

[Malice]

This is interesting, I have not heard anything about it.

[The Senator]

I also love the way that some seem to sympathize more with a brutal, terrorizing, destructive, evil regime simply because they don't like Bush.


Well, Norman, all it takes is a nice long chat between the president and Ahmadinejad, where they can share tea and scones, maybe a few laughs, perhaps share some funny tales about how the presidency has treated both of them... and suddenly Iran will become an ally just like Great Britain. Why, they'll immediately abandon their nuclear program, Ahmadinejad will hold hands with Ehud Olmert while acknowledging that the Holocaust was a real event, and everything will be super-peachy until the sun explodes.

:dry:

[Arkady Rossovich]

It's pretty sad that I trust Iran more than I trust our government. :(

It's sad how much things have fallen for someone to say this,but it does take courage to admit it. Many still pretend it's not this serious,when it is.

[Superman4ever]

Are my eyes failing me or does it say BRITISH soldiers...not American?



In your zeal to defend the administration you've missed the point that it doesn't have anything to do with British/American troops (at least not for me anyway), but rather the fact that the Bush Administration, and the media, are SELLING this story among a myriad of other stories as a case for going to war with Iran. They did it for Iraq...it's proven - period! I'm NOT going to get into a silly ass debate with you about whether or not Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. That WAS NEVER the Bush administration's story...it was actually much, much more sinister and deceptive. They stated that SADDAM and AL-aqeda WERE WORKING TOGETHER! The Pentagon confirmed that that was a LIE.

Also what were you linking that proved that Al-Qeada was in Iraq?

The link that I provided is a news story about a PENTAGON investigation (a report that the Bush administration tried to cover up, BTW) that states there was NO "smoking gun" that linked Al-qeada and Iraq. In fact the report stated that there was NO evidence that Saddam sponsered Al-Qaeda and that the only terrorism that he allowed was state wise against Iraqi civilians and Baath party opposition. ALL of this was known to most of the world prior to the war...there was NEVER a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq prior to the war. Saddam crushed ANY opposition, no matter how tiny it was, and Al-Qaeda would have been a HUGE opposition to Saddam's secular regime.

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."

I don't understand what is so questionable about that statement. :huh: Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration fabricated and falsified information to deceive the American and world public into believing that Al-qaeda and Saddam were in partnership. Hello, "Bulletproof" evidence? Again, what is your defense? The Pentagon, nonetheless, hasn't stated that Al-Qeada was in Iraq prior to the war so what the hell are you holding out?

Oh, I forgot your dad knows a guy who knows a guy who's a senator or some crap so OBVIOUSLY you're in the loop on top secret information, or well informed enough to dispute a Pentagon report that states the [evil - lets be straight fourth here, it's EVIL] Bush Administration lied to get us trapped in a illegal, inhumane war.

[The Senator]

Oh, I forgot your dad knows a guy who knows a guy who's a senator or some crap so OBVIOUSLY you're in the loop on top secret information, or well informed enough to dispute a Pentagon report that states the [evil - lets be straight fourth here, it's EVIL] Bush Administration lied to get us trapped in a illegal, inhumane war.

I worked for a Senator and our office never received a report which called the Bush Administration evil or said that the war was illegal or inhumane. And I worked on defense issues...

[StorminNorman]

In your zeal to defend the administration you've missed the point that it doesn't have anything to do with British/American troops (at least not for me anyway), but rather the fact that the Bush Administration, and the media, are SELLING this story among a myriad of other stories as a case for going to war with Iran. They did it for Iraq...it's proven - period! I'm NOT going to get into a silly ass debate with you about whether or not Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. That WAS NEVER the Bush administration's story...it was actually much, much more sinister and deceptive. They stated that SADDAM and AL-aqeda WERE WORKING TOGETHER! The Pentagon confirmed that that was a LIE.

This story was never a reason for America to go to war with Iran. The reasons America has targeted Iran are based in fact:

You have a President who wants to eliminate Israel, denies the Holocaust and is vehemently anti-Western. He believes he is meant to do God's work to eliminate a race and is not afraid to use nuclear weapons to do so if he can possess them. He has then taken strides to receive these weapons. Iran has been guilty of helping the Iraqi insurrection AGAINST American troops - a reason enough to go to war.

The British capture didn't hurt the cause, but it didn't make it.

Yes, the Pentagon was wrong in saying Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working together - but there was contact between Saddam and Usama - Saddam even offered Usama refuge. Not the amount of cooperation implied by the Pentagon, but still there.

Also what were you linking that proved that Al-Qeada was in Iraq?

In outskirts of Iraq where Saddam had little control - there were Al Qeada training bases. I have this from a friend who was involved in the begining invasion in Iraq.

The link that I provided is a news story about a PENTAGON investigation (a report that the Bush administration tried to cover up, BTW) that states there was NO "smoking gun" that linked Al-qeada and Iraq. In fact the report stated that there was NO evidence that Saddam sponsered Al-Qaeda and that the only terrorism that he allowed was state wise against Iraqi civilians and Baath party opposition. ALL of this was known to most of the world prior to the war...there was NEVER a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq prior to the war. Saddam crushed ANY opposition, no matter how tiny it was, and Al-Qaeda would have been a HUGE opposition to Saddam's secular regime.

The Pentagon quote used in the story - however - was that this statement contradicted a Pentagon statement that said there was Al Qeada in Iraq before our invasion. It does not. Simply because Al Qeada was not working with Saddam does not mean they were present.

I don't understand what is so questionable about that statement. :huh: Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration fabricated and falsified information to deceive the American and world public into believing that Al-qaeda and Saddam were in partnership. Hello, "Bulletproof" evidence? Again, what is your defense? The Pentagon, nonetheless, hasn't stated that Al-Qeada was in Iraq prior to the war so what the hell are you holding out?

Oh, I forgot your dad knows a guy who knows a guy who's a senator or some crap so OBVIOUSLY you're in the loop on top secret information, or well informed enough to dispute a Pentagon report that states the [evil - lets be straight fourth here, it's EVIL] Bush Administration lied to get us trapped in a illegal, inhumane war.

For anyone to call this war "illegal" is simply wrong. Saddam broke the cease fire agreements set in place at the end of the Gulf War - that is fact. That alone made the war legal. Period. Bush's problem was by giving us more reasons to go to war. While I believe that Bush's intelligence did state that Saddam had WMD's, he was wrong when he said that Saddam was working with Al Qeada - simply put.

However that does not make the war illegal and it certainly does not make the war inhumane. I guess in your mind the HUMANE thing to do would be to allow Saddam to continue to rape and murder and torture and mutilate innocent men, women in children? To let his sons have freedom to do whatever horrible, evil acts they want to others? Yes - thats REAL humane.

How dare we deliver Iraq from tyranny! How dare we take out a ruthless butcher! Evil America! Praise Iran!

Get in touch with reality, sir.

[Superman4ever]

However that does not make the war illegal and it certainly does not make the war inhumane. I guess in your mind the HUMANE thing to do would be to allow Saddam to continue to rape and murder and torture and mutilate innocent men, women in children? To let his sons have freedom to do whatever horrible, evil acts they want to others? Yes - thats REAL humane.

How dare we deliver Iraq from tyranny! How dare we take out a ruthless butcher! Evil America! Praise Iran!

Get in touch with reality, sir.

We delivered Iraq from tyranny, but in doing so killed a MILLION innocent Iraqis because of our unwarranted actions. That's why it's illegal, that's why it's INHUMANE. Because of our being there we've killed 10 times MORE people than Saddam ever did. We drove 3 MILLION people out of their country into refugee camps.

Iraq is number one in the world for the MOST widows in the world. This is what we delivered to Iraq. It now has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world...10 years ago Iraq LEAD the Mid-East. This it the liberation that my people have been so generously been bestowed.

Have you ever spoken to an Iraqi...besides my "out of touch" self? Cause I can get you in touch with a thousand if you're so bold and we can ask them whether or not they'd ask for your type of "liberation" or Saddam. Seriously, you're interested in politics. You know a guy who knows a guy with close ties to a senator. Get to know some Iraqi-Americans, and get their views on this war.

Also, ALL these facts of this war are ignoring the fact that we decimated the country prior to this INHUMANE war with horrifically brutal US-lead sanctions that from 91-98 killed 500,000 CHILDREN.

To simply ignore these number is cruel, irresponsible and sadistic. In America we lost LESS than 3000 people on 9/11. 3000, that's it! Yes, it's a tragedy. Yes, it was a cowardly act of indefensible proportion - see as a Muslim I can admit that. You on the other hand refuse, over and over, to acknowledging the fact that ONE MILLION people have died in 5 years (that's 9/11 EVERY MONTH!). THREE MILLION are out of country refugees because of a war built on LIES, deception and fabricated material.

What MORE do you need than a report from the PENTAGON investigating 600,000 documents that showed NO credible link between AL-Qaeda and Iraq, which was the very foundation, given by the Bush administration, for this war as it was a part of, supposedly, the "war on terror."

So, stay with me here, if the reasons we went to war were groundless and based on lies (the PENTAGON says this NOT me) what would that war be called other than illegal and inhumane given the astronomical HUMAN (remember these are people...I know many of you consider Muslims and Arabs scum, but these are PEOPLE NOT beneath your value) loss.

So who needs the check on reality here?

[Superman4ever]

Start beating those war drums.

The rhetoric, by the administration, is EXACTLY the same (blueprint) as it was for Iraq.

PelbwUn2pzY&feature=email

They're even using the cowboy ultimatum.

Watch the commentary, by RealNews, at the end of the CBS broadcast for the real reason for attacking Iran.

[rdh007]

He got a resolution authorizing the use of force, did he not?

You used the word "war". I'm splitting hairs, to be certain.

[StorminNorman]

We delivered Iraq from tyranny, but in doing so killed a MILLION innocent Iraqis because of our unwarranted actions. That's why it's illegal, that's why it's INHUMANE. Because of our being there we've killed 10 times MORE people than Saddam ever did. We drove 3 MILLION people out of their country into refugee camps.

WE didn't kill a million innocent Iraqi's - Al Qaeda did, the insurgence did, the terrorists did. You point the finger at the wrong party here. You could blame America for Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq - and you would be correct, however Al Qaeda's success can be attributed to the Iraqi's themselves. If the Iraqi people rose up against the terrorists killing their brothers and sisters (which they are doing more and more of late) then Al Qaeda wouldn't have the effectiveness they have now.

But collateral damage does not make a war "illegal" - especially when that damage comes from the opposition and not the American military.

Iraq is number one in the world for the MOST widows in the world. This is what we delivered to Iraq. It now has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world...10 years ago Iraq LEAD the Mid-East. This it the liberation that my people have been so generously been bestowed.

The illiteracy in Iraq was rising in the 90's due to sanctions against Saddam, sanctions put in place because of SADDAM's actions. I also find no internet support for your claim that Iraq is number one in the world for widows. But yes, in the short term Iraq has and is going through hell (a hell that has been prolonged, to an extent, by the Iraqi's and their government's own failings after the war) but the Iraq that will emerge will be a beacon in the middle east if America is allowed to ensure that Iraq is not overcome by Islamic extremists - the reason we MUST stay in Iraq until Iraq. If we leave and allow Iraq to come under siege by the likes of Al Qeada - all the suffering and death has been for nothing.

Have you ever spoken to an Iraqi...besides my "out of touch" self? Cause I can get you in touch with a thousand if you're so bold and we can ask them whether or not they'd ask for your type of "liberation" or Saddam. Seriously, you're interested in politics. You know a guy who knows a guy with close ties to a senator. Get to know some Iraqi-Americans, and get their views on this war.

I have not personally talked to an Iraqi American - but I do know that it was Iraqi refugees in America that fully supported the war against Saddam. They wanted us to come in and take away Saddam. They wanted Iraq liberated - it was well documented. They were in the streets in this country celebrating when Saddam fell.

Also, ALL these facts of this war are ignoring the fact that we decimated the country prior to this INHUMANE war with horrifically brutal US-lead sanctions that from 91-98 killed 500,000 CHILDREN.

Those deaths are on Saddam's hands - not America's (or more realistically, the UN's). Saddam could not be allowed to hold his country at ransom to prevent his evil acts to go unpunished - which is exactly what you are doing. We are damned if we retaliate to Saddam's actions, WE are held responsible instead of the evil tyrant. Thats not realistic.

To simply ignore these number is cruel, irresponsible and sadistic. In America we lost LESS than 3000 people on 9/11. 3000, that's it! Yes, it's a tragedy. Yes, it was a cowardly act of indefensible proportion - see as a Muslim I can admit that. You on the other hand refuse, over and over, to acknowledging the fact that ONE MILLION people have died in 5 years (that's 9/11 EVERY MONTH!). THREE MILLION are out of country refugees because of a war built on LIES, deception and fabricated material.

I hate the amount of innocents caught up in this war - but it is just that a war. A war where the overwhelming majority of collateral damage has come from the terrorists that have targeted civilian death. I have never denied the loss of innocent life in Iraq, nor the extent of it - I simply do not see America as the evil force that is orchestrating it, because its not.

What MORE do you need than a report from the PENTAGON investigating 600,000 documents that showed NO credible link between AL-Qaeda and Iraq, which was the very foundation, given by the Bush administration, for this war as it was a part of, supposedly, the "war on terror."

I KNOW there is no credible link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam - I have said that. :huh:

So, stay with me here, if the reasons we went to war were groundless and based on lies (the PENTAGON says this NOT me) what would that war be called other than illegal and inhumane given the astronomical HUMAN (remember these are people...I know many of you consider Muslims and Arabs scum, but these are PEOPLE NOT beneath your value) loss.

So who needs the check on reality here?

How dare you accuse me of not caring about the death of innocents based on their race or religion? It is my position that the death of American troops is worth freeing an entire nation of Muslims and Arabs.

This war is not illegal and the inhumanity of this war can be attributed to Al Qeada, can be attributed to Iran, can be attributed to Arab and Muslim neighbors - not America.

You seem to rather attack America, a country that spends more in foreign aid, does more humanitarian work, leads the world in goodwill. You try to paint this President as evil, but he's not - he has done more for Africa than any other President, he's trying to create a Palestinian state, he's not the boogie man looking for the remains of burnt Iraqi children to eat.

[zenile]

Ask yourselves, would the world be a better place with Ahmadinejad removed from power? I'm not a fan of the wag the dog that's been taking place with this administration, but removing Sadam from power was a good thing, for the people of Iraq, and for democracy in general. I think the same can be said for with Iran.

[Addendum]

If there is going to be something done with Iran, there has to be a plan of action for after the leader or leaders of Iran are removed from office. Now what that plan of action might be is pretty simple: look at what the administration has done in Iraq and do the opposite

[bell110]

Well, Norman, all it takes is a nice long chat between the president and Ahmadinejad, where they can share tea and scones, maybe a few laughs, perhaps share some funny tales about how the presidency has treated both of them... and suddenly Iran will become an ally just like Great Britain. Why, they'll immediately abandon their nuclear program, Ahmadinejad will hold hands with Ehud Olmert while acknowledging that the Holocaust was a real event, and everything will be super-peachy until the sun explodes.

:dry:

You're starting to sound like Memphis Slim.

Ask yourselves, would the world be a better place with Ahmadinejad removed from power? I'm not a fan of the wag the dog that's been taking place with this administration, but removing Sadam from power was a good thing, for the people of Iraq, and for democracy in general. I think the same can be said for with Iran.

Would it be better? How? How is having him in power negatively affecting China? Switzerland? Brazil? The US? What would happen if someone WORSE took Ahmedinejad's place? Would we invade again and again and again until they have someone we approve of? How has the WORLD benefited from Saddam being gone? How has "democracy" benefited? What if one of these countries democratically elected someone who was anti-west or anti-Israel? Is that a triumph for democracy? Would we welcome this person with open-arms because he was democratically elected or would we take them out of power again and tell their people "try again".

We have NO moral authority to tell ANY country what crappy person can lead their crappy country until we stop electing crappy people into our government.

[The Senator]

You're starting to sound like Memphis Slim.


Why? Because I think its outlandish and downright naive to think that all of our problems with Iran will be magically solved if we sit down and talk with their nutjob president? Sitting down with Ahmadinejad isn't going to convince him to stop enriching the most utilized element needed to make atomic weapons. Sitting down with him and discussing our policy in the Middle East isn't going to change his views about the Jewish people. And sitting down and talking with him won't protect the United States or other countries from what could become a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel.

The problem here is not whether we think war with Iran is bad... I am opposed to going to war with them at this point... but the problem is thinking that someone with such extreme views will be magically convinced to abandon those views simply because our president sat down to discuss "policy."

That's one of the flaws with Obama's campaign and his supporters... they think "policy" is the only thing people care about, and the only thing which drives politics... when character and personal ideology is just as important... I can say I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage all I want, but if I publicly deny that slavery ever happened and said that I wanted to see Africa wiped off the map, people would think I'm a bit nuts... this isn't simply an argument over a nuclear program, it's an argument over the man's person views towards other human beings and countries...

[StorminNorman]

Would it be better? How? How is having him in power negatively affecting China? Switzerland? Brazil? The US? What would happen if someone WORSE took Ahmedinejad's place? Would we invade again and again and again until they have someone we approve of? How has the WORLD benefited from Saddam being gone? How has "democracy" benefited?

So a madman seeking nuclear weapons doesn't threaten worldwide security? The removal of a tyrant always betters the world - even it doesn't impact other countries. Democracy has benefited because the people of Iraq actually have a say in their government - they now hold the power to decide there future, that is a good thing. How dare you diminish it? Especially when they risk being targeted by terrorists by executing this power?

What if one of these countries democratically elected someone who was anti-west or anti-Israel? Is that a triumph for democracy? Would we welcome this person with open-arms because he was democratically elected or would we take them out of power again and tell their people "try again".

We have NO moral authority to tell ANY country what crappy person can lead their crappy country until we stop electing crappy people into our government.

Here is where you lose your credibility, because this has already happened. The Palestinian people elected members of a known terrorist organization called Hammas. Did we do anything? No. We condemned the actions because the people knowingly elected...terrorists - but we took no military actions.

[bell110]

Why? Because I think its outlandish and downright naive to think that all of our problems with Iran will be magically solved if we sit down and talk with their nutjob president?

Yes. :dry:


Sitting down with Ahmadinejad isn't going to convince him to stop enriching the most utilized element needed to make atomic weapons. Sitting down with him and discussing our policy in the Middle East isn't going to change his views about the Jewish people. And sitting down and talking with him won't protect the United States or other countries from what could become a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel.

Who are we to say they can't have uranium? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power? Just because we were the first to have atomic weapons doesn't make us the sole authority of it. He's allowed to have any views on the Jewish people he wants. It's his God given right. He's not a threat to America, and a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel is just that; between Iran and Israel.

The problem here is not whether we think war with Iran is bad... I am opposed to going to war with them at this point... but the problem is thinking that someone with such extreme views will be magically convinced to abandon those views simply because our president sat down to discuss "policy."

You're the only one thinking in terms of magic. I never brought up policy, I just said if it's Bush's word vs. Iran, Bush has the burden of proof.

That's one of the flaws with Obama's campaign and his supporters... they think "policy" is the only thing people care about, and the only thing which drives politics... when character and personal ideology is just as important... I can say I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage all I want, but if I publicly deny that slavery ever happened and said that I wanted to see Africa wiped off the map, people would think I'm a bit nuts... this isn't simply an argument over a nuclear program, it's an argument over the man's person views towards other human beings and countries...

Policy may not be the only thing that drives politic, but it's a good foundation to start on.

So a madman seeking nuclear weapons doesn't threaten worldwide security? The removal of a tyrant always betters the world - even it doesn't impact other countries. Democracy has benefited because the people of Iraq actually have a say in their government - they now hold the power to decide there future, that is a good thing. How dare you diminish it? Especially when they risk being targeted by terrorists by executing this power?



Here is where you lose your credibility, because this has already happened. The Palestinian people elected members of a known terrorist organization called Hammas. Did we do anything? No. We condemned the actions because the people knowingly elected...terrorists - but we took no military actions.

That's like saying the Hell's Angels elect their own leader. Palestinians don't have a state. They are just people trying to get their land back. And even if they did, we didn't dispose of their leader and install democracy. I would bet that if Iraq or Iran, after we take what's-his-face out, and they elected another Saddam or what's-his-face, we would invade again in the name of "real" democracy.

[StorminNorman]

That's like saying the Hell's Angels elect their own leader. Palestinians don't have a state. They are just people trying to get their land back. And even if they did, we didn't dispose of their leader and install democracy. I would bet that if Iraq or Iran, after we take what's-his-face out, and they elected another Saddam or what's-his-face, we would invade again in the name of "real" democracy.

Yassir Arafat was a world leader, you can't simply dismissed the Palestinian National Authority like that.

[MetalloX]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

[Addendum]

Yassir Arafat was a world leader, you can't simply dismissed the Palestinian National Authority like that.

It's not like Arafat is in a position to take offense to it

[StorminNorman]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

You're adorable. I am actually fairly moderate - I simply find defending the country from terrorist attack and foreign dangers to be a fairly important matter. But I love the way you think you should simply ignore anyone that doesn't agree with you - a real testament to your intelligence :up:

[StorminNorman]

It's not like Arafat is in a position to take offense to it
TOO SOON!

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

[Handsome Rob]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

Well, at least he brings substantive, thought-provoking discussion to the table. I looked back at all your posts, since you only have a 100 or so. And, it seems to me that the only things you've brought to the table have been childish insults and name-calling.

You can't really build a discussion around such juvenile behavior. So, it seems to me that the wisest choice for people on here would be to ignore you, at least until you make posts that contain even a slight dusting of maturity in them. I suggest you read up on jmanspice or TheMarx . . . they're two examples of leftists who know how to post.

[hippie_hunter]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

No he isn't. He may be a Republican, but Norman is by far not a neo-conservative wackjob.

[Matt]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

Ease off the insults, pal.

[The Senator]

Yes. :dry:


So when we sit down to tea and scones with Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs and they still nuke Israel, what will you say then?



Who are we to say they can't have uranium? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power? Just because we were the first to have atomic weapons doesn't make us the sole authority of it. He's allowed to have any views on the Jewish people he wants. It's his God given right. He's not a threat to America, and a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel is just that; between Iran and Israel.

I don't really care if Iran is a threat to America, I care if it represents an extraordinary threat to any nation. If Iran wanted a peaceful nuclear program, they would have enriched plutonium instead of uranium. Uranium is the primary element used as fissile matter in nuclear bombs. Of course, I can see your argument that Iran should be able to enrich whatever material it wants for energy purposes.

However, if Iran is solely enriching uranium for energy purposes, they wouldn't need to enrich it at 90% capacity. They would only need to do so at 5-10%. So, why then, are they enriching it at that level? Every other nation who practices in 90% enrichment has gone on to develop nuclear weapons-- the United States, Russia, India, China, etc.

We are not the sole authority over atomic weapons and I do not believe we should be the only power responsible for dictating global nuclear policy. But this isn't a case of one nation thinking they're better than the other. This is a case of looking at the evidence and using common ****ing sense.

If you think all Iran needs is a great big hug and a face-to-face meeting with the President, you're simply naive. And while Ahmadinejad can have whatever views he wants to, the fact that he denies the Holocaust ever happened, the fact that he has said that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map, and the fact that he has taken the necessary steps to ensure future nuclear weapon production implies that he needs to be treated like a threat. Every move he makes needs to be watched with utmost scrutiny.

[StorminNorman]

I just wish Metallo would actually try to debate - rather than relying on immature, cowardly name calling.

[Addendum]

However, if Iran is solely enriching uranium for energy purposes, they wouldn't need to enrich it at 90% capacity. They would only need to do so at 5-10%. So, why then, are they enriching it at that level? Every other nation who practices in 90% enrichment has gone on to develop nuclear weapons-- the United States, Russia, India, China, etc.

Some civilian reactors use Uranium that is enriched higher than 10%. Naval reactors use uranium that is about 50% enriched. Plutonium can also be used for nuclear weapons, so if they were using Plutonium some people would still say that Iran is making "nuclear weapons".

Again, I'll rely on the IAEA and they've yet to find conclusive evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons.

[Kelly]

Ask yourselves, would the world be a better place with Ahmadinejad removed from power? I'm not a fan of the wag the dog that's been taking place with this administration, but removing Sadam from power was a good thing, for the people of Iraq, and for democracy in general. I think the same can be said for with Iran.

Ali Khamenei is the true leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad is a dumbass talking head and most know it. Ali says that the Nuclear Energy is about National Pride, but he is willing to negotiate much more than Ahmadinejad is.....

[The Senator]

Some civilian reactors use Uranium that is enriched higher than 10%. Naval reactors use uranium that is about 50% enriched. Plutonium can also be used for nuclear weapons, so if they were using Plutonium some people would still say that Iran is making "nuclear weapons".

Again, I'll rely on the IAEA and they've yet to find conclusive evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons.

Plutonium is highly volatile and difficult to enrich. So if Iran had plutonium reactors, I would be hesitant before making any accusations that they might be using it for nuclear weapons. Moreover, it's difficult to enrich on a mass scale, unlike uranium.

As for your argument about naval reactors, you said they were 50% enriched. That's 50%. Not 90%. 90% is needed for nuclear weapons, and Iran currently has enough centrifuges to reach 90% enrichment or higher.

I'd like to rely on the IAEA, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The super-left seems to think that Iran is a peaceful, happy nation with a big cuddly leader who just needs a gwate big huggly-wuggly. I examine their president's rhetoric, combined with my knowledge on how nuclear weapons are manufactured, before coming up with my own conclusion. Of course, I forget that, for some people, as long as Bush criticizes a country or refuses to take military action off the table, it's evil and untrue :cmad:

Bush will probably slap himself in the forehead if Iran nukes Israel. Meanwhile, President Obama will look at the crisis and say "But I thought tea and scones were the solution?!"

I can't wait.

[The Senator]

Ali Khamenei is the true leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad is a dumbass talking head and most know it. Ali says that the Nuclear Energy is about National Pride, but he is willing to negotiate much more than Ahmadinejad is.....

The problem is, Khamenei shares Ahmadinejad's view that Israel should not exist. So I would imagine that he would not be opposed to obliterating the country if Ahmadinejad proposed it.

[Kelly]

Yes he does, as do many of the leaders in the Middle East, the difference is........he's smart enough to know what the US could do......and would be against that.

[Addendum]

I ignore the rhetoric from both Iran and the US and rely on the IAEA who know more about nuclear power than both of those *******s combined.

[Humpty Dumpty]

The problem is, Khamenei shares Ahmadinejad's view that Israel should not exist. So I would imagine that he would not be opposed to obliterating the country if Ahmadinejad proposed it.
Israel is one of the most significant military powers on Earth and has the United States to back them up if they can't handle threats aimed at them on their own. I would very highly doubt Iran would ever try something so stupid as to attack Israel. Remarks such as those Ahmadinejad made about Israel are in the same species of political maneuvering as talk of outlawing flag burning in the US.

However, it is not even certain that what Ahmadinejad said ought to be taken as a threat. According to the esteemed University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, the remark about Israel, if properly translated, conveys a wish that Israel should collapse, rather than expressing a hope that Israel should be destroyed by some kind of outside violent force.

[Matt]

Plutonium is highly volatile and difficult to enrich. So if Iran had plutonium reactors, I would be hesitant before making any accusations that they might be using it for nuclear weapons. Moreover, it's difficult to enrich on a mass scale, unlike uranium.

As for your argument about naval reactors, you said they were 50% enriched. That's 50%. Not 90%. 90% is needed for nuclear weapons, and Iran currently has enough centrifuges to reach 90% enrichment or higher.

I'd like to rely on the IAEA, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The super-left seems to think that Iran is a peaceful, happy nation with a big cuddly leader who just needs a gwate big huggly-wuggly. I examine their president's rhetoric, combined with my knowledge on how nuclear weapons are manufactured, before coming up with my own conclusion. Of course, I forget that, for some people, as long as Bush criticizes a country or refuses to take military action off the table, it's evil and untrue :cmad:

Bush will probably slap himself in the forehead if Iran nukes Israel. Meanwhile, President Obama will look at the crisis and say "But I thought tea and scones were the solution?!"

I can't wait.

Hmm, I'm mixed on this. I really think Obama's talking to Iran is one of his few good solutions. They are definitely a country on the ledge, but really, all we have to do is wait them out another 15-20 years. Their younger generations really are very west-friendly and would like to become a more westernized country. These generations will take power sooner of later so as long as we can keep them from doing anything stupid until then...it may not be an issue.

Of course, Iran is being run by crazy people. So who knows what they might do, especially if they feel their power is threatened. If they do nuke Israel, they too will have to be nuked. There is no way around that, it has to be done in order to reinforce the notion of MAD (mutually assured destruction), the A-Bomb will have to be dropped on Iran. MAD is incredibly important to keep the nuclear powers in check. A mere invasion and regime change would not keep it from happening again. Someone will have to nuke Iran if they ever have the balls to use their arsenal in order to maintain this principle that keeps the world in check in the nuclear age. Sure, hippies will rant and protest that it was evil, and unneccessary, but allowing an unchecked nuclear attack would be a far greater evil as it basically takes away the one deterrent the world has against nuclear war.

I hope that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are smart enough to know that their country will be wiped off of the map if they use nuclear weapons, but like I said, they are crazy.

[StorminNorman]

Personally I think the CIA should pull a Kermit Roosevelt and work with the younger generation and try to stage a coup.

[Humpty Dumpty]

Personally I think the CIA should pull a Kermit Roosevelt and work with the younger generation and try to stage a coup.
Um, Kermit Roosevelt's coup is the reason why a bunch of religious fundamentalists are controlling the country in the first place. Mossadeq was a secularist, and he is, to this day, one of the most beloved figures in Iranian politics amongst Iranians. Though the younger generation has a favorable opinion of American culture and Americans, they still harbor a great animosity toward the American government for its history of interfering in the affairs of their country.

[StorminNorman]

Um, Kermit Roosevelt's coup is the reason why a bunch of religious fundamentalists are controlling the country in the first place. Mossadeq was a secularist, and he is, to this day, one of the most beloved figures in Iranian politics amongst Iranians. Though the younger generation has a favorable opinion of American culture and Americans, they still harbor a great animosity toward the American government for its history of interfering in the affairs of their country.

I understand the downfall of Ajax - the problem was the Shah and their oppressive regime. The execution was brilliant however.

[fifthfiend]

You have a President who wants to eliminate Israel, denies the Holocaust and is vehemently anti-Western. He believes he is meant to do God's work to eliminate a race and is not afraid to use nuclear weapons to do so if he can possess them. He has then taken strides to receive these weapons. Iran has been guilty of helping the Iraqi insurrection AGAINST American troops - a reason enough to go to war.

Bwahahaha.

"He doesn't like Israel! Also, he doesn't like us! Also, some claims for which I cite no evidence whatsoever. Also, HE DOESN'T LIEK USSSSSS!"

Oh no you're right, that's totally another reason to launch a military invasion of a nation of 71 million people inevitably resulting in the deaths of millions of those people. Because a figurehead with no political power doesn't like a country which he's in no position to do anything about.

Yes, the Pentagon was wrong in saying Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working together - but there was contact between Saddam and Usama - Saddam even offered Usama refuge. Not the amount of cooperation implied by the Pentagon, but still there.

Cite sources or stop making **** up.

For anyone to call this war "illegal" is simply wrong. Saddam broke the cease fire agreements set in place at the end of the Gulf War - that is fact.

Saddam broke a UN Security Council resolution, giving the UN Security Council authority over how to enforce that resolution. The US claiming that as casus belli for an independent invasion with no UN ratification was the international equivalent of vigilantism.

Unless you have some novel theory of international law in which security council members have the right to unilaterally launch armed invasions of nations which violate UN resolutions? Because I'm sure Russia will be thrilled to hear that you're okay with it launching an invasion of Israel any time it likes.

While I believe that Bush's intelligence did state that Saddam had WMD's

You can believe whatever ridiculous fantasy you like, but what actually happened here in reality is that the CIA had a grab-bag of conflicting evidence and that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld cherry-picked anything that made it look like Iraq might have weapons while utterly ignoring anything that showed it didn't.

However that does not make the war illegal and it certainly does not make the war inhumane. I guess in your mind the HUMANE thing to do would be to allow Saddam to continue to rape and murder and torture and mutilate innocent men, women in children?

You seem a lot happier now that it's us raping and murdering and torturing and mutilating innocent men women and children. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I mean, I'm not an unrepentant sadist, so different strokes I guess?

Get in touch with reality, sir.

Bwahahaha

[fifthfiend]

So when we sit down to tea and scones with Ahmadinejad and he still nukes Israel, what will you say then?

I'll say "Hey, how did I get into this bizarro universe where a figurehead with no actual power has taken an utterly suicidal action that will result in his nation being wiped off the face of the Earth?"

I mean here on Earth-1 decisions tend to be made by leaders who have actual governmental power who tend as a rule to not actually commit national suicide, but maybe in the Antimatter Universe or Hypertime Earth 33975-C or whereever you hang out, things work differently?

[The Senator]

I'll say "Hey, how did I get into this bizarro universe where a figurehead with no actual power has taken an utterly suicidal action that will result in his nation being wiped off the face of the Earth?"

I mean here on Earth-1 decisions tend to be made by leaders who have actual governmental power who tend as a rule to not actually commit national suicide, but maybe in the Antimatter Universe or Hypertime Earth 33975-C or whereever you hang out, things work differently?

He has the power to lobby the Ayotollahs. And considering they share his views on Israel, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried out such a decision.

I apologize for not including the Ayatollahs in my post. I will edit it. And I apologize to those who unfortunately had to read Captain Sarcastic's overly-technical, nonsensical rant because of it.

Also, our friend has conveniently ignored the number of posts I made acknowledging that the Ayatollahs have supreme power in Iran. So it looks like his post was totally without merit.

[fifthfiend]

And considering they share his views on Israel, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried out such a decision.

You wouldn't be suprised if the Ayatollahs decided to commit national suicide? I mean I'm pretty sure the Ayatollahs are like most national leaders in that they don't want themselves slaughtered and their entire nation reduced to an enormous glass parking lot at the hands by a nation with vastly superior military capability. But if you've got some reason I should believe that Iran's leaders are uniquely willing to initiate their own nuclear annihilation then by all means do share.

[The Senator]

You wouldn't be suprised if the Ayatollahs decided to commit national suicide? I mean I'm pretty sure the Ayatollahs are like most national leaders in that they don't want themselves slaughtered and their entire nation reduced to an enormous glass parking lot at the hands by a nation with vastly superior military capability.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. They have expressed their concerns that they want to see Israel wiped off the map, and if that does happen some day at the hands of the Iranians, then I simply wouldn't be shocked.

[fifthfiend]

They have expressed their concerns that they want to see Israel wiped off the map

Ever hear of the Cold War? Moscow expressed lots of sentiments that they wanted to see America wiped off the map. Yet shockingly they never decided to initiate their own annihilation by trying to do so. And they were even at least capable of inflicting the same annihilation on us; whereas Iran's best outcome - in this hypothetical universe where they even have any kind of nuclear weaponry - looks something like "we get to maybe destroy one Israeli city, and in response, Israel and the United States turn every square mile of our nation into a nuclear wasteland and convert every living human within our borders into carbon atoms."

I mean I express lots of sentiments that things I don't like should be wiped off the face of the Earth, I'm pretty sure most people I know don't immediately leap to the conclusion that I would like to see that happen at the cost of utterly annihilating myself, everybody I have ever known, the entire nation I live in, and all evidence that any of us had ever existed. I'm pretty sure most people would be quite shocked if I decided my personal dislikes were worth the nuclear annihilation of everything around me.

[Asteroid-Man]

NEW YORK — Six Bahá’í leaders in Iran were arrested and taken to the notorious Evin prison yesterday in a sweep that is ominously similar to episodes in the 1980s when scores of Iranian Bahá’í leaders were summarily rounded up and killedhttp://news.bahai.org/sites/news.bahai.org/files/imagecache/bwns_feature_image/sites/news.bahai.org/files/images/632_01_IMG_9367_1.jpg
The six men and women, all members of the national-level group that helped see to the minimum needs of Bahá’ís in Iran, were in their homes Wednesday morning when government intelligence agents entered and spent up to five hours searching each home, before taking them away.
The seventh member of the national coordinating group was arrested in early March in Mashhad after being summoned by the Ministry of Intelligence office there on an ostensibly trivial matter.
“We protest in the strongest terms the arrests of our fellow Bahá'ís in Iran,” said Bani Dugal, the principal representative of the Bahá’í International Community to the United Nations. “Their only crime is their practice of the Bahá’í Faith.”
“Especially disturbing is how this latest sweep recalls the wholesale arrest or abduction of the members of two national Iranian Bahá’í governing councils in the early 1980s -- which led to the disappearance or execution of 17 individuals,” she said.

http://news.bahai.org/sites/news.bahai.org/files/imagecache/bwns_imagewidget/sites/news.bahai.org/files/images/632_02_MapIran15May08.jpg
Enlarge images (http://news.bahai.org/multimedia/slideshow.php?storyid=632)

“The early morning raids on the homes of these prominent Bahá’ís were well coordinated, and it is clear they represent a high-level effort to strike again at the Bahá’ís and to intimidate the Iranian Bahá’í community at large,” said Ms. Dugal.
Arrested yesterday were: Mrs. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. Afif Naeimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie, Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Mr. Vahid Tizfahm. All live in Tehran. Mrs. Kamalabadi, Mr. Khanjani, and Mr. Tavakkoli have been previously arrested and then released after periods ranging from five days to four months.
Arrested in Mashhad on 5 March 2008 was Mrs. Mahvash Sabet, who also resides in Tehran. Mrs. Sabet was summoned to Mashhad by the Ministry of Intelligence, ostensibly on the grounds that she was required to answer questions related to the burial of an individual in the Bahá’í cemetery in that city.
On 21 August 1980, all nine members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Iran were abducted and disappeared without a trace. It is certain that they were killed.
The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Iran was reconstituted soon after that but was again ravaged by the execution of eight of its members on 27 December 1981.
A number of members of local Bahá’í governing councils, known as local Spiritual Assemblies, were also arrested and executed in the early 1980s, before an international outcry forced the government to slow its execution of Bahá’ís. Since 1979, more than 200 Bahá’ís have been killed or executed in Iran, although none have been executed since 1998.
In 1983, the government outlawed all formal Bahá’í administrative institutions and the Iranian Bahá’í community responded by disbanding its National Spiritual Assembly, which is an elected governing council, along with some 400 local level elected governing councils. Bahá'ís throughout Iran also suspended nearly all of their regular organizational activity.
The informal national-level coordinating group, known as the Friends, was established with the knowledge of the government to help cope with the diverse needs of Iran’s 300,000-member Baháí community, which is the country’s largest religious minority.

http://news.bahai.org/story/632


(CNN) -- Six Baha'i leaders in Iran were seized and imprisoned this week, the religious group said. The act prompted condemnation and concern from the movement and a top American religious freedom panel.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/meast/05/16/iran.bahais/art.ahmadinejad.file.afp.gi.jpgA U.S. panel says attacks on Iran's Baha'is have increased since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president.




http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


Iranian intelligence agents searched the homes of the six on Wednesday and then whisked them away, according to the Baha'i's World News Service. The report said the six are in Evin prison and that the arrests follow the detention in March of another Baha'i leader.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry could not immediately be reached for comment, and the incident has not been mentioned in Iran's state-run media.
"Their only crime is their practice of the Baha'i faith," said Bani Dugal, the principal representative of the Baha'i international community to the United Nations (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/United_Nations).
The U.S. State Department issued a statement Friday "strongly" condeming the arrests, which it said were "a clear violation of the Iranian regime's international commitments and obligations to respect international religious freedom norms.
"We urge the authorities to release all Baha'is currently in detention and cease their ongoing harassment of the Iranian Baha'i community," the U.S. statement said.
The group -- regarded as the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran -- says the arrests are reminiscent of roundups and killings of Baha'is that took place in Iran two decades ago.

"Especially disturbing is how this latest sweep recalls the wholesale arrest or abduction of the members of two national Iranian Baha'i governing councils in the early 1980s -- which led to the disappearance or execution of 17 individuals," Dugal said.
"The early morning raids on the homes of these prominent Baha'is were well-coordinated, and it is clear they represent a high-level effort to strike again at the Baha'is and to intimidate the Iranian Baha'i community at large," she added.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom -- a government panel that advises the president and Congress -- condemned the Wednesday arrests, as well as another in March. The commission chairman called the acts the "latest sign of the rapidly deteriorating status of religious freedom and other human rights in Iran."
The commission said the seven were members of an informal Baha'i group that tended to the needs of the community after the Iranian government banned all formal Baha'i activity in 1983.
The commission chairman, Michael Cromartie, echoed the fears that the "development signals a return to the darkest days of repression in Iran in the 1980s when Baha'is were routinely arrested, imprisoned, and executed."
The Baha'is are regarded as "apostates" in Iran (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Iran) and have been persecuted there for years.
"Since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed more than 200 Baha'i leaders, thousands have been arrested and imprisoned, and more than 10,000 have been dismissed from government and university jobs," the commission said.
The commission said that since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power a few years ago, Baha'is "have been harassed, physically attacked, arrested, and imprisoned."
"During the past year, young Baha'i schoolchildren in primary and secondary schools increasingly have been attacked, vilified, pressured to convert to Islam, and in some cases, expelled on account of their religion."
The commission said other groups in the predominantly *****e Muslim (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Islam) country of Iran, such Sufis and Christians, are subject to intimidation and harassment. Ahmadinejad's inflammatory statements about Israel have "created a climate of fear" among the country's Jews.
The Baha'is say they have 5 million members across the globe, and about 300,000 in Iran.
The Baha'is say their faith "is the youngest of the world's independent religions" and that its basic theme is that "humanity is one single race and that the day has come for its unification in one global society."
They say their founder, Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), is regarded by Baha'is as "the most recent in the line of Messengers of God that stretches back beyond recorded time and that includes Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Christ and Muhammad."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/16/iran.bahais/index.html



I'm not posting this to say "look at me I'm a Baha'i" but to show you all how the Government of Iran has once again violated the protection set upon the people of the world and their freedom of Religion. These Baha'is weren't young and in perfect health. My Parents knew two of them and they say they were very kind people. If you guys could just pass on the message by word of mouth, email, facebook etc or pray for these poor souls and friends of my family, it would be much appreciated.

With an informed international community, the Iranian government will feel intimidated and hopefully let them go.

[Alex The Great]

bahahahahahahahaha


:o:oldrazz:

[Asteroid-Man]

bahahahahahahahaha


:o:oldrazz:
Are you seriously without any sense of compassion man? :dry:

[The Senator]

Further proof of Iran's vast intolerance.

[C.F. Kane]

Another sad stage that country is going through. I'm sorry to hear about this.

[Alex The Great]

Are you seriously without any sense of compassion man? :dry:
:csad:


maybe :csad::o

[keith_v]

This reminds me of the kindd of things the Soviets and Nazis would do to people.

[Asteroid-Man]

Ever heard of Mona? She was a 16 year old girl who was teaching a children's class to Baha'i children when the police came in, abducted her, did God know what to her and other female Baha'is in prison and then they were asked to renounce their faith. They refused and were taken to be hung. Mona asked to be hung last so she could pray for the courage of those before her, and at last when it was her turn, she kissed the rope and put it on herself.

The Iranian Government has been very unjust since the revolution. And if you guys were wondering, the USA helped bring Khomeini back into the country after the Shah exiled him.

[Amalgamax]

If you guys could just pray for these poor souls and friends of my family, it would be much appreciated.Allah'u'Abha. Yes, I'll do that.

[Superman4ever]

"And here we...go!"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html


Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
By Muhammad Cohen

NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an



air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.

An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".

Rockin' and a-reelin'
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.

The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain's Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.

But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as "the Great Satan" for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.

The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.

Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.

Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.

The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?

Iran's options
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel's Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.

Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.

Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.

China is Iran's biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China's reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.

Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.

A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it's difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.

At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.

On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.

[The Chairman]

As much as I don't like Iran's whack job president and do think he's an issue to be dealt with, we can't just go for another "shoot first, ask questions later" move. We need to either deal with Ahmedinijad (I probably massacred the spelling) face to face or wait until he strikes first.

[Bunker]

This is appalling. What I want to know is why can't they develop nuclear energy like any other advanced country in the world when we have thousands and thousands of ICBM's ready to strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. Bush is just a war mongering pig, 4,000 dead men and women...for what? So that we pay $4 at the pump or that our world image is will be tainted for sometime now? If you do just a little background check on his reasons for going to war in the first place, you will too be pissed off and disgusted. Let's see...Saddam had WMD's? False. Iraq was in talks with Bin Laden before 9/11? False. Iraq was a sponsor of terrosim? False.

The simple fact is that Bush is a liar, and his cronies are some the most coniving, power hungry scumbags walking this earth. The Iraq War is a crime against humanity and our economy has been driven into the ground. Worst president ever? I think so.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Is this a real news report? If it is,then it's horrible indeed. America will be finally put in it's place. But why? I don't see the sense of this. One bad thing won't change another.

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah....this is soooo not going to happen. Congress won't allow it and the military is stretched too thin as it is.

[Superman4ever]

Yeah....this is soooo not going to happen. Congress won't allow it and the military is stretched too thin as it is.

Who said that this administration needs congress, hell if the VP isn't answerable to congress, why should the president? Congress hasn't stood up to this administration, they're not going to start now. Bush has a 19% approval rate and they STILL won't do ANY thing...or anything relevant.

When Cheney made the statement that he was not answerable to congress, they should of dragged his ass in and set him straight (he keeps saying it). Or that's what a congress, "for the people..." should do.

[ObakeTora]

Who said that this administration needs congress, hell if the VP isn't answerable to congress, why should the president? Congress hasn't stood up to this administration, they're not going to start now. Bush has a 19% approval rate and they STILL won't do ANY thing...or anything relevant.

When Cheney made the statement that he was not answerable to congress, they should of dragged his ass in and set him straight (he keeps saying it). Or that's what a congress, "for the people..." should do.


Thats why we have the Amero to look forward to in 2011. :csad:

[Superman4ever]

Who said that this administration needs congress, hell if the VP isn't answerable to congress, why should the president? Congress hasn't stood up to this administration, they're not going to start now. Bush has a 19% approval rate and they STILL won't do ANY thing...or anything relevant.

When Cheney made the statement that he was not answerable to congress, they should of dragged his ass in and set him straight (he keeps saying it). Or that's what a congress, "for the people..." should do.

To add to this:

McClellan states Press was to soft on Bush Admin. And Bush used propaganda to sell war. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html)

[Matt]

While I agree with McClellan, he is just trying to sell books so can't be taken TOO seriously.

[Marx]

Yeah....this is soooo not going to happen. Congress won't allow it and the military is stretched too thin as it is.

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

[Arc-Light]

That would be a really bad..........Matt your right, he needs to be Impeached ASAP.

[Marx]

That would be a really bad..........Matt your right, he needs to be Impeached ASAP.

But he won't be.

[hippie_hunter]

That would be a really bad..........Matt your right, he needs to be Impeached ASAP.

Too late to do any good. The guy has about half a year left it office. It's completely pointless to impeach him now, it should have been done years ago when it would have made some sort of difference, now it would be nothing but a pathetic political manuvere.

[Marx]

Too late to do any good. The guy has about half a year left it office. It's completely pointless to impeach him now, it should have been done years ago when it would have made some sort of difference, now it would be nothing but a pathetic political manuvere.

Any attempt would be railroaded by the Republicans anyway.

[hippie_hunter]

Any attempt would be railroaded by the Republicans anyway.

That's besides the point. Impeachment is just so freaking pointless now and frankly it would come off as more of a political manuvere since it's a little late for that.

[Marx]

That's besides the point. Impeachment is just so freaking pointless now and frankly it would come off as more of a political manuvere since it's a little late for that.

I completely agree that it's pointless now. What I am saying is that any previous attempt would have been railroaded by the Republicans.

[Alex The Great]

*Cough* Iraq *Cough*



nice move US of A. if u fail at Iraq try again with Iran :dry:

[Joker]

Bush is trying to go for the hat trick. Three wars in the middle east with three seperate countries at one time.

[Superman4ever]

Bush is trying to go for the hat trick. Three wars in the middle east with three seperate countries at one time.

A bunny would be cooler! He'd probably screw that up, too!

[lazur]

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

[Soundwave]

Why in God's name would we want to go into another war right now? It makes no sense at all, but we are talking about the Bush Administration so common sense goes out the window.

[Raiden]

I completely agree that it's pointless now. What I am saying is that any previous attempt would have been railroaded by the Republicans.

Yeah, Bush had the GOP majority 2 years ago so he wouldn't have been impeached for any reason unless he molested a six-year-old on live television, and now it's pointless anyway since he'll be out of office, not to mention that GOP has enough people to prevent a 2/3 majority.

[Darthphere]

While I agree with McClellan, he is just trying to sell books so can't be taken TOO seriously.

Two words: Jose Canseco.:o

[Matt]

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

Actually it is you who needs the refresher. The President DOES need Congressional authority to declare war. Otherwise it is only a police action and I do believe there are some limitations for how long a police action can last (Though limitations such as the law has never stopped Bush before). He also would likely need funding for such an operation as to avoid having to divert it from other funds. And who has the power of the purse, my dear Lazur? Congress. Bush can't do this alone.

Hell, I don't even see how the generals will go along with this. This seems like something that Bush is planning that in all likelihood will not happen.

[The Senator]

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

This President's mentality has long been "if I say it enough times, people will think it's true."

So, If he says "I have the exclusive power to declare war" enough times, people will automatically believe him. Sadly, this seems to have rubbed off on you.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the authority to:


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Next, the War Powers Resolution (or the War Powers Act of 1973) states that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. The President has to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, and forbids troops from remaining for more than 90 days without a declaration of war.

Congress has the ultimate authority when it comes to war. It's not only Bush's fault we're in this mess, but Congress's fault as well. Thankfully, most of the idiots who helped authorize this war are slowly being removed/ voluntarily leaving office...

[Matt]

Unfortunately though, if Bush topples a government in 90 days (hell, with the might of the US military they can topple a third world government in 7 days) as a "police action." Congress would be hard pressed to not declare war. If they do not, and the troops have to pull out after 90 days, then the Republicans can say "They don't support the troops and they don't support rebuilding the country we liberated! They want to cut and run and let the terrorists take over," (and it would still be the honeymoon period, of parades on the streets and statues of dictators being pulled down. So the media would portray it as a liberation as opposed to a forced occupation). And suddenly the Democrats have to approve the 'war' or at least an extended police action or risk losing big in November.

Y'know, if Bush pulls this off, it is a brilliant campaign strategy to win the White House for McCain, because it either makes Barack Obama look like a man who wants to let terrorists take over Iran after we overthrew their government or he votes to go ahead with the war and suddenly has the anti-war rhetoric he has based his entire campaign on swept out from under his feet.

[The Senator]

I don't know. This is one of those situations where Congress would have to really think about public approval. Two-thirds of Americans do not support going to war with Iran. I don't see how Bush, whose current approval rating is 23%, will be able to drum up public support for yet another war, while we're losing one in Iraq and barely have control over the other in Afghanistan. And if the public doesn't support the war, then I don't see why Congress would play along with him.

[Matt]

I don't know. This is one of those situations where Congress would have to really think about public approval. Two-thirds of Americans do not support going to war with Iran. I don't see how Bush, whose current approval rating is 23%, will be able to drum up public support for yet another war, while we're losing one in Iraq and barely have control over the other in Afghanistan. And if the public doesn't support the war, then I don't see why Congress would play along with him.

If Bush goes anyway and overthrows their government and in essence destroys their country it would take balls of steel for Congress to refuse to continue funding it, and even then it would be a gamble. The American people may not want to go to war, but they are a fickle bunch and I'm not sure how much they would want to lose a war we are already in (regardless of if they asked for it).

[The Senator]

If Bush goes anyway and overthrows their government and in essence destroys their country it would take balls of steel for Congress to refuse to continue funding it, and even then it would be a gamble. The American people may not want to go to war, but they are a fickle bunch and I'm not sure how much they would want to lose a war we are already in (regardless of if they asked for it).

Well Congress will have 90 days to decide whether to authorize it or not, so I'm sure a few opinion polls will be released in that time period. Then Congress can act accordingly.

[MaskedManJRK]

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

Considering Congress' previous record, I severely doubt that. Here's what will happen:

Congress will slam the administration for their plans and say they won't support them. The Administration will then start insulting them--calling them sissies and wimps. Congress, not wanting to be wimps and sissies, will go weak in the knees and give the administration whatever they want.

I wish I had your faith in this, but, y'know, fool me once...

[Matt]

Well Congress will have 90 days to decide whether to authorize it or not, so I'm sure a few opinion polls will be released in that time period. Then Congress can act accordingly.

Considering Congress' previous record, I severely doubt that. Here's what will happen:

Congress will slam the administration for their plans and say they won't support them. The Administration will then start insulting them--calling them sissies and wimps. Congress, not wanting to be wimps and sissies, will go weak in the knees and give the administration whatever they want.

I wish I had your faith in this, but, y'know, fool me once...

And that is really what makes Bush's move so brilliant from a campaign perspective. Either Obama says no to continuing the effort during the middle of a "police action" that has essentially toppled an entire country and doesn't "support the troops." Or Obama says yes and loses his moral high ground of "I didn't support Iraq," as he will have supported another unjustified war.

[moraldeficiency]

I'm not sure I believe this story to begin with. There's not much there other than what someone's said off the record to someone else, etc.

Now I know the US has plans to attack Iran, the US has plans to attack everyone, but that's just because you need to have a plan just in case. I'm not saying this would never happen, but something in this story just doesn't seem right, I could be wrong but other than speculation I don't see any evidence here.

[Symbiotic]

*reads article* Ugh. *headdesk* This is a bad idea.

[Raiden]

*reads article* Ugh. *headdesk* This is a bad idea.

But unfortunately, bad idea never stopped Bush before.

[Malice]

I dont believe this is true...

[EdRyder]

I'm sorry but I think its pretty easy to fight this if in fact they attempted it to begin with.
Dont forget that NIE of 07.
Dont forget that its comprised of 16 Intelligence agencies including every aspect of the DOD(Office of Naval Intelligence,Air Force Intelligence, Army Military Intelligence,Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and The National Security Agency)As well as Homeland Security ,The CIA ,FBI and DEA,..and many morrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre

[Marx]

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

Please make sure that you know what you're talking about before you try to insult my intelligence.

You are the one who needs a refresher course Lazur.

[Marx]

Considering Congress' previous record, I severely doubt that. Here's what will happen:

Congress will slam the administration for their plans and say they won't support them. The Administration will then start insulting them--calling them sissies and wimps. Congress, not wanting to be wimps and sissies, will go weak in the knees and give the administration whatever they want.

I wish I had your faith in this, but, y'know, fool me once...

And who exactly would you choose to listen to - a corrupt administration who is nearing the end of their term? Or the voters who actually choose to keep you in office or give you the boot?

[lazur]

Actually it is you who needs the refresher. The President DOES need Congressional authority to declare war. Otherwise it is only a police action and I do believe there are some limitations for how long a police action can last (Though limitations such as the law has never stopped Bush before). He also would likely need funding for such an operation as to avoid having to divert it from other funds. And who has the power of the purse, my dear Lazur? Congress. Bush can't do this alone.

Hell, I don't even see how the generals will go along with this. This seems like something that Bush is planning that in all likelihood will not happen.

Great article here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082702a.htm

Also, the entire debate leads to nothing but ambiguity. It wasn't until 1973 that the War Powers Resolution was passed, which required the President to obtain Congressional approval, but that Act has never been enforced, and many legal types believe it wouldn't stand up in court.

The President certainly can declare war on other countries without Congressional approval, particularly if the President doesn't call it 'war' or the declaration of such.

From Wikipedia: On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

And the link to Wikipedia on how the U.S. has historically 'Declared War' on other nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

You are the one who needs a refresher course Lazur.

Read for yourself...

[The Senator]

Great article here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082702a.htm

Also, the entire debate leads to nothing but ambiguity. It wasn't until 1973 that the War Powers Resolution was passed, which required the President to obtain Congressional approval, but that Act has never been enforced, and many legal types believe it wouldn't stand up in court.

The President certainly can declare war on other countries without Congressional approval, particularly if the President doesn't call it 'war' or the declaration of such.

From Wikipedia: On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

And the link to Wikipedia on how the U.S. has historically 'Declared War' on other nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States



Read for yourself...

Great article, but according to the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Congress has the ability to declare war as well, and it also has to authorize any war within 90 days of its initiation. Congress has the final say on whether we go to war or not.

[Knives]

@ wars aint enough we need a third one. Fantastic.

[lazur]

Great article, but according to the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Congress has the ability to declare war as well, and it also has to authorize any war within 90 days of its initiation. Congress has the final say on whether we go to war or not.

I guess, but that doesn't ever seem to do a lot of good? Seems we're in a bit of a conundrum since, ideologically, our Congress disagrees with our President, yet both our ditzy President *and* Congress have like the lowest approval rating of all time...

We're screwed!

[Malice]

I dont think this is happening, I would NOT put it past those that want to make the president look even worse

Honestly, if he was going to attack them, do you think it would have leaked out?

[MaskedManJRK]

And who exactly would you choose to listen to - a corrupt administration who is nearing the end of their term? Or the voters who actually choose to keep you in office or give you the boot?

Who have they consistantly listened to? :o

Christ, times like this I wish I could go all V on their ass. :cmad:

[Alex The Great]

Dear Stephen Harper: Invade the US :o

time to put those maggota out of there misery.

[zanos]

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

All he has to do is say Iran has WMDs. Then congress has to agree to go to war.

[Marx]

Who have they consistantly listened to? :o

Christ, times like this I wish I could go all V on their ass. :cmad:

I would like to think that people can finally see through the scare tactics. This administration and their tactics have become quite transparent as of late. You know?

All he has to do is say Iran has WMDs. Then congress has to agree to go to war.

Congress will not agree to another war. There's just no way...not in the condition that our military is currently in.

[MaskedManJRK]

I would like to think that people can finally see through the scare tactics. This administration and their tactics have become quite transparent as of late. You know?

People? Sure. Congress? Considering their previous record, I highly doubt their common sense and their sense of decency.

I think it all comes to trust--you seem to trust that Congress will finally see the light and stand their ground while I wouldn't trust them or any other government sector to protect my goldfish.

[Spider-Bite]

This is appalling. What I want to know is why can't they develop nuclear energy like any other advanced country in the world when we have thousands and thousands of ICBM's ready to strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. Bush is just a war mongering pig, 4,000 dead men and women...for what? So that we pay $4 at the pump or that our world image is will be tainted for sometime now? If you do just a little background check on his reasons for going to war in the first place, you will too be pissed off and disgusted. Let's see...Saddam had WMD's? False. Iraq was in talks with Bin Laden before 9/11? False. Iraq was a sponsor of terrosim? False.

The simple fact is that Bush is a liar, and his cronies are some the most coniving, power hungry scumbags walking this earth. The Iraq War is a crime against humanity and our economy has been driven into the ground. Worst president ever? I think so.

I agree with Obama's position on the next move for dealing with Iran, however I feel your argument for why we shouldn't try to stop Iran from building nukes, is the equivalent of saying cops are hypocrites for not letting felons walk freely with guns. Just because we have em, doesn't mean they need em. Just cops, the military, the FBI, and the CIA, get big guns, doesn't mean you get to have an AK47. Controlling the spread of nuclear arms is no less moral than gun control really.

It's unrealistic to think the U.S. is just gonna get rid of our nukes. It's not gonna happen. That does not change the fact that allowing Iran to have them, will cause a nuclear arms race in an incredibly unstable region, where many of the madmen believe that the end of the world is coming.

[Addendum]

The only thing is, the evidence that Iran has WMDs or is making WMDs is lacking strength, as the evidence for Iraq's WMDs was also lacking strength

[Spider-Bite]

The only thing is, the evidence that Iran has WMDs or is making WMDs is lacking strength, as the evidence for Iraq's WMDs was also lacking strength

Actually the evidence says that Iran did have an active nuclear weapons program, but it put it on hold in 2003, however they continue to enrich uranium, and are upping their ability to enrich it faster. They are waiting for the right moment to start their program back up again, or they would have dismantled it. They didn't.

I'm not saying war is the solution. It would make things worse. We need to negotiate and offer some concessions. the main concessions we have to make is a promise not to invade if they don't possess nuclear weapons, don't violate international law, and the other side of the coin, is that we have to stop giving Israel the thumbs up to instigate whenever they want. And we have to pressure Israel to disarm it's nukes. It's wrong to get involved in a conflict and tell one side they can have nukes, and the other side they can't. We have effected the balance of power, and now Iran wants an even playing field.

Edit... Plus I was merely refuting that other guy's claim, that "who are we to tell them they can't, when we can?"

[EdRyder]

The only thing is, the evidence that Iran has WMDs or is making WMDs is lacking strength, as the evidence for Iraq's WMDs was also lacking strength

Well, You can take always take solace in the fact that this administration has become politically impotent.After the laundry list of Iraq war casualties from within ,theres virtually no one left (of any importance)to fall on their sword for any policy.

[Spider-Bite]

Well, You can take always take solace in the fact that this administration has become politically impotent.After the laundry list of Iraq war casualties from within ,theres virtually no one left (of any importance)to fall on their sword for any policy.


I'm not positive but I believe Bush can order an airstrike without congressional approval, even on American soil. It is a scary thought.

[EdRyder]

^Ok as I pointed out a few posts back, the joint chiefs just aren't pushing for it.If you learned anything from the lead up to the war with Iraq, it should be that it was a policy the Chiefs were committed to long before Bush was even elected.If you really believe that the final word on war policy begins and ends with any president you're living in a fantasy land.Its ridiculous.Do you really believe men like "Scooter" Libby were able to cherrypick evidence towards a war with Iraq?-*Scratch that* Any President or any one who holds office in any Administration could cherrypick evidence and present it as fact to the Joint Chiefs and every intelligence agency and they're just going to kowtow or "roll over" or, even further, endorse said policy as if their hands were tied?

The buck does not stop "here"

[zenile]

I think the American public would be more willing to accept an attack against Iran than the current mess in Iraq. At least with Iran you have someone that is openly threatening hostilities against one of our allies, so no one can accuse GWB of beating the war drums here, Achimedenijad (butchered the spelling I'm sure) has that already covered.

[Addendum]

That ally of the US (Israel) is more than capable of handling it. They won a war in 6 damn days, so it's not like they're a pushover. Now, if they need help then I see no problem offering assistance when things get bad.

[Marx]

People? Sure. Congress? Considering their previous record, I highly doubt their common sense and their sense of decency.

I think it all comes to trust--you seem to trust that Congress will finally see the light and stand their ground while I wouldn't trust them or any other government sector to protect my goldfish.

I trust in the fact that members of Congress know that it is potentially career suicide to approve another war. They all come up for election sometime JRK.

[Spider-Bite]

I think the American public would be more willing to accept an attack against Iran than the current mess in Iraq. At least with Iran you have someone that is openly threatening hostilities against one of our allies, so no one can accuse GWB of beating the war drums here, Achimedenijad (butchered the spelling I'm sure) has that already covered.
Saddam wasn't exactly too fond of Israel either. The only difference really between iran's President and Saddam is that Saddam was making progress in Iraq, where as Armmajehad isn't, although he is not in charge there either.

Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, with a much larger population, which means the violence in the streets would make Iraq look like a Buddhist colony.

[Tron5000]

Yes. Let's offer "concessions" to the Iranian leadership. Like, "OK, we're not going to let you wipe out ALL the Jews, but how about just a quarter or a half? Would that work for you?"

Maybe this one: "If you will immediately stop killing our soldiers in this proxy war you are waging on us in Iraq, we'll buy all of our oil from you in the future."

Perhaps this: "Stop enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and we'll send you all brand new, shiny Chevy SUVs that you should have no trouble affording the gas for since you already subsidize it to the rate of pennies a gallon to Iranian consumers."

[Addendum]

Maybe this one: "If you will immediately stop killing our soldiers in this proxy war you are waging on us in Iraq, we'll buy all of our oil from you in the future."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

[moraldeficiency]

has there been any evidence that this is real other than the original post which was entirely speculation and unnamed sources to begin with?

[Tron5000]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

CIA director Michael Hayden:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/30/alqaeda-cia.html

"It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels," he said, "to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period."

[Addendum]

And Hayden offers no proof.

[Tron5000]

And Hayden offers no proof.

And you offer no proof that Iranian weapons are not killing US soldiers.

Are you of the belief that CIA Director Michael Hayden, General David Petraues and Ambassador Crocker are all maliciously lying to the American public about the Iranian involvement in Iraq? And if so, what would you believe to be their motives for doing so?

[Addendum]

The burden of proof is on them. The person making the claim has to prove the claim. In this case, it's the government. The hearer (me) doesn't have to disprove the claim to reject it.

[Tron5000]

The burden of proof is on them. The person making the claim has to prove the claim. In this case, it's the government. The hearer (me) doesn't have to disprove the claim to reject it.

So I assume you are refusing to answer the two questions I posed to you. Interesting tactic.

[Addendum]

Not my fault if you don't like my response

[Tron5000]

Not my fault if you don't like my response

That's not a response to the questions I asked. Let's try this again, shall we?

1. Do you believe that CIA Director Hayden, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are maliciously lying to the American public about Iran's involvement in the death of American soldiers in Iraq?

2. If you believe this to be the case, then what do you believe are the motivations of these three men to engage in this campaign of distributing false information?

[Addendum]

I gave you my response Hannity junior.

[Tron5000]

I gave you my response Hannity junior.

OK. Since you obviously can not answer a question that is directly posed to you, you have proved that you are incapable of debate. Therefore, consider our conversation ended unless you would actually like to discuss differences of opinion like a big boy, rather than talking around the issue and avoiding questions you don't want to answer.

[Addendum]

Your "debate" and "questions" are meaningless. The government made a claim without providing any proof to support it. I am under no obligation to disprove their claim to reject it, so I did. My rejection of the government's claim is not calling them liars or saying they made stuff up.

Move. the ****. On.

[Tron5000]

Your "debate" and "questions" are meaningless. The government made a claim without providing any proof to support it. I am under no obligation to disprove their claim to reject it, so I did. My rejection of the government's claim is not calling them liars or saying they made stuff up.

Move. the ****. On.

You're the one who can't answer a simple question. It's either "yes" or "no," but you could not even handle that. You're as spineless as so many jellyfish.

[Marx]

Let's all be respectful guys! There's no need for name calling. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Addendum]

You're the one who can't answer a simple question. It's either "yes" or "no," but you could not even handle that. You're as spineless as so many jellyfish.

You're the one that lacks the capacity to handle rejection, and your question is without merit.

You really are Hannity junior so keep whining about me not answering your worthless questions, and I'll just keep laughing

So moving on to the topic of the thread instead of meaningless dribble, has anything else happened?

[Tron5000]

You're the one that lacks the capacity to handle rejection, and your question is without merit.

You really are Hannity junior so keep whining about me not answering your worthless questions, and I'll just keep laughing

So moving on to the topic of the thread instead of meaningless dribble, has anything else happened?

You say "Hannity Junior" as though you mean it to be an insult. Here's another question (which you likely will not answer since you have yet to address the previous two):

Do you consider Sean Hannity's son to be a bad person? Because he is truly Hannity Junior.

And exactly how is my question without merit? There is no merit in asking if you believe that the 3 individuals I mentioned are lying to the American public?

I eagerly await your long-winded dance around the question.

[Marx]

SO how 'bout those rumors of the US striking Iran by August???

[Addendum]

SO how 'bout those rumors of the US striking Iran by August???

It's nothing more than a last attempt to salvage Bush's legacy

[raybia]

Why in God's name would we want to go into another war right now? It makes no sense at all, but we are talking about the Bush Administration so common sense goes out the window.

Global domination?

[Marx]

Global domination?

You know Hitler made that mistake.

[raybia]

You know Hitler made that mistake.

Good always triumphs in the end.

[Addendum]

Though it depends on the amount of money offered

[That'ssuper!]

What idiot would extent a country which is already over extended when they don't need to? Israel has nukes, let them handle the issue, why America?

[Marx]

What idiot would extent a country which is already over extended when they don't need to? Israel has nukes, let them handle the issue, why America?

Because the United States has a "police-the-world" mentality.

[Arc-Light]

Because the United States has a "police-the-world" mentality.

That is no joke that is exactly the mentality of most republicans in our country think, the " We think we know better, so we can do whatever the hell we want " mentality, and it needs to stop. Its this type of mentality that got us 9/11 in the 1st place.

[Marx]

That is no joke that is exactly the mentality of most republicans in our country think, the " We think we know better, so we can do whatever the hell we want " mentality, and it needs to stop. Its this type of mentality that got us 9/11 in the 1st place.

I'm being completely serious. That mentality has gotten us in a lot of trouble throughout the world. Hopefully when a new president is elected (a Democratic one) our foreign policy will change from "BOMB" to something more appropriate. I hope that we will begin to do more on the humanitarian front than we have in these last eight years.

[Arc-Light]

I'm being completely serious. That mentality has gotten us in a lot of trouble throughout the world. Hopefully when a new president is elected (a Democratic one) our foreign policy will change from "BOMB" to something more appropriate. I hope that we will begin to do more on the humanitarian front that we have in these last eight years.

I agree...

[Arkady Rossovich]

*Cough* Iraq *Cough*



nice move US of A. if u fail at Iraq try again with Iran :dry:

The thing is,Iran is strong enough to fight back.

[Tron5000]

Apparently there's no need to attack Iran. According to Princess Pelosi, why, I guess we should actually be thanking Iran. You see, the successes being seen in Iraq have nothing to do with General Petraeus's surge, or the tribal leaders overcoming differences and working together for the first time, or Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Iraqi military leadership in the month-long campaign that defeated the Sadrists. No, the progress in Iraq is actually due to Iranian "goodwill."

Don't believe me? Well, Princess Botox said so:

"Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians."

Well, guess that settles that. Thanks Iran! Try not to kill any more of our soldiers, OK? It's cool.

[dpm07]

Nothing is going to happen. I don't see the US attacking Iran, especially during an election year. There will be verbal sparring back and forth, but that is all. We will not attack Iran with an air strike, conventional land force, and definitely not nukes.

If one follows the nightly news closely, they will see that there will likely be no attack. Words that are to the effect stating they might, are simply action verbs designed to gather ratings in the media.

[Tron5000]

I'm being completely serious. That mentality has gotten us in a lot of trouble throughout the world. Hopefully when a new president is elected (a Democratic one) our foreign policy will change from "BOMB" to something more appropriate. I hope that we will begin to do more on the humanitarian front than we have in these last eight years.

"More on the humanitarian front"?

American is the most generous nation in the world. We even provide aid to the citizens of enemy nations. When there is a natural disaster in the world, America gives the most and the quickest assistance. We liberate nations from tyrannical regimes. We establish democratic governments in nations that have never had them. We forced Lybia to abandon their nuclear program.

We have done much on the humanitarian front, and likewise will continue to do so. Americans want to help others, and we do it better than anyone. There is no more humanitarian nation than America.

[Zen]

Apparently there's no need to attack Iran. According to Princess Pelosi, why, I guess we should actually be thanking Iran. You see, the successes being seen in Iraq have nothing to do with General Petraeus's surge, or the tribal leaders overcoming differences and working together for the first time, or Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Iraqi military leadership in the month-long campaign that defeated the Sadrists. No, the progress in Iraq is actually due to Iranian "goodwill."

Don't believe me? Well, Princess Botox said so:

"Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians."

Well, guess that settles that. Thanks Iran! Try not to kill any more of our soldiers, OK? It's cool.


Actually this is true.

Iran negotiated the cease fire in Basra, thats a fact.

the surge has yet to accomplish its goal. thats a fact.

The cease-fire at basra was seen as a good thing. thats a fact.

Iran wants a Shia lead government in Iraq, and hated saddaaam. thats a fact.

Iran has stopped the flow of weapons and training of militants into Iraq. thats a fact confirmed by Petraeus and other generals on the ground.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/03/iran-no-longer-aids-iraq-militants/

the fact is, when it comes to iraq right now... Iran is our friend. as hard as that is to swallow thats the reality, and thats where diplomacy with Iran over nuclear weapons should begin.

now if your talking nukes, then you got a leg to stand on. but concerning Iraq, i do not think the facts agree with your understanding of the issue. but i dont claim to have an ultimate understanding either...

what have i missed?

[Marx]

"More on the humanitarian front"?

American is the most generous nation in the world. We even provide aid to the citizens of enemy nations. When there is a natural disaster in the world, America gives the most and the quickest assistance. We liberate nations from tyrannical regimes. We establish democratic governments in nations that have never had them. We forced Lybia to abandon their nuclear program.

We have done much on the humanitarian front, and likewise will continue to do so. Americans want to help others, and we do it better than anyone. There is no more humanitarian nation than America.

Really? In the the last eight years? We have? I'm not talking about the American people. I'm talking about the American government. Had it not been for the American people and former presidents over the course of the last eight years, we wouldn't have accomplished anything on the humanitarian front.

[Tron5000]

Really? In the the last eight years? We have? I'm not talking about the American people. I'm talking about the American government. Had it not been for the American people and former presidents over the course of the last eight years, we wouldn't have accomplished anything on the humanitarian front.

We sent massive amounts of aid after the tsunami, and more recently to Myanmar and China. We have passed several pieces of legislation during Bush's presidency that have resulted in trillions of dollars in assistance to nations around the world. We even offer aid to the citizens of Iran, while their leadership is actively engaging in efforts to kill our soldiers in Iraq. I would find it very difficult to imagine that there is another nation in the world that offers more assistance to the world community than the USA. I guess that could be possible, but I find it hard to believe.

[Marx]

We sent massive amounts of aid after the tsunami, and more recently to Myanmar and China. We have passed several pieces of legislation during Bush's presidency that have resulted in trillions of dollars in assistance to nations around the world. We even offer aid to the citizens of Iran, while their leadership is actively engaging in efforts to kill our soldiers in Iraq. I would find it very difficult to imagine that there is another nation in the world that offers more assistance to the world community than the USA. I guess that could be possible, but I find it hard to believe.

I am saying that anything that has been done in the last eight years has largely been because of the american people or former presidents. (Not because of the Bush Administration.) I want our next administration to take a more active role.

[Tron5000]

I am saying that anything that has been done in the last eight years has largely been because of the american people or former presidents. (Not because of the Bush Administration.) I want our next administration to take a more active role.

I'm just saying that the Bush administration has taken an active role. Their humanitarian activities just largely go ignored because they're not ratings-grabbers.

Look at the current situation with North Korea. Once a dreaded enemy and member of the Axis of Evil, Kim Jong Il has abandoned his nuclear program and we are sending tons upon tons of aid to North Korea. We have done this through peaceful, humanitarian efforts.

There are many examples of humanitarian efforts launched and engaged in by the Bush administration.

This from Bob Geldof (who I think we all know is about as far from Republican as one can get):

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/george-w-bush-the-great-humanitarian/

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.
Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, “has done more than any other president so far.”
“This is the triumph of American policy really,” he said. “It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion.”
“What’s in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing,” Mr. Geldof said.
Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed “to articulate this to Americans” but said he is also “pissed off” at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.
“You guys didn’t pay attention,” Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.

Then there is the aid to Tanzania:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/africa/bush.php


Bush signs $700 million humanitarian pact in Tanzania

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania: President George W. Bush has been smothered with affection here, never more so than on Sunday, when he sat at a wooden desk under a sweltering sun with President Jakaya Kikwete by his side, and signed a $698 million grant of foreign aid to Tanzania.

To be sure, there is excitement about Bush. The White House says foreign aid to Africa doubled during his first term and will nearly double again, to $8.7 billion a year, by 2010 if his budget proposals are adopted. The $698 million compact he signed Sunday is the largest grant ever awarded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation, established to assist countries that embrace democracy and fight corruption.

Tanzania also benefits from Bush's global AIDS initiative, known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or Pepfar for short. Bush visited an AIDS clinic here Sunday to spotlight the program, which is to expire this year. He called on Congress to reauthorize it, and to keep intact a controversial provision that sets aside one third of money for AIDS prevention on programs that promote abstinence. Critics, including the independent Institute of Medicine, say the provision hampers prevention efforts.

[Mr Sparkle]

Actually this is true.

Iran negotiated the cease fire in Basra, thats a fact.

the surge has yet to accomplish its goal. thats a fact.

The cease-fire at basra was seen as a good thing. thats a fact.

Iran wants a Shia lead government in Iraq, and hated saddaaam. thats a fact.

Iran has stopped the flow of weapons and training of militants into Iraq. thats a fact confirmed by Petraeus and other generals on the ground.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/03/iran-no-longer-aids-iraq-militants/

the fact is, when it comes to iraq right now... Iran is our friend. as hard as that is to swallow thats the reality, and thats where diplomacy with Iran over nuclear weapons should begin.

now if your talking nukes, then you got a leg to stand on. but concerning Iraq, i do not think the facts agree with your understanding of the issue. but i dont claim to have an ultimate understanding either...

what have i missed?

and........................... Zen knocks it out of the park!

[zenile]

That is no joke that is exactly the mentality of most republicans in our country think, the " We think we know better, so we can do whatever the hell we want " mentality, and it needs to stop. Its this type of mentality that got us 9/11 in the 1st place.

I'd rather think that a fundamentalist terrorist organization bent on imposing the rule of Islam on the Western World was the type of mentality that brought about 9/11.

[Marx]

I'd rather think that a fundamentalist terrorist organization bent on imposing the rule of Islam on the Western World was the type of mentality that brought about 9/11.

Our foreign policy has largely aided in fueling this fundamentalist "destroy the western world" mentality of terrorists. I'm not quite sure how you can deny that Zenile.

[moraldeficiency]

Too much sand in too many vaginas, that's the cause for all world conflicts. Why am I the only one to see this?

[Tron5000]

Our foreign policy has largely aided in fueling this fundamentalist "destroy the western world" mentality of terrorists. I'm not quite sure how you can deny that Zenile.

I thought it was the part of the Koran that talks about killing the infidels and not being satisfied until the entire world is under Muslim rule, as well as the mosques that teach that being a martyr is the highest honor one can attain before meeting one's 72 virgins.

Sorry, I'm not willing to accept any responsibility for 9/11. None. Not at all. Zero.

Our chickens did not "come home to roost." We didn't bring about 9/11. Radical Islamic jihadists did. And we're lucky there has yet to be another attack of that magnitude on this great nation.

[Marx]

I thought it was the part of the Koran that talks about killing the infidels and not being satisfied until the entire world is under Muslim rule, as well as the mosques that teach that being a martyr is the highest honor one can attain before meeting one's 72 virgins.

Sorry, I'm not willing to accept any responsibility for 9/11. None. Not at all. Zero.

We didn't being about 9/11. Radical Islamic jihadists did. And we're lucky there has yet to be another attack of that magnitude on this great nation.

There are teachings in the Koran that suggest that. I'm just saying that our foreign policy doesn't help matters any.

[zenile]

I base my argument on the fact that terrorists have been attacking the US prior to GWB's administration (USS Cole, 1993 World Trade Center bombings).

[Marx]

I base my argument on the fact that terrorists have been attacking the US prior to GWB's administration (USS Cole, 1993 World Trade Center bombings).

I'm not pinning this on the Bush Administration. I'm talking about our foreign policy as a whole has largely been "police the world." And that doesn't help calm tensions around the world.

[Tron5000]

I'm not pinning this on the Bush Administration. I'm talking about our foreign policy as a whole has largely been "police the world." And that doesn't help calm tensions around the world.

Well, unfortunately, the world needs police. The UN is a hapless group composed of America-hating nations and despotic, tyrannical dictators. They sure aren't about to do anything worthwhile.

So when the dust gets kicked up and someone needs to step in, who should it be? As in the Iran predicament: They are working toward nuclear weapons. Should the US just leave them to their own devices and hope for the best, or should someone step in and "police" the situation?

The US has always been needed to "police" outrageous behavior in the world. Were it not for the US during WWII, the world today would barely resemble that which we currently see.

If the US does not "police the world," then who will? Who can we count on to not allow tyrannical regimes to take over the world? If not us, then who?

[Arc-Light]

Well, unfortunately, the world needs police. The UN is a hapless group composed of America-hating nations and despotic, tyrannical dictators. They sure aren't about to do anything worthwhile.

So when the dust gets kicked up and someone needs to step in, who should it be? As in the Iran predicament: They are working toward nuclear weapons. Should the US just leave them to their own devices and hope for the best, or should someone step in and "police" the situation?

The US has always been needed to "police" outrageous behavior in the world. Were it not for the US during WWII, the world today would barely resemble that which we currently see.

If the US does not "police the world," then who will? Who can we count on to not allow tyrannical regimes to take over the world? If not us, then who?

The above quote is a prime example of the mentality that myself and TheMarx are talking about, thank you for bringing that point home Tron...think on this...POLICE THE WORLD IS ACTING TYRANNICAL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.....it is sad that you and most republicans cant see that.

[hippie_hunter]

There are times when police actions are necessary like what happened between Serbia and Kosovo. The Darfur requires policing. Rwanda required policing.

There's a difference between using police actions wisely and overdoing it.

[Tron5000]

The above quote is a prime example of the mentality that myself and TheMarx are talking about, thank you for bringing that point home Tron...think on this...POLICE THE WORLD IS ACTING TYRANNICAL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.....it is sad that you and most republicans cant see that.

Who do you propose should act as the policing agent of the world? Do you think other (terrorist-sponsoring) nations should be left to their own devices until the point that hundreds of thousands are killed with a nuclear device? Do you think it is the job of the UN to ensure that tyrannical dictators do not realize their goals of wiping entire nations off the map? Nations that deny the Holocaust while simultaneously seeking to effect another one?

These are actual questions that I am asking you. Please do not reply with a comment about my "mentality."

[Arc-Light]

Who do you propose should act as the policing agent of the world? Do you think other (terrorist-sponsoring) nations should be left to their own devices until the point that hundreds of thousands are killed with a nuclear device? Do you think it is the job of the UN to ensure that tyrannical dictators do not realize their goals of wiping entire nations off the map? Nations that deny the Holocaust while simultaneously seeking to effect another one?

These are actual questions that I am asking you. Please do not reply with a comment about my "mentality."

No one should be policing the world, where is it is says we should be. This world is to diverse for one country to do it all, the rest of the world sees imperialism instead of help. These so called terrorist countries know not to cross certain boundaries, and trust me they know not to go to far, they aren't stupid. They saw what happened to the Taliban. I think it is the job of those countries and its people in that region of the world to do the work, or the U.N. I am sorry but your deep into the fear propaganda machine the Bush administration has been spewing for years. Iran or whoever knows the repercussions if nukes are involved in anything happened in the USA or anywhere else, We would wipe them off the face of the earth, AND THEY KNOW THAT. These people might act tough, but they aren't stupid enough to piss off the big kid on the block.

[Tron5000]

No one should be policing the world, where is it is says we should be. This world is to diverse for one country to do it all, the rest of the world sees imperialism instead of help. These so called terrorist countries know not to cross certain boundaries, and trust me they know not to go to far, they aren't stupid. They saw what happened to the Taliban. I think it is the job of those countries and its people in that region of the world to do the work, or the U.N. I am sorry but your deep into the fear propaganda machine the Bush administration has been spewing for years. Iran or whoever knows the repercussions if nukes are involved in anything happened in the USA or anywhere else, We would wipe them off the face of the earth, AND THEY KNOW THAT. These people might act tough, but they aren't stupid enough to piss off the big kid on the block.

And what makes these nations feel that way? The police power of the USA.

Yes, we would wipe them off the face of the Earth. That is because we have the capability and rationality.

So how do you contend the fact that we are acting as a deterrent to Iran, yet also claiming that we should not be acting as the police agent that is necessary to do so?

[Arc-Light]

And what makes these nations feel that way? The police power of the USA.

You need to get out more, i hear it all the time in my travels.

Yes, we would wipe them off the face of the Earth. That is because we have the capability and rationality.

So how do you contend the fact that we are acting as a deterrent to Iran, yet also claiming that we should not be acting as the police agent that is necessary to do so?

The deterrent is common sense, they know what lines not to cross.

[Tron5000]

And what makes these nations feel that way? The police power of the USA.

You need to get out more, i hear it all the time in my travels.

Yes, we would wipe them off the face of the Earth. That is because we have the capability and rationality.

So how do you contend the fact that we are acting as a deterrent to Iran, yet also claiming that we should not be acting as the police agent that is necessary to do so?

The deterrent is common sense, they know what lines not to cross.

Thanks for informing me that I "need to get out more." You know, since you are aware of how often I "get out," and stuff.

So you believe that a man who denies the Holocaust whllle seekiing to effect another one just needs to be reasoned with? What "common sense" would you use to appeal to Ahmadinejad?

[Arc-Light]

[quote=Arc-Light;14939797]

Thanks for informing me that I "need to get out more." You know, since you are aware of how often I "get out," and stuff.

Your welcome....

So you believe that a man who denies the Holocaust whllle seekiing to effect another one just needs to be reasoned with? What "common sense" would you use to appeal to Ahmadinejad?

Appeal, why do we need to appeal to him, just use the proper diplomatic processes with Iran. What do you think a bomb dropped in his backyard by one of our planes will change the way he and some of the people in power think.....nope. I hate repeating myself, but no matter how backward and wrong, or how tough they act, they still will use common sense. Seeking to effect another one is more the fear propaganda.

[EdRyder]

Forgive me but, I feel the need to address this notion of Iran being a push over.
You are aware that Iran has a fairly formidable airforce? As well as a good number of enlisted men?(trained soldiers btw, not the kind that dont know how to do jumping jacks right, or that will dress up as women on day two)
Dont get me wrong ,they dont have nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers but , they aren't Iraq either.

[Arc-Light]

Forgive me but, I feel the need to address this notion of Iran being a push over.
You are aware that Iran has a fairly formidable airforce? As well as a good number of enlisted men?(trained soldiers btw, not the kind that dont know how to do jumping jacks right, or that will dress up as women on day two)
Dont get me wrong ,they dont have nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers but , they aren't Iraq either.

True....but i wasn't talking about a up-front war...you are also forgetting Iraq was the best in the middle east, until well you know.

[moraldeficiency]

Forgive me but, I feel the need to address this notion of Iran being a push over.
You are aware that Iran has a fairly formidable airforce? As well as a good number of enlisted men?(trained soldiers btw, not the kind that dont know how to do jumping jacks right, or that will dress up as women on day two)
Dont get me wrong ,they dont have nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers but , they aren't Iraq either.

Actually before the original gulf war Iraq was a fairly decent military power, equal to Iran, and they got slaughtered. Traditional forces unless outfitted with the very best equiptment really can't do much against surgical airstrikes and long range bombardments.

I'm not saying "hey let's go attack Iran", that would be incredibly stupid and I don't really believe this story at all, but I just wanted to address the whole Iran's a real army while Iraq isn't, because before Operation Desert Storm Iraq was every bit as dangerous (and considerably bigger) than Iran.

[Tron5000]

[quote=Tron5000;14939863]

Appeal, why do we need to appeal to him, just use the proper diplomatic processes with Iran. What do you think a bomb dropped in his backyard by one of our planes will change the way he and some of the people in power think.....nope. I hate repeating myself, but no matter how backward and wrong, or how tough they act, they still will use common sense. Seeking to effect another one is more the fear propaganda.

So when Ahmadinejad continues to advance his nuclear program (against UN warnings) and publicly states on a number of occasions that Israel should be wiped away, we should just let them be, because "they will still use common sense"? How does the term "common sense" at all apply to a man who denies the Holocaust and calls Jews "pigs"?

And if we do strike Iran in August, it won't be the first hit. It will be backing up Israeli forces, which absolutely will not allow Iran to have The Bomb.

I'm more worried about Iran developing The Bomb and selling the technology to terrorist groups (al-Qaeda, Hezbollah) than The Bomb actually being used by the Iranian military. We can not allow that to happen. If we allow Iran to continue to their own devices unchecked, we will be allowing a Nuclear Holocaust to occur. Such will be the case, unless someone prevents that from happening. There are 2 countries in the world willing to step in and accept that role: Us and Israel.

You think the US should not "police the world." I shudder to think where this world would be without the military might of the US. Without the US, Hitler and Tojo would not have been stopped. North Korea and Libya would still be developing nuclear technology. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. The list goes on and on and on.

[EdRyder]

Actually before the original gulf war Iraq was a fairly decent military power, equal to Iran, and they got slaughtered.


Im sorry but I just cant agree at all.Certainly they werent the millitary power they were before Desert Storm but even then I wouldnt of placed Iraq in my top five.
You can stack them up yourself http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.html

[moraldeficiency]

Im sorry but I just cant agree at all.Certainly they werent the millitary power they were before Desert Storm but even then I wouldnt of placed Iraq in my top five.
You can stack them up yourself http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.html

Yeah that shows current Iraq which has nothing near what pre desert storm Iraq has. I was part of that decimation so I know firsthand. At that time the Iraqi's had far more tanks, an appropriate air force not to mention lots of AAA batteries and was in the top ten in enlisted and trained ground troops (in terms of size) they were a threat equal to or slightly better than Iran depending on which strafor report you read. They might not have been in your top five but realistically neither Iran nor Iraq should figure into your top ten for military powers, especially since their production capabilities are in no way capable of sustaining any traditional military campaign outside of guerilla warfare.

Right now they aren't anything nearly what they once were (people forget just how much decimation we had already done to Iraq before all this even started), so I agree but a standard war against a standard ground/air/naval force would have the US crushing the Iranians in a couple months in terms of military power. Occupation; however, is as always a far far different story.

[Zen]

Im sorry but I just cant agree at all.Certainly they werent the millitary power they were before Desert Storm but even then I wouldnt of placed Iraq in my top five.
You can stack them up yourself http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.html

in your top 5 of what?

Iran and Iraq were similar militarily.

and we obliterated Iraqs forces. the same would happen with Iran... it would be over in 2 weeks. thats not occupation, thats destroying military capacity.

of course after such an action we would be bathed in terrorism for the next 100 years, so theres always that side-effect of such a wild and great plan.


EDIT... im going to defer to MMoralDeficiency in months rather then weeks, cause i never served, but none the less ;)

[EdRyder]

Right now they aren't anything nearly what they once were (people forget just how much decimation we had already done to Iraq before all this even started), so I agree but a standard war against a standard ground/air/naval force would have the US crushing the Iranians in a couple months in terms of military power. Occupation; however, is as always a far far different story.

When I say top five, thats just in terms of the middle east.No I did not forget that we were still bombing their air fields since Desert Storm.They had no air force to speak of this round.
I have no doubt that we would crush them.Sort of goes back to my point many threads ago of this being Isreals problem(who would also crush Iran)But thats not the point Im trying to make here.Its no "slam dunk"

[EdRyder]

in your top 5 of what?

Iran and Iraq were similar militarily.



As I just said:oldrazz: 1:Top five middle east(including our allies)
2:No, they werent.Thats not what the facts reflect at all.

[moraldeficiency]

When I say top five, thats just in terms of the middle east.No I did not forget that we were still bombing their air fields since Desert Storm.They had no air force to speak of this round.
I have no doubt that we would crush them.Sort of goes back to my point many threads ago of this being Isreals problem(who would also crush Iran)But thats not the point Im trying to make here.Its no "slam dunk"

Sorry, didn't get that we were just talking the middle east, they would count in those senarios. That said, we'd still crush their conventional forces with ease and they have no chance at renewable strategic resources or the productional capabilites to sustain combat in any form. Basically after the strategic airstrikes take out their airfields and AAA batteries they'd have nothing to fall back on and their ground forces don't have the armor to make a run of it especially without air cover. They'd be destroyed with reletive ease, we just couldn't sustain an occupation. In terms of conventional warfare they don't hold up in any way as a defensive structure, too exposed and with too many enemy resources within easy strike distance.

But to get back to my original thought, why is anyone even believing these rumors?

[Arc-Light]

So when Ahmadinejad continues to advance his nuclear program (against UN warnings) and publicly states on a number of occasions that Israel should be wiped away, we should just let them be, because "they will still use common sense"? How does the term "common sense" at all apply to a man who denies the Holocaust and calls Jews "pigs"?

----He is all talk...he wont attack Israeli he is only saying crap like that to impress the hard-liners, why are you so freaking scared......

And if we do strike Iran in August, it won't be the first hit. It will be backing up Israeli forces, which absolutely will not allow Iran to have The Bomb.

-----If Israeli gets involved, then every country in the middle east will be against us.....it would be very bad if Israeli is involved in any military action.


I'm more worried about Iran developing The Bomb and selling the technology to terrorist groups (al-Qaeda, Hezbollah) than The Bomb actually being used by the Iranian military. We can not allow that to happen. If we allow Iran to continue to their own devices unchecked, we will be allowing a Nuclear Holocaust to occur. Such will be the case, unless someone prevents that from happening. There are 2 countries in the world willing to step in and accept that role: Us and Israel.

-----Are you reading my responses, how many times have i said THEY WONT ALLOW THAT...they know the consequences if we or anybody else finds out they were involved...it would be total annihilation of their country and they know we have that power.


You think the US should not "police the world." I shudder to think where this world would be without the military might of the US. Without the US, Hitler and Tojo would not have been stopped. North Korea and Libya would still be developing nuclear technology. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. The list goes on and on and on.

----What a fascist thought....the world will always have such men there is nothing we can do about it, like there will always be terrorism. Hitler was the last true threat to the USA and WW2 was the last true war, North Korea, Libya, Saddam Hussein were never a threat. I would hate to be living in a world of fear like you seem to be in. I know there are threats, but give me a break the world will not end when a dumba$$ says something bad about Israeli.

[Tron5000]

So when Ahmadinejad continues to advance his nuclear program (against UN warnings) and publicly states on a number of occasions that Israel should be wiped away, we should just let them be, because "they will still use common sense"? How does the term "common sense" at all apply to a man who denies the Holocaust and calls Jews "pigs"?

----He is all talk...he wont attack Israeli he is only saying crap like that to impress the hard-liners, why are you so freaking scared......

And if we do strike Iran in August, it won't be the first hit. It will be backing up Israeli forces, which absolutely will not allow Iran to have The Bomb.

-----If Israeli gets involved, then every country in the middle east will be against us.....it would be very bad if Israeli is involved in any military action.


I'm more worried about Iran developing The Bomb and selling the technology to terrorist groups (al-Qaeda, Hezbollah) than The Bomb actually being used by the Iranian military. We can not allow that to happen. If we allow Iran to continue to their own devices unchecked, we will be allowing a Nuclear Holocaust to occur. Such will be the case, unless someone prevents that from happening. There are 2 countries in the world willing to step in and accept that role: Us and Israel.

-----Are you reading my responses, how many times have i said THEY WONT ALLOW THAT...they know the consequences if we or anybody else finds out they were involved...it would be total annihilation of their country and they know we have that power.


You think the US should not "police the world." I shudder to think where this world would be without the military might of the US. Without the US, Hitler and Tojo would not have been stopped. North Korea and Libya would still be developing nuclear technology. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. The list goes on and on and on.

----What a fascist thought....the world will always have such men there is nothing we can do about it, like there will always be terrorism. Hitler was the last true threat to the USA and WW2 was the last true war, North Korea, Libya Saddam Hussein were never a threat. I would hate to be living in a world of fear like you seem to be in. I know there are threats, but give me a break the world will not end when a dumba$$ says something bad about Israeli.

No, but the end may begin when Iran explodes a nuke on Israeli soil.

[Raiden]

No, but the end may begin when Iran explodes a nuke on Israeli soil.

You cannot just declare another war without looking at the ramification of that decision, and US's capacity to wedge another war and post-war occupation. The fact is, US is now borrowing billions to fund their current wars, which will have a long-term negative effect on our economy and ability to function as a government, not to mention that US is owing their debts to countries like China. And our forces right now are stretched thin, with many soldiers having to serve 15 months tour of duty as opposed to standard 12. If US going into its 3rd war then draft is unavoidable. There are just too many reasons not to go to war, even if that nation is Iran. You can thank the Bush Administration for that.

[Tron5000]

You cannot just declare another war without looking at the ramification of that decision, and US's capacity to wedge another war and post-war occupation. The fact is, US is now borrowing billions to fund their current wars, which will have a long-term negative effect on our economy and ability to function as a government, not to mention that US is owing their debts to countries like China. And our forces right now are stretched thin, with many soldiers having to serve 15 months tour of duty as opposed to standard 12. If US going into its 3rd war then draft is unavoidable. There are just too many reasons not to go to war, even if that nation is Iran. You can thank the Bush Administration for that.

Has Iran not already declared war on the US by killing our soldiers, providing weapons that kill our soldiers and providing training for combatants who kill our soldiers? If that is not "war," then what, pray tell, is it?

Our military is fine. There will be no draft. My friend is leaving at the end of the month for Parris Island. The Marines will not even enlist any infantry right now because they are so high above their enlistment goals.

[Raiden]

Has Iran not already declared war on the US by killing our soldiers, providing weapons that kill our soldiers and providing training for combatants who kill our soldiers? If that is not "war," then what, pray tell, is it?

Our military is fine. There will be no draft. My friend is leaving at the end of the month for Parris Island. The Marines will not even enlist any infantry right now because they are so high above their enlistment goals.

That is due to Iran's relations with Shia insurgency, and Iran even has ties to Iraq's current president, who is also a Shia. When Shia insurgents wanted to use military force to drive out the US troops, of course they will turn to Iran for help, who did so. And the reason for this happening is due to the destability of Iraq, which created militia who wanted to take control of the region. And US's post-war lack of planning that helped contributed to this creation of chaos.

As for your optimism that there will be no draft, I do not share this optimism. Just because the enlistment goals are met doesn't mean there will be enough for a full occupation of a country like Iran.

[Tron5000]

That is due to Iran's relations with Shia insurgency, and Iran even has ties to Iraq's current president, who is also a Shia. When Shia insurgents wanted to use military force to drive out the US troops, of course they will turn to Iran for help, who did so. And the reason for this happening is due to the destability of Iraq, which created militia who wanted to take control of the region. And US's post-war lack of planning that helped contributed to this creation of chaos.

As for your optimism that there will be no draft, I do not share this optimism. Just because the enlistment goals are met doesn't mean there will be enough for a full occupation of a country like Iran.

Who cares what the reasons are for Iran killing my countrymen and our brave soldiers? What reason is acceptable? They are currently killing US soldiers. I'm not concerned with the reason. I'm concerned with stopping it.

[Raiden]

Who cares what the reasons are for Iran killing my countrymen and our brave soldiers? What reason is acceptable? They are currently killing US soldiers. I'm not concerned with the reason. I'm concerned with stopping it.

So invading a country is the only solution, without consideration on whether US can substain or afford another costy war?

[Arc-Light]

No, but the end may begin when Iran explodes a nuke on Israeli soil.

It may be hard for to understand, but they aren't that stupid, they know that one of their made-shift nukes will not kill every single Israeli, so why use it. But they do know that Israeli and of course US has the capabilities to wipe them out. So there for THEY WONT DO IT.

[Tron5000]

So invading a country is the only solution, without consideration on whether US can substain or afford another costy war?

I think if a nation is actively killing our brave soldiers, hell yes, they better be ready to face the consequences.

Many in Iran are already fed up with the Iranian leadership. A good friend of mine is half Iranian and his father currently lives there. I feel that much of the Iranian citizenry would join the US in overthrowing the Iranian leadership. But they will be hard pressed to do it on their own, without assistance.

[Tron5000]

It may be hard for to understand, but they aren't that stupid, they know that one of their made-shift nukes will not kill every single Israeli, so why use it. But they do know that Israeli and of course US has the capabilities to wipe them out. So there for THEY WONT DO IT.

What do they care about getting wiped out? That's just the immediate martyr's ticket to 72 virgins.

[Raiden]

I think if a nation is actively killing our brave soldiers, hell yes, they better be ready to face the consequences.

Many in Iran are already fed up with the Iranian leadership. A good friend of mine is half Iranian and his father currently lives there. I feel that much of the Iranian citizenry would join the US in overthrowing the Iranian leadership. But they will be hard pressed to do it on their own, without assistance.

That's why US thought when they invaded Iraq, thinking that its citizens will be so grateful to see Saddam gone they'd help US troops when they got there. 5+ years later, we still see insurgency in Iraq.

[Tron5000]

That's why US thought when they invaded Iraq, thinking that its citizens will be so grateful to see Saddam gone they'd help US troops when they got there. 5+ years later, we still see insurgency in Iraq.

Iraq and Iran are 2 totally different countries with very different populations. You can't equate the successes or failures of one to the other. It's not comparing apples and apples.

[Tron5000]

Great piece from Thomas Sowell on Obama/Iran. In case you're unfamiliar, Thomas Sowell is one of the leading economic minds of the United States and a highly educated and insightful individual.

Oh, and it's from Townhall.com, so go ahead and discredit the piece simply based on the source. I know that's easy to do.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/06/03/irrelevant_apologies?page=full&comments=true

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others.

But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world-- including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"

[Mr Sparkle]

I thought it was the part of the Koran that talks about killing the infidels and not being satisfied until the entire world is under Muslim rule, as well as the mosques that teach that being a martyr is the highest honor one can attain before meeting one's 72 virgins.

Sorry, I'm not willing to accept any responsibility for 9/11. None. Not at all. Zero.

Our chickens did not "come home to roost." We didn't bring about 9/11. Radical Islamic jihadists did. And we're lucky there has yet to be another attack of that magnitude on this great nation.

hahaha do you take like a course in Jingoism?
do you actually know of the US relationship with the SAME EXACT nutjobs that you now decry, the active relationship that financed their wars and the fact that the US pretty much put them in power, not only that, but after seeing what these cats were capable of doing during the Afghan war when it came to foreigners on their soil?

they put military bases all over the damned middle east.
and, while we are talking about "responsibility" did you know that the US was instrumental in pushing back democracy in Iran, so much so that Madeleine Albright admitted in 2000 that the US/CIA financed and planned "operation Ajax" what was operation Ajax you ask? why the plan to overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iran, to install a Pro-west ( and we all know that this doesn't mean pro-Mexico) Dictator, that's right, the US super-awesome bastion of freedom and democracy admits to having installed a dictator, a move which has been credited as a more than considerable contribution to the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran.

so while YOU not knowing history might not be ready to " accept responsibility" those of us that actually read about stuff that happened in the past (that's history BTW) know better.
see, it's not just about the Koran, if any other superpower removed a democratically elected official and replaced him with a pro-them dictator you would be calling for their heads on a platter.
let's see how objective you can be about this.

btw the reason for operation Ajax ( for those of you at home, the removal of the elected official and the installment of a dictator) was OIL!

oh Mr Sparkle, there you go again with your paranoid delusions right?
except both the British and the Americans agreed that this was about Iran nationalizing their oil production, so in effect the US was instrumental in removing the only democratic government the region ever had just so the Brits could have their oil concession back.

yay history.

you'll notice the Koran and the Virgins had nothing to do with it.:cwink:

[Mr Sparkle]

Great piece from Thomas Sowell on Obama/Iran. In case you're unfamiliar, Thomas Sowell is one of the leading economic minds of the United States and a highly educated and insightful individual.

Oh, and it's from Townhall.com, so go ahead and discredit the piece simply based on the source. I know that's easy to do.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/06/03/irrelevant_apologies?page=full&comments=true

isn't he also a conservative commentator that has spoken against gay marriage, social security (in one article he actually chastises activists for speaking against child labor in Ecuador, because hey, child labor is were the poor get their money!) I mean, just so you know where this cat is coming from.

here I found some neat quotes to offer some insight into this cat's perspective

* "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."

* "The big divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, or women and men, but between talkers and doers."

* “Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help”

* “One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain”

* "'Global warming' is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible."

yeah.....uh...he seems real balanced.

[Hobgoblin]

Some more fun and games with Iran.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363606,00.html

[Mr Sparkle]

wow, and no one complains about those statements?
jeeeeez one sided much.....?

[Superman4ever]

I recommend that you all watch this:

7a3Bfox0k4g

[Superman4ever]

Some more fun and games with Iran.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363606,00.html

This is insanity.

That douche Olmert is trying to divert attention from his fraudulent dealings. Let Israel attack Iran, BUT let them deal with it. Keep the USA out of it...we SERIOUSLY don't need to start a new war.

[Superman4ever]

wow, and no one complains about those statements?
jeeeeez one sided much.....?

When has it EVER been balanced or fair?

[Mr Sparkle]

well yeah.
you got me there, it's just weird that one is all like "WTF? Israel!?"
I mean, I know a lot of Jews, and I have been privy to some horror stories that would give Eli Roth a boner, but still, that kind of stuff should only be said by "them" otherwise, how the hell do I tell the two types of people apart?

[That'ssuper!]

The thing is, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria with its own air strikes, why would Americans need to be involved? Iran doesn't match Israel's military strength, why should Bush worry yet? If there are irrefutable evidences of designs found for the development of weapons, it may be another issue. That would mean a UN use of sanctions, something developed to handle the issue. Besides if there is any chance of a nuclear exchange with Iran and Israel, does anyone recall the Israel is confirmed to have something like 75-400 warheads? They are not members of any non-poliferation treaty, Israel has full ability to defend or counter attack a nuclear strike. America is only involved for its own interests. As Washington addressed in his farewell speech advising not to become entangled in extensive foreign agreements, funding a nation is fine to do so without being militarily involved.

[Tron5000]

The thing is, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria with its own air strikes, why would Americans need to be involved? Iran doesn't match Israel's military strength, why should Bush worry yet? If there are irrefutable evidences of designs found for the development of weapons, it may be another issue. That would mean a UN use of sanctions, something developed to handle the issue. Besides if there is any chance of a nuclear exchange with Iran and Israel, does anyone recall the Israel is confirmed to have something like 75-400 warheads? They are not members of any non-poliferation treaty, Israel has full ability to defend or counter attack a nuclear strike. America is only involved for its own interests. As Washington addressed in his farewell speech advising not to become entangled in extensive foreign agreements, funding a nation is fine to do so without being militarily involved.

A member of the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies), a policy think-tank, stated yesterday that Iran's nuclear centrifuges are strategically located in areas that would prevent the Israeli military from destroying them all without US backing. Pretty sure there's a reason that they set up their "peaceful" nuclear program in such a fashion for a reason.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm thinking that they don't want their nuclear centrifuges destroyed by Israel?
just a thought.

[rdh007]

A member of the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies), a policy think-tank, stated yesterday that Iran's nuclear centrifuges are strategically located in areas that would prevent the Israeli military from destroying them all without US backing. Pretty sure there's a reason that they set up their "peaceful" nuclear program in such a fashion for a reason.

Because they trust us more than they trust the Israelis? Because they don't want people bombing their sh!$?

[Tron5000]

Because they trust us more than they trust the Israelis? Because they don't want people bombing their sh!$?

You are telling me that there is "trust" between the US and Iran?

[Mr Sparkle]

Because they trust us more than they trust the Israelis? Because they don't want people bombing their sh!$?

nah, that sounds so unlikely.