The Iran Thread

If it's proven Iran's helping the insurgency kill American troops, do we invade Iran?

  • yes

  • no

  • not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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!

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.
 
Bush will never get Congressional approval for war with Iran, so fear not.
 
We'll see what happens. Nothing surprises me about this administration anymore, so this is just another typical news item to me.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 in Iraq."

This report did not contradict this statement. There WERE al Qaeda in Iraq - just not at the behest of the Hussein regime.
 
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.
 
This is interesting, I have not heard anything about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,355
Messages
22,090,426
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"