 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM It's just too bad--and bitterly ironic--that the Iranian people are suffering needlessly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:06 AM As I said earlier -- 5 Oct 2007 12:14 AM for instance-- contrary to much rather overheated rhetoric, Bush will not invade Iran. Why? Since, as I said then, Ahmadinejad will fall due to his own unpopularity--without Iran's developing a nuclear bomb. His unpopularity has taken a big jump recently with deaths of over 60 Iranians, some due to gas shortages in remote and mountainous villages---(23 Jan 2007, AP, I believe.) "..even Iran's supreme leader has implicitly rebuked his one-time protege." Ahmadinejad "was openly humiliated when state radio read a decree by supreme leader ....Khamenei...ordering him to implement a law approved by Parliament to supply more natural gas to remote villages". "Citing budgetary reasons, Ahmadinejad had balked at the Parliament's order to spend $1 billion from the country's currency reserve fund to supply the gas." "But Khanmenei, who has final say on all state matters under Iran's complicated system, overruled him". "Many view high inflation and shortages of gas and bread as particularly bitter, because Iran should be flush with oil revenues right now, from high world oil prices". He is already losing power. "...in local municipal elections a year ago, the president's allies suffered a humiliating defeat after a majority of the seats were won by reformists and conservatives opposing Ahmadinejad". "The gas shortage has created wide ripples. The government closed offices, schools, and universities for days because of possible shortages" And though Bush is, by common consent, it appears, the worst president of the US ever, he is not self-destructive. Invading Iran will cause his impeachment and likely removal--the more so since it is becoming progressively more obvious that an invasion will not be necessary. Ahmadinejad will be out on his ear in June 2009 or before--with no nuclear bomb. And Bush of course in January 2009. Anything else is a self-inflicted Leftist--or Rightist-- nightmare. As usual, Teribus is also somewhat less than convincing, with his dire warnings about the "12 Old Gits". It's the head "Git" who has just knocked Ahmadinejad down--despite being a fundamentalist Islamic--and therefore a "Crazy Mullah", and threat to Teribus' own existence. So now Teribus will be no longer have to be afraid of his own shadow. Surely a positive development. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Oct 07 - 10:19 PM "I like Petraus (sic) in the position he's in." Interesting. He himself probably doesn't like it. In charge of a "surge" which even Bush admits can't be sustained. Forced to witness how nothing he does brings the highly-touted and devoutly wished-for chimera "reconciliation" any closer. Of course it's a bit of a problem when part of Iraq--"Kurdistan" never wanted to be part of the country, and when the Shiites still fear the return of Baathism--so refuse to share power, and even refuse to accept the Sunnis being integrated into the army and police, according to the much ballyhooed "Anbar model". Now, to add to his joys, he has the "security providers" outside his purview, especially Blackwater, busily alienating Iraqis. And he'd best hope Bush doesn't invade or even bomb Iran--as I've pointed out, that will likely put his troops at even more risk, due to the Iranian reaction, possibly seconded by Sadr, for instance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: robomatic Date: 17 Oct 07 - 07:08 PM I think things will settle down. The US is extended to its military limits and has further limited itself by horrendously overexpending its currency and making some poor strategic and tactical decisions. I like Petraus in the position he's in, and wish to support him in the near and mid term. George and Lon (I mean Dick) are lame ducks, and everyone on the political horizon is relatively sane. I think it's time for the terrorists to make some mistakes, and hopefully continue to lose sway with their one-time followers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Oct 07 - 06:26 PM Naah, Bruce. They have to keep 'em uncrossed. How else they gonna kiss their arse goodbye, when Georgie boy implodes? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 16 Oct 07 - 06:34 PM True. So what the hell is Congress doing? Tryin' to find a third way to cross their legs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Oct 07 - 06:32 PM More to the point, he can't even be stopped from illegally invading the privacy of US citizens. Who is going to stop this shit for brains lunatic doing anything he wants. Remember it takes just one bomb to start something the whole USA won't be able to stop. And he directly controls the actions of the US military. That's the thing that needs changing, like Now! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Oct 07 - 01:03 PM Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control (DER SPIEGEL interview with military historian Kolko) Most of the interview is about Iran. Kolko argues that neither the USA nor Israel will attack Iran. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:12 PM I think you've missed the point, Nick. I don't believe anybody is alleging Bush is concerned about civilian deaths. That would be a foolhardy assertion. However, he is concerned about impeachment--and has reason to be so. In response to a US attack on Iran, an offensive across the Iraq border by Iranians, posssibly joined by Iraqi Shiites--Sadr for instance-- and resulting in a huge surge of US body bags-- would be a likely result--and would also likely result in Bush's impeachment. At minimum it would probably result in the toppling of Maliki's government--for being too close to the US. That's why an US attack on Iran is unlikely. But, of course, we'll see. And, despite the absurdly defeatist attitude of some Mudcatters, this Congress will never give Bush a declaration of war to attack Iran--and will seek impeachment--and probably get it--if he attacks without Congressional permission--especially with the--likely-- Iranian response I've outlined. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,redhorse at work Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:58 AM I doubt the presence of innocent neighbours will cause Bush much worry. He'll go ahead and bomb and then say it's all the Iranian's fault for siting US targets too near civilians. nick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Oct 07 - 09:35 PM The Iranians are already being accused of interfering in Iraqi affairs. They will be only too happy to be given a wonderful excuse to come across the border--and look at the length of the border. There is no such thing as a "surgical strike" on the nuclear facilities. Not only are they, as you note, Bobert, underground, but they are also scattered. Even "selected, targeted" attacks will do nothing but stir up the Iranian hornets' nest--and very likely result in Iranian attacks over the border. Iran after all has a large army--and it's right there--and primed to attack the forces of the Great Satan. And Shiites in Iraq--for instance, Sadr, will be only too happy to join the attack on the infidel Americans--so, as I said earlier, the likelihood would be a surge in US body bags--and no question who precipitated it. Next stop for Bush: impeachment--and likely conviction. Not something he wants to take a chance on--even if this outcome is not etched in stone. And while Bush is a despicable excuse for a leader, and for my money--as I've said before-- the worst president in US history, he is in fact not mentally unstable--and is capable of rational calculation--especially when politics is involved. Such as possible impeachment. Regarding Turkey: it seems it will be a raid or series of raids into "Kurdistan". After all, the PKK has already caused in Turkey something proportionate to US Vietnam deaths. No Turkish government can ignore this. And of course the bill on Armenian genocide does not help US-Turkey relations. So what may happen, in addition to the raids, is complications for the US bringing supplies to troops in Iraq, many of which, I understand, come through Turkey. One more thing: "sorry leadership of Iran: statements that the Holocaust did not happen"... Not exactly. Some parts of Iran's leadership deny the Holocaust, some don't. Indicative of this is the fact that ,as I've noted in another thread, a docudrama series on Iranian TV, loosely based on fact, about how an Iranian diplomat had saved many Jews during the Holocaust, was a huge hit--this year. What the Iranian regime is trying to do is to draw a contrast between the Holocaust and Israel's current government. And they are having great success in doing this. I hear you ask: "Does Iran expect Israel not to defend itself?" Good question. My only point is that the Iranian regime is pointing out the difference between the 1940's and now--as part of the campaign to portray Israel as the bully of the Mideast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:12 PM Yeah, Robo... When I heard about the Turks kickin' up a little dust on tonight's news I was thinkin', "Whew, this is great... This oughtta get Bush's tiny little attention span away from planning a bombing attack on Iran to cover his rear flank..." That's exactly what I thought... I'd rather have him involved in using some diplomacy to smooth relations with Turkey... This oughtta keep him well occupied... I think that Bush gets bored easilly and that is why I have been concerned that he was getting ready to bomb Iran... BTW, the Yeaman bombing was of a car/van on an almost deserted road... Iran presents a much more difficult target... Most folks who are in the know feel that any nuclear facilities are so deep that it would take a nuclear bunker buster to have half a chance to mess up... Those nuclear bunker busters ain't like, ahhhh, too sergical in nature... That had/has me concerned... Thank you, Turkey... Tie the boy up for the next year an maybe, jus maybe, the world will dodge another Bush war of choice... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: robomatic Date: 11 Oct 07 - 07:58 PM Bobert: I think you bring out some good points, and you are not missing much. I think Iran probably is helping our adversaries in Iraq, but what we can do about it is kinda hard to figure. I doubt if the leaders of Iran are totally in control of the kind of aid hard driving Shiites might render to their religious kindred. The kind of aid that kills Americans and Sunnis alike. In short, it's complicated and short term actions have long term consequences. I still do not see the US bombing Iran without extreme selectivity as in, targetting known and identified individuals that the US has 'the book' on. The US did that in Yemen with a remotely piloted vehicle, and I'm not aware of repercussions, but it was like I said, selected, targetted, and I don't think there were even any noncombatants involved (no bystanders) in the case of Yemen. So I think there's a possibility the US could do something like that, and no possibility the US will invade Iran. Right now the story seems to be whether the Turks will invade Iraq. There's nothing like a potential conflict between NATO members, eh? I was not a fan of the "Shock and Awe" monicker and I don't see the Bush Administration laying down a lot of smoke'n drama that would penalize the next American administration. Bush is a lame duck war Prez and initiating showy "Sturm und Drang" moves at this stage will not burnish the ex-Presidential halo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 07 - 07:30 PM Okay, Robo... This was brought out earlier and I rephrase the question changin' the word "invade" to "bomb"... Different story here... Of course everyone knows that the US military is stretched too thin in ground troops but has lots of missles and bombers... Word on the street that Bush and Co. have been having serious discussions about one more "shock and awe" before they leave... Bush has abosolutely nothing to loose in terms of his legacy... Thta is allready shot... So what's to prevent him from using Iranian intervention in Iraq as an excuse to "bomb" Iran without Cogressional approval??? The White House hasm afetrall, changed it's story in the last few weeks on Iran from "Iran is trying to build a nuke", which would require Congressional authority for any attack, to "Iran is helping the terrorists in Iraq", which Bush could say, "Hey, we're just doing what Congress alrerady said we could do..." What am I missing here??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: robomatic Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:38 PM As for the original question, it seems to be clear that the US does not have the men and materiel to mount an invasion. The nation of Iran is quite large and rich, full of young people who quite openly long for modernity, but under the thumb of reactionary mullahs and irresponsible leaders such as Ahmedinajab. It has been the tactic of some of these leaders to foment a fear of America, and Israel, so as to unify the population, much the same tactic as Hitler utilized in post WWI Germany. In the meantime, the regime which holds sway by means of Mullah administered fitness judgements instead of democratic means, has persecuted religious minorities, homosexuals, and mishandled the economy even worse than the leaders of the United States. I think the US administration is mostly aware of this, and mostly able to suspend kneejerk reactions to the kind of baiting that has come out of the sorry leadership of Iran: statements that the Holocaust did not happen, that the Jews of Israel should be relocated to Europe, (kind of ignoring all the Jews who were thrown out of their Middle Eastern homes), and of course, the Holocaust Cartoon Competition. Even the dimmest of dim bulbs, saving only a few who've chosen to appear in this thread, are aware of this. Iran's population is ripe for the modern age. Iran has plenty of reason to go secular if left to its own devices. Iran is not Arab. So calm yourselves down and go rent a DVD of "300" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:05 PM "Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading..." Has this become a Zen thread yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:04 PM bankley, that is a true stroke of genius--and something everybody on this thread, regardless of other differences of opinion, can applaud. And it wouldn't even need Congressional approval--I'll bet the whole Congress would give its blessing. Just be sure to video Bush's solo invasion. (And make the bike a tandem--with Cheney on the back). Then of course the question will be whether you're a public-spirited individual or a capitalist. If you're not a capitalist you'd put the video on You-Tube---where it will be an huge international smash hit. But you could make a LOT by selling it. And by his invasion, Bush would be proving-- for the first time in his life-- that he was a good leader--since a good leader never asks his subordinates to do something he wouldn't be willing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 10 Oct 07 - 08:02 PM LOL, bankley... Make that, "lots of pretzels"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: van lingle Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:12 PM I like the way you think, bankley. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: M.Ted Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:35 AM Following this thread is a lot like watching "The Oxbow Incident"--especially after 282RA's "We can't use logic here, people" comment. I trust Bush's judgement more than that of some of the people on this thread. And that's not a compliment to Bush-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: bankley Date: 10 Oct 07 - 08:51 AM Bush should invade Iran, preferrably alone, riding his mountain bike while wearing that "Jumpin' Jack Flash- mission accomplished" fly-boy suit with some pretzels sewn into the lining.... so that he won't be captured alive...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Oct 07 - 07:02 AM 282RA, if your last post is an indication of what you think is a good discussion I'd rather have a reasonable one. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stu Date: 10 Oct 07 - 04:40 AM "What are you Bush and Cheney haters going to work yourselves into a lather about when none of these dire things you predict happen?" Because before your buddies kicked this whole misjudged episode off many people predicted this mess would happen, and it did happen - the war in Iraq that was based on lies and corporate profit, the laughable idea that somehow Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and the astonishing fact monkey boy and his shooting partner had no contingency in place to cope with the inevitable insurgency (unless you include Halliburton coining it in on the back of a nation's misery). The fact Bush let Al Quaeda into a country where it wasn't before, the torture and abuse of human rights in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the utter desertion of morality and basic humand decency demonstrated by the kidnap ('rendition') and torture of people by the CIA in defiance of the due process of law . . . etc etc What is truly amazing is the Bush and Cheny apologists still live in their bubble of ignorance and deluded self-interest. Dead Amercian soldiers. Dead Iraqi civilians. Moral Corruption. The total abandonment of any sense of humilty and decency. A belligerent USA in the Middle East. Un-effing-believable. Happy now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: fumblefingers Date: 09 Oct 07 - 11:56 PM What are you Bush and Cheney haters going to work yourselves into a lather about when none of these dire things you predict happen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Oct 07 - 02:20 PM We had already reached that conclusion guest, with respect to Gorgeous George, but there are many members of the Republican Party who are neither nutters, nor warmongers. The same is true of the UK New Labour Party. Both of these organisations are democratic in their policy decisions, and majority rule applies there as in elections. So, you may claim that more than 50% of members of both organisations are nutters and warmongers, and I will agree. Any higher claim will only serve to highlight the degree of nuttery in you own makeup. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,nutter Bush Date: 09 Oct 07 - 05:24 AM George Bush and his voters and memeber's of his party are all war mongers, anlong side the Labour party here in britian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Barry Finn Date: 08 Oct 07 - 06:13 PM I've asked several canadates in the last election when on the trail about this & never had anyone address my question. The question was like poison. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Oct 07 - 03:46 PM Posted on Wed, Oct. 03, 2007 Dissenting at your own risk By CECILIE SURASKY Special to the Star-Telegram Link Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby." A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk. Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups. But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies. Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible? In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments. Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism. Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice. After an unprecedented campaign of outside interference waged by Dershowitz, Professor Norman Finkelstein was refused tenure by DePaul University because of his criticism of U.S.-Israeli policy. Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj is fighting a political campaign to deny her tenure at Barnard. Even Walt and Mearsheimer, who are getting plenty of exposure, couldn't have asked for better proof of their point that the lobby works to stifle dissent when an embarrassed head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs told them that their scheduled speech was canceled. (They did speak before the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth on Sept. 17.) This was apparently because Foxman was not available that day to "balance" their talk. (They had initially been booked by themselves. The talk was not rescheduled.) Many groups that started with the important work of fighting real anti-Semitism now rely on anti-Semitism to insist that to show one's love of Jews, one must offer uncritical support to Israel. They are especially displeased by Jews who believe that enabling Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights is not good for anyone. Unless this atmosphere of intimidation is confronted, Americans will continue to lack access to information and perspectives necessary to formulate effective Middle East policies, virtually ensuring that Israel and the United States will be at war for many years to come. 'The Israel Lobby' A podcast of Walt and Mearsheimer's presentation is available at http://podcast.dfwworld.org/2007_09-17_The_Israel_Lobby.MP3 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stu Date: 08 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM "Oh, of course there is nobody left who could attack the USA." I disagree Don. The US is about to be well and truly hoisted by it's own petard, by the monster they've been happy to feed for so long - China. Soon the dominant economic superpower is holding a sword of Damocles above the US and when it calls it debt home, the problems are really going to begin. The real problem is the US holds such an influence over the western capitalist system most of Europe and the rest of the developed world in both hemispheres suffers from adverse conditions in the US economy - the recent unsettled state of the UK lending market and the run on the Northern Rock bank in the UK was a result of compassionate American capitalists lending money to the poorest people in their own country (obviously with the hope of screwing them of every cent they have) who never stood a hope of paying it back, and then getting into trouble because of it. Meanwhile, China has been happily buying US debt in the form of Treasury Bonds, pouring cash into the war coffers and financing tax breaks for the super-rich tossers who keep Bush in power. China has the ability to bring the US economy to it's knees if it wishes - that's why Tiawan and Tibet are truly fucked - the greed of western capitalists has ensured no-one will ever stand up to the Chinese, because if the boys with the big guns won't, who else will? In this context it's easy to see why Bush blusters and farts on about Iran and his mythical 'axis of evil'. Luckily for him, the majority of the American public are either so stupid or scared shitless by his witless rhetoric and they don't see what's going on in the wider world - heck, they probably don't even give a shite where Tibet is anyway. Funny really - some poor nun, monk, dissident languishes in a Chinese gulag (or 'Laogai' as they are called in China), tortured, shot, strangled or otherwise murdered by the people who soon will be running the world. Type the word 'Laogai' into google and look at the pictures - this is what happens when our 'leaders' start wars with tinpot dictators they could have got rid of years ago, but leave the real beast alone, or even worse, snuggle up to it in the hope of making a quick buck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Oct 07 - 12:08 PM "It has a hoard of WMD's including nuclear weapons; could easily refuse to let UN weapons inspectors in - since it has the largest nuclear capability it doesn't need to; has a record of attacks on other countries, and a huge war machine" WHY NOT ATTACK THE USA, and make the world a safer place? Oh, of course there is nobody left who could attack the USA. They've all been made into lackeys or destroyed, including my native land. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stu Date: 08 Oct 07 - 05:19 AM "Again incorrect, the ONLY reason UNMOVIC was invited to return to Iraq was because of the efforts and activities of one man - George Walker Bush. That is fact and is undeniable, if anybody out there is of a different opinion I would dearly like to hear your reasoning." Even accepting Bush pressurised the UN to send inspectors back to Iraq it's clear his motivation wasn't a desire to disarm Iraq peacfully but provoke a confrontation with Saddam - a wish he held since 9/11 when he decided to finish what his bumbling father should have over a decade previously. I agree the threat from Iran is more indirect, although the western habit critising their tactics of helping with the logistics and funding of insugencies reeks of hypocrisy and simply serves to illustrate the moral corruption the western capitalist governments represent. If they weren't directly threatening western commercial interests in the region then they wouldn't give a shit about the people of Iraq. Hamas, despite their continuing terrorist activities are elected representatives of the people and as such the only way to deal with them is to talk with them. At least the west wouldn't be so stupid or insensitive to send someone with no moral authority or respect in the Arab world and is viewed as the arse-licker of the most powerful degenerate in the world as the peace envoy to the region. Oh shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Folkiedave Date: 08 Oct 07 - 04:21 AM Why not attack Israel? It has a hoard of WMD's including nuclear weapons; does not let UN weapons inspectors in - since it has not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty it doesn't need to; has a record of attacks on other countries, and a huge war machine. Why on earth would anyone want to attack Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Cobble Date: 07 Oct 07 - 08:14 PM Get a life you are all talking what BUSH AND THE TERRORISTS love to hear Panic, do yourselves a favour vote him out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:55 PM teribus - Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are supported and trained in many more countries than Iran. Why not attack them? Fact is, you cannot justify an attack on a nation if it is terrorist elements within the nation that are a threat. Why punish the entire country? The Likud Party of Israel was founded by terrorists. Why not attack Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:00 PM He could be stopped. Why is there never a Lee Harvey Oswald around when you need one? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 07 Oct 07 - 11:36 AM Yo, T... Part A: Your memory is failing you... Of course the US used Iraq in a proxie war with Iran... The US supplied Iraq with WDM's and provided intellegence... Motive: Where does one start??? Part B: More memory lapse: Bush pulled the inpsectors out of Iraq just after Hans Blix (remember him) had told the UN that the Iraqi's were cooperating... Motive: What 282RA siad... Bush just wnated a shiney new war so he could possibly be in a position to steal yet another election... Part C: Get back on your memory meds... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 07 Oct 07 - 10:17 AM >>Actually, we not only can use logic, but we must use it---if we want to have a reasonable discussion.<< Davies, you are stupider than Teribus, I swear. Even worse, I'm pretty sure Teribus does it half the time just to argue and be a pain in the ass and doesn't really mean what he's saying because he knows it's bullshit. He just likes to be an asshole. You're one by happenstance, which is worse. You seem to take your pronouncements far too seriously and your bullshit is even less thought out than his. You CANNOT use logic to predict what someone will do when that person does not resort to logic to make decisions. Every argument was expended to keep Bush from going into Iraq and it did not matter a wit. Bush had made up his mind and therefore it is going to be done no matter what. Everything they told him would happen if he invaded Iraq has happened. Even so, does Bush admit he was wrong? No. He says "mistakes were made." This is an insnae individual who believes everything he does is right and when it doesn't go right "mistakes were made"--not by him, of course. That means he dosn't take responsibility for what he fucks up. So this psychotic individual makes irresponsible decisions for which logic played no part and then doesn't take responsibility when those decisions backfire as they inevitably would. So it is useless in the extreme to say that the US can't attack Iran. We will if Bush wants to and that's all that can be said about it at this time. My guess is that he will attack Iran. He will do exactly what his asshole father did to Clinton when he went into Somalia just before he leaving office and let Clinton deal with the mess. Instead Clinton simply pulled out and there was no outcry. I'm sure Bush I tore his hair out over that and I hope the next president is SANE and does the same thing Clinton did to the first Bush asshole. Just pull out and watch the American public fall utterly silent after all expecting a huge outcry. >>The obvious goal is--yet again--just to bellyache about Bush.<< Earth to Davies! Earth to Davies! Come in, Davies! Please, come in! Yeah, what is there to bellyache about Bush right? The guy's doing a great job! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:41 AM "We can't use logic here, people". Actually, we not only can use logic, but we must use it---if we want to have a reasonable discussion. But it's becoming painfully evident that a reasonable discussion is in fact not the goal here. The obvious goal is--yet again--just to bellyache about Bush. And if that is so, have fun. (And I know you will). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Teribus Date: 07 Oct 07 - 03:34 AM "The US used Iraq as a proxy in against Iran... Correct???" Incorrect, fond myth adhered to by the left. during the Iran/Iraq War of 1980 t0 1988 it was in the best interests of the World in general and the region in particular that no side in that conflict was victorious and a great number of countries worked towards that end. The Iranians actually owe one hell of a debt to Israel during the early stages of the was as without Israel's help the Iranians would surely have been defeated in detail. "But the word "inspections" isn't part of what Bush has in mind here... He didn't want them in Iraq either..." Again incorrect, the ONLY reason UNMOVIC was invited to return to Iraq was because of the efforts and activities of one man - George Walker Bush. That is fact and is undeniable, if anybody out there is of a different opinion I would dearly like to hear your reasoning. "When was the last time Iran attacked another country for any reason other than defense of their nation? I'm not applauding the present government but I see no reason to fear an attack from Iran. Its true that the Mullahs rule with an iron hand but so did Saddam. Ousting Saddam and invading Iraq didn't solved anything and it certainly did not improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. Its only made matters worse." When was the last Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad launched an attack Dianavan? All are backed by Iran, Iran itself does not actually have to attack anyone, it pays, trains and supplies others to that on their behalf. You may well see no reason to fear an attack from Iran, but that is an easy view point for someone such as yourself sitting pretty in British Columbia, thumb in bum and mind in neutral, the threat is a bit different to those located elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 07 Oct 07 - 01:03 AM I also don't see Iran being on a war footing, either defensive or offensive. The President of Iran is a figurehead. The guy ya really wanna watch is Ayatollah Khamenei. He ain't the power behind the throne, he IS the throne. He's actually quite moderate although quite fixed in his ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 07 Oct 07 - 12:00 AM I can't see the Joint Chiefs agreeing with an order to invade Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Rapparee Date: 06 Oct 07 - 10:06 PM The way things are going an invasion won't be needed. Just foreclose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:59 PM When was the last time Iran attacked another country for any reason other than defense of their nation? I'm not applauding the present government but I see no reason to fear an attack from Iran. Its true that the Mullahs rule with an iron hand but so did Saddam. Ousting Saddam and invading Iraq didn't solved anything and it certainly did not improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. Its only made matters worse. Attacking the mad Mullahs or the country of Iran because you don't like its president is no reason for war. If it were, George Bush would be cause for an invasion of the U.S. by any number of countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:49 PM We can't use logic here, people. We can't say Bush won't invade Iran because we don't have the personnel or materiel--of course we don't. But when does Bush care about little things like that? He'll order an invasion if he feels like it and fuck everybody who disagrees with him. Don't expect him to see the logic of anything. Bush doesn't want to hear pro and con, he can't stand listening to various sides of an issue. He makes up his mind right then and there and that's it, baby, he goes and does it come hell or high water. He will not change it no matter what. He plays chicken with Congress in this manner to get what he wants because he's insane enough to win everytime and Congress is spineless enough to lose to him everytime. Bush can stare down Congress because he would rather die than blink first--it's that important to him. Congress realizes they are dealing with somebody who is psychotic and so don't want to play his games but instead of shutting the game down, it's just easier to cave. So they cave. I have no faith in Congress to stop Bush from invading Iran. Bush will just peddle out the old patriotic bullshit that stupid Americans fall for every single goddamn time and Congress won't have the guts to say no. In that typical stupid democratic mindset, they can't say no because then there will be some sort of constituency out there that won't like them. He is exactly the type of sonofabitch who will invade Iran a month before he leaves office just to fuck the next president and hope this guy (or gal) will botch it up so bad that people will forget about how bad Dubya stunk up the joint. In short, Bush will invade Iran strictly out of politics and Congress will allow him to stricly out of politics. He's just the kind of asshole to pull an idiotic stunt like that. Exactly the type. God help us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 06 Oct 07 - 07:44 PM Yer right, Strings... The man has corraled so much power in the executive branch since 9/11 that it scres the Hell out of me... Just think what Hillary Clinton will do with the toolbox that Bush is leaving behind... Scarey!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Oct 07 - 06:31 PM Petro-Euros are getting oily. Talk about slippery-slopes. Can he be stopped from anything? Don't ask most Dems. They can't seem to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Oct 07 - 02:04 PM SRS-- Now who was it who stated I was "delusional" ?--- ( NB--just after I had made a perfectly objective observation--not referring to any other Mudcatter--regarding the question of the thread? Glass houses...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM Lucky me, then, that I don't cross his path too often. I'm not going to bother to read his name-calling posts any more. They're nonsense and not worth my time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 06 Oct 07 - 11:28 AM I don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:30 AM SRS, Regardless of labels, Ron has been consistent from the very beginning on his views about Iraq... We might disagree about other topics but when it come to Iraq he has railed and railed against the Bushites here in Mudville... Okay, he might get a tad torqued up now and then but who doesn't... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Oct 07 - 07:41 AM And by the way, any attack on Iran without Congressional approval will be enough to bring about Bush's impeachment, conviction, and removal. If anything, it will be more, not less likely, if he attacks just to try to cut off what he sees as Iranian opposition to his war in Iraq, rather than to nip Iran's nuclear ambitions in the bud. But any attack by Bush on Iran--for any reason-- will result not just in the loss of Iraq, with large numbers of new US dead, but also result in nothing but Bush's own distinction as the first US president to be impeached, convicted and removed. And this at a time when his true believers-- (that dwindling group)-- are starting to claim victory in Iraq (yet again), based on the fact that deaths, both Iraqi and especially US (and "Coalition") have temporarily dipped. Bush supporters of course ignore a few inconvenient facts. First, that as I've pointed out, "Kurdistan" is both the model and the agent of Iraq's breakup--and that breakup is continuing--look at the oil deals "Kurdistan" is setting up, contrary to Maliki's (and US) wishes). Second, that, as I predicted in January, al-Sadr has told his forces to lay low for several months. Though he certainly does not have complete control of his "army", contrary to Teribus' delusions, he does have enough to cause a temporary decline in violent deaths in Iraq. But this of course is a temporary tactical move on al-Sadr's part. All he has to do is wait a bit, and US forces will start withdrawing. Bush has even admitted this. But attacking Iran, Bush would be throwing away any chance for progress in Iraq--which is virtually impossible anyway-- and ensuring his own premature removal from office. (And Cheney would be involved in this up to his neck--enough so he would also disappear from the scene.) Any other belief is just a self-inflicted Leftist nightmare. If anybody disagrees, I'd sincerely like to see the counterarguments, with logic and facts. So far, I've seen none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Oct 07 - 01:07 AM I don't play favorites--I point out what I see as nonsense anywhere on the political spectrum. And anybody who disagrees is always welcome to provide facts and evidence--as I try to do----as opposed to subscribing to the latest conspiracy theory. If you don't think my reasons why Bush would be impeached and convicted for invading Iran are valid, I'd sincerely like to hear your counterarguments--based, of course, on something more than emotion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Oct 07 - 12:56 AM SRS-- I'm sorry to say that you seem to be belieing your handle--Stilly River Sage. Sage? And if you think Fox News is my source, you obviously have not been on Mudcat since 2004. Especially if you think there's any love lost between me and Mr. Bush. For instance, you somehow have missed my suggestion that for starting an unnecessary war by choice, in which many thousands have been killed, he belongs in the circle of Hell where the Austrian corporal resides. However, while being a despicable excuse for a leader, he does know something about politics--especially propaganda--which is the method by which he got the US public to back the Iraq war before he started it--and how he was elected in 2004. And he does know what impeachment, conviction and removal would mean--and how likely it is----very likely----for the reasons I have already cited---if he attacks Iran. Unfortunately, it seems that your recent posts on this thread tend to confirm your proud status as a member of the Looney Left. Which is a shame--since on other threads you make a lot of sense, and I have enjoyed reading your posts--and often agreed with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Oct 07 - 11:27 PM He'll try to bomb that nation back to the stone age . . . again. "D-i-p-l-o-m-a-c-y" is not in this jerk's vocabulary. Davies, you're so sure that every liberal [read: thinking person] is wrong you can't see what is in front of your face. Stop the name calling and watch something other than Fox News and read something more than the New York Post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:55 PM OK. So, basically we're on the same page. An invasion is not really possible unless Bush diverts a minimum of five full-strength divisions--two mechanized, from Iraq. Sorry, but the legs just ain't there. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, and in fact neither are the Israelis--unless someone tries to hit them first. So, maybe Bush intends to have an event in the US, blame it on Iran and go drop things on them. It might be time that y'all thought about arresting Bush and Cheney. And time someone gave a little thought to arresting those fu#kers in Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:43 PM I agree with you, Brucie... But the word "inspections" isn't part of what Bush has in mind here... He didn't want them in Iraq either... If we could just derail the Bush war drums and set aside all the Bush propaganda and get Bush to have his folks sincerley talk with the Iranians, then maybe we can get the inspections... Actually, maybe we can get a ot more... But one thing is for sure and that is if we do with Iran what we did with Iraq, Bush is perfectly willing to pass on negotiation, of compromise, on ispections, on just about anything other than his next new and shiney "shock 'n awe" to keep his redneck base happy and get him outta office leaving not one, not two but three wars to the next president... This is what is going down here... This ain't about Iran... This is about the neocons trying to save face from their screw ups with yet another, ahhhhh, screw up... But yeah, Iran needs lots of attention... Lots... Just not another Bush invasion... That's all we are saying here... I'm not making Iran out to be like the second coming... I'm just saying that Bush wants very much another war and another war is what the world doesn't need... There are other ways other than the neocon/Bush ways of dealing with the world... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM Bobert, Bobert, Bobert. I do know that your President and his VP are assholes of 'the first water'. However, so are the leaders of Iran. I no more trust the US leadership than I do Iran's. THAT is what I'm saying. Iran is pushing against UN resolutions. NONE of this would be a problem if the UN were allowed into Iran to do inspections. Please, while you berate the US, save a little of it for Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:11 PM No, Brucie, I'm not whitewashing anything... What I am trying desperately to tell you is that you are being played... Don't buy into the new & improved set-up for more Bush wars... This is what it's really about... Look at the dumbass stuff that Bush has done... Yeah, okay, Iran's president ain't much better but he ain't no friggin' retard either... What is occuring here, my friend, is one heck of alot of very subtle PR and propaganda on behalf of the Bush PR team to soft sell yet another war... That's the bottom line... You are being played like a stooge... You are smarter than to follow Bush into yet another war... There won't be anotheer hard sell becuase of how Iraq has turned out so they The Bush war team) are using a different strategy this time around but make no bobnes about it, they have war on their mind... This is Bush's and neocons plan... Wars, wars and more wars in the Middle East... Don't buy into... I'm sure you've heard someone who sounded real sincere and intellgent make his or her pitch on Iran and that's why you now look as Iran as dangerous... Whoever it was that you heard is part of the Bush War Machine... I ain't liein'... You bought a bad bill of goods... You're too smart to stay fooled too long so might as well just take back your independent thinking self and say "Bite me, George, and keep them creeps away from me... They are evil warmongers, just like you, George..." Come on, Brucie, shake these war-mongers off yer robe... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:01 PM I am calm. It was Iran--its President--that said it wanted to see Israel 'wiped off the map'. Don't whitewash the Iranians. And if Israel wanted to nuke Iran it would already have happened. So please don't drag them into this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:57 PM Calm down, Bruce... It's easy for us to say that Isreal isn't goin' to nuke Iran but we are saying that from the comforts of our own homes with our own histories... If, however, I were an Iranian of my same age I very well might have a different perspective of just who might or might not be out to get me... The US used Iraq as a proxy in against Iran... Correct??? What would prevent the US from doing the same thing again... Hey, I'm not saying this is going to happen but it certainly has crossed the minds of many an Itanian, I'm sure... One thing is fir sure and that is if we are to develope a foriegn policy that doesn't produce more failures, as in Iraq, we are going to have to try harder to see how other folks actually percieve US and that, right now, will get US a lot further down the line towards not having another Iraqmire on our hands than US just thinking of our own situation... That is how "peace" is created... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM Lieberman-Kyl Amendment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:31 PM "In fact, you are feeding into a stereotype. He is no crazier than Bush or the Pope." No crazier than Bush? Oh shit, there goes the neighbourhood! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:21 PM BTW, Israel has not threatened Iran. It's the other fuckin' way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:11 PM Think about what you just said. Like all of a sudden Israel is gonna nuke Iran. For fuck's sake, think about it. If Israel was GONNA do that it would already have been done. FUCKIN'THINK ABOUT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 07 - 04:44 PM Stop the friggin' presses!!!! I agree with T-Bird's post... Yes, of course this makes me sick but the law-of-averages caught up with the boy and he is finally right about something??? Yeah, one thing we have seen with countries that aquire nuclear capabilites is a new sense of responsibility... I have never thought that Iran wanted nuclear weapons to attack the US but to act as a deterrant from being wiped out by one if it's neighbors, Isreal being one... And as I have pointed out, it is not good foriegn policy to threaten people and expect them to do much more than try to find ways to defend themselves... It would be irresponsible not to... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Oct 07 - 01:25 PM "Many nations develop and use nuclear power. Iran has a right to develop and provide energy to their citizens. To deny them this right and accuse them of developing nuclear weapons is just more fear mongering." WHO is denying them that right??? YOU? Cause it is NOT the UN or US. The NPT specifically not only allows use of nuclear power generation for civilian purposes, it encourages it. IRAN has violated the NPT by refusing the inspections, and by enriching the fuel IN SECRET. IF they had worked within the treaty they had signed, and complied with INTERNATIONAL LAW, they would have no worries at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Oct 07 - 11:13 AM In fact, there would be 3/4 of the Senate which would vote to convict. Especially since it would result in huge losses in Iraq, for the reason I cited. Do you think the Shiites in Iraq would stand idly by while the Shiites in Iran are attacked? Please start thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Oct 07 - 11:09 AM SRS Wrong. We are talking about attacking Iran with no permission, authorization or official declaration of war, from Congress. With that, there will be 2/3 of the Senate voting for conviction. You are blinded by your hatred for Bush. Irrationality on the Left--to match that on the Right. QED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 11:09 AM The easiest way to ensure that Iran is NOT attempting to produce WMDs is to allow the UN inspectors in. Easy, simple and peaceful answer to the dilemma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Oct 07 - 10:39 AM And though Mr. Bush has shown uncounted times that he is totally clueless in foreign policy, he does know something about politics--and the prospect of impeachment, conviction and removal is likely to put a damper on his spirits. Davies, Bush knows full well that he'll never be prosecuted for his crimes, and the margin of majority in the House and Senate are so slim that he won't be impeached. That's what he knows--I'm sure Rove or Cheney spelled it out for him at some point. I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever agreed with dianavan on anything, but I do agree with the remarks above. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:29 AM 'All of us are born with a set of instinctive fears--of falling, of the dark, of lobsters, of falling on lobsters in the dark, or speaking before a Rotary Club, and of the words "Some Assembly Required."' Dave Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:25 AM I have no idea why Iran has built its nuclear facilities in secret. I would certainly not assume they were built for peaceful purposes. But a plausible explanation it was done in secret is that there are some, including some in power, (and on the other end of the scale, some Mudcatters, you may have noticed) who believe that since Ahmadinejad has made threats against Israel, he intends to carry them out as soon as possible--regardless of the fact that Israel is armed with far more nuclear weapons than Iran can hope to get. In the minds of these people Ahmadinejad is a suicide bomber on a huge scale. Since they believe he is irrational enough to actually carry out the threat, they are bound to prevent him from ever getting a bomb made. If the facilities were not secret, it would be much easier to locate and destroy them. And just as some on the Right are convinced Ahmadinejad intends to literally destroy Israel as soon as possible, some Iranians are no doubt convinced any move by Iran towards nuclear technology will be seen by some on the other side as a direct threat--and Iran will be attacked. There is fear on both sides--fear that the other side is irrational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Teribus Date: 05 Oct 07 - 02:04 AM "Mr. Ahmadinejad is a politician that was elected on the platform of bringing nuclear power to Iran. He may be ultra-conservative but I don't think you can put him in the same camp as the "Crazy Mullahs." Eh Dianavan Mr. Ahmadinejad was a politician SELECTED by those "Crazy Mullahs", the 12 'Old Gits' who actually rule Iran. The same 12 'Old Gits' collectively stated at the last election held in Iran who could stand for election and who couldn't - or had you missed that? The Quds Force, whose self stated primary mission is to organize, train, equip, and finance foreign Islamic revolutionary movements. It maintains and builds contacts with underground Islamic militant organizations throughout the Islamic world. The Quds Force are the ones accused of supplying weapons and training to insurgent groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan are, according to their own publicity, an autonomous force that operate under the direct orders of the most senior of the 12 'Old Gits', not the elected Government of Iran. Nobody here has yet come up with a reasonable explanation as to why, if its purpose is peaceful, why the regime in Iran built it's enrichment facilities in secret. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Oct 07 - 12:14 AM Re: Ahmadinejad: more to the point is he has wrecked the Iranian economy, has not carried out his campaign promise to let the benefits of Iran's oil wealth flow to ordinary citizens----and will likely therefore be out on his ear in June 2009--without Iran's having developed a nuclear bomb. Unless Bush is stupid enough to destroy the Iranian opposition to Ahmadinejad--and rally the country around him--by attacking Iran. And, as I mentioned earlier, there is another rather lengthy list of reasons why it would be a singularly idiotic idea--even for Mr. Bush, who has set the bar amazingly high in this regard--to attack Iran. And though Mr. Bush has shown uncounted times that he is totally clueless in foreign policy, he does know something about politics--and the prospect of impeachment, conviction and removal is likely to put a damper on his spirits. And anybody who thinks impeachment, conviction and removal would not bother Mr. Bush should read more about him--and American history in general. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Oct 07 - 12:00 AM "It doesn't bare (sic) thinking about". Oh, I don't know, around here sometimes, bare thinking would be a pleasant change--rather than the usual diet of conspiracy theories of the Right and Left, and layer upon layer of overheated rhetoric. As to who's next--that's just too obvious a setup---it's back to Tom Lehrer: First we got the bomb, but that was good Cause we love peace and motherhood Then Russia got the bomb, but that's OK Cause the balance of power's maintained that way Who's next? France got the bomb but don't you grieve They're on our side--(I believe) China got the bomb, but have no fears They can't wipe us out for at least 5 years.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:57 PM teribus - I don't applaud nuclear weapons of any kind but I certainly don't blame them for wanting missles for defense, especially with aggressive Americans on their doorstep. "Today the official IRNA news agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad saying: "I announce to the whole world that the Iranian nation has passed the difficult points [on its nuclear path] and no power can stop this nation from making more and more achievements."' Mr. Ahmadinejad is a politician that was elected on the platform of bringing nuclear power to Iran. He may be ultra-conservative but I don't think you can put him in the same camp as the "Crazy Mullahs." In fact, you are feeding into a stereotype. He is no crazier than Bush or the Pope. Many nations develop and use nuclear power. Iran has a right to develop and provide energy to their citizens. To deny them this right and accuse them of developing nuclear weapons is just more fear mongering. Of course fear mongering goes along way when promoting war and aggression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Teribus Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:02 PM Hang on a minute Little Hawk says that it is OK if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Dianavan actually applauds it as being highly desireable. For my own part, I am completely indifferent, I oddly enough couldn't care a toss whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapon or not, on the proviso that, the present nuclear powers, but the US in particular, say to Iran, ever think of using it in any way, shape or form, directly, or indirectly, and your country is glass, we will wipe you out. With acquiring such a weapon comes tremendous responsibility which transcends religious beliefs, use this weapon and you will be no more - enjoy, in the steadfast belief that what we say will come to pass, because we have that ability (which most here on this Forum have seemed to have forgotten) and if you kick over the traces we will most certainly use it. Now unbeknown to most, that threat was levelled at Iran before in the Embassy hostage days by Russia - guess what Iran folded. America has the power and the ability not to threaten Iran with war, but to realistically threaten it with annihilation - Iran for all its posturing fully realises this, so people when you talk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, or even a singular nuclear weapon, just remember that that shifts the "game" to a cmpletely different level, one in which the likes of Iran, Pakistan, India are so far behind it just doesn't bare thinking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Oct 07 - 06:08 PM Note the date: Glad to see we have made progress.... Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:22 PM CarolC, "German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier questioned whether European-led negotiations had any future and said Iran had "crossed lines which it knew would not remain without consequences." He said he had asked ElBaradei to quickly evaluate the dangers of Iran's move. Britain warned the international community was "running out of patience," and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tehran had breached IAEA resolutions. "There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful," Straw said. Japan said the decision was "a matter of deep regret" and the Foreign Ministry called on Iran "to immediately cease the resumption of the research and development activities." Iran's decision to freeze some nuclear activities in October 2003 was voluntary, so the IAEA said it had no option but to remove the seals at Iran's request. The move further erodes the suspension of nuclear activities that has been the centerpiece of Iran's negotiations with the West since the freeze was put in place as a confidence-building measure. In August, Iran removed seals at another nuclear plant outside the city of Isfahan and resumed uranium reprocessing — a step before enrichment in the nuclear fuel process. That move prompted Europe to break off its negotiations temporarily. The talks that resumed in December made no progress but were to continue later this month. French President Jacques Chirac on Tuesday warned Iran it would commit a serious mistake if it ignored the international community." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Oct 07 - 06:06 PM Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM Defense News 12/16/05 By Agence France-Presse, Berlin Iran has bought 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which the Islamic Republic wants to transform to extend their range, the German press reported Dec 16. "Iran has bought 18 disassmbled BM-25 missiles from North Korea with a range of 2500 kilometers ( 1553 miles)," Bild newspaper said, citing a report from German secret services. It added that Iran's ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to have the range of the missiles "extended to 3500 kilometers". The newspaper said that until now Iran only had Shehab-3 missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Oct 07 - 06:02 PM So, how far is it from France to Iran? Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:12 PM Makes Ballistic Missile Breakthrough A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles (pictured) - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles). Tehran (AFP) May 31, 2005 Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles, a technological breakthrough that sparked fresh alarm in Israel. "The test was a success," Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said on state television. "When you fill a missile with liquid fuel, you have to use it quickly. With solid fuel, a missile can be stored for years. And in addition, it makes the missile more accurate and cheaper too." A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles). http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05p.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:47 PM 'Atomic plans unstoppable, says Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today declared that the world would not stop Iran's atomic programme after France argued for stiffer sanctions against Tehran. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner sent a letter to his European Union counterparts yesterday urging wider financial sanctions against Iran, saying the UN's attempts to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions could prove ineffective. Iran summoned France's charge d'affaires in Tehran afterwards to protest about the "extreme" remarks. Today the official IRNA news agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad saying: "I announce to the whole world that the Iranian nation has passed the difficult points [on its nuclear path] and no power can stop this nation from making more and more achievements."' Just a piece of an article for those folks who've been saying that Iran had/has no nuclear ambitions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:40 PM OK, the UK is also evil... "There are currently 189 states party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China. Only four nations are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew." So, when Iran and France get into it, the UK can throw it's bombs into the mix. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:24 PM I think you may have missed the rather heavy irony in that quote,beardedbruce. Of course that list mises out other bomb-holders - the UK, and a number of ex-USSR countries some with very problematic regimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:53 PM Has anyone wondered whether Bush is an 'agent in place' who's actually working for a foreign power? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:51 PM "If we let Iran get the bomb, who is next? Pakistan? Isreal, India...then what? France might want one too." All of those nations have nuclear devices... As does the US, China, and Russia.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:15 PM India's had the bomb for years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Donuel Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:14 PM Joe Average says If we let Iran get the bomb, who is next? Pakistan? Isreal, India...then what? France might want one too. I met a well dressed lady in the bank yesterday that exclaimed loudly "can't anyone shoot Bush?" Well that would probably help the PNAC plans. Happy trails in the heat Pete. Try not to be so scary Larry. You ain't so holy Foley I hope you find no solice Gonzales. Your roads lead to Rome Rove Your kindness is unfelt Rumsfeld What's the rush Bush? Go fuck yourself Cheney |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:04 PM Then Iran would request UN intervention no doubt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:42 PM Iran has seven borders with other countries. They may decide to get rid of the disease in their midst without any US 'help'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:34 PM Problem with Bush's 1st term is that he has shot his wad! He knows it. Iran certainly knows it... N. Korea knows it... In choosing to attack Irag he has spread the military so thin that it is very apparent to everyone... I guess he wasn't planning on a second terms or maybe he would have waited to see if any real enemies were out to get us... Too late now... No more wars unless we're outright attacked... (Bobert, in an earlier thread)) The invasion idea in this thread is complete nonsense. Air raids are a remote possibility. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:54 PM Forget my Representative... He's as braindead and stubborn as Bush... Plus, I'm not too sure he can actaully, ahhhh, read... Sounds representative of you, though. I have presented various sources, you call them propaganda when they disagree with your claims regardless of who they are.And you STILL decline to present any facts to back up your "information" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:53 PM Funny to read people talking about whether they have control over their government. That in and of itself ought to tell people something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,petr Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:51 PM the question ought to be Can Cheney be stopped.. the irony with Bushs plan bring democracy to the middle east is that of the Islamic states in that region - IRan actually has the closest thing to elections and a grassroots democratic movement. I think it will be a pretty stupid move to attack Iran (even by proxy with an Israeli raid) and not just in terms of oil prices shooting through the roof. its like the antimissile system planned in Czech Rep. and Poland, Europe has about as much chance of being attacked by Iranian missiles as getting hit by an asteroid from space --they might as well invest in an anti-asteroid system... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Teribus Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM "France is sounding uncharacteristically belligerent in regards Iran lately." - bobad, 03 Oct 07 - 09:39 PM Actually bobad France has been feeling that way for quite some time - President Chirac was pretty pissed-off over the Iranian nuclear business. He very clearly stated some time back that France would be fully prepared to use nuclear weapons from the outset if France, or France's interests are threatened. He also announced to the world that the French Armed Forces have actually reconfigured a number of missiles on each of their four SSBN's to refine the attack profile in order that such a strike can be as "contained" as possible. Not Bush you see, so nobody said a word. The "Quartet" have been in "meaningful dialogue" with iran for about six years now in an attempt to get them to comply with their obligations under the terms of the NPT, all to no effect, as opposed to reigning in on their uranium enrichment activities they have accelerated them. By the bye, take a look at what might be taken as threatening France and/or France's interests. The US does not have much to do with Iraq's oil, but France sure as hell does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:33 PM Why on earth should Bush be worried about the minimal risk of being impeached? He's off anyway in a few months. I doubt if he's too worried about the pension implications if he had to leave early. The thing to hold on to all this, and it keeps getting lost, is that there is no credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is evidence that it could be doing so, but then that applies to a lot of countries. There has been no offer of a deal under which, if Iran credibly guarantees not to develop nuclear weapons then the USA (etc) pledges itself not to attack Iran, and promises to treat any attack on Iran by a third party as a hostile act. It seems to me that the failure to offer such a deal is an indication, on the one hand that there is not any genuine imminent prospect of an Iranian bomb, and on the other hand that there is an intention to provoke Iran into deciding to take the nuclear weapons road. The object being to provide justification for an attack on Iran. I think it seems likely that some deal along those lines has in fact now been provided to North Korea, and has succeeded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:38 AM It wasn't the good people of the USA who elected Bush, it was the Republicans. He couldn't get the American people to support a war with Iran now even if it was advisable. After finding zero WMDs in Iraq he would be the "boy who cried wolf" when he starts talking about WMDs in Iran even though they well might be there. Our military is strained to the breaking point now and the American people, including a rising number of Republicans, are sick of war. This is just another on the long list of reasons we should have never attacked Iraq in the first place. If we meet a situation where we REALLY need to take military action (and I'm not saying that IS the case) we will be unready and unwilling to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Rapparee Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:14 AM Assume Hilary Clinton is elected (and I sincerely hope not, nor do I think she can be). Assume she decides to invade Iran, or even bomb it. The next President of the United States will inherit the mess left by this one. The "legs" still won't be there. Not without a formal declaration of war and all that implies, and I don't think s/he would get one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:35 AM Ron, From what I am reading and hearing is that the Bush/Cheney administartion has changed it's tune on Iran over the last few weeks from concern over its nuclear program to concern about its involvement in Iraq... This shift is allowing them to make a case that no Congressional approval would be needed... That is the scarey part of their thinking... And, technically, yeah, I don't think the US has the boots to actually invade and I guess a better title of the thread would have had the word "bombing" instead of "invading", tho I consider a bombing campaign an invasion, non the less... I will spend some time this evening composing letters to both my Senators, Jim Webb and John Warner... Forget my Representative... He's as braindead and stubborn as Bush... Plus, I'm not too sure he can actaully, ahhhh, read... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:34 AM And the second time round he and his zealots apparently managed to intimidate enough dumb Americans into thinking they had no other choice but to "stay the course" that he was reelected. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: katlaughing Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:20 AM ...the good folk of the USA elected him to the TOP job amazes me. We didn't. He stole it...with help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:27 AM "a 91 IQ" How did you print that number upside down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,Hitlary '08 Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:25 AM As soon as you put Bush's face on the problem, you've been neutralized. Bush is not the problem. The man has a 91 IQ. Besides, Cheney is the hawk in this scenario. Or chickenhawk. And regarding neocons, do any of you know what a neocon is? A lot of them are Democrat. Do you know that? They're supporting the run-up to a war with Iran. We have one party at the national level of power, and a couple of years from now it may have Hillary Clinton as its head. Will you hate her as much as you hate Bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:21 AM What has to be measured is the threat posed by Iran. People who think Iran is not a threat are delusional. Their posture is anything but defensive. There is nothing at all defensive about ordnance. It is retaliatory. Or offensive, depending on the leadership. Iran's leadership is as crazy as America's. God bless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Big Phil Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:28 AM Bush, if not from a wealthy, well connected family would be sweeping the streets for a living, how the good folk of the USA elected him to the TOP job amazes me. I do not think even Bush with his limited intelligence would invade/nuke Iran, not after the debacle of Iraq.. "The next president is likely to be Hillary the hawk" well then do not vote for her, or any of her cohorts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: akenaton Date: 04 Oct 07 - 02:03 AM Pease don't presonalise this too much. Remember, the next president is likely to be Hillary the Hawk (Dem). She has already designated Iran as "Terrorist" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:24 AM SRS is correct. You want "logic" when discussing a madman? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:19 AM You're not offering "facts," you're offering opinion. You're suggesting he'll follow the law and listen to the Congress. We're telling you that he hasn't so far, so why should he start now? Drop the labels, pal, and open your eyes. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: katlaughing Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:19 AM Worrying won't do anything but ruin your health. Instead make damn sure your congresspeople KNOW how YOU feel about Iran, etc. Then make sure others know, be as outspoken as you can. And, for those of you believe in the power of thoughts/prayers/etc. please light those candles, give thanks, believe and ditch the negative. This poor old world has enough negative vibes being sent out to scare and paralyse people. Send out positive instead. Remember: Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead And there is that old saw, "It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness." In my belief system, I consider it my duty to give over my will to the Great Spirit/Cosmic and to align myself with positive thoughts, words, and actions which culminate in giving Thanks for this or something better for the highest good of all concerned. I offer this as an example NOT as something anyone should do unless it is their choice. With all good wishes for Peace Profound, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:17 AM How many of you are so far on the, to coin a phrase, "loony Left" that you believe your nemesis has no instinct for self-preservation? Or do you just enjoy absurd speculation? I think I've made my views on Mr. Bush clear by now--not exactly his #1 fan. If however, anybody has any actual facts to contradict mine, I'd like to hear them. And a bit of logic would also be nice. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:05 AM Don't worry--Bush is not about to invade Iran. Because this time he will need a real declaration of war--and from this Congress, he won't get it. . . You're delusional. We're all worried. It isn't going away--you know perfectly well that this man will lie and cheat to get to do what he wants. Period. Be very worried. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:01 AM Don't worry--Bush is not about to invade Iran. Because this time he will need a real declaration of war--and from this Congress, he won't get it. And even he knows that without a declaration of war, an attack by his regime will be a shortcut being the first president to be impeached and convicted--and therefore removed. Which may not be the place in history he was angling for. And his own military is telling him that there will be no such thing as a surgical strike that would erase Iran's nuclear capacity--since the sites are widely scattered. And on top of that, there would be certain retaliation from Iran--and just look at the boundary with Iraq. 160,000 American soldiers would be in jeopardy--to say the least. Not easy for him to explain the number of body bags suddenly coming from Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Beer Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:37 PM Bush doesn't have a clue what is happening outside his head space. And because Iraq's invasion has failed he would want to nuke Iran. After all, he wants to go out leaving a mark on mankind. In his bed at night he is smiling at the wonders he has done so far because he doesn't hear his peoples cries. However his grin turns to a frown as he is trying to sleep because he wants to wipe the grin off the same fellow who is grinning back at him. So what is the quickest way to make the prick in Iran frown or disappear? Nuke them all and a few surrounding Countries that may be in the way. Bobert..........I hope you are wrong as well. But how is this insane man in Iran going to be stopped? Let me pose this question that has no answer. If all countries outside the United Stated were at peace, would the U.S. look to start a war? Beer (adrien) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:35 PM At present, their range is definitely self-defense. If an attack by U.S. forces should occur, Iran will probably import far-ranging missles from Korea. Do you blame them? I'd say they are doing a pretty good job of protecting themselves and cannot imagine any country going down without a fight. War with Iran is totally unnecessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: katlaughing Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:10 PM There's a good opinion piece at AlterNet. Here's hte last bit from it: The people of Iran, leading democracy advocates and even conservative Iranian-American exile groups oppose an attack. They understand that U.S. bombs falling on Tehran will only rally people behind the current government. In an open letter to the United Nations, former political prisoner and Iranian opposition leader Akbar Ganji wrote, "Even speaking about the possibility of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran." I don't know with certainty if the United States will attack Iran. It is possible that the Bush administration is ratcheting up militarist rhetoric in order to intimidate European allies into tightening economic sanctions against Iran. And the decision whether to bomb Iran depends, in part, on actions by the American people. Now is the time to let your national and local politicians know that we don't need another human disaster in the Middle East. Code Pink is organizing a national campaign to get local city councils to pass resolutions against attacks on Iran. Now is the time for anti-war demonstrations around the issues of both Iraq and Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Rapparee Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:04 PM I still say, let France do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 03 Oct 07 - 10:46 PM Thanks. I'm gonna go home and TOSS and TURN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Oct 07 - 10:42 PM How about this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Oct 07 - 10:40 PM You want scary??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 03 Oct 07 - 10:16 PM That's a good question, and one that has to be answered also. I know the US is lookin' out for #1, but so's Iran, and the Iranian leadership is as fu#kin' crazy as shit house rats. Their religious leaders are wacko. (I don't give a shit that other religious leaders are also wacko. The Pope might be nuts, but he don't have nukes. Iran does (or will very soon). So before y'all jump on my ol' pal with whom I've had more arguments than a horse has hairs, give what he said a good think. Iran is VERY scary, because they are CRAZY! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:45 PM The question I have is, Can Iran be stopped before they start a global thermonuclear war? It does not look like the Europeans have had much success, and even France seems to be aware that the IRBMs that Iran already has can reach it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:40 PM Which still leaves the question, would they be able to stop him? And how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: bobad Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:39 PM France is sounding uncharacteristically belligerent in regards Iran lately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Rapparee Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:35 PM He wouldn't have anyone, including the American people, with him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:34 PM And he wouldn't have the UK with him this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Art Thieme Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:34 PM Bobert, Seymour Hirsch, who I respect and tend to believe, said the same thing in a recent article---in the New Yorker I believe it was. And he reiterated it on NPR yesterday. Once again, the feeling of helplessness in the face of the ongoing travesties perpetuated by this administration is overwhelming. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Peace Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:25 PM The US ain't got the legs to invade Iran. Period. (Bomb the shit out of it, yes, but invade? Nope!) |
|
Subject: BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading... From: Bobert Date: 03 Oct 07 - 09:06 PM ...Iran??? Looks as if all the plans are on the desks... All the meeting have occured... Everything is in place... All the rationales have been put together... Yes, Bush very much wants to invade Iran... His war team has now changed its story on Iran to Iran being part of this overall nebulous "war on terrorism" and Bush thinks that the Resolution that Congress passed now gives him the freedom to attack anyone who he thinks might be aiding the Iraqi insurgents... What bothers me4 is what I have just written... Yes, folks, make no bones about it... Bush and his neocons want to attack Iran while Bush is still in office and I firmly believe they are going to do everything in their power over the coming months to try to sell an Iran invasion to the American people... I would so love to be wrong here but given the noise coming outta the Bush administration and given Bush's own happy trigger finger I'm very much concerned that Bush is going to do it, probably late winter or early spring and say he had the authorization from the resolution that Congress gave him to invade Iraq... Oh, how I hope I'm wrong on this one but, deep in my bones, I don't think Bush has a clue just how much he has allready messed up and thus is ready to continue down this nightmarish dead end path... Your thoughts??? Can he be stopped??? Bobert |
