 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 |
