 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading...
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:37 PM Lieberman-Kyl Amendment |
|
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 08:43 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 - 08:55 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Peace Date: 06 Oct 07 - 11:28 AM I don't. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 |
