 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Can Bush Be Stopped from Invading...
|
|
|
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. |
