DescentBB

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

\"President Bush said Wednesday he's certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.\"


\"Bush said that he could only say \"with certainty\" that the weapons were provided by an elite part of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which is part of the government.\"


Sigh.

Let's get to it.

Second verse same as the first.

Dedman wrote:Second verse same as the first.

Can we get a new singer in the band first?

Seriously though Birdseye, and anyone else, do you doubt the Iranians are fueling the conflict in Iraq with both manpower and material support?
And if you accept that as true then does it really matter what Bush said about WMD's in Iraq?

Syria and Iran have been doing all they can to strike via terrorism against western interests since at least back in the 1970's. They know they can't win an all out war and so far they have escaped any serious punishment.
However, the more deadly and closer to our home their attacks have come the closer we edge up to crossing that line of pre-emptive attacks on their countries.

It really doesn't matter how poorly Bush has managed the Iraq phase of the fight because the Iranian and Syrian government / nutbag-religious zealot-whacko's are definitely due for some good old western retribution!
By comparison, the Taliban in Afghanistan did far less to us and look what we did, with the worlds blessing, to them!
All they did was house the al Queda crew who struck us once or twice. Now go back and start adding up the number of attacks from Iranian and Syrian backed terrorists and tell me which country is more guilty of terrorism against us?!?

Not to minimize the conflict in Iraq, but Iran is probably much, much more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

Umm..... isn't Birdseye one of the ultimate guys who was a master at D3..? Forgive me if this needs a thread split....

In the dictionary, under ' extremely good at D3', is a picture of Birdseye.

Will, while I agree that the Iranians are behind a large amount of weapons coming into Iraq - what has that to do with a \"pre-emptive strike\" against Iran?

I mean COME ON! The USA and Britain has fucked over the middle east for a long period of time, ever since Britain drew the map lines, and invented Kuwait to stop Iraq having a port capable of handling Iraqi Oil; thus ensuring British dominion over Iraqi Oil. (We won't mention the US spending 900 Million dollars creating a permanent \"consulate\" in Baghdad where over 9000 people will work. And we won't mention the multibillion dollar airbase in Qatar here either.)

You think the Iranians are nutcases? well sure, and so would you be if Iran had a multibillion dollar airbase a few minutes flight from the Lower48. In fact, I seem to recall the Russians doing that in Cuba some time, and JFK ★■◆●ing it all up at the Bay Of Pigs, and Global Thermonuclear War being 5 minutes away as a result.

No - American Imperialism (and there's no other word for it) is driving the Arabs ★■◆●ing nutjob ballsack crazy - and there's no mystery as to why!

Frankly, the only way the US can re-acquire some dignity, and the moral high ground is to impeach Dumbya, imprison him, or send him to the War Crimnes Tribunal (OH - sorry, I forgot, the USA won't allow any American to be tried for war crimes!).

How about withdrawing world shattering military bases from Iran's Doorstep as a gesture of good faith. See what actually BEING good, instead of mostly evil would do to the world.

I know, it'll never happen - just like the will of the American people will never be accurately reflected in US Foriegn Policy.

I found the following link to be extremely interesting in this context -

http://www.hoover.org/publications/poli ... 60936.html

I think I’m going to get Lewis’ book. Looks like it may be worth the read.

(It was the “Root Causes” link in this NR
book review. The review was pretty interesting too.)

Mobius wrote:How about withdrawing world shattering military bases from Iran's Doorstep as a gesture of good faith. See what actually BEING good, instead of mostly evil would do to the world.

LOL @ Mobius !!
Yeah dude. that'll really impress those folks in Iran. What a great containment policy - all we have to do is leave!

Seriously man, you just slay me !!!!!

I don't doubt they are sending weapons actually. I think we need to do more talking to them, see if we can settle this diplomatically first. It is just possible that it is militia groups sending this hardware to them, so odviously we need to find if it is Iranian government.

Frankly, the only way the US can re-acquire some dignity, and the moral high ground is to impeach Dumbya, imprison him, or send him to the War Crimnes Tribunal (OH - sorry, I forgot, the USA won't allow any American to be tried for war crimes!).

He should be executed or put in jail for life for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

Will Robinson wrote:Seriously though Birdseye, and anyone else, do you doubt the Iranians are fueling the conflict in Iraq with both manpower and material support?

Yes. If my President says it, then I absolutely doubt it. Granted that doesn't mean that it's not true. I just don't want to take his word for anything.

It's a burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me type of thing.

You're all farting in the wind guys. Iran will be taken care of...relax.

Mobius wrote:just like the will of the American people will never be accurately reflected in US Foriegn Policy.

First, I just wanted to point out that its spelled "Foreign".
I have now spell nazi'd Mobius, I can die in peace.

But Sadly, American foreign policy DOES reflect the will of the people. America is a democracy. And the supporters of both major parties keep electing wacko's. They get what they voted for. They often change their minds later, but they still got what they voted for.

Mobius wrote:How about withdrawing world shattering military bases from Iran's Doorstep as a gesture of good faith. See what actually BEING good, instead of mostly evil would do to the world.

I agree that the US meddling in the middle east birthed much of the hatred we receive there now. AND, I'm not saying that bombing/attacking Iran is NECESSARILY the best solution right now. (but I also wouldn't take it off the table)

BUT:

The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

--Doesn't believe in the Holocaust:
"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?"

--Doesn't believe the 911 attack was carried out by Islamic Terrorists:
"Could [9/11] be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

--Will not settle for anything less than the complete destruction of Israel:
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

--Deny's that Jews are even human beings
Who are they? Where did they come from? Are they human beings? 'They are like cattle, nay, more misguided.' A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians. Next to them, all the criminals of the world seem righteous."

--Doesn't even pretend to like democracy:
"We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy."

And the president of Iran is just a puppet of the real leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And if you want to see how HE runs his country, take a look at:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/i ... 5&start=30

Iran is not a nice or safe place. And there is a big difference between some red neck saying "nuke them camel jockeys till they glow in the dark!", and proposing that we remove all defensive forces and simply trust they will be friendly from here on.

I'm not really in favor of attacking Iran outright (Simply because I don't think we can pull it off otherwise I'm all in!) but I want to point out that Afghanistan's government was toppled and the country was invaded merely because they allowed a relatively small band of people to operate out of there and those people only hit us once or twice...
The reaction of the world to that was to completely support our war efforts there.

Contrast that to the decades of attacks that come from Iran and Syria...numerous planes full of people hijacked or blown up, hostages taken all around the world, bombs going off in all sorts of civilian population centers, cruise ships attacked, people kidnapped all over the globe, embassies bombed, leaders assasinated thousands of miles from the middle east by their terrorist wing, bus after bus after cafe after cafe in Israel bombed year after year after year!!
On and frickin' on for generations!!!!
Well, with that said, you people who claim you were all for our war in Afghanistan just because the Taliban let some al Queda crew stay there don't have much ground to stand on in rejecting a similar war in Iran or Syria...

You better re-think why you were really in favor of the Afghanistan portion of the WOT. Is it because they are nobody, in a nowhere land and can't possibly strike back?
Come on! Tell the truth! Why them and not Iran and Syria?

Flabby Chick wrote:You're all farting in the wind guys. Iran will be taken care of...relax.

I can appreciate the resolve of the Israeli's who are the only government I know that will just flat out do what has to be done when push comes to shove, public relations be damned...

But that's the problem and the reason for my ranting on this subject. We always let the Israelis do the dirty work and suffer the consequences from a group of thugs that if they ever dared do to us a fraction of the evil that you guys have to suffer we would....oh...that's right...we just did that didn't we?!?

I'm embarrassed that we let the Israeli's get their people butchered for years and yet one good attack on American soil and the whole world seemed to wake up and say "Well, now they've gone too far!!"
If the Taliban deserved it then how the hell does Iran and Syria not?

Will Robinson wrote:You better re-think why you were really in favor of the Afghanistan portion of the WOT

No, actually, my feelings on this issue, surprisingly, are fairly close to yours.

An invasion or bombing mission at this point would probably be premature, we should first give an ultimatum. THAT should then be backed up with force.

The problem is, Bush has burned up to much of our force on his voluntary and pre-emptive war with Iraq. And we can't get OUT of it now, or scale back in order to attack Iran. Heck, its partially because of this that Bush is making yet ANOTHER "I'll give you money if you'll pretend you aren't making nukes" deal with Korea, AGAIN.

And secondly, the American people are very TIRED of war right now. Starting a THIRD conflict would only ensure they would insist on stopping it very short of getting the job done.

I'm not opposed to hitting back when people hit us, even if they had valid historical reasons to be annoyed with us. I'm just not convinced that Bush has left himself in a position where he can actually pull it off.

\"Frankly, the only way the US can re-acquire some dignity, and the moral high ground is to impeach Dumbya, imprison him, or send him to the War Crimnes Tribunal (OH - sorry, I forgot, the USA won't allow any American to be tried for war crimes!).\" Mobius

For a intelligent man Mobius you are surprisingly uninformed. Bush had almost unanimous approval from the senate and congress to go to war. The UN resolution also gave approval for the war in Iraq. Yet 4 years later the Iraq war has somehow devolved into Bush's total responsibility. Nice long term memory man.

woodchip wrote:"Frankly, the only way the US can re-acquire some dignity, and the moral high ground is to impeach Dumbya, imprison him, or send him to the War Crimnes Tribunal (OH - sorry, I forgot, the USA won't allow any American to be tried for war crimes!)." Mobius

For a intelligent man Mobius you are surprisingly uninformed. Bush had almost unanimous approval from the senate and congress to go to war. The UN resolution also gave approval for the war in Iraq. Yet 4 years later the Iraq war has somehow devolved into Bush's total responsibility. Nice long term memory man.

Mabye it was because he gave false information that is no longer valid, such as WMDS, Al Queda in Iraq (well they are NOW). That could possibly be why anyone approved this war? HMMM!

Dakatsu wrote:Mabye it was because he gave false information that is no longer valid, such as WMDS, Al Queda in Iraq (well they are NOW). That could possibly be why anyone approved this war? HMMM!

Are you saying that until Bush told congress that Saddam was a threat because he might provide or use WMD's that they didn't hold that belief themselves already and if not for what Bush told them they never would have authorized an attack on Iraq?

If so then take a look at this and please remember that Bush didn't become president until 2001:

*********************************
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

I think at this point it's a religious/cultural/power struggle. I wouldn't be surprised if both Syria, Iran, and other countries are aiding it.

I think at this point, it's looked as a fight against the Christian Americans on Muslim soil. And that's not the war we want to be in.

I think Bush is just continuing to escalate things with those types of comments, and further driving the wedge between us and Muslims abroad. This will further help militants calls to action for young men to fight us. I think they truly fear American control of Muslim regions, and it seems like that's what we're trying to do.

I'd like to get the hell out of there as soon as possible, and avoid Iran. I used to think a year ago that we needed to stay (Even though i was against the war) because leaving would put the place into further chaos. Now I don't see us making any progress whatsoever, and we need to get the hell out, and avoid ANY escalation with Iran.

In keeping with the spirit of this thread's title...

I was watching CNN the other day and saw Christane Amanpour say (without cracking a smile) that the Iranians prefer to fight us in Iraq than on their home soil, i.e. over there instead of over here.

Palz, while that is funny, its really scary.

I can't believe people still don't see through this stuff

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

Birdseye wrote:....

I can't believe people still don't see through this stuff...

I don't understand what you are implying with that statement.
It seems like you are saying that if people could only know the truth then there wouldn't be any reason to consider Iran as a threat.
What, exactly, is it that people need to see through?
Are you suggesting that they aren't involved in arming and manning the conflict?

<double post>

Think Spin Ally

Is Bush so dumb as his critics like to paint him, yet so deviously clever as to be able to spin Britain's Daily Telegraph into thinking that Austria sold high tech sniper rifles to Iran which shortly after their delivery start showing up in the hands of \"insurgents\" on the battlefield?
I wonder if he had Cheney slip into the offices of Steyr-Mannlicher and plant the export invoices to fake the order and cast a spell on them to prevent them from disputing the report that they had sold the rifles...hmm, tricky nasty little republicans.

Should we ignore all the history we know about the Iranians perpetrating terrorist attacks now that Bush has mentioned them?
Partisan logic is no logic at all!
I guess next you'll say that since Buah is against Hezbollah and he was wrong about the inventory of WMD's we all expected to find, therefore Hezbolla is no longer a terrorist organization...same with Hammas...
Come to think of it Bush was one of the first to claim al Queda is a terrorist threat so now I suppose since he doesn't have a perfect track record we need to issue an apology to bin Laddin and his boys!

I wonder just what authority do you need to verify Iranian participation before you'll believe it exists?
Would it have to be a democrat party source before you'll believe it? If so I guess we'll have to wait until CNN see's fit to report it...which will be right after a democrat president announces it is an issue

Will, before you go calling people partisan you may want to consider that the US has armed Iraq (both Saddam and the current government) AND Iran to a far greater extent than 800 Austrian rifles. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if this is your smoking gun - you just shot yourself in the foot with it.

The US military industrial complex Ike warned us about is here. There's no need to worry about our arming the world though, because the powers that be are all too happy to send your children (not theirs) overseas to be killed to straighten it out when one of our arms deals or property grabs goes bad.

The US armed Saddam up until he invaded Kuwait. We supported Saddam in his war against Iran. But that didn't stop us from selling arms to Iran at the same time. We played both sides of the war. Truly fantastic policy for the leaders of the free world, eh?

We're intentionally arming Iraq's current army, which happens to be infiltrated by militias. In so doing, we may have given the insurgents a lot more than 800 rifles.

From the article:

But just 10,000 of the nearly 400,000 small arms were registered by their serial numbers, the inspector general's report says. Citing the \"sensitivity of weapons accountability,\" Bowen wrote in his report that the disparity means there is no way to say who is using it.

That is a particular problem in Iraq, especially among a police force that has ties to the Shiite militia groups.

\"We have a situation, we have no idea how many of the weapons we give to police are being confiscated by people who also work with militias,\" says Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst with the Brookings Institution. \"And therefore [the weapons] wind up in the hands of people who are causing the problems in Iraq as opposed to solving the problems.

We put almost 400,000 guns in Iraq and didn't even register them. If just .002 percent of those end up in enemy hands we've exceeded Austria already. This of course doesn't count the stuff we INTENTIONALLY sold to Iraq or Iran in the past.

But that's not all. Consider this...(oh by the way, I missed Woodchip's breaking news alert on this little gem).

We lost 9 billion dollars in Iraq.

You don't think any of that ended up in the wrong hands, do ya? Please...

We are the worlds greatest purveyor of weapons

Here's a key quote from page 2:

But it is the United States that by far remains the top purveyor of high-tech arms to areas where analysts believe the likelihood of armed conflict remains highest. A study last year by the progressive World Policy Institute found that the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in an ongoing war.

\"From Angola, Chad, and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest US arms sales programs [Foreign Military sales and Commercial Sales] to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003,\" the report found.

Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms -- 13 of the 25 -- were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan.

The agreement last year to sell F-16s to Pakistan underscores the larger trend, according to Wade Bouse , research director at the Arms Control Association.

\"F-16s with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles are not for fighting Al Qaeda,\" Bouse said. \"They are for fighting India.\"
And India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan, is considering a US offer to sell the ountry F-16s. \"We are creating our own market by selling to both sides of regional conflicts,\" Bouse said.

Where have I heard that last bit before? (back to the theme of the thread afterall)

Do you understand what all these things mean? We have worse problems at home than Iran poses abroad. It's a racket, don't you understand that? It's all about property (none of which will profit you or yours).

The sickest part is that Bush smugly asserts his confidence in our victory while we continue to proliferate arms all over the world to one day be used against our own dudes!

Will, when you talk about Bush you sound like a remoseful junky. You know you ought to quit. You believe you can quit if you really want to, but you can't and you know it. So you rationalize everything. You view the world as through a dim tunnel and cannot see the big picture. I refuse to fixate on your myopic world of black and white, us versus them, donkey against elephant, good versus evil.

If I say my country has done wrong it's only because I love my country enough to want to see it right. I believe the real challenge we face is more domestic than foreign. Terrorism may be a threat to our lives or livelihood, but it's not a threat to our nation, our sovereignty. Someone said that a great nation dies first from within and only then does it fall prey to external forces. The federal government (both parties) as a whole is corrupt and incompetent. And the White House is simply the picture of all incompetence. We need real change in this country and your petty, puny outlook is a big part of the problem.

So look in the mirror (and how bout a history book too) before you go pointing any fingers.

Quick correction, Palzon, you meant 0.2% (or 0.002 times), not 0.002%.

DCrazy wrote:Quick correction, Palzon, you meant 0.2% (or 0.002 times), not 0.002%.

indeed that's what i meant. thank you.

I agree with your assesment of the duplicity in our providing weapons to potential enemies etc. And would love to stop it outright..but that doesn't change the fact that we have men fighting over there and Iran is definitely engaged in attacking them!
That simple point can not be ignored just because the U.S. is guilty of creating problems for itself in many other ways!
We still have to have decisions made to deal with the immediate situation and I hear people saying they don't believe Iran is an issue because Bush is just lying again etc. etc.
If you were an american soldier in Iraq you sure as hell wouldn't want to know that because of political partisan power struggles back home your congress was going to
a) leave you there indefinitely because they don't have the spine to sound the retreat
b) but they won't fund any re-enforcements to help you
c) they refuse to acknowledge the influx of Iranian and/or Syrian military threat that pours into the battlefield because it interferes with their political aspirations back home

I'm asking people here to rebuke those political games that are going to make a bad situation worse and it matters not that we are responsible for the situation, it's still a situation that needs to be dealt with!
If Iran is allowed to plant the seed of an islamo-facsist military victory in the fertile soil of an american retreat in Iraq it will become a catalyst for a meat grinder that will make Viet Nam look like a training exercise accident!
And we should let it happen because otherwise we might appear to support something Bush favors?!?
You talk about me shooting myself in the foot?!? Hell, the alternative you leave me is cutting out my heart to spite my chest cavity!!!

If the republicans had an ounce of integrity they would answer the recent democrat non binding resolution that basically said \"We would vote to retreat if we weren't afraid of losing re-election\" with a binding piece of legislation that says \"As long as we don't call for retreat we will always send the troops in harms way all the help they need!!

Will Robinson wrote:And we should let it happen because otherwise we might appear to support something Bush favors?!?

I'm not suggesting we don't kill Iranians on the ground in Iraq who are shooting at us. I'm not suggesting we don't kill other fighters using Iranian weapons (or money). I'm not even suggesting that war with Iran must be avoided at all costs. I'm saying that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to expand the war into Iran (which is 3 times the size of Iraq, by the way). This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contain the situation. In many ways I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Maybe we're better off being damned if we don't. Either way Bush is NOT the guy. That doesn't mean I don't support the troops or that I think Iran should be ignored forever.

Do you realize how many of our ships the Nazis sunk in WWII and we still didn't enter the war? Our shipments and escorts were truly aiding the British and hurting the Germans. Seriously, don't you think Iran should be a little nervous about us occupying their neighbor? We've been trying to destroy them since Reagan took over in 1980 (minus the whole Iran-Contra thing episode). So, while President Bush is our C-in-C, I think sweating it out is the best policy. That doesn't make me partisan or irrational. Bush has proven that he is NOT the man.

Palzon wrote:..So, while President Bush is our C-in-C, I think sweating it out is the best policy. That doesn't make me partisan or irrational. Bush has proven that he is NOT the man.

I can't argue with that, it makes sense and certainly he's shown he isn't the sharpest pencil in the box so sitting out his remaining term probably isn't too much to suffer. I'd support and hope for him sending a covert mission or missile strike if a target of opportunity appears however...a blockade etc. etc.
I doubt a land war is really in his plans at this point anyway.

And I sure wish the democrats were a little more rational and selfless when they formulate their political strategy because Bush's term is ending soon and then they will have to reconcile their position with the reality that Iran and Syria will have imposed on the region. Right now the democrat position is a gift to the islamo-facsist movement!
I'd be a little more reassured if the democrats were saying:
"We can deal with the Iranian involvement by way of [insert democrat strategy here] instead of following Bush into a land war there.."
but instead we're still waiting for the democrat plan for Iraq!! You know the one John Kerry said they had back in 2004!!!
So democrats in charge don't make me feel to good about the future when all they can come up with for a strategy is "Bush Sucks"!

Seriously, don't you think Iran should be a little nervous about us occupying their neighbor? We've been trying to destroy them since Reagan took over in 1980 (minus the whole Iran-Contra thing episode).

Yea they should be and we should make them even more nervous because for decades their actions have proven they warrant such treatment!
They don't deserve the consideration we owe other nations, in my opinion they are a true enemy.

I'm told some people think we are waiting them out instead of attacking them because they will run out of oil in about ten years at their current rate of production. I don't know if that is true but if it is I think it's a short sighted plan. first we waited because the students were going to overthrow the ayatollah and the mullahs...now we're waiting for them to dry up and crash?!?

Will Robinson wrote:And I sure wish the democrats were a little more rational and selfless when they formulate their political strategy because Bush's term is ending soon and then they will have to reconcile their position with the reality that Iran and Syria will have imposed on the region. Right now the democrat position is a gift to the islamo-facsist movement!
I'd be a little more reassured if the democrats were saying:
"We can deal with the Iranian involvement by way of [insert democrat strategy here] instead of following Bush into a land war there.."
but instead we're still waiting for the democrat plan for Iraq!! You know the one John Kerry said they had back in 2004!!!
So democrats in charge don't make me feel to good about the future when all they can come up with for a strategy is "Bush Sucks"!

I agree with every word, which is why I think that voting third party makes sense. If growing numbers of voters send a message to those in the two party system, not only could it reign them in - it might actually create enough draw for a substantial third party candidate to actually emerge!

Will Robinson wrote: Yea they should be and we should make them even more nervous because for decades their actions have proven they warrant such treatment!
They don't deserve the consideration we owe other nations, in my opinion they are a true enemy.

I agree they're the enemy but we can't square off one on one with them in an arena. I don't think war with Iran is inevitable. I think looking at the world that way is precisely what results in sloppy outcomes such as this. I think we should focus on diplomacy first. If we started investing more in helping development and capitolism abroad, it would have done much greater good than by the covert ops/sphere of influence (or the full scale land war)approach. We can win more with brains than brawn. We should be building relationships with our allies.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm told some people think we are waiting them out instead of attacking them because they will run out of oil in about ten years at their current rate of production. I don't know if that is true but if it is I think it's a short sighted plan. first we waited because the students were going to overthrow the ayatollah and the mullahs...now we're waiting for them to dry up and crash?!?

I don't think it's realistic but at least it's clever. Also it's hardly shortsighted (even if wrong). War has required wealth and fuel since the beginning of time. On the contrary, I think that kind of thinking is in fact quite forward thinking. It's that kind of thinking that could save military lives. It's not about arranging a big showdown on our terms. I think it's about gradually ratcheting down the tension over a long period.

I've hinted at this in the past, but this is as good a time as any to say it out right. The terrorists do not pose a threat to the nation on any level. The pose a threat to Americans. The threat is real, but it is of a small magnitude. So, worst case scenario - the terrorists acquire some type of nuke. They could do a lot of damage to people and to property. But they cannot damage the nation. They cant build enough bombs to defeat us. They cannot muster an army that will overrun us. And so far they have shown no ability to come up with really devastating weapons. I'm not saying we sit around and wait for something bad to happen. But even an idiot knows you don't fight hornets by wacking their nest with a stick.

We should be winning the war through propaganda; through publicly making outreach both to our allies and those on the fence. And i don't mean giving them more weapons! I think we should be setting an example for the world in terms of relieving unnecessary suffering. Focus on humanitarin aid, building infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads. Aid capitalism to thrive. Nothing will bring them eye to eye with us like materialism. Eventually I believe we can even win our enemies over.

Palzon wrote:I've hinted at this in the past, but this is as good a time as any to say it out right. The terrorists do not pose a threat to the nation on any level. The pose a threat to Americans. The threat is real, but it is of a small magnitude. So, worst case scenario - the terrorists acquire some type of nuke. They could do a lot of damage to people and to property. But they cannot damage the nation.

I think that right there you have pinpointed the reason you and I take a different position on just how much preemptive military action is justified.

You may be right in a literal sense that they can't hurt the nation the way a large scale invasion would but I feel that living like the Israeli's do, with the constant bombings on buses and in cafes etc.. That to me is enough of a wound to qualify as harming the nation.

Now bring in your worse case scenario of the nuclear weapon being set off here and it isn't even debatable in my mind, we will have been harmed in a major way.
For example, if, just by suffering the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon and the one flight over Pennsylvania going down, we, as a nation, were willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan to wage war on sovereign countries just what do you think will happen if some Muslims set off a nuke in Times Square?!?!
I believe the repercussions of that would be far reaching and very bad in many ways. We would end up with a president and congress made up of war mongering anglo-saxon crusaders that would make Pat Buchannon look like a screaming liberal pansy. The freakin' Klan could emerge as the viable third party!!

No, there is some value to the hard nosed fight 'em over there philosophy even if Bush isn't savy enough to know how to implement it!

When it comes to selling weapons to future enemies, does anyone know if after killing the enemy fighters who use those weapons, whether or not the U.S. collects the weapons and sells them again?

Will Robinson wrote:I think that right there you have pinpointed the reason you and I take a different position on just how much preemptive military action is justified.

Ah, but I am not against pre-emptive use of force. I'm just against it being used stupidly. There are a lot of ways we can keep the bad guys on the run and prevent them from bringing worst case scenarios to our doorstep. Not all of those methods deal with full scale land wars such as Iraq. But any military solution would be pre-emptive and I would support such solutions if they are not boneheaded.

More later.

Will Robinson wrote:

Birdseye wrote:....

I can't believe people still don't see through this stuff...

I don't understand what you are implying with that statement.
It seems like you are saying that if people could only know the truth then there wouldn't be any reason to consider Iran as a threat.
What, exactly, is it that people need to see through?
Are you suggesting that they aren't involved in arming and manning the conflict?

Well, luckily Palz did the work for me. Basically, we're supplying lots of people with weapons. We've even been known to supply Iran weapons

As Iran, would you not be in Iraq? Put yourself in their shoes. The outcome of this war affects you more than it affects America. Are you to sit back and do nothing? Give me a break. Just because Iran is in there, doesn't make them a threat to the US.

It's funny that a country acting out of its own self preservation with no intent to harm us or our citizens directly suddenly is a "threat" to us.

Birdseye wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Birdseye wrote:....

I can't believe people still don't see through this stuff...

I don't understand what you are implying with that statement.
It seems like you are saying that if people could only know the truth then there wouldn't be any reason to consider Iran as a threat.
What, exactly, is it that people need to see through?
Are you suggesting that they aren't involved in arming and manning the conflict?

Well, luckily Palz did the work for me. Basically, we're supplying lots of people with weapons. We've even been known to supply Iran weapons

As Iran, would you not be in Iraq? Put yourself in their shoes. The outcome of this war affects you more than it affects America. Are you to sit back and do nothing? Give me a break. Just because Iran is in there, doesn't make them a threat to the US.

It's funny that a country acting out of its own self preservation with no intent to harm us or our citizens directly suddenly is a "threat" to us.

As Iran would I be in there? In some capacity yes up to and possibly even beyond what they have done so far.
That doesn't mean we should accept it though. Just because it serves them to be there, and they would logically feel a need to be there, doesn't mean we need to let it happen! Because it doesn't serve us!
Remember, there is no such thing as fair.

As to the threat you don't seem to recognize.
They have been a threat to us since the '70's...consistantly, deadly, and without fail they have tried to kill Americans.
The Iranians were too friendly with Hitler at the onset of WWII so under pressure the Shahs father stepped down to let the son take over. He was more friendly to the allies than to Hitler and the Brits and the Americans moved material support through Iran to the Russians. the new Shah was promoting womens rights and was the only muslim leader to recognize Israel as a soveriegn state.
The islamo-facsists in Iran didn't like that kind of thinking and they threw him out and when his exile took him to america for medical treatment the young religious whacko's (Mahmoud-Nutbag- Ahmadinejad being one of them) took hundreds of Americans hostage. They have been killing Americans and those friendly to America ever since! They built Hezbollah out of their own elite military guard decades ago and they have been operating out of Lebanon ever since, killing thousands of people! They fund Hamas turning the Palestinians into fodder in their proxy war against the west and Israel, killing thousands!
You talk to me about our meddling in the middle east!!! Get a grip on the big picture! Or is American meddling the only bad kind?!?

You can't possibly expect me to consider them as merely an agitated country that will step down from violence once we leave the region! They haven't ever stepped down from inflicting terror, ever!!
It has been their mainstay since those religious whacko's took over the country!

Will, the Shah was a certified whacko. He was determined that Iran would have the largest army in the world next to the U.S. He spent most of his nations wealth in the pursuit of that aim. The living conditions of his countrymen meant nothing to him. All he wanted were arms, arms and more arms. Tanks, artillery, aircraft all the tools of war in quantities out of all proportion to his counties needs. And of course the western powers were glad to oblige. Eventually not even his generals could support him any longer as he was clearly deranged. Iran's revolution came from within caused by having a madman at the helm.

If giving arms to insurgents is a crime then Ronald Regan is a criminal (Nicaraguan Contras. Remember them?) and so are most of the world's governments for that matter.

I find it scary that even while the folly of trying to impose a regime change on a foreign country is being proven again in bloody clarity the drums of war are beating for Iran and otherwise sensible people such as yourself Will are buying into it.
Is the U.S. going to invade and conquer every country that opposes them? Are there so many young men and women in the U.S. that you can lose them by the tens of thousands year after year in stupid senseless war after war? Will this make America great? Will this make the world a safer place for us all? I don't think so.