DescentBB

Well, while the left has used the 9/11 commission to "Prove" that the Iraq war was unjustified, I wonder how they will view the findings that Iran may have played a big time part in the attack:

"Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iranâ??just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackersâ??that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengersâ??passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guardsâ??in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnelâ??and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier.

http://tinyurl.com/48m8m

So I guess Bush got it right when he called Iran a partner in the axis of evil.

Bon appetite lefties

Within the next year I anticipate a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuke facilities. The clock is ticking and the window for an attack will open only briefly before it could cause an environmental catastrophe.

Either way, Iran has likely always been designated as Domino #3. It's ripening but not quite there yet for a homegrown revolution.

I believe the inclusion of Iran in the Axis was meant to spur it toward rejecting it's present path. It hasn't. In fact it seems to have accellerated its ambitions for ME hegemony. The Euros and the UN have been tasked with reigning in Iran due to their insistance Iraq was handled incorrectly. We'll see, but so far the EU and the UN seem to be getting hornswoggled by the mullahs.

You know who really pisses me off though, the Canadians. While I would definitely consider them a member of the axis of notsobad, possibly as tame as the axis of mightobtainorigionalthoughts, the bottom line is they don't allow fox news. Also, in too many conflicts they have allowed our soldiers to escape there, and to be blunt, they just don't speak correctly. (not to mention the free health care, ichy, whats wrong with the rich in that country, don't they know that that money is theirs?)

Who says its time to make this great country twice as big?

Can I get a woop woâ?¦.errr, he yah?

You go Goob.

See, although I think that Iran's government does need to be taken down, I also believe that Iran's population is THE MOST pro-american in the region. they live in a repressed country that is openly anti-american, and as a result, they turn towards america as "the good guys." i hope that if bush plans an attack on iran he does it in a way that doesn't kill this pro-american sentiment.... we'll see.

I agree, Vert, and I believe the current US policy is to foment internal change. There's been a largely stealth revolution brewing in Iran and it's members have said all they want is support, not military help, from America. I'm all for that. BUT... I'm afraid the mullahs won't go down without a very bloody fight, whether it's with internal dissenters or external liberators.

thanks goob.

*cough*

bash wrote:I agree, Vert, and I believe the current US policy is to foment internal change. There's been a largely stealth revolution brewing in Iran and it's members have said all they want is support, not military help, from America. I'm all for that. BUT... I'm afraid the mullahs won't go down without a very bloody fight, whether it's with internal dissenters or external liberators.

wow, that's probably the first thing we've ever agreed upon

"So I guess Bush got it right when he called Iran a partner in the axis of evil.

Bon appetite lefties "

1) I took that as "Oops, we attacked the wrong country" So far more Saudi and Iranian ties to 9-11 than Iraqi

2) Calling any country inherently evil is the antithesis of diplomacy and a hope for peace across the world. I will never agree with the charactorization of a nation as evil. What a better way to turn people against us? I don't believe nations are evil. They have families they love and they want to be happy just like us. Unfortunately we can't figure out how to get along. Leaders and regimes are bad, but nations are not evil.

Birdseye wrote: 2) Calling any country inherently evil is the antithesis of diplomacy and a hope for peace across the world. I will never agree with the charactorization of a nation as evil. What a better way to turn people against us? I don't believe nations are evil. They have families they love and they want to be happy just like us. Unfortunately we can't figure out how to get along. Leaders and regimes are bad, but nations are not evil.

Where did this "inherently" business come from? When one refers to "Iran is evil" they are referring to the leadership of the country.

calling the whole of Iran evil is like saying all women are stupid.

Man Ferno I wouldn't have posted that troll for all the tea in China.
Hey Goob...bring it on. we will deal with you just like we did in the war of 1812. Mostly because our army is armed with the same weapons we had in 1812.

Ford: I did that to make a point. though I'm sure I'll be called a moron or a a-hole because of it.

I agree with Birds, and I think Iran was the "bad guy" all along, with the Saudis. However, I still don't think we should attack Iran. We should support rebellion against the Mullahs, send supplies or whatever, but this is their revolution and their country; they should fight it themselves.

I find it ironic how everything is backwards nowadays...we used to send Saddam help to fight Iran, now we've taken Saddam out and could potentially view an Iranian rebellion as a good thing.

Edit: a little trolling...but I also find it funny that every piece of evidence that may make the right look better or make the left look worse....woodchip posts it and then rolls in it like he's found the end-all gospel to prove that the right is supreme. Hehe...the lefties on the board are the same way, its just funny. I love ya woody

funny though woodchip....we're at war with Iraq. The last letter on that country is a Q and not an N. You just proved yourself that the real target should have been Iran. ack...I just saw Birdseye said what I am saying. Oh well...

Hey Beo, it's a gift I have.
Lets attenuate what I posted a bit further because the more it smells like liberal cow pies, the more I enjoy rolling in it.
The liberals king court jester Kerry has come out and said that, upon careful consideration of intellegence information, that he to would do the pre-emptive 2 step. I guess what that means is he would have attacked Iraq if he was pres., because even everyone in the Clinton dog and pony show came out and said Iraq was a threat and had to be delt with. Lets fast forward to after the Nov. election and suppose Kerry is elected. With the intel we now have on Iran I guess it is a fore-gone conclusion that Kerry would order pre-emptive attacks on Iran. If he does so Zuruck, do you think he will get hammered by the socialist anti-war crowd? Do you think Whoop-de-do Goldberg will grab her verticle smile and call the new JFK certain scatological names? Did any of that crowd protest when Clinton killed 100's and thousands of serbs? Hear any of the Noam Chomski intelligencia megaphoning how, at that time, america is a bully?
After you thought long and hard, lets imagine Bush attacked Iran instead of Iraq. Do you in your wildest imagination think the libniks would have been any less strident in their denunciation of Bush for attacking Iran? After you get off this carousel of concepts and put it all togeather you'll understand why I am on the conservative end of the spectrum.
By in large the democratic mouth pieces all seem to extoll the message of Bush hate with no real reason other than they hope their boy will get back in power because of it.

I think the Dems would have complained then as well because it's obvious the US would not have had reliable intel on Iran at that point either. So either way you slice it woodchip, your boy messed up. And you guys wont' own up to it.

"Where did this "inherently" business come from? When one refers to "Iran is evil" they are referring to the leadership of the country. " -Dcrazy

It's not clear. If you call a country evil, you are, to most people, calling everyone evil. If someone started calling america evil, The average citizen would take it personally. After all, our elected officals were elected by us!
---------------------

Actually wood, chomsky did write about serbia and our involvement. But you'd never actually READ something someone like him wrote.

"By in large the democratic mouth pieces all seem to extoll the message of Bush hate with no real reason other than they hope their boy will get back in power because of it. "

When you realize that BOTH major parties extol a virtuless message and are BOTH essentially moralless adhering to only the almighty dollar will you then understand MY position. For now you are lost in a sea of republican rhetoric that you somehow believe to be above that of the democrats.

"After you thought long and hard, lets imagine Bush attacked Iran instead of Iraq. Do you in your wildest imagination think the libniks would have been any less strident in their denunciation of Bush for attacking Iran? "

No, not really. It doesn't mean bush looks like an ass either way. What is your point?

Birdseye wrote: It's not clear. If you call a country evil, you are, to most people, calling everyone evil. If someone started calling america evil, The average citizen would take it personally. After all, our elected officals were elected by us!

I think it's in the wording and context. "America is evil" is indeed usually meant to attack American values or stereotypical Americans (in fact I think this is the case with most representative governments). "Iraq/Iran/China/insert oppressive country here is evil" is meant to attack governmental philosophies or systems.

What an ego-centric double standard we have.

what an ego-centric sniper you are.

And how does your position have a shred of validity, lothar? The double standard is clear. If we're talking about America and the word evil is used, it's applied to everyone. If we're talking about another country, obviously it's just the government system. Quite rediculous.

How am I "sniping"? And what exactly is ego centric about my posts in this thread beyond the words being my own?

Turn it around, Birds. If people are talking smack about America, they are referring to everyone. If people are talking smack about Albania, they're only talking about the government.

It's less of a double standard and more of just being the context each variant is most often used in.

I don't follow you, DC. As far as I can tell, when someone refers to a country, it is inclusive of the citizens and its government.

Birdseye wrote:And how does your position have a shred of validity, lothar?

You mean the position that I shared in all ZERO of my earlier posts in this thread? Oops...

How am I "sniping"?

An attack without exposing your position = sniping. That's what that one-liner was. (Granted, your position is mostly known from other posts -- but that post was a snipe, as were a few others you made in other threads this morning.) My response was also sniping, because I didn't expose my position in the slightest.

The double standard is clear. If we're talking about America and the word evil is used, it's applied to everyone. If we're talking about another country, obviously it's just the government system.

Nobody has expressed that standard you seem to think is "clear". Nobody has drawn the line between "America" and "every country but America". DCrazy is the only one who's really clearly drawn the line, and he's drawn it between "representative governments" and "non-representative governments". This is a clear double-standard (though it's not the one you identified), but it's also a sensible one: if a government is legitimately representative, and you say "that country is evil", you're probably referring both to the government and to the people, because the government represents the people and the people elect the government -- they're tied together; they share common values and ideals. If a government is not representative, and you say "that country is evil", you may be referring to the people OR the government OR both -- they're not tied together; they may or may not share any common values whatsoever. In this case, the context of the statement is important.

Take, for example, the famous "axis of evil" statement, in context:

President Bush, in [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html]the state of the Union[/url], wrote:North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.

There's a pretty clear disconnect between "the regimes" and "the citizens", which is explicitly stated in each of the 3 cases (see italics.) When Bush calls these 3 countries an "axis of evil", it's abundantly clear that he's referring specifically to the governments, and not to the people.

Look back at your original statement:

Birdseye wrote:Calling any country inherently evil is the antithesis of diplomacy and a hope for peace across the world. I will never agree with the charactorization of a nation as evil. What a better way to turn people against us? I don't believe nations are evil. They have families they love and they want to be happy just like us. Unfortunately we can't figure out how to get along. Leaders and regimes are bad, but nations are not evil.

Clearly, you missed the distinction Bush drew between the regimes and the people in his "axis of evil" speech.

Lothar, think of how the unwashed masses will read it. Certainly not like us. Of course we understand the distinction. They'll read it as the people and the government are evil. Remember the lowest common denominator is also the largest % of people.

You don't have to be very intelligent to understand what Bush was saying -- you just have to pay attention. Birdseye is pretty intelligent (definitely not a part of "the unwashed masses") but didn't pay attention, and came to the wrong conclusion because he only looked at the "axis of evil" line and not the context. I know plenty of others who really are "the unwashed masses", of pretty average intelligence, who listened to the speech and recognized the statement was directed at the regimes.

When you realize that BOTH major parties extol a virtuless message and are BOTH essentially moralless adhering to only the almighty dollar will you then understand MY position. -Birdseye

Saying a party is virtuless and essentially moralless is like saying a country is evil. Or, are you just refering to those who run the party?

Goob, you're absolutely right. I made an overgeneralization to make a point to wood.

Lothar what you are forgetting is what is actually played internationally. When you are president, you have to be very careful when using such strong words as evil.

Most telecasts in america only played tiny clips of the speech by bush, mostly saying the words axis of evil and listing the countries. It's the same around the world--the average person only tunes into the little soundbyte and that's their impression. Hell, over half of americans thought Iraq caused 9-11.

BTW, my response to you initially was regarding your one liner, not all of your posted content in the threat.

Leaders and regimes are bad, but nations are not evil.

I think it's pretty clear he was referring to the powers that be in those countries:

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

------------------------------------

With regard to Iran, it's relevant to note that he's also said things like the following:

â??There are people inside of Iran who are watching what's happening -- young, vibrant, professional people who want to be free. And they're wondering whether or not they'll have the opportunity.â?

birds, i think half of americans STILL think Iraq caused 9/11...can you guess which half?

Zuruck wrote:birds, i think half of americans STILL think Iraq caused 9/11...can you guess which half?

I guess Z, you're one of those who would rather wait for Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to happen before you feel a need to do anything? Glad the only crowd you influence is the one you see in a mirror.

"Saying that Bush was declaring everyone in those countries as being evil is really a straw man argument. The evidence just doesn't support it. " - INDEX

Missing the point. Most of the world likely only heard the clip about axis of evil.
What's the point in calling other leadership anyway? Seems counter intuitive to the effort of diplomacy and potentially peaceful resolution.

Hey wood, save your argument because me and Zur, as you already should know from harping in countless threads, don't think we're any safer from the Iraq war. In fact, I believe we'd have been far safer spending the money on protecting--gasp--america.

woodchip, again, you miss the point completely. We are not going after Al Qaida right now. They are probably sitting in a hut somewhere laughing at the situation we have now. Since when did Iraq cause 9/11? Even I don't think you dumb enough to link them? Are you?

Zuruck wrote:We are not going after Al Qaida right now.

Since when have we stopped going after Al Qaida?

Since we went into Iraq?

Um, no.

Some people here seem to think our military can only do one thing at a time. Guess what? We can take care of Iraq, guard the Korean border, patrol Kosovo, protect Afganistan and look for Osama...all at the same time.
The question of being safer now since Iraq is best looked at much loved Clinton and friends. How the Dems are spouting off how the world was more respectful of the U.S. because of Bill "Psychobabble" Clinton policies. Well I hate to burst your linguinni wrapped sand castle, but 9/11 didn't happen because Bush got elected. With Iraq and Afganistan out of the equation, the terrorist no longer have free and open places to operate out of. We are safer because Libya decided the being a terrorist state with nuclear ambitions was maybe not the safest thing to be. Other leaders of countries that were thinking about allowing terrorist to operate in their borders now realise screwing around with America while Bush is in power may not be good for long term retirement plans.
Perhaps one should ask themselves how much safer we will be if some Clinton clone wanker like Kerry gets back in office. Remember it was Kerry that voted to cut funds to the CIA and it was Gorlich that threw the wall up between the FBI and the CIA. So go ahead and vote that crowd back in. I'm sure for awhile you'll feel safe.

Birdseye wrote: If someone started calling america evil, The average citizen would take it personally.

No kidding about that. I think we witnessed such a scenario here on the dbb.

Well Ferno, I think about 88% of the world right now is thinking that and what are we to do. No safe haven Woodchip, then why do we have to even talk about a possible terrorist attack on election day? Shouldn't they be completely shut down? Their entire structure demolished under the good name of American foreign policy?

Can we do all those wonderful things you listed? I don't know, Afghanistan has resorted to a country of warlords, Karzai has control over Kabul and that's about it. Another 68 Iraqis just died from a car bomb, boy you're right, we do have control over everything. That's why they're drafting a 68 year old retiree. We can do all those things and then some with our volunteer army.

What happened to Osama?