posted
Like many out here I find it extremely difficult to believe that President Bush could actually do anything so crazy as to begin a military attack against Iran, and that even if he wanted to, the Congress, the Pentagon, and the American public would ever accept such action. It makes me nervous when this president truly believes he is carrying out the will of God. This conflict appears to be coming forward sooner rather than later, and with the disasterous consequences for America, and the entire prospects for peace in the Middle East.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush has an overinflated ego, and I think he believes he personally is impervious to attack on himself. In my opinion he puts a profitable war ahead of the security of any nation. War is big business to governments (including UK, scandals in Margaret Thatcher's era of selling arms abroad) who manufacture and supply arms to other nations, and I would never say he's not crazy enough to attack anyone, I think he would. It's just a matter of time, which doesn't help whoever he decides to target. The problem is he does not listen and goes against public vote, as does Blair....
I'm British and in UK, and I think the only reason Blair follows (not necessarily that the people want him to follow) Bush is because he's afraid of not following him, because we might be next on his list. Never make an enemy of him, you don't know what he'll do.
Bush already proved himself crazy in everything he did so far .... what next?
Posts: 61 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, keep your friends close and your enemies even closer type of mentality .
I'm certainly not for war anywhere much less the death of innocent people (which is who always pays the price for decisions made towards war), but regarding the issue with Iran, I think Iran isn't doing anything that they are not allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which both Iran and the United States have signed. It is the United States which has broken that treaty by demanding that Iran cease building and fueling power stations. Same as in Iraq, the US is involved in outright aggression against another country under the flimsiest pretext. I mean, i think we should be clear, nobody has found any evidence at all that Iran is actually building weapons. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. Iran is no more a nuclear threat to the United States than Iraq was. And with Iraq in a downward spin nowadays I can't help but wonder at the sanity of these "leaders" who want to start ANOTHER disaster in Iran. Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm totally against war anywhere too, but it seems to me like Bush simply has to stick his nose into any and every nations issues invited or otherwise, then he's surprised when it backfires and he thinks he can win. When a nations back is to the wall, they will become stronger and fight back harder. It is the case that by interference he 'starts' these aggressions, and is surprised when the response is not what he expected, then he feels bound to finish it - as in Iraq. I agree with what you say, I can't see that anyone has broken any rules either. God help everyone everywhere .....
Posts: 61 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
HE WONT!!!!!!AND I HEAR ANOTHER JIHAD WAR COMING ON ,WHOS GONNA STAND NEXT TO OUR BROTHER AND SISTERS THIS TIME ..WUD YOU ????
Posts: 4597 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a guy believes he is following the will of God, a few setbacks won't unfortunately move him off course.[God moving in mysterious ways I guess] What is clear is that no matter how many Americans fear for their military, and the cost of another war, Bush WILL get support for an attack on Iran because popular opinion in the US is that Iran poses a great danger. Israel are desperate for it for one thing, I read today that they said basically that if Iran gets nuclear weapons Israel cannot continue their 'war' on Hamas and Hizbollah. Now that would be awful wouldn't it? The 'plan' is a fait accompli , but but will maybe meet with some resistance fron China, who would be victims in that their oil dealswith Iran would be compromised. i believe that with or without nuclear weapons, Iran is no more of a threat than France, say. Certainly less than a place like Pakistan. But it's NOT ABOUT THREATS is it? The only chance to stop this before it gets worse is for American people to say NO,[or at least WHY?] but I fear that won't happen.
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Translate please. I'm not saying Pakistan is the evil empire, but it does have wmds, it is under pressure re India and Kashmir, and there are a lot of hotheads there.And ..... it has recently become interesting to the Bush gang. Don't yet know why.
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NO IT MEAN I LOVE PAKISTAN MY DARLING PAKISTAN,,LOL LOL ITSOK IM NOT BOTHERED ANYWAY IM HAVING A FIGHT WIF MY CRAPPY HUBBY AS WE SPEAK HES RADICAL PIECE OF DIMSHITE..YOU CARRY ON GAL IM READ YAH WHAT YOU RITE I LIKE IT .. Posts: 4597 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers: Like many out here I find it extremely difficult to believe that President Bush could actually do anything so crazy as to begin a military attack against Iran, and that even if he wanted to, the Congress, the Pentagon, and the American public would ever accept such action. It makes me nervous when this president truly believes he is carrying out the will of God. This conflict appears to be coming forward sooner rather than later, and with the disasterous consequences for America, and the entire prospects for peace in the Middle East.
Right now they are only talking about economic sanctions. Honestly the U.S. and it's bitch Israel would rather pick on weak countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon. I doubt they would use the resources to go after Iran. Iran and Syria do NOT have weak militaries. Imagine oil prices in America?
Other European allies will not back him either. France and England are already complaining about their military being spread too thin around the world, they don't won't to use all their manpower and not see any results. Plus I think Russia will veto any decision to file economic sanctions. Only a few top countries have veto power in the U.N.
Posts: 37 | From: egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel has appointed a top general to oversee a war against Iran, prompting speculation that it is preparing for possible military action against Teheran's nuclear programme.
Maj Gen Elyezer Shkedy, Israel's air force chief, will be overall commander for the "Iran front", according to military sources spoken to by The Sunday Telegraph.
News of the appointment comes just days before a United Nations deadline expires for Iran to give up its nuclear programme, which Western governments fear will be used to produce atomic weapons. Despite Iran's offer last week to engage in "serious talks" on the matter, Israel fears even more than other Western nations that the offer is simply to buy time for Teheran to secure all the technology it needs to build the bomb.
Posts: 209 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will have to be a military strike against Iran, thats clear. President bush has already stated that these lunatics are not going to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. They have also made it clear that the diplomatic effort must be played out. When that process is complete the attack will be made.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They REALLY are lunatics aren't they? Just look at the mess they made of Iraq! ooops! that wasn't Iran was it? Ah, but it WAS them that helped Israel wreck Lebanon. Nope wrong again. There are a few lunatics out there, indubitably. And someone needs to stop them. "the diplomatic effort must be played out. When that process is complete the attack will be made. " Dontcha think thats a bit like saying theres going to be a fair trial and then the guy will be hanged?
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you are taking up for Iran Jessie? Spoken like a true Islamo Fascist. The only bad thing about Lebanon is that Israel did not destroy more of the country and kill more muslim religious wackos. There is nothing you can do for these people except kill them until they stop. Michael Reagan pointed out the other day that if a mother is bringing up her children to kill westerners then the mother and the kids have to go. Turning western attitudes is a slow process but its happening. What you have from the Islamo Fascists across the middle east is much like an infestation or a terrible disease.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
mike you are one crazy loon. hitting the moonshine again outside your trailer? I love you writing on here though, reminds me of why I despise America.How old are you? You know the draft is acomin' your way. Hope you got some big ol' sons around. Be the first one on your block to have your kid brought home in a box,,,,
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just remember Jessie that as much as you might hate America we are the guys with the foot long pecker. As far as sons coming home in a box keep in mind that the kill rate in Iraq is a little over 75-1 in our favor. I'll take those odds all day. The fact is that you are too ignorant to understand that you do not have the economic base or the power to win in the end. Anyone truly interested in the survival of Islam would join the United States and Israel in the west in our efforts in the middle east. Supporting Islamo Fascism is a dead end.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign "contamination."
What country does this describe?
"Fascism demands a succession of wars, foreign conquests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anxiety and patriotic hypertension. Those who disagree are branded ideological traitors. All successful fascists regimes, Paxton points out, allied themselves to traditional conservative parties, and to the military-industrial complex.
Highly conservative and militaristic regimes are not necessarily fascist, says Paxton. True fascism requires relentless aggression abroad and a semi-religious adoration of the regime at home."
There is nothing in any part of the Muslim World that resembles the corporate fascist states of western history. In fact, clan and tribal-based traditional Islamic society, with its fragmented power structures, local loyalties, and consensus decision-making, is about as far as possible from western industrial state fascism.'
Islamofascism is a stupid word coined for stupid people. Don't use it again Mike, I suspect that deep down you have more sense.
actually Mike, i'm a European, I've got an economic base to die for.
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, i think we should be clear, nobody has found any evidence at all that Iran is actually building weapons. None. Zero. Nada.
And what if it does? Is the alternative realistic also? Should it emulate pre WW2 Poland and settle with oudated arms?.
Suppose it honored that wish, and now in 2056 Iran just happens to be the last nation without nuclear capability, and it just happens to have all the resources every other nation possess. Should it still not possess nuclear weapons? I think at some point we need to be realistic.
The books of war, nor the Iranian people will allow for nothing less than having complete security for it's people, this is their right as a nation on this globe, and they will expect their politicians to obtain them. The books of war all include entries that state a nation should have the best or better weapon available. This is provided not for moral or ethical reasons, but to satisfy a reality until a reliable method of resolving disputes is found. It also states every nation should try to dissuade the other nation in improving it's weapons system. So at least now we know the Pentagon is tongue-in-cheek with this request. If Iran blinks, it is a benefit to the US.
I'm not worried with Iran, unless Israel or someone tries the Russion Roulette Kruschev/Kennedy game. But I'm sure it will do as the rest, gesture, face save and all, but it is not sucidal I'm sure.
Andy
Posts: 10 | From: Can | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Pentagon is particularly tongue in cheek regarding plans to degrade Iran with years of softening up sanctions a la Iraq. personally I hope that Iran has some kind of deterrant planned. I hate nukes, but without the threat of retaliation they're doomed.The US sure as hell wouldn't have dreamed of invading Iraq if they'd thought they could fight back would they? 'That wasn't what they war gamed for'.
Posts: 1399 | From: alexandria | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jessie, The United States invaded Iraq precisely because of Iran. If you read the foreign policy scholarly journals instead of left wing blogs you would understand these things. Iran has always been the prime objective. Invading Iraq did two things. First, it hemmed Iran in between an American occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. This combined with the large American fleet in the Gulf gives the United States and UK the ability to attack Iran at will whenever they wish and impedes any direct action by Iran. Secondly, taking Iraq drives a wedge between iran and Syria. Moving into Iraq was a brilliant move on the part of the United States and UK and Iraq will remain occupied until Iran is no longer a threat to its neighbors.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trouble is, there are no US troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.
Posts: 209 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bush administration's case against Iran is eerily reminiscent of its case against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion of that country. Accordingly, the case against Iran is based not on any hard evidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but on dubious allegations that are based on even more dubious sources of intelligence. Iran is asked, in effect, to prove a negative, which is of course mission impossible - hence grounds for "non-compliance" and the rationale for "punishment".
Posts: 209 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, i think we should be clear, nobody has found any evidence at all that Iran is actually building weapons. None. Zero. Nada.
And what if it does? Is the alternative realistic also? Should it emulate pre WW2 Poland and settle with oudated arms?.
Suppose it honored that wish, and now in 2056 Iran just happens to be the last nation without nuclear capability, and it just happens to have all the resources every other nation possess. Should it still not possess nuclear weapons? I think at some point we need to be realistic.
The books of war, nor the Iranian people will allow for nothing less than having complete security for it's people, this is their right as a nation on this globe, and they will expect their politicians to obtain them. The books of war all include entries that state a nation should have the best or better weapon available. This is provided not for moral or ethical reasons, but to satisfy a reality until a reliable method of resolving disputes is found. It also states every nation should try to dissuade the other nation in improving it's weapons system. So at least now we know the Pentagon is tongue-in-cheek with this request. If Iran blinks, it is a benefit to the US.
I'm not worried with Iran, unless Israel or someone tries the Russion Roulette Kruschev/Kennedy game. But I'm sure it will do as the rest, gesture, face save and all, but it is not sucidal I'm sure.
Andy
I don't deal in what if's especially when you're talking about nuclear weapons. Either they have or not, read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and you tell me who is crossing the boundaries. Go find out which countries we know DO have nukes and then come back and we'll talk. Are we only afraid of brown people having the nukes or is it just ok for whites to have it? Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the countries we know for a FACT to have the weapons instead of being diverted to care about the ones they want you to suspect of having them. Really people, time to open the eyes God gave you. This is only a question of timing. It is not a question of if, but when, some kind of attack on Iran will begin. The only real issue is, when the draft (under the guise of the National Service Act)will begin again in America.
Of course, none of the architects of the coming war(s) will have their kids on the front lines, that's a real certainty.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Be the first one on your block to have your kid brought home in a box,,,,
Printer-friendly view of this topic