NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm very interested to see what the numbers show here. I heard today that an invasion of Iran is supposedly Karl Roves "October Surprise" that will help make Republicans win in the Midterm elections. Whether or not this is true is kind of beside the point. The question is, would you feel the same about the Bush administration or will your opinion of the administration change?

I'm very interested to see what the numbers show here. I heard today that an invasion of Iran is supposedly Karl Roves "October Surprise" that will help make Republicans win in the Midterm elections. Whether or not this is true is kind of beside the point. The question is, would you feel the same about the Bush administration or will your opinion of the administration change?

I could REALLY get behind an Invasion of Iran...

I could REALLY get behind an Invasion of Iran...

Yep it sounds like a wonderfully suicidal idea.

I highly doubt that they are seriously considering an invasion. Airstrikes, perhaps, but no invasion.

I highly doubt that they are seriously considering an invasion. Airstrikes, perhaps, but no invasion.

Maybe they will get the Israelis to do it?

I highly doubt that they are seriously considering an invasion. Airstrikes, perhaps, but no invasion.

Perhaps I should have written any type military attack. Go at it from that sense.

I highly doubt that they are seriously considering an invasion. Airstrikes, perhaps, but no invasion.

Agreed. Airstrikes are sexy, politically speaking, but tanks and dead soldiers aren't. Airstrikes look like oversized video games, and awaken the incipient retard in white male conservatives.

Perhaps I should have written any type military attack. Go at it from that sense.

Ok, that makes sense. In that case, I would not be surprised. Politically, it could be a good short term move, but one with potentially disastrous long term consequences. I'm sure Bush's ratings (and the republican party's) would go up, and that may push them over the edge in the coming elections. But, airstrikes, or any type of military action, would completely destabilize the region. And with approval rating being directly correlated to gas prices, it may not be the best course of action.

Agreed. Airstrikes are sexy, politically speaking, but tanks and dead soldiers aren't. Airstrikes look like oversized video games, and awaken the incipient retard in white male conservatives.

Have airstrikes ever gotten the job done in the past? It seems to me, its a bit like spitting at hornet nests.

Have airstrikes ever gotten the job done in the past? It seems to me, its a bit like spitting at hornet nests.

They worked in the first Gulf War.

Ok, that makes sense. In that case, I would not be surprised. Politically, it could be a good short term move, but one with potentially disastrous long term consequences. I'm sure Bush's ratings (and the republican party's) would go up, and that may push them over the edge in the coming elections. But, airstrikes, or any type of military action, would completely destabilize the region. And with approval rating being directly correlated to gas prices, it may not be the best course of action.

A good effect of an attack of this nature would be for me to see some intelligence on the part of conservatives not falling for it. Though, I'm not sure attacking other countries just to make me feel better about conservatives is a very good reason for killing people.

They worked in the first Gulf War.
They worked to degrade the limited capability of the Iraqi army, but in the end, airstrikes alone won't topple a regime unless you get lucky and hit the head of the regime. They'll never be an invading force on their own, however.

They worked in the first Gulf War.

There was also a ground campaign and it ultimately led to the occupation we find ourselves in now.

I hope that the administration will invade Iran, despite the plummet they would take in the polls. Maybe not in October, but before the end of 2009. We cannot risk Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost.

Yep it sounds like a wonderfully suicidal idea.

And letting them geting nuclear weapons really isn't...

See, if they were to do it, they'd need to become less relient on Middle Eastern Oil.

And that could only be a good thing.

I hope that the administration will invade Iran, despite the plummet they would take in the polls. Maybe not in October, but before the end of 2009. We cannot risk Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost.

:mad:

oh sure, let's invade Iran! Only WE should have n00klear tech!

And let's go to China and Russia while we're at it?

How about we invade EVERYONE and take their n00ks?

/sarcasm

Come on, people. We can't just invade Iran. They have to actually DO something bad.

And maybe having more nuclear powers would stop any use of them. (seriously)

You know... with all this talk of attacking Iran, do you think the US should be pitied if Iran pre-emptively striked? Maybe that should be another poll...

Come on, people. We can't just invade Iran. They have to actually DO something bad.

Like storming our embassy?

Don't get me wrong, I don't support any military action against Iran. But Don't pretend they're not a brutal theocratic state.

Like storming our embassy?

We haven't had an embassy there since what--1978? 1979? Old times.

We haven't had an embassy there since what--1978? 1979? Old times.

79'. I was pointing it out that Iran is the original Islamic theocracy. A horrible one too.

79'. I was pointing it out that Iran is the original Islamic theocracy. A horrible one too.
Oh, I'd say that as theocracies go, they do a pretty good job at being one. The Christian right sure seems to be taking notes (http://jesuscampthemovie.com) on how to form and run one.

And let's go to China and Russia while we're at it?

I find it ironic how you used the "mad" smiley face, yet you are unaware of the concept of MAD.

I find it ironic how you used the "mad" smiley face, yet you are unaware of the concept of MAD.So why doesn't MAD apply to Iran?

So why doesn't MAD apply to Iran?

Because neither China nor Russia are theocratic dictatorships which are led by fundamentalist rulers who have insane religious visions and actively promote martydom and welcome the coming of the Mahdi. They also do not want to wipe another country off the map.

I hope that the administration will invade Iran, despite the plummet they would take in the polls. Maybe not in October, but before the end of 2009. We cannot risk Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost.

Hehehe considering all the CIA leaks say best estimates for Iran even being able to test a nuclear weapon is 10 years from now 2009 is a bit to early to invade especially considering the shit we have already stepped in.

Because neither China nor Russia are theocratic dictatorships which are led by fundamentalist rulers who have insane religious visions and actively promote martydom and welcome the coming of the Mahdi. They also do not want to wipe another country off the map.
Ever occur to you that Ahmadinejad doesn't actually believe the shit he talks, that he says it in order to keep the faithful rallied behind him and the moderates quiet so they don't point out things like the shitty Iranian economy and the like? I mean, that would only make him like every other politician on earth.

Ever occur to you that Ahmadinejad doesn't actually believe the shit he talks, that he says it in order to keep the faithful rallied behind him and the moderates quiet so they don't point out things like the shitty Iranian economy and the like?

Has it ever occurred to you that he is indeed a fundamentalist? After all, it is alleged that he took a part in the 1979 hostage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis

Has it ever occurred to you that he is indeed a fundamentalist? After all, it is alleged that he took a part in the 1979 hostage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis

If he was a fundamentalist in '79, the fact that he survived to become the President of Iran implies that he has other priorities besides holy war. A fanatic would have taken the oppurtunity to die gloriously in any of the conflicts the region has had since '79, yet Ahmadinejad has survived to take power. I think he values his position in power in the Mid-East too much to let his country get turned into radioactive waste. Power-hungry, not suicidal.

There isn't really an ideal poll choice for me. I hate them now but wouldn't hate them any more if they invaded Iran (I hate Iran too).

well if we do invade Iran before I finish my application to the army I might just get sidetracked for awhile maybe go college or something of course by the time we win I can fully expect to be an oxford professor of nutromety (both are just as likely)

And I hate bush now but I don’t think my opinion could get any lower than it is now so he’s got me there:p

Come on, people. We can't just invade (a sovereign Country). They have to actually DO something bad.Like storming our embassy?Hey Pyotr.. I have an Idea..
We ask the UNSC to pass an international Law:

if Contry A attack the embassy of Country B..
Country B gets to Bomb (for 24 hours) all WMD sites in Country A.. (nuclear/Bio/Chem plants)
Country A gets only to watch the fireworks.

Do you like that Pyotr ?

Oh come on, like the world isn't filled with countries that hate the US and have nukes.

Jeez.

Bush had to threaten Pakistan with massive air-strikes to get them to even think about helping in the War on Terra, and that was before the US policy of 'Fuck the rest of the world' became really obvious.

So, in about 10 years, the Iranian government (which the US basically setup) might develop a nuclear weapon.

So what?
What are they going to do with it?
Fire at Israel? :rolleyes:
Of course not, Israel would nuke them right back.
And for all of you who think that Iran wouldn't care, have you ever thought what would happen if Iran spent 10 years with massive conscription and buying AK-47s at $2s a pop. They wouldn't need to care about the economy (because , in your world, they don't care if they all get killed so what does infrastructure or standard of living matter) or education, or in fact anything. Then an army of 60 million pour across northern Iraq (or whatever they end up calling that independent state), through Syria and into Israel. Seriously, what would Israel do about it?
It would be a hell of a lot easier than building a nuke and a lot more effective too.

As long as either Israel or the US have nukes a nuclear Iran wouldn't do a damn thing.

And lets not go into Russia's and China's interests in the region and the issues that causes for the US if it is at all concerned about its own future.

The Republican strategy of saying "Elect us so we can bomb Iran or in ten years something bad might happen... Fear the IranoTerrorIslamAlienIraqiFascistMutantTraitorCommies!" is just pathetic.

If he was a fundamentalist in '79, the fact that he survived to become the President of Iran implies that he has other priorities besides holy war. A fanatic would have taken the oppurtunity to die gloriously in any of the conflicts the region has had since '79, yet Ahmadinejad has survived to take power. I think he values his position in power in the Mid-East too much to let his country get turned into radioactive waste. Power-hungry, not suicidal.

Exactly. Being a fundamentalist in Iran in the late 70s is the equivalent of being a Ba'athist in Iraq--hell, if you wanted to be a schoolteacher, you had to be a Ba'athist.

Or here's a comparison that hits closer to home--if you want to be effective in politics in San Francisco, you have to be a Democrat. There are no citywide elected Republicans or Greens. Being a Dem is the cost of doing business in San Francisco.

There isn't really an ideal poll choice for me. I hate them now but wouldn't hate them any more if they invaded Iran (I hate Iran too).

Everyone is a critic.

Exactly. Being a fundamentalist in Iran in the late 70s is the equivalent of being a Ba'athist in Iraq--hell, if you wanted to be a schoolteacher, you had to be a Ba'athist.

Or here's a comparison that hits closer to home--if you want to be effective in politics in San Francisco, you have to be a Democrat. There are no citywide elected Republicans or Greens. Being a Dem is the cost of doing business in San Francisco.

Actually, I thought there were a couple Greens on the board of supervisors. Wasn't Matt Gonzales (ran against Gavin Newsom in what I heard was a fairly close race for mayor or something) a Green?

Actually, I thought there were a couple Greens on the board of supervisors. Wasn't Matt Gonzales (ran against Gavin Newsom in what I heard was a fairly close race for mayor or something) a Green?

Matt Gonzales was on the Board of Supervisors when I lived there, and he was a Green, but he was elected as a Dem and switched parties. He never ran and won as a Green, though he got within 12,000 votes of Newsom in the Mayoral race, which was the closest the Greens have come. But to my knowledge, he gave up that Board seat and hasn't run again as a Green.

P.S. I voted for Gonzales. Wonderful to have a choice between a Democrat (thought conservative for the area, but liberal to moderate anywhere else) and a Green.

Hey Pyotr.. I have an Idea..
We ask the UNSC to pass an international Law:

if Contry A attack the embassy of Country B..
Country B gets to Bomb (for 24 hours) all WMD sites in Country A.. (nuclear/Bio/Chem plants)
Country A gets only to watch the fireworks.

Do you like that Pyotr ?


What a wonderful strawman. Did I ever say I wanted to nuke Iran?

Don't get me wrong, I don't support any military action against Iran

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11717980&postcount=18

now in my world, dropping Nuclear bombs is a military action.

What a wonderful strawman. Did I ever say I wanted to nuke Iran?so...

What do You want to do.. to Iran?

BTW I never say you wanted to "Nuke"

It's Bush in the first place what makes everyone want a nuke. Iraq proved that you can be always bombed for having WMD, and it makes no difference whether you really have some or have never thought about them. So everyone now understands it's better to have nukes, just in case.

It's much better to have a nuke and not get bombed because it is feared, rather than have no nukes and get bombed for having them.

so...

What do You want to do.. to Iran?

BTW I never say you wanted to "Nuke"

I don't want to do anything "to" Iran, I want to do something with Iran.

Hopefully we can talk some sense into the Iranian Government and get UN inspectors on all their nuclear sites. Iran has the right to have Nuclear energy, but I am not okay with a Theocracy obtaining nukes. I would feel much safer with a UN rep. from a democratic nation monitoring their program, I don't trust the mullahs or the troll the people elected.

Or here's a comparison that hits closer to home--if you want to be effective in politics in San Francisco, you have to be a Democrat. There are no citywide elected Republicans or Greens. Being a Dem is the cost of doing business in San Francisco.

I must have missed the part where the Democratic officials were forced to kidnap hundreds of Republicans and hold them hostage for a number of years if they wanted to be elected.

poll is kind of biased. kind of jumps from extreme of "George bush is the devil" to the extreme of George Bush is God.

I hope that the administration will invade Iran, despite the plummet they would take in the polls. Maybe not in October, but before the end of 2009. We cannot risk Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost.
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Where is the proof that they are doing any more than they have admitted that they are doing which is enriching uranium (at a percentage far to low to create a nuclear weapon with) for the purpose of creating energy?

Because neither China nor Russia are theocratic dictatorships which are led by fundamentalist rulers who have insane religious visions and actively promote martydom and welcome the coming of the Mahdi. They also do not want to wipe another country off the map.
Take out the word theocratic and insert the word fascist.
Strike the martydom (I will assume you mean martyrdom :rolleyes: ) part.
Remove Mahdi and insert Jesus.
Sound like another ruler that you seem to worship?

I have a good friend in Iraq right now.
He is fighting in a war I do not support but I do support him and the rest of our soldiers.
I would like to see them come back home alive.

If we bomb Iran do you think they are going to just sit there and take it?
They are going to roll their army into Iraq and step up their support of terrorism to a new and frightening level.

I have a question for you "RealAmerica"
How old are you?
Because if you are anywhere between 18 and 40 and are not man enough to put your ass on the line then you are just another member of the "Fighting 101st Keyboarders" (http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2005/08/assessing-our-strategy-towards-101st.html)!

Safe at home while you cheer on the deaths of other people.

Hear is a link for you my friend
U.S. Army (http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs)
Show us what a real man you are and put your ass on the line in the endless war you seem to be advocating.

Take out the word theocratic and insert the word fascist.

The US is nowhere near fascism. Next time you say that, thank God that you're not going to be taken behind the shed and shot for your comments by the government. Next time you make a joke about Bush, be happy that you can't be jailed for it. Be happy that you live in a free country -- appreciate what you have.

Remove Mahdi and insert Jesus.

Bush did not widen the streets in Washington, DC, or New York in anticipation of the coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse. He is a completely secular rules -- you know, the whole first amendment thing? The fact that candidates are not approved by a religious leader? That the country is not run by religion?

Sound like another ruler that you seem to worship?

No.

How old are you?

Ah, that old liberal ploy. I expected better.

I heard today that an invasion of Iran is supposedly Karl Roves "October Surprise" that will help make Republicans win in the Midterm elections.

The fact that certain segments of the American public (Democrats) continue to fantasize about "October surprises" in general and this one in particular only provides further proof that horses' asses outnumber horses :p

The US is nowhere near fascism. Next time you say that, thank God that you're not going to be taken behind the shed and shot for your comments by the government. Next time you make a joke about Bush, be happy that you can't be jailed for it. Be happy that you live in a free country -- appreciate what you have.

It is a hell of a lot closer to fascism than it was before Bush was elected


Bush did not widen the streets in Washington, DC, or New York in anticipation of the coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse. He is a completely secular rules -- you know, the whole first amendment thing? The fact that candidates are not approved by a religious leader? That the country is not run by religion?

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
--Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular


Ah, that old liberal ploy. I expected better.
But that does not answer my question does it?

Why, if you are so supportive of the war in Iraq and so gung ho for us to attack Iran (another country that did not attack America) are you not joining up to go and fight?
It is a valid question that you have seemed to ignore.

It is a hell of a lot closer to fascism than it was before Bush was elected

It is also a hell of a lot safer. There are probably going to be trade-offs for every decision you have to make -- however, I care more about the lives of American citizens than I do about their privilege to have private conversations.


--Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular

Most likely a mis-translation -- the original quote might have said something about being inspired to attack Al-Qaeda by God (not told).


But that does not answer my question does it?

I am not qualified for the army.

I'm very interested to see what the numbers show here. I heard today that an invasion of Iran is supposedly Karl Roves "October Surprise" that will help make Republicans win in the Midterm elections. Whether or not this is true is kind of beside the point. The question is, would you feel the same about the Bush administration or will your opinion of the administration change?

Well if you cared you would have at least put up a poll that was at least somewhat intelligent .

It is also a hell of a lot safer. There are probably going to be trade-offs for every decision you have to make -- however, I care more about the lives of American citizens than I do about their privilege to have private conversations.

“He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
Thomas Jefferson
You may have heard of this Jefferson fellow.
One of my heroes.
Wrote this quaint document called The Declaration of Independence.
Also helped write the Constitution of the United States of America.
Have you ever read these documents that Bush is doing his best to make obsolete?


Most likely a mis-translation -- the original quote might have said something about being inspired to attack Al-Qaeda by God (not told).
Bush has never denied saying this.


I am not qualified for the army.
But perfectly qualified to be a cheerleader for war?

Because neither China nor Russia are theocratic dictatorships which are led by fundamentalist rulers who have insane religious visions and actively promote martydom and welcome the coming of the Mahdi. They also do not want to wipe another country off the map.

I think China would like to see Taiwan off the map

I hope that the administration will invade Iran, despite the plummet they would take in the polls. Maybe not in October, but before the end of 2009. We cannot risk Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost.
Let's see now......Afghanistan still hasn't been resolved after 5 years......Iraq is deteriorating into Civil War (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14927839/)after 3 and a half years, and nowhere near resolution, and you want to attack Iran that is arguably 5 times better equipped than Iraq was in 2003.

Your are a freaking genius!!! :rolleyes:

The US is nowhere near fascism. Next time you say that, thank God that you're not going to be taken behind the shed and shot for your comments by the government. Next time you make a joke about Bush, be happy that you can't be jailed for it. Be happy that you live in a free country -- appreciate what you have.
You sound like a self righteous twit. Did you fight for the freedom that you enjoy? And while many may appreciate what they have, they have no right to expect better?

Bush did not widen the streets in Washington, DC, or New York in anticipation of the coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse. He is a completely secular rules -- you know, the whole first amendment thing? The fact that candidates are not approved by a religious leader? That the country is not run by religion?
Yet he plays the religious card. It plays well in those red States.

Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm)

Ah, that old liberal ploy. I expected better.
it is a liberal ploy to ask one his/her age?

Why, if you are so supportive of the war in Iraq and so gung ho for us to attack Iran (another country that did not attack America) are you not joining up to go and fight?

Try getting your facts straight: Iran DID attack America. The American Embassy in Tehran was sovereign American territory under international law and is still occupied territory today. Payback is long overdue and is going to be hell when it comes.

Beyond that, a nation need not directly attack us in order to justify our taking action against it. Iran supports worldwide terrorism, is meddling in Iraq (resulting in US casualties), and has threatened to commit genocide against Israel. Regime change in Iran is imperative. A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the moolah-cracy must be removed, ideally by means of a lead injection.

Try getting your facts straight: Iran DID attack America. The American Embassy in Tehran was sovereign American territory under international law and is still occupied territory today. Payback is long overdue and is going to be hell when it comes.

Beyond that, a nation need not directly attack us in order to justify our taking action against it. Iran supports worldwide terrorism, is meddling in Iraq (resulting in US casualties), and has threatened to commit genocide against Israel. Regime change in Iran is imperative. A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the moolah-cracy must be removed, ideally by means of a lead injection.


Too bad they were on the verge of changing themselves before the shrub started his personal war in Iraq.

I remember the BBC doing a doc on Iran and the bits the fellow pointed out.

There were protests and he showed the only ones protesting were older men. They didn't have the teenagers and the 20 somethings. They only have the old revolutionary types.

The young were sneaking off to hills around Tehran to party which was never done when Komani(sp) was alive and in charge.

The average Persian isn't as fanatical as you think and many of them think a bomb is a bad idea.

However, we attack them.....

Try getting your facts straight: Iran DID attack America. The American Embassy in Tehran was sovereign American territory under international law and is still occupied territory today. Payback is long overdue and is going to be hell when it comes.
You already got payback for that one by supporting Iraq against Iran in that war or do you conveniently forget past history?

Beyond that, a nation need not directly attack us in order to justify our taking action against it.
Yup, the illegal invasion of Iraq proves that point!!

Iran is meddling in Iraq (resulting in US casualties),
US casualties are the result of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Regime change in Iran is imperative.
The US cannot manage the current regime changes that they have been involved in. One more could prove disastrous!!

A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the moolah-cracy must be removed, ideally by means of a lead injection.
Removing one man doesn't work in the world of the Muslim. Do try to keep up!! :p

I'm very interested to see what the numbers show here. I heard today that an invasion of Iran is supposedly Karl Roves "October Surprise" that will help make Republicans win in the Midterm elections. Whether or not this is true is kind of beside the point. The question is, would you feel the same about the Bush administration or will your opinion of the administration change?

There's more than one very flawed bit o' stuff in this post.

First: The style of war that would be fought against Iran. It would not be an invasion, right now we do not have the troops or the supply lines to pull that off. It is logistically a bit of a bitch to actually invade. Instead, an aggressive air campaign is likely. Probably occuring during the day, so as to kill the Iranian nuke experts when they're at work. There would be strikes against all of the Iranian nuclear facilities, as well as decapitation strikes against the Iranian leadership, and several counter-force strikes to cripple the Iranian ability to project power beyond it's borders. But, the only ground campaign I can see is a restricted, defensive campaign on the Iraqi and Afghan borders. If the Iranian leadership can organize itself for that much, after an aggressive campaign of decapitation strikes.

Second: The assumption that another war would get the Bush admin votes in Congress. Very doubtful, as another war would most likely be quite unpopular and hurt the Republicans far more than it would help. Rove would know this.

Third: See number two.

In my eyes, the possibility is so remote and the number of times people have shrilly shouted "OMGLOLZORZ W4R W/ 1R4n 1S K-M1nG!!!!!1111!!!!!!1111!shift!!!!!11111!!" and it hasn't is evidence enough that 'hearing' things is by no means sufficient reason for believing it. The possibility is so remote that it's not even worth thinking about.

US casualties are the result of the illegal invasion of Iraq.



Which of course, begs the question, show me a legal authority that has called the American invasion of Iraq illegal, and has carried out the prosecution of American commanders for such invasion.

I think it's strategically flawed, and more than a little retarded for the US to have gone into Iraq, but illegal, well, that it is not. There were plenty of legal grounds for the invasion, besides WMD's. They're not widely known because Bush fails in strategic planning, and never brought them up.

Which of course, begs the question, show me a legal authority that has called the American invasion of Iraq illegal, and has carried out the prosecution of American commanders for such invasion.

I think it's strategically flawed, and more than a little retarded for the US to have gone into Iraq, but illegal, well, that it is not. There were plenty of legal grounds for the invasion, besides WMD's. They're not widely known because Bush fails in strategic planning, and never brought them up.
There have been tons of legal, and non-legal experts who have declared the invasion illegal, but let's face reality, no one is going to challenge the US on it.

Try getting your facts straight: Iran DID attack America. The American Embassy in Tehran was sovereign American territory under international law and is still occupied territory today. Payback is long overdue and is going to be hell when it comes.

Beyond that, a nation need not directly attack us in order to justify our taking action against it. Iran supports worldwide terrorism, is meddling in Iraq (resulting in US casualties), and has threatened to commit genocide against Israel. Regime change in Iran is imperative. A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the moolah-cracy must be removed, ideally by means of a lead injection.
I won't disagree that Iran supports terrorism and that in that endeavor they must be stopped. But right now, the last thing we need to do is go off firing our guns shouting "Yee-haw!" like absolute dumbasses. Fact is, we've screwed up left and right so far, with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the whole region. We need to step back and approach things more carefully. I honestly don't think that Bush and the Republicans in Congress are capable of that, though. Frankly, I doubt the Dems would be either, but that's beside the point. We need to start thinking rather than just acting blindly. Attacking Iran now would be a horrible mistake, one we would regret no doubt for decades to come. As it stands, we'll probably regret the Iraq war for at least that long.

There have been tons of legal, and non-legal experts who have declared the invasion illegal, but let's face reality, no one is going to challenge the US on it.

Once again, I really don't care about "experts." I want a real, solid legal ruling from a sovereign source to declare the US actions "illegal". Otherwise, I've just got the opinions of some totally random folks, and, frankly, that's not enough for me.

Strategically stupid and mildly retarded seems to remain the most damning criticism in my book, not going on about international law and legality.

Try getting your facts straight: Iran DID attack America. The American Embassy in Tehran was sovereign American territory under international law and is still occupied territory today. Payback is long overdue and is going to be hell when it comes.

Beyond that, a nation need not directly attack us in order to justify our taking action against it. Iran supports worldwide terrorism, is meddling in Iraq (resulting in US casualties), and has threatened to commit genocide against Israel. Regime change in Iran is imperative. A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and the moolah-cracy must be removed, ideally by means of a lead injection.

It seems that the "attack" on our Embassy was conveniently forgotten when we were selling Iran arms so that we could fund the illegal support of the Contras in Latin America.
Surely you must have heard of the Iran/Contra affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair)?
I seem to remember that the heros of the "Conservative" movement were somehow wrapped up in that whole ugly affair.
Who was leading our country then?
Oh yes it was Ronald "I do not recall" Reagan and George H. W. "I was out of the loop" Bush.
Why should we attack Iran now if Reagan/Bush obviously had no problem working with Iran to fund their illegal war back in the 1980's?

Once again, I really don't care about "experts." I want a real, solid legal ruling from a sovereign source to declare the US actions "illegal". Otherwise, I've just got the opinions of some totally random folks, and, frankly, that's not enough for me.

Strategically stupid and mildly retarded seems to remain the most damning criticism in my book, not going on about international law and legality.
Here is one that I came across awhile back:

German court declares Iraq war violated international law (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050928&articleId=1012)

The court left no doubt, though, that it had “grave concerns for international law” arising from the Iraq war and Germany’s support for it.

The court referred to Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, which classifies “every” threat and use of military force against another nation as an act of aggression. It specifies only two exceptions: a formal resolution of the UN Security Council and for self-defence purposes. Neither of these was the case with Iraq.

In particular, the United States had no legal basis for attacking Iraq based on previous UN resolutions that it itself had introduced. UN Resolution 678 in 1990 had only authorised the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. The ceasefire Resolution 687 in 1991 certified that this aim had been realised. This resolution also threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” if it used poisonous gasses or other biological weapons and renewed the demand for Iraq to maintain a clear distance from “international terrorism.” This resolution was accepted by Iraq.

The court stated that UN Resolution 707 in 1991 did not revoke the ceasefire nor has it since been repealed. No subsequent resolution contained a justification for military operations, not even in relation to forcing Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors.

This fact was seen by the court as particularly valid in relation to Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002, which was later used by the US and Great Britain to justify war.

This resolution gave instructions to the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei, to report any lack of cooperation from Iraq to the UN Security Council, so that it could properly assess the situation. The decisions that the UN Security Council would then take in such a situation were left open, according to the court.

Although the Security Council threatened “serious consequences,” it did not make explicit what form they would take. On the contrary, Resolution 1441 expressed “unmistakably,” according to the court, that the matter had yet to be determined by the Security Council. The court argued that the resolution did not give a free hand for military action, but rather—based on the UN Charter—left the decision about any consequences to the UN.

With the formulation “serious consequences,” Resolution 1441 only issued a general warning, but had deliberately distanced the Security Council from authorising the use of force by the US and the UK.

It seems that the "attack" on our Embassy was convienently forgotten when we were selling Iran arms so that we could fund the illegal support of the Contras in Latin America.
Surely you must have heard of the Iran/Contra affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair)?
I seem to remember that the heros of the "Conservative" movement were somehow wrapped up in that whole ugly affair.
Who was leading our country then?
Oh yes it was Ronald "I do not recall" Reagan and George H. W. "I was out of the loop" Bush.
Why should we attack Iran now if Reagan/Bush obviously had no problem working with Iran to fund their illegal war back in the 1980's?
What is even more interesting about that is how modern day Republicans claim that they don't negotiate with terrorists.

..........unless it suits their needs????

Here is one that I came across awhile back:

German court declares Iraq war violated international law (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050928&articleId=1012)

Sovereign court with authority on the matter, specifically to prosecute American officials. Not as a sidenote in an opinion in a related matter.

More than that, it would be delightful if the article wasn't primarily the an opinion piece written of the decision, whose text I lack, by an individual associated with the "World Socialist Website".

What is even more interesting about that is how modern day Republicans claim that they don't negotiate with terrorists.

..........unless it siuts their needs????

Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney are both fundamentally "Realist Conservatives", instead of "Neoconservatives." I believe the distinction must be cleary made on the matter. They had a brief neoconservative swing, just to test out the ideology, but that was extremely short and half hearted.

Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney are both fundamentally "Realist Conservatives", instead of "Neoconservatives." I believe the distinction must be cleary made on the matter. They had a brief neoconservative swing, just to test out the ideology, but that was extremely short and half hearted.

Yes and "Real Conservatives" such as Rumsfeld would never stoop so low as to support dictators for their own purposes.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/wkpjr1967/handshake300.jpg
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

Nothing to see here!
Just move along now!
;)

And just what was Saddam up to in the 1980's?
"We dropped to the floor; white smoke covered us, it smelled awful," Abdul-Rahman testified in Kurdish. "My heart raced. I started to vomit. I felt dizzy. My eyes burned and I couldn't stand on my feet."

Why he was gassing the Kurds with our full knowledge and tacit support!

Have airstrikes ever gotten the job done in the past? It seems to me, its a bit like spitting at hornet nests.

That depends on the circumstances and the goal. I'd say Operation Opera (the Israeli airstrike on Osirak) worked pretty well. But the Iranian program is significantly more advanced and spread out, so it would be much more difficult. Additionally, the Iranian program is better concealed and defended.

Sovereign court with authority on the matter, specifically to prosecute American officials. Not as a sidenote in an opinion in a related matter.

More than that, it would be delightful if the article wasn't primarily the an opinion piece written of the decision, whose text I lack, by an individual associated with the "World Socialist Website".
Well, you can rummage around with the following link. Legal opinions don't count for you? How about the Attorney General of the UK?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

I don't want to do anything "to" Iran, I want to do something with Iran.

Agreed. I even would go as far as to propose a seat in the UN security council. Yes- that comment is serious.

Hopefully we can talk some sense into the Iranian Government and get UN inspectors on all their nuclear sites.

That would in fact be talking no sense into the Iranian government I fear.
Iran has cooperated fully for years with the UN inspectors in the past. It signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has obeyed its obligations in it remarkably well. Far better than say the USA.

However, all this international goodwill and cooperation has given Iran exactly zilch. It still suffers under all kinds of embargos and sanctions. Trades with neighbouring countries (as the planned pipeline to India) are deliberately sabotaged. Iran is not allowed to use its nuclear facilities for commercial nuclear goals, despite it has that right as a NPT signee. To add to the insult, Israel - a country that has not signed the NPT - was not only allowed to develop comercial nuclear power but nuclear weapons too.

Give me one good reason why Iran would still wish to talk to people that have proven to be untrustworthy and unwilling to keep their side of bargains ?

The US is nowhere near fascism. Next time you say that, thank God that you're not going to be taken behind the shed and shot for your comments by the government. Next time you make a joke about Bush, be happy that you can't be jailed for it. Be happy that you live in a free country -- appreciate what you have.

Thats a lovely sentiment, but you completely dodged his question.



Bush did not widen the streets in Washington, DC, or New York in anticipation of the coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse. He is a completely secular rules -- you know, the whole first amendment thing? The fact that candidates are not approved by a religious leader? That the country is not run by religion?

Are you talking about the same guy who was quoting from the bible on his second innaguration speech?

Secular, you say?

And who is this guys base again?

Rich, powerful hard-right Christians.





Ah, that old liberal ploy. I expected better.

A weak attempt at dodging another question.

Your getting pwned.

It is also a hell of a lot safer. There are probably going to be trade-offs for every decision you have to make -- however, I care more about the lives of American citizens than I do about their privilege to have private conversations.
Or being arrested and tortured?
Held without charge or rights?
Your home broken in to and belongings confiscated?
None of these things require that any crime be proved or even concrete evidence of the suspicioun of a crime be produced.

Also, how exactly is the US any safer since Clinton left power?
How has Bush secured your massive borders with Canada?
With the two oceans?
How has Bush clamped down to prevent guns getting into the hands of terrorists, who don't have a criminal record in the US?
Bearing in mind that building explosive devices is not that complicated (particularly if there are excellent training grounds in Iran, Syria, Iraq & Afghanistan) how has Bush made it harder for bombs to be set off in the US?
What has Bush done to lower tensions in the Middle East, to engage with the main sponsors of terrorism and to isolate the Al-Qaeda (and others) on the international stage?
How has Bush prevented 'The enemy' from using suicide bombers, which even Israel can't stop despite their incredible security measures?
Given that Iraq is much smaller and has a significantly smaller population, and that there are far more troops and intelligence assets on the ground, do you think the US is either (a) totally unable to prevent 70+ people being killed, every day, in and around Baghdad as a result of terrorism or (b) happy to let the killings go ahead (and hence tacitly supporting them)?

You are actively supporting the theft of the Civil Rights your fore-fathers gave their lives to secure and you are also actively supporting the destruction of your democratic system as Bush works to centre all power around the President by throwing off the shackles of the Judiciary and the Houses.

And, of course, by showing how easy it is to fleece the public of what little power they still held over the government Bush has led the way for other governments (such as my own) to strip away rights and freedoms that might prove 'pesky'.

*Rant over*

I have no beef with war.
It is inevitable and purging.

Without it the world would be worse off. (Yes i know what im saying) without constant death at a high level balancing out the birth exactly the world would decline, war is a method of speeding up the process.

I believe the following regimes should be destroyed.

Iraq (Check)
Iran (Pending)
Israel AND Palestine (There both much too bitchy and being a jew im ashamed of the mess Palestine is causing)
Saudi Arabia (Kingship baaad. Emperorship GOOD :D)
Afghanistan (Pending probobly)
Pakistan (Damn seperatists)
India (For balance +Gandhi was a bastard for the empire, but good for civil rights. The empire comes first.)
China (Communism-Lite!)
All previous USSR states, not russia. (So russia can snap them up and become beautiful once again)
Austria, Switzerland and the netherlands. (So germany can snap them up and there wont be a WWIII over it.)
Andorra (Because its useless)
Ireland (Damn republicans took advantage of WWII and rebelled. Irish republicans aided nazis indirectly.)
Spain (Did buggerall during WWII)
Portugal (Read the above.)
Eastern europe (For ruining europes look of solid strong looking states with there rabble and bits of land.)
USA (Because G.W.Bush sucks)

That is all.

Thats a lovely sentiment, but you completely dodged his question.

What was the question? He claimed that if you replaced theocracy with fascism, you would get the US. This is completely and patently false -- it's gross that people living in the US, who enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, and the right to protest. In other countries, you might get shot on the street if you protest -- it is sick that you cannot appreciate the freedoms you enjoy in the US and instead call it "fascist." If you don't like your exorbitant amount of liberties, move to Canada.

Are you talking about the same guy who was quoting from the bible on his second innaguration speech?

He was not quoting from the Bible. I challenge you to give me one line of Bush's speech and then tell me the part of the Bible from which he obtained it. I daresay you'll find that there was no such quote.

And who is this guys base again? Rich, powerful hard-right Christians.

Heh, very few of his supporters are rich. The elite tend to vote liberal. If you look at the GDP per capita per state, you'll find that the states with the lowest GDP per capita tend to vote conservative. Most of his supporters are poor, right-wing Christians who have a sense of politcal and foreign policy realism and are morally outraged at the hedonism of liberals.

A weak attempt at dodging another question. Your getting pwned.

I answered that question.

If you look at the GDP per capita per state, you'll find that the states with the lowest GDP per capita tend to vote conservative.
Don't you mean the States with the lowest IQ?

IQ and Politics (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm)

Most of his supporters are poor, right-wing Christians who have a sense of politcal and foreign policy realism and are morally outraged at the hedonism of liberals.
Yet those poor "hedonistic liberals" are morally outraged by the so called Christians that can accept the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis based on a lie.

Don't you mean the States with the lowest IQ?

IQ and Politics (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm)

Ah, that old liberal hoax. It reflects sadly upon our country that elitist liberals are able to look at an uncorroborated study (without any proof or data sources provided) and with too high a variance between IQs for authenticity and accept it as fact simply because it reflects liberal elitism. Liberals don't use logic when looking at such studies, they simply think: "well, I'm better than those damn conservatives, and this study affirms that, therefore it must be true." Get off your fucking high horse and smell the reality. Debunked:

http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139

Am neutral to the Bush Administration, do not want a war with Iran unless we have the world behind us (fat chance!) and also invade Syria.

Ah, that old liberal hoax. It reflects sadly upon our country that elitist liberals are able to look at an uncorroborated study (without any proof or data sources provided) and with too high a variance between IQs for authenticity and accept it as fact simply because it reflects liberal elitism. Liberals don't use logic when looking at such studies, they simply think: "well, I'm better than those damn conservatives, and this study affirms that, therefore it must be true." Get off your fucking high horse and smell the reality. Debunked:

http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139
You have been riding the "high horse" pal, and I am just tweaking your nose. :D

Debunked ........not by Steve Sailer. :p

BTW, I noticed that you didn't respond to the second part of my post? :D

BTW, I noticed that you didn't respond to the second part of my post? :D

Based on the information they had, they made the correct decision. If that data later turned out to be false, they can hardly be blamed for making the objectively correct choice based on false information. And tens of thousands of Iraqis have died not because of US soldiers, but at the hands of extremists. And yes, it was the right choice to go to Iraq, even with the benefit of hindsight.

You can't just look at an invasion of Iran from the perspective of an American living in bumfuc*. There are more variables in this situation than can be imagined from our limited viewpoint. Sure, Karl Rove might envision some type of ploy to raise support for the current regime in October, but what about the countless other ramifications of these actions? You have to look at this from the international spectrum (as, we would hope, the Bush administration does as well.) The aggression Iran's fundamentalist population has been showing against the West is an indication that if we were to put troops on the ground, it would turn into us vs. a governmental military allied w/ a plethora of Hizbollah-esque justice groups. Surely Rove, along with the rest of the Bush administration, knows from their experiences in Afghanistan, coupled with the surge in extremists' confidence after Hizbollah's relative success, that an invasion of Iran would quickly escalate into another Vietnam. These people would be fighting for something very basic--their Islam-driven government--to which they have the utmost loyalty. The resulting bloodshed would win the Bush administration nothing but an enormous loss in popularity.

Based on the information they had, they made the correct decision. If that data later turned out to be false, they can hardly be blamed for making the objectively correct choice based on false information.

If that's whatg happened. However, all evidence points to cherry-picking of intelligence to blindly support preconcieved notions, which is condemable.

And tens of thousands of Iraqis have died not because of US soldiers, but at the hands of extremists.

True. But why are those extremists free to operate there now, and for the last 3 1/2 years? See the above portion of my post.

And yes, it was the right choice to go to Iraq, even with the benefit of hindsight.

Nope. Hindsight has shown it to be one of the worst foriegn policy decisions in the last 60 years, on par with allowing ourselves to get mudsucked into Vietnam in the hopes the French would stay in NATO.

Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney are both fundamentally "Realist Conservatives", instead of "Neoconservatives." I believe the distinction must be cleary made on the matter. They had a brief neoconservative swing, just to test out the ideology, but that was extremely short and half hearted.

If they're realist conservatives, then they have a decidedly fucked up view of reality.

I never liked Bush, and I think that an attack at Iran would be a grave mistake.

The United states are perhaps able to defeat the Iranian army - but they won't be able to control the terrorists, which will grow in this region. Iran will be a second Iraq, only worse.

@Real America: Do you know, which aim the terrorists have? They want to destroy the liberal western way of life. And they have succeded, if you look at the policy of Bush. How many people wer killed in the USA in the last years by terrorists? And how many Iraquis were killed? How many people have been tortured by the US, somthing, which was inthinkable before? They are so concerned of the terror - although the probability of being killed by an terrorist is so tiny - that they don't see the real problems.

And Iran is only a danger to Israelis, not to the USA - and I think, that Israel has no interest in a war in Iran. They have ebough problems with their own terrorists, they don't want more of them.

Hey Pyotr.. I have an Idea..
We ask the UNSC to pass an international Law:

if Contry A attack the embassy of Country B..
Country B gets to Bomb (for 24 hours) all WMD sites in Country A.. (nuclear/Bio/Chem plants)
Country A gets only to watch the fireworks.

Do you like that Pyotr ?
But before this international law could be implemented, we must go through several rounds of talks:
1. Discuss the possibility of holding a meeting to discuss the problem.
2. Spend one month working out the language upon which discussing of the problem will occur.
3. Discuss possible dates.
4. Have a vote on a date for discussion. Must fail at least 3 times, with at least a month in between each vote.
5. Have successful vote on a date to discuss the problem, at least 2 months in the future.
6. Actually meet to discuss the problem on the date. Resolve that we might consider implementing this law in 3 months without satisfactory response from country A.

etc.

Bush will not attack Iran before the November elections. What is stunningly absent is any mention of what that would do to oil prices. One of the main reasons Republicans are now doing better in the polls (although still not as well as the Dems) is the falling gas prices.

If that's whatg happened. However, all evidence points to cherry-picking of intelligence to blindly support preconcieved notions, which is condemable.

Are you suggesting that Bush's conservative Christian base cherry-picked the intelligence, or that some members of the Bush administration did so? And even if the intelligence was "cherry-picked," it was equally legit as any other data the CIA may have had. Nobody argued with the preponderance of evidence accumulated -- it was accepted as fact. Those who did argue only did so out of ignorance.

Bush will not attack Iran before the November elections. What is stunningly absent is any mention of what that would do to oil prices. One of the main reasons Republicans are now doing better in the polls (although still not as well as the Dems) is the falling gas prices.

If that's the only thing holding them back--and I'm speaking in pure speculation here--then they'd have to ask themselves whether they'll get a bigger bump from lower energy prices or patriotic fervor surrounding an attack. My gut says that the attack is riskier--greater success if it works, but bigger chance of blowback from an electorate tired of wars, especially since the recent fear offensive hasn't seemed to work.

Are you suggesting that Bush's conservative Christian base cherry-picked the intelligence, or that some members of the Bush administration did so? And even if the intelligence was "cherry-picked," it was equally legit as any other data the CIA may have had.

The top administration officials did so. Doing so was emphatically not legit, as it led directly to the mistaken invasion.

Nobody argued with the preponderance of evidence accumulated -- it was accepted as fact. Those who did argue only did so out of ignorance.

Bullshit.
James L. Pavitt and Tyler Drumheller are 2 names that come to mind, as well as the BND, DIA, and CIA Berlin station.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0402-01.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

These people were warning that Chalabi and "Curveball" were not to be trusted.

The top administration officials did so. Doing so was emphatically not legit, as it led directly to the mistaken invasion.



Bullshit.
James L. Pavitt and Tyler Drumheller are 2 names that come to mind, as well as the BND, DIA, and CIA Berlin station.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0402-01.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

These people were warning that Chalabi and "Curveball" were not to be trusted.It amazes me just how many people still buy into this same old bullshit line (and who apparently have no idea what the term "cherrypicking" refers to).

If they're realist conservatives, then they have a decidedly fucked up view of reality.

They have a centrally "National Interest" view. They tend to avoid any sorts of normative judgements.

Agreed. Airstrikes are sexy, politically speaking, but tanks and dead soldiers aren't. Airstrikes look like oversized video games, and awaken the incipient retard in white male conservatives.
Let's not let the non-white, female conservatives off the hook now...

I hope that the administration will invade Iran, despite the plummet they would take in the polls. Maybe not in October, but before the end of 2009. We cannot risk Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at any cost.
Bloodthirsty. Why not just bomb their nuclear facilities?

Oh, I'd say that as theocracies go, they do a pretty good job at being one. The Christian right sure seems to be taking notes (http://jesuscampthemovie.com) on how to form and run one.
This is a foreign policy thread.

79'. I was pointing it out that Iran is the original Islamic theocracy. A horrible one too.
The seventh-century Caliphate was the original Islamic theocracy. Iran may be the original Shiocracy.

Ah, that old liberal ploy. I expected better.
How is "How old are you?" a liberal ploy? Its not political at all. Nor only used by liberals, in fact I see conservatives use it more.

Let's see now......Afghanistan still hasn't been resolved after 5 years......Iraq is deteriorating into Civil War (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14927839/)after 3 and a half years, and nowhere near resolution, and you want to attack Iran that is arguably 5 times better equipped than Iraq was in 2003.

Your are a freaking genius!!! :rolleyes:
Besides Indonesia and Pakistan, Iran has the strongest military of any Muslim country.

Beyond that, a nation need not directly attack us in order to justify our taking action against it.
America doesn't seem to need to justify anything it does anymore.

I think it's strategically flawed, and more than a little retarded for the US to have gone into Iraq, but illegal, well, that it is not. There were plenty of legal grounds for the invasion, besides WMD's. They're not widely known because Bush fails in strategic planning, and never brought them up.
I love how so many libertarians are so sympathetic to Bush without supporting his war outright.


Ireland (Damn republicans took advantage of WWII and rebelled. Irish republicans aided nazis indirectly.)

WW1 actually, and the Irish government cracked down on the IRA for helping Nazis. All of which is now irrelevant.

If that's whatg happened. However, all evidence points to cherry-picking of intelligence to blindly support preconcieved notions, which is condemable.


All evidence points to an awful case of confirmation biases coupled with institutional prejudices on a certain matter. It's more social inertia than anything.

I might argue that no matter who was President, (save Denny Kucinich) there would be an Iraq invasion before 2015.

They have a centrally "National Interest" view. They tend to avoid any sorts of normative judgements.

They seem to avoid any type of judgment that winds up working out for the betterment of the country.

They seem to avoid any type of judgment that winds up working out for the betterment of the country.

Well, yeah, that's because they fail to realize that in international relations there are other factors besides mere material interests.

I'm just making the distinction between the vaguely Wilsonian neo-conservatives and the realists. My working image of a realists, actually, happens to be Dick Cheney with a claw hammer. I don't know why, but that's what it is.

Bush has really screwed over America, he has incresed the trade deficit by 2 fold, he has spent a total of 54 billion dollars on the iraq war in wich only 10 billion of those dollars even got into iraq, he has hired horrible people, and fired good ones to do the job of rebuilding Iraq....invading Iran, maybe he can get his approval rating down to almost 5%:rolleyes: . He takes away from the education, infastructure, and health care funds to pay for this war, more and more American children are not getting a decent education, a nation must have an intelligent, healthy youth if it is too survive, and the US keeps getting less and less of that, and Clinton's little "no child left behind act" is taking away from children's physical activity, soime schools have lost recess to keep up with its standards, children love recess, when you take it away, they dont like school even more, and wont try as hard it effects everything, Bush is supporting this, he dosent know what hes doing. He has the US education system in one big knot, that is almost impossible to untie, the healthcare, more and more citizens of the United States are becoming poverty stricken, due to bush raising taxes, lowering wages to pay for the damn Iraq war, its horrible hes ruining the country, yet hes too blind to see it......

It seems that the "attack" on our Embassy was conveniently forgotten when we were selling Iran arms so that we could fund the illegal support of the Contras in Latin America.
Surely you must have heard of the Iran/Contra affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair)?

Not only do I remember Iran/Contra, I supported it. Getting one of our enemies to finance operations against another of our enemies was a good thing.

Why should we attack Iran now if Reagan/Bush obviously had no problem working with Iran to fund their illegal war back in the 1980's?

As I've said before, we don't need to "attack Iran". The better option would be to help instigate a revolution, support the revolutionaries, supply them with arms, and let them do the fighting.

And when A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket and his puppet masters are dead, dismembered, burned and pissed on, we can re-open our embassy, and the granddaughters of Khamanei and his crew can sell their Persian asses to our Marines. "You got girlfriend Tehran? Me love you long time! Me so HORNY!!!" :D

Not only do I remember Iran/Contra, I supported it. Getting one of our enemies to finance operations against another of our enemies was a good thing.
Ah, so you have no respect for the rule of law and feel the president ought to be able to do whatever the hell he wants no matter what Congress says. So long as we're clear on this.

As I've said before, we don't need to "attack Iran". The better option would be to help instigate a revolution, support the revolutionaries, supply them with arms, and let them do the fighting.

What revolution are you talking about? Iran already had a revolution quite recently.

Bloodthirsty. Why not just bomb their nuclear facilities?

Because they have a powerful army, which should not be used to support terrorist groups -- even without nukes, an extremely rogue Iran would be dangerous to the stability of the region. Attempting to build nukes just shows that Iran flaunts international law, that it feels it can pay for the slaughtering of Israeli civilians, etc. They need to be taught a lesson in manners.

How is "How old are you?" a liberal ploy?

It's not. What followed was.

It's Bush in the first place what makes everyone want a nuke. Iraq proved that you can be always bombed for having WMD, and it makes no difference whether you really have some or have never thought about them. So everyone now understands it's better to have nukes, just in case.

It's much better to have a nuke and not get bombed because it is feared, rather than have no nukes and get bombed for having them.

Really because I thought Iran had nuclear ambitions long before we invaded Iraq. And i thought this was becasuse Israel has them.

Because they have a powerful army, which should not be used to support terrorist groups -- even without nukes, an extremely rogue Iran would be dangerous to the stability of the region.
Isn't the right way then to prevent Iran from becoming a rogue state?

The policy "bomb everyone who is building nukes" is a dead-end way. It is like trying to stop the train of technical progress. The development makes it inevitable that more and more countries will reach the tech level of US and USSR in 1950s. It's not that high, really. One country can't stop the rest of the world from developing.


Iran is the most sensible country in the Middle East, and it has the potential to control the region, preventing conflicts. It would be much more profitable to cooperate with the regional dominator and let them keep the region stable, while limiting their most undesirable moves by economic incentives.

What was the question? He claimed that if you replaced theocracy with fascism, you would get the US. This is completely and patently false -- it's gross that people living in the US, who enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, and the right to protest. In other countries, you might get shot on the street if you protest -- it is sick that you cannot appreciate the freedoms you enjoy in the US and instead call it "fascist." If you don't like your exorbitant amount of liberties, move to Canada.

You dodged the question so you have liberties in America and it isn't facist. Now answer the point about Iraq instead of once again pointing out what a great country America is. Not that i dont think it isn't a great country though i have latley been concerned about the direction it is taking.

He was not quoting from the Bible. I challenge you to give me one line of Bush's speech and then tell me the part of the Bible from which he obtained it. I daresay you'll find that there was no such quote.

He may never quote it but he paraphrases quite a damn bit.

Heh, very few of his supporters are rich. The elite tend to vote liberal. If you look at the GDP per capita per state, you'll find that the states with the lowest GDP per capita tend to vote conservative. Most of his supporters are poor, right-wing Christians who have a sense of politcal and foreign policy realism and are morally outraged at the hedonism of liberals.

Hedonism of liberals? are you kidding me what about the hedonism of Bush who believes in torture as a valid means of interogation for a civilized nation. The elite dont tend to vote liberal some might but not most they vote conservative to increase their wealth because conservatives have always been the most friendly to big bussiness and let them do watever the hell they want. the elite is the corporate class which makes up a great oh one percent of American population you cant expect them to make up a great majority of the population in states where a wealthy middle class is predominant. So yes the elite tend to support conservatives not liberals.

I answered that question.

no you didn't

Why not just bomb their nuclear facilities?

Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities just plain straight out isn't teniable.

The 3 problems with airstrikes:
The United States is too late - Iran's research and development facilities are spread out over at least a dozen sites (where and how many we aren't sure) which are hardened, well concealed, and well defended.

The US is highly vulnerable to Iran's backlash, particularly in Iraq and in the oil markets.

The fallout - not only the backlash from the international community, but the inevitable backlash from a recovered Iran.

Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities just plain straight out isn't teniable.

The 3 problems with airstrikes:
The United States is too late - Iran's research and development facilities are spread out over at least a dozen sites (where and how many we aren't sure) which are hardened, well concealed, and well defended.

The US is highly vulnerable to Iran's backlash, particularly in Iraq and in the oil markets.

The fallout - not only the backlash from the international community, but the inevitable backlash from a recovered Iran.

I can't be the only one that thinks bombing nuclear facilities isn't the best thing to do from an environmental standpoint, right?

Most of his supporters are poor, right-wing Christians who have a sense of politcal and foreign policy realism and are morally outraged at the hedonism of liberals.
How do you know this? What is realistic about invading half the countries in the Middle East? What's Christian about it?

Because they have a powerful army
Isn't that a good reason to bomb them without invading?

I can't see how anyone thinks invasion is a good idea. America doesn't have the men or resources to do it, and look at how bad Iraq went, do you want that again?

It's not. What followed was.
That phrase was the last in his post.

I can't be the only one that thinks bombing nuclear facilities isn't the best thing to do from an environmental standpoint, right?

Indeed, that is one of the concerns. It is of especial concern seening as several facilities of a questionable nature are near major cities. "Chernobylise" one of the peaceful reactors on the outskirts of Tehran.... That'd be just about the worst single thing that could happen short of unprovoked usage of WMDs....

Indeed, that is one of the concerns. It is of especial concern seening as several facilities of a questionable nature are near major cities. "Chernobylise" one of the peaceful reactors on the outskirts of Tehran.... That'd be just about the worst single thing that could happen short of unprovoked usage of WMDs....

There's a Washington blogger/writer--so take this with every bit of skepticism that entails--named Matthew Yglesias who says that people from the office of the VP have suggested that a conventional bombing campaign would be expected to take out 50% of Iran's capability, but that a campaign using pony nukes would take out 80%. And the best part, from their point of view, is that any unusual radiation levels could be blamed on the fact that they had bombed a nuclear facility.

There's a Washington blogger/writer--so take this with every bit of skepticism that entails--named Matthew Yglesias who says that people from the office of the VP have suggested that a conventional bombing campaign would be expected to take out 50% of Iran's capability, but that a campaign using pony nukes would take out 80%. And the best part, from their point of view, is that any unusual radiation levels could be blamed on the fact that they had bombed a nuclear facility.

yep. That's been tossed around for a while. The problem is it simply won't sell in Cairo, if you know what I mean. In fact, accidentally hitting a reactor and releasing radioactive contamination could easily result in an eventual terrorist nuclear retaliation as few would belive we hadn't used a tac-nuke...

yep. That's been tossed around for a while. The problem is it simply won't sell in Cairo, if you know what I mean. In fact, accidentally hitting a reactor and releasing radioactive contamination could easily result in an eventual terrorist nuclear retaliation as few would belive we hadn't used a tac-nuke...And given the rep of this government, they'd have reason.

The United States of America is the world's only Superpowerful nation. It has the greatest military and fighting force in the history of mankind. It is the jewel and leader of the western world and thus the jewel and leader of the world. If it were to be decided that the Islamic Republic of Iran were a threat or a hinderence to the USA and its greatness by the elected leaders, I would support such an action regardless of my feelings about the President.

The United States of America is the world's only Superpowerful nation. It has the greatest military and fighting force in the history of mankind. It is the jewel and leader of the western world and thus the jewel and leader of the world. If it were to be decided that the Islamic Republic of Iran were a threat or a hinderence to the USA and its greatness by the elected leaders, I would support such an action regardless of my feelings about the President.

And that, my friends, is why we'll be lucky to survive this century as a species. Attitudes like the one on display will wind up killing us all, if we're not careful.

And that, my friends, is why we'll be lucky to survive this century as a species. Attitudes like the one on display will wind up killing us all, if we're not careful.

Attutudes like mine are the only thing maintaining the greatness you take for granted.

How do you know this? What is realistic about invading half the countries in the Middle East? What's Christian about it?

I don't recall half the countries in the Middle East being invaded. However, we did invade a small portion of the Middle East so that we could secure our borders against international terrorism. It was a realist policy in the sense that conservatives realized that the Islamo-fascist extremists would not stop until America was nothing but a heap of rubble, and that we had to take drastic action to prevent 9/11 from happening ever again.

I can't see how anyone thinks invasion is a good idea. America doesn't have the men or resources to do it, and look at how bad Iraq went, do you want that again?

Iraq went extremely well. We practically steamrolled their army while sustaining only minimal casualties. The hard part was securing the peace, which continues to prove difficult and elusive in the face of foreign-funded terrorism. However, if we invade Iran, we're not going to bother trying to rebuild the country -- screw them.

Indeed, that is one of the concerns. It is of especial concern seening as several facilities of a questionable nature are near major cities. "Chernobylise" one of the peaceful reactors on the outskirts of Tehran.... That'd be just about the worst single thing that could happen short of unprovoked usage of WMDs....

And, even if one ignores all the arabs, it would also be very antisemitic, or at least antizionist.

Remember the area covered by the Chernobyl fallout.

Also, as far as I remember, most if not all Iranian reactors are not passively safe, which means they can assist in their own destruction and spread of radioactive fallout.

I can't be the only one that thinks bombing nuclear facilities isn't the best thing to do from an environmental standpoint, right?

It'd ease the burden of over-population. That's an environmental plus.

It'd ease the burden of over-population. That's an environmental plus.

So you'd support the eventual nuclear retaliation as a means of reducing population pressures in Europe and North America?

However, we did invade a small portion of the Middle East so that we could secure our borders against international terrorism.
Could you elaborate on this a bit?

And, even if one ignores all the arabs,

Err... that'd be Persians.

it would also be very antisemitic, or at least antizionist.

Remember the area covered by the Chernobyl fallout.

Also, as far as I remember, most if not all Iranian reactors are not passively safe, which means they can assist in their own destruction and spread of radioactive fallout.

Indeed. That was more or less exactly what Nazz and I have been on about.

Attutudes like mine are the only thing maintaining the greatness you take for granted.

Greatness? *snort* We're an empire in decline, and an empire, I might add, that ever really reached the greatness it was capable of. If Iraq has taught the world anything, it's that the US is a shell of what it thought it was.

poll is kind of biased. kind of jumps from extreme of "George bush is the devil" to the extreme of George Bush is God.

This poll was brought to you by President Hugo Chavez.

Could you elaborate on this a bit?

There were terrorists in Afghanistan who were supported by the Taliban and were responsible for 9/11. The Taliban were in turn supported by nations such as Saddam financially, and passed along those funds to groups such as Al-Qaeda. Intelligence pointed to Saddam having weapons of mass destruction -- it would be insane to allow those weapons to fall into terrorists hands. Thus, we protected ourselves against a terrible attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison by pre-empting Iraq from selling their immensely powerful weapons to terrorists.

There's more than one very flawed bit o' stuff in this post.

First: The style of war that would be fought against Iran. It would not be an invasion, right now we do not have the troops or the supply lines to pull that off. It is logistically a bit of a bitch to actually invade. Instead, an aggressive air campaign is likely. Probably occuring during the day, so as to kill the Iranian nuke experts when they're at work. There would be strikes against all of the Iranian nuclear facilities, as well as decapitation strikes against the Iranian leadership, and several counter-force strikes to cripple the Iranian ability to project power beyond it's borders. But, the only ground campaign I can see is a restricted, defensive campaign on the Iraqi and Afghan borders. If the Iranian leadership can organize itself for that much, after an aggressive campaign of decapitation strikes.

Second: The assumption that another war would get the Bush admin votes in Congress. Very doubtful, as another war would most likely be quite unpopular and hurt the Republicans far more than it would help. Rove would know this.

Third: See number two.

In my eyes, the possibility is so remote and the number of times people have shrilly shouted "OMGLOLZORZ W4R W/ 1R4n 1S K-M1nG!!!!!1111!!!!!!1111!shift!!!!!11111!!" and it hasn't is evidence enough that 'hearing' things is by no means sufficient reason for believing it. The possibility is so remote that it's not even worth thinking about.

First: I already addressed this on the first page.
Second: Air strikes are popular among certain segments of the population.
Third: See number two.

There were terrorists in Afghanistan who were supported by the Taliban and were responsible for 9/11.True The Taliban were in turn supported by nations such as Saddam financially,
False and passed along those funds to groups such as Al-Qaeda. Half True --the Taliban did partially fund al Qaeda, but not with Iraqi funds
Intelligence pointed to Saddam having weapons of mass destructionFalse
-- it would be insane to allow those weapons to fall into terrorists hands.
If said weapons existed, then true, bt since said weapons did not exist, false
Thus, we protected ourselves against a terrible attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison by pre-empting Iraq from selling their immensely powerful weapons to terrorists.
False

This is a wonderful example of how correct information mixed with false can wind up like a somewhat reasonable argument. Welcome to the world of conservative punditry.

There were terrorists in Afghanistan who were supported by the Taliban and were responsible for 9/11. The Taliban were in turn supported by nations such as Saddam financially, and passed along those funds to groups such as Al-Qaeda. Intelligence pointed to Saddam having weapons of mass destruction -- it would be insane to allow those weapons to fall into terrorists hands. Thus, we protected ourselves against a terrible attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison by pre-empting Iraq from selling their immensely powerful weapons to terrorists.

Except, that that was wrong as proven by time. The fact that you ignore all the people that spoke out against Saddam having weapons of mass destruction and any ties to Al-Quaeda from the very beginning just shows how well these little fairy tales work for neo-conservatives to justify their past actions. "We didn't know at the time" is not an excuse and only shows the lengths this administration has gone to to shut out what it does not want to see or hear.

There were terrorists in Afghanistan who were supported by the Taliban and were responsible for 9/11.
There ARE.

The Taliban were in turn supported by nations such as Saddam financially, and passed along those funds to groups such as Al-Qaeda.
They are still supported.

Intelligence pointed to Saddam having weapons of mass destruction -- it would be insane to allow those weapons to fall into terrorists hands.
Not intelligence. Politicians.
Do you know how many facilities are required to produce a nuclear weapon? You can't hide all of that in a garage. It's an entire high-tech industry. From science and advanced metallurgy to high precision mechanics and massive enrichment factories.
Everyone who bothered to take a look realistically has seen it all along.

Thus, we protected ourselves against a terrible attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison by pre-empting Iraq from selling their immensely powerful weapons to terrorists.
Yes, elaborate specifically on this, please. A few terrorists somewhere in Afghanistan and Iraq were killed. How is this going to prevent terrorism in US?
It's not like terrorists take some funds in Iran, buy weapons in Iraq, board planes in Afghanistan, make a paradrop over the United States and go bombing.
Terrorism in US is performed by US inhabitants, who are trained and armed in the US. And you probably know who has sponsored the formation and development of all these foreign terrorist organizations in the first place.

True
False Half True --the Taliban did partially fund al Qaeda, but not with Iraqi funds
False

If said weapons existed, then true, bt since said weapons did not exist, false

False

This is a wonderful example of how correct information mixed with false can wind up like a somewhat reasonable argument. Welcome to the world of conservative punditry.
The true markings of a political hack/troll/Bushevik!! :eek:

Attempting to build nukes just shows that Iran flaunts international law, that it feels it can pay for the slaughtering of Israeli civilians, etc. They need to be taught a lesson in manners.so the US Israel can flaunt international law at will and they never need to be taught a lesson? maybe they need to be taught a lesson?

so the US Israel can flaunt international law at will and they never need to be taught a lesson? maybe they need to be taught a lesson?

The problem is that no one has the ability to teach the U.S. a "lesson".

Except, that that was wrong as proven by time.

No, it is still possible that Saddam either destroyed all traces of his WMD programme before the invasion or that he transported the weapons to another country. And there were ties between him and Al-Qaeda, as some documents found in Afghanistan proved.

so the US Israel can flaunt international law at will and they never need to be taught a lesson? maybe they need to be taught a lesson?

The US and Israel are not flaunting international law. It is not our fault that the UN is so incredibly anti-American that they do not even give us the right to protect ourselves. What did the UN do to protect Israel from incessant Arab attacks? Nothing. That the ultra-pro-Muslim UN has agreed that Iran is doing something wrong is amazing.

No, it is still possible that Saddam either destroyed all traces of his WMD programme before the invasion or that he transported the weapons to another country. And there were ties between him and Al-Qaeda, as some documents found in Afghanistan proved.

I'll sell you a bridge. Low cost of just $79.95 in monthly installments.

There were terrorists in Afghanistan who were supported by the Taliban and were responsible for 9/11. The Taliban were in turn supported by nations such as Saddam financially, and passed along those funds to groups such as Al-Qaeda. Intelligence pointed to Saddam having weapons of mass destruction -- it would be insane to allow those weapons to fall into terrorists hands. Thus, we protected ourselves against a terrible attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison by pre-empting Iraq from selling their immensely powerful weapons to terrorists.
You must be a puppet of Corny or Usalpenstock/Barrygoldwater et al?

Fact: 15 of 19 9/11 terrorists were from........Saudi Arabia
Fact: a lot of funding of Al-Queda funding was from Bin Laden.....A Saudi Arabian
Fact: a lot of funding came from the royal Saud family
Fact: more funding from charities, headquartered in Saudi Arabia

Your fantasy about Saddam's finances and Iraq's WMD are just that.....fantasy.

Iraq and Afghanistan still haven't been resolved and you want to invade Iran. You talk about "realist conservatives" yet your grasp on reality is obviously suspect.

No, it is still possible that Saddam either destroyed all traces of his WMD programme before the invasion or that he transported the weapons to another country. And there were ties between him and Al-Qaeda, as some documents found in Afghanistan proved.

It is to laugh. You fraud.

You must be a puppet of Corny or Usalpenstock/Barrygoldwater et al?

Fact: 15 of 19 9/11 terrorists were from........Saudi Arabia
Fact: a lot of funding of Al-Queda funding was from Bin Laden.....A Saudi Arabian
Fact: a lot of funding came from the royal Saud family
Fact: more funding from charities, headquartered in Saudi Arabia

Your fantasy about Saddam's finances and Iraq's WMD are just that.....fantasy.

Iraq and Afghanistan still haven't been resolved and you want to invade Iran. You talk about "realist conservatives" yet your grasp on reality is obviously suspect.

I think we need a roving Sock puppet task force. It will rove around, and shoot anyone suspected of beinga sock puppet on sight. Any seconds?

Fact: 15 of 19 9/11 terrorists were from........Saudi Arabia
Fact: a lot of funding of Al-Queda funding was from Bin Laden.....A Saudi Arabian
Fact: a lot of funding came from the royal Saud family
Fact: more funding from charities, headquartered in Saudi Arabia

Usually, it helps to have sources to back you up when you assert something as fact. I'll give you the first two, but you'll need to prove the others. Also, the nationality of bin Laden is irrelevant -- there are a few bad apples in every bunch, but that's no reason to throw them all out. The royal Saud family has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda as an organization, although it may have had ties, in the past, to bin Laden as an individual.

The problem is that no one has the ability to teach the U.S. a "lesson".I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement. It's thinking like that from politicians that make things worse, Iran is accused of sponsoring terrorism and they must be punished, Ronald Reagan with Iranian money, trained and armed the Contras(terrorists) that were responsible for 60,000 deaths. The non-aligned countries see the double standard and american politicians don't, then express surprise when someone like Chavez says what everyone else is thinking about Bush and the USA.

The US and Israel are not flaunting international law. It is not our fault that the UN is so incredibly anti-American that they do not even give us the right to protect ourselves. What did the UN do to protect Israel from incessant Arab attacks? Nothing. That the ultra-pro-Muslim UN has agreed that Iran is doing something wrong is amazing.USA ignoring the Genva convention...Israel repeatly with the help of the USA Veto occupying/stealing land taken by force which is illegal under international law.

"protect ourselves" how by attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11:rolleyes:

Usually, it helps to have sources to back you up when you assert something as fact. I'll give you the first two, but you'll need to prove the others.
You have produced ZERO sources to back any of your "facts". So you need to get busy, because you have made an awful lot of assertions without any sources at all. :p

Also, the nationality of bin Laden is irrelevant -- there are a few bad apples in every bunch, but that's no reason to throw them all out.
And you will just ignore that another 15 "bad apples" just happen to have been Saudi nationals. How convenient.

The royal Saud family has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda as an organization, although it may have had ties, in the past, to bin Laden as an individual.
Do some more research my friend.

Al Qaeda Finances and Funding to Affiliated Groups (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jan/comrasJan05.asp)

Get out your pen and start writing down other countries to invade due to funding Al-Queda. There are lots of them, yet I see no reference to Iraq or Saddam.

I think we need a roving Sock puppet task force. It will rove around, and shoot anyone suspected of beinga sock puppet on sight. Any seconds?
I will second that in a heartbeat!!

Down with Sock puppets!! :D

It is to laugh. You fraud.
Fraud indeed!! :)

There were terrorists in Afghanistan who were supported by the Taliban and were responsible for 9/11. The Taliban were in turn supported by nations such as Saddam financially, and passed along those funds to groups such as Al-Qaeda. Intelligence pointed to Saddam having weapons of mass destruction -- it would be insane to allow those weapons to fall into terrorists hands. Thus, we protected ourselves against a terrible attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison by pre-empting Iraq from selling their immensely powerful weapons to terrorists.

I would love to see proof of the first bolded statement.

Bush/Cheney new very well that there were no WMD's and no connection between Al-Queda and Saddam.
The invasion of Iraq was planned well before 9/11.

As I have advised you before you would do well to get your news from multiple sources, not just Fox News.
Perhaps even reading information that does not fit your pre-concieved notions.

No, it is still possible that Saddam either destroyed all traces of his WMD programme before the invasion or that he transported the weapons to another country. And there were ties between him and Al-Qaeda, as some documents found in Afghanistan proved.

Please read other posts, unless you are trolling.

I'll repeat.

Do you know how many facilities are required to produce a nuclear weapon? You can't hide all of that in a garage. It's an entire high-tech industry.


Saying "maybe he destroyed all the traces of nukes production" is like saying "Saddam was secretly producing B-1 bombers, but destroyed all the traces and moved them to another country".
Actually the latter is easier.

It'd ease the burden of over-population. That's an environmental plus.
This comment takes you right to the Nation States' curb, awaiting pick up by the trash collectors. Kinda runs contrary to you having us believe that your "Christian" morals are superior to "hedonistic liberals"?

You have produced ZERO sources to back any of your "facts". So you need to get busy, because you have made an awful lot of assertions without any sources at all. :p

I recall a post a while back which sourced a link to a website which had a partial transcript of the files which were found in Afghanistan, linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam. I'll try to find it again.

And you will just ignore that another 15 "bad apples" just happen to have been Saudi nationals. How convenient.

Ah, so because 0.000056% of Saudi Arabia's population was involved in a terror attack against the US, we should just bombard the whole of Saudi Arabia? Well, that seems a bit of an over-reaction.

Get out your pen and start writing down other countries to invade due to funding Al-Queda. There are lots of them, yet I see no reference to Iraq or Saddam.

Obviously Iraq is no longer funding Al-Qaeda -- it has been replaced by a democratic government whole sole concern is the good of its people and not international terrorism. The report also states that many sources of funding are unknown.

This comment takes you right to the Nation States' curb, awaiting pick up by the trash collectors. Kinda runs contrary to you having us believe that your "Christian" morals are superior to "hedonistic liberals"?

A guy just can't make a joke around here without being bashed by liberals. :(

Do you know how many facilities are required to produce a nuclear weapon? You can't hide all of that in a garage. It's an entire high-tech industry.

Did I ever mention the word nuclear? No. I simply said WMDs -- you know, the ones he employed in the war against Iran and the ones he used to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people? Well, I don't want him using those weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, either. We know for a fact that he possessed those weapons 20 years ago -- do you honestly think that he had them back then but suddenly lost the know-how necessary to manufacture them? If he could build them then, he can build them now.

Saying "maybe he destroyed all the traces of nukes production" is like saying "Saddam was secretly producing B-1 bombers, but destroyed all the traces and moved them to another country".
Actually the latter is easier.

It would not be at all difficult to destroy all traces of a chemical or biological factory -- in fact, you can have a factory which produces deadly gases in your garage -- and you can also blow up your garage. It's not a complex process. You can also move thermos-sized containers of biological or chemical weapons extremely easily to another country. Saddam isn't a retard, you know. Give him some credit.

do you honestly think that he had them back then but suddenly lost the know-how necessary to manufacture them?
Do you know that it only takes a kitchen, a crate of equipment from school's chemistry class, and one graduated student to produce chemical weapons?

Not even a retard would attempt to sneak them into US. It's much easier to produce them in the same town you're going to attack.
But as far we haven't seen a single chemical terrorism act, except for some crazy local cultists in Japan, and some spammer in US.

Any country, any organization, anywhere can produce chemical terrorism weapons at ease. There's no such thing as "capability to produce poisons" to be destroyed.

Ah, so because 0.000056% of Saudi Arabia's population was involved in a terror attack against the US, we should just bombard the whole of Saudi Arabia? Well, that seems a bit of an over-reaction.
And yet the US is responsible for the deaths of at least 50,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the actions of a tiny proportion of their population (and that's not including all the deaths in the US that will be caused by the massive poppy crops that are tacitly supported by the Bush administration in Afghanistan).

Obviously Iraq is no longer funding Al-Qaeda -- it has been replaced by a democratic government whole sole concern is the good of its people and not international terrorism.
You are being sarcastic, right?
Just in case you aren't...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1696153.ece
Of particular interest would be:-
'The Iraqi state and much of society have been criminalised. Gangs of gunmen are often described on state television as "wearing police uniforms" . One senior Iraqi minister laughed as he told The Independent: " Of course they wear police uniforms. They are real policemen."'
and
'On 31 July, for instance, armed men in police uniforms driving 15 police vehicles kidnapped 26 people in an area of Baghdad known as Arasat that used to be home to several of the capital's better restaurants. Gunmen dressed in police uniforms had also kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic Committee, Ammar Jabbar al-Saadi, and 12 others, in the centre of Baghdad. Ransom demands were made. The US military suspected that Baghdad police's serious crime squad may have been responsible and stormed its headquarters to search vainly for the kidnap victims in its basement.'

How about:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article347806.ece
'Hundreds of Iraqis are being tortured to death or summarily executed every month in Baghdad alone by death squads working from the Ministry of the Interior, the United Nations' outgoing human rights chief in Iraq has revealed.'
or
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700649.html
or
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.detainees/index.html
or
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/26/iraq10053.htm
or
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_torture

You are being sarcastic, right?
Just in case you aren't...

I'm beginning to think that this guy isn't serious at all. If he is serious, it's kind of like he's stuck in a warp from last year. Even hard core Bushies have dropped most of the arguments he's throwing.

The US and Israel are not flaunting international law.

The USA has signed the NPT.
Israel has not.
The USA has helped Israel obtain nuclear weapons technology.

Therefor the USA has violated the NPT.

The USA has signed the NPT.
Israel has not.
The USA has helped Israel obtain nuclear weapons technology.

Therefor the USA has violated the NPT.Don't you know? The US gets to interpret international treaties however it wants to--that's Bush's argument on Geneva, after all.

Therefor the USA has violated the NPT.

Actually, countries like France helped Israel a lot more in its quest to obtain nuclear weapons. In fact, the US government was opposed to Israel's nuclear programme:

"although the United States government did not encourage or approve of the Israeli nuclear program, it also did nothing to stop it."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

And yet the US is responsible for the deaths of at least 50,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the actions of a tiny proportion of their population (and that's not including all the deaths in the US that will be caused by the massive poppy crops that are tacitly supported by the Bush administration in Afghanistan).

How is the US responsible for the deaths of50,000 civilians? Did we go out and shoot all those civilians? Did we bomb them? No, of course not. Foreign terrorist extremists are flooding into the country and trying to cast it into a civil war with the help of countries like Iran and Syria. They're the ones killing all the civilians -- the US has no hand in it. We can't possibly stop all the violence, since these fundamentalists don't even care if they die. And yes, the US does support Afghanistan's only source of economic revenue for the time being -- however, we also tried to destroy some fields before realizing it would be too impractical.

You are being sarcastic, right?
Just in case you aren't...

What? No, I said the government had the best interests of the people at heart -- you know, the one that the people voted for in free and democratic elections? I'm not talking about the corrupt, blood-thirsty, maniacs in police uniforms. I'm talking about the elected officials -- they haven't been killing anybody, and they're trying to make Iraq a beacon of democracy in the region, one step at a time. And they're succeeding, slowly but surely.

How is the US responsible for the deaths of50,000 civilians? Did we go out and shoot all those civilians? Did we bomb them?

No offense guy, but you really ought to do some research into this.
The BBC estimates that up to 100,000 civillians have been killed as direct result of American bombings.
Targets in places like Fallujah, where entire city blocks were destroyed to kill 15 suspected enemy combatants, has resulted in very high civillian casualties.
The US considers these to be "acceptable losses".


What? No, I said the government had the best interests of the people at heart -- you know, the one that the people voted for in free and democratic elections? I'm not talking about the corrupt, blood-thirsty, maniacs in police uniforms. I'm talking about the elected officials -- they haven't been killing anybody, and they're trying to make Iraq a beacon of democracy in the region, one step at a time. And they're succeeding, slowly but surely.

You also have a very idealistic impression of what is happening in Iraq.
That place is on the verge of civil war, directly becuase America toppled its regime, and its citizens are not under US control.

We arent going to run out of "Terrorists" to kill in Iraq.
More will join the opposition every day.

They are NOT succeeding in Iraq.

You cannot force a democracy on people who have never had one, and are not ready for one.

Don't you know? The US gets to interpret international treaties however it wants to--that's Bush's argument on Geneva, after all.

Bush's fatwah, surely.

You also have a very idealistic impression of what is happening in Iraq.
That place is on the verge of civil war, directly becuase America toppled its regime, and its citizens are not under US control.

We arent going to run out of "Terrorists" to kill in Iraq.
More will join the opposition every day.

They are NOT succeeding in Iraq.

You cannot force a democracy on people who have never had one, and are not ready for one.When did idealistic become a synonym for stupid or uninformed or ignorant?

When did idealistic become a synonym for stupid or uninformed or ignorant?

I was being nice.:)

But, I dont think its stupid to want democracy In Iraq, and allow its people to benefit fully from a sefl-chosen government, and free elections.
Its merely an unrealistic objective, and one that isnt going to work, until its people are ready for it.

How is the US responsible for the deaths of50,000 civilians? Did we go out and shoot all those civilians? Did we bomb them? No, of course not. Foreign terrorist extremists are flooding into the country and trying to cast it into a civil war with the help of countries like Iran and Syria. They're the ones killing all the civilians -- the US has no hand in it. We can't possibly stop all the violence, since these fundamentalists don't even care if they die. And yes, the US does support Afghanistan's only source of economic revenue for the time being -- however, we also tried to destroy some fields before realizing it would be too impractical.

What? No, I said the government had the best interests of the people at heart -- you know, the one that the people voted for in free and democratic elections? I'm not talking about the corrupt, blood-thirsty, maniacs in police uniforms. I'm talking about the elected officials -- they haven't been killing anybody, and they're trying to make Iraq a beacon of democracy in the region, one step at a time. And they're succeeding, slowly but surely.
I dub thee official sock puppet thread troll. You live in denial. :eek:

As for my bolding above, I will start a new thread about the emerging "beacon of democracy" in Iraq.

I was being nice.:)

But, I dont think its stupid to want democracy In Iraq, and allow its people to benefit fully from a sefl-chosen government, and free elections.
Its merely an unrealistic objective, and one that isnt going to work, until its people are ready for it.
The worst part of it is that, had this been done right, it might have even worked. It would still have been difficult, but it could have worked. But it would have required overwhelming force, an immediate establishment of security, a lack of emphasis on de-Ba'athification, and a lack of emphasis on things like an introduction of free-market policies. In short, if we'd done everything opposite of what the Bush administration did, it had a chance--not a good one, but a chance.

The worst part of it is that, had this been done right, it might have even worked. It would still have been difficult, but it could have worked. But it would have required overwhelming force, an immediate establishment of security, a lack of emphasis on de-Ba'athification, and a lack of emphasis on things like an introduction of free-market policies. In short, if we'd done everything opposite of what the Bush administration did, it had a chance--not a good one, but a chance.

I still dont think the Sunni's, Kurds, and Shi'ites would be able to calmy ratify a Constitution by themselves.
To do so, you have to approach lawmaking from a secular standpoint.

Following Sunni Muslim law isnt going to be liked by the Shi'ites, or the Kurds, and vicey-versy...

Basically, we stormed in, knocked over thier government, declared martial law, and said.."okay...now...go make a Constitution...and play nice!"

Basically, we stormed in, knocked over thier government, declared martial law, and said.."okay...now...go make a Constitution...and play nice!"

And you try telling that to a blinkered, fortress-mentality conservative and they won't believe you.

And you try telling that to a blinkered, fortress-mentality conservative and they won't believe you.

They'd just accuse me of "hating America".

They'd just accuse me of "hating America".And call you an Islamocommunazifascidhimmiantisemite supporter.

Basically, we stormed in, knocked over thier government, declared martial law, and said.."okay...now...go make a Constitution...and play nice!"

To be fair, they did "play nice" for a while -- sure, they shot at US troops, but that's to be expected. The people who were formerly in power just got kicked out so the path towards secular democracy could be cleared, and they were understandably pissed. Our mistake was not acting fast enough -- if we could have rebuilt the Iraqi army within a year, this whole crisis could have been averted. Now, however, with the influx of foreign funds, terrorists, and arms, the situation is much more precarious. It will take a couple more years to sort the whole thing out.

All I can say about Rumsfeld and the way this war has been waged... (and I am a Supporter of the war )...is that some poor villiage has been deprived of an idiot .


The man is so dense light bends around him .

I have a question for the liberals: if you could have it your way, how would you combat terrorism?

I recall a post a while back which sourced a link to a website which had a partial transcript of the files which were found in Afghanistan, linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam. I'll try to find it again.


Please do as I would be very interested to see this information that our Government has decided to keep under wraps.


Ah, so because 0.000056% of Saudi Arabia's population was involved in a terror attack against the US, we should just bombard the whole of Saudi Arabia? Well, that seems a bit of an over-reaction.

0.0000000% of Iraqs population had anything to do with 9/11 and that did not stop us from invading their country!
0.0000000% of Irans population were involved in 9/11 and yet here you are on this thread saying we should bomb them and then invade them.

You gleefully say we should destroy their country and then walk away instead of helping "rebuild" it in the manner we are "helping" the Iraqis.


Obviously Iraq is no longer funding Al-Qaeda -- it has been replaced by a democratic government whole sole concern is the good of its people and not international terrorism. The report also states that many sources of funding are unknown.

Either you are hopelessly naive or you are completely out of touch with reality.
If the governement of Iraq is solely concerned with the welfare of its people then why is it that the reconstruction contracts were given to American companies thru a no bid system?
I find it hard to belive that after 3 years there are no companies in Iraq that can aid in the reconstruction.

How is the US responsible for the deaths of 50,000 civilians? Did we go out and shoot all those civilians? Did we bomb them? No, of course not. Foreign terrorist extremists are flooding into the country and trying to cast it into a civil war with the help of countries like Iran and Syria. They're the ones killing all the civilians -- the US has no hand in it. We can't possibly stop all the violence, since these fundamentalists don't even care if they die. And yes, the US does support Afghanistan's only source of economic revenue for the time being -- however, we also tried to destroy some fields before realizing it would be too impractical.

Shock & Awe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1pUfDfgY0)
I guess those bombs fell harmlessly on an empty city!


What? No, I said the government had the best interests of the people at heart -- you know, the one that the people voted for in free and democratic elections? I'm not talking about the corrupt, blood-thirsty, maniacs in police uniforms. I'm talking about the elected officials -- they haven't been killing anybody, and they're trying to make Iraq a beacon of democracy in the region, one step at a time. And they're succeeding, slowly but surely.


No it’s not the Downing Street Memo, or the $9 Billion lost in Iraq, or the 52 warnings before 9/11 (info that was suppressed before the election, which should nullify the election)…

The #1 buried story is the fact that Halliburton has been pumping the oil in Iraq since 2003, and it hasn’t been metered. This was revealed by the Inspector General’s report on the missing $9 billion, and highlighted by Galloway’s awesome testimony before the Senate this May

Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where?

Gee, and oil prices have been at all time highs… coincidence?

Link (http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/21/oil_not_even_metered/)

Contracts to US companies were awarded by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) without any financial safeguards. They were issued without competition, in the form of "cost-plus" deals. This means that the companies were paid for the expenses they incurred, plus a percentage of those expenses in the form of profit. They had a powerful incentive, in other words, to spend as much money as possible. As a result, the authority appears to have obtained appalling value for money. Auditors at the Pentagon, for example, allege that, in the course of just one contract, a subsidiary of Halliburton overcharged it for imported fuel by $61m. This appears to have been officially sanctioned. In November, the New York Times obtained a letter from an officer in the US Army Corps of Engineers insisting that she would not "succumb to the political pressures from the ... US embassy to go against my integrity and pay a higher price for fuel than necessary". She was overruled by her superiors, who issued a memo insisting that the prices the company was charging were "fair and reasonable", and that it wouldn't be asked to provide the figures required to justify them.

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1408187,00.html)

I have a question for the liberals: if you could have it your way, how would you combat terrorism?

To start we could have a Middle East policy that is balanced.
We could encourage Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and create a Palestinian state.
Israel would have to be willing to give up some land to gain security while Palestine would have to recognize Israels right to exist.
We could start actual negotiations with the different factions in Iraq to try to work out a peaceful solution to the sectarian violence there, although at this point it may be too late.
We could stop threatening Iran.

As for actual security we could implement the suggestions of the 9/11 commision.
We could tighten up border security at the Mexican AND Canadian borders.
We could start scanning all of the millions of cargo conatainers that come into this country ever year

And we could stop living in fear.
You are far more likely to be killed by a bee sting than a terrorist.
But fear keeps the populace quiet and voting for the candidate that can scare the sheep the most.

I have a question for the liberals: if you could have it your way, how would you combat terrorism?

For starters, I'd say that you can't combat terrorism any more than you can combat sneak attacks or pincer movements. Terror is a weapon, a tactic, a trategy. It is not a thing that can be combatted.

As to fighting terrorists, however, I'd start by hardening the borders of the US. Port security, airline security, a working INS that actually keeps track of who comes into the country and where they go. Government can work, but you have to want it to work, and that's why today's conservatives are such horrible administrators--they want it to fail.

I'd stop torturing people in the name of some bullshit higher goal. Torture is never justified. If we're going to claim the mantle of a moral leader, then damn it, we have to be moral.

I'd make it a priority to become self sufficient in terms of energy. We've got to stop depending on others for our energy sources, because it's an uneven alliance. We can't slap Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses because we owe them money and need their oil. Same for China, only it's their cheaply made products and that we owe them money. That list is a mile long, and it all comes back to energy independence.

I'd establish fair trade as opposed to free trade. We wouldn't do business with countries that violate labor or environmental standards. That would help raise the standard of living in places that are the breeding grounds for extremists.

I'd stop using this bullshit rhetoric of a clash of civilizations. It only empowers the extremists of all sides.

And I'd use the economic power of the US as a bully pulpit for human rights. If you subjugate women, you don't do business with the US--and none of this putting subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands to get around the law like Halliburton does with Iran. You do business in the US or you do business in countries that subjugate women, but you don't do both. Same for gay rights, the right to choose, and rights to things like religious freedom, free speech, free press, and all that other good shit.

That's my ideal plan. It would never happen, but that's what I'd like to see.

Yup, the illegal invasion of Iraq proves that point!!


US casualties are the result of the illegal invasion of Iraq.


Keep bleating "illegal invasion". Maybe someday you'll convince someone who matters. Our action in Iraq was absolutely legal. Deal with it.

BTW: have you tried, "Four legs good, two legs bad"? That's about the level of sophistication of your argument.

For starters, I'd say that you can't combat terrorism any more than you can combat sneak attacks or pincer movements. Terror is a weapon, a tactic, a trategy. It is not a thing that can be combatted.

As to fighting terrorists, however, I'd start by hardening the borders of the US. Port security, airline security, a working INS that actually keeps track of who comes into the country and where they go. Government can work, but you have to want it to work, and that's why today's conservatives are such horrible administrators--they want it to fail.

I'd stop torturing people in the name of some bullshit higher goal. Torture is never justified. If we're going to claim the mantle of a moral leader, then damn it, we have to be moral.

I'd make it a priority to become self sufficient in terms of energy. We've got to stop depending on others for our energy sources, because it's an uneven alliance. We can't slap Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses because we owe them money and need their oil. Same for China, only it's their cheaply made products and that we owe them money. That list is a mile long, and it all comes back to energy independence.

I'd establish fair trade as opposed to free trade. We wouldn't do business with countries that violate labor or environmental standards. That would help raise the standard of living in places that are the breeding grounds for extremists.

I'd stop using this bullshit rhetoric of a clash of civilizations. It only empowers the extremists of all sides.

And I'd use the economic power of the US as a bully pulpit for human rights. If you subjugate women, you don't do business with the US--and none of this putting subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands to get around the law like Halliburton does with Iran. You do business in the US or you do business in countries that subjugate women, but you don't do both. Same for gay rights, the right to choose, and rights to things like religious freedom, free speech, free press, and all that other good shit.

That's my ideal plan. It would never happen, but that's what I'd like to see.

Don't forget keeping the eye on the ball. Running off to blindly pursue an unrelated war (Iraq) and allowing the Taliban and al Qaida to escape into Pakistan, as the current administration has done, is a highly ineffective maeans of fighting the terrorists who attacked the US.

I have a question for the liberals: if you could have it your way, how would you combat terrorism?

Do you mind if some of us anti-Iraq war and anti-Iran war conservatives answer that as well. Bush and the neoconservatives do not speak for all conservatives. And not all those who oppose those wars are liberals.

Keep bleating "illegal invasion". Maybe someday you'll convince someone who matters. Our action in Iraq was absolutely legal. Deal with it.
Don't like the "bleating"? Perhaps I should add that it was also immoral. What you need to deal with is the cost of this war in terms of human sacrifice (Iraqi civilians and US troops), the devestation upon Iraq, the great division that it has caused in your country, a black mark on your great country, and increased worldwide terrorism. And you only had to pay $300 Billion for your goody bag.

BTW: have you tried, "Four legs good, two legs bad"? That's about the level of sophistication of your argument.
Thanks for the compliment. Animal Farm was certainly a classic!! :D

A whole year ago, I thought my opinion of the Bush administration could not get any worse, only it has -- daily. So, yeah, any attack on Iran is likely to worsen my opinion of them by...oh... 100%.

As to how I, as a liberal, would combat terrorism, The Nazz and Daistalia covered it pretty well. I would also add that I would be willing tolerate more public surveillance as long as it is not secret and that I would be willing to allow more secret surveillance IF AND ONLY IF it comes with a proper warrant and IF AND ONLY IF innocent people caught in dragnets can have legal protections to both get themselves out of the mess and undo any damage that they suffer as a result.

I would like to see increased public presence of security at both US borders in cooperation with Canadian and Mexican forces. I would also like to see more visible security at international airports, so long as it is done right. The soldiers and dogs at the airport in Milan managed to be focused and serious without making every traveler feel we were about to be shot, whereas the unexpected soft-core feel-fest they call security at Heathrow, where the giant scary prison matron doesn't even wish you a nice trip after she cups and squeezes your breasts without warning, was not so reassuring. I got the distinct impression that any number of bombs could have gotten through as long as the boobs felt natural.

If Iran persists on having their nukes, then I say go for it. If you think Iran is seeking nukes for peaceful reasons, I say you are a fool.

Iran has already stated that they want to wipe Isreal off the map. Iran does not need to have nuclear weapons. The UN is convinced that you can sit terrorists and extremist regimes at a table and talk to them.

I say ship the UN to Paris and if the leader of Iran wants to finish there nuke works. I say then America should send them the "MOAB" as a congrats.
MOAB=Mother of All Bombs. A truely spectacular bomb.

As unstable the mid east is if you allow them to establish Nuclear weapons, common sense tells me that Europe should be more concerned with Iran than the US. Why are all you UK people on this forum willing to take the chance with a nuclear Iran. Your crazier than I thought.

Iran+nukes=Disaster

and by the way, Israel does and will have the right to defend itself. Honestly, I think Israel would blast them before the US has a chance to get into place. Israel, regardless of what anyone tells them, will not stand by and do nothing while Tehran finishes the final touches to its nukes programs.

Do you mind if some of us anti-Iraq war and anti-Iran war conservatives answer that as well. Bush and the neoconservatives do not speak for all conservatives. And not all those who oppose those wars are liberals.

I find it interesting that RealAmerica and New Mitanni decided to leave the thread alone after I posted what I think was a pretty substantive reply to the question. Never challenged it. Never took issue with it. Just ran away to toher threads. Why do you suppose that is?

I find it interesting that RealAmerica and New Mitanni decided to leave the thread alone after I posted what I think was a pretty substantive reply to the question. Never challenged it. Never took issue with it. Just ran away to toher threads. Why do you suppose that is?

'Cause they're traitors to freedom?

'Cause they're traitors to freedom?

Maybe. Or maybe they had to reboot after I crashed their "liberals are pussies" subroutine.

I find it interesting that RealAmerica and New Mitanni decided to leave the thread alone after I posted what I think was a pretty substantive reply to the question. Never challenged it. Never took issue with it. Just ran away to toher threads. Why do you suppose that is?
They can't handle the truth? Their trolling licence has been suspended? :p

If Iran persists on having their nukes, then I say go for it. If you think Iran is seeking nukes for peaceful reasons, I say you are a fool.
Nuclear enrichment =/= nukes.
Iran has already stated that they want to wipe Isreal off the map.
And how many leaders do you know that don't go into hyperbole, bullshit and rethoric to get their countrymen on side?
Iran does not need to have nuclear weapons.
I agree. I'd even argue that the world would be a lot safer with no nuclear weapons at all.
The UN is convinced that you can sit terrorists and extremist regimes at a table and talk to them.
Well, worked in NI. Helped between PLO/Israel and Uganda/LRA. Is bombing the crap out of each other having any progress in Afghanistan, Iraq, against Al-Quieda and between Israel/Hamas? Thought not.
I say ship the UN to Paris and if the leader of Iran wants to finish there nuke works. I say then America should send them the "MOAB" as a congrats.
MOAB=Mother of All Bombs. A truely spectacular bomb.
What are you suggesting? Nuking Paris or Iran?
As unstable the mid east is if you allow them to establish Nuclear weapons, common sense tells me that Europe should be more concerned with Iran than the US. Why are all you UK people on this forum willing to take the chance with a nuclear Iran. Your crazier than I thought.
No. Unstable Middle East = Invasion/Occupation.
Iran+nukes=Disaster
Yes. The sky will fall down. The cows will go dry. Earthquakes, tsunamis will swallow up the west. Or, it might be no different to Israel, India and Pakistan having nukes and everyone just accepts it.
and by the way, Israel does and will have the right to defend itself.
Weakest argument for anything, ever! In the same of Israeli self-defense Israel could attack Iran because Iran could develop same weapons as Israel. It's no wonder they are opting for nuclear technology, peaceful or not.
Honestly, I think Israel would blast them before the US has a chance to get into place. Israel, regardless of what anyone tells them, will not stand by and do nothing while Tehran finishes the final touches to its nukes programs.
Well, they can bomb nuclear power stations in Iraq so why not Iran? I mean, noone would care if Iran bombed a power station in the US so why not stop Israel doing it to Iran?

For starters, I'd say that you can't combat terrorism any more than you can combat sneak attacks or pincer movements. Terror is a weapon, a tactic, a trategy. It is not a thing that can be combatted.

I'm not saying that we should refute terror as a strategy, but that we should make the strategy have no effect. For example, you can combat pincer movements by developing a plan which effectively renders the obsolete. Likewise, you can combat terror by taking measures to make sure that it is a failed strategy.

As to fighting terrorists, however, I'd start by hardening the borders of the US. Port security, airline security, a working INS that actually keeps track of who comes into the country and where they go. Government can work, but you have to want it to work, and that's why today's conservatives are such horrible administrators--they want it to fail.

That is more or less an impractical goal. Our border with Canada is extremely long -- it would be damn near impossible to make sure that no terrorists get through that border. They may come into the US with dynamite strapped to their chest, just waiting for the perfect target, and we'd have no way of knowing. However, I agree with strengthening port security, airline security, etc., in general. But the Canadian border is a glaring loophole, and I'm sure the Canadian government would let potential terrorists into their country in the name of civil rights. The border with Mexico, on the other hand, is easier to be enforced and should be enforced -- if illegal immigrants can get in, terrorists can also get it. We need to stop both.

I'd stop torturing people in the name of some bullshit higher goal. Torture is never justified. If we're going to claim the mantle of a moral leader, then damn it, we have to be moral.

We very rarely torture people, and when we do it's justified. Sure, there are isolated cases of soldiers taking the law into their own hands and torturing people for little reason, but that's not the rule, it's the exception. If a terrorist hid a nuclear bomb in NYC that you knew was going to detonate in an hour, would you be justified in torturing the terrorist until he told you its location? I would consider torturing one person to save the lives of innocent civilians to be moral.

I'd make it a priority to become self sufficient in terms of energy.

And I'd like the world to be a peaceful place where unicorns frolic in the fields. How are we supposed to become self-sufficient? We gobble up a lot of energy and very little of our energy comes from reusable energy. We can't just switch from oil to solar in a matter of years. It's going to take a long, long time, but we're on that road already.

I'd establish fair trade as opposed to free trade. We wouldn't do business with countries that violate labor or environmental standards. That would help raise the standard of living in places that are the breeding grounds for extremists.

Fair trade ends up hurting somebody, be it the consumer who is forced to pay more than the market value of goods or the producer who suffers from decreased demand brought on by increased prices. We already have fair trade products if you wish to purchase them. Solely depending on free trade is damaging to the economy. Anyway, are you saying that bin Laden is poor and that's why he's an extremist?

And I'd use the economic power of the US as a bully pulpit for human rights. If you subjugate women, you don't do business with the US

So they'll do more business with other countries and the US will be left in the dust, without having accomplished a thing except hurting the economy.

I'm not saying that we should refute terror as a strategy, but that we should make the strategy have no effect. For example, you can combat pincer movements by developing a plan which effectively renders the obsolete. Likewise, you can combat terror by taking measures to make sure that it is a failed strategy. Which is what my points below set out to do.



That is more or less an impractical goal. Our border with Canada is extremely long -- it would be damn near impossible to make sure that no terrorists get through that border. They may come into the US with dynamite strapped to their chest, just waiting for the perfect target, and we'd have no way of knowing. However, I agree with strengthening port security, airline security, etc., in general. But the Canadian border is a glaring loophole, and I'm sure the Canadian government would let potential terrorists into their country in the name of civil rights. The border with Mexico, on the other hand, is easier to be enforced and should be enforced -- if illegal immigrants can get in, terrorists can also get it. We need to stop both.Nice slander. Don't forget--the 9/11 attackers came into this country legally, even though some of them were on watch lists. That's the kind of border hardening we have to do. Building a fence across the Mexican border will do precious little to stop terrorists if we're letting them into the country on visas.



We very rarely torture people, and when we do it's justified. Sure, there are isolated cases of soldiers taking the law into their own hands and torturing people for little reason, but that's not the rule, it's the exception. If a terrorist hid a nuclear bomb in NYC that you knew was going to detonate in an hour, would you be justified in torturing the terrorist until he told you its location? I would consider torturing one person to save the lives of innocent civilians to be moral. Torture is not only never justified, it doesn't work. All we've gotten out of torturing people--and make no mistake, we're torturing them or the recent Senate bill wouldn't backdate the legitimizing of these techniques to 1997--is bad intel. And frankly, if we were in a situation like the one you describe, an an agent tortured a prisoner and saved the day, he'd never be prosecuted or convicted, and if he were it'd be the easiest pardon the president ever signed.



And I'd like the world to be a peaceful place where unicorns frolic in the fields. How are we supposed to become self-sufficient? We gobble up a lot of energy and very little of our energy comes from reusable energy. We can't just switch from oil to solar in a matter of years. It's going to take a long, long time, but we're on that road already.Fortunately, it's a lot more possible to become energy independent than it is for you to live in unicorn land where Bush is an able president and the Republicans don't suck. I didn't say it would be easy or immediate--I said it would be a priority, which it is not currently. And if you think we're really on the road, then you do live in the abovementioned unicorn land.



Fair trade ends up hurting somebody, be it the consumer who is forced to pay more than the market value of goods or the producer who suffers from decreased demand brought on by increased prices. We already have fair trade products if you wish to purchase them. Solely depending on free trade is damaging to the economy. Anyway, are you saying that bin Laden is poor and that's why he's an extremist?Fair trade hurts no one, unless you believe that being forced to pay a marginally higher price so that someone in another country gets to have running water in their house is a net evil. And while Bin Laden is not poor, he does his best recruiting among the economically disadvantaged and exploited.



So they'll do more business with other countries and the US will be left in the dust, without having accomplished a thing except hurting the economy.
As long as the US remains the largest consumer of goods, we can force the hands of other countries to reform their policies. We won't, because corporate America refuses to do so, but we could, and that's my point.

Nuclear enrichment =/= nukes.

And how many leaders do you know that don't go into hyperbole, bullshit and rethoric to get their countrymen on side?

Funny thing is, is Iranians are actually asking the us of help to get rid of their oppesive government.

I agree. I'd even argue that the world would be a lot safer with no nuclear weapons at all.

I'd actually would agree with that statement.

Well, worked in NI. Helped between PLO/Israel and Uganda/LRA. Is bombing the crap out of each other having any progress in Afghanistan, Iraq, against Al-Quieda and between Israel/Hamas? Thought not.

The Taliban is no longer in charge and al-queda has been split apart. So I'd say yes.

What are you suggesting? Nuking Paris or Iran?

Nothing was said about bomping Paris, I simply said to ship the failed UN over there. I do admit, I should have seperated the two with a period. Yes, I also admit bombing Iran doesn't sound half bad.

No. Unstable Middle East = Invasion/Occupation.

Is a Free people really all that bad? I'm sure that if a legitimate poll could be taken of the entire mid-east that a majority would want to live more like the "West" meaning freedom of choices, freedom of speech, the right to go to school, etc... Again, I ask is being a Free People all that bad?

Yes. The sky will fall down. The cows will go dry. Earthquakes, tsunamis will swallow up the west. Or, it might be no different to Israel, India and Pakistan having nukes and everyone just accepts it.

LOL...Don't you wish "swallow up the west" Pakistan, I will give an "E" for effort. They're trying to do better and as for India, yes they have nukes but they don't seem to be bothering Israel to bad either.

Weakest argument for anything, ever! In the same of Israeli self-defense Israel could attack Iran because Iran could develop same weapons as Israel. It's no wonder they are opting for nuclear technology, peaceful or not.

Israel hasn't nuked anybody, but being surrounded by islamist extremeist it's a good thing they do have the weapons to defend themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that Israel won't be the first to nuke anybody. I will also guarantee you that if a Nuke does fly, Israel will defend itself and they will have the USA to back it up 100%

Well, they can bomb nuclear power stations in Iraq so why not Iran? I mean, noone would care if Iran bombed a power station in the US so why not stop Israel doing it to Iran?

You truly don't make that much sense. Why am I bothering?

Funny thing is, is Iranians are actually asking the us of help to get rid of their oppesive government.
No. Answer my point. What government doesn't go into hyperbole and rethoric to try and get its citizens on board.
The Taliban is no longer in charge and al-queda has been split apart. So I'd say yes.
Al-Quieda have more support than ever before, and even the US government admits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5375064.stm) it. And we don't need leaked reports to know that. And Afghanistan hasn't been 'won', or we wouldn't have soldiers dying daily.
Nothing was said about bomping Paris, I simply said to ship the failed UN over there. I do admit, I should have seperated the two with a period. Yes, I also admit bombing Iran doesn't sound half bad.
Well, I wouldn't mind having the UN in Europe. I'm quite sure the French would love the commercial benefits from having top diplomats staying over every week.
Is a Free people really all that bad? I'm sure that if a legitimate poll could be taken of the entire mid-east that a majority would want to live more like the "West" meaning freedom of choices, freedom of speech, the right to go to school, etc... Again, I ask is being a Free People all that bad?
Since you really are quite think, I'm going to give you a little example of a country which the west 'liberated'. Type "Iraq" into wiki/google. Watch the news. Read a 'paper. Look how stable this 'liberated' country is. Yes, I'd love to end every dictatorship in the world. But, as you might find, the world isn't as simple as that.
LOL...Don't you wish "swallow up the west" Pakistan, I will give an "E" for effort. They're trying to do better and as for India, yes they have nukes but they don't seem to be bothering Israel to bad either.
So, if the UK or France disagreed with Israeli foreign policy, we wouldn't be 'allowed' nukes either? Which, I might add, Iran DOESN'T have.
Israel hasn't nuked anybody, but being surrounded by islamist extremeist it's a good thing they do have the weapons to defend themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that Israel won't be the first to nuke anybody. I will also guarantee you that if a Nuke does fly, Israel will defend itself and they will have the USA to back it up 100%

You said, I quote "Honestly, I think Israel would blast them before the US has a chance to get into place. Israel, regardless of what anyone tells them, will not stand by and do nothing while Tehran finishes the final touches to its nukes programs." In other words, Israel would, in your opinion, strike first before Iran developed nukes. And then you go on and say they wouldn't strike first. So which is it?

Finally, although I answered all your points, numbers 1, 3,4 and 5 were just hyperbole which had very little to do with what I actually said, if at all.

For starters, I'd say that you can't combat terrorism any more than you can combat sneak attacks or pincer movements. Terror is a weapon, a tactic, a trategy. It is not a thing that can be combatted.

As to fighting terrorists, however, I'd start by hardening the borders of the US. Port security, airline security, a working INS that actually keeps track of who comes into the country and where they go. Government can work, but you have to want it to work, and that's why today's conservatives are such horrible administrators--they want it to fail.

I'd stop torturing people in the name of some bullshit higher goal. Torture is never justified. If we're going to claim the mantle of a moral leader, then damn it, we have to be moral.

I'd make it a priority to become self sufficient in terms of energy. We've got to stop depending on others for our energy sources, because it's an uneven alliance. We can't slap Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses because we owe them money and need their oil. Same for China, only it's their cheaply made products and that we owe them money. That list is a mile long, and it all comes back to energy independence.

I'd establish fair trade as opposed to free trade. We wouldn't do business with countries that violate labor or environmental standards. That would help raise the standard of living in places that are the breeding grounds for extremists.

I'd stop using this bullshit rhetoric of a clash of civilizations. It only empowers the extremists of all sides.

And I'd use the economic power of the US as a bully pulpit for human rights. If you subjugate women, you don't do business with the US--and none of this putting subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands to get around the law like Halliburton does with Iran. You do business in the US or you do business in countries that subjugate women, but you don't do both. Same for gay rights, the right to choose, and rights to things like religious freedom, free speech, free press, and all that other good shit.

That's my ideal plan. It would never happen, but that's what I'd like to see.

When are you running for president? Seriously.

When are you running for president? Seriously.
Never happen. Some people have skeletons in their closets. I have a cemetary.

<snip>

We very rarely torture people, and when we do it's justified.

<snip>

Osama! Where have you been hiding all this time?

This one remark invalidates everything else you said in that post. Such a glib, shallow, self-serving dismissal/acceptance of one of the most heinous crimes a state can commit against an individual is simply breathtaking.

For the record:

1) "Very rarely" is 100% too often.

2) Torture is never -- repeat, NEVER -- justified for anyone or by any circumstance. And before you trot out that old fairy tale about the terrorist prisoner who knows where the suitcase nuke is right now, let me tell you that even that scenario would not justify torture. Let's say you were Keifer Sutherland in "24" and you decided to torture your prisoner and you got the nuke and saved America from the big boom. I would then expect you to march yourself right into prison to serve your time for having tortured a human being. I'm sure the courts would show some leniency, but you'd better do some time, regardless. It's a matter of principle.

3) Like The Nazz said, torture does not work. Like the CIA says, torture does not work. Like JAG says, torture does not work. Like survivors of torture say, torture does not work. Torture will not give you useable information. It will give you only desperate lies. Torture will not make your enemies fear you. It will make them hate you even more and will justify their revenge against you. Give it up already with this sick torture fixation.

Never happen. Some people have skeletons in their closets. I have a cemetary.

That just means you'd have to be constantly on the attack during the election. Getting a second term might present some issues...