NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I was recently accused of "fear mongering" in regards to Iran, :eek: I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback regarding this compilation:

Bush Republican Fear-Mongering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83XcGFIBmxY)

Mind boggling?

The video just blows it out of proportion then what it actually is.

The video just blows it out of proportion then what it actually is.
I don't believe so. I remembering reading some transcripts and they were laced with the "fear factor". One example below where Bush uses the word terror 32 times, Hussein 23 times, threat 12 times, chemical 12 times, nuclear 20 times, etc.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Or, as in the following example, Bush uses the word terror 35 times:

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/)

The video just blows it out of proportion then what it actually is.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. However if you get a transcript and highlight the various terms, its clear that they're ramming it home like a porno movie.

I'd like to see a good vid of all the various stories the "liberal" media has put out of all the various ways the terrorists are going to kill us all and how we should be very very afraid.

The video just blows it out of proportion then what it actually is.

Yeah, if the backgrounds changed or the bug was different, but as it is, it shows it for exactly what it is.

There were quite a few BBC news stories last week, as well as one or two newspaper articles, that were reporting this kind of thing. Most of them concerned Rumsfeld and his time in office, and the content of a number of memos that placed great significance on forging links in the public consciousness between 9/11 and Iraq, between Iraq and Iran etc etc. They also included allusions to how important it was for the authorities to maintain a 'state of fear' in the population.

I was initially horrified at the blatant manipulation of the public psyche that they represented, but then my normal apathy reasserted itself. It's par for the course for politicians to exaggerate, dissemble or outright lie in order to achieve whatever their short term goals might be.

It's just propaganda, and anyone who can't see that it goes on in all of our nations and is being prepetrated by all of our leaders is, I'm afraid to say, simply blind to it.

Call it fear-mongering but i remember back in 1979 when Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran goes nuclear, chances are good they will use them on Israel or the USA. If a pre-emptive strike or an open war is need to stop this, so be it.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Call it fear-mongering but i remember back in 1979 when Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran goes nuclear, chances are good they will use them on Israel or the USA. If a pre-emptive strike or an open war is need to stop this, so be it.



Why did they take American hostages?

Call it fear-mongering but i remember back in 1979 when Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran goes nuclear, chances are good they will use them on Israel or the USA. If a pre-emptive strike or an open war is need to stop this, so be it.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

No, that's highly unlikely. In this day and age, having a nuke or two simply means you're safe from invasion (by the United States). Iran knows that if they start nuking other places, they're going to get blown apart. There's no way they would take that risk, unless pressed into a corner.

Call it fear-mongering but i remember back in 1979 when Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran goes nuclear, chances are good they will use them on Israel or the USA. If a pre-emptive strike or an open war is need to stop this, so be it.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

What I want to know is, where are we going to find some good men?

"September 11 for president! Yeehaw!"

Oh, move on, already...

No, that's highly unlikely. In this day and age, having a nuke or two simply means you're safe from invasion (by the United States). Iran knows that if they start nuking other places, they're going to get blown apart. There's no way they would take that risk, unless pressed into a corner.
I agree. I don't see Iran risking nuclear anihilation by dropping a couple of nukes on Israel.

Ultimately, the best solution would be for the world superpowers to enforce a zero tolerance for nuclear weapons in the ENTIRE Middle East. However, we know that is not about to happen anytime soon.

No, that's highly unlikely. In this day and age, having a nuke or two simply means you're safe from invasion (by the United States). Iran knows that if they start nuking other places, they're going to get blown apart. There's no way they would take that risk, unless pressed into a corner.
Exactly, how much saber rattling does the US aim at North Korea? Not even a fraction of that being aimed at Iran. Iran, and any other country lead by some one with more than two braincells, knows that the best way to protect themselves (especially against the US) is to join in on the MAD game as soon as possible.

No, that's highly unlikely. In this day and age, having a nuke or two simply means you're safe from invasion (by the United States). Iran knows that if they start nuking other places, they're going to get blown apart. There's no way they would take that risk, unless pressed into a corner.

QFT

Once again, Canuck, I accused you of fear mongering regarding the possibility of war with Iran, because that is precisely what you are doing, and committing a foolish tu quoque fallacy, and linking to a three year old video, and news articles even older than that, is not going to relieve you of the truth of this charge. I provided evidence that throughout the history of this forum there have been repeated claims that an Iran War was imminent, and there has yet to be any such war, and that there will be no such war. Is Bush fear mongering? Likely, yes, but his goal is not a war with Iran. It's built around the development of sufficient political will and international pressure to force Iran to fold on the issue of nuclear technology.

Instead, you are acting exactly like the Bush administration, especially during the leadup to the Iraq war. You're linking to ancient video and articles that link to the Iraq War leadup, as evidence that there's a leadup to a war with Iran. Just like the Bush administration used the September Eleventh attacks as to convince people to support the Iraq War. In both instances obfuscation is being utilized to scare people to get them to agree with the argument being made.

Furthermore, you're relying on people's prejudged opinions about a world leader, and the actions that people expect him to take. George Bush has earned a reputation as a trigger happy cowboy, just like Saddam Hussein had earned a reputation as a power-hungry dictator with the end-goal of regional domination through possession of a nuclear weapon. Are both images earned? Yes, to a degree they are, but in both cases there have been substantial changes in the circumstances under which both must operate, making their past histories nigh irrelevant. But in both cases we are looking at, Iraqi WMD's in 2003 and an Iran War in 2007-2008, these preconceived notions do not permit us to see an accurate picture.

There is absolutely no evidence that the United States is preparing to move against Iran. None of the military signs of preparation are present, none of the international political signs are present and the optimal casus belli situations that have been present twice since 2004 have been acted upon by the US. Nor are the circumstances with Iran even remotely considered reasonable for military action of any sort.

By god man, you're fear mongering just a surely as George Bush was (and likely is) fear mongering.

Once again, Canuck, I accused you of fear mongering regarding the possibility of war with Iran, because that is precisely what you are doing, and committing a foolish tu quoque fallacy, and linking to a three year old video, and news articles even older than that, is not going to relieve you of the truth of this charge. I provided evidence that throughout the history of this forum there have been repeated claims that an Iran War was imminent, and there has yet to be any such war, and that there will be no such war. Is Bush fear mongering? Likely, yes, but his goal is not a war with Iran. It's built around the development of sufficient political will and international pressure to force Iran to fold on the issue of nuclear technology.

Well said Andaluciae

Instead, you are acting exactly like the Bush administration, especially during the leadup to the Iraq war. You're linking to ancient video and articles that link to the Iraq War leadup, as evidence that there's a leadup to a war with Iran. Just like the Bush administration used the September Eleventh attacks as to convince people to support the Iraq War. In both instances obfuscation is being utilized to scare people to get them to agree with the argument being made.

Ouch!!

Furthermore, you're relying on people's prejudged opinions about a world leader, and the actions that people expect him to take. George Bush has earned a reputation as a trigger happy cowboy, just like Saddam Hussein had earned a reputation as a power-hungry dictator with the end-goal of regional domination through possession of a nuclear weapon. Are both images earned? Yes, to a degree they are, but in both cases there have been substantial changes in the circumstances under which both must operate, making their past histories nigh irrelevant. But in both cases we are looking at, Iraqi WMD's in 2003 and an Iran War in 2007-2008, these preconceived notions do not permit us to see an accurate picture.

Indeed.

There is absolutely no evidence that the United States is preparing to move against Iran. None of the military signs of preparation are present, none of the international political signs are present and the optimal casus belli situations that have been present twice since 2004 have been acted upon by the US. Nor are the circumstances with Iran even remotely considered reasonable for military action of any sort.

Could not have said it better myself.

By god man, you're fear mongering just a surely as George Bush was (and likely is) fear mongering.

Down goes CH! Down goes CH!

Exactly, how much saber rattling does the US aim at North Korea? Not even a fraction of that being aimed at Iran. Iran, and any other country lead by some one with more than two braincells, knows that the best way to protect themselves (especially against the US) is to join in on the MAD game as soon as possible.

Except the Iranian goal is not to achieve a MAD balance, a fact that is evidenced by the responses of its neighbors. Increases in the striking capacity of the Israeli nuclear arsenal, aggressive and highly successful nuclear programs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordanian military investment all provide signs of regional concern about what Iran will do with a nuclear weapon.

They will use it as a tool of regional influence, to blackmail and challenge the Arab states and the traditional regional power balance. It's traditional Persian imperialism, much like what we witnessed under the Shah. This and the growth of the Iranian alliance with Syria, combined with the growth of the IRGI and the Al Quds force, and their increasing activity abroad, we see that Iran is moving to be able to increase its ability to exercise influence abroad. It's trying to become a regional hegemon, and to change the traditional balances of power.

The real danger is that we'll have a fractured region coalesce a dualist Middle East, with two sides armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons, and a turbulent buffer zone in Iraq, where an unfortunate spark could ignite a powderkeg. What the United States and Europe don't want is this to be the case, which is why there is "fearmongering". We want to create a sufficient degree of pressure to keep this from happening.

As a disclaimer: I absolutely loathe the concept of a war with Iran, and I would participate in protests if one were to occur, because not only is such a thing inhumane, but also extremely unwise. Further, the political will does not exist for such a war, and the actual material capacity for such a war is likely unavailable. Fortunately, I am convinced that there will not be a war, and that's why I charge Canuck with fear mongering.

I feel that Canuck is using the Iraq War like the Bush administration has used the September Eleventh attacks, and I am bothered.

The last thing anyone wants is Iran getting Nuclear Weapons.

The only way there will be a war with Iran is if they start it.

Well said Andaluciae

Ouch!!

Indeed.

Could not have said it better myself.

Down goes CH! Down goes CH!

You've got some brown on your nose.

You've got some brown on your nose.

Nowhere near as much as everyone else in this thread has on theirs.

Nowhere near as much as everyone else in this thread has on theirs.
I might just be a little slow today, but that makes no sense to me...

You've got some brown on your nose.

I'm not going around saying that there is going to be a war with Iran. Just the opposite.

I'm not going around saying that there is going to be a war with Iran. Just the opposite.

Don't you try and change the subject now.

Don't you try and change the subject now.

Whose changing the subject? Not me.

Whose changing the subject? Not me.

Considering a war with Iran is not the subject of this thread?

Considering a war with Iran is not the subject of this thread?

Considering this is about fear-mongering, it sure as hell has everything to do with the thread.

Considering this is about fear-mongering, it sure as hell has everything to do with the thread.


Firstly, this is about Republican fear-mongers in the United States, not Iran. Secondly, you weren't even talking about Iran. You just made a silly little post to suck up to Andaluciae and are now trying to turn this into an argument about who said what. Forget it.

Firstly, this is about Republican fear-mongers in the United States, not Iran. Secondly, you weren't even talking about Iran. You just made a silly little post to suck up to Andaluciae and are now trying to turn this into an argument about who said what. Forget it.

Actually... if you follow my quotes, you would see that 1) I've challenged CanuckHeaven in numerous threads when he says that the US is on the road to war with Iran. I told him that there will not be a war and he pulls this out of his pocket which is fear mongering in and of itself. 2) Andaluciae pointed this out to him several times and eachtime he ignores it so yes..I'm back Andaluciae on this because he's right and CH is wrong.

Comprende?

combined with the growth of the IRGI and the Al Quds force, and their increasing activity abroad,
Like in their invasion of Luxembourg? :rolleyes:

Like in their invasion of Luxembourg? :rolleyes:

They've invaded Luxembourg? Quick. Someone notify the American 3rd Army. We gotta defend General Patton's Grave.

Actually... if you follow my quotes, you would see that 1) I've challenged CanuckHeaven in numerous threads when he says that the US is on the road to war with Iran. I told him that there will not be a war and he pulls this out of his pocket which is fear mongering in and of itself. 2) Andaluciae pointed this out to him several times and eachtime he ignores it so yes..I'm back Andaluciae on this because he's right and CH is wrong.

Comprende?

Actually, I haven't monitored your quotes in other threads. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

EDIT: And for that matter, your other posts don't matter. I'm talking about this thread and your little suck-up episode with it.

Actually, I haven't monitored your quotes in other threads. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

EDIT: And for that matter, your other posts don't matter. I'm talking about this thread and your little suck-up episode with it.

So its a suck up if I agree with him eh?

Blame Canada!

Blame Canada!

LOL!! Gotta love the South Park Movie

So its a suck up if I agree with him eh?

If you do it your way, then yes. Now I'm going to get something to eat. You could do with a tissue.

Actually, I haven't monitored your quotes in other threads. Sorry to burst your little bubble.



Well, given that this thread was started in response to the fact that I've challenged Canuck with the charge that he's fearmongering as to the likelihood of a war with Iran, I feel that the discussion of that likelihood is entirely germaine.

Well, given that this thread was started in response to the fact that I've challenged Canuck with the charge that he's fearmongering as to the likelihood of a war with Iran, I feel that the discussion of that likelihood is entirely germaine.

HAHA!

Considering this is about fear-mongering, it sure as hell has everything to do with the thread.

I said something similiar.

Call it fear-mongering but i remember back in 1979 when Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran goes nuclear, chances are good they will use them on Israel or the USA. If a pre-emptive strike or an open war is need to stop this, so be it.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

This would be suicide for Iran as a nation, so not likely unless they want a vast majority of their population to die. The issue here is the propaganda used to sell the war. It's the same rhetoric and (insert enemy here) bullshit.

This would be suicide for Iran as a nation, so not likely unless they want a vast majority of their population to die. The issue here is the propaganda used to sell the war. It's the same rhetoric and (insert enemy here) bullshit.

And I'm arguing that it's not being used to sell a war with Iran, which would be costly, dangerous, inhumane and expensive. No, this sort of rhetoric is designed to develop the political will and influence required to pressure Iran away from a nuclear weapons program, as the regional results of a nuclear Iran would be devastating, even without a war or the detonation of a nuclear bomb.

Once again, Canuck, I accused you of fear mongering regarding the possibility of war with Iran, because that is precisely what you are doing, and committing a foolish tu quoque fallacy, and linking to a three year old video, and news articles even older than that, is not going to relieve you of the truth of this charge. I provided evidence that throughout the history of this forum there have been repeated claims that an Iran War was imminent, and there has yet to be any such war, and that there will be no such war. Is Bush fear mongering? Likely, yes, but his goal is not a war with Iran. It's built around the development of sufficient political will and international pressure to force Iran to fold on the issue of nuclear technology.

Instead, you are acting exactly like the Bush administration, especially during the leadup to the Iraq war. You're linking to ancient video and articles that link to the Iraq War leadup, as evidence that there's a leadup to a war with Iran. Just like the Bush administration used the September Eleventh attacks as to convince people to support the Iraq War. In both instances obfuscation is being utilized to scare people to get them to agree with the argument being made.

Furthermore, you're relying on people's prejudged opinions about a world leader, and the actions that people expect him to take. George Bush has earned a reputation as a trigger happy cowboy, just like Saddam Hussein had earned a reputation as a power-hungry dictator with the end-goal of regional domination through possession of a nuclear weapon. Are both images earned? Yes, to a degree they are, but in both cases there have been substantial changes in the circumstances under which both must operate, making their past histories nigh irrelevant. But in both cases we are looking at, Iraqi WMD's in 2003 and an Iran War in 2007-2008, these preconceived notions do not permit us to see an accurate picture.

There is absolutely no evidence that the United States is preparing to move against Iran. None of the military signs of preparation are present, none of the international political signs are present and the optimal casus belli situations that have been present twice since 2004 have been acted upon by the US. Nor are the circumstances with Iran even remotely considered reasonable for military action of any sort.

By god man, you're fear mongering just a surely as George Bush was (and likely is) fear mongering.
"Absolutely no evidence that the United States is preparing to move against Iran."??

Tehran insider tells of US black ops (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html)

The Redirection (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh)

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html)

And what will be the weapon of choice? The Nuclear Bunker Buster (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html)?

Since Bush is using the same terminology about Iran as was used against Iraq, why should we not be concerned?

And what about this concern?:

Al-Qaeda spark for an Iran-US fire (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF07Ak04.html)

After revelations of a US administration policy to hold Iran responsible for any al-Qaeda attack on the United States that could be portrayed as planned on Iranian soil, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned last week that Washington might use such an incident as a pretext to bomb Iran.
Who in their right mind would expect Bush to do the right thing?

The Republicans have used "fear mongering" to the highest degree to carry out their plans. Recent speeches by Bush doesn't do anything to allay fears that Bush WILL do the wrong thing once again.

"Absolutely no evidence that the United States is preparing to move against Iran."??

Absolutely none.

Tehran insider tells of US black ops (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html)

The Redirection (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh)



The First article is predicated on the second article, and Mr. Hersh's history on the issue is extremely questionable. He's made the claim that the US is operating inside Iran for some time, yet his sources remain anonymous after all of this time. Seymour Hersh has severe credibility issues with regards to the middle east, and especially Iran.

I would argue that Hersh has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources.

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html)

Pre-election and pre-Gates information regarding the Pentagon is seriously outdated, as the political climate in Washington has radically shifted, while the management and strategic philosophy of those in charge of the Pentagon has shifted even more radically. The neo-conservative scoundrels are out, and the realists are back in.

And what will be the weapon of choice? The Nuclear Bunker Buster (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html)?

A truly extraordinary claim, given that nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945, and the taboo against their use remains unbroken.

Since Bush is using the same terminology about Iran as was used against Iraq, why should we not be concerned?

Because he also used the same terminology with regards to North Korea, and they've gone much further down the road to a nuclear arsenal than the Iranians.

And what about this concern?:

Al-Qaeda spark for an Iran-US fire (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF07Ak04.html)

Mere speculation without even the tiniest hint of evidence. In fact, at one point the article makes the claim that such an al-Qaeda attack would be centered around trying to convince the US that it was carried out by the IRGC, or Al Quds or whoever.


Who in their right mind would expect Bush to do the right thing?

The Republicans have used "fear mongering" to the highest degree to carry out their plans. Recent speeches by Bush doesn't do anything to allay fears that Bush WILL do the wrong thing once again.

It doesn't matter what Bush wants to do, it matters what he is capable of doing, and launching a war against Iran is not such a thing. As you have posted previously, much of the military leadership would resign in the event of receiving orders to launch a war against Iran. Our military capacity is not currently capable to even keep up troop levels in Iraq, and the international and Congressional ill will that a war with Iran would garner would be insurmountable.

Not only that, but the US and Iran are cooperating on several key issues, especially those concerning Iraq and the Kurds. For example, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of advanced Iranian made weapons crossing into Southern Iraq, and there are increasing Iranian offers to help mediate the issues that exist between the Turks and the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The strength of the domestic Iranian opposition, as well, makes it far less likely that we'd engage in military action against Iran. Military action would polarize these liberal groups in a nationalistic fervor, and eliminate their utility to the United States as agents of civil change in society.

they're ramming it home like a porno movie.
http://www.celebritybuttplugs.com/products.html
Ramming it home, indeed. Catapulting, even.
See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

And I'm arguing that it's not being used to sell a war with Iran, which would be costly, dangerous, inhumane and expensive. No, this sort of rhetoric is designed to develop the political will and influence required to pressure Iran away from a nuclear weapons program, as the regional results of a nuclear Iran would be devastating, even without a war or the detonation of a nuclear bomb.

Sir,
I'm not disagreeing with you and my comments were meant for another poster. While I'd like to believe your hypothesis to be the case it may not be true as past practice serves us correctly. War with Iran would be costly, stupid, and cause further damage to our military men and women as well as our stature abroad. Perhaps our leadership is trying to stop a war by the "holy S it's going to come down to war" plan. Forgive us if we worry about the choices which may be made on our behalf because of the idiotic way these decisions have been made before. After you've been burned a few times it's hard for you to touch that burner again.

Forgive us if we worry about the choices which may be made on our behalf because of the idiotic way these decisions have been made before. After you've been burned a few times it's hard for you to touch that burner again.
Exactly my concern, and perhaps that of most others around the world.

Exactly my concern, and perhaps that of most others around the world.

And when I prove right in my assertion that the Bush administration is not planning an imminent (read: not hypothetical) war with Iran?

I love the double standard, though.

When the President of Iran talks about wiping Israel off of the map, that's not what he's really saying. When the President of the United States talks about widely held concerns about what could happen in the Middle East if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it's warmongering.

I mean, yeah, Bush is a sack of crap, sure, but some people here hold the most bizarre double standards when regarding US politicians and leaders from the third world.

I think that "fear mongering" is great. If you can motivate an otherwise apathetic public on the basis of fear to make a decision that they otherwise would not make, I am not so sure that this is a bad thing. I think Bush should do more of it. For example, Bush has a wonderful concept that I am sure even most Bush bashers can agree with. I am referring to The Ownership Society principle. Bush and his administration recognize that US citizens on average are not saving and investing enough for retirement and other financial needs. I think most financially minded folks who read articles on this topic would agree with him on this point.

Unfortunately, Dick Cheney encouraging people to save in speeches and a few minor innovations for tax deferred savings vehicles for medical expenses and college costs are not enough to motivate folks to go out there and save and invest instead of going crazy with the credit cards. What we need is to get these people afraid of not having the investments to support them in retirement. One of the important roles of the president is to educate the public about the problems that he wants to use government action or inaction to solve. FDR and Reagan were pretty good at this. I am not so sure that GWB is doing as well at this.

What we need is to get these people afraid of not having the investments to support them in retirement. One of the important roles of the president is to educate the public about the problems that he wants to use government action or inaction to solve. FDR and Reagan were pretty good at this. I am not so sure that GWB is doing as well at this.
Then surely we need to educate better, rather than resort to scaremongering?

Instilling fear in the populace is usually done through lies and propaganda; a better policy, I submit, would be to make people clearly aware of the threat of no financial security in old age.

Just because GWB is crap at something, doesn't mean said thing is necessarily bad.

I love the double standard, though.

When the President of Iran talks about wiping Israel off of the map, that's not what he's really saying. When the President of the United States talks about widely held concerns about what could happen in the Middle East if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it's warmongering.

I mean, yeah, Bush is a sack of crap, sure, but some people here hold the most bizarre double standards when regarding US politicians and leaders from the third world.
The problem with your "double standard" claim is that it doesn't really apply to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Perhaps the leader of Iran talks a lot, but when was the last time that Iran actually invaded another country? When was Bush responsible for invading another country and/or ordering bombs dropped?

And it is not as if the US has never interfered with the political situation in Iran?

And when I prove right in my assertion that the Bush administration is not planning an imminent (read: not hypothetical) war with Iran?
And when were you going to prove that?

And when were you going to prove that?

Well, there are several useful criteria:

-First is the readiness state of United States Military in the region. In the event of even an air strike against Iran we would see the deployment of at least three Carrier Battle Groups, but most likely five.

-We would see a radical troop increase in Iraq, likely to the tune of 100,000 fresh American troops, likely from the National Guard.

-We would see an American retrenchment in Iraq, relocating troops primarily into the Sunni provinces, where the newly formed alliances with local militia would provide a substantial amount of local auxiliary support.

-We would see the mass call-up of the Israeli military, and deployment of large offensive formations to the Golan and the border with Lebanon.

-

Since I was recently accused of "fear mongering" in regards to Iran, :eek: I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback regarding this compilation:

Bush Republican Fear-Mongering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83XcGFIBmxY)

Mind boggling?

Someone should make a techno rap out of that. "Saddam-Saddam-Saddam Hussein." lol

I love the double standard, though.

When the President of Iran talks about wiping Israel off of the map, that's not what he's really saying. When the President of the United States talks about widely held concerns about what could happen in the Middle East if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it's warmongering.

It sucks doesn't it? I think it can also be considered hypocracy to.

Someone should make a techno rap out of that. "Saddam-Saddam-Saddam Hussein." lol
I think there was some familiarity with a recognized tune there, but I cannot quite peg it at this time.

Well, there are several useful criteria:

-First is the readiness state of United States Military in the region. In the event of even an air strike against Iran we would see the deployment of at least three Carrier Battle Groups, but most likely five.

-We would see a radical troop increase in Iraq, likely to the tune of 100,000 fresh American troops, likely from the National Guard.

-We would see an American retrenchment in Iraq, relocating troops primarily into the Sunni provinces, where the newly formed alliances with local militia would provide a substantial amount of local auxiliary support.

-We would see the mass call-up of the Israeli military, and deployment of large offensive formations to the Golan and the border with Lebanon.

-
But then you read comments such as the following that keeps one thinking that anything is possible:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews summed up the situation : “I keep hearing from people on the right—Robert Kagen and Bill Kristol, the guys who are the most hawkish and the most articulate in making their case and they may be right—that at the end of this administration, this hawkish administration—that was willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan—if this president is not willing to knock out those facilities no future president is likely to do it. We’ll be stuck with a nuclear armed Iran which can rant and rave around that region, threatening Israel, Saudi and everybody else. And we’ll be stuck with it. So their argument is try the diplomatic route, try everything but in the end we have to hit ‘em.”

But then you read comments such as the following that keeps one thinking that anything is possible:

And Chris Matthews is a commentator for a TV News station.

Then surely we need to educate better, rather than resort to scaremongering?

Instilling fear in the populace is usually done through lies and propaganda; a better policy, I submit, would be to make people clearly aware of the threat of no financial security in old age.

Just because GWB is crap at something, doesn't mean said thing is necessarily bad.

I certainly do not think that our government should be in the business of lying to its citizens. I do think that the only way people will change from reckless behavior is to "scare them straight". Education should have an element of "fear-mongering" to it when the topic is about convincing people to recognize the foolishness of self-destructive behavior.

Fear mongering can motivate folks to back good policy. Let's look at Iraq for example. For about a decade there were many times when Iraqi missles would be launched at American and allied planes enforcing the no fly zone. You would hope that one nation ever firing on our military would result in a prompt declaration of war, but that was never our response. We had an assassination attempt on a former President and there was no major retalliation, it finally took the fear that Saddam was develloping weapons of mass destruction by his failure to cooperate with UNSCOM for there to be a "last straw" leading to war and the removal of a very bad man from the dictatorship of Iraq.

The problem with your "double standard" claim is that it doesn't really apply to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Perhaps the leader of Iran talks a lot, but when was the last time that Iran actually invaded another country? When was Bush responsible for invading another country and/or ordering bombs dropped?

And it is not as if the US has never interfered with the political situation in Iran?

America does not do a whole lot of invading. Sometimes we liberate the oppressed but we do not do a whole bunch of invading. Since when was it inherently a bad thing to order bombs to be dropped? Bombing bad guys in a time of war is not a bad thing to do, it is actually sort of required by one's duty as commander in chief if the situation warrants?

wanna keep the crowds under control? use a little fear tactic. this was also done during world war II, posters were issued to keep everyone on the same page and afraid. boo hoo. what the admin is doing is nothing new, the bad thing is that they are soooo transparent, you would have to be pretty dense not to see it and even denser to believe it. the agenda is control and greed, not necessarily in that order. think about it, you getting rich off the oil and contractors overseas (nooooooo), do you live in the hamptons like rummy and cheney (noooooo), do you have lifetime financial security, bodyguards, do you live a in gated community (hahahahaha - hell no). who benefits from this fear mongering and saber rattling. not any of you average citizen joe.
anyone not think the iraqi invasion was a diversion! look the turks are going after the kurds and we are stuck in the mud like merde, was there ever a contingency plan, an exit strategy? nah, bush is spending away like a drunken sailor and no one, NOT EVEN CONGRESS or the SUPREME COURT has the cajones to say STOP. tirade over.

America does not do a whole lot of invading. Sometimes we liberate the oppressed but we do not do a whole bunch of invading. Since when was it inherently a bad thing to order bombs to be dropped? Bombing bad guys in a time of war is not a bad thing to do, it is actually sort of required by one's duty as commander in chief if the situation warrants?
Nope, not a "whole lot of invading", and not too many bombs dropped. :rolleyes:

VICTIMS OF UNITED STATES INVASIONS (http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/victims.htm)

Reality check is in order?

I certainly do not think that our government should be in the business of lying to its citizens.
Amen to that!!

I do think that the only way people will change from reckless behavior is to "scare them straight". Education should have an element of "fear-mongering" to it when the topic is about convincing people to recognize the foolishness of self-destructive behavior.
However, the "fear-mongering" of the Bush Republicans is in essence contributing to the "foolishness of self-destructive behavior"?

Fear mongering can motivate folks to back good policy. Let's look at Iraq for example.
Iraq was "good policy"?

For about a decade there were many times when Iraqi missles would be launched at American and allied planes enforcing the no fly zone.
The "no fly zone" was not recognized by the UN and Iraq always felt that it was a violation of their sovereignity.

You would hope that one nation ever firing on our military would result in a prompt declaration of war, but that was never our response.
Iraq was defending itself?

We had an assassination attempt on a former President and there was no major retalliation, it finally took the fear that Saddam was develloping weapons of mass destruction by his failure to cooperate with UNSCOM for there to be a "last straw" leading to war and the removal of a very bad man from the dictatorship of Iraq.
Unfortunately, the "fear mongering" regarding Iraq and WMD was bogus, and the resultant invasion of Iraq has resulted in a further destabilization of the Middle East.

Nope, not a "whole lot of invading", and not too many bombs dropped. :rolleyes:

VICTIMS OF UNITED STATES INVASIONS (http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/victims.htm)

Reality check is in order?

Well, to be fair, the U.S. invades fairly infrequently; usually we fight wars by proxy.

The newest seeds of the "Bush Republican Fear-Mongering" campaign:

Rice accuses Iran of spreading extremism (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071113/pl_nm/iran_usa_rice_dc)

And on and on it goes. Spreading fear and making the case for a US invasion:

Rice reassured them of Washington's commitment to protect longtime ally Israel against threats from Tehran......

"We will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security," Rice said to applause from delegates at the meeting of the United Jewish Communities........

Rice has argued more strongly in recently weeks that success in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue will help counter what Washington sees as a growing threat from Iran on both its nuclear program and in backing groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories.

"In the rise of an aggressive Iranian regime, we see that violent extremism is evolving in new and dangerous ways -- ways that make it a threat not only to the people of one nation or one race or one religion but to everyone in the Middle East," said Rice.

"Increasingly the government of Iran is putting itself at the head of this violent extremism rising," she added.

The United States is spearheading a diplomatic campaign against Iran over its nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at building a bomb and Tehran says is for power generation.

Washington is pushing the U.N. Security Council to impose a third round of sanctions against Iran, and Washington last month slapped restrictions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as its elite Qods force.

"These sanctions help provide the teeth that our diplomacy needs to succeed," said Rice, repeating that all options, including the military one, remained on the table.

"The United States will continue to rally responsible nations everywhere to confront the dangerous policies of the dangerous Iranian government," she said.
When will the fear mongering come to an end???

I can ask you the same question. What's with all the fear-mongering CH?

I can ask you the same question. What's with all the fear-mongering CH?
The fear mongering is emanating from the Bush administration, and has been since they came to power. They used this fear mongering to get people such as yourself supporting their evil agenda. First it was Iraq, and now it is Iran. They continue to beat the same tired drum. You continue to dance.

A truly extraordinary claim, given that nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945, and the taboo against their use remains unbroken.

There's a perfectly good arguement too let Iran have nuclear weapons!

The fear mongering is emanating from the Bush administration, and has been since they came to power. They used this fear mongering to get people such as yourself supporting their evil agenda. First it was Iraq, and now it is Iran. They continue to beat the same tired drum. You continue to dance.

Oh please. You are spouting the same shit and no one is buyin it but the people who agree with you. The rational people know, like me, nothing is going to happen.

Stop with the fear mongering. It makes the children restless when adults talk about war when none is going to happen.

Since I was recently accused of "fear mongering" in regards to Iran, :eek: I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback regarding this compilation:

Bush Republican Fear-Mongering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83XcGFIBmxY)

Mind boggling?

Just because Neocons are notorious for spreading fear doesn't mean that Iran isn't a threat.

It IS possible for the repubs to be fear mongering and Iran to be dangerous at the exact same time. Believe it or not

Oh please. You are spouting the same shit and no one is buyin it but the people who agree with you. The rational people know, like me, nothing is going to happen.
No comment. :p

Stop with the fear mongering. It makes the children restless when adults talk about war when none is going to happen.
Yeah, it also makes them DEAD by the tens of thousands??? How many innocent Iraqis have died as a direct result of the Bush fear mongering campaign???? Get real Corny.

Just because Neocons are notorious for spreading fear doesn't mean that Iran isn't a threat.

It IS possible for the repubs to be fear mongering and Iran to be dangerous at the exact same time. Believe it or not
We would ask for their proof, but the last time we did, they sent Colin Powell to the UN and the rest is history????

So its a suck up if I agree with him eh?

That wasn't just agreement, that was an agree-o-gasm.

That wasn't just agreement, that was an agree-o-gasm.
Sounds kinda sticky!! :D

And Corny is addicted to staying stuck.

Oh please. You are spouting the same shit and no one is buyin it but the people who agree with you.

The only cars on the freeway are cars on the freeway.

The only people wearing shoes are people with shoes on their feet.

Sorry, I wanted to play along...