NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up
January 18, 2008

Although nukes and Iraq have been the main focus of the Bush Administration's pressure campaign against Iran, US officials also seek to tar Iran as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. And Team Bush's latest tactic is to play up a thirteen-year-old accusation that Iran was responsible for the notorious Buenos Aires bombing that destroyed the city's Jewish Community Center, known as AMIA, killing eighty-six and injuring 300, in 1994. Unnamed senior Administration officials told the Wall Street Journal January 15 that the bombing in Argentina "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationship with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies."

This propaganda campaign depends heavily on a decision last November by the General Assembly of Interpol, which voted to put five former Iranian officials and a Hezbollah leader on the international police organization's "red list" for allegedly having planned the July 1994 bombing. But the Wall Street Journal reports that it was pressure from the Bush Administration, along with Israeli and Argentine diplomats, that secured the Interpol vote. In fact, the Bush Administration's manipulation of the Argentine bombing case is perfectly in line with its long practice of using distorting and manufactured evidence to build a case against its geopolitical enemies. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter

Yes it is a long article.. because it explains in detail the investigation work of this journalist.
Its worth reading.. if you want to know what is going on.

You are a paranoid conspiracy theory nutjob.

You are a paranoid conspiracy theory nutjob.

And you are a complacent distraction.

Or do you have another function other than dissuading people away from assessing the article?

Nice job underlining the opinion of a left wing journalist. Because they said it then it must be true.
God some people are so far left they can't see right.

well, let's see if Congress gets fooled a second time.

I love how the brutal dictatorship gets the benefit of the doubt by the left in the West in all these cases.

Oh, Iran was provoked into kidnapping the Brits. Oh, the video and audio evidence of Iran trying to provoke US ships are all part of the Bush plan for an Iran war that we've been talking about for over 5 years, any day now.

What did Lenin use to say? Useful idiots?

And you are a complacent distraction.

Or do you have another function other than dissuading people away from assessing the article?

Do you are doing exactly what I am doing, expressing an opinion. Don't play morally superior.

I love how the brutal dictatorship gets the benefit of the doubt by the left in the West in all these cases.


So how many brutal dictatorships have provoked civil wars by occupying sovereign states in illegal wars and occupations lately?

As opposed to the number of non-UN-sanctionned wars and occupation the shining beacon of democracy that the USA is is?

...

Yeah.

The fact that we would have to make up evidence against a country with a leader who is clearly out of his mind says more about the people of this country (US) than the government. The whole industrialized world should be arguing with each other to be the first to invade the country of Iran.

The fact that we would have to make up evidence against a country with a leader who is clearly out of his mind says more about the people of this country (US) than the government. The whole industrialized world should be arguing with each other to be the first to invade the country of Iran.

So you think we should be invading countries without evidence? I'm not sure I can express how ridiculous an idea that is.

I'm just waiting for convincing evidence that Iran was behind it... I'm sure the Argentinian people would like to see it too.

Nice job underlining the opinion of a left wing journalist. Because they said it then it must be true.
God some people are so far left they can't see right.

You are a paranoid conspiracy theory nutjob.

The fact that we would have to make up evidence against a country with a leader who is clearly out of his mind says more about the people of this country (US) than the government. The whole industrialized world should be arguing with each other to be the first to invade the country of Iran.

true

The Nation has equal credibility to the Fox News Channel. Both are poor media outlets spouting an agenda and opinions without any factual basis. The article is pure crap.

Definitely Troll Season. The incoming arctic air always sends the conservative trolls migrating south, right through our current location.

Oh, the video and audio evidence of Iran trying to provoke US ships are all part of the Bush plan for an Iran war that we've been talking about for over 5 years, any day now.

What did Lenin use to say? Useful idiots?
That wouldn't be the audio evidence that Iran stated was not them but the Whitehouse angrily claimed it was, only to back down a few days later and meekly accept that Iran was indeed correct?

Yet from your post here you apparently still believe it was Iran.
useful idiots indeed

I stand by the view that the two positions

Supporting the US in this as a means of opposing a dangerous regime (Iran)
Opposing the US in this as a means of opposing a dangerous regime (the US)

are equally valid but incomplete. Both Iran and the US pose respective threats to the people of the world in their current state, and both need to be engaged with in order to bring about resolution. But the way to do this is through diplomacy. The realm of the idea is where the greatest tensions between the two lie, not the battlefield or the oil market, and it is there alone that the conflict can be resolved.

I stand by the view that the two positions

Supporting the US in this as a means of opposing a dangerous regime (Iran)
Opposing the US in this as a means of opposing a dangerous regime (the US)

are equally valid but incomplete. Both Iran and the US pose respective threats to the people of the world in their current state, and both need to be engaged with in order to bring about resolution. But the way to do this is through diplomacy. The realm of the idea is where the greatest tensions between the two lie, not the battlefield or the oil market, and it is there alone that the conflict can be resolved.
I really wish you, or someone thinking along those lines, were in charge.

Alas, it is most likely the warmongering fucktards who will have the final say.

The fact that we would have to make up evidence against a country with a leader who is clearly out of his mind says more about the people of this country (US) than the government. The whole industrialized world should be arguing with each other to be the first to invade the country of Iran.

a leader who is clearly out of his mind
You're talking about Iran right? Or did you mean Bush?

They're both crazy.

Nice job underlining the opinion of a left wing journalist. Because they said it then it must be true.
God some people are so far left they can't see right.

http://kyla.moondrummer.com/fonzie.jpg
Yay! Now what's he been up to since then?

truefalse See what i did there? *thanks Ifreann*

You don't need to read such a biased article to see how the Bush administration is trying to dehumanise Iran at every possible opportunity. Nor do I see Iran as a threat. When was the last time Iran invaded another country? I doubt they're making nuclear weapons, but if I were in charge there, I would be.

You don't need to read such a biased article to see how the Bush administration is trying to dehumanise Iran at every possible opportunity. Nor do I see Iran as a threat. When was the last time Iran invaded another country? I doubt they're making nuclear weapons, but if I were in charge there, I would be.

Indeed. If only as a deterrant.

On the other hand, if Israel gets pissed all bets are off.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter

Yes it is a long article.. because it explains in detail the investigation work of this journalist.
Its worth reading.. if you want to know what is going on.

*dies of laughter*

OD, give it up. No war is coming. No war will happen anytime soon. Why don't you just give it up because the only people beating this shit are those with wacked out minds and those on the political left.

You don't need to read such a biased article to see how the Bush administration is trying to dehumanise Iran at every possible opportunity. Nor do I see Iran as a threat. When was the last time Iran invaded another country? I doubt they're making nuclear weapons, but if I were in charge there, I would be.

But after you pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty right?

*dies of laughter*

OD, give it up. No war is coming. No war will happen anytime soon. Why don't you just give it up because the only people beating this shit are those with wacked out minds and those on the political left.
You can 'left' with a disdain in your tone, or as you spit on the ground, but I'll pick up that label and wear it like a badge.:)

You can 'left' with a disdain in your tone, or as you spit on the ground, but I'll pick up that label and wear it like a badge.:)

Actually you are among those wacked out for we all know that you are.

Oh yeah, anyone who doesn't accept the right-wing 'mainstream line' is 'wacked out'? Please...

Dude...you have communists on here who do not like you either. I guess that just destroys this post.

Actually you are among those wacked out for we all know that you are.

Oh yeah, anyone who doesn't accept the right-wing 'mainstream line' is 'wacked out'? Please...

Dude...you have communists on here who do not like you either. I guess that just destroys this post.
Lol, so called 'communists', I think your going by the right-shifted US political spectrum when you say that, question those people enough and they are little more than reformist social-democrats...

Because the US has never beaten up or fabricated evidence to start a war before. Weapons of Mass Destruction mean anything to you?

So you actually believe these stories though when nothing is actually happening?

Around the time of the Vietnam War, according to some since declassified CIA documents, the US thought the USSR was getting a lead of them in ICBM arsenal. The CIA estimated USSR had 500 warheads that could hit the mainland USA. They had 4.

Never said intel was smart did I?

You have two problems. A government who wants to go to war,

Been hearing that for quite sometime. So far nothing!

and a CIA who will give them the intel they want, not what is true.

So tell me! When will the bombs drop? Oh yea...they are not going to drop.

*dies of laughter*

OD, give it up. No war is coming. No war will happen anytime soon. Why don't you just give it up because the only people beating this shit are those with wacked out minds and those on the political left.

Because the US has never beaten up or fabricated evidence to start a war before. Weapons of Mass Destruction mean anything to you?

Around the time of the Vietnam War, according to some since declassified CIA documents, the US thought the USSR was getting a lead of them in ICBM arsenal. The CIA estimated USSR had 500 warheads that could hit the mainland USA. They had 4.

You have two problems. A government who wants to go to war, and a CIA who will give them the intel they want, not what is true.

That wouldn't be the audio evidence that Iran stated was not them but the Whitehouse angrily claimed it was, only to back down a few days later and meekly accept that Iran was indeed correct?

Yet from your post here you apparently still believe it was Iran.
useful idiots indeed

Very nice cherry picking of the facts of the case. Please dont bother to mention those IRANIAN ships were aggressivly charging the US naval ships and dropping suspicious white boxes in the water either.

Very nice cherry picking of the facts of the case. Please dont bother to mention those IRANIAN ships were aggressivly charging the US naval ships and dropping suspicious white boxes in the water either.Yeah and dont forget,
do not forget (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22I+am+coming+to+you%22+explode),

... the chilling VOICE - it was such a theatrical Voice - it had to be (http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22I+am+coming+to+you%22+explode) coming from the evil Iranian boats. ;)

My friend says he got a ringtone with the evil voice :D

The Nation has equal credibility to the Fox News Channel.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gif Nation = Fox NOT.

Kontor, Officially Warned for flaming. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13383135&postcount=2)

Corneliu 2, Officially Warned for flaming (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13384895&postcount=26).

Corneliu, in five days you've gone from a friendly warning (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13373816&postcount=275) to an official one. Think about it.

Triniteras, both these posters were warned because their posts were addressed directly to the person behind the post. Posters are expected to debate the argument, not the poster. That's why the structure you used ( "And you are a complacent distraction" -- my emphasis) is also a mild flame. Please avoid it.

As opposed to the number of non-UN-sanctionned wars and occupation the shining beacon of democracy that the USA is is?As far as I know the UN didn't sanction France to go all imperialist in Africa. Along with the whole India vs. Pakistan thing in the Kashmir, and the whole Palestinian jerk off "jihad" against Israel.
Since when did sovereign nations stop thinking for thremselves? As far as I know the UN isn't a governing body, just a forum. Even if they wish they were the world's government.

Corneliu 2[/B], Officially Warned for flaming (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13384895&postcount=26).

Corneliu, in five days you've gone from a friendly warning (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13373816&postcount=275) to an official one. Think about it.

I'm officially protesting that.

As far as I know the UN didn't sanction France to go all imperialist in Africa. Along with the whole India vs. Pakistan thing in the Kashmir, and the whole Palestinian jerk off "jihad" against Israel.
Since when did sovereign nations stop thinking for thremselves? As far as I know the UN isn't a governing body, just a forum. Even if they wish they were the world's government.
You seem to forget that the UN didn't exist at those times. It was created after WW2 in an attempt to curb imperialism and needless wars/violence. The fact that it didn't endorse the Iraq war denotes that the rest of the world was very well aware that the USA did not have a valid reason for getting involved there.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for every other power with imperialistic tendencies. Just pointed the fact that Iran hadn't invaded anyone in the past decade, contrary to the US of A.

Democracy doesn't justify everything in geopolitics. Just because you're a democracy doesn't mean you can't be an irresponsible power. Look at WW2 Germany.

You seem to forget that the UN didn't exist at those times. It was created after WW2 in an attempt to curb imperialism and needless wars/violence. The fact that it didn't endorse the Iraq war denotes that the rest of the world was very well aware that the USA did not have a valid reason for getting involved there.

He's refering to Sierre Leone when the French went in there without authorization from the United Nations Security Council.

But after you pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty right?

Nah. If nobody else follows that thing, why should I? I'd just make sure Israel doesn't get wind of anything.

Nah. If nobody else follows that thing, why should I? I'd just make sure Israel doesn't get wind of anything.

Fat chance of that happening :D

Hey look, history repeating itself again! :p
I don't think people will be so gullible this time around.

Hey look, history repeating itself again! :p
I don't think people will be so gullible this time around.



The American right is very effective at swaying the guilible average american. I wont be shocked if it happens again.

Hey look, history repeating itself again! :p
I don't think people will be so gullible this time around.

The average American wouldn't know the history of last month, let alone years ago.

I'm officially protesting that.

http://phlogthat.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/don-quixote.jpg

The American right is very effective at swaying the guilible average american. I wont be shocked if it happens again.

What with our "libruhl media complex/saturation" :rolleyes:

You seem to forget that the UN didn't exist at those times. It was created after WW2 in an attempt to curb imperialism and needless wars/violence. The fact that it didn't endorse the Iraq war denotes that the rest of the world was very well aware that the USA did not have a valid reason for getting involved there.
I'm not talking about back then. I'm talking now. I'm referring to France's movements in the past couple decades in siera leone, as was mentioned before.
And just because a nation doesn't physically invade another nation doesn't mean it's not a threat. What about the Taliban?
And as for the "Rest of the world", I don't think sixty plus nations at the beginning constitutes a small minority. Often the only thing "majority" means is that all the sheeple are on one side. A lot of nations didn't want to be involved because they were muslim or had underhanded business interests.

I didn't know that President Bush and co. were competent enough to distort AND manufacture evidence:eek: :p

He's refering to Sierre Leone when the French went in there without authorization from the United Nations Security Council.
Oh, sorry bout not getting that straight away.

Still, I never was very fond of the "But the French did it first!" argument. Just because Napoleon tries to conquer the world doesn't mean it's okay for the rest of us to try.

I'm not talking about back then. I'm talking now. I'm referring to France's movements in the past couple decades in siera leone, as was mentioned before.
And just because a nation doesn't physically invade another nation doesn't mean it's not a threat. What about the Taliban?
And as for the "Rest of the world", I don't think sixty plus nations at the beginning constitutes a small minority. Often the only thing "majority" means is that all the sheeple are on one side. A lot of nations didn't want to be involved because they were muslim or had underhanded business interests.

Well, basically, you're not even trying to argue the Iraq war wasn't unlawful and uncalled for. You're only saying "others do it, so we do it too".

I don't agree with that line of reasoning. Need I remind you that the "rest of the World" who opposed the war because they recognized it was an imperialistic one based on fake evidence includes the overwhelming majority of Europe and Canada. So no, it wasn't only about Muslim nations or those who had underhand business interest.

The fact is that the way is being paved for another of those shitty "let's go at war with the middle east!" ideas. Those of us who saw through the first stratagem can only hope you guys see through this one, and don't get yourselves involved into another bloody, useless, immoral mess of a war.

Crossing my fingers that this war never starts. Alas, I can't say I'm too optimistic.

Oh, sorry bout not getting that straight away.

Still, I never was very fond of the "But the French did it first!" argument. Just because Napoleon tries to conquer the world doesn't mean it's okay for the rest of us to try.



Well, basically, you're not even trying to argue the Iraq war wasn't unlawful and uncalled for. You're only saying "others do it, so we do it too".

I don't agree with that line of reasoning. Need I remind you that the "rest of the World" who opposed the war because they recognized it was an imperialistic one based on fake evidence includes the overwhelming majority of Europe and Canada. So no, it wasn't only about Muslim nations or those who had underhand business interest.

The fact is that the way is being paved for another of those shitty "let's go at war with the middle east!" ideas. Those of us who saw through the first stratagem can only hope you guys see through this one, and don't get yourselves involved into another bloody, useless, immoral mess of a war.

Crossing my fingers that this war never starts. Alas, I can't say I'm too optimistic.The "others do it, so should we" bit wasn't my intent, so my apologies for it coming off that way.

My argument is that people are basing some of their disdain and, indeed, hatred towards the US off of the fact that we didn't go through the UN when other nations they held as the example of right were guilty of the same things.

The UN was created as a forum, so nations could communicate with one another and to avert a nuclear war. They've only succeeded in averting the use of nuclear weapons of, and much of that goes to the restraint of the nations who already posess the aforementioned armament.

And yes, war is immoral and always a failure, but the degraded state of feeling that thinks nothing is worth struggle or is worth defending is much worse. There are times when it is needed, and I believe this is one of those times. If it can be averted, I pray it will be. But as for Iran I say we've already done enough averting for our side. They've already gotten away with kidnapping British sailors and messing with our ships.

People are gonna bitch about me using this line, but after 9/11 we neded to go on the offensive. We were running around cleaning up other's messes (Kosovo, Somalia...), besides we had already been in a state of hostilities with Iraq since 1990. Actually if you want to count the USS Stark (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm) incident then we'd been hostile with Iraq since 1987. So I praise Pres. Bush for taking the fight to our enemies, but criticise him for mishandling it.

So you think we should be invading countries without evidence? I'm not sure I can express how ridiculous an idea that is.

There is enough evidence that Iran supports terrorism, wants to destroy america and Israel and horribly oppresses it's own people, so it's not quite invading without evidence

And yes, war is immoral and always a failure, but the degraded state of feeling that thinks nothing is worth struggle or is worth defending is much worse.

I think both of these are failures. War should only ever be waged defensively, to protect your own nation from foreign invaders. Any other use is unjustified.

There are times when it is needed, and I believe this is one of those times. If it can be averted, I pray it will be. But as for Iran I say we've already done enough averting for our side. They've already gotten away with kidnapping British sailors and messing with our ships.

People are gonna bitch about me using this line, but after 9/11 we neded to go on the offensive. We were running around cleaning up other's messes (Kosovo, Somalia...), besides we had already been in a state of hostilities with Iraq since 1990. Actually if you want to count the USS Stark (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm) incident then we'd been hostile with Iraq since 1987. So I praise Pres. Bush for taking the fight to our enemies, but criticise him for mishandling it.
"Needed to go on the offensive"?

Much like using violence in self-defense. If someone tries to punch or stab you, then you can (and should) break his face and defend yourself. However, someone only threatening to do you harm doesn't give you a license to start punching his/her lights out. It gives you license to go to the police, and get things workup up through the judiciary.

On the international stage, it means diplomacy, the UN, or mediation by third parties. Threats that never materialize are not grounds to start a war of aggression. You don't go to war until the other party actually tries to get you.

Currently, in terms of bar fight metaphors, Iran is being a loud ass and yelling "Come on Israel, I can take you and wipe the floor with you", punching in the air and otherwise taunting them, without ever having so much as touching Israel. USA, Israel's buddy, ought to behave in a sensible manner and attempt to defuse the confrontation by pulling the two others apart, not jump in start slamming Iran's face on the table for threatening his friend. That'd be behavior worthy of a schoolyard bully, not of a mature adult.

In other words, while war might sometimes be justified to defend your nation, it's not okay to go around trying to pick fight with people in order to justify wars of aggression. And it's what this is all about.

It takes two to pick a fight.

"Needed to go on the offensive"?

Much like using violence in self-defense. If someone tries to punch or stab you, then you can (and should) break his face and defend yourself. However, someone only threatening to do you harm doesn't give you a license to start punching his/her lights out. It gives you license to go to the police, and get things workup up through the judiciary.

Currently, in terms of bar fight metaphors, Iran is being a loud ass and yelling "Come on Israel, I can take you and wipe the floor with you", punching in the air and otherwise taunting them, without ever having so much as touching Israel. USA, Israel's buddy, ought to behave in a sensible manner and attempt to defuse the confrontation by pulling the two others apart, not jump in start slamming Iran's face on the table for threatening his friend. That'd be behavior worthy of a schoolyard bully, not of a mature adult.

Yes, needed to go on the offensive. After the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack against the Cole, and even Somalia (which evidence points to Al-Qaida agents being involved in an advisory role) we needed to take the fight to them.

I agree with you for the most part. But with all the crap Iran is pulling, why shouldn't we be uptight? They're providing arms, training, and maybe even direct support in the killing of my brothers and sisters in arms from many nations.

The fact that we would have to make up evidence against a country with a leader who is clearly out of his mind says more about the people of this country (US) than the government. The whole industrialized world should be arguing with each other to be the first to invade the country of the US.

Fixed ;)
Or not?
Your argument is so flawed i cannot find a way other than sarcasm to comment on it.
What do you mean by "clearly out of his mind"?
What the whole industrialized world should do is ask itself how comes that these people get to power, and not try to force a "democracy" by brute force.
Brute force accomplishes nothing, just lines the pockets of the arms industry.

What the whole industrialized world should do is ask itself how comes that these people get to power, and not try to force a "democracy" by brute force.
Brute force accomplishes nothing, just lines the pockets of the arms industry.

Βια βιαν τικτει.

We should also include guys like Berlusconi and Topolanek in the abovementioned "these people", btw.

Yes, needed to go on the offensive. After the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack against the Cole, and even Somalia (which evidence points to Al-Qaida agents being involved in an advisory role) we needed to take the fight to them.

I agree with you for the most part. But with all the crap Iran is pulling, why shouldn't we be uptight? They're providing arms, training, and maybe even direct support in the killing of my brothers and sisters in arms from many nations.

As opposed to say Saudi Arabia, which objectively has far more links to Al Qaida? You appear to be falling into the trap of equating Iran, a single islamic theocracy which, despite whatever posturing they may have engaged in doesn't realistically pose a serious threat, to Al Qaida, an extremist terrorist group receiving funding and training from a large number of sources in the middle east but not explicitly associated with any individual government. To invade Iran to deal with Al Qaida is not only missing the point, it's counter-productive as it will just serve to fuel islamic extremism in the middle east, as you will be proving all those radical mullah right.

Or to give it a comparison closer to home, it will be, during the the troubles, the UK had invaded Ireland to deal with the IRA. War/invasion is never the answer to terrorism, because civilians in an invaded country may disagree with their governments policies, but, as a rule, will nonetheless look to defend them against a perceived unjustified outside attack (this is basic group psychology).

I know that I am shocked--SHOCKED--by the suggestion that the Bush administration might be manufacturing evidence, ignoring genuine intel, and attempting to drive the country into a war that is primarily aimed at making a few rich dudes richer at the expense of human life, the national economy, and the general well-being of the United States of America.

Shocked, I tell you.

There is enough evidence that Iran supports terrorism, wants to destroy america and Israel and horribly oppresses it's own people, so it's not quite invading without evidence
But it is still invading without need. I challenge you to show me the desperate pleas from the Iranian people, begging the US to come and liberate them. Don't have any? Then your little invasion wet-dream is nothing but another optional war of aggression, i.e. a crime against both US and international law.

Also, while acknowledging that Iran does not have a good government and is not a free nation by any definition of the term, I still wonder how much of the "evidence" you're relying on was "distorted and manufactured" by the Bush administration.

Yes, needed to go on the offensive. After the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack against the Cole, and even Somalia (which evidence points to Al-Qaida agents being involved in an advisory role) we needed to take the fight to them.

I agree with you for the most part. But with all the crap Iran is pulling, why shouldn't we be uptight? They're providing arms, training, and maybe even direct support in the killing of my brothers and sisters in arms from many nations.
Hard though it may be for you to hear this, that is not sufficient grounds for starting a war, under US law. In addition, it sounds exactly like one of the more popular talking points in the lead-up to attacking Iraq. Are you really so gullible that, after the brutal, bloody, monumental fuck-up of Iraq, you are still going to swallow the same bullshit from the same people without question, and do it all over again?

I know that I am shocked--SHOCKED--by the suggestion that the Bush administration might be manufacturing evidence, ignoring genuine intel, and attempting to drive the country into a war that is primarily aimed at making a few rich dudes richer at the expense of human life, the national economy, and the general well-being of the United States of America.

Shocked, I tell you.
And I, for one, am shocked that you didn't mention that it is all being kicked into high gear during the lead-up to the US presidential election. The people say they want change, but if they get it, then Cheney's little friends might not have wars to profit off of, so it is imperative that the nation be committed to at least one more war before Bush gets kicked the hell out of the White House at last. And if they can possibly scare the more xenophobic, less (ok, I'll say it) intelligent voters into voting in another neocon type, all the better for keeping up the business of Halliburton et al.

There is enough evidence that Iran supports terrorism, wants to destroy america and Israel and horribly oppresses it's own people, so it's not quite invading without evidence

Check your recent US history. A decent book to read regarding the US terrorism history is Legacy of Ashes: History of the CIA by a pullitzer prize winner.

The US have done a lot more terrorism than Iran in the last 50 years.. On the topic of countries, well, the US wants to get rid of North Korea and Iran, and are in the process of getting rid of Afghanistan and Iraq. That's 2 more than Iran.

Just accept that the US are imperialists, and if they can't buy a country, they'll invade. Like all strong powers in history, they are bullies. The only thing with the US, is some of the general public don't want to accept it.

Yes, needed to go on the offensive. After the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack against the Cole, and even Somalia (which evidence points to Al-Qaida agents being involved in an advisory role) we needed to take the fight to them.

No, you didn't. You needed to be reasonable and try to find diplomatic solutions or sanctions in order to solve your problems. After all, what is there to fear if your embassy gets closed over there, your humanitarian aid withheld, and exports halted?

There were many avenues open to solve these things, avenues which were not even tried, nor even considered before the war plans were signed. This is a kind of failure.


I agree with you for the most part. But with all the crap Iran is pulling, why shouldn't we be uptight? They're providing arms, training, and maybe even direct support in the killing of my brothers and sisters in arms from many nations.
Because you're supposed to act better than them? Because we always hear rhetoric about how the US of A are awesome and great and democratic and the best thing since sliced bread? Your diplomats used to be highly regarded, your country respected. Now you're seen as the local bully, with a cowboy president at the helm, trying to pick fights with half the planet and otherwise dragging us, your allies and friends into bloody useless messes.

No, going to war with Iran is neither the right, nor the responsible thing to do. And if it ever comes down to it, I will exert as much pressure as I can to make sure my own government does not follow you there.

One thing that friends are supposed to do for you is tell you when you're being stupid and wrong. Right now, the vast majority of the western world is telling you you'll only make things worse if you push for war.

you are still going to swallow the same bullshit from the same people without question, and do it all over again?

"bullshit"? :D