![]() |
"‘We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now."
According to a retired colonel, on CNN.
Clip, with a brief summary: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/ Another quote: "The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state." I can't say anything about this right now because it would rapidly degenerate into an ugly rant. Suffice to say we have a big fucking problem right now. |
Well, that is a very vague term: 'military operations.'
And a retired colonel would not be my preferred source of information regarding current military operations. Anywhere. |
*If* this is being done without congressional oversite, then impeachment isn't enough anymore. I belive that imprisonment should be considered. And on top of that, I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.
|
I wouldn't doubt that America is doing counter-intelligence/insurgent work in Iran. They are a big part of problems with the current state of Iraq, not to mention we have that whole Nuclear stand off thing going on with them. I in no way see how "possible" clandestine activity, from a retired military officer, equates to reason of suspicion. First substantiate that the American military is acting, in any capacity, before calls for punishment beyond impeachment.
|
Quote:
Don't have the balls to rape them your self? I'd think your views on 9/11 would be enough for this if you really believe it. But silliness aside congress wants to be in charge for years and it just doesn't happen and every president in recent history, including Carter, has run afowl of congress on the War Powers Act. I do hope we are using ground intel to back up the satillite data in order to inflict maximum damage to their nuclear program when the shoe falls. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But without any other source of information, I can't view this as anything but pure speculation. And as far as a possible war with Iran, speculation is certainly nothing new. As an aside, I believe a war with Iran (at this time) would blossom into something much more, and the U.S would be in a world of hurt in many, many ways. |
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, if you're just going for the shock value, then I think there are better choices. Too bad we already took out Uday and Qusay. Ooooh...maybe that's why. :eek: Hey! I just came up with a new conspiracy theory. We really invaded Iraq because Saddam offered George a dozen goats for his daughters, on behalf of his sons. :rolleyes: Don't laugh. I've heard stupider. ;) Now...as for the topic at hand. I need a little more than a retired Colonel before I raise too many hackles. Loud Colonels are a dime a dozen. Usually there's a reason they didn't get their star.:rolleyes: Still...if his allegations are factually based, then I would agree that imprisonment would be a option worth consideration. But, beyond simple intelligence gathering...that's a huge "if". |
Quote:
Under what law? |
Quote:
Quote:
(3) is certainly not the current case with Iran that leaves the nebulous (2) which is how we got into the Iraq folly, with the October 2002 "Resolution to use Armed Forces against Iraq" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html It would seem to me, at the very least, a similar Congressional resolution is required. I would include a provision that requires the "voluntary service" of children of the Pres, Vice Pres and members of Congress :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So, dont expect to see GW in handcuffs anytime soon. |
Quote:
The broader "penalty" is the Constitutional obligation of the President to uphold the laws of the land. |
so let's see...there is some evidence that points to the opening rounds of yet another bush fiasco..and hey, just in time for the midterm elections..HOW ABOUT THEM APPLES?....and the far right set is worried primarily about questions of enforcement in the war powers act? i assume from this line of questioning that for the extremist rightwingers above anything goes so long as cowboy george does not directly face being hauled out of the white house in shackles.
obviously the bush people have been advancing a legal position that recognizes no meaningful brakes on the power of the executive to do what it likes under the aegis of its hallucinatory "war on terror"...(checks and balances be damned in the face of the Maniless of the Leader, He who Represents the Unity of the General Will, He whose actions would be Perfect were it not for those pesky folk who object to ill-concieved military adventures launched under false pretenses.) the administration hasn't even changed its general m.o.: witness the iaec's response to republican warmarketing flim flam about iran's nuclear program: Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW, I was joking a bit with my first post. As roach pointed out there are legitimate concerns about Iran, but I don't know how reliable the word of that colonel is. More pertinant are the arcitles and reports about how Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons. |
That point about Iran's plutonium enrichment level is an important one, I think. It looks like they're nowhere near making weapons with it. It's too bad that they've used so much hostile propaganda that suggests otherwise.
|
That enrichment level is a farce as far as information and fact runs. Since I suck at links, I am forced to quote myself...
Quote:
|
"Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html Where is that claim about the "531 meteric tons of yellowcake" from? I found nothing online about it. |
Quote:
Quote:
It's very humorous that you didn't find any dissonance in your post, namely having #3 so close to your "Iraq folly" creation. You seem to have ignored that: 1. Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqis in Prague. 2. According to George Tenet (who was it that appointed him to head the CIA?) the Iraq-Al Qaeda link went back ten years. 3. Al Zarqawi ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan before relocating to Baghdad. 4. Abu Nidal spent time in Iraq. 5. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers. 6. Iraq was declared a state sponsor of terrorism in 1990. These were just some of the points I heard Dick Cheney bring up when attacked by Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago. Tim was so thoroughly outgunned by these facts he had to resort to hunting jokes. I'm sure there's a link to it somewhere. In addition, there's always the Duelfer Report. It's only 1000 pages, so you could probably find it quoted in one of host's posts. Quote:
Notice my tagline as well. |
Quote:
And of those who do, how many of them are serving in Iraq? Of those serving in Iraq, should there be any, how many are serving in the Green Zone? Finally, of those serving in Iraq, how many are serving in combat outside the Green Zone? Seriously. Anyone? I really want to know. I somehow can't help but feel that if more of these government officials had children who had been drafted to serve and fight in this conflict, things would have gone a bit differently. I see an undermanned military being led by those that have never served. Or, if they did, it was from the confines of a plush clear zone. Not only that...but I see these same "Chicken Hawks" castigating decorated combat veterans over their lack of "patriotism" for daring to speak up in criticism of the war. Excuse me? Is this a bad Twilight Zone episode? |
Quote:
But I think we should extrapolate it further. Since a majority by number, and % of population of combat troops are white males (white males are a disproportionate % of the combat troops based on race) only white males should have any say on Iraq policy? Or maybe.... Since the top 25% income earners pay 84% of the federal taxes, perhaps they should have all the say in how its spent. Hey even better lets do it proportionately, the more tax you pay the more you get to decide government policy. The line of reasoning that you have to have someone you love in combat directly in order to show support is not meant in any sort of fairness by the left, its just a way to stifle debate. |
Marv....as to your first three "facts", the evidence, particularly from the recent Phase II of the Senate Intelligence report, says otherwise. No reason to play that game with you.
Among the conclusions of the Senate report: …Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support…Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.Its unfortunate that Bush is continuing to pressure the Sen Intel Committee from releasing the full report. Feel free to believe what Cheney tells you to justify their actions.. I would just say "You can put wings on a pig, but you don't make it an eagle." (credit to BIll Clinton) My fear is that it will be deja vu all over again with Iran,with the Adminstration creating or maniupuating intelligence to meet its objective. The Senate, showing its wisdom in a bi-paratisan way, passed a bill introduced by Harry Reid and Joe Biden, to at least put some safeguards in place to prevent a reoccurence of the "Iraq intelligence folly" (there I go again with "folly"). The Iran Intelligence Oversight Act will: The bill was included in the Senate version of the '07 Defense Appropriations bill, but it is highly unlikely that Bush's buddies in the House will accept it in conference. Instead, the House will release reports with faulty intelligence as noted in #16 above. Not that it matters because Bush continues to threaten to veto the Defense Approp. bill unless it has the prisoner interrogation language that he so desperately wants in order to continue to vioalte the Geneva Convention. BTW, I was only being half serious about requirement family members of Congress to be "volunteered." We will have enough problems with many of the new volunteers. Someone mentioned in another thread about the number of people volunteering for the military. One reason is the number of waivers that are now being given, including dropping the requirement for a HS diploma, allowing a criminal record or a mental illness, accepting know skinhead aryan nation types and urban gang members, etc....but that is the subject for another thread. |
i thought that the text of Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday would be interesting to read---it is curiously difficult to find in the american press.
i am not fan of this guy, particularly given the kind of idiocy he seems to think helps him position iran internationally on the topic of israel. however, if you push aside this register of nonsense and read what the guy says otherwise, it becomes perhaps easier to see why the bushpeople regard him as a problem. it appears to have little to do with that the administration claims is the case: Quote:
|
roachboy, thanks for the text, I'm going to try to read it when I have a chance....
i must admit it was really annoying to be in traffic yesterday morning on 6th Avenue as that's where many protesters were standing... but i am grateful and glad that they can have the ability to speak their minds. |
Quote:
you stopped. Marv, would all of the facts in the world, if they could be posted here, give you pause? Lord knows, I have tried.....and still....here you go, again ! |
Quote:
Yo...Ustwo...why are you attempting to bury my question with statistical BS, that had absolutely nothing to do with my post? What for you be tryin' to obfuscate my point? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Statistics really had nothing to do with MY point. |
Quote:
That aside - if you support peaceful means in resolving conflict, why do you want to "harm" the President in a manner not related to his actions as president? Can you reconcile that for us? Or is it that you just simply hate Bush? |
Johnny Rotten I cant tell whether it is the link or my end that is creating problems to view the video.
This all seems to be pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, when its all put together pointing to a central theme. IMO it would be disastrous to take any action against Persia at this point; whether clandestine or not. For one, unless we are talking nuclear war the US doesn’t have the resources to expand its fighting. I say that because I have strong doubts whether we would have a “coalition”. In line with Venezuela, Iran’s decision to put the dollar aside for the Euro really states they are serious about doing whatever it is they choose to do. If the US restrains Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then the reality is they will eventually have weapons. Is a world with Iran being a nuclear member a better place? No. Would the situation be any better with going to war with Iran? Well if China decided to overlook its 800 billion oil deal with Iran for the trade arrangements it has with the US then possibly. Would China stay out of this? Would Russia stay out of this? I think a global conflict is entirely possible from this situation. I try and look at both sides of the issue. One of Sun Tzu’s valuable lessons is to look into the minds of the enemy to understand their choices in battle. Iran wants nuclear weapons. Why? It seems most world leaders (not India and Pakistan) understand adding more nuclear arsenal to the world’s collection is pointless since there is already enough to wipe us all out. Logical reasoning aside; is Iran taking the stance that if countries like the US and Israel have nuclear arsenals they have no business dictating who can or can’t have them. Then one can look at the standpoint of Israel and Iran and state that Israel is not calling for Iran’s destruction. Its leaders aren’t denying things like the holocaust from happening. So why does Iran hate Israel? Through all the politics are reasons. Its obvious Iran’s leader doesn’t like Israel. It can’t be straight anti-Semitism; there are Iranian Jews in Iran living without persecution. One can look at this situation and take the stance “who care’s- they are the enemy it really doesn’t matter what the reasons are- destroy them; or to look into what fueling the situation. I don’t think we have the luxury of the first because I think escalating tensions with China is a big mistake. |
Quote:
As it turns out, Isreal can't attack Iran without crossing over Iraqi airspace. Their fighter jets don't have the range to go around. It is my understanding that Iraqi airspace is essentially US military airspace. So the US military must explicitly authorize any third-party military personnel to cross Iraq's borders. That would mean a de facto declaration of war by the United States against Iran, as the US would be complicit in whatever actions Isreali forces took after crossing into Iran. Quote:
I believe that if Iran is indeed enriching plutonium beyond known quantities, it intends to use it first and foremost as a bargaining chip. They don't want to lose over a million people to disease, radiation-induced cancer and starvation, as Iraq apparently did when the US government imposed food and medical sanctions in 1991. (Ironically, the Bush administration claims that, in this same time frame, Iraq was somehow amassing WMDs in sufficient quantities as to be a clear and present danger to the United States.) Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
And 'food and medical' sanctions? Ummm I don't think we had sanctions on medicine and food. I think you need to do a bit of reading beyond left wing propaganda sites if you think the above it true. I won't host this with a bunch of cut and paste links but I'd recommend google. Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes, I insist that you do your own homework. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This information has been verified by the United Nations. Here's an excerpt, which echoes the same information I have already provided. Quote:
Statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued by Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston and signed by 265 bishops, 1999: "The comprehensive sanctions against Iraq have long since ceased to be a moral tool of diplomacy, because they have inflicted indiscriminate and unacceptable suffering on the Iraqi people. … Political and military sanctions remain acceptable; comprehensive economic sanctions are not. … We cannot turn a deaf ear to the suffering of the Iraqi people or a blind eye to the moral obtuseness of current U.S. policy." New England Journal of Medicine editorial, April 24, 1997: "The Cuban and Iraqi instances make it abundantly clear that economic sanctions are, at their core, a war against public health. Our professional ethic demands the defense of public health. Thus, as physicians, we have a moral imperative to call for the end of sanctions. Having found the cause, we must act to remove it. Continuing to allow our reason to sleep will produce more monsters." Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977): (1) Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. (2) It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive. There's plenty more where that came from. All you need is a search engine. I recommend Google. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project