So... Iran IS on the agenda. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Stompy · 02-09-2005, 01:09 PM

Interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ice/index.html

Nice quote from her: "And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean,"

Didn't she JUST say last week that Iran wasn't on the agenda? How did it go from "not on the agenda" to more or less threatening them w/ force?

Quote:

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."

"And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.

"It's obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations that, in fact, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) statutes would suggest that Iran has to be referred to the U.N. Security Council," she said.

Iran has refused to halt its nuclear program, saying it is only intended for peaceful energy production.

In recent months, negotiators from France, Britain and Germany have been trying to coax Iran to fully disclose the parameters of its nuclear program and abandon efforts to produce nuclear fuel in exchange for economic and political incentives.

"The message is there, the Iranians need to get that message, and we can certainly always remind them that there are other steps that the international community has at its disposal should they not be prepared to live up to these obligations," the secretary of state said.

She said that no timetable had been set.

"We continue to be in completely close consultation with the Europeans about how it is going, about whether progress is being made, about whether the Iranians seem to be moving toward living up to those obligations, and we'll just monitor and continue those discussions," she said.

In his state of the union address last week, President Bush singled out Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons," while depriving its people of freedom.

The administration made similar statements and threats in the run-up to its invasion of Iraq.

But Rice on Friday said that the question of using military force against the Tehran regime "is simply not on the agenda at this point in time."
'Time for diplomacy'

"We believe this is a time for diplomacy," the secretary said Wednesday, adding that human rights in Iran and Tehran's sponsoring of terror groups are also causes for concern.

"The message that we are giving to Iran: We do have diplomatic means at our disposal, we are doing this bilaterally as well as multilaterally, and I believe that a diplomatic solution is in our grasp, if we can have unity of purpose, unity of message with the Iranians and if the Iranians understand that the international community is quite serious about it living up to its obligations."

The IAEA has the authority to refer Iran to the Security Council, but the group's board of governors has refrained from doing so in seven meetings on the topic in the past two years.

Mark Gwozkecky, a spokesman for the IAEA, said the governors have reaffirmed their support for the inspection process at each meeting "as long as inspectors are making progress and not being obstructed, and as long as Iran appears to be cooperating."

The board next meets February 28, Gwozkecky said.

Charlatan · 02-09-2005, 01:15 PM

This is surprising why?

We are all being primed for the possibility of yet another "preemptive strike".

Willravel · 02-09-2005, 01:27 PM

Things to come:

Quote:

Search for Iranian Nuclear Weapons officially over says White House
The hunt for Iran's alleged nuclear weapons has come to an end, the White House confirmed today.

July 4, 2006

Officials with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the body charged with finding the very weapons which justified the war, have reported that no weapons have been found.

In fact, Iran did not have the capability to make nuclear weapons, the inspectors found. The IAEA left Iran last month amid growing dangers from insurgents in Iran.

White House press secretary Mr Scott McClellan said there was no longer an active search for weapons. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that," he said, but added that the search had largely concluded.

He went on: "If they have any reports of (nuclear weapons) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports." "A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."

An intelligence official told the Washington Post newspaper that the chances of weapons being hidden inside Iran, or having been shipped out of the country before the war, were very small. The search was called off amid the growing insurgency and risk of attack or kidnap in Iran.

This is based on an article released about the WMD search being called off in Iraq. I am indeed suggesting that we will probably get to see a sequel (summer, 2006) to the Iraqi war. This time, it'll be set in Iran.

Incosian · 02-09-2005, 01:29 PM

Ahhh, the news that I knew would appear eventually.

No surprise though...Colin Powell made a similar move with Iraq, first explaining how there were no plans for Iraq and then turning around with the case for war...

dksuddeth · 02-09-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Interesting:
Didn't she JUST say last week that Iran wasn't on the agenda? How did it go from "not on the agenda" to more or less threatening them w/ force?

It might have had something to do with the fact that russia just sold them nuclear fuel. Iran has taken a huge step forward with nuclear ambitions and a nuclear weapon in the hands of people who are willing to use them to simply wipe a nation off the map is intolerable.

Manx · 02-09-2005, 02:06 PM

The good news is, I'm approaching that depth of cynicism that causes one to just laugh.

guy44 · 02-09-2005, 02:13 PM

I honestly don't think we're going to invade Iran. We don't have anywhere near the troop capability - unless there is a draft, which I doubt even more - and the whole world thinks the U.S. is full of shit and no one will commit anything to an Iran invasion.

Also, Condi has actually talked about how if Iran doesn't voluntarily do everything we ask, our first step (for once) will be to go to the United Nations. We lost every shred of political good will we had after Iraq, and we no longer have the capability to go invading countries willy-nilly anymore. Thank God. Because I'll bet Bush really wishes he could.

Stompy · 02-09-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

It might have had something to do with the fact that russia just sold them nuclear fuel. Iran has taken a huge step forward with nuclear ambitions and a nuclear weapon in the hands of people who are willing to use them to simply wipe a nation off the map is intolerable.

I take it this just happened in the past week week or so?

I just find it... odd that she'd make a public statement dispelling concerns that we'd go into Iran, and immediatly after say "next steps" are coming up.

I highly doubt they suddenly decided to do something in that short amount of time. Where's the credibility? I mean... why come forward and say "it's not on the agenda" if it really is?

guy44 · 02-09-2005, 03:11 PM

Yeah, it is weird that she says "next steps." That sounds real badass, right? Real tough guy?

But everyone knows that when she says "next steps," she meant referring them to the United Nations. Why sounds so tough when all you really are going to do is refer their case to the U.N.?

shakran · 02-09-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

I honestly don't think we're going to invade Iran. We don't have anywhere near the troop capability - unless there is a draft, which I doubt even more - and the whole world thinks the U.S. is full of shit and no one will commit anything to an Iran invasion.

Yeah. Those arguments worked real well with Iraq. We didn't send enough troops there, and we didn't care what the world contributed. Bush doesnt' care about logistics. He just wants to do what he wants to do, whether it's possible or not.

This is what happens when a country allows a warmonger to come back for a second term. He invades places. No big surprise.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 04:03 PM

The next step being reffered to is putting this case up before the Security council.

Plus as far as intelligence goes, it's a lot different then Iraq. You get the IAEA monitoring this place, isn't it weird that they find particles and emissions consistent with uranium enrichement? Plus you had that Pakistani scientist a few years back admit that he sold them nuclear secrets. Plus Russia has been enabling their programs the whole time as well.

I don't think we will invade Iran. There might be some military action taken, but I don't think there will be an invasion. You have Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy who all wrote the handbook on modern warfare (RMA), I don't think they want conscripts fighting this for them, plus America (myself included) would never stand for.

But I have no problem hurling a few missles into Iran, any country that openly supports terrorism should not be allowed nukes, especially when they signed a treaty.

Willravel · 02-09-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The next step being reffered to is putting this case up before the Security council.

Plus as far as intelligence goes, it's a lot different then Iraq. You get the IAEA monitoring this place, isn't it weird that they find particles and emissions consistent with uranium enrichement?

You mean like depleted uranium? It could easily be from american shells and bullets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Plus you had that Pakistani scientist a few years back admit that he sold them nuclear secrets. Plus Russia has been enabling their programs the whole time as well.

I don't think we will invade Iran. There might be some military action taken, but I don't think there will be an invasion. You have Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy who all wrote the handbook on modern warfare (RMA), I don't think they want conscripts fighting this for them, plus it America would never stand for.

But I have no problem hurling a few missles into Iran, any country that openly supports terrorism should not be allowed nukes, especially when they signed a treaty.

We support terrrorism, dude. We, the United States, support terrorism both foreign* and domestic**. We also have more nuclear weapons than any country in the world. Why aren't you insisting that America disarms? We signed a treaty called the Geneva Convention, if you remember. Under the Geneva Conventions (in particularly The 4th Convention) the "occupying power" (U.S.A.) is required in strict and unambiguous terms to protect the human rights, including the lives, welfare, and property of the Iraqi people. We actively torture their criminals. That is a blatent violation. Technically, the "insurgents" in Iraq are not terrorists, so they can not legally be tortured.

*We openly support Israel's government, who are terrorists against Palestine. State terrorism is still terrorism.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91...32_Israel.html

Quote:

On September 17, 1948, four months after the official establishment of Israel, U.N. Palestine Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte was assassinated by members of an Israeli terrorist group, the so-called Stern Gang, while driving in the Israeli-controlled sector of Jerusalem. The U.S. government, at the time, believed the identity of the perpetrators was known to Israel's Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, butthe perpetrators were never prosecuted. Thirty years later one of them, Yehoshva Zeitler-known to be a close friend of Ben Gurion's- acknowledged that he was one of the assassins and explained that "we executed Bernadotte because he was a one-man institution who endangered the status of Jerusalem by his declared intention of turning her into an international city. He was hostile to Israel from the moment the statewas established and actually laid the foundation for the present U.N. policy of supporting the Arabs." The message to other potential pro-Arab sympathizers was clear.

from http://www.washington-report.org/bac...840430002.html

**CIA trained Osama Bin Laden is heald responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 05:09 PM

1) THey found the particles in the ground in Natanz, Iran, right by the reactor, I didn't know depleted uranium could move around.

2) Were do we support terrorism? Last time I checked we don't support groups like Hamas or Hezbollah (a state founded group of Iran). Our support of Osama was pre-Al Qaeda and pre-Taliban, it was illadvised, but it was well before he started his terror campaign. Israel acts in response to aggression, one of the primary functions of a nation state is to protect it's sovereign territory and provide security to it's people; pretty flimsy argument.

3) We don't have to disarm because we dictate the pace of the dance, we didn't sign any treaties saying that we wouldn't seek nuclear weapons. Iran has, but I guess since we are the big bad United States it doesn't much matter right?

4) A) What does torturing Iraqi's have to do with anything and B) You are grossly mistaken about the insurgents, it doesn't matter that they aren't terrorists persay (many are), they are illegal combatants. The only difference in this case with insurgents compared to people from Afghanistan is that we are relinquishing control over them to the Iraqi's. Insurgents are the text book definition of illegal combatants as ratified in Hague, American articles of war, and Geneva.

shakran · 02-09-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The next step being reffered to is putting this case up before the Security council.

Oh come on. she did not say "I think everybody understands what next step means" assuming people would instantly think "aha! Security council!"

Look, just get outside party lines every once in awhile. If it's bullshit, it's bullshit, whether from the left or the right. You can not seriously sit there and expect us to believe that you REALLY think Rice wanted everyone to think "security council" based on her statement.

Willravel · 02-09-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

1) THey found the particles in the ground in Natanz, Iran, right by the reactor, I didn't know depleted uranium could move around.

You didn't know depleted uranium could move around? Well it's a good thing I have an entire thread of mine that addresses questions like this one.

Quote:

The smoke is a very fine aerosol of uranium oxides that are easily inhaled. If an aircraft strafes a target with hundreds of rounds (which only takes a few seconds of holding the trigger), there could be hundreds of pounds of DU going up in smoke, The particles are so small that they would not be noticed. They may remain suspended in the air for a long time and may travel on the wind for many miles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

2) Were do we support terrorism? Last time I checked we don't support groups like Hamas or Hezbollah (a state founded group of Iran). Our support of Osama was pre-Al Qaeda and pre-Taliban, it was illadvised, but it was well before he started his terror campaign. Israel acts in response to aggression, one of the primary functions of a nation state is to protect it's sovereign territory and provide security to it's people; pretty flimsy argument.

So because Israel acts in response to aggression, that means what they do isn't terrorism? Do you know what terrorism is? "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Well, that's Isreal's treatment of Palestine to a T. Flimsy is the fact that you claim that it's not terrorism just because they claim they are defending themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

3) We don't have to disarm because we dictate the pace of the dance, we didn't sign any treaties saying that we wouldn't seek nuclear weapons. Iran has, but I guess since we are the big bad United States it doesn't much matter right?

I hope you're kidding. "We set the pace of the dance"? We have a responsibility as the self proclaimed greates nation in the world to set an example by being responsible with our weapons and power. No one is able to hold us responsible for the aweful things we've done because we are too powerful. If we would have been the size of Iran, when we invaded Iraq, we would have been stopped by a global coalition. We would have been made to disarm and we would have had to allow weapons inspectors come into our country and make sure we weren't cheating. We were the aggressors in the Second Gulf War. They did not pose a threat to the United States (no WMDs, no al Qaeda links, the two biggest reasons outlined right before the war). I can't belive you said "We don't have to disarm because we dictate the pace of the dance". That's your reasoning? If that is the manner in which you insist on arguing, then nothing can be accomplished in adversarial conversation with you. No amount of coherant arguments can even begin to budge you at all. This has become frustrating, and I don't want to be frustrated.

I hereby announce that I will no longer debate with mojo_peipei in TFP Politics. I will continue to aknowledge him outside of Politics, and I will always show him respect, but in matters political I will no longer respond.

Note: this is not by any means a concession meaning that I was wrong or mojo was right.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 06:13 PM

Well I guess it doesn't matter me saying this, but perhaps you remember this little thing called the cold war with Russia, it I recall correctly it was an arms race.

Ever hear the saying to the victors go the spoils? We were the victor of WWII, and our policy was in regards to a non-corporeal red menace, the whole world of geopolitics is still feeling this effect.

Bottom line is, Iran signed a treaty stating they would never pursue nuclear weapons, It is very safe to assume that they are not abiding by that treaty, but you so dislike the current administration that it doesn't matter.

Further more we are reducing arms, but we should never be so foolish as to completely disarm when growing powers like China, India, and Pakistan are increasing their nuclear arsenal, when countries like Iran and North Korea, enemies who boistourous threaten America in public channels ILLEGALLY SEEK NUCLEAR WEAPONS they aren't allowed to have.

It's perposterous that you would hold America to some "moral" standard in spite of international law, but concede the same weapons to true terrorist nations in spite of international law (one of the things you even bitch about America not abiding by!!! You hypocrite!!!).

At any rate you are False Will, you are a hypocrite, I respected you up until your last post, but you showed yourself to be a punk, no problem that you won't debate me anymore.

JumpinJesus · 02-09-2005, 06:30 PM

Here is an interesting read on what may be deja vu all over again, or as I like to call it: Iraq2 - Mujahedeen Boogaloo
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGOKB83251.DTL

Quote:

NEWS ANALYSIS
Tough U.S. stance on Iran brings echoes of Iraq debate
Emerging strategy against Tehran focuses on strengthening exile groups
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Printable Version
Email This Article

In recent weeks, the Bush administration has toughened its stand against the fundamentalist Shiite Muslim government of Iran, calling it one of America's key enemies.

But the administration has not yet presented a clear-cut strategy for dealing with Iran, instead hinting alternately that the solution may be European-led negotiations with Tehran, an Israeli military attack or a rebellion led by the Iranian opposition.

The debate has echoes of the fight two years ago over Iraq, and some critics are saying the administration is making the same mistake -- relying on dubious intelligence sources to justify the case for overthrowing a hostile foreign government.

The U.S. threats have come back to back. Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Israel might attack Iran's alleged nuclear weapons sites. President Bush called Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Iranian regime "something to be loathed." And the White House left unchallenged media reports that U.S. commandos had been conducting spy missions inside Iran since last summer to prepare for a possible attack.

The tough U.S. stance has differed markedly from the attempt by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate an agreement with Iran over its nuclear facilities. The 2-year-old talks have produced preliminary accords but no final deal. Iran has been unwilling to give up the capacity to enrich nuclear fuel that it says it needs for its civilian nuclear power industry, while the Europeans are unable to meet Iran's key demand -- the guarantee that it will not be attacked by the United States or Israel.

In Europe last week, Rice expressed general support for the Iran negotiations. However, she declined her hosts' request to join the talks or to indicate willingness to offer Iran a security guarantee.

"The strategy of the United States is (to hope) that the Europeans can't deliver on some things Iran wants," said Shireen Hunter, an Iran analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The administration is expecting that, by late spring or summer, the European track will fail."

'America stands with you'

In place of negotiations, the administration and many members of Congress seem to be suggesting that the Iranian people should revolt. In his State of the Union speech, Bush seemed to signal such an approach, saying, "To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Last month, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would authorize direct aid to opposition radio and television stations. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, and 49 other House members. A likely recipient of this aid would be NITV, a Los Angeles satellite station that beams its programs into Iran 24 hours a day.

"We think what is needed in Iran is not bullets but information about democracy," said Zia Atabay, a former Iranian pop star who is president of NITV and leads one of its news programs. "The United States has to provoke a democratic discussion in Iran."

Atabay's station is the most prominent foreign-based media outlet to Iran, and its views generally represent the 1 million Iranians in the United States, many of whom live in Southern California and went into exile when the monarchy was overthrown in the 1979 revolution.

Many proponents of this approach call it the "Solidarity strategy," likening it to the U.S. aid to the union-led opposition in Poland in the 1980s that eventually succeeded in overthrowing that country's communist regime.

But Iran's opposition has no equivalent to Solidarity, and its political parties, student groups and nongovernmental organizations are divided and in retreat as the government continues a gradual crackdown on dissent.

A more muscular strategy with support in Washington is modeled after Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, the loose coalition of militias that did most of the fighting for the United States in defeating the Taliban in 2001.

The key tool in this strategy is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an Iranian guerrilla force that has 4,000 fighters housed in a U.S.-guarded military base north of Baghdad. This group, known as MEK, is supported by some Washington neoconservatives and liberals, as well as by many European lawmakers, but nonetheless has been designated since 1997 as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

The group has suspended its guerrilla activities within Iran since 2001, apparently hoping to improve its international reputation. Its backers hope the administration soon will take the MEK off the terrorist list and give it a green light to resume guerrilla activities in Iran.

"The MEK is very much hoping for a combination of Chalabi and Northern Alliance," said Abbas Milani, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, referring to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi leader who used his influence with Bush administration conservatives to help build support for invading Iraq. "They want to be picked as foot soldiers and intelligence (operatives) for the United States," Milani said.

Guerrilla group wants action

The MEK's Paris-based civilian leadership avoids openly appealing for U.S. aid but makes clear that it sees itself as a U.S. ally.

Shahin Gobadi, a member of the foreign relations committee for the MEK's political wing, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, praised Bush's State of the Union speech. "The remarks by Bush were a very necessary and important step for distancing the West from its appeasement of the fascist dictatorship in Iran," he said. "But we hope for further, more practical steps in confronting this regime. We should be freed to help lead the opposition to the mullahs."

Most analysts say the MEK has little support within Iran, mostly limited to professionals and students, and outside Iran it is seen as a cult run by its husband-and-wife leadership, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.

The MEK has been a major source of U.S. intelligence on Iran's alleged nuclear program, producing evidence of clandestine centrifuge production that has proved accurate when checked by U.N. inspectors. Other allegations by the MEK have been proved wrong, however, and experts warn that the Bush administration is making the same mistakes on Iran as it did before leading the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war," David Kay, who directed the CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in postwar Iraq, wrote in an op-ed article in Monday's Washington Post. "Now is the time to pause and recall what went wrong with the assessment of Iraq's WMD program and try to avoid repeating those mistakes in Iran."

Kay warned that information from the MEK and other exile sources is untrustworthy, just as Chalabi's Iraq intelligence proved to be.

"Having gone to the Security Council on the basis of flawed evidence to 'prove' Iraq's WMD activities, (the United States) only invites derision to cite unsubstantiated exile reports to 'prove' that Iran is developing nuclear weapons," Kay wrote.

Although pro-American sentiment is relatively widespread among the Iranian people, some analysts and exiles say military attacks by the United States or Israel would provoke a surge of nationalism among Iranians and would allow the clerical regime to gain support.

Atabay said most Iranians in exile want change in Iran, but without bloodshed.

"Most Iranians within the United States are with U.S. policy," he said. "They are against the mullahs, but they don't want war. No Iranians want an invasion, because Iranian young people love America, but if America attacks them, they will turn into the enemy. Why should we have to change our close friends into the enemy?"

Quote:

Were do we support terrorism? Last time I checked we don't support groups like Hamas or Hezbollah (a state founded group of Iran). Our support of Osama was pre-Al Qaeda and pre-Taliban, it was illadvised, but it was well before he started his terror campaign. Israel acts in response to aggression, one of the primary functions of a nation state is to protect it's sovereign territory and provide security to it's people; pretty flimsy argument.

In response, I offer this, from the above article.

Quote:

The key tool in this strategy is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an Iranian guerrilla force that has 4,000 fighters housed in a U.S.-guarded military base north of Baghdad. This group, known as MEK, is supported by some Washington neoconservatives and liberals, as well as by many European lawmakers, but nonetheless has been designated since 1997 as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Don't we usually have to wait a generation or two before we repeat the same mistakes? Does someone have a Napoleonic complex?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 06:33 PM

Agreed and conceded Jesus, the United States has a long and proud history of getting in bed with some dirty skeezers.

sob · 02-09-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well I guess it doesn't matter me saying this, but perhaps you remember this little thing called the cold war with Russia, it I recall correctly it was an arms race.

Ever hear the saying to the victors go the spoils? We were the victor of WWII, and our policy was in regards to a non-corporeal red menace, the whole world of geopolitics is still feeling this effect.

Bottom line is, Iran signed a treaty stating they would never pursue nuclear weapons, It is very safe to assume that they are not abiding by that treaty, but you so dislike the current administration that it doesn't matter.

Further more we are reducing arms, but we should never be so foolish as to completely disarm when growing powers like China, India, and Pakistan are increasing their nuclear arsenal, when countries like Iran and North Korea, enemies who boistourous threaten America in public channels ILLEGALLY SEEK NUCLEAR WEAPONS they aren't allowed to have.

It's perposterous that you would hold America to some "moral" standard in spite of international law, but concede the same weapons to true terrorist nations in spite of international law (one of the things you even bitch about America not abiding by!!! You hypocrite!!!).

At any rate you are False Will, you are a hypocrite, I respected you up until your last post, but you showed yourself to be a punk, no problem that you won't debate me anymore.

I don't think you covered the hypocrisy in which we've had to listen to all of the America-haters' shrill cries of "Why are we in Iraq? Why aren't we doing something about Iran and North Korea????"

And now that we MENTION Iran, the screams are hitting "E" above "high C."

You're right--with this level of intellectual dishonesty, there's no point in debate.

jorgelito · 02-09-2005, 06:58 PM

Iran under no circumstances should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons (nor capability for that matter).

If anything, this is the real deal that we should have focused instead of silly ol' Iraq. but whatever, what's done is done, no sense in rehashing the past. Iran looms ahead...

I think best course of action:

1. Surgical strike - either "lobbing missiles" as MojoPeiPee said (just not indiscriminately) at strategic targets.

2. Surgical strike a la Israel at Osirik.

3. I'm not sure if invasion is really feasible, it seems like we used our "power up" option in stupid Iraqi mission which kinds of sucks now and limits our options. 10,000 soldier deaths in Iran is better than 100,000s of deaths by nukes later on. Rock and a hard place...

4. Security Council NOT an option: China, Russia will veto for sure any action put forth. That's the problem with the UN. Either disband the damn thing or make it "legit" and give it some muscle and teeth.

If we move on Iran, North Korea might get the hint and we may get two birds with one stone.

JumpinJesus · 02-09-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Iran under no circumstances should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons (nor capability for that matter).

If anything, this is the real deal that we should have focused instead of silly ol' Iraq. but whatever, what's done is done, no sense in rehashing the past. Iran looms ahead...

I think best course of action:

1. Surgical strike - either "lobbing missiles" as MojoPeiPee said (just not indiscriminately) at strategic targets.

2. Surgical strike a la Israel at Osirik.

3. I'm not sure if invasion is really feasible, it seems like we used our "power up" option in stupid Iraqi mission which kinds of sucks now and limits our options. 10,000 soldier deaths in Iran is better than 100,000s of deaths by nukes later on. Rock and a hard place...

4. Security Council NOT an option: China, Russia will veto for sure any action put forth. That's the problem with the UN. Either disband the damn thing or make it "legit" and give it some muscle and teeth.

If we move on Iran, North Korea might get the hint and we may get two birds with one stone.

I'm not ignoring your first two points, I just want to respond to your last two. On point 3, I think we can assume that going to the Security Council is just a formality. Bush knows Russia and China will veto and use this as justification for military action, citing the inaction of the Security Council. I honestly think Bush would be quite displeased if Russia and China sided with us. On point 4, Kim Jong-il is a complete whackjob from what I understand and I don't think he'll be swayed one bit by what happens in Iran, Iraq, or any other theater.

JumpinJesus · 02-09-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Agreed and conceded Jesus, the United States has a long and proud history of getting in bed with some dirty skeezers.

We've never really sparred in here, mojo, but your reputation to sticking to your guns is well known in the politics realm. Which leads me to respond to your post with simply...

Followed by...

jorgelito · 02-09-2005, 07:17 PM

Ahhh, the enigmatic Kim Jong Il.

That's a good point - That lil' dude has baffled "experts" for nearly a decade. Here's another good one. Who succeeds him if he suddenly died? We have so little intel on those guys.

It becomes a game of chicken. He may be nuts enough to not back down if we move successfully on Iran. Too hard to tell. Could be disastrous if he has nothing to lose and starts something no one wants to finish. That's the problem with IR Theory.

shakran · 02-09-2005, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I don't think you covered the hypocrisy in which we've had to listen to all of the America-haters' shrill cries of "Why are we in Iraq? Why aren't we doing something about Iran and North Korea????"

And now that we MENTION Iran, the screams are hitting "E" above "high C."

You're right--with this level of intellectual dishonesty, there's no point in debate.

You lack fundamental understanding of that "hypocritical argument."

We said "why not Iran and North Korea" because Bush said the reason we were going to war with Iraq was because they had WMD's. His reasoning made no sense because Iran and NK both had confirmed WMDs, and even the Bushites estimates placed their stockpiles higher than Iraq's. We were not advocating the invasion of Iran and NK, we were simply saying it doesn't make sense to kill the smalltime WMD holder when you ignore the large WMD holders. It's like killing the 6th grade bully for holding a butter knife while ignoring the Crip with the handgun.

We have never nor will we ever advocate attacking a country that has not first attacked us. You'll note that we have NEVER faulted Bush for going in to Afghanistan. They wouldn't give up the militants who attacked us, so they had to go down.

Iraq on the other hand had not attacked us. They hadn't even threatened to attack us. The entire justification for war was built on an unstable foundation of lies.

Now Bush seems to be casting his war-loving eye toward Iran, despite the fact that even if they ARE building nuclear weapons, we are stretched too thin to confront them about it. We're in Afghanistan still, and Iraq, we can't afford either of those in either dollars or killed/maimed soldiers, and yet Bush wants to rattle the sabers at Iran. I have never known a president to have such an insatiable thirst for war that he had to keep invading a new country every few months, nor have I ever seen a president who was so easilly able to fool so many people into believing that bullying the world is just.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 07:45 PM

Actually Iraq never abided by the Gulf War I cease fire which it signed, so everytime they fired on American air craft, that was an open act of aggression. But let's not argue that.

Willravel · 02-09-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I don't think you covered the hypocrisy in which we've had to listen to all of the America-haters' shrill cries of "Why are we in Iraq? Why aren't we doing something about Iran and North Korea????"

And now that we MENTION Iran, the screams are hitting "E" above "high C."

You're right--with this level of intellectual dishonesty, there's no point in debate.

Well, when us "America-haters" (I don't hate America, in fact I love it. My love for America is so great that I try to protect it from people who would use it for selfish and immoral reasons.) were mentioning Iran and NK, we were saying that if we were going to go to a preemptive war with some country, they should at least admit having the weapons. Before the invasion, the WMD arguments were shakey. We were simply trying to show how illogical the invasion was. We were not promoting or endorsing an invasion into Iran or NK. I can only speak for the people I know, but I get the feeling that a lot of the anti-war people felt this way. Our ideal is war as a very, very last resort.

Iran may need to be stopped from doing something stupid. They signed an agreement and they might be breaking it (we don't really know as of yet). If we find evidence from a credible source that they do have a nuclear weapons program, then a U.N. lead coalition should be allowed to disarm them. I can only hope that if we do have to go in there, we can avoid taking civilian lives and have a solid exit strategy planned out. We can't just go in there guns-a-blazin. I hope America can act with support from our allies (not just Spain's leadership and Britian's leadership) and earn back some of the respect and trust we lost.

jorgelito · 02-09-2005, 09:11 PM

What I don't understand is, do other countries want to see a nuclear Iran? You would think that they would be "with us" in trying to resolve this matter. Especially those countries within range of Iran.

If there aren't any nukes, well, then good. Better safe than sorry.

Willravel · 02-09-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

What I don't understand is, do other countries want to see a nuclear Iran? You would think that they would be "with us" in trying to resolve this matter. Especially those countries within range of Iran.

If there aren't any nukes, well, then good. Better safe than sorry.

Oh, I'm sure a lot of people are really worried about this. They want to be safe, just as anyone wants to be safe. Iran could be really dangerous with nuclear capabilities, not to mention they promised not to develop them.

I think a lot of governments are also worried about being labeled warmungers like America. Whether you think America was justified in the Iraqi war or not, it's hard to deny that a lot of people really don't like us anymore. A lot of the world hates us because we seem like a huge threat to them, and they fear us for the same reason. The last thing another country wants to do is to be put in the "opinion doghouse" with us. This enteres into their minds because they depend on foreign relations for their econemies. America's econemy is more thans strong enough to take a few of our allies being pissed at us, but few other countries have such a buffer.

That's just a guess, but it seems to make sense.

OFKU0 · 02-09-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Nice quote from her: "And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean,"

Didn't she JUST say last week that Iran wasn't on the agenda? How did it go from "not on the agenda" to more or less threatening them w/ force?

I'll guess that this is a feeler sent out to first judge reaction on how Rice is performing in her new position and also to judge her comments regarding Iran so the administration can monitor the fallout and plan from there.

smooth · 02-09-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I don't think you covered the hypocrisy in which we've had to listen to all of the America-haters' shrill cries of "Why are we in Iraq? Why aren't we doing something about Iran and North Korea????"

And now that we MENTION Iran, the screams are hitting "E" above "high C."

You're right--with this level of intellectual dishonesty, there's no point in debate.

Well you seem to have garnered a fair amount of replies to your post. However, it should be pointed out that not all people contesting our nation's actions are in agreement for the reasons of our opposition. Maybe I'm not in the "America-haters" category, but stranger things have been tossed at me in this forum,

Far from asking why we weren't invading Iraq, some opponents to the war, myself included, actually argued that Iraq was an objective. In contrast to inumerable people in this country, I could point these regions out on the map and was aware of a rudimentary history and geopolitical backstory to find my way to a sensible pattern.

When I pointed out that Afghanistan was on one side, Iraq on the other, our military and economy necessarily tied to oil, and Iran a looming threat, I was branded a conspiracists, a hater of some sort-bush, america, freedom, and even saddam loyalist, lover, supporter, & what-have-you.

My posts were peppered by asenine responses, such as, if we're after oil, why isn't it cheaper at the pump?!

Links to papers written by neo-conservatives, both inside and outside the current president's administration, detailing their long-term plans in the middle east went unattended to. Maybe they were read, but certainly nothing mentioned in subsequent posts to suggest they were.

Ultimately, I made the argument that sovereign nations ought not meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations. To my understanding, Iran claims they want to use nuclear development for energy purposes. I support alternate energy resources, I support nation-state sovereignty in the current geo-schema, and I support the notion that someone (or entity) is to be believed unless proven guilty.

I looped some of those arguments back and was in opposition to the war in Afghanistan, and I was in opposition to the war in Iraq. I never supported or even, to my knowledge, asked rhetorically why we weren't invading North Korea. I did warn that our actions could set off repurcussions that those of us in the most populated regions on the West Coast would suffer most from. But I never linked that to pre-emptive warfare, but instead requested that the people who supported this president contact members of his and their party and demand he quit acting so radically.

If I remember correctly, those kinds of posts were met with titters and jeers. Similar derision as what drips from your most current post. Such agitation is understandable from people who feel they must resort to physical violence to resolve difference. Yet, what is not understandable to me is how that commonsensical notion is repeatedly turned on its head to make the claim that people who articulate alternative visions in quest of peaceful resolutions to difference are accused of being the agitators.

host · 02-10-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Iran under no circumstances should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons (nor capability for that matter).

If anything, this is the real deal that we should have focused instead of silly ol' Iraq. but whatever, what's done is done, no sense in rehashing the past. Iran looms ahead...

I think best course of action:

1. Surgical strike - either "lobbing missiles" as MojoPeiPee said (just not indiscriminately) at strategic targets.

2. Surgical strike a la Israel at Osirik.

3. I'm not sure if invasion is really feasible, it seems like we used our "power up" option in stupid Iraqi mission which kinds of sucks now and limits our options. 10,000 soldier deaths in Iran is better than 100,000s of deaths by nukes later on. Rock and a hard place...

4. Security Council NOT an option: China, Russia will veto for sure any action put forth. That's the problem with the UN. Either disband the damn thing or make it "legit" and give it some muscle and teeth.

If we move on Iran, North Korea might get the hint and we may get two birds with one stone.

Tough talk....... but it becomes a neccessity to at least develop a defensive nuclear capability in order to deter Bush.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/</a>
“We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.....................
...................'Only powerful strength can protect justice and truth'
North Korea’s “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances,” the ministry said. “The present reality proves that only powerful strength can protect justice and truth.”

Why do so many here still believe that Bush is capable of
competent military and diplomatic policy ? Can you offer
facts to counter the following points ?

Quote:

<a href="http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4774"> Americans Die for Sharia in Iraq</a>
American
military force smashed the secular socialist state presided over by the Ba'athist
party, "liberating" its people – and eventually gave in to the rising
demand among the majority Shi'ites for direct elections held sooner rather than
later. Now the question is how far the Americans will let the advocates of an
Islamic Republic of Iraq go before they put a stop to it. For the moment, the
Americans have to "step back," as Dick Cheney put it on Fox News <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-06-iraq-shiite_x.htm">the
other day</A>:
"The bottom line for everybody to remember here is, this is not going
to be, you know, an Iraqi version of America. This is going to be Iraqi."
But how long can this last? As Americans continue dying and our tax dollars
are eaten up in the endless maw of Iraqi "reconstruction," on the
home front people are bound to wonder why, in the name of all that's holy, are
we sacrificing so much to recreate Iraq in the image of Iran? Cheney strenuously
denies the mullahs of Iraq will take the Iranian road, but in Basra, in the
south of Iraq, we're already beginning to see what this very odd "liberation"
entails. As the Chicago Tribune <A HREF="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0501270324jan27,1,1527964.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed">reports</A>:

"The bars and clubs that used to draw weekend crowds of gulf Arabs
escaping the restrictions of their own countries have closed. A firebombing
campaign has shuttered the liquor stores. No women dare walk in the streets
with their heads uncovered, and most wear the abaya, a black head-to-toe cloak.
Stores selling Western videos have been attacked, and music and parties are
frowned upon."
And that was before the election. What the mullahs have in store for
Iraq now that they have triumphed at the polls – with reportedly more than two-thirds
of the vote outside Kurdistan – isn't too hard to imagine. And the moment the
U.S. tries to interfere, the Shi'ites will turn on us in their overwhelming
majority: the Sunni insurgency will seem like a summer squall compared to the
Shi'ite storm they will unleash. 
Former American viceroy Paul Bremer got a taste of that when he <A HREF="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories_archive/afp_world/view/72128/1/.html">vetoed</A>
early elections and Sistani called his followers out into the streets: the Americans,
wisely, backed down. The same kind of relentless pressure is being brought to
bear on the occupation authorities as the elected government takes up the task
of writing a new constitution and establishing the legal framework of the emerging
Iraqi state.

In the name of the Bush Doctrine, which lately <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.transcript/">proclaims</A>
"the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world," an Islamic theocracy
is being installed in Iraq and built up with U.S. tax dollars. The right of
women to own property and enjoy full legal personhood, long recognized in the
West – and in Saddam's Iraq – will not exist in "liberated" Iraq.
America's daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq so that Iraqi women can be
enslaved by a medieval religious and legal dogma that reduces them to subhuman
status.

 That is not going to go over very well on the home front, where support for
this war is waning fast. But for now, the administration is sticking with its
hands-off approach. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-06-iraq-shiite_x.htm">put
it</A> on CNN's Late Edition:
"But look, Iraq is for the Iraqis. It's not for Americans. We're not
going to decide what kind of a country they're going to have."

squirrelyburt · 02-10-2005, 11:11 AM

Does anyone think our increased involvement in the Middle East hasn't been planned for years? Think of it, we allowed sales of nuclear proliferation materials to Iran, now everyone seems suprised the U.S. wants something done about it?

Picture this... remember the old cowboy movies where the land baron wanted to grab the land from the poor settlers? A gun was dropped in front of the poor farmer, then the baron and his ruffians slapped the guys wife until he went for the gun and was killed. The baron got the land...

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2005, 11:15 AM

Aslong as it hurts Bush right Host? Not withstanding that it is grossly destabilizing and in gross violation of proliferation, but hey if it hurts Dubya it doesn't matter.

02-09-2005, 01:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	This is surprising why? We are all being primed for the possibility of yet another "preemptive strike". __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-09-2005, 02:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I honestly don't think we're going to invade Iran. We don't have anywhere near the troop capability - unless there is a draft, which I doubt even more - and the whole world thinks the U.S. is full of shit and no one will commit anything to an Iran invasion. Also, Condi has actually talked about how if Iran doesn't voluntarily do everything we ask, our first step (for once) will be to go to the United Nations. We lost every shred of political good will we had after Iraq, and we no longer have the capability to go invading countries willy-nilly anymore. Thank God. Because I'll bet Bush really wishes he could. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-09-2005, 03:11 PM	#9 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Yeah, it is weird that she says "next steps." That sounds real badass, right? Real tough guy? But everyone knows that when she says "next steps," she meant referring them to the United Nations. Why sounds so tough when all you really are going to do is refer their case to the U.N.? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-09-2005, 04:03 PM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The next step being reffered to is putting this case up before the Security council. Plus as far as intelligence goes, it's a lot different then Iraq. You get the IAEA monitoring this place, isn't it weird that they find particles and emissions consistent with uranium enrichement? Plus you had that Pakistani scientist a few years back admit that he sold them nuclear secrets. Plus Russia has been enabling their programs the whole time as well. I don't think we will invade Iran. There might be some military action taken, but I don't think there will be an invasion. You have Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy who all wrote the handbook on modern warfare (RMA), I don't think they want conscripts fighting this for them, plus America (myself included) would never stand for. But I have no problem hurling a few missles into Iran, any country that openly supports terrorism should not be allowed nukes, especially when they signed a treaty. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-09-2005 at 04:46 PM..

02-09-2005, 05:09 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	1) THey found the particles in the ground in Natanz, Iran, right by the reactor, I didn't know depleted uranium could move around. 2) Were do we support terrorism? Last time I checked we don't support groups like Hamas or Hezbollah (a state founded group of Iran). Our support of Osama was pre-Al Qaeda and pre-Taliban, it was illadvised, but it was well before he started his terror campaign. Israel acts in response to aggression, one of the primary functions of a nation state is to protect it's sovereign territory and provide security to it's people; pretty flimsy argument. 3) We don't have to disarm because we dictate the pace of the dance, we didn't sign any treaties saying that we wouldn't seek nuclear weapons. Iran has, but I guess since we are the big bad United States it doesn't much matter right? 4) A) What does torturing Iraqi's have to do with anything and B) You are grossly mistaken about the insurgents, it doesn't matter that they aren't terrorists persay (many are), they are illegal combatants. The only difference in this case with insurgents compared to people from Afghanistan is that we are relinquishing control over them to the Iraqi's. Insurgents are the text book definition of illegal combatants as ratified in Hague, American articles of war, and Geneva. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-09-2005 at 05:12 PM..

02-09-2005, 01:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Incosian Upright Location: In my head.	Ahhh, the news that I knew would appear eventually. No surprise though...Colin Powell made a similar move with Iraq, first explaining how there were no plans for Iraq and then turning around with the case for war...

02-09-2005, 02:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
Manx Loser	The good news is, I'm approaching that depth of cynicism that causes one to just laugh.

02-09-2005, 06:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well I guess it doesn't matter me saying this, but perhaps you remember this little thing called the cold war with Russia, it I recall correctly it was an arms race. Ever hear the saying to the victors go the spoils? We were the victor of WWII, and our policy was in regards to a non-corporeal red menace, the whole world of geopolitics is still feeling this effect. Bottom line is, Iran signed a treaty stating they would never pursue nuclear weapons, It is very safe to assume that they are not abiding by that treaty, but you so dislike the current administration that it doesn't matter. Further more we are reducing arms, but we should never be so foolish as to completely disarm when growing powers like China, India, and Pakistan are increasing their nuclear arsenal, when countries like Iran and North Korea, enemies who boistourous threaten America in public channels ILLEGALLY SEEK NUCLEAR WEAPONS they aren't allowed to have. It's perposterous that you would hold America to some "moral" standard in spite of international law, but concede the same weapons to true terrorist nations in spite of international law (one of the things you even bitch about America not abiding by!!! You hypocrite!!!). At any rate you are False Will, you are a hypocrite, I respected you up until your last post, but you showed yourself to be a punk, no problem that you won't debate me anymore. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-09-2005 at 06:23 PM..

02-09-2005, 06:33 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Agreed and conceded Jesus, the United States has a long and proud history of getting in bed with some dirty skeezers. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-09-2005, 06:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Iran under no circumstances should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons (nor capability for that matter). If anything, this is the real deal that we should have focused instead of silly ol' Iraq. but whatever, what's done is done, no sense in rehashing the past. Iran looms ahead... I think best course of action: 1. Surgical strike - either "lobbing missiles" as MojoPeiPee said (just not indiscriminately) at strategic targets. 2. Surgical strike a la Israel at Osirik. 3. I'm not sure if invasion is really feasible, it seems like we used our "power up" option in stupid Iraqi mission which kinds of sucks now and limits our options. 10,000 soldier deaths in Iran is better than 100,000s of deaths by nukes later on. Rock and a hard place... 4. Security Council NOT an option: China, Russia will veto for sure any action put forth. That's the problem with the UN. Either disband the damn thing or make it "legit" and give it some muscle and teeth. If we move on Iran, North Korea might get the hint and we may get two birds with one stone.

02-09-2005, 07:17 PM	#23 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Ahhh, the enigmatic Kim Jong Il. That's a good point - That lil' dude has baffled "experts" for nearly a decade. Here's another good one. Who succeeds him if he suddenly died? We have so little intel on those guys. It becomes a game of chicken. He may be nuts enough to not back down if we move successfully on Iran. Too hard to tell. Could be disastrous if he has nothing to lose and starts something no one wants to finish. That's the problem with IR Theory.

02-09-2005, 07:45 PM	#25 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Actually Iraq never abided by the Gulf War I cease fire which it signed, so everytime they fired on American air craft, that was an open act of aggression. But let's not argue that. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-09-2005, 09:11 PM	#27 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	What I don't understand is, do other countries want to see a nuclear Iran? You would think that they would be "with us" in trying to resolve this matter. Especially those countries within range of Iran. If there aren't any nukes, well, then good. Better safe than sorry.

02-10-2005, 11:11 AM	#32 (permalink)
squirrelyburt Crazy Location: Central Wisconsin	Does anyone think our increased involvement in the Middle East hasn't been planned for years? Think of it, we allowed sales of nuclear proliferation materials to Iran, now everyone seems suprised the U.S. wants something done about it? Picture this... remember the old cowboy movies where the land baron wanted to grab the land from the poor settlers? A gun was dropped in front of the poor farmer, then the baron and his ruffians slapped the guys wife until he went for the gun and was killed. The baron got the land... __________________ If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

02-10-2005, 11:15 AM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Aslong as it hurts Bush right Host? Not withstanding that it is grossly destabilizing and in gross violation of proliferation, but hey if it hurts Dubya it doesn't matter. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.