Bush is going to attack Iran!!!

[sabra]

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=050812174659.za5zrtj4.php

Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran

US President George W. Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over the Islamic Republic's resumption of nuclear activities, in an interview with Israeli television aired Friday.

When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: "All options are on the table."


"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.


"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Aw hell, you POS, why don't you just invade EVERYONE

at once and get it over with?


And, BTW, you complete and utter POS, 'use of force' was your first option, not your last.

[sabra]

12. "to secure our country"

you have to be kiddin me!

[Imagevision]

103. The bad part about this is that you know Bush isn't making these calls!

Bush only gives the go ahead which means we're really in trouble with this administration. It's as though he wants the US. to get nuked first before he goes nutz with nukes! think about it, he's still spending his "political capital" bad-bad news!

[niceypoo]

125. And just what will he attack with?

He must think more war will boost his poll ratings

[Beaver Tail]

2. Yep. Writting has been on the wall for a while

[LondonReign2]

23. Yes, what Beaver Tail said.

Listen to Scott Ritter

[Bluerthanblue]

131. more than writing, we've been attacking

them for awhile now- though not "officially"-
it was posted here weeks ago if i'm not mistaken-

[xxqqqzme]

3. well, of course he is going 2 attack

Iran. unca dick has already said they're willing 2 use nukes on 'em! Foreign policy by 'Yee Haw'!

Like Jon Stewart said 'Iraq? - Iran? he only missed it by one letter'.

[Imagevision]

111. Will Pakistan/India ne next??

[Imagevision]

112. Do you wonder what the exit strategy will be on that one!??

[SteppingRazor]

4. Still not convinced...

There's no money in attacking Iran. He's already got his base in the Middle East in Iraq, and there's not a ton of oil in Iran, like there is in Iraq. Not to mention he knows it would be a hugely unpopular move back home, and he's all about holding onto power.
Put simply, there's no reason for him to attack Iran, and a ton of reasons for him not to.

[BeHereNow]

9. Oh LORD- You can't be serious!

Please tell me you are NOT that uninformed.
BHN

[Maple]

10. Three reasons

Yes, there is oil in Iran.

Iran is moving to the Euro on oil.

Bush doesn't need to worry about being re-elected.

[SteppingRazor]

38. Three responses

Yes, there is oil -- but oil alone isn't pretext to invade.

Iran, in fact, already has moved to the Euro for oil (http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.htm), and we haven't bombed them

Bush may not need to worry about being re-elected, but the rest of the GOP does, and Bush will do what his minders tell him to.


Also, I'm aware of these Cheney and nuclear weapons and Iran stories. I read the New Yorker all the time. And if you read the story (the New Yorker broke this, along with the American Conservative), even the story itself is clear to say this is United States Strategic Command coming up with a contingency plan -- and we have contingency plans already for nuclear war with North Korea and China. That doesn't mean we're actually going to nuke them. In fact, the fact that this was leaked suggests it's being used as diplomatic leverage.

Also, per that other poster, I'm actually very well informed. I read lots. And I'm smart and stuff. :dunce:

[Maple]

46. 3 responses

Oil and the Euro was good enough to invade Iraq for

Iran is not yet on the Euro but is starting a bourse in March

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450

I doubt Bush is concerned about what happens to the GOP

Bunker busters were sent to Israel some time ago for just such an event...if they don't work...well that's when contingency plans come into effect.

[SteppingRazor]

50. Oil and the Euro weren't the only reasons we invaded Iraq...

We also wanted to establish a base in the Middle East -- one that would be more beholden to us than Saudi Arabia. Now that we have that -- refering only to the Iraqi puppet government, not the country itself -- we don't have that reason to invade Iran.

Also, we had several pretexts to invade Iraq. Thus far, we have none to invade Iran, apart from possible weapons dealing, and even that is on shaky ground.

Also, Bush has to be concerned what happens to the GOP. They're the ones that tell him what to do.

And finally, sending bombs to Israel is hardly anything new for us. We've been doing it since that country got its start. Just because we've continued to do so is hardly proof of preparation for war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Hm read the PNAC plan

Rebuiding America's Defenses... then think who is running the show

Iran IS in their list of targets

[SteppingRazor]

64. I have read it...

That's why I mentioned Iraq as a geopolitical base in the Middle East -- that's straight from the document you mentioned by name. Rebuilding America's Defenses, though, doesn't call directly for an invasion of Iran. Or of any other country, for that matter. It doesn't have a "list of targets," though it certainly mentions what they perceive to be the prooblem areas. But nowhere does it call for an invasion of Iran. Heck, it doesn't even treat Iran with the same bellicosity it has for Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Then I read a different documennt than you did

as it does heavily imply more than just control of a single base in the middle east

[Kashka-Kat]

107. "regional control" is the phrase used a lot re pnac

[Maple]

57. Yeah they were

but if your thoughts comfort you, then feel free.

The same was said of an invasion of Iraq.

[SteppingRazor]

59. The same was said -- but I didn't say it.

I was quite aware that we were going to invade Iraq, and I was violently against the idea from the get-go. I said before the war that we would not find any WMDs, and I thought Powell's UN speech was a farce.

And thanks a lot for the condescension. :eyes:

[Maple]

62. Twas said by many

I have no idea what you said at the time.

And now many...including you...are saying the same about Iran.

[SteppingRazor]

65. Yes, but it's not the same thing.

Comparing the situation in Iraq with that of Iran is comparing apples and oranges.

[Maple]

67. So compare apples and oranges then

Both are edible.

[Maple]

72. Self-Delete

Wrong place, sorry

[serryjw]

117. How do you pronounce

Bourse?

Booorse OR

BURRRSE??

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. What will it take for the mushroom cloud

to rise at Tehran to convince you? You realize unka dick has asked for plans for an NUCLEAR attack, don't you?

[doodadem]

13. Are you kidding?

Iran is the 5th largest oil producer in the world.

[Lecky]

21. Actually, Iran has more oil than Iraq

Oil Reserves
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

Oil Production
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

[SteppingRazor]

40. Thanks for settin' me straight!

I tip my hat. But I'm still not convinced. Oil alone won't do it. Not without some geopolitical reason.

[Lecky]

47. Oil is the #1 reason why we are in war with Iraq!

Looks like we have Venezuela (another oil-rich nation) on our hit list as well...

[SteppingRazor]

49. That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?

Or at the very least, oversimplification. Yes, there's oil. But we also had a UN pretext. Also, there was the neocon idea of establishing a base in the Middle East. Now that we've done that in Iraq -- successful or not -- we lose that reason for invading Iran. Bush can't just start dropping bombs on Iran willy nilly, y'know.

[Lecky]

54. Oh. my. God

[lockdown]

96. LOL

Unbelievable. :rofl:

[Zinfandel]

66. That's so funny...Why do we want that base?

For oil!

THE OIL REGION: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc....

YES, we illegally invaded Iraq number one FOR THE OIL and all the other reasons, US bases in Iraq, (to control the region), the ousting OF Hussein, etc., all for and all lead to the number one reason!

OIL!! No? (And the BushCo corporations making billions of dollars where ever we take our war(s)...Halliburton, Bechtel, GE, Carlyle Group, etc. etc.)

And soon of course bombs will be dropped on Iran (and whomever else BushCo choses in the oil region) I find it silly, people who keep saying where are the troops going to come from? Unfortunately, it will be a neat little Clinton-esed war...bomb dropping on selected targets...all of course for and because of OIL!

Our fat, oil hungry, non conserving, luxury-obsessed country's motto has become...

Blood for Oil!

And we ALL, as you are aware of, support that need & ideology to some degree, some directly and most indirectly. So who do we think we are kidding?

Very funny indeed!

[jsamuel]

68. have you even read any of the posts here over the past 3 years?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

102. Incredible! Herr Busch doesn't NEED any justification to invade Iran!!...

...We invaded Iraq based on a pack of lies...the NeoCon Junta won't even worry about telling us lies to justify invading Iran.

[Orangepeel]

98. I don't believe oil was the #1 reason why we are at war with Iraq

I think oil was seen as icing on the cake.

I think that bush knew he had to be at war with some country in order to be a "war time president" and Iraq was seen as a good target. Oil played a part in the decision, I'm sure, but there was also the Oedipal thing with getting Saddam and the easy pretext of WMD, gassed his own people, etc.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. When did our opinions matter to him?

He stole his second term so why should what we say matter to him? They control the media and hand picked crowds.

[Bushwick Bill]

51. FTW agrees

For those of you who care, Mike Ruppert is skeptical of all the warnings these days and says no way do we invade.

August 12, 2005 0700 PST (FTW): -- I woke up this morning to a host of panicked and hysterical emails about pending nuclear attacks against US cities; about a multitude of rumors that the US is planning on invading and/or even nuking Iran in the near future. Most of the sources of these reports were so-called Internet “journalists” with absolutely horrible reporting ethics and even worse records of making accurate predictions. Readers should actually check “batting averages” before running amok and encouraging others to do so. How often do these guys get it right? These writers also apparently don’t know the first thing about proper sourcing standards either. Examination of most of these reports reveals rumors, unsubstantiated gossip, unsourced anecdotes, anonymous sources and connections that are so far-fetched as to be laughable. One “journalist” even tried to prove that CNN’s new program “Situation Room” was reason to expect an imminent US attack on Iran or a nuclear attack on a US city by our own government. Give me a break!

I’m not saying that our government isn’t capable of such things. I’m just saying that I refuse to be driven into a state of paralyzed hysteria over such unpersuasive evidence. For the neocons to nuke an American city it would have to be the end of the world as we know it anyway. They wouldn’t gain much after getting everything (all the money they asked for or stole) they demanded to prevent just that: The Patriot Act (now permanent), Homeland Security, Northcom, Iraq, secret tribunals, the authority to impose martial law, etc., etc., etc. You know.
<snip>
I repeat, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GOING TO ATTACK IRAN.

Answering two simple questions should convince you of the same thing. Then you should ask, “What is it that we’re not supposed to be seeing?”

First: Did Iraqi oil production increase or decrease after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and do you believe it possible for the US to attack Iran (especially with nuclear weapons) and have Iranian oil production remain unchanged?

Second: With oil production dramatically falling around the world; and since it is now known that global demand is exceeding supply on a monthly basis, do you honestly believe that China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Britain, India, Malaysia and Europe would permit even the loss of 100 barrels per day of Iranian crude from their own economies? Now, as we see below, there are clear signs that Russian production may also be falling. (FTW has been warning of this for some time). Russia is the world’s second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia.

Here are the world's ten-largest exporters in million of tons per year (Source: IEA):

Saudi Arabia 353
Russia 137
Norway 137
Venezuela 123
Iran 102
Nigeria 98
UAE 96
Mexico 91
UK 85
Iraq 75

Does anyone believe that any loss of Iranian oil will be tolerated anywhere? Madsen was quite correct when he said that a US invasion of Iran (or even an air attack) would lead almost instantly to strategic nuclear war. In my opinion, everyone that had the delivery systems to do it (maybe even France and Britain) would send everything they had at us – that’s right us – within days if we persisted with such lunacy. Hell, they might even do it preemptively. That, of course, is something the US gave itself the right to do anywhere in the world just after 9/11. Tit-for-tat! It’s only fair Dick.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081205_iran_london_summary.shtml

[snooper2]

76. Plus, you forgot to mention Bush is a pussy...

So, nope, he won't attack Iran....

[shanti]

88. are you mad?

remember, there are some indictments coming up. do you think he wants the details of that exposed? i don't think so! he has plenty of reason to start something.

[natrat]

104. yes, unless ,of course, they are murderous fucked up pigs

[Pobeka]

115. Iran is sitting on top of about 10% of the world's natural gas supply.

And there has been research monies spent in the last 5 years how to liquify natural gas more efficiently for ocean transport.

I love the smell of energy profits in the morning.

But now, you have to wonder if the energy industry trusts * to do the job, given what a mess Iraq has become.

[still_one]

5. two questions

1. Where is he going to get the soldiers?

2. Unlike Iraq, where congress gave him the authority, they gave him no such authority for any other country

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Draft, and unka dick has authorized nuclear planning

[still_one]

30. the draft will never be accepted

and if he makes a pre-emptive nuclear or non-nuclear attack on any country, without congressional approval, our government falls

[Maple]

15. You don't need soldiers to drop bombs

And once the bombing starts, what is Congress likely to do?

[FreedomAngel82]

27. They were bombing

before we "officially" went into Iraq.

[Maple]

33. And Cheney's talking nukes

[Lecky]

45. Seriously

Someone needs to put Cheney and Rumsfeld in straight-jackets and take them to the nearest asylum. They are out of control and I don't put nuking Iran past those crazy fucks.

[still_one]

32. impeach the bastard

[LondonReign2]

31. Don't need soldiers to attack

The attack will be strictly airborne, to reduce all those messy casualties. He won't even feign interest in liberation, so no need for messy ground combat.

Blow everything to hell, then helicopter in to secure the oil fields

[still_one]

36. you can't win wars by just bombing

[LondonReign2]

43. Yes, you can.

Kosovo ring a bell? How about Japan in WW2?

Further, this wouldn't be a war in the traditional sense - ChimpCo isn't interested in securing land other than the oilfields and pipelines. He doesn't need dilute troop strength by worrying about citizens or cities.

[still_one]

100. don't agree

the minute they attack Iran, Oil will go to at least 100 dollars a barrel

Iran DOES have significant weapons, i.e. silk worm missles, etc.

The whole Arab world would be united against us if we attacked Iran. Do we plan to bomb the whole middle east?

[still_one]

101. this assumes you have a majority force in Iran that wants you

Not like Kosovo at all

As far as Japan is concerned if you imply we would Nuke them we would essentially be destroying ourseleves

we don't understand the culture, religion, or history

worse than Viet Nam

[earthside]

39. "Two Answers"

1. You don't need troops if you use atomic bombs. Furthermore, since Rummy is making the case that all the IEDs and suicide bombs are coming from Iran now, we'll just transfer some troops from Iraq to Iran ... the bombing will then stop so you won't need more troops.

2. Well, the need to attack Iran will have to arise as an 'emergency'. Using his power under the War Powers Act, Bush (or any other president, for that matter) can 'defend' the country and keep troops in another country for 90 days (I think) before having to get Congressional approval. So, in other words, by the time Congress gets to have any input, it will be way after the fact.

[KaryninMiami]

6. Yup = it's all part of the plan. (Bush Doctrine). Iraq, Iran, Syria

He's a bit late on the Iran attack however- many of us were thinking it would happen in June. The scary part is that Iran, unlike Iraq, might actually have nuculear capabilities and would of course, use them and if they can't make it to our soil, Israel is just around the corner. It's all so horrifying - we've got to get these neocons out of here. Marshall law is next- and judging by the news from last week, it's in the works as soon as we have the next terror attack here (which we know they are very likely to create).

Pray that Fitzgerald comes up with enough explosive evidence that they get derailed before it's too late. That, I believe, is our only hope.

[LondonReign2]

37. It is only delayed because they ran into unexpected problems...

...installing Bolton. Now that the Chimperor has him in place they've ratcheted up the plans and rhetoric again.

[TheFarseer]

7. He wants to in the worst way

that much is clear. I wonder if he can make it happen without some kind of authorization from Congress. Even with another 9/11, I think his approval rating would fall into a range between 10 and 20.

[Just Me]

8. Indictments need to be issued,...SOON!!!

:scared:

[Mr_Spock]

16. So what else is new. Wag the dog (God spelled backwards - hehe) all over

again. Yeah, it's all Clintons fault. Fucking lying incompetent ass holes.

[pointblank]

17. ............

I do not like you, Uncle Sam. Would you like to bomb Iran? We'll sell you weapons,
despite the ban. I would not like to bomb Iran!

[AFSCME girl]

18. Frickin' asscan...........

God, I hate this POS!! :mad: :grr:

[DBoon]

19. What if we invade and LOSE?

Iran is a larger and much wealthier country than Iraq. I suspect the average Iranian would be much more likely to support their government that the typical Iraqi was.

What happens when we invade and lose?

[durablend]

77. RAPTURE TIME!

WIN WIN either way (where THEY'RE concerned)

[iconoclastic cat]

83. It's like Hammer Time, only with Jeebus.

[Canuckistanian]

20. "Last options" quickly become "First options" where violence is concerned.

* just can't stop playing with his toys, now can he?

[0rganism]

29. Same thing when it's the "Only Option", right?

I don't think I've seen anything that indicates the bushistas have anything but a military option on the table.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Of course he is

And of course he is ignoring North Korea. :eyes: He has to attack the weaker countries with oil so he can appear big and macho and make a buck at the same time. It's quite pathetic.

[Redstone]

25. I still don't think so. Even at the low points during Vietnam,

there was never as much frustration among the command ranks of the military as we see these days.

I think an order to invade Iran would provoke a mutiny.

Redstone

[hippiegranny]

26. just where does he think he's getting the troops

to throw at yet another meat grinder?

that mutha... i really hate him.

[uppityperson]

28. Breathe Sabra

This is why we need to stop him. He might. He just might. He might declre martial law and start the draft and all that too. He might succeed in destroying the world. Now go and email your congress people.

[sabra]

58. Thanks :-)

It's just that I have close family in that region too. I fear for their safety.

[uppityperson]

69. You have Iranian family? Cool. I have family/friends draft age

Sabra, where is your family? pm ok, I am interested in people who know people there.

[sexybomber]

34. In other news, the sky is blue...

The Pope is Catholic...
and bears do, in fact, shit in the woods.

[slor]

35. Someone please stop this maniac...

from starting WWIII!

[Fleshdancer]

41. Last year I thought the war in Iran was going to start around July 2005

I'm surprised the war drums are just now starting. Pretty damn bold of him considering his poll numbers over Iraq are extremely low. But, as my husband told me the other night, we need to accept the fact that Bush doesn't care if he's popular or not...and THAT is a scary thing.

[Burried News]

42. Us flat Earth Society folks support our George. Push em into a

corner George. U da man with The Plan.

[sinkingfeeling]

44. OK, where are you going to get the invasion force this time? Are

the College/Young Republicans all voluteering?

[walldude]

48. We won't attack Iran until

another terrorist attack happens here in the U.S. That is all they are waiting for, anyone who can't see it is blind. They are using the exact same rhetoric they used to get into Iraq. Plus they spent all this money on these new "tactical" nukes. Gotta test them out on someone...

[Double T]

52. Bush Will Use A War With Iran To Bolster His.....

failed and further failing presidency. Bush also will use a war with Iran to draw attention away from all the criminal activity within his own administration.

[shanti]

95. DING DING DING!

WE HAVE A WINNER!

[manic expression]

53. It's very possible

however, I don't think a full invasion is probable. The US really is not able to carry out such a task. It would be insane, but that's what has characterized the Bush administration the most.

There are A LOT of warning signs, so we need to watch this carefully.

[walldude]

56. I agree, they don't have the man power

to invade. Tactical Nukes....

[manic expression]

63. That would be beyond insane

I think they will play with their new toy - MOAB, along with a VERY extensive air bombing campaign.

Iran could then feasibly attack the US forces in Iraq, perhaps with Syria, if such an attack does happen....

[LondonReign2]

75. Yes, remember Rumfilled is already spreading the word

..that many Iranian positions are deeply buried in hardened bunkers. They are setting up to use their MOABs.

[Silverhair]

84. WRONG. The MOAB is a surface bomb.

It does not have the ability to penetrate to ANY depth. Purely surface effect.

It would really be helpful if you would learn about what different weapons systems can and can't do BEFORE making wild eyed speculations.

[Swamp Rat]

113. RNEP n/t

[Silverhair]

116. ????

What does RNEP mean?

[Swamp Rat]

118. Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator - "mini," bunker-busting nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_Nuclear_Earth_Penetrator
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=777

[Silverhair]

128. Thanks.

I don't remember ALL the acronyms the military uses. I do know about the nukes bunker busters. Scientific American did an article about them that questioned their effectiveness.

I don't think W would use them. He doesn't have the authority to just wake up one morning and say, "Let's nuke Iran." No POTUS does.

[Swamp Rat]

129. I read that SA article too.

Love that magazine. :)

I think THEY plan to use nukes on Iran - it's part of the PNAC plan. Not enough troops for an invasion, another 9/11, and goodbye Tehran... I hope I am wrong, but Bush&Co are getting desperate to maintain domestic control (of their coup), and want to keep to their schedule of world domination. :scared:

[manic expression]

124. They could and probably would

use the MOAB on surface targets.

Wild eyed speculations, you say?

[Silverhair]

127. Please CAREFULLY read my post AND the one I was responding to.

That poster was speculating on MOAB being used against deeply buried bunkers.

Surface targets are a different matter.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. That's why they need those brand new, "bunker-busting", "tactical" nukes.

Insane? Every single fucking thing this administration DOES is insane.

They pride themselves on doing exactly the things that make rational people go, "oh, they'd never do that".

Scary shit.

[RagAss]

122. Yeh...and don't worry about China...

If they get pissed we just won't wake up one morning.....Those folks think nuclear winter is junk science !!!!!!

[Silverhair]

130. China is NOT yet that kind of threat.

Compare China's present nuclear arsenal to the Soviet's at the height of the cold war. It isn't even close. And we have plenty to eliminate any country and have lots left over for anybody else. China does not have the ability that you seem to think they do.

Sagan's nuclear winter scenario was based on a model that has some erroneous assumptions. However, a major nuclear exchange between any of the major nuclear powers would certainly do damage to the earth's ecology.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Gee, where have I heard that before?

Last resort? Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Very, very scary. But where's he going to get the boots? I think a draft might wake up even the stubbornly asleep.

[Beelzebud]

61. Him and what army? n/t

[truth2power]

71. I'm on outrage overload today...

Been looking at those "Fuck Bush" bracelets someone has in their sig line. Think I'm gonna get one. :banghead:

Sheesh! Now I can't fine the site. It's "fashist" something or other.

[CityZen-X]

73. We Will Lose!

Iran has a million+ army, it has fighter jets, not as many as we do, but enough to cause severe damage to our troops. Of coarse the Bu$h*t plan will be to send a Shock & Awe II, so that means we will be killing more innocent men, women, and children. and are we sure that Iran does not have a working nuke as we speak?
And if this criminal government decides to launch nuclear weapons upon Iran it will not only kill thousands, maybe millions, what will the environment be like in it's aftermath.
This sick, vile, odious Bu$h*t government has to be overthrown by any means possible. Even if it takes a million of us marching to the White Howzen with torches in hand, as if we were marching onto Frankensteins castle to remove the monster that is terrorizing our country and this planet.

[Maple]

74. What country is right next door

to Iran...and already has American troops in it?

[lotus]

109. Russia...

Russia's next door too, and they won't be happy about this. This is NOT good. Damn neo CONS and their "attack everyone" foreign policy.

[jzodda]

78. I think hes bluffing

While I never thought he was bluffing when dealing with Iraq, with Iran I think he is bluffing.

Why? Our military is in horrible condition, and a strike would also have ramifications throughout Iraq. I am sure the Pentagon is also totally opposed to any action and would fight it tooth and nail this time.

We have a shortage of manpower, weaponry, support for military action in general, money, and morale. In fact Iran felt free to remove the seals and I am sure they feel 100% safe to do so.

Again the horrible mess in Iraq has totally hamstrung us to do anything with regards to anybody. If I was an enemy of the US this is the time to develop weapons we do not want then to have thats for sure.

[LaPera]

79. KICK!

:kick:

[lateo]

80. He isn't going to attack Iran.

Where is he going to get the troops to attack it? And then after the attack who is going to hold it?

It ain't gonna happen.

[LondonReign2]

81. He only needs to hold the oilfields and pipelines

That is all the BFEE is interested in. He isn't even going to pretend about all this democracy bull.

And after using tactical nukes and MOABs, there won't be a lot of opposition left in Iran anyway.

More and more Bush = Hitler.

[Maple]

82. And Afghanistan is right next door

with troops. Israel probably has a few spares they could send too.

[flyarm]

91. an air attack...and remember

isreal hasn't put troops into iraq..are they holding them for iran??

[lateo]

99. True but...

We could do an air attack but we would need a ground attack to occupy. The US and Israel just don't have enough troops to take on such a task right now.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Typical. He uses his illegal, fucked up, based-on-lies invasion of Iraq

as a precedent.

See, now he doesn't even need to come up with the bullshit rationale, because he's already established that he's allowed to invade any country, at any time, just because he feels like it.

[cthrumatrix]

90. they will attack to stop the Iranian Oil Exchange from opening March '06

[flyarm]

89. and this is what bush said in 1999 about Clinton and our troops that ..

were deployed!

yes this was the chickenhawk on clinton..

Bush, 4/99 - "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Bush, 6/99 - "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."


That was 2 MONTHS into the Kosovo conflict.


heyyyyyyyyyyy ******
Mr. chickenhawk.., where is our Victory strategy in Iraq? Mr. chickenshit.., where is our timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq?



Liddy Dole sat on stage when he said it!!

reported in Seattle Post Intelligencer

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. But but all changed on September 11

and why do you hate America? :sarcasm:

[shelley806]

93. What a total LIAR!!!!!!!

"The use of force is the last option for any president."

[bluestateguy]

94. We would need a draft to have a war with Iran

We would need several hundred thousand more troops for a campaign like that, plus additional reinforcements for the other countries that border Iran (like, uh, Iraq and Afghanistan). Iran has a real military, and while many people there dislike the radical mullahs and their religious fascism, they will fight like hell against a foreign invader.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Oh you need to think NUKES

here... and DRAFT

[Imagevision]

105. Fitzgerald Rove DSM Ahbu Garhrab Sibel Edmunds Cindy Sheehan

Now we know what he'll use for a diversion to create more serious news.
that's a fact jack!

[earthmama]

106. Well that is just F**king GREAT ...

I can not wait to see Karma come and bit him in the ass.

[McCamy Taylor]

108. Iran has the goods on Votes for Hostages BUT * Has an Oedipal Complex

So I think this will just encourage him to attack. He would kind of like to see his Daddy's legacy get shot to hell.

[Cha]

110. "All options are on the table" Except to

talk to Cindy Sheenan, of course,..that's a NO GO! :silly:

[moodforaday]

114. Bush warns judge of "impending doom"

Abyone remember this one?

The (over)exercise of power - Los Angeles Times

A week ago, when President Bush met with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III to interview him for a potential Supreme Court nomination, the conversation turned to exercise. When asked by the president of the United States how often he exercised, Wilkinson impressively responded that he runs 3 1/2 miles a day. Bush urged him to adopt more cross-training. "He warned me of impending doom," Wilkinson told the New York Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait22jul22,0,3359930.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

So what does he know that we're only speculationg about?

[rumpel]

119. does he have any troops to go there? or is he sending his daughters...

[ScamUSA.Com]

121. yeah our military is spread thinner than ever

We're already completely unprotected on the homeland.

We're going to invade a country of 20 million civilians?

Lord fucking help us

[LisaL]

126. Unless he is sending Barbara and Jenna to attack Iran, I don't

know where he will get the people to do it.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NVMojo]

132. Bush's ass needs to be attacked out of our white house!

[mogster]

133. Well, this is serious

Although I think the main reason for this statement, at this time, is to put pressure on Iran in future negotiations with the Europeans/IAEA.

But by uttering such a statement, Bush binds himself to an agenda that can easy escalate to nuclear war, because he must know that he doesn't have the support of the people for such a dangerous adventure, measured in conventional forces. People are war tired, and don't see Iran as such a great threat.
By telling Iran to stand in line he jacks the pot and the Iranians may want to call his bluff.

Freaky stuff.