Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Confrontation with Iran: What’s next?
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
Target: Tehran?

By placing Iran on the Axis of Evil, Bush made an enemy of a would-be ally.

By Leon Hadar

Once upon a time there was a Third World nation in Asia with an ancient and magnificent civilization in which the centers of power were dominated by ideologues resolutely opposed to the values of democracy and who espoused a vicious anti-American agenda. The heads of that rogue regime stirred up hatred towards the U.S. by fueling revolutionary sentiments at home while providing aid to anti-American guerrillas abroad as part of what was regarded as a global ideological confrontation.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the Republican administration and lawmakers of the two major parties, backed by a key lobby representing foreign interests, were promoting a policy that called for overthrowing that anti-American regime and replacing it with one that was friendly to the United States. Indeed, Washington under Democratic and Republican administrations alike had refrained from maintaining a diplomatic relationship with that Asian government and led an international effort to isolate it.

But resisting political pressure, the tough-minded president and his realpolitik foreign-policy advisors decided that, based on American’s geopolitical interests, the U.S. had to launch a diplomatic initiative aimed at engaging that Asian adversary. The need to contain common strategic threats and to end a bloody regional war gave birth to a major diplomatic coup that helped strengthen America’s international position for years to come ...

This reads very much like the diplomatic opening of China in the early 1970s. But is it possible that in a few years it could also be the way historians will describe changes taking place in the relationship between the U.S. and a Third World country in North Asia, Iran?

Students of International Relations 101 explore that amazing Nixon-goes-to-China chapter in American diplomatic history as a classic example of realpolitik. This school of thought assumes that nations advance their interests vis-ŕ-vis other nations based on a realistic examination of the military, political, and economic balance of power. Governments may disagree over values that drive their respective national politics, but that should not set obstacles on their ability to work together to advance their common interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_22/article.html


I found the above to be an interesting perspective.
davisął
I believe you stated that they were #2 on the list? Unfortunately they aren't even close to Iraq as far as size of country, the military or the population. I can't quote the stats off the top of my head, but they are apples and oranges.

Iran is a much harder proposition. That's probably why they want the little nukes.

I'd say Israel will take care of Iran's nuke facilities with our blessings.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb

Secretary Cites Evidence of Missile Effort

By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01

SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday.

Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons.

"I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been actively working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with him to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a warhead."

Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed to limit Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for military use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to go into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment program.

"I'm talking about information that says they not only have these missiles, but I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of matching warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop in Manaus, Brazil.

"There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward from what we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov17.html

So Powel just happens to mention this at a refueling stop in Manaus, Brazil?
davisął
That's a serious bit of "mentioning" there buddy.

If Powell, basically the only voice of reason in the administration, says this ... what do you think the rest are saying?


Here it comes.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (davisął @ Nov 17 2004, 10:55 PM)
That's a serious bit of "mentioning" there buddy.

If Powell, basically the only voice of reason in the administration, says this ... what do you think the rest are saying?
Here it comes.
*

I think they wanted to use Powel's credibility one last time before he is totally discarded.
davisął
Tonight is political cartoon night.



lil bart
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Nov 17 2004, 07:57 PM)
I think they wanted to use Powel's credibility one last time before he is totally discarded.
*


"One last time" was at the UN .... way back when.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (lil bart @ Nov 18 2004, 12:18 AM)
"One last time" was at the UN .... way back when.
*

Ouch!
lil bart
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Nov 17 2004, 09:25 PM)
Ouch!
*


I'm the General of the Army. Powell works for me. dry.gif

I do wonder, SpaceDude, what trial balloon they're floating on his last hurrah, and what schemes are on the tables.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (lil bart @ Nov 18 2004, 12:27 AM)
I'm the General of the Army. Powell works for me.  dry.gif

I do wonder, SpaceDude, what trial balloon they're floating on his last hurrah, and what schemes are on the tables.
*

I do make me a bit suspicious. Maybe they are getting ready for another product roll out after the shopping season is over.
davisął
That's right, it's time for the new line, isn't it?

Great.
SpaceCowboy
Silver platter info, eh?

QUOTE
Nuclear Disclosures On Iran Unverified

U.S. Officials Checking Evidence Cited by Powell

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, November 19, 2004; Page A01

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell shared information with reporters Wednesday about Iran's nuclear program that was classified and based on an unvetted, single source who provided information that two U.S. officials said yesterday was highly significant if true but has not yet been verified.

Powell and other senior Cabinet members were briefed last week on the sensitive intelligence. The material was stamped "No Foreign," meaning it was not to be shared with allies, although President Bush decided that portions could be shared last week with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, officials said.

According to one official with access to the material, a "walk-in" source approached U.S intelligence earlier this month with more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike. The official agreed to discuss the information on the condition of anonymity and only because Powell had alluded to it publicly.

But U.S. intelligence officials have been combing the information carefully and with a wary eye, mindful of the mistakes made in trusting intelligence information alleging that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Powell, who announced earlier this week that he would not stay on for a second term, presented that intelligence in a February 2003 speech to the U.N. Security Council that was meant to convince the world that Saddam Hussein needed to be forcefully removed from power. Much of his presentation turned out to be based on information provided by unreliable sources.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov18.html
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
Much of his presentation turned out to be based on information provided by unreliable sources.


Why not just say "false information provided by unreliable sources. "?
davisął
I read that. At least he didn't hold up a vial of fake anthrax.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (davisął @ Nov 19 2004, 07:40 AM)
I read that. At least he didn't hold up a vial of fake anthrax.
*

That was a nice touch.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
Powell's Talk of Arms Has Fallout

His remark that Iran is working to join missiles and warheads may have been based on classified data. Allies, lawmakers want full disclosure.

By Sonni Efron, Tyler Marshall and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's statement that Iran is actively studying how to outfit a missile with a nuclear bomb caused surprise and confusion in Washington on Thursday, and members of Congress demanded that he provide more details.

Powell's remarks Wednesday — apparently unscripted and based on classified information — appeared to catch the Bush administration and its European allies off-guard. The CIA refused to comment, and the White House and State Department declined to offer details. Some sources raised questions about the credibility of the intelligence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...-home-headlines


I wonder what Powell’s purpose was. Is he pre-empting the hawks by rolling out the the new “intelligence “ in time to see a real investigation?
davisął
November 18, 2004

Neoconservatives Complete Capture Of Bush, Plan More “Virtuous Violence”
By Paul Craig Roberts

The United States is in dire straits. Its government is in the hands of people who connect to events neither rationally nor morally.

If President Bush’s neoconservative administration were rational, the US would never have invaded Iraq. If Bush’s government were moral, it would be ashamed of the carnage and horror it has unleashed in Iraq.

The Bush administration has no doubts. It knows that it is right and virtuous. Bush and the neocons dismiss factual criticisms as evidence that the critics are "against us."

People who know that they are right cannot avoid sinking deeper into mistakes. The Bush administration led the US into a war on the basis of claims that are now known to be untrue. Yet, President Bush and Vice President Cheney consistently refuse to admit that any mistake has been made. The chances are high, therefore, that the second Bush administration will be more disastrous than the first.

The first Bush administration has cost America 10,000 casualties (dead and wounded). Eight of ten US divisions are tied down in Iraq by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents. Polls reveal that most Iraqis regard Americans as invaders and occupiers, not as liberators. US prestige in the Muslim world has evaporated. The majority of Muslims, who were with us are now against us. Sooner or later, this change of mind will endanger our puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

In a futile effort to assert hegemony in Iraq, the US has largely destroyed Fallujah, once a city of 300,000. Hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians have been killed by the indiscriminate use of high explosives.

To cover up the extensive civilian deaths, US authorities count all Iraqi dead as insurgents, delivering a high body count as claim of success for a bloody-minded operation. The human cost for American families is 51 dead and 320 wounded US troops—casualties on par with the worst days of the Vietnam War.

The film of a US Marine shooting a captured, wounded and unarmed Iraqi prisoner in the head at close range has been shown all over the world. Coming on top of proven acts of torture at US military prisons, this war crime has destroyed what remained of America’s image and moral authority.

On November 17, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called for investigation of American war crimes in Fallujah. This is a remarkable turn of events, showing how far US prestige, and the morale of our armed forces, have fallen.

However, for Bush administration partisans, war crimes are no longer something of which to be ashamed. Reflecting the neoconservative mindset that America’s monopoly on virtue justifies any and all US actions, Fox "News" talking heads and their Republican Party and retired military guests have arrogantly defended the marine who murdered the wounded Iraqi prisoner.

Iraqi insurgents are condemned for deaths that they inflict on civilians. But when American troops fire indiscriminately upon civilians and US missile and bombing attacks kill Iraqis in their homes, the deaths are dismissed as "collateral damage." This double standard is a further indication that Americans have come to the belief that US ends justify any means.

A number of former top US military leaders and heads of the CIA and National Security Agency have condemned Bush’s invasion of Iraq as a "strategic blunder." These are people who gave their lives to the service of our country and can in no way be said to be "against us."

However, the Bush administration and its apologists regard critics as enemies. To accept criticism means to be held accountable, something the Bush administration is determined to avoid. Condoleezza Rice, who failed as National Security Adviser to prevent the Pentagon from using fabricated information to start a Middle East war, is being elevated to Secretary of State in Bush’s second term.

Indeed, the entire panoply of neoconservatives, who intentionally fabricated the "intelligence" used to justify the US invasion of Iraq, are being rewarded by promotion to higher offices.

Stephen Hadley is moving up to National Security Adviser. Hadley is the person who advocates "usable" mini-nukes for the US conquest of the Middle East.

John Bolton is to be Deputy Secretary of State. Bolton is the person who wants the US to invade Iran.

The few officials who are not warmongers, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, are leaving the Bush administration.

Right before our eyes, the CIA is being turned into a neoconservative propaganda organ as numerous senior officials resign and are replaced with yes-men.

With its current troop strength, the Bush administration cannot achieve the Middle East goals it shares with the Israeli government. Either the draft will have to be restored or mini-nukes developed and deployed. As insurgents do not mass in military formations, the mini-nukes would be used as a genocidal weapon to wipe out entire cities that show any resistance to neocon dictates.

Many Bush partisans send me e-mails fiercely advocating "virtuous violence." They do not flinch at the use of nuclear weapons against Muslims who refuse to do as we tell them. These partisans do not doubt for a second that Bush has the right to dictate to Muslims and everyone else (especially the French). Many also express their conviction that all of Bush’s critics should be rounded up and sent to the Middle East in time for the first nuke.

These attitudes represent a sharp break from American values and foreign policy. The new conservatives have more in common with the Brownshirt movement that silenced German opposition to Hitler than with America’s Founding Fathers.

Bush’s reelection, if won fair and square, was won because 20 million Christian evangelicals voted against abortion and homosexuals. However, Bush’s neoconservative masters will use his reelection as a mandate for further violence in the Middle East. They intend to set the US on a course of long and debilitating war.

There is no one left in the Bush administration, the CIA, or the military to stop them.



http://www.vdare.com/roberts/041118_violence.htm
davisął
QUOTE
Many Bush partisans send me e-mails fiercely advocating "virtuous violence." They do not flinch at the use of nuclear weapons against Muslims who refuse to do as we tell them. These partisans do not doubt for a second that Bush has the right to dictate to Muslims and everyone else (especially the French). Many also express their conviction that all of Bush’s critics should be rounded up and sent to the Middle East in time for the first nuke.



And quite a few are evangelical Christians. As a former Christian I cannot even comprehend the thought process that would transform someone seeking to be "Christ like" into one of these war mongering zelots.
davisął
QUOTE
The Confrontation with Iran: What’s next?



Israel?
davisął
QUOTE
November 21, 2004

Won’t Get Fooled Again?
By Paul Craig Roberts

It is not yet Bush’s second term. All available US troops are tied down in Iraq by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents. Go-it-alone Bush has isolated America from her allies. And the neocons want to spread their war to Iran.

The Bush administration is recycling the lies that it used to invade Iraq: Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons that will be given to terrorists. In a display of loyalty to a ruthless neocon administration calculated to win him appointments to corporate boards, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that Iran was working on nuclear missiles.

The source for this effort to spread hysteria? One "walk-in" source with unverified documents. Most likely, the source is a member of an Iranian exile group given the assignment by neocons Richard Perle and John Bolton.

One might think that Powell would be suffering shame enough for lying to the UN about Iraq. Apparently not, as his last act against world peace is to spread neocon propaganda that Iran is going nuke.

The US media, now a tamed propaganda organ for the White House, dutifully repeated Powell’s unverified claims, thus providing "reports" for Bush to cite as evidence that Iran was rushing ahead with the development of nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency conducts regular inspections in Iran. The IAEA recently issued a report stating that it has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

Real evidence, however, is no match for neocon propaganda.

And the propaganda is pouring out of the well-oiled neocon machine. French, German and British agreements that confine Iran to the peaceful use of nuclear energy are in the way of the neoconservatives’ intention to spread the war to Iran and must be discredited.

On November 20, Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post hysterically accused Europe of defending "Iran’s ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state." Glick "exposes" France’s efforts to prevent the outbreak of wider war in the Middle East as a trick: "France wishes only to box in the US to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism." [H-hour has arrived, Caroline B. Glick  November 20, 2004]

The neoconservative Heritage Foundation promptly broadcast Glick’s hysterical rants into the Republican noise machine, reviving talk radio calls for nuking France, "America’s oldest enemy."

Three years ago Ann Coulter was fired by National Review, a neocon publication, when she declared: "We should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Today such violent words are common parlance.

There is no evidence whatsoever in behalf of the claims the Bush administration is making about Iranian nukes. The purpose of these false claims is to create fear that will breach the public’s opposition to a draft. The neocons are desperate for troops for their Middle Eastern War.

For a decade or longer, the neocons who control the Bush administration’s foreign and military policies have been writing papers advocating a US-Israeli conquest of the Middle East. A moronic president has given them their chance.

Anxious to get their war underway, the neocons launched their invasion before they had the necessary manpower for the task. Bogged down in Iraq, the neocons are desperate to widen the war before the American public has enough of the pointless carnage and forces a withdrawal.

Thus, before the Iraqi war is finished, the neocon propaganda machine is at work creating fear that the US is in danger from Iranian nukes unless America preemptively attacks Iran.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But Americans are perfectly set up to be fooled twice. Right-wing talk radio has conservative patriots absolutely demanding to be fooled. Christian rapture propagandists have conservative congregations waiting to be wafted up to heaven. The Republican, corporate, Jewish owned media is with President Bush. Military types are determined to avenge the Vietnam loss by winning the war against Islam into which they have been conned.

Critics are dismissed as "enemies" who are "against us." Reason and common sense are not features of the Bush administration. It is all blind emotion, a replay of The Triumph of the Will.



http://www.vdare.com/roberts/041121_iran.htm
davisął
And from Buchannon, who endorsed Bush, an attack on the neoconservatives. Old Pat wants to blame no one but the neoconservatives for this "endless war"" as he puts it, and let Bush remain unaccoutable and blameless.

Is a Bush-neocon clash ahead?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 22, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


Vietnam was liberalism's war, the war into which America was led by the best and the brightest of Kennedy's New Frontier.

When Eisenhower left Washington in 1961, there were 600 U.S. advisers in Vietnam. When Nixon returned as president in 1969, there were 535,000 U.S. troops there. Unable to win or end the war, liberalism was defeated and Nixon elected to extricate the country.


In four years, he succeeded. By early 1973, he had withdrawn all U.S. ground troops and negotiated the return of our POWs. Yet today, Vietnam is known, in John Kerry's phrase, as "Nixon's war."

How did this happen? Quite simple. The media that cheered JFK and LBJ as they marched us into Vietnam rounded on Nixon, the politician they hated most, and defected to the anti-war movement once Nixon was president. By 1974, the party that had marched us into Vietnam was sabotaging Nixon every step of the way out. It finally effected America's defeat by breaking Nixon. The myth of the 1960s is that liberals were far-seeing opponents of Vietnam.

Out of power, however, they escaped being held accountable for the disaster they wrought in Southeast Asia.

The neoconservatives, however, who were plotting war on Iraq years before 9-11, will not now be able to escape accountability. They will not be able to blame a President Kerry for losing Iraq.

That much is certain with Bush's re-election, the departure of Colin Powell from State and George Tenet from the CIA, and White House orders to their successors to "clean house."

What is happening in Washington today is that those who were skeptical of the Iraq war and warned the White House against going in are being purged. And those who assured President Bush it would be a cakewalk, that we would be welcomed with flowers and not suicide bombers, that democracy would take root in Iraq and spread through the region, that he would be the Churchill of his generation are being promoted. Those who were wrong are being advanced, and those who were right are being dismissed.

This appears politically unjust, but it is in a way healthy. For, should Iraq turn out to be a triumph, the war party will have been proven right – and deserve whatever credit there is. But should Iraq collapse in chaos and civil war, and be judged to have been an act of imperial hubris and historic folly, they will now be held fully accountable. All the scapegoats are gone. We have political clarity.


Thus, a prediction: As neoconservatives in the war Cabinet push impatiently for more troops in Iraq, for strikes on Iran, for military confrontation with North Korea, the restraining force – no longer Colin Powell or the CIA – will be George W. Bush.



(Bush as the moderating, calming voice of reason? Oh good grief. Give me a break.)

With neoconservatives even more zealously committed than he to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and preventive war on "axis of evil' nations seeking weapons of mass destruction, and using U.S. power to effect regime change on defiant nations, only George Bush can now prevent them from realizing their vision.
When Bush invaded Iraq, he dismissed the warnings of realists like Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger. But now, his Bush Doctrine has collided with reality. Unless the president is himself a hopeless utopian, he – and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice – must see it.

The United States, with 80 percent of its ground forces home from Iraq, in Iraq or on the way, does not have the ground troops to fight another land war. Indeed, there may not be enough troops in-country to defeat the spreading insurgency in Iraq.

Air or missile strikes on Iran would bring Iranian support for anti-American guerrillas in Afghanistan, in the Shia area of Iraq, in Lebanon, perhaps in Saudi Arabia. The Middle East could erupt in war. Who would support us in such a war that would send the price of oil and gas soaring and plunge the West into recession?

In his post-election neocon "checklist" of things to be done in a second Bush term, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy calls for "regime change – one way or the other" in Iran and North Korea. And he calls for "appropriate strategies" for dealing with "China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America."

To the neocons, the world is going fascist and America must confront every regime that thwarts our imperial will.


Prediction: Early in the second term, the neocons are going to be thrown into a cold shower by George W. Bush, or we are headed for wars without end, until bankruptcy beckons.

With a sinking dollar, an overstretched army, soaring trade and budget deficits, and America isolated in the world, visions of empire must vanish in the cold dawn light of reality.


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41580
Nomarchy
I love Buchannan's predictions: The jump-shot will either go in, or it will not. The stakes couldn't be higher. If it goes in, the shooter will be lionized. If it does not, the shooter will be vilified, and rightly so.

That's what I am talking about, some incisive political prognostication . . .
lil bart
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Nov 22 2004, 08:23 AM)
I love Buchannan's predictions: The jump-shot will either go in, or it will not. The stakes couldn't be hired. If it goes in, the shooter will be lionized. If it does not, the shooter will be vilified, and rightly so.

That's what I am talking about, some incisive political prognostication . . .
*


You might be right .... unless, of course, you're wrong.

smile.gif
Bart Katz
QUOTE (lil bart @ Nov 22 2004, 12:24 PM)
You might be right .... unless, of course, you're wrong.

smile.gif
*


A fan throws a bottle of Irish whiskey on Pat. Pat runs into the stands. He finds another bottle and runs off with it.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Nov 22 2004, 05:52 PM)
A fan throws a bottle of Irish whiskey on Pat.  Pat runs into the stands.  He finds another bottle and runs off with it.
*

laugh.gif
Catharsis
I blame Bill Clinton.

It was during his administration that we had love and peace and an economy that just couldn't get any better, until the next day when it did. Along the way the hippie generation was singing and cheering about this new age of enlightenment and making plans to put the finishing touches on this Utopia that they had created.

And the global village was born.

But not everybody wants to live in your village, Mr. Hippie.

Some people, Muslims, Africans, and Asians don't want to be Americans. They dont believe in your village of rights without responsibilities. But America is more than a place on a map it's an idea, a thought that has a life of it's own. People are afraid of that idea from the other side of the planet. It might show up and change our way of life in Africa or Asia or Where Ever.
Change is bad enough through violent means, but this Idea, this Global Village is a corruption of the cultures that the hippies try so hard to "celebrate". It's subversive, a slow bloodless genocide.

America brought this on Herself, not through violent invasion but by not understanding her "neighbors" in this perfect, Utopian, Global Village.

There is one great asset which will be gained though. America will recieve a resource that is much needed now and in the years to come, thousands of combat veterans to police the new Global Village.
davisął
QUOTE
There is one great asset which will be gained though. America will recieve a resource that is much needed now and in the years to come, thousands of combat veterans to police the new Global Village.


Have no doubts Mr. Republican, Iraq is Bush's war. It was him and his cadre of neoconservative chicken-hawks who instigated, manipulated and fear-mongered our country into a total disaster. I fully supported hunting Al Queda in Afghanistan and killing every one of those heartless bastards.

Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam. No, it is much worse than Vietnam, it is the cultural and spiritual center of Islam. Now we're on a crusade that will alienate the Muslim world and those who must live with Muslims.

QUOTE
Some people, Muslims, Africans, and Asians don't want to be Americans. They dont believe in your village of rights without responsibilities. But America is more than a place on a map it's an idea, a thought that has a life of it's own. People are afraid of that idea from the other side of the planet. It might show up and change our way of life in Africa or Asia or Where Ever.
Change is bad enough through violent means, but this Idea, this Global Village is a corruption of the cultures that the hippies try so hard to "celebrate". It's subversive, a slow bloodless genocide.


QUOTE
Change is bad enough through violent means, but this Idea, this Global Village is a corruption of the cultures that the hippies try so hard to "celebrate". It's subversive, a slow bloodless genocide.



Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Are you possibly a Bush supporter? You sound like one. Blame everything in the foreign policy theater on your percieved social domestic enemy and take no responsibility or even acknowlege any culpability. The arroganat, hammer foreign policy these morons use can only make things worse.
Bombing the hell out of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or had any significant role in Al Queda or terrorism is not Ok. Occupying a ME country that will NEVER calm down enough for any kind of honest democracy is not OK either.

The whole god damned problem is that these Muslim countries don't want our culture to destroy their own.

That includes the overwhelming influence of large corporations, but you'd probably gloss right over that. lol, what a joke, nail the "hippie culture" but don't say one word about the culture that actually has more of an effect on the Middle East than any, the huge oil companies and the money they weild like a weapon. The Sauds are OK because they're Bush's corporate buddies?

Blame everything on the "global villiage"? How about US hegemony or imperial hubris?

Just asking.
davisął
QUOTE
I blame Bill Clinton.


Might as well. Got a dress to prove it? Would you like Ken Starr to come back for another round?


QUOTE
I blame Clinton.
<shakes head>


Bush starts WW3 and you guys are still blaming Bill Clinton?

wow.

Do Republicans take responsibility for ANYTHING?

That is a rhetorical question.
davisął
I'm sorry, but Clinton?


Ever read the Project for a New American Century?
lil bart
QUOTE (davisął @ Nov 25 2004, 07:58 AM)
Have no doubts Mr. Republican, Iraq is Bush's war. It was him and his cadre of neoconservative chicken-hawks who instigated, manipulated and fear-mongered our country into a total disaster. I fully supported hunting Al Queda in Afghanistan and killing every one of those heartless bastards.

Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam. No, it is much worse than Vietnam, it is the cultural and spiritual center of Islam. Now we're on a crusade that will alienate the Muslim world and those who must live with Muslims.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Are you possibly a Bush supporter? You sound like one. Blame everything in the foreign policy theater on your percieved social domestic enemy and take no responsibility or even acknowlege any culpability. The arroganat, hammer foreign policy these morons use can only make things worse. 
Bombing the hell out of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or had any significant role in Al Queda or terrorism is not Ok. Occupying a ME country that will NEVER calm down enough for any kind of honest democracy is not OK either.

The whole god damned problem is that these Muslim countries don't want our culture to destroy their own.

That includes the overwhelming influence of large corporations, but you'd probably gloss right over that. lol, what a joke, nail the "hippie culture" but don't say one word about the culture that actually has more of an effect on the Middle East than any, the huge oil companies and the money they weild like a weapon. The Sauds are OK because they're Bush's corporate buddies?

Blame everything on the "global villiage"? How about US hegemony or imperial hubris?

Just asking.
*



Methinks you are misreading Catharsis. But that's discussion for another (leftover turkey) day.
Bart Katz
QUOTE (lil bart @ Nov 25 2004, 10:34 AM)
Methinks you are misreading Catharsis. But that's discussion for another (leftover turkey) day.
*


There's only one way to read Catharsis. laugh.gif
Catharsis
QUOTE (davisął @ Nov 25 2004, 07:58 AM)
The whole god damned problem is that these Muslim countries don't want our culture to destroy their own.

My point exactly! Not so much on the God and the Damning, but my point true!

Blame everything on the "global villiage"? How about US hegemony or imperial hubris?

Exactly right again! The global village or Utopia IS the American hegemony and hubris! Very astute of you sir.

Just asking.

Just replying.

*
Catharsis
QUOTE (davisął @ Nov 25 2004, 08:01 AM)
Might as well. Got a dress to prove it? Would you like Ken Starr to come back for another round?
<shakes head>
Bush starts WW3 and you guys are still blaming Bill Clinton?

wow.

Do Republicans take responsibility for ANYTHING?

That is a rhetorical question.
*


Now, now, it's not WW3 it's big but not that big.

Responsibilties are of greater importance than rights. I'm not playing on this one.
I am however, speaking of my own responsibilities and my own life.

As to President Bush and Iraq? It is "his" war in the sense that he is this counrties' leader and ultimately responsible for this countries' actions.

My blaming President Clinton on the whole "global village" that lead us up to this point is a commentary on culture, ours, and the differences therein.

Explained in a style designed to draw your attention. Your attention to the idea, not fact, but idea that we all have opinions and some are more radical than others.

Besides, if a hippie drops dead in the woods, would anyone care?

Now THAT'S a rhetorical question!
Catharsis
We really should have taken out Saddam in the first war.
We had the means, we had the support, and the winds of opinion were blowing in a good directon.

Alas.

What to do now? Make the best of it. Yes that sounds childish and simple-minded.
Consider this though:
Lets agree that getting out is the best course of action. I mean stay until the Iraqi's have are living by their own difinition of stability, and then leave.

Bin Laden? Is the next Saddam, we should get him out of circulation in this war, not the next one. And we will have a next one if we don't do it "now".

Vote in your next election. In the interim, love your countrymen. Your neighbor, the person on the bus with you. Say hello and try to mean it this time. Again, I know that I sound simple-minded, but experience has been my best teacher.

As to the obvious opposing voices in this post, (love thy neighbor, kill Bin Laden) I can only suggest the Great Seal of America. You know-the eagle with an olive branch in one talon...and arrows in the other.
Nomarchy
QUOTE
We really should have taken out Saddam in the first war.


And replaced him with whom? What would've happened in Iraq? Would Iran have become more powerful regionally? What would've happened in Saudi Arabia? And, what about an independent Kurdistan?
davisął
Have you ever read Cheney's reasons for NOT occupying after Desert Storm? I may not agree with much of anything that dick says now, but he predicted the very outcome we have now in Iraq.
davisął
QUOTE
What to do now? Make the best of it. Yes that sounds childish and simple-minded.
Consider this though:
Lets agree that getting out is the best course of action. I mean stay until the Iraqi's have are living by their own difinition of stability, and then leave.



Stay the course? Even if it goes off a cliff? Nice thought. living by their own difinition of stability? What does that mean? There will be no stability. They were right to doubt the invasion and occupation in 1991. Think about it this way. Back then, when we had a huge international coalition that makes the one we have now look sad and paaaaaathetic, the smarter people realized that occupation would be impossible, Wolfowitz must not have been in a position of influence.


QUOTE
Bin Laden? Is the next Saddam, we should get him out of circulation in this war, not the next one. And we will have a next one if we don't do it "now".


Huh? Don't you think we'd love to take bin Laden out? By the way, Bin Laden is NOT Hussein. You've been listening to those two immoral lying assholes, Bush and Cheney. No matter how they or you try, you cannot morph Iraq into Afghanistan, Hussein into Bin Laden OR HITLER, or Al Queda into Bathists. That is dishonest and just wrong. That's the kind of decietful bullshit that got us into this war and I will point it out every god damned time because IT IS DISGUSTING. You have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot really compare the two. Therein lies the problem, Republicans refuse to name the real enemy, Saudi radicals.

15 of 18 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and we invade Iraq.
Art.
QUOTE (Catharsis @ Nov 25 2004, 11:25 PM)
We really should have taken out Saddam in the first war.
We had the means, we had the support, and the winds of opinion were blowing in a good directon.

*


Support from whom? Not our allies who signed on to get Saddam out of Kuwait and no more.
Nomarchy
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 26 2004, 09:36 AM)
Support from whom? Not our allies who signed on to get Saddam out of Kuwait and no more.
*


We also lacked support from . . . the U.S. establishment.
Art.
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Nov 26 2004, 09:40 AM)
We also lacked support from . . . the U.S. establishment.
*


So who does that leave? The Shiites and Iran?
Nomarchy
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 26 2004, 09:44 AM)
So who does that leave? The Shiites and Iran?
*


Pretty much. The Kurds, as well.
davisął
U.S. General Warns Iran Against Exploiting U.S.
Mon Nov 29, 2004 07:20 AM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me," Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, who was speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, said the armed forces were not overextended.

The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq and more than 18,000 in Afghanistan, with others deployed in Kuwait, Japan, Germany, Africa, South Korea and Bosnia.

"We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it," Abizaid said. "If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily."

Washington and some Iraqi officials have accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with money, arms and militants, but on Sunday Tehran said it was ready to co-operate with Iraq to stop militants crossing their mountainous 1,000-mile border.

"We have no intention of interfering in Iraq's state matters. Iraq's stability is necessary for Iran's security," Iran's deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, said in Tehran.

He told a news conference Iran was ready to help train Iraqi security forces.



http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...storyID=6941047
davisął
General says U.S. military
isn't overextended



Report: Abizaid warns Iran should not
assume forces are stretched thin


Updated: 8:46 a.m. ET Nov. 29, 2004WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.


“Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me,” Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, said the armed forces were not overextended.

The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq and more than 18,000 in Afghanistan, with others deployed in Kuwait, Japan, Germany, Africa, South Korea and Bosnia.

“We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it,” Abizaid said. “If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.”

Washington and some Iraqi officials have accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with money, arms and militants, but Tehran said Sunday it was ready to cooperate with Iraq to stop militants crossing their mountainous 1,000-mile border.

“We have no intention of interfering in Iraq’s state matters. Iraq’s stability is necessary for Iran’s security,” Iran’s deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, said in Tehran.
lil bart
QUOTE (davisął @ Nov 29 2004, 06:22 AM)
U.S. General Warns Iran Against Exploiting U.S.
Mon Nov 29, 2004 07:20 AM ET

 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me," Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, who was speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, said the armed forces were not overextended.

The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq and more than 18,000 in Afghanistan, with others deployed in Kuwait, Japan, Germany, Africa, South Korea and Bosnia.

"We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it," Abizaid said. "If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily."

Washington and some Iraqi officials have accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with money, arms and militants, but on Sunday Tehran said it was ready to co-operate with Iraq to stop militants crossing their mountainous 1,000-mile border.

"We have no intention of interfering in Iraq's state matters. Iraq's stability is necessary for Iran's security," Iran's deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, said in Tehran.

He told a news conference Iran was ready to help train Iraqi security forces.
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...storyID=6941047
*



Back to wondering why, then, all the bravado and saber-rattling from the US side? Pre-emptive or temptatious?
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
"We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it," Abizaid said. "If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily."
lil bart
Yikes!!

SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (G.G. @ Nov 29 2004, 07:05 PM)
Why aren't your images showing up for me?
*

This is the image bart tried to post (it didn't show up for me either).

http://www.mazeguy.net/expressive/yikes.gif

But once I went to the image in a new browser window, then it showed up ok in the original lil bart post above.


That's all I know.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (G.G. @ Nov 29 2004, 07:23 PM)
I clicked your link and got this:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /expressive/yikes.gif on this server.

Weird.
*

Computers work in mysterious ways. rolleyes.gif
lil bart
QUOTE (G.G. @ Nov 29 2004, 04:23 PM)
I clicked your link and got this:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /expressive/yikes.gif on this server.

Weird.
*


I have no idea. <<FROWNIE!>> They show up for me. It is a browser thing, and sometimes a cache-dump thing.

You missed my official "Yikes" face.
davisął
QUOTE
You don't have permission to access /expressive/yikes.gif on this server.



Isn't that always the case?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.