Iran is next. Another war for our age.

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: rickn
you're a cocky little punk aren't ya? and you would be right, I wouldn't be interested in them, afterall I graduated from Jack & Jill magazine about 25yrs ago

You asked, I answered. Does that make me cocky? I guess I lied though, they're not national magazines. They're international refereed journals.

Originally posted by: silverpig
Very few journalists reveal their sources. It's very common practice.

Do you deny Watergate ever happened?

I understand it's a common practice. However, when someone is clearly just writing a piece to be anti-Bush, as indicated by his language and selected quoting of completely anonymous sources, I find it hard to lend credence to anything he says. You can lend him as much credence as you see fit, but don't expect me to do the same. I'm not sure what Watergate has to do with anything...?

Have you ever considered all the criticism and all the articles wouldn't seem so anti-Bush if you weren't so pro-Bush?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BBond
Have you ever considered all the criticism and all the articles wouldn't seem so anti-Bush if you weren't so pro-Bush?

As I've said, I'm not so much pro-Bush as anti-Kerry. Kerry was a real piece of work. Bush is terrible, but I refuse to vote for someone who I perceive as even worse simply because Bush sucks. You would do well to take note of this. You would likewise do well to re-read the article and take note of the blatantly subjective language used to defame Bush. This type of writing is completely unprofessional, and the primary reason that I can only laugh at the article.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: irwincur

The adminstration doesn't think negotiations will work, and they need to threaten force, so they should not negotiate at all. Since we aren't negotiating, no deal made will mean anything, so no deal will occur, and since no deal will occur, the only answer will be force.

The US and Europe have been attempting some form of negotiations with Iran for over two decades now. The msot recent round has proven once again that the 'European' way of doing it is not working. Iran as usual promptly agreed, told Europe to bug off, and then looked for every loophole available. Now, they are within weeks of producing what they refer to as the Islamic bomb, the ones that will destroy Israel, and get funneled to every crack pot Islamic nut in the world.

Good bye, Tel Aviv, see ya, New York, no more Berlin, London, Moscow, Beijing, LA, etc... It is not like Iran has been veiling their threats and ultimate goals for years.

😕

The US HAD been pursuing relations with Iran, and it is no big secret that we were on the verge of a quiet understanding between the clerics, the more secularist supporters and ourselves. That baby went out with the bathwater with the foolish "Axis of Evil" speech. They alienated many people who were out in the streets in support of the US after 9/11. Remember that? Once we decided to declare them evil and attack Iraq, then the supporters were forced underground, and those who were againt us to gain power.

We were making real progress. The model for peace might have been Iran, but we screwed it up.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond
Have you ever considered all the criticism and all the articles wouldn't seem so anti-Bush if you weren't so pro-Bush?

As I've said, I'm not so much pro-Bush as anti-Kerry. Kerry was a real piece of work. Bush is terrible, but I refuse to vote for someone who I perceive as even worse simply because Bush sucks. You would do well to take note of this. You would likewise do well to re-read the article and take note of the blatantly subjective language used to defame Bush. This type of writing is completely unprofessional, and the primary reason that I can only laugh at the article.

Who is talking about Kerry?

I'm suggesting the bad news about Bush's policies wouldn't seem like Bush bashing if you weren't so pro-Bush. And the way you defend just about anything he does proves you're pro-Bush as well as the way you bring up Kerry even though he's now roadkill on the highway of history.

Come out of the closet, you Bushie you.

😉

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: irwincur

The adminstration doesn't think negotiations will work, and they need to threaten force, so they should not negotiate at all. Since we aren't negotiating, no deal made will mean anything, so no deal will occur, and since no deal will occur, the only answer will be force.

The US and Europe have been attempting some form of negotiations with Iran for over two decades now. The msot recent round has proven once again that the 'European' way of doing it is not working. Iran as usual promptly agreed, told Europe to bug off, and then looked for every loophole available. Now, they are within weeks of producing what they refer to as the Islamic bomb, the ones that will destroy Israel, and get funneled to every crack pot Islamic nut in the world.

Good bye, Tel Aviv, see ya, New York, no more Berlin, London, Moscow, Beijing, LA, etc... It is not like Iran has been veiling their threats and ultimate goals for years.

😕

The US HAD been pursuing relations with Iran, and it is no big secret that we were on the verge of a quiet understanding between the clerics, the more secularist supporters and ourselves. That baby went out with the bathwater with the foolish "Axis of Evil" speech. They alienated many people who were out in the streets in support of the US after 9/11. Remember that? Once we decided to declare them evil and attack Iraq, then the supporters were forced underground, and those who were againt us to gain power.

We were making real progress. The model for peace might have been Iran, but we screwed it up.

:thumbsup:

as long as this "we" = George W. Bush and his neocon maniac choir.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BBond
Who is talking about Kerry?

I'm suggesting the bad news about Bush's policies wouldn't seem like Bush bashing if you weren't so pro-Bush. And the way you defend just about anything he does proves you're pro-Bush as well as the way you bring up Kerry even though he's now roadkill on the highway of history.

Come out of the closet, you Bushie you.

😉

There's a big difference between pointing out anti-Bush statements and actually defending Bush. When I first joined the forum, I defended the Iraq war tooth and nail, to be sure. Since then I've realized the problems with the events leading up to the war. I believe I summarized my own thoughts in this very thread in my first post (or another concurrent thread on the same topic anyway).

I stand by my statements that the article is very poorly written and was only written to make Bush look bad. This is clear from a cursory review of the article, in which conjecture is presented as fact and no source is cited unless the word 'neocon' is used at least once (exaggeration, but I think you get the point). For example:

The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. ?The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,? a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. ?And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.?

In this case, he claims the Pentagon has one plan but doesn't quote anyone from the Pentagon. Instead, he quotes someone from the IAEA. In court, this type of testimony is called hearsay and is inadmissable because it is unreliable at best. "I heard x say y..." Hardly a sound foundation for a "factual" story, which is what this article claims to be.

 

[Aimster]

I favor it .. 🙁 😛

Just bomb government sites from the air and use the already govt. financed Iranian stations in California to tell the people to fight. I don't know if this will work because the people do not own guns.

If your commanding officer told you to do something you will most likely do it. The majority might not like the government, but the people who run the country have all the power. They give all the orders and they will control the military.

Iran will attack Israel/U.S bases with their missiles. Israel U.S can just keep bombing them from the air.
Invade Iran and it will be ugly.

 

[dmcowen674]

Here's a reporter still using the N word:

1-17-2005 Neocons turn their attention to Iran

In Congress, the proposed Iran Freedom and Support Act, sponsored by senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn, calls on the administration to back "regime change" and promote and fund the transition to a democratic government through alliances with opposition groups that renounce terrorism.

A similar bill in the House is proposed by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida republican and fierce anti-Castro campaigner. Regime change is not in the language, but the bill would back pro-democracy groups. It also seeks to strengthen existing legislation that would penalise foreign companies investing in Iran's energy sector.

1-17-2005 Bush Won't Rule Out Action Against Iran Over Nukes

President Bush said on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran if that country was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Bush said in an interview with NBC News when asked if he would rule out the potential for military action against Iran "if it continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program."

Iran denies it has been trying to make nuclear weapons and says its nuclear program is geared solely to producing electricity.
===========================================================
It worked with Iraq so time to go after Iran's Oil.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond
Who is talking about Kerry?

I'm suggesting the bad news about Bush's policies wouldn't seem like Bush bashing if you weren't so pro-Bush. And the way you defend just about anything he does proves you're pro-Bush as well as the way you bring up Kerry even though he's now roadkill on the highway of history.

Come out of the closet, you Bushie you.

😉

There's a big difference between pointing out anti-Bush statements and actually defending Bush. When I first joined the forum, I defended the Iraq war tooth and nail, to be sure. Since then I've realized the problems with the events leading up to the war. I believe I summarized my own thoughts in this very thread in my first post (or another concurrent thread on the same topic anyway).

I stand by my statements that the article is very poorly written and was only written to make Bush look bad. This is clear from a cursory review of the article, in which conjecture is presented as fact and no source is cited unless the word 'neocon' is used at least once (exaggeration, but I think you get the point). For example:

The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. ?The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,? a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. ?And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.?

In this case, he claims the Pentagon has one plan but doesn't quote anyone from the Pentagon. Instead, he quotes someone from the IAEA. In court, this type of testimony is called hearsay and is inadmissable because it is unreliable at best. "I heard x say y..." Hardly a sound foundation for a "factual" story, which is what this article claims to be.

Would Bush's case for war be admissible in court?

 

[MAW1082]

Just because I just posted about this in another thread . . . SEE: THE DOMINO THEORY by Paul Wolfowtiz.

We install a democratic regime in one area of the Middle East and then use that area as a springboard for launching further regime changes within the region.

I don't understand how people are surprised by this revelation. As long as this neoconservative regime stays in power there will be a relentless campaign by Washington to unilaterally impose its politics and economics on parts of the world that have been unwilling to submit to imperial rule.

Edit: spelling

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Just because I just posted about this in another thread . . . SEE: THE DOMINO THEORY by Paul Wolfowtiz.

We install a democratic regime in one area of the Middle East and then use that area as a springboard for launching further regime changes within the region.

I don't understand how people are surprised by this revelation. As long as this neoconservative regime stays in power there will be a relentless campaign by Washington to unilaterally impose its politics and economics on parts of the world that have been unwilling to submit to imperial rule.

Edit: spelling

It's not surprising, just very sad.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irwincur

The adminstration doesn't think negotiations will work, and they need to threaten force, so they should not negotiate at all. Since we aren't negotiating, no deal made will mean anything, so no deal will occur, and since no deal will occur, the only answer will be force.

The US and Europe have been attempting some form of negotiations with Iran for over two decades now. The msot recent round has proven once again that the 'European' way of doing it is not working. Iran as usual promptly agreed, told Europe to bug off, and then looked for every loophole available. Now, they are within weeks of producing what they refer to as the Islamic bomb, the ones that will destroy Israel, and get funneled to every crack pot Islamic nut in the world.

Good bye, Tel Aviv, see ya, New York, no more Berlin, London, Moscow, Beijing, LA, etc... It is not like Iran has been veiling their threats and ultimate goals for years.

You think as soon as Iran gets nukes they'll start using them (directly or indirectly) to bomb our major cities and those of non-Islamic countries? Perhaps you forget our deterent that worked so well agains the commies all those years. It's called the we-have-enough-nukes-to-ruin-your-WHOLE-damn-day approach. But unlike during the Cold War, our enemies can only hurt us, and we can still wipe them from the face of the Earth.

I know some of those guys are willing to die for Allah and all that, but nobody wants the death of their culture and race. And as far as I'm aware, our policy is the same as it was during the cold war. You use WMDs on us, and we'll use them right back. As long as there is a country behind the attack, they're toast.

Edit: Does anyone else think that might be a more effective way to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists? Remind the world that we still have the ability to turn their countries into a parking lots, and we'll do it if we're attacked and we find out they supplied the weapon. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to be able to keep WMDs out of nation states' hands no matter what we do, but we can offer a very powerful deterent against using them on us.

 

[wylecoyote]

If it wasn't true, he'd be exposed by the white house with records of their operations. But he hasn't. He has a fantastic journalistic record, and I believe that he's exposing this to draw public attention to this sh!t to deter another war.

Given the choice to believe him or not to believe him, I would believe him based soley on the fact that if he is lying, at least we won't be getting into another war.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Would Bush's case for war be admissible in court?

Is he on trial, or are you just trying to change the subject again? Do two wrongs make a right? How many excuses can you come up with in place of arguments?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I hope this isnt true. A full war with Iran would be a disaster. But if its going to a small scale operation where we would strike some sites, then I may favor it. Either way its very risky.

I think just about everyone hopes that this isn't true.

 

[Aimster]

What the hell is Iran going to do? Seriously? Talk and talk some more?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Would Bush's case for war be admissible in court?

Is he on trial, or are you just trying to change the subject again? Do two wrongs make a right? How many excuses can you come up with in place of arguments?

Exactly, it's not a trial, so why can't you use hearsay?

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.

Other than "Two former C.I.A. clandestine officers, Vince Cannistraro and Philip Giraldi" you mean ?

Ironically enough, they are credited as the source of the information that you quoted.

There is a lot of claims which provide unnamed sources in the article, surely it would be more interesting to address them specifically as to the grounds of your scepticism rather than blithely dismiss everything in the entire article as biased ? ;p

'It might not be true, therefore it is not true' is a logical fallacy, and besides, it's not a very interesting stance from a discussion point of view.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Exactly, it's not a trial, so why can't you use hearsay?

Because he's leveling charges. His article is analagous to me writing something about you being a serial killer. "This one guy I know told me that someone he knows said you were going to kill Captain Hook next!"

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: GrGr
" 'Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.'

'I wish it need not have happened in my time', said Frodo.

'So do I', said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. And already, Frodo, our time is beginning to look black. The enemy is fast becoming very strong. His plans are far from ripe, I think, but they are ripening. We shall be hard put to it, even if it were not for this dreadful chance.' "

i thought the same thing when i saw that...

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Aimster
What the hell is Iran going to do? Seriously? Talk and talk some more?

Iran has a history of using nasty wave tactics that suffer enormous casualites, but also inflict dire damage. That is if we actually go to real war with them. And not to mention they can control the Straits of Hormuz. Now what are they going to do about small groups of US commandos running around in thier country? Prolly put out bounties big enough not to be ignored, and somewhere along the line an RPG will strike a Blackhawk extraction vehicle or something.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If SEYMOUR M. HERSH says so then it has to be true.

Pretty much, yeah. Remember how the administration was trying to discredit him when he wrote about Abu Ghraib?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Just because I just posted about this in another thread . . . SEE: THE DOMINO THEORY by Paul Wolfowtiz.

We install a democratic regime in one area of the Middle East and then use that area as a springboard for launching further regime changes within the region.

I don't understand how people are surprised by this revelation. As long as this neoconservative regime stays in power there will be a relentless campaign by Washington to unilaterally impose its politics and economics on parts of the world that have been unwilling to submit to imperial rule.

Edit: spelling

And where are we getting the manpower to fight this new war? Draft, anyone?

 

[lozina]

Not having credible evidence never stopped people from believing Iraq was a threat

 

[phillyTIM]

Iran is WAAAAAY overdue, according to the doctrine of HEIL BUSH!

What a HYPOCRITE that Bush is, badgering Iraq for the "supposed" WMD's, when Iran has credible evidence that they are pursing a nuke, amongst other things.

HEIL BUSH! Take over the middle east, pick on the small fish and look like a big bully!