PDA

View Full Version : bomb bomb bomb Iran?


ddog
05-28-2008, 04:20 AM
after we hit them in the several months, does that seal defeat for Mccain?

46zilzal
05-28-2008, 12:07 PM
Brain dead, fearless leader would never get the authority to do that.

delayjf
05-28-2008, 12:14 PM
Nuc em till they glow, it worked in Japan it'll work in Iran.

46zilzal
05-28-2008, 12:26 PM
Nuc em till they glow, it worked in Japan it'll work in Iran.
And create thousands of cases of long term cancer in all the friendly nations downwind. Great.

Bombing then was just as much about the Soviets as it was about Japan. The second one never needed to be used as it killed thousands of innocent people, not soldiers.

delayjf
05-28-2008, 12:56 PM
I actually agree with you - sorry couldn't resist, ;) but it's still fun to get you all spooled up :lol:

46zilzal
05-28-2008, 01:03 PM
old idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkWAhuXtalw&eurl=http://vintage.videosift.com/?pg=123

Tom
05-28-2008, 03:25 PM
Here with a rebuttal......:rolleyes:

ddog
05-28-2008, 11:58 PM
he already has the authority.

they are killing our soldiers in Iraq and they were declared a terrorist state and authorized so by the Congress.

that's all that's required.

they will be hit before the election.

you heard it here.

hcap
05-29-2008, 07:06 AM
Nuc em till they glow, it worked in Japan it'll work in Iran.Gee, maybe a smiley or 2 would have made me feel your not doing Sterling Haydens' "Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper"

Hey go all the way

http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics/drstrangelove1.gif

hcap
06-02-2008, 07:38 AM
Not everyone is quite as gung ho as the faux warriors.

A GI Joes of the board alert. More traitors nationwide. Commies, pinkos and Libs abound.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080602Enemies1_mue9aka.gif

Tom
06-02-2008, 08:40 AM
Well there ya go.
Most people are idiots! :D

PaceAdvantage
06-02-2008, 12:25 PM
Yeah, invite 'em over, we'll all toke up and sing hippy songs....:jump:

hcap
06-03-2008, 09:20 AM
Well there ya go.
Most people are idiots! :DSo the majority of Americans are idiots?
Well I will agree MOST of yuse guys certainly are. Question oh great master...why do you hate America? Are you secretly a terrorist ? :jump:
Yeah, invite 'em over, we'll all toke up and sing hippy songs....I hate to tell ya but the hippies called it correctly before the war. Remember tens of millions saying no?


Obama had it right also.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

"Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

46zilzal
06-03-2008, 10:44 AM
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
well stated.

boxcar
06-03-2008, 01:20 PM
he already has the authority.

they are killing our soldiers in Iraq and they were declared a terrorist state and authorized so by the Congress.

that's all that's required.

they will be hit before the election.

you heard it here.

All I hear is an empty barrel making an awful lot of noise.

Boxcar

boxcar
06-03-2008, 01:25 PM
So the majority of Americans are idiots?
Well I will agree MOST of yuse guys certainly are. Question oh great master...why do you hate America? Are you secretly a terrorist ? :jump:
I hate to tell ya but the hippies called it correctly before the war. Remember tens of millions saying no?


Obama had it right also.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

"Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

I always love it when Dumbos like NoBama make fluff statements like this without offering one scintilla of anything that resembles a solution on how to rid the world of this "bad guy".

I'm not opposed to all people, just the dumb ones. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

hcap
06-03-2008, 04:09 PM
Obama had it correct. So did all of us who opposed the invasion. It is about time you gentleman got off your high horse and realized it.

Oh yeah about that time for yuse guys to put a lid on it.
The "hippies, pinkos, commies, and traitors" got it right.

Ridding the world of bad guys is your mantra. And bushs'.
Megalomaniacs all.

Marshall Bennett
06-03-2008, 04:54 PM
Obama had it correct. So did all of us who opposed the invasion. It is about time you gentleman got off your high horse and realized it

Oh yeah about that time for yuse guys to put a lid on it.
The "hippies, pinkos, commies, and traitors" got it right.

Ridding the world of bad guys is your mantra. And bushs'.
Megalomaniacs all.
So where does Obama fit in between the hippies , pinkos , commies & traitors ?
Has to be a spot open somewhere . :D

hcap
06-03-2008, 04:58 PM
You tell me. You gentleman use those terms to describe those that have opposed the war and bush.

Obama?
I would suggest realist and next President.

Indulto
06-03-2008, 05:35 PM
… Obama had it right also.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech)
…hcap,
Thanks for reminding me.

From the article:Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)
by Barack Obama

Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress. …Obama’s biggest post-nomination mailing should be a copy of that speech.You tell me. You gentleman use those terms to describe those that have opposed the war and bush.

Obama?

I would suggest realist and next President.The title of this thread should be "aplomb aplomb aplomb hcap" ;)

delayjf
06-03-2008, 05:42 PM
Ridding the world of bad guys is your mantra. And bushs'.
Megalomaniacs all.
And appeasing the bad guys with peace talks allowing them to murder millions is yours.

46zilzal
06-03-2008, 05:44 PM
Obama had it correct. So did all of us who opposed the invasion. It is about time you gentleman got off your high horse and realized it.

Oh yeah about that time for yuse guys to put a lid on it.
The "hippies, pinkos, commies, and traitors" got it right.

Ridding the world of bad guys is your mantra. And bushs'.
Megalomaniacs all.
Light and a few others figured it out along with Hdcap.

Indulto
06-03-2008, 06:02 PM
Light and a few others figured it out along with Hdcap.Never said you didn't. I just admire hcap's style and humor. While I agree with some of your posts in off-topic, I don't remember laughing at any.

hcap
06-03-2008, 06:06 PM
Indulto,

Many of us have been against this war from the beginning as you well know being among the ones called traitors and such.

At the jump we posted links to those in the Intel community those that had real doubts. We pointed out the lack of imminent threat and danger. We followed very closely the run up to the war. The non discovery of WMDs in Iraq by the UN, even after Donny Rumsfeld said HE KNEW where they were, and as mentioned after we gave the inspectors sites to search.

Even after Powells adress to the UN was shown to be full of holes. Even after the "Doggy Dosier" of the Brits as well. Even after the bushies lied about "Saddam seeking uranium from Africa" and then disavowed the same.

So post your video showing dems worried about Saddam all you want. The failure of the administration to prove their case was apparent preceding the war. The empty case for WMDs at THAT time is the lynchpin that implicates the bushies and their exaggerations as false.

So many doubts so many slight of hands. Now after everything has turned to shit and into what we all worried about, a situation in the M.E. so convoluted no matter who is President, will take years to mend.

After all the hostile to bush stories of what went on in the bush white house by many ex-bushies.

After all of this there are all the righties on this board who are still living a in a way back machine episode of 2001.

It seems all the 28 percenters thinking they were right all along remaining in America seem to post here on off topic.

46zilzal
06-03-2008, 06:12 PM
Never said you didn't. I just admire hcap's style and humor. While I agree with some of your posts in off-topic, I don't remember laughing at any.
If they were intended to be funny, I would have made sure that was the idea. Informational is the goal.

riskman
06-03-2008, 06:22 PM
So where does Obama fit in between the hippies , pinkos , commies & traitors ?
Has to be a spot open somewhere . :D


Collectivism

Indulto
06-03-2008, 06:32 PM
If they were intended to be funny, I would have made sure that was the idea. Informational is the goal.With all due respect, from your perspective they may all be informational, but many appear to simply be knee-jerk responses to opposition remarks regardless of the value of their content; fueling their attempts to make sport of you as a way to discredit what you say. That you retain your dignity and keep fighting the good fight against people who can't match your arguments and so revert to name-calling is also admirable, but frankly, hard to watch on a continuing basis.

46zilzal
06-03-2008, 06:40 PM
With all due respect, from your perspective they may all be informational, but many appear to simply be knee-jerk responses to opposition remarks regardless of the value of their content; fueling their attempts to make sport of you as a way to discredit what you say. That you retain your dignity and keep fighting the good fight against people who can't match your arguments and so revert to name-calling is also admirable, but frankly, hard to watch on a continuing basis.
REACTION means in response to. MOST of the posts here start threads....REACTION? Maybe to the stupidity of war.

Don't watch...Strange there is no video to watch.

Name calling like the stupid rutabaga??? He's earned the title.

hcap
06-03-2008, 06:41 PM
And appeasing the bad guys with peace talks allowing them to murder millions is yours.
Complete bullshit! Talking is not appeasement.
How about this evildoer?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Or this one?

http://bp2.blogger.com/_38syHs5y8f4/R4Brj4whiKI/AAAAAAAAAHU/a115lskBNXQ/s320/r3164387273.jpg
President Museveni visited President Bush at the White House,
October 30, 2007. Bush thanked him for joining the US
in "fighting terror." (White House Photo)

http://exposeugandasgenocide.blogspot.com/2007/10/fact-sheet-on-ugandas-president-yoweri.html

Fact Sheet on Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni

1. Crimes Against Humanity I: The Ugandan government failed to protect northern Ugandans when they needed it most. President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is responsible for orchestrating genocide in Northern Uganda, where he has incarcerated nearly two million people in concentration camps, euphemistically known as “protected villages.”

2. Crimes Against Humanity II: In 2005, Museveni’s government was found guilty by the International Court of Justice for committing grave war crimes in the DRC

It goes on and on.

PaceAdvantage
06-04-2008, 12:03 AM
How many times do you guys need this kind of history lesson? I will keep posting until you admit the TRUE origin of these so-called "lies."

_1q9Q0OtJ4g

ddog
06-04-2008, 01:41 AM
Pa,

You take the cake(yellow of course) sometimes.

For a sharp guy you post some of the most obtuse stuff with this junk.

I don't know what else to call it.

Which of those in the vid used intell to start a war in Iraq?
Maybe they were a little more skeptical of the intell and didn't think it rose to the level of a war of choice.

They were correct.
Bush was wrong, i guess he looked into Saddam's eyes and saw the reflection of a pile of wmds.

:D

PaceAdvantage
06-04-2008, 03:10 AM
Whose to say Bush wasn't influenced by all this WMD peddling of the Democrats before Bush came to town? Do present administrations not rely on the info from past administrations? That video shows Clinton and his admin talking up WMDs all over the place.

If you can't get the simple fact that I am posting these things to show that there are a lot more people responsible for this war than the person who actually sent troops there, then I don't know what more to tell you.

What you're saying is that history does not matter and has no influence. I disagree. If you're going to accuse the Bush admin of LYING to people, then you also have to take down all those before him who also LIED, which includes the beloved Nancy P., Howard Dean, and all the other Democrats appearing in that video (basically the entire Clinton administration as well).

Oh, but I know. It was Bush who pulled the trigger. That little thing called 9/11 wasn't an influence at all....I forgot, history doesn't influence at all....

But go ahead and call me an idiot again, in the way only you can....that's always pleasant.

Maybe throw in an emoticon or two to jazz it up as well....

delayjf
06-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Complete bullshit! Talking is not appeasement.
Tell that to those people in the "Protected Camps". Help me out here, are you now in favor of invading Uganda? And where is the UN??

Tom
06-04-2008, 01:39 PM
Out stealing oil somewhere? :rolleyes:

Actually, the hapless UN is investigating racism in the USA! OF all the idiotic ideas! They can't find real racism in the world? Real oppression? hat a bunch of idiots! Get out now and geth out of here.

Here's the facts, Jack......30 years ago, Balcks were hosed down for marching on the streets and crossing bridges, for sitting in the fornt of the bus, for drinking outof the wrong fountains.

Last night, a major party nominated a Black man to be the president of the United States. 30 years later. Show me this kind of progress anywhere else.
For every vote OBama lost by being Blakc, he picked up three. I do not like the guy, but he is a symbol of the real state of racism in this country. He vitually tied one of the most powerful political families in the country in less than a year.

He has laid to rest the Jesse's and Al's and thier divisiveness.

But let's investigate because someone told a "ho" joke.

ddog
06-04-2008, 01:57 PM
Whose to say Bush wasn't influenced by all this WMD peddling of the Democrats before Bush came to town? Do present administrations not rely on the info from past administrations? That video shows Clinton and his admin talking up WMDs all over the place.

If you can't get the simple fact that I am posting these things to show that there are a lot more people responsible for this war than the person who actually sent troops there, then I don't know what more to tell you.

What you're saying is that history does not matter and has no influence. I disagree. If you're going to accuse the Bush admin of LYING to people, then you also have to take down all those before him who also LIED, which includes the beloved Nancy P., Howard Dean, and all the other Democrats appearing in that video (basically the entire Clinton administration as well).

Oh, but I know. It was Bush who pulled the trigger. That little thing called 9/11 wasn't an influence at all....I forgot, history doesn't influence at all....

But go ahead and call me an idiot again, in the way only you can....that's always pleasant.

Maybe throw in an emoticon or two to jazz it up as well....

1. i called you sharp.
2. i called the stuff - vid as obtuse as those people had no input into the Bush decision and you know it.
3. he didn't lie - he didn't lie - he didn't lie he didn't lie - he didn't lie he didn't lie he didn't lie!!!!!!!!
4. HE DIDN'T LIE! :bang:

5.He , believed it although the belief seems to have been formed in a false world.

6. to give a pass over who pulled the trigger is a cop out.
just like the guy that pulls the trigger and kills your dog.
just because another dog cross the street bit your dog 2 years ago.

7.HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER!!?? ,history doesn't matter... , come on, i have referred to the previous history of those who invaded/liberated in that neck of the woods. Had anyone been guided by that , then we would not have gone.period. :bang:

I apologize if you took the obtuse to mean stupid as you see it and would retract that.utterly retract and disassociate.

If I thought you were stupid I would't bother to reply.

:)

is that the amt of emoticon spam you had in mind?

delayjf
06-04-2008, 04:04 PM
7.HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER!!?? ,history doesn't matter... , come on, i have referred to the previous history of those who invaded/liberated in that neck of the woods. Had anyone been guided by that , then we would not have gone.period.
It's relative because the intel both administration’s had and publicized was exactly the same only the Presidents changed. Those on the left are quick to call President Bush a liar, but give the Clinton Administration a total pass, most won’t even address the fact because to do so would force any reasonable person to conclude that President Bush was acting on the same intel President Clinton had – which blows the “Bush lied” theory right out of the water.

Normally when confronted with that fact, liberals point out that Bush pulled the trigger. But that is a deflection because the issue is – what was our intelligence with regards to WMD’s in Iraq prior to the war. And the answer is, that according to both administrations – Iraq had WMD’s. The next question is what do you do about them?

To, Hcap, Lbj, 46, the answer is to that question is clear. No military action unless it could be proven with 100% certainty what government was responsible. Which means the US would never act militarily because you never know, 9/11 could have been perpetrated by the Illuminati.

46zilzal
06-04-2008, 04:20 PM
To, Hcap, Lbj, 46, the answer is to that question is clear. No military action unless it could be proven with 100% certainty what government was responsible.
No until there was a real threat not a theoretical CURVEBALL one.

Tom
06-04-2008, 04:47 PM
Did you watch PA's video?

Sure was a lot of people who thought he was a real threat.


Never mind.....you aren't capable of rational discussion.:bang:

delayjf
06-04-2008, 05:33 PM
No until there was a real threat
What would you say is a real threat?

46zilzal
06-04-2008, 05:37 PM
There is a greater threat domestically than any from a foreign source. If the US doesn't get it's act together with their own schism here, the external threats won't have make much of a difference.

robert99
06-04-2008, 08:27 PM
What would you say is a real threat?


A credible threat to USA must have Means, Motivation and Opportunity.
The 9/11 terrorists had and still have all that in spades - Iraq or more specifically SH was always a "wannabe" bullshitter at best. He completely fooled the CIA and MI6 though and they gave totally false advice to the politicians.

46zilzal
06-04-2008, 08:30 PM
Robert I so enjoyed your home land but had a hard time pronouncing Tocester race course. Did I spell that correctly?

robert99
06-04-2008, 09:21 PM
Robert I so enjoyed your home land but had a hard time pronouncing Tocester race course. Did I spell that correctly?

You are very welcome.
Easiest way to say it is as in "toaster" but definitely not as in "towh-ces-ter".

The "cester" ending means that the town had a Roman occupation camp there, pre 400AD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/content/panoramas/towcester_racecourse_360.shtml

juanepstein
06-04-2008, 09:49 PM
Indulto,

Many of us have been against this war from the beginning as you well know being among the ones called traitors and such.

At the jump we posted links to those in the Intel community those that had real doubts. We pointed out the lack of imminent threat and danger. We followed very closely the run up to the war. The non discovery of WMDs in Iraq by the UN, even after Donny Rumsfeld said HE KNEW where they were, and as mentioned after we gave the inspectors sites to search.

Even after Powells adress to the UN was shown to be full of holes. Even after the "Doggy Dosier" of the Brits as well. Even after the bushies lied about "Saddam seeking uranium from Africa" and then disavowed the same.

So post your video showing dems worried about Saddam all you want. The failure of the administration to prove their case was apparent preceding the war. The empty case for WMDs at THAT time is the lynchpin that implicates the bushies and their exaggerations as false.

So many doubts so many slight of hands. Now after everything has turned to shit and into what we all worried about, a situation in the M.E. so convoluted no matter who is President, will take years to mend.

After all the hostile to bush stories of what went on in the bush white house by many ex-bushies.

After all of this there are all the righties on this board who are still living a in a way back machine episode of 2001.

It seems all the 28 percenters thinking they were right all along remaining in America seem to post here on off topic.

so we should thank clinton for not doing a damn thing about osama bin laden and the al queda training camps which gave birth to terrorists who flew planes into the world trade centers.

that is what happens when you do nothing and thats exactly what the terrorist want. get ready for a few doozies if obama gets into office.

ddog
06-05-2008, 03:24 AM
It's relative because the intel both administration’s had and publicized was exactly the same only the Presidents changed. Those on the left are quick to call President Bush a liar, but give the Clinton Administration a total pass, most won’t even address the fact because to do so would force any reasonable person to conclude that President Bush was acting on the same intel President Clinton had – which blows the “Bush lied” theory right out of the water.

Normally when confronted with that fact, liberals point out that Bush pulled the trigger. But that is a deflection because the issue is – what was our intelligence with regards to WMD’s in Iraq prior to the war. And the answer is, that according to both administrations – Iraq had WMD’s. The next question is what do you do about them?

To, Hcap, Lbj, 46, the answer is to that question is clear. No military action unless it could be proven with 100% certainty what government was responsible. Which means the US would never act militarily because you never know, 9/11 could have been perpetrated by the Illuminati.

I give BUSH a pass on motive , even though there is strong evidence that even minus WMD , they were deadset to go in as proved by the Rummy/fife/cheney/wolffy/cristal/chalabi set even before the Bush admin had taken power.

I just have to side with those on the time they did it and the obvious rosy scenerio they operated under was a disgrace, simply a disgrace.

I also still think that he could have been taken out without us going in big time and that he was all about survival, that's why he tried to convince everyone , even his own military that he had wmd. He thought that would in the end save him.

if they had done a decent job at the wrap up , even installed a military dictator/strng man and then got out, i could have been for that.

But this, nope, I can't give him a pass just becasue they thought maybe even thought they knew, it doesn't excuse the "rest" of it.

The "next" time , god forbid they may actually have one or two, we would have taken massive losses the way we went into Iraq if they did have them.


That's where a study of history comes in, it's much tougher to maintain/consolidate/pacify than defeat an army the first time with the politcal/religous setup over there.

ddog
06-05-2008, 03:33 AM
so we should thank clinton for not doing a damn thing about osama bin laden and the al queda training camps which gave birth to terrorists who flew planes into the world trade centers.

that is what happens when you do nothing and thats exactly what the terrorist want. get ready for a few doozies if obama gets into office.


all admins are short sighted in this regard.
once the ruskies were knocked out of there, that's all we cared about.

If Clinton had tried to invade AFG he would have been impeached, can't have it both ways.
PUGS would never have supported him, look at the bombing - serbia deal, he barely got that done.

U.S.S Cole bombing, both ADMINS "knew" who did that , same intel ,right?

Neither did anything in regards to Binladen, both had plenty of time.
??

Tom
06-05-2008, 08:31 AM
What would you say is a real threat?

Obama. :eek:
A dem congress. :eek::eek:

hcap
06-05-2008, 09:11 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/05/america/intel.4-283204.php

U.S. Senate report cites intelligence flaws in lead up to Iraq war
By Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush and his aides built a public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and ignoring disagreements among spy agencies over Iraq's weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, according to a Senate report long delayed by partisan squabbling.

The report accuses Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the months before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and playing on American fears in emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,"

.................................................. .....................................

So given that there were uncertainties in the intel, why didn't we wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job?

NoDayJob
06-05-2008, 09:34 PM
after we hit them in the several months, does that seal defeat for Mccain?

Shouldn't that be BOMB, BOMB, BOMB--- BOMB, BOMB, IRAN???

hcap
06-05-2008, 09:40 PM
Another

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

.................................................. ...................

So given that there were uncertainties in the intel, why didn't we wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job?

hcap
06-05-2008, 09:50 PM
Key points from the Senate report.

--Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

--Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

--Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

--Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

--The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

--The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Lefty
06-05-2008, 09:50 PM
The title of this thread and its author sure presume a lot. You and Miss Cleo, Ddog.

hcap
06-08-2008, 08:03 AM
Yeah bomb away.

McSame...
"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war," McCain tells the camera. "I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never came home. I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are."

little georgie on Afghanistan
March 14, 2008 09:20am

"I must say, I'm a little envious, If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. "It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks,"

ddog
06-08-2008, 10:54 AM
The title of this thread and its author sure presume a lot. You and Miss Cleo, Ddog.

Ol LEFT,

You presume i'ma presumin.

go back to sleep , sweat dreams.

hcap
06-09-2008, 07:17 AM
Bombing Iran might also get....

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/12/xinsrc_492080410053995381248.jpg

http://www.juancole.com/

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki went to Iran this weekend to attempt to assuage that country's concerns about the security agreement he is negotiating with the United States. He met with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who said, "stronger relations between the two nations will help Iraq's development and stability."

"Just before that consultation with Ahmadinejad, al-Maliki had met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, al-Maliki assured his host that he would not allow Iraq to be used as a base by a third party for an attack on Iran.

Bush and Cheney are desperately afraid that the next administration will get out of Iraq, thus removing the mercantilist advantages they were trying to throw to US oil companies in developing Iraqi fields. They believe they can commit the US to a long-term military presence in Iraq by becoming the guarantor of Iraqi security at least in the medium term, and by locking in that role through a security agreement between Bush and Maliki. Iran's opposition is threatening to block this deal, and thus al-Maliki's visit.

PaceAdvantage
06-09-2008, 09:00 PM
Iran's opposition is threatening to block this deal, and thus al-Maliki's visit.Yeah. Why in the world would Iran want the US in their backyard? :lol:

I think it's a great idea. The US should maintain a strong military presence in the region, just like we did in post WWII Europe.

wonatthewire1
06-09-2008, 09:18 PM
Bombing Iran might also get....

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/12/xinsrc_492080410053995381248.jpg

http://www.juancole.com/

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki went to Iran this weekend to attempt to assuage that country's concerns about the security agreement he is negotiating with the United States. He met with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who said, "stronger relations between the two nations will help Iraq's development and stability."

"Just before that consultation with Ahmadinejad, al-Maliki had met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, al-Maliki assured his host that he would not allow Iraq to be used as a base by a third party for an attack on Iran.

Bush and Cheney are desperately afraid that the next administration will get out of Iraq, thus removing the mercantilist advantages they were trying to throw to US oil companies in developing Iraqi fields. They believe they can commit the US to a long-term military presence in Iraq by becoming the guarantor of Iraqi security at least in the medium term, and by locking in that role through a security agreement between Bush and Maliki. Iran's opposition is threatening to block this deal, and thus al-Maliki's visit.


The sooner we get our oil out from under that Iraqi sand the better...

46zilzal
06-09-2008, 09:20 PM
The sooner we get our oil out from under that Iraqi sand the better...
That, like most of this war, would be theft.

wonatthewire1
06-09-2008, 09:26 PM
That, like most of this war, would be theft.

oooohhh....really?

ddog
06-10-2008, 12:09 AM
Yeah. Why in the world would Iran want the US in their backyard? :lol:

I think it's a great idea. The US should maintain a strong military presence in the region, just like we did in post WWII Europe.

the biggest threat to Iran would come if we did not have boots in Iraq, plainly.

PaceAdvantage
06-10-2008, 03:32 AM
the biggest threat to Iran would come if we did not have boots in Iraq, plainly.Please expound on that further....

juanepstein
06-10-2008, 05:44 AM
iran is a huge martyr country. it would be a huge bloodbath if we went into iran.

the only way to deal with a martyr country is to nuke the shiit out of it.

ddog
06-10-2008, 11:10 AM
he beat me to the big picture , even if to an extreme portrayal of same.

if we don't have boots in Iraq, they would have no easy way to "punish" us.

They are impotent except as cannon fodder, but they can IED/rocket us to death if they can reach us there.

hcap
07-16-2008, 04:29 PM
And appeasing the bad guys with peace talks allowing them to murder millions is yours.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/us-policy-reversal-on-ira_b_113103.html

U.S. Policy Reversal on Iran
Posted July 16, 2008 | 01:50 PM (EST)

Twenty-two years ago, former National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane carried a cake, a bible and pistols to Tehran in a failed Reagan administration effort to trade weapons for Iranian aide to the Nicaraguan contras. Now, another senior official in a Republican administration is hoping for better luck. In a stunning announcement July 16, the White House disclosed that Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will travel to Geneva this weekend to sit face-to-face with Iranian nuclear negotiator Said Jalili.

...This is a dramatic reversal of Bush policy. Just two months ago, President Bush warned that negotiations with Iran would be "appeasement." Bush officials had said they would meet with Iranian representatives only after Iran fully suspended its enrichment program. Iran had said that suspension would be the subject of the negotiations, not a precondition.

.................................................. .......

So we are all Neville Chamberlain?
And the preznit used to be Winston Churchill?

Appeasement alert!!!! Big time

robert99
07-16-2008, 04:54 PM
hcap,

No time left for for war preparations that the Democrats would sensibly oppose as Iran has a considerable military and air force, and with Syria would immediately move in on Israel as well as Iraq. USA oil imports devastated. Reports is that Burns won't say anything, just listen - how wise and humiliating a lesson after 8 years.

"Burns will neither meet privately nor negotiate directly with Jalili, administration and European officials said.

They expect Burns's attendance to be a one-time event in what are being described as "pre-negotiations" on the shape and timing of more substantive talks.

Rice told Solana that Burns would be there "to listen," one official said."

JustRalph
07-16-2008, 06:13 PM
hcap,

No time left for for war preparations that the Democrats would sensibly oppose as Iran has a considerable military and air force, and with Syria would immediately move in on Israel as well as Iraq. ."

Oh boy, once again we have to hear this crap. They have an air force that would be out of the sky on the 1st day. The ground Troops might be a different matter, but even mentioning the Air Force of Iran or any other Middle East country is a joke. The Israeli Air Force would shoot them out of the sky and more likely shut down their bases on the first day. If the U.S. Air Force or Carrier Based Aircraft were tasked with taking them out........it might be over by noon on the first day.

Get real.

wonatthewire1
07-16-2008, 06:58 PM
hcap,

No time left for for war preparations that the Democrats would sensibly oppose as Iran has a considerable military and air force, and with Syria would immediately move in on Israel as well as Iraq. USA oil imports devastated. Reports is that Burns won't say anything, just listen - how wise and humiliating a lesson after 8 years.

Hi Robert,

Iran couldn't defeat Iraq (remember, it was a stalemate) in their war.

boxcar
07-16-2008, 08:22 PM
Oh boy, once again we have to hear this crap. They have an air force that would be out of the sky on the 1st day. The ground Troops might be a different matter, but even mentioning the Air Force of Iran or any other Middle East country is a joke. The Israeli Air Force would shoot them out of the sky and more likely shut down their bases on the first day. If the U.S. Air Force or Carrier Based Aircraft were tasked with taking them out........it might be over by noon on the first day.

Get real.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

hcap
07-16-2008, 08:59 PM
The "war" might be over in the air but the ground war would last, with much destruction on both sides. And even if we eventually win, and can somehow pull the personel from other theaters-I know we have a superior force-think about the insurgency in Iraq. Much worse will happen in Iran.
Let alone the price of oil and economic consequences.
I guess we could always nuke'em. Kill em all and take their oil. That is when the radioactivity dies down some. Here I think bush is correct. He does not have much of a choice.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSHAF238198

"ARMED FORCES:

Iran has 545,000 personnel in active service. Major General Ataollah Salehi is the armed forces chief.

* ARMY: The army comprises 350,000 men, including 220,000 conscripts. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, viewed as the most loyal guardian of the ruling system, has another 125,000 men. In 2004 the army was organised in four corps, with four armoured divisions and six infantry divisions.

Tom
07-17-2008, 12:18 AM
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

"Iraq has the 4th largest army inthe world....yadda yadda yadda."
"The Republican Guard will be a formidable foe, not to be taken lightly."


Yadda yadda yadda.

The only thing that can stop the US military is the resident idiot in the white house, whichever idiot that happens to be at the time.

hcap
07-17-2008, 06:39 AM
Appeasement alert!!!!
Appeasement alert!!!!
Appeasement alert!!!!
Appeasement alert!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979

Washington move signals thaw in relations

"The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way."

JustRalph
07-17-2008, 07:38 AM
220,000 guys in toyota pickup trucks driving toward armored vehicles might take about 3 days to kill. Remember those pics from Iraq? I don't see much difference..........besides............. Israel has nukes..........if it gets too bad and Iran tries to overrun the country..........Iran will cease to exist. Not much to fight for when there is no place to go home to............

delayjf
07-17-2008, 04:33 PM
iran is a huge martyr country. it would be a huge bloodbath if we went into iran.

The US doesn't have to invade and occupy Iran to deal with it's nuclear program. We have the air power to take out their reactors without ever stepping into the country.

wonatthewire1
07-17-2008, 07:45 PM
I guess we could always nuke'em. Kill em all and take their oil. That is when the radioactivity dies down some. Here I think bush is correct. He does not have much of a choice.

Can't nuke 'em with Russia right there

It is only an empty threat, though I'd be surprised if the Russians aren't busy underground working that Iranian situation

Tom
07-17-2008, 07:50 PM
Hell we can't.
Russia or not, I would not worry about them being any kind of road block.
We should have listned to Patton in 1945. And McAurther.
But no, we had to negotiote.
See what talking to your enemies gets you?

PaceAdvantage
07-18-2008, 04:30 AM
This could be bad news for Obama? Kind of stealing his thunder a bit, dontcha think?

That Bush...he sure is a dumbo....yet he plays the left like a fiddle at times...

robert99
07-18-2008, 08:06 PM
Hi Robert,

Iran couldn't defeat Iraq (remember, it was a stalemate) in their war.

True but Iraq was far stronger and supported by the West at the time and had not lost its air force and extensive military equipment as in Gulf War 1 nor had suffered years of sanctions or internal division following, before a weakened Iraq military core surrendered in Gulf War 2.

Iran has learned many lessons and moved on from those days. It has a huge and well trained army which is professionally led, loyal and focussed. It has its own military development and manufacture of all types of equipment including stealth fighters and bombers it is believed, as well as continuing help from Russia and China. Russia will provide early warning and AWAC surveillance. Only a fool would underestimate a country that has had so long to organise its defences.

If USA attacks then there will not be any EU or Australian support.
The troops are requiring a period of rest after long and highly stressful periods in Iraq and Afghanistan. US troops require months of organisation to get ready in the arena are highly visible and trackable and major terrorist acts will likely break out all over including insurrection in Iraq. CIA intelligence could be even worse than in Iraq war preparations and above all the troops know that maybe 80% of USA citizens oppose any more offensive wars.

JustRalph
07-19-2008, 02:54 AM
True but Iraq was far stronger and supported by the West at the time and had not lost its air force and extensive military equipment as in Gulf War 1 nor had suffered years of sanctions or internal division following, before a weakened Iraq military core surrendered in Gulf War 2.

Iran has learned many lessons and moved on from those days. It has a huge and well trained army which is professionally led, loyal and focussed. It has its own military development and manufacture of all types of equipment including stealth fighters and bombers it is believed, as well as continuing help from Russia and China. Russia will provide early warning and AWAC surveillance. Only a fool would underestimate a country that has had so long to organise its defences.

If USA attacks then there will not be any EU or Australian support.
The troops are requiring a period of rest after long and highly stressful periods in Iraq and Afghanistan. US troops require months of organisation to get ready in the arena are highly visible and trackable and major terrorist acts will likely break out all over including insurrection in Iraq. CIA intelligence could be even worse than in Iraq war preparations and above all the troops know that maybe 80% of USA citizens oppose any more offensive wars.

Bullshit. You really believe they have Stealth Fighters? I know, they announced that they have them............this from a country that had to photo-shop their "great missile breakthrough"

Give me a break. One carrier could cripple the country from the Med. BTW, what makes you think we need the EU or Australian support? Get real.......

Tom
07-19-2008, 11:09 AM
We now have invisible bombers! Yes, we do.
They are right there. *wink wink*

Maybe in thier Photoshop Library.

lamboguy
07-19-2008, 11:35 AM
the AL_QAEDA are taking a hike out of IRAQ and heading towards PAKISTAN.
that guy would know too, he is the head of the whole operation there.
PAKISTAN will make IRAQ look like a sunday afternoon family get to gether singing koombuya.

that deal in PAKISTAN got some mean nasty kaiyais just waiting for us there.

the people that were against the IRAQ operations are going to be kicking themselves that we didn't get rid of all the AL_QAEDA in that place while we had the chance.

no matter which president gets elected, we will be in PAKISTAN. PAKISTAN is where the rubber meets the road, so you better take that into consideration before you place your vote for the next president. i would suggest that you look at the policies and promises that either candidate says second, and look at who you beleive has the better leadership qualities to get us thru what could be a very tough time.

PaceAdvantage
07-19-2008, 10:41 PM
So Iraq doesn't seem to be working out for the far-left, and diplomacy with Iran took a small step forward the other day (thanks to Bush, and much to the chagrin of the far-left), so now they are going to use the scare tactic of Pakistan on US? Obama seems to be as in love with Pakistan as Bush was with Iraq, so why am I not surprised that the far-left is pushing Pakistan on US now...

JustRalph
07-20-2008, 01:30 AM
Pakistan is going to be great practice for using the MOAB and the new bomb that drills in about 50 yards before it detonates.................

B2 Bombers are going to be running 24hrs a day......if it ever really gets hot ...... :ThmbUp:

Don't forget these either, remotely piloted from Las Vegas........ :lol:

http://www.links999.net/robotics/robots/images/UAV-Hellfire-Missile.jpg