| Author | Message | ||
     Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7114 Registered: 10-2001  |
not thoughtful...accurate is more like it..big difference. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1225 Registered: 10-2004  |
Accurate? Not nearly. Poppycock and balderdash is exactly what it is. Once again tom gets straight to the point -
Phony crisis. Once again the hawks are willing to spend American blood on the whim of a president and administration that has shown over and over again to be untrustworthy. There is no crisis and there certainly is ZERO reason for more war. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 345 Registered: 5-2005  |
it is a horrifying thought that our citizens would be blind to a country's aggressive intention to preemptively strike at another sovereign nation. how the hell can people ever ignore that sort of aggression? how can that happen in the U.S.? | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7115 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Phony crisis. Once again the hawks are willing to spend American blood on the whim of a president and administration that has shown over and over again to be untrustworthy." holy stupidity...The UN is all of a sudden part of the Bush administration??  man, you libs are out to lunch.. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 165 Registered: 4-2006 |
Two kitties- Respectfully, I think you have inhaled some of the litter. I was suggesting that if the appeasers and go-alongers in Europe at the end of the 30s had taken Hitler seriously, and done what had to be done, millions and millions of lives would be saved. Same thing today. Ahmadinejad is a Hitler wanna-be, and a whack job with messianic religious overtones. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4282 Registered: 12-2001  |
"and a whack job with messianic religious overtones" I don't know about other people around here, but I find it outrageous that Factvsfiction would describe President Bush in this way. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11373 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, Fact and Straw, what is your solution. You seem to favor a military intervention so how would you go about it; nuclear, conventional, number of carriers in the Persian Gulf, number of ground troops, etc. Fact, you seem to have a real problem with Islam. While I am the first to admit there is a militant wing to that religion, if you posted the same comments about Christianity, or Judism for that matter, you would be roundly condemned here. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1228 Registered: 10-2004 |
very respectfully fact, I think you are on crack. talk about mixed signals, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2068 Registered: 8-2003  |
Where did we hear that argument before? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7116 Registered: 10-2001 |
Bobk, I don't think anyone is in favor of military intervention. However, under no circumstances can we allow Iran to make a bomb. When I say we, I refer to the UN. If the UN cannot handle this responsibility I am of the opinion that Iran will be destroyed, If not by the U.S, then by Israel. As I said on Friday, the UN report is by far the most troubling report of recent times. This is only the tip of the iceberg and the longer U.S liberals continue to ignore our future, the more dangerous our future becomes. I for one will never vote for a Democrat again and I'm of the opinion more and more Americans are beginning to lean this way as well. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5575 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- I take it you think war with Iran isn't an option and the diplomacy of a multinational front is the way to go. So far that hasn't born any fruit, as the UN is dithering on a message to send Iran settling so far on the threat of a message. In the Sudan, if the UN doesn't react to this genocide, should the US go in unilaterally? | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7117 Registered: 10-2001 |
CJC, You cannot ask a liberal a question about what we should do..They can only tell you what we didn't do.. As I said at the top, a liberal is only capable of playing Monday morning QB. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1229 Registered: 10-2004 |
Fruit takes time to grow and ripen. Diplomacy is not measured in days or in the time you would like it. Patience is called for in these times. I am not in favor of the US spear heading or unilaterally attempting any military invasion of the Sudan. I am also not of the opinion that they are the same things and conflating them confuses the issue. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1230 Registered: 10-2004 |
holy ignorance | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7118 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Fruit takes time to grow and ripen. Diplomacy is not measured in days or in the time you would like it. Patience is called for in these times." This is a reference to the Sudan... holy ignorance. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1231 Registered: 10-2004 |
No Straw, that was in relation to cjc's question about Iran. The statment about Sudan was his other question. I think your reading comprehension skills could use some polishing. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7119 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Fruit takes time to grow and ripen. Diplomacy is not measured in days or in the time you would like it. Patience is called for in these times. I am not in favor of the US spear heading or unilaterally attempting any military invasion of the Sudan. I am also not of the opinion that they are the same things and conflating them confuses the issue. " Nothing above indicates Iran has anything to do with whatever it is you are trying to say. Next time you have a topic you want to discuss, make sure you indicate the topic. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1232 Registered: 10-2004 |
I do believe the topic as you posted it is
I didnt bring up Sudan, cjc did. Please try to keep track. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5576 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- your diplomacy won't work unless there's a credible threat that a non-dilpomatic option is there. To date, the only way that threat can be made is with the US participating. Make that 'spearheading,' because there's a world welfare state in military capability where the US bails out all losers. Sanctions have holes in them because of the holes in the world. The world wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 1991. Or Bosnia. Or Kosovo -- which the world did not do. Or Rwanda -- which no one did. It's all about the US and it's might. The world is and always has been governed by the aggressive use of force or the threat of it. I don't mean to say your desires for peace and ending human suffering are wrong. Only that your hanging on to diplomacy at seemingly all costs won't amount to anything positive. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1233 Registered: 10-2004 |
We can agree to disagree on that point. I would ask though what we have actually accomplished by our invasion of Iraq in respect to peace in the middle east and reduction of terrorism world-wide? I dont think that our military solution is working at all. In fact it is badly backfiring. There are more terrorist attacks now then at any time before we invaded Iraq, not including what is happening in Iraq. In 1991 the world did go to Iraq because Iraq attempted to take over the Kuwaiti oil fields and the US with full approval of the UN led the defense of Kuwait. It seems clear to me that both China and Russia have a greater stake in what happens to and with Iran then we do simply by virtue of being close neighbors. I dont see them calling for war. | ||
| TomD Citizen Username: Tomd Post Number: 424 Registered: 5-2005  |
Hey Cons, (as long as we're asking querstions) I thought that by invading Iraq we were going to be "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East? I thought we weren't going to have to worry about Iran after the democratic domino theory was put into practice. In fact in Nov. 2003 gwb said, "In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy." (Applause.) ... "The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation." (Applause.) "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." (Applause.) So, since Iran seems to be pretty darn "emboldened", does that mean that Iraqi democracy has failed? | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7120 Registered: 10-2001 |
Another lib who won't tell you what we should do. Only what he wishes we did.. You people are unreal. Another should of, could of ,would of lib... | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 346 Registered: 5-2005 |
absolutely. Not one lib back in '03 said that the U.S. should not invade. Not one said the UN inspectors were doing anything worthwhile. No one said we should just continue to follow a strategy of containment. Not a single voice was raised in protest before the war. And even afterward, they kept quiet for months, even years, until the U.S. military casualties started to mount, and then all the Monday QBs were out second-guessing. well guess what libs, we're not falling for it this time. if you don't have some advice ahead of time, you shouldn't complain afterward. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7121 Registered: 10-2001 |
oh is that what Kerry and Clinton and Edwards were doing? Protesting the start of a war they authorized. Yeah, sure. Also, for the record the libs that did protest did so because they did not want us going to war for oil. Remember that bull crap? Don't recall any of them saying to send more troops to fight the insurgents which as we now see is their current should of, could of, would of cry. libs.. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 349 Registered: 5-2005 |
you're the only one who's not trying to revision history. if libs had half a brain, they'd be listening to you. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7122 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sadly they don't. If they did most would have figured out your pointless trolling. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 350 Registered: 5-2005 |
I'm as bothered as you by the libs. I remember the unanimous votes in the House and Senate in favor of the war resolution, and I remember that the libs couldn't even find one anti-war candidate to run for president. and now the libs just want to carp about the failures and bury the successes in Iraq. facts are stubborn things, and the libs can run but they can't hide from what you and I believe to be true. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6280 Registered: 12-2001  |
Straw..whats it like talking to yourself like that? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1250 Registered: 9-2004 |
Answer the Damn questions: SO lets say Iran is attacked, Maybe Isreal takes out the leadership. Maybe we hit the Nuke installations. Now what? What do 1.6 billion Muslims do? Part of the problem with the Bush Regime is they don't think things thru. SO lets think things thru, does the US get attacked in retaliation? Or does Isreal get hit in retaliation? If the Persian Gulf shipping is shut down, does oil go to $100 or $150 a barrel? And does that cripple the US economy? AT what point does the world decide they wont tolerate a US Hegemon? And do something about it (us). If this scenario doesn't get played out carefully- does NYC get hit? Or DC? ------------------- You all want to act like Foriegn Policy wonks, not one post in this thread goes past the reason to go after Iran. Is NO Right winger is capable of posting what could happen after the "attack". Straw, please tell me what happens after the attack? Please play out the possibilities. Please do what no right winger has of yet, has done in this thread. There is a very real possibility that who ever gets blamed for the potential attack on Iran, the the Muslim world will retaliate. What form "COULD" retaliation take. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 190 Registered: 4-2006 |
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1251 Registered: 9-2004 |
Additionally, with 164 centrifuges, Iran is about 15 years from making enough bomb grade material for one bomb. Currently Iran has enriched uranium to IIRC 3.4%. -- So Iran needs about 5,000 to 7,000 more centrifuges. --They also need that gas, whose name escapes me, or their efforts may NEVER get to fruition. --On the other hand Iran could buy a nuke on the black market, put it on a boat, remote control the boat into NYC harbor........... ANd do that before August. But so could anybody with some money. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4841 Registered: 5-2001 |
GOP Man is doing a Steven Colbert on Straw, and he doesn't even realize it. What a hoot. Say it again, Double Or Nothing Is Not A Foreign Policy. The only reason this has to happen this summer is because the election is in the fall. Just another terror tactic, just like in all the best fascist states. ITMFA. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1254 Registered: 9-2004 |
MSNBC confirms: Outed CIA agent was working on Iran RAW STORY Published: Monday May 1, 2006 On Chris Matthews' Hardball Monday evening, just moments ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster confirmed what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed. RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna broke the story earlier this year, which went unnoticed by the mainstream media (Read our full story). According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran. Reports Shuster in this rush transcript: "INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL." more at: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.htm l ----------------------------------------------------------- Brewster Jennings had 3 agents in Iran who were killed. Thanks Bush Regime. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7123 Registered: 10-2001 |
So to summarize the libs on Iran.. "This is only an issue now because of the midterm elections.." Sooo...The UN has made this an issue now to make the GOP look stronger in November??? libs are morons.. | ||
| TomD Citizen Username: Tomd Post Number: 425 Registered: 5-2005 |
 | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7124 Registered: 10-2001 |
I see, let's make Iran into a comedy routine.. Yes, Iran's leader calls for destruction of Israel while well on his way to building nuclear bomb..And the libs? quips and cartoons... I see, no wonder the voice of the left includes stand up comics such as Al Franken. It's all a big joke, right? libs...stupid | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4843 Registered: 5-2001 |
maybe you should bomb us, too. "Mah fellow Amairkins, tuhday Ah'm declairin' uh war awn librulism..." By the way, Islamic leaders have been calling for the destruction of Israel for the last 58 years, but fortunately Israel has proven to be quite capable of taking care of itself. Anyway I'm not aware of anything that says we're obligated to pre-emptively strike their enemies. And it's not Iran that's the joke in the cartoon above ... it's Bush. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2974 Registered: 5-2004  |
There is no solution. If Iran does not back down, it will end in WWIII. Armageddon. If we or Israel attack Iran, it will result in a terrorism backlash, IMHO, worse than 9/11. Israel does not have the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with conventional weapons unless they somehow have infiltrated them. Just as we don't have conventional weapons that can penetrate as much earth as is above them, neither does Israel. They simply do not exist. If Israel goes nuclear, the intifadeh will have been the equivalent of a playground tussle. They will be worldwide pariahs, and I doubt any nation other than the US will even feign concern when they are attacked. I would not be THAT surprised if Russia or China provided a small nuclear retaliatory device. No one likes the idea of nuclear war, but for some, that is preferable to having Israel exist. I believe the only way to resolve this would be for the assassination of Ahmadinejad by some internal faction, with a bold statement that this is what an insane leader that brings "us" [meaning the Iranians] to the edge of destruction gets. And keep doing that until a leader emerges that is more moderate. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1585 Registered: 9-2004  |
Iran/US Nuclear Escalation Dr. Elias Akleh “We must emphasize here that Iran’s nuclear program is not the real issue. The core issue is the American administration’s desire to control the Middle East and its energy natural resources (oil in the Gulf and rich uranium Iran) to monopolize the global energy market. The administration had set uranium enrichment process as a red line it would not allow Iran to cross, although many other countries (Israel, India, and Pakistan) had crossed this red line and had even built their own nuclear bombs without any American objection. On the contrary US had recently entered into agreement to provide India with nuclear fuel for its reactors. After the Iranian declaration that they have succeeded in enriching uranium American plans to stop Iranian nuclear program was escalated from contingency to operational stage. The American administration is gradually intensifying its political pressure campaign against Iran while encouraging (coercing) other countries to join in. This is the beginning of a well defined campaign all American presidents had used whenever they wanted to cause regime change in other countries in order to control their economies. First, American politicians and media start demonizing the leader and the government of that country. They portray them as anti-American, repressive, and dictatorial regimes that pose greatest danger to world peace. Second, they try to isolate that country politically and economically through manipulating the United Nations to generate “loose” resolutions that could be interpreted as allowing military option. Then claiming to support oppositional movement to free the people from their suppressive regime the US sends money, weapons, and troops to the country to affect regime change. Once in the country the US installs a puppet regime, builds military basements, opens the country’s governmental assets for acquisition by American corporations, and controls its natural resources and its economy.” **************** Hmmm…sounds a lot like Iraq eh? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1240 Registered: 10-2004 |
Phenixrising - a very important statement, thanks for posting it. |
