Bush says Iran is source of Deadly Bombs

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

Iran's economic status is slowly being dragged down by toughened UN sanctions and it knows the U.S. is serious concerning sabre rattling (aircraft carrier battle groups in the Persian gulf) over Iran's nuclear program arising from threats of Israeli bombing. Also there is the new anti-Iranian alliance concerning Iran's threatened hegemony.

It will just be a matter of time that this country will realize it is not the country it thinks it is.

[Catchme]

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

Oh could you please prove, that "we" value life a lot more than alleged terrorists do.

The truth is the USA and their unholy coalition, has bombed and killed many many more than the alleged terrorists have with NO compunction.

Obviously, your intellectual comprehension that dictates the difference between 'good vs. evil' is nonexistent.

Besides Saddam could have avoided unnecessary bloodshed at the beginning, but declined.

How convienent revisionist history.

So it's okay for one country to illegally invade another country based upon lies, killing 10'sof thousands, destroying the country and it's infrastucture, littering it with depleted uranium shells, and you consider them good. Seems it is not my moral compass that is out of whack.

Saddam told the truth he had NO wMD's, it was Bush that lied. There was nothing that Saddam could say other than the truth, now was there? So, how could he have avoided/declined bloodshed?

The onus is on the USA Bush Admin here leafless, they are the ones that started this mess with lies and an illegal invasion of a country.

[GostHacked]

All those who think Saddam had a snowballs chance in hell of getting a nuclear programm up and running, really need to learn some history. And not the history the winners provide.

leafless

Iran's economic status is slowly being dragged down by toughened UN sanctions and it knows the U.S. is serious concerning sabre rattling (aircraft carrier battle groups in the Persian gulf) over Iran's nuclear program arising from threats of Israeli bombing. Also there is the new anti-Iranian alliance concerning Iran's threatened hegemony.

What hegemony does Iran have? What way are you using the term 'hegemony' ??

Obviously, your intellectual comprehension that dictates the difference between 'good vs. evil' is nonexistent.

I think your common sense chip is busted in that robot brain of yours. Head down to the shop for a firmware update please.

The invasion of Iraq was completed well within Rumsfeld estimates.

(a) The invasion started March 20, 2003 with coalition forces consisting of 40 countries.

Most of whom had never contributed troops to the battle. Just a pat on the back as you go. Not even money came from these other countries. Seemed like only the US, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain contribited troops to the battle. Most have pulled out now.

OH CRAP ALMOST FORGOT ABOUT POLAND !!!!

Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003.

© President bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1, 2003.

(d) The invasion was successful and lasted a grand total of 42 days.

True, but the stabalization/rebuilding has taken, by THEIR estimates, 3 years to long. I guess this part of the plan was not planned out to well.

Rumsfeld had nothing to do concerning a failure of peace initiatives.

You are quite right about this. He had nothing to do with it. Just prepared the troops for war to move on the word of the President 'LET'S ROLL !!'

Scriblett

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

And you expect to find peace among the residents of the Middle East by doing just that? Since is has worked SO WELL in the past? Wake up. Really wake up.

The internal conflicts in most of you 'right wingers' must be fantastic and dramatic. Knowing the lies are lies and the invasion of Iraq was the wrong plan, but yet touting and toting the official dogma comming out of the current administration. Manic depressives??? Stop being one of the duped.

[Leafless]

How convienent revisionist history.

So it's okay for one country to illegally invade another country based upon lies, killing 10'sof thousands, destroying the country and it's infrastucture, littering it with depleted uranium shells, and you consider them good. Seems it is not my moral compass that is out of whack.

Saddam told the truth he had NO wMD's, it was Bush that lied. There was nothing that Saddam could say other than the truth, now was there? So, how could he have avoided/declined bloodshed?

The onus is on the USA Bush Admin here leafless, they are the ones that started this mess with lies and an illegal invasion of a country.

Iraq was invaded as a 'war against terrorism' as well it was part of the U.S 1998 'Iraq Liberation Act'.

" In 1998, with the passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), it became official United States policy to work for the overthrow of Saddam's regime. The act stated: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The act was unanimously approved by the Senate with the strong support of the Clinton administration."

Other reasons were:

"To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were:

Self-defense

find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists

collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists

Humanitarian

end sanctions and deliver humanitarian support (According to Madeleine Albright, half a million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.)

United Nations Security Council Resolution

Resolution 1205, made in 1998.

Regime Change

end the Saddam Hussein government

help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule

Economic

secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources"

Of course you can argue the fact WMD were never found and we are talking chemical and not nuclear in which the Iraq's had plenty of time to destroy or hide them in thousands of square miles of desert before the inspectors arrived.

The al Quaeda connection was never proven but this was:

"Aside from the contentious allegations of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, the former government did have relationships with other militant organizations in the Middle East including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is known that some $10–15M total was paid to the families of suicide bombers, presented as compensation for the demolition of their homes in Israeli collective punishment operations."

*Excerpts from Wikipedia*

[GostHacked]

Leafless

" In 1998, with the passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), it became official United States policy to work for the overthrow of Saddam's regime. The act stated: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The act was unanimously approved by the Senate with the strong support of the Clinton administration."

So if they had this plan to go in, and these were the real reasons, why did they tout the WMD line for so long??? Simply lying and passing the buck, and confusing everyone. Also that list seems to have been in reverse order

Securing the oil feilds was the first item on the agenda. Funny how they stopped looking for the slam dunk wmd materials, north, south, east , west somewhat of Bahgdad.

Just more smoke and mirrors.

[Leafless]

Leafless

" In 1998, with the passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), it became official United States policy to work for the overthrow of Saddam's regime. The act stated: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The act was unanimously approved by the Senate with the strong support of the Clinton administration."

So if they had this plan to go in, and these were the real reasons, why did they tout the WMD line for so long??? Simply lying and passing the buck, and confusing everyone. Also that list seems to have been in reverse order

Securing the oil feilds was the first item on the agenda. Funny how they stopped looking for the slam dunk wmd materials, north, south, east , west somewhat of Bahgdad.

Just more smoke and mirrors.

Can you PROVE WMD (chemical type) are not buried somewhere out in the desert or destroyed before the inspectors got in???

Are you not glad Iraq's are free to-day even though they are fighting among themselves induced by greed.

Are you denying any form of collusion by Islamic countries is possible, concerning terrorism and the clash of civilizations?

[sharkman]

Perhaps I am a little clueless, but what is that supposed to mean, exactly?

It was addressed to Little Jerry Seinfeld.

Yesterday I asked for evidence that the U.S. is going to attack Iran. Apparently none exists. The link that started this thread makes no such statements. I hope this isn't yet another thread started with no other purpose than to shriek about Bush. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Do you think that, if the U.S. was intending to attack Iran, they'd come out and say so at this point? Gotta look for the warning signs: the sudden apperance of evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq, the deployment of a second carrier battle group to the gulf and Patriot missile bateries (deployments which would serve no purpose in quelling the insurgency). Indeed, I would say that the "surge" could also be a warning sign, as the U.S. could be reinforcing its troops in order to prepare for an Iranian counterstrike through its Iraqi proxies.

I was aware that your " I'm in your mom" comment was addressed to Jerry, but anyone reading this thread can see it and it appears pretty weird at the least.

Yes, I think that if the U.S. was intending to attack Iran, they would come out and say so. Just like they came out and said so for Desert Storm, and this latest military action in Iraq.

[Figleaf]

Can you PROVE WMD (chemical type) are not buried somewhere out in the desert or destroyed before the inspectors got in???

Yes. My proof is that they were never found. Now, can you prove they exist?

Are you not glad Iraq's are free to-day ...

Free of what?????

[GostHacked]

leafless

Can you PROVE WMD (chemical type) are not buried somewhere out in the desert or destroyed before the inspectors got in???

Actually it was up to the Bush Administration and the CIA/Intelligence services to proove to the world that there WAS wmd's. If you say something, like SADDAM HAS WMDs!, you better have the evidence to back it up. But they don't have any evidence to back it up. So basicly this argument is no longer valid. It was all lies. Or are you aware of what a LIE really is?

Have they been found yet? No.

Was the intel before the war sound? No.

Why do I have to proove to YOU that there were none.

It was the Bush Admin and Co that told us there were WMDs. (fuck, this shit is getting old with you people) It was up to them to proove to us that Saddam had WMDs. So after the invasion, well 2-3 years later, they are not even looking for this 'smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud' evidence.

Bush and Co said - Yes there are weapons.

None were found.

And eventually they stopped looking for this 'slam dunk' evidence.

Any of this getting through at all??

Also if the plan in 1998 was to oust Saddam, then why even say he HAS WMDs, when you intel clearly showed there was no real solid proof. Remember those so called undergroud bunkers Al-Qaeda has? I wonder why they have not mentioned anything else of that. So by this 1998 resolution, the USA planned to go into Iraq at some time. All that crap leading up to the invasion in 2003 was just hogwash bullshit to get the public on board for the war.

Those who don't have a sharp mind may get bogged down in all this 'evidence' that the Bush Administraion has said existed. If they lied about that, what else could the Bush Administration have lied about? This leaves things pretty open does it not?

So by all the fuckups that happened before the war in Iraq, all the lies to get into the war, the lies AFTER the war, and the lies about the current situation with Iran... HEY WAIT A MINUTE... was there another resolution in the US about Iran?? Similar to the 1998 Iraq plan?? I bet it exists somewhere. I just got to find out to see if the evidence is actually there. Or else I am just speculating.

[Catchme]

leafless

Can you PROVE WMD (chemical type) are not buried somewhere out in the desert or destroyed before the inspectors got in???

Actually it was up to the Bush Administration and the CIA/Intelligence services to proove to the world that there WAS wmd's. If you say something, like SADDAM HAS WMDs!, you better have the evidence to back it up. But they don't have any evidence to back it up. So basicly this argument is no longer valid. It was all lies. Or are you aware of what a LIE really is?

Have they been found yet? No.

Was the intel before the war sound? No.

Why do I have to proove to YOU that there were none.

It was the Bush Admin and Co that told us there were WMDs. (fuck, this shit is getting old with you people) It was up to them to proove to us that Saddam had WMDs. So after the invasion, well 2-3 years later, they are not even looking for this 'smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud' evidence.

Bush and Co said - Yes there are weapons.

None were found.

And eventually they stopped looking for this 'slam dunk' evidence.

Any of this getting through at all??

Also if the plan in 1998 was to oust Saddam, then why even say he HAS WMDs, when you intel clearly showed there was no real solid proof. Remember those so called undergroud bunkers Al-Qaeda has? I wonder why they have not mentioned anything else of that. So by this 1998 resolution, the USA planned to go into Iraq at some time. All that crap leading up to the invasion in 2003 was just hogwash bullshit to get the public on board for the war.

Those who don't have a sharp mind may get bogged down in all this 'evidence' that the Bush Administraion has said existed. If they lied about that, what else could the Bush Administration have lied about? This leaves things pretty open does it not?

So by all the fuckups that happened before the war in Iraq, all the lies to get into the war, the lies AFTER the war, and the lies about the current situation with Iran... HEY WAIT A MINUTE... was there another resolution in the US about Iran?? Similar to the 1998 Iraq plan?? I bet it exists somewhere. I just got to find out to see if the evidence is actually there. Or else I am just speculating.

Yes, there is a resolution about Iran, which is why they have sanctions of the Iraq type them. Just google US Sanctions against Iran.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

Leafless: please clarify how my oppossing a course of action that I believe will be more damaging to U.S. and western interests equates to defening terrorism. IOW: put up or shut up.

Scriblett

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

Damn pesky western values. How are we to defend them if we can't discard them at will?

Yes, I think that if the U.S. was intending to attack Iran, they would come out and say so. Just like they came out and said so for Desert Storm, and this latest military action in Iraq.

Note that, in both cases, the (thin) pretext for the build up was to frighten Saddam into withdrawing from Kuwait and comply with inspections. In the case of Iran, though, the fact is, there will be no build up because we won't see any ground operations. It's a lot easier to conceal plans for airstrikes than invasions. As well, if the idea is to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, announcing your intentions to do so will just give the game away to the Iranians and allow them time to disperse their program (if they haven't done that already).

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

Leafless: please clarify how my oppossing a course of action that I believe will be more damaging to U.S. and western interests equates to defening terrorism. IOW: put up or shut up.

The course of action IS part of Western values.

You never did understand Western values or interest anyways.

[Leafless]

leafless

Can you PROVE WMD (chemical type) are not buried somewhere out in the desert or destroyed before the inspectors got in???

Actually it was up to the Bush Administration and the CIA/Intelligence services to proove to the world that there WAS wmd's. If you say something, like SADDAM HAS WMDs!, you better have the evidence to back it up. But they don't have any evidence to back it up. So basicly this argument is no longer valid. It was all lies. Or are you aware of what a LIE really is?

Have they been found yet? No.

Was the intel before the war sound? No.

Why do I have to proove to YOU that there were none.

It was the Bush Admin and Co that told us there were WMDs. (fuck, this shit is getting old with you people) It was up to them to proove to us that Saddam had WMDs. So after the invasion, well 2-3 years later, they are not even looking for this 'smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud' evidence.

Bush and Co said - Yes there are weapons.

None were found.

And eventually they stopped looking for this 'slam dunk' evidence.

Any of this getting through at all??

Also if the plan in 1998 was to oust Saddam, then why even say he HAS WMDs, when you intel clearly showed there was no real solid proof. Remember those so called undergroud bunkers Al-Qaeda has? I wonder why they have not mentioned anything else of that. So by this 1998 resolution, the USA planned to go into Iraq at some time. All that crap leading up to the invasion in 2003 was just hogwash bullshit to get the public on board for the war.

Those who don't have a sharp mind may get bogged down in all this 'evidence' that the Bush Administraion has said existed. If they lied about that, what else could the Bush Administration have lied about? This leaves things pretty open does it not?

So by all the fuckups that happened before the war in Iraq, all the lies to get into the war, the lies AFTER the war, and the lies about the current situation with Iran... HEY WAIT A MINUTE... was there another resolution in the US about Iran?? Similar to the 1998 Iraq plan?? I bet it exists somewhere. I just got to find out to see if the evidence is actually there. Or else I am just speculating.

Here is something that explains the WMD went to Syria and Lebanon and were Russian made.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013258.php

[Catchme]

Leafless, that notion of the WMD's being moved was debunked long ago, in the early stages of the war, by the US military personal in Iraq, they stated there could be no way, that they could've moved them ouut, the borders at the time were too strictly controlled and there were satillites positioned everywhere watching.

Do you not remember seeing them zoom in on farmers in fields irrigating at night, and attacking those semis units they thought contained them, that were identified by satillite?

Furthermore, are the inquiries have shown the intell was either false or, or ramped up to be more than what it was. The UN inspectors and the next 2 Americans, that were sent in by Bush all said there was no wmd's.

That you now give a blogged commentary from a year ago, that does NOT say there were WMD's but in actual fact says Saddam wanted them, is not evidence. Nor can one take the recent declarations of Saddam' military as evidence of anything. they could be paid to say whatever anyone wants them to, after all Saddam is dead.

And if the evidence was forth coming to prove this as the blogger said, where is it a year later? No where.

[Black Dog]

Here is something that explains the WMD went to Syria and Lebanon and were Russian made.

Addressed here.

[Black Dog]

The course of action IS part of Western values.

I'd argue that uneccesarily stoking a conflict that will inevitably result in thousands of innocent deaths is prima facie against western values. Furthermore, it's not hard to see how such a course of action would lead to further decay of our western values: for instance, bombing Iran would excrabate the threat of domestic terrorism, leading to more repressive domestic security measures and the erosion of our civil rights.

But then, I wasn't talking about western values. I was talking about western interests, which are far more tangeable.

You never did understand Western values or interest anyways.

Apparently, I have a far deeper understanding of both than you. This is abundantly clear from this thread, in which I have highlighted the myriad practical problems with attacking Iran, none of which you've bothered to address in a substantive manner. It's like you think the U.S. and the west can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions by sending pixie-dust powered Stealth bombers to drop cluster bombs full of good intentions that cause pretty ponys to spring from the earth where they land. And that will solve all our problems. In short: you're a very unserious person.

[Canadian Blue]

Wouldn't invading Iran be "un"-American. As I believe a great American once said America should not be entangled in foriegn conflicts. In fact I'd argue the only time we should go to war is when the UN authorizes action due to ethnic cleansing, and when another country is invaded and occupied by another [with intention's to make said country a part of the invading country].

As for the WMD's being moved, never happened because Iraq had no WMD's to begin with. Saddam only propagated that myth to put fear into his political enemies.

If the US attacks Iran then we'll see the repruccussion's for decades, it makes absolutely no sense especially when we see diplomacy has won out in North Korea. Despite John Bolton's objection's, even though John Bolton was a joke in the UN to begin with.

If Bush invades Iran, I can garauntee you that we will see impeachment hearing's within a year against Bush for that action.

[Figleaf]

You never did understand Western values or interest anyways.

Apparently, I have a far deeper understanding of both than you. This is abundantly clear from this thread, in which I have highlighted the myriad practical problems with attacking Iran, none of which you've bothered to address in a substantive manner. It's like you think the U.S. and the west can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions by sending pixie-dust powered Stealth bombers to drop cluster bombs full of good intentions that cause pretty ponys to spring from the earth where they land. And that will solve all our problems. In short: you're a very unserious person.

Leafless, you've been PWNed!

[Leafless]

You never did understand Western values or interest anyways.

Apparently, I have a far deeper understanding of both than you. This is abundantly clear from this thread, in which I have highlighted the myriad practical problems with attacking Iran, none of which you've bothered to address in a substantive manner. It's like you think the U.S. and the west can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions by sending pixie-dust powered Stealth bombers to drop cluster bombs full of good intentions that cause pretty ponys to spring from the earth where they land. And that will solve all our problems. In short: you're a very unserious person.

Leafless, you've been PWNed!

Not really.

The clash of civilizations is in progress.

And we are not going to lose!

[PolyNewbie]

What is George Bush the source of ? Link

[Catchme]

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon,...”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “... Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1434540.ece

So, it seems there are those who are sane and have conscience in the the US military.

[Black Dog]

Not really.

The clash of civilizations is in progress.

And we are not going to lose!

Okay: how are we gonna win? I wanna know what you have in mind. You certainly haven't addressed any of the actual issues (for example: the potential consequenses of an attack on Iran's nuke program: I'm almost convinced you don't think there would be any consequenses.)

Simply running around sqwaking about the "clash of civilizations" or, as other's do, how we can't allow Iran to do this that or the other doesn't tell us a damn thing about what we should do.

[Canadian Blue]

The whole "Clash of Civilizations" theory is a BS one. I'm sure that even in middle eastern countries people have individual attributes and ideas like anyone else. As well wouldn't we be better off winning the clash of civilization's through diplomacy and containment instead of direct military action. From what I understand the Iranian youth support reform, so instead of shooting bombs at them, why don't we bring about a policy to deal with Iran diplomatically.

Bush had pretty well the entire world supporting the USA, until he f%$ked it all up with Iraq, the US could have made a huge impact on democracy by using diplomacy. But instead they went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence, and now most of the world is just pissed off at the US.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:But instead they went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence

I thought it had something to do with oil.

[Charles Anthony]

reported