Frist says military action a posssibility against Iran

[ECH1969]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Saturday night that the United States must be prepared to take military action against Iran.

Iran has said it wants to enrich uranium only to make nuclear fuel for generating electricity. But concerns that it might misuse the technology led the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The United States has long advocated Security Council action against Iran, including possible political and economic sanctions, which have not yet occurred.

Asked whether Congress had the political will to use military force against Iran if necessary, First said: "The answer is yes, absolutely."

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=4457018

[msongs]

1. let the young republicans LEAD the way INTO combat, not just

lead us down the path to another war and then bail out on doing the real fighting and the dying while they all
watch their halliburton stock skyrocket.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[wordpix]

172. better yet, let's have the old chickenhawks lead the way-have fun, Frist &

friends

[Tight_rope]

177. LMBAO....I totally agree...Onward Christian soldiers, marching on to war

:headbang:

[AuntiBush]

180. This Might Explain this Mornings Breaking News...

2 Trillion asked by Bush...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=recent_posts

[classysassy]

195. Chickenhawks

the republican young men and women love this country,they have an undying love,let the suckers die while they indulge in war profiteering.

[punpirate]

2. Funny how a doctor is such a warmonger...

... in a supposedly enlightened society.

Frist has graduated from cats to people, I fear.

[varkam]

4. But you forget about capitalism...

You see when people get blown up in the war, they have to come to him to get stitched up! It's really a win/win for Frist.

[sweetheart]

74. doctor's not what it used to be

Now its the same for all employees,
Under the thumb of drug companies so large,
Pushing the drugs of the drug dealers charge,
Down the sick throats of those who heal we,
Send all the sick to die for the glee
of warmonger doctors who kill for a fee.

[mitchum]

139. He's always been far more of a health care entrepreneur than doctor...

and he has also always been a loathsome dirtbag

[varkam]

3. Well it's Frist...

I mean come on. Does anyone take him seriously anymore? Isn't he currently being investigated for dumping HCA stock?

But what I think is a bit spookier is the scary language Rummy has been using lately, calling Iran a rogue state that sponsors terrorism. Sounds like a lead up to Iraq Redux.

[Erika]

5. Maybe they'll send Jenna, Barbara, and George P

Or reinstate the draft, and plunge us into their bottomless deficit hole, and tell us food stamps, public education, SS, Medicare and Medicaid can't meet the priority list.

Anyone who would falsely adopt kittens and cats to perform medical experiments on, would do anything.

[No Exit]

171. They should send Jenna to Afghanistan.

I think she'd like it there, with all those poppies.

As for Frist, I'd like to adopt him and give him a nice home.:evilgrin:

[splat@14]

220. Under General Jeff Gannon....n/t

[Charlie Brown]

6. I want to ask Frist about the occupation and transfer of power

because that's what the majority of our role in Iran will be, regardless of what reasons we give for invading (no, I don't support it). If Iraq taught the politicans anything, it should be that hegemony and nation-building are the focal point of these "police actions" today, not using the military to take out a rival regime.

If Frist cannot guarantee our servicemens' safety amidst the occupation, then that in itself is reason to oppose war.

[kineneb]

7. and thus begins WWIII

"The Armageddon which you are about to receive may not be the one which you have ordered. If this is the case, please fill out the complaint form on the back of your order. All complaints will be given due consideration. You may not receive a prompt reply due to prior requests."
-"God"

[radfringe]

64. we knew it was coming

the question was whether it would be Iran or Syria or both...

It'll be Iran in time for mid-term (s)election

forcasted timeline:

from now to invasion time: the bushie choir will be screaming about a nuke attack

June-July-August: terra-lerts

June or July: Condi will be at the UN holding up a vial that represents radioactive fallout

February-March: bush will deny having invasion plans on his desk, which they aren't - they are on the table

September: either an actual terrattack or big headlines about one being thwarted, followed by blaming Iran

October: resolution to invade goes to congress, Dems speak out and then apologize

November: fear factor ramped up, repugs retain control

March-April 2007: shock'n awe part 2 - Iranian Freedom begins

[catnhatnh]

8. Bill Frist would swear puppys cause cancer...

...if it diverted attention from his record...

[lovuian]

9. Are Americans going to go to war because a draft will happen

if this happens...
This republicans have brought death & destruction to democracy...

[megatherium]

92. No it won't.

Military action will consist of only a bombing campaign, because they know that occupying Iran would be damn near impossible regardless of the number of troops used. So no draft.

[atreides1]

143. Yes it will

You're correct that it will start with a bombing campaign, but it will escalate from there. Once the first US planes are detected I'm willing to bet that almost every single US post within Iraq
will be hit by Iranian missiles.

The US Navy will get its first taste on what the Sunburn anti-ship missile is capable of doing, and the Strait of Hormuz will become a ship graveyard. Our allies will not be joining us on this one, even Tony the Poodle won't dare to jump into this nest.

If the US attacks without provocation, we go in alone, if the Israelis jump in then the entire Middle East becomes a war zone, even Afghanistan and Pakistan will seperate themselves from what the US is doing.

So, yes the draft, which can be put back into play within 75 days will happen, and this time the rules have changed drastically. Those young Repukes in college won't be able to skip out this time like their hero Dick Cheney did. What someone has to do to get a deferment this time around is convince a board consisting of a diverse group of people that they qualify, even if someone claims
CO status they better have their documents in hand.

If the US attacks Iran, the party will be open to all American males.

[Senator Obama]

213. Surely you jest...

That Sunburn missile you talked about will be useless against our fleet as they will be outside of the straights of Hormuouz. Our Subs will sink anthing floating that is Iraqi before it ever leaves port. The straights do not get blocked.

Iranian missiles will hit downtown Tel Aviv. These are russian design and with good accuracy and sufficient range. On a preemptive strike we might be able to get a alot of the missile sites but not all of them. We would only occupy a small portion of the country (Khugestan (sp)) where a large percentage (90%) of the country's oil is located. It is well defended by surrounding mountains and we hit by sea and drive into the country from Basra. So the Brits will either be going with us or pulling out to get out of the way for us to stage an invasion force at Basra.

I hear people crowing about the Israeli military. Don't make me laugh. They don't have the firepower and can't transport any kind of troop strength to the area. They're fine as a defense force for their country. The Arabs are much better equipped these days than they were when they were throwing rocks back at French supplied Mirage Aircraft. Had it not been for US intervention in 1973, the Israelis may well be speaking Arab now. Of course the US government doesn't talk about this but Nixon/Kissinger broke down and sent help at the last moment. Kinda like the millions they gave to Fatah in the last few weeks before that election. Win some..lose some. Iran is not candy ass softened up country as was Iraq in 1981 with French technicians being killed in the Osiraq reactor. One would be attacking well defended and fortified nuclear sites. The Israelis do not have aircraft with the range to reach Iran without refueling mid-air and would have to fly directly over Saudi Arabia and Iraq airspace for the most direct route. No chance of the Saudis allowing use of their airspace and if Iraq is sovereign, use of Iraqi airspace may be problematic as well. Refueling in air and support of the bomber with fighters of sufficient range without US help is an issue. Israel is useless a standalone force or as an ally. Their participation would all but insure major revolt in the region. They will be as helpful here as they were in past Gulf Wars, ie. virtually useless except to provide us with cooked intelligence in support of PNAC. At best they could hit two sites with hand grenades setting them back a couple of months. Of course the real issue here is whether Russia steps in. After all, there are not only substantial Russian oil interests, there are Russian technology and personnel in the nuclear facilities.

No nukes will be used by either side. Russia would have a fit. I'll go out on a limb here and say that not a single US bomb falls on Iran. The Iranians will settle for a compromise. They can do far more damage to our economy with that oil bourse in a couple of years than they could with a couple of low grade nukes. I don't see first use of nukes by Iran under that circumstance although I would be deeply concerned about their control over nuclear material. Given their proven track record in launching terror attacks against US bases and interests, there is understandable concern that low yield nukes could wind up in the hands of terrorists who want to turn silicon valley into glass. That threat is real without a responsible government in place who submits to IAEA inspections. Of course only one of these low yield devices would have to hit Israel and it would wipe the place out. The entire country is the size of New Jersey with only 6 million people. If I remember correctly, it is only 13 miles wide at its narrowest point. That cloud is going to do a lot of damage to the region. Hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Israel would be pretty much toast. Of course if Israel launches on Iran, they damage Russia as well, so they might as well kiss their ass goodbye too.

Obama

[bemildred]

10. The United States needs to get rid of Frist, and those like him. nt

[Scooter24]

11. Must be preparing for his Presidential bid...

he goes on recording supporting a war against Iran, then Bush attacks Iran, then during the Presidential race, he rallies the country behind the Republican party shouting "Terrorists" and "Democracy" hoping to bring voters to his side of the fence.

It'll be another GOP convention full of invoking 9-11 and terror.

[Charlie Brown]

12. Not a chance

The support for stem-cell research killed his chances of winning the nomination.

[AndyTiedye]

13. It's Getting Drafty

[dysfunctional press]

14. and what troops would he suggest using?

Iran has a VERY large army, sunburn and other missiles, as well as a most likely heavily armed civilian populace-

where are we gonna get the cannon fodder for our side?

[Erika]

15. Can't do it without a draft n/t

[dysfunctional press]

16. how long before a draft can be conducted and troops called up-

and trained well enough to go into battle effectively?

that kinda thing doesn't happen overnight.

desertions and fraggings would probably reach record levels.

[wordpix]

173. they are probably just going to use a little more shock &awe, then declare

mission accomplished

[Nutmegger]

17. You'd think we'd learn from Iraq?

I mean, JEEZUS!!! How many more people will perish?

Believe it out not, it's American's hegemony that is fueling these actions. I recall North Korea stating, to a certain extent, that "we're developing nuclear weapons to protect us against an increasingly hostile United States".

Wow - this is scary. I don't want to see anymore dead children. I don't want to see the dead.

Now for the record, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons...and THE UNITED STATES shouldn't have 'em either.

[Lasher]

18. It's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
Next stop is....Iran

Hey look, it still rhymes!

And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
Ain't got time to wonder why
Woopee! We're all goin' to die!

[roguevalley]

19. how can we stop these fuckers? There are eight people holding

the world by the balls. I CANNOT BELIEVE it. Truly.

[Chipper Chat]

22. 8

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bolton, Gonzales, Rove, & ? (used to be DeLay?)

[napsi]

20. I will be flamed for this but.......

I would support going after Iran because I have no doubt they would take us out at the 1st chance the get........just my opinion. Obviuosly, this assumes we can prove they are enriching uranium for weapons.

[Nutmegger]

21. .

[Erika]

23. No, you won't be flamed.

You obviously believed W about the Iraqi situation. Sorry, we're not going to keep on killing our troops based on W's words. He's never known an oil rich country which he didn't want to liberate.

[TheVirginian]

24. So everything Bush says is now false?

If Bush says that North Korea is dangerous, would you go on vacation there? If Bush says that Mynamar oppresses human rights, would you want an autograph from the military junta that leads there?

Fact of the matter is that Iran is a different scenario than Iraq, and the absolute most irresponsible thing you can do is make baseless comparisons between the two without even attempting to look at the facts of the matter.

The facts of the matter are availible through any news source, including European news (if you're one of those who believe the Bush Administration controls every newspaper in this country). But the fact that should matter the most is that just about every country in the world is on board with the fact that Iran is a dangerous country that cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The other fact that should matter is that its not the Bush Administration that's spearheading the effort against Iran; its Great Britian, France, and Germany.

Disliking the Bush Administration doesn't mean you have to supports its enemies. If Iran were to attack the United States, its nuclear weapons wouldn't distinguish between Republican and Democrat.

[Erika]

26. The missle range of an Iranian missle is 1,250 miles

But that's better than Rice and Rummy saying Iraqis and Saddam had the capabilities of producing a nuclear mushroom cloud here in the states.

I have zero trust in the Bush administration, which is earned. Liking or not liking them has nothing to do with anything.

[TheVirginian]

29. It apparently has to do with everything...

Because you're viewing the world through the lens of "I hate Bush". And because you hate Bush, you don't think Iran is a threat, when every country in the world (except Syria, Venezeuala, and Cuba) agrees with Britian, France, and Germany.

This isn't about Iraq. This isn't about Rice. This isn't about Rumsfeld. This isn't about Saddam. This isn't about trusting the Bush Administration. There are two accounts; that of the United Nations and the IAEA, or that of Iran. Just because the Bush Administration has sided with every other democracy in the world doesn't mean that you have to side against them.

[Erika]

32. Huh?

This is about a country that has only a missle capable of a 1,250 mile flight and the fact that its neighbors are perfectly capable of taking care of the problem.

You want to use our taxes and troops again? No way.

[TheVirginian]

38. Come again?

What in the history of the Middle East has suggested to you that Iran's neighbors are "perfectly capable" of taking care of the problem? What exactly do you see the problem as being?

Regardless of whether Tehran can reach Washington D.C. with a nuclear missile (not including the numerous black markets it deals weapons through), every country in the world agrees that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable. Just because the Bush Administration has said, "you know what, we agree with every other country in the world", you want to disagree with them and say that Iran isn't a serious issue?

I'm not saying "Let's invade." I'm saying, before we set in stone what our policy is, let's look at the facts, and the biggest fact that should be plainly obvious, if people had the common sense to actually look at the world around them, is that Iran is a threat. Let's form our Iran policy around that mindset, instead of the mindset of opposing Bush.

[Erika]

42. Your life may make W a centerpiece

Mine doesn't. Why do you dwell on him so much?

[TheVirginian]

48. Because that's where you lead this discussion.

The first person in this sub-thread said that they support the IAEA because they legitimately thing Iran is a threat. Your response?

"Sorry, we're not going to keep on killing our troops based on W's words."

YOU made George Bush the focus of this discussion, not anybody else.

[Erika]

51. Huh?

W was a side issue. The possible war was the issue.

Hey if you love W, fine. But why are you posting here?

[TheVirginian]

54. The Iranian threat is the issue.

Iran is a threat. You don't seem to believe so, and you've stated two reasons:

1) Because Iran doesn't have a missile capable of reaching the United States. This is, of course, assuming that we know all of Iran's capabilities, that they're not able to build one in the next year, and that they won't trade nuclear weapons on the black market.

and 2) Because George Bush views Iran as a threat, therefore he must be lying (because he's George Bush), and Iran isn't a threat at all, merely another innocent country that Bush wants to attack because he's evil.

You asked me why we were talking about George Bush. The reason we were talking about George Bush is because you brought him up-- specifically, you brought up the point that you don't trust him to determine what is a threat to the United States. Even if you don't, I think you can trust the U.N., the IAEA, and the long list of countries that agree on this that a nuclear Iran is a bad thing.

[Erika]

57. Yeah, maybe Rummy and Condi, and W

will hold a press meeting about mushroom clouds, drones, and then throw in some dialog how the Iranian leader has been such a cruel leader. The GOP shot their wad when it was proven they cried wolf in the Iraqi situation.
Our troops are still dying as W tries to find some retreat with honor, just like his twin, Nixon.

[TheVirginian]

82. Then don't listen to Rummy, Condi, and W...

Listen to the U.N., the IAEA, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Great Britain, and Yemen.

Or better yet, stop viewing the world through how much you disagree with the President and actually pay attention to the news, and the world around you.

[No Exit]

89. He is not the President. He is the thief of two elections.

I myself cheered him on in his first theft. Why? Because I didn't realize at the time that it was a theft.

I did not view the world "through how much I disagree with the President (sic)". I actually paid attention to the news, and the world around me. That's how I reached the opinion I now hold: that Bush is a plague, a pox, and that he and Cheney must be impeached as soon as possible.

And how, may I ask, is one supposed to "stop listening to 'Rummy' (that's a nickname his fans call him, isn't it?), Condoleezza (why has she never married?), and 'W'"? Don't you realize your household gods have bought much of the media? People can't avoid hearing them unless they turn off all media. The only way to get the views of others is to DIG. I have to dig daily, on the net, to find any views which your household gods have not bought and paid for.

[TheVirginian]

91. What, if anything, does that have to do with Iran?

Absolutely nothing. Thank you for letting me know you don't like the Bush Administration. Since you were posting in this forum, I hadn't quite pieced that one together.

If you want an opinion about Iran, don't go by what the President is telling you. Don't go by what the Secretaries of State and Defense are telling you. Go by what all the other countries in the world who says that Iran is a threat are telling you. Realize this: if you moved to Canada (like many people here say they want to), then your country would still be one that supports action against Iran. This is an issue LARGER than anti-Bush sentiment, and I really wish people would grasp that.

[No Exit]

99. "Since you were posting in this forum" He is not the President.

Wow. I sense a rather bitter tone when you say that. "This forum". (spit)

Okay, so if as you say (and I can't say I trust you to get the facts right, but, arguendo...) all these many countries are saying Iran is a "threat", why don't we let THEM attack Iran?

Why must WE lead any preemptive strike on Iran?

I really wish you would grasp that the person who occupies the White House, and the persons who run our Congress, are the ones who set the tone of public opinion on politics, and they are the ones who push a particular agenda. I am telling you that if these particular people were not in power here, we would not be sitting around debating whether Iran is a "threat".

Have you read the neocon manifesto? Have you read Dwight Eisenhower's speech in which he first used the words "military-industrial complex"? Have you ever read any of the words of Smedley Butler?

You will now come back and say "I wasn't talking about neocons or Eisenhower or Smedley Butler." And therein lies your problem: you refuse to look at history. You refuse to look at the past, even the recent past. Well, I reject your heavyhanded insistence that we limit the discussion to the here-and-now Iran discussion, because history should always be the guide in any such discussion. So don't go trying to weasel out of the use of history as reference points in a discussion of the present.

You insist on this chicken-and-egg bullshit argument. You say the Iran so-called "threat" is a thing which would be present independent of whether Bush and his minions were in power, or not. I say the Iran so-called "threat" is a confection of the Bush machine, and if any other countries or entities are joining in that view, they are only doing it because they have decided that there is something in it for them in this latest Bush scam.

And you completely ignore the many parallels between the Iraq scenario, and this one. That's no doubt because it's just too inconvenient to dwell on the known facts which have come to light.

What is YOUR opinion of Canada--since you mentioned Canada?

[TheVirginian]

102. I'm not bitter towards this forum,

Only bitter towards those who wish to discuss issues that they clearly have no business or desire discussing. If people here want to talk about how much they hate Bush, there are plenty of other places to do it.

Okay, so if as you say (and I can't say I trust you to get the facts right, but, arguendo...) all these many countries are saying Iran is a "threat", why don't we let THEM attack Iran?

Why must WE lead any preemptive strike on Iran?

Since when are we leading a preemptive strike, or preparing a strike of any kind? Right now, the world seems content with referring Iran to the Security Council. An agreement from most of the world's countries on this issue carries a lot of weight. After that's done, you look around and see what your options are. Frist is saying that nothing is being taken off the table, which is appropriate, since the last thing you want to do is limit the options you have to work with.

I really wish you would grasp that the person who occupies the White House, and the persons who run our Congress, are the ones who set the tone of public opinion on politics, and they are the ones who push a particular agenda. I am telling you that if these particular people were not in power here, we would not be sitting around debating whether Iran is a "threat".

What has Bush done in the last five years that had any effect on who became president of Iran?

Have you read the neocon manifesto? Have you read Dwight Eisenhower's speech in which he first used the words "military-industrial complex"? Have you ever read any of the words of Smedley Butler?

You will now come back and say "I wasn't talking about neocons or Eisenhower or Smedley Butler." And therein lies your problem: you refuse to look at history. You refuse to look at the past, even the recent past. Well, I reject your heavyhanded insistence that we limit the discussion to the here-and-now Iran discussion, because history should always be the guide in any such discussion. So don't go trying to weasel out of the use of history as reference points in a discussion of the present.

I value history, and I've looked at the history when it comes to this issue. But there is a difference between relevent history and irrelevent history. The fact that both of Bush's elections were controversial (something which has been repeatedly brought up in this discussion) is irrelevent. And there is a difference between considering history, along with the current facts, and looking only at history and ignoring all of the current facts. For some reason, you and others seem to want to dismiss the current facts because it doesn't fit your view of the world. In my opinion, that's highly irresponsible.

You insist on this chicken-and-egg bullshit argument. You say the Iran so-called "threat" is a thing which would be present independent of whether Bush and his minions were in power, or not. I say the Iran so-called "threat" is a confection of the Bush machine, and if any other countries or entities are joining in that view, they are only doing it because they have decided that there is something in it for them in this latest Bush scam.

If it were Bush's scam, you might have something going here. But this is an effort spearheaded by the European Union, and being watched closely by Russia (as Iran's proxy to the West). In the absence of facts, all sorts of conspiracy theories can crop up as people make blind assumptions. It is really dangerous when people continue to make blind assumptions in the presence of facts.

And you completely ignore the many parallels between the Iraq scenario, and this one. That's no doubt because it's just too inconvenient to dwell on the known facts which have come to light.

The differences in this scenario and the Iraq scenario are far greater than the parallels. It seems like its too inconvenient for you to accept that.

What is YOUR opinion of Canada--since you mentioned Canada?

I think Canada is a swell country. Why do you ask?

[No Exit]

157. What gives you the right to tell others that they have "no business

or desire discussing" certain issues?

Why do you get so angry over, and why do you continually carp about, "people hating Bush"?

"Since when are we leading a preemptive strike"? Oh, well, pardon me... I just happened to notice that OUR soldiers are right there in Iraq, which is bound to be one of the fronts in any war which starts with Iran. And it's a funny thing, I saw this same lead-up occur in 2002-03, and it ended up with our sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq. Oh, but what on earth would make anyone think that seeing the very same scam taking shape all over again would mean we were preparing to repeat recent history, this time with Iran in the role of the attacked country? Silly me. Of course we would NEVER lead a preemptive strike. Nor would Israel. Oh, of course not.:sarcasm:

Yes, Doc Deer-in-the-headlights (referring to his hilarious and inept response when Reid shut down the senate) Frist is saying "nothing is being taken off the table." You know, I'm sick of hearing about that table. Condoleezza Rice talks about that table, your household god Bush talks about that table, they all talk about that table. I must admit, hearing Frist say something is almost a guarantee that it won't happen that way, however...

You ask what Bush had done in the last 5 years which has had any effect on who became president of Iran. How about the fact that Bush has done everything in his power to make the entire Muslim world our direct enemies? When they see us leading an unprovoked invasion of a country full of Muslims, it seems to upset them. One reaction on their part might be to elect the more extreme west-hating leaders. Whaddya know, they've done just that.

And isn't it convenient (for a certain country whose name we are forbidden to mention) that the entire population of the U.S. is now very aware of, and angry at, Arabs and Persians in general? Boy, when those guys do negative PR, they really do negative PR. Thank you, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Perle, Mr. Feith, Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Ledeen, Mr. Kristol (from the Propaganda Dep't.) etc. You and your goy friends Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Addington, Mr. Powell, etc., have done a fine job of harnessing the military might of America for that country's purposes.

You say that the fact that both of Bush's "elections" were "controversial" is supposedly irrelevant. Au contraire, it is of a piece with his whole reign of terror. It clearly demonstrates the tactics of the Bush political machine. These tactics extend to their handling of all matters, whether foreign policy or domestic. A convenient shorthand name for these tactics is "cheating".

YOU are the one who dismisses facts when they don't fit in with your knee-jerk viewpoint. That's why I tend to doubt your claims to all that post-grad education.

Russia was simply bought off. You want I should post the articles that show this? As I said, the other countries are simply reacting to what's in it for them. Why would they do otherwise?

"The differences in this scenario and the Iraq scenario are far greater than (sic) the parallels." I would like for you to be right about this one, but I am pessimistic. I know you Bush-worshippers don't like to talk about the Iraq fiasco, especially now that the unbelievable deception and cheating involved in it is all coming to light. But it's hard to ignore, especially when one sees more and more amputees under the age of 25 (not to mention the coffins, which of course we are not allowed to see.)

I already told you why I asked your opinion of Canada--it was because YOU mentioned Canada. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not listening to what I say. :eyes:

[TheVirginian]

185. The same thing that gives you the right to dismiss other opinions

I don't get angry about people hating Bush. I get angry at people who approach a fantastically complicated scenario through the most limited of mindsets. You have a narrow mindset. That works for you; it allows you to be smug and refuse to accept anything that challenges you, so you can live your life self-righteously. But it doesn't work for you when you try and talk about foreign policy, because your mindset can't even begin to work out the many, many considerations that foreign policy inherently brings up. Everything to you is "oppose Bush", "oppose Bush", "oppose Bush". And that's great. There are places for you in society. But intelligent discussion is not one of them.

[No Exit]

189. You speak of "other opinions" as though there were more than one

person around here who shares yours. But I haven't seen one other person on this thread who backs up your defense of Bush tactics, and your hysterical hype about "the Iran threat". (Boo!!! Booga booga!!!)

You say I have a "narrow mindset". How humorous. You forget that only a few years ago, I was a supporter of your household god, George W. Bush. I voted for him in 2000. I always voted republican for president, up till that time, except for one vote for Perot, in 1992--and a lot of other conservatives did what I did in 1992.

MY opinion changed.

You, OTOH, have probably held the same general opinions for your entire life. They are firmly entrenched and I would guess that the reason they will stay that way is that old facet of human nature--that characteristic that is seen so often in all persons, and especially in middle-aged men--the refusal to ever say "I was wrong".

Bush and Cheney are currently the leaders of the republican party. The republican party is the party which currently has a stranglehold on the United States government, including and especially the Defense Department. Yet you disingenuously claim that a discussion of WAR, or of a foreign country which is a "threat", can be had without reference to Bush/Cheney. Your attempt to defend Bush/Cheney is touching, while also being truly laughable.

[TheVirginian]

204. As an example of just how narrow-minded your view is...

You think that because I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and therefore I support the U.N. and the countries in the U.N. who have said the same thing, that I'm defending or supporting Bush and Cheney.

That is to say, in your mind, the only possible criteria for determining the proper course of action is to do the opposite of what Bush and Cheney want.

If the IAEA says Iran has nuclear weapons and should be referred, then fine. If Germany, Russia, Britian, and France agree with the IAEA's assessment, then fine. If the United Nations, the pillar of global co-operation and struggle for world peace, agrees with the IAEA's assessment, then fine. But as soon as Bush latches on, its automatically evil and fascist.

That is what a narrow world-view is. You have only one lens through which you view the world. You have only one criterion for how you judge global events. You have only one scope through which you choose to be informed. And in the process, you shut out everything else, so only one message remains: oppose Bush.

If you were to come up with a serious, reasonable objection to the actions of the U.N. and the IAEA, then I would respect that, because it would suggest to me that you were actually trying to pay attention to the world around you and comment on it. Instead, your ONLY objection is that the Bush Administration supports the IAEA, and the ONLY way you know how to comment on the world around you is through your opposition. And that is the only way that you have objected to it in this thread.

[TheWatcher]

194. There are places in society for peple like you too.

In Germany.

In 1938.

[TheVirginian]

205. LOL

What a joke. Leave this discussion to No Exit; at least his melodramatic rants make sense.

[No Exit]

209. I think his post made perfect sense.

However, The Watcher has opted for an alternative theory.

My theory is that you are compensated in some way for speaking of Bush as though he were actually a legitimate leader, and for helping to hype the "fear Iran" angle that is the current official republican talking point.

His theory is you are oblivious and naive (and perhaps a little stupid), as apparently the German people were in the 30's.

But whatever the answer to the "why" question, the fact is that for some reason you cling to an absurd line as a Katrina victim clings to an air mattress. It really sucks when one's life raft is full of holes. My sympathy.

[theHandpuppet]

128. I listened to an IAEA expert just this morning

The man stated that Iran was years away from being able to develop a nuclear capabilities and that we have years to work via negotiation. Some of us DO pay attention to the news and not just the propaganda.

[TheVirginian]

154. I don't listen to propaganda, nor am I espousing it here.

If someone were to actually pay attention and see that I'm calling for us to support the U.N. in this matter, they might grasp that. But all they see is anything less than full-throated support for Iran as neocon fascism.

[No Exit]

158. How would you even know it was propaganda?

You really think that, unlike the rest of humanity, you alone can immediately distinguish what is propaganda and what is not? Propaganda is designed to be indistinguishable from real news. You make me laugh, you know that? Smugness can be a good comedy routine sometimes.

[midnight armadillo]

197. Uh, you're missing something here

Iran is a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, along with most of the rest of the world, so their developing nuclear weapons is a world issue due to that treaty, not necessarily because they've got countries like Sweden worried about a nuclear strike.

[CJCRANE]

65. Russia and China aren't so gung-ho

about attacking Iran. The biggest noises have come from the US, UK and Germany which has a new RW Chancellor.

[TheVirginian]

83. The biggest noises

Have come from the UK, France, and Germany. Funny, I thought people on this board loved France's opinion on foreign affairs.

Russia and China aren't gung-ho about attacking Iran, but they're on board with the notion that Iran is a threat, and cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[Easy]

100. Please substitute Germany with Merkel

I myself am shaking my head in disbelief whenever I hear Merkel spew her neocon warmongering rhethoric. Even so she may have been elected "fairly", the majority in Germany still is leftist and anti-war, and our current government does not represent the will of the people on almost every issue -- which may sound familiar to most of you here on DU ;)

~Easy

[No Exit]

86. "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud"

--Condoleezza Rice. Lie. Innuendo.

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”-- Bush. Lie.

If George W. Bush were not president, there would be no "threat" from Iran. Unless, of course, the neocons had gotten into the White House in some other way.

It's the BOURSE, stupid!! (Note: I'm only using the word "stupid" in a rhetorical sense, as in "it's the economy, stupid!" I am NOT calling you, personally, stupid.) The nuke talk is just a cover.

Shortly before Saddam's demise at our hands, he had begun trading oil in euros instead of dollars--just as our new "enemies", the Iranians, have announced they wish to do.

[TheVirginian]

90. See #82.

Don't listen to Condi, W, or Cheney. Listen to the rest of the world who has declared Iran a threat.

And what's happening in Iran would happen regardless of who was President, whether it was Bush, McCain, Gore, Kerry, or Nader. Nothing would've changed who became President, and nothing would have changed his desire for nuclear weapons.

[No Exit]

101. Wrong.

Plenty would have changed. Our relationship, if any, with Iran, might well be different and might well be much better--if we had had a leader who had not gratuitously attacked and destroyed a near neighbor of Iran's.

Could you blame Iran if they DID want nukes? How the hell else is a country supposed to protect itself from our GRATUITOUS, UNPROVOKED attacks--such as our attack on Iraq--in the middle east.

I don't fear Iran. If you DO fear Iran, then, sorry, you're a bit too fainthearted and feathery and (dare I say it?) limpwristed, for my taste.

This middle east adventure--actually, this whole adventure, beginning with Afghanistan (where Unocal just happened to want to build a pipeline and no my source is not Michael Moore, my source is www.onlinejournal.com and many others)--is a creation of your household god, George W. Bush, and of the neocon-polluted machine which he has brought to power with him.

[TheVirginian]

107. And you call Republicans arrogant?

Why do you assume that the Middle East forms its political positions around U.S. policy? The conflicts, the culture, the course of history in the Middle East has existed for a lot longer than the United States has, and certainly a lot longer than the U.S. has been paying attention to the Middle East.

Iran is a radical Islamic theocracy, and they've been that way since the 70s. A difference in U.S. leadership would not suddenly compell Iran to put a peacenik in power. Iran would view President Gore, President Kerry, or President Nader the same way they view President Bush. If you don't believe me, then try reading about Iran. Take classes on their government and their people, and the recent history since the Revolution, then come back to me and tell me why you think they give a damn who is in charge of the U.S.?

Its not like Iran has a soft spot in its heart for Iraq, or for Saddam Hussein. They don't care that the U.S. invaded Iraq; in fact, if you look past their generic anti-U.S. rhetoric, they probably enjoyed seeing Saddam cooped up in a spider hole. They really enjoy the pendulum of power being swung from Saddam's tyranny to theirs. That's also probably why they're doing everything in their power (under the radar, of course) to disrupt U.S. operations in Iraq right now. Iran very much enjoys being the biggest power in the Middle East.

This "middle east adventure", as you condescendingly call it, started long before Bush was born. There is no doubt that Bush put a unique stamp on the region, but to presume that the governments and conflicts would be different if we had acted differently is ridiculous, and shows an arrogance about the importance of U.S. policy.

[No Exit]

111. When did I call republicans arrogant?

"The conflicts, the culture, the course of history in the Middle East has existed for a lot longer than the United States has." Yes, they have.
And we have no business preemptively attacking countries in the middle east and going on a "crusade" (the word used by the usurper you call a president) there.

" Iran would view President Gore, President Kerry, or President Nader the same way they view President Bush." They might. But a different U.S. leader would not view THEM in the same way as Bush views them. Nor would a different U.S. leader handle the situation in the same way. Neither Gore nor Nader would have started the Iraq mis-adventure, for example.

"If you don't believe me, then try reading about Iran. Take classes on their government and their people, and the recent history since the Revolution, then come back to me and tell me why you think they give a damn who is in charge of the U.S.?" Rather patronizing, aren't you? I remember the Ayatollah Khomeini well. And what, may I ask, is the source of YOUR superior knowledge? (Referring to talking points supplied by an employer doesn't count.)

"Iran very much enjoys being the biggest power in the Middle East." You think they're the biggest power in the middle east? You mean "big" physically, or "big" in the sense of power?

And WE very much enjoy being possibly the biggest power in the world. Boo hoo. What are you so scared of??

"This "middle east adventure", as you condescendingly call it, started long before Bush was born." So? And I suppose you're next going to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with oil. Yes, the British were in the middle east. Yes, there is a continuum. But the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by us started with your household god, George W. Bush. (Note: reptiles are "hatched", not "born".)

"There is no doubt that Bush put a unique stamp on the region." Yes. The stamp of failure. The stamp of death for our soldiers for no good reason. The stamp of greed.

"an arrogance about the importance of U.S. policy" Who's calling whom "arrogant" here? If I am more concerned about U.S. policy than about that of other entities, it's because I'm an American. I have a right to want our country to engage in policies that serve US, the citizens of the United States--not policies which merely serve a handful of oil magnates, neocons, and greedy profiteers.

[TheVirginian]

114. You're right, I apologize.

You didn't call Republicans arrogant. I assumed too much, and I take that back.

Yes, they have.
And we have no business preemptively attacking countries in the middle east and going on a "crusade" (the word used by the usurper you call a president) there.

I don't see calls for a preemptive strike, nor am I advocating one. Right now, I'm advocating standing with the U.N. and the IAEA when they get together to decide how best to handle the situation.

They might. But a different U.S. leader would not view THEM in the same way as Bush views them. Nor would a different U.S. leader handle the situation in the same way. Neither Gore nor Nader would have started the Iraq mis-adventure, for example.

How the U.S. views Iran has nothing to do with the leader that Iran installed. He would be President regardless.

Rather patronizing, aren't you? I remember the Ayatollah Khomeini well. And what, may I ask, is the source of YOUR superior knowledge? (Referring to talking points supplied by an employer doesn't count.)

A degree in International Politics, including many classes on the Middle East. Meetings of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Middle East Policy Council. Books and news journals. Newspapers, including domestic and foreign sources. And conversations with peers.

You think they're the biggest power in the middle east? You mean "big" physically, or "big" in the sense of power?

"Big" in the sense of power. This is Iran's renaissance. They're going to milk this for all its worth.

So? And I suppose you're next going to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with oil. Yes, the British were in the middle east. Yes, there is a continuum. But the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by us started with your household god, George W. Bush.

I agree that Iraq's invasion started with Bush. That has nothing to do with Iran, though.

Yes. The stamp of failure. The stamp of death for our soldiers for no good reason. The stamp of greed.

I agree.

Who's calling whom "arrogant" here? If I am more concerned about U.S. policy than about that of other entities, it's because I'm an American. I have a right to want our country to engage in policies that serve US, the citizens of the United States--not policies which merely serve a handful of oil magnates, neocons, and greedy profiteers.

I, and many others, see a resolution to the Iranian threat as service to the country.

[No Exit]

121. If you don't see calls for a preemptive strike, you're blind.

OTOH, if you're not advocating one, then at least you're not quite as insane as you sounded earlier. Oh, well. Better to be blind than to be insane.

But how the U.S. views Iran, and how the U.S. views any other country, has everything to do with whether the U.S. will once again allow its usurping leaders to lead it into another misadventure in which U.S. citizens will be needlessly killed. Let me guess: you feel confident, as you sit at your keyboard, that neither you nor anyone connected with you will be needlessly killed, so you don't care. Now THAT'S "compassionate conservatism", oh yeah.

I have a few degrees myself. So you attend meetings of the CFR and of the Middle East Policy Council? I'm afraid this makes me rather more skeptical, than less so, of your words. I note that you continue to avoid the question of whether you are being compensated in any way for posting on the internet. I know you say you don't advocate our attacking Iran, but I still wonder what would be in it for you if we DID attack.

"This is Iran's renaissance. They're going to milk this for all its worth." If I were in Israel, that might bother me. But I'm not in Israel, so I really don't care if that is true. Why should I? Our country is NOT located in the middle east. You have never explained why you think it is our business to meddle in the affairs of the middle east.

You say Iraq's invasion, which you concede started with Bush, has nothing to do with Iran. That is false. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran or Syria, it's all on a continuum. It is a continuum which is an enactment of the plans of neocons, profiteers, Likudniks, persons who wish to expand the power of our federal government, and various other opportunists, including some extremely rich people who, though they may be American-born, feel no particular allegiance to the U.S.

At this point, I also see a resolution to the Iran matter as beneficial to our country. (I will not call it an "Iran threat".) But I disagree with you in the matter of how this business was brought to a head. I say it is because of the mal-administration which has hijacked our government.

[HockeyMom]

141. TRUST. It's a matter of TRUST

We don't believe him because we don't TRUST him. Understand? When a person has LIED, not MISLEAD, to you over and over and over again, you tend to not believe anything they say. This not only goes for foreign policy, but domestic as well. When a person puts himself above the LAW, trashes the Constitution, to achieve whatever he wants to do, do you still TRUST them? Wanna buy a bridge, as we say around here.

I could write several PAGES on this, but won't. Majority of us on this board know what I am referring to.

[No Exit]

162. Read this post, "The Virginian".

To "The Virginian": Your president has lied. He has lied repeatedly and as a result, people have lost their lives in hideous ways. I was a big Clinton-hater back in the 90's. But you know what? Clinton's lies about his sex scandal didn't cost anyone his life.

I came around and saw the light, "The Virginian". Maybe someday you will, too.

To HockeyMom: Sorry for hijacking your post. But that guy needs to read it. It makes a point which he needs to grasp.

[TheVirginian]

186. Then don't trust Bush. Trust the IAEA.

Cut Bush out of the equation completely, and look at the entire globe, then make a rational judgement.

[No Exit]

190. How do you "cut out" the Commander-in-Chief from a discussion of war

or from a discussion of some foreign "enemy" which is a "threat" to us?

I'm sorry your Commander-in-Chief embarrasses you. Cut HIM and Cheney out of the government, and then maybe we can talk...

[TheVirginian]

207. If we cut Bush and Cheney out of the government...

Iran would still be referred to the U.N. by the IAEA, and there would still be a laundry list of countries that support the action.

Which leads me to believe that this issue has everything to do with Iran and the U.N., and very little to do with the current U.S. leadership.

[No Exit]

210. I disagree. Iraq and now Iran have everything to do with Bush/Cheney.

I'll raise you ten and further state that 9/11 and the Afghan war which followed it wouldn't have happened if Bush/Cheney had not been in the White House.

The Afghan war (the temporary subduing of the Taliban and the deposition of the Taliban government) was previously planned. There had been much previous activity revolving around the building of a pipeline in Afghanistan. Are you aware of that activity? Oh, and do you care to comment on the possible reasons why Mullah Omar has never been captured and why he was allowed to drive away in a Toyota after taking $10,000,000 from the treasury?

There are financial forces which hold the view that they transcend national interests. From the point of view of national defense, it makes no sense to invade Iraq or Iran. But from the point of view of those interests which stand to lose a lot if oil is traded in something other than dollars, pressure on Iraq and Iran--even to the point of killing-- is considered a necessity. Saddam dared to trade oil shares in something other than dollars. Iran announces it will do the same.

The Bush family is very rich. And Cheney ain't no piker, either. Not to mention their many, many, ultra-rich friends/puppetmasters.

[Punkingal]

60. They agree with other nations about IRAN...

But nothing else, as in protecting the environment,etc. Give me a break....we don't have the troops or the money, thanks to this personal vendetta of Bush's in Iraq.

[TheVirginian]

85. I never said that they agreed on anything else.

The reason I never said they agreed on anything else is because I'm not talking about anything else. This thread is on Iran. I've talked about Iran. At the moment, I'm not interested in discussing the environment, Iraq, or Bush's personal vendettas.

[No Exit]

93. Tough caca!! This is a discussion forum!!!

Bush is irrevocably tied to the discussion of "Iran as a threat" because it is Bush and his minions who are the authors of that phony viewpoint.

You are not allowed to dictate to others what points they wish to bring up in such a discussion. Don't do it. It makes you sound like the Bush propaganda machine.

[TheVirginian]

94. Its not Bush who is the author of that viewpoint, its

The U.N., the IAEA, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Great Britain, and Yemen.

The only countries that AGREE with you are Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela.

Good job.

[No Exit]

96. "The only countries that agree with you"..."Good job"

You are engaging in the same disingenuous and indirect slur that Chris Matthews engaged in when he tried to equate Michael Moore, an American citizen, with Osama bin Laden. You are trying to equate me with Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. (And ever'body hates those guys! Why? Because the preznit says they're our enemeeez.)

It is the Bush machine which is the author of that viewpoint. His machine may have cajoled or threatened others into joining him. Or their bought-and-paid-for media may be misrepresenting the viewpoints of those countries and entities. Or those countries and entities may have decided there's something in it for them in yet another fraudulent, gratuitous attack on a middle-eastern country by the U.S.

You continue to ignore the fact that the Iranian bourse is set to begin in March.

[TheVirginian]

98. I'm not equating you with anybody.

I'm telling you that the people that share your opinion with Iran are Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela. You have a choice between trusting them, and trusting the rest of the world.

It really galls me that you are more prepared to make blind assumptions, like "Bush's machine may have cajoled or threatened other countries" or "the media is lying". Read European news. Read Asian news. There is no misrepresentation. This is reality. And you really think Bush can do anything to cajole or threaten China? Why are you so intent on ignoring everything that's out there in favor of conspiracy theories that have absolutely no basis in reality?

[No Exit]

104. Sounds like equating to me.

It really galls me the way you insist on defending the wrongheaded and destructive policies of the Bush mal-administration. You continually cite "other countries" while ignoring the role of the Bush mal-administration in all this.

And if/when we GRATUITOUSLY and UNPROVOKEDLY attack Iran, whatever huge problems (if the Iraq misadventure is any indication) result will no doubt not be in any way the fault of your dear drunken boy, George W. Bush, good family values protector, defender of the empire.

"Conspiracy theories"??? You have yet to explain how a country the size and power of Iran is a "threat" to us such as to justify a preemptive attack, when the Soviet Union was not such a threat as to justify a preemptive attack, for FORTY YEARS.

Do I really think Bush can do anything to cajole or threaten China? Yes, I think he and his friends can do a lot to influence China. He and his financial holdings have had their tentacles into China for years. I'm not saying he controls them, but he sure as hell has influence. For example, they hold a lot of dollars, and he has the power to make those dollars go down in value. Just one example. So... how scared ARE you of China? Are we supposed to go around attacking countries just because you are a scaredy cat? If so, why don't you face your fears head on and enlist? (I can't wait to see the old "I'm too old" canard come out. Heh. Another keyboard commando?)

[TheVirginian]

109. Bush can't touch China with a 10 ft. pole

There is nothing, literally nothing, that the President can do to threaten China. Any threat that the U.S. could carry out on China would be doubly worse for us than it would be for them. And since Iran policy isn't the product of this President, its the product the European Union, I highly doubt he would risk such disaster on this issue, and not the many issues we've had involving China in the past.

I'm not ignoring the role the Bush Administration has. The role of the Bush Administration is, largely, "we support Britian, France, and Germany", and "We support Russia's efforts to resolve this situation." Now, its going to be "we support the U.N. and the IAEA." Real dangerous stuff there.

And I've told you, many times, about the Central Asian black market that Iran is tapped into, and to a large extent, controls. Imagine how easy it would be to sell a nuclear weapon to a terrorist. The reason this different than the Soviets is because Central Asia was under Soviet control at the time. And there's no way that the Soviet Union would give a nuclear weapon to a non-stage agent, because of the risk of that agent using it on the USSR. They had too much to lose.

[No Exit]

117. "Imagine how easy it would be to sell a nuclear weapon to a terrorist"

There's that term "terrorist". In this country, a "terrorist" is anyone who says no to those who are in power here. "Terrorism" is a convenient means of controlling a population, because it is so undefined. It's just a rather murky, nebulous, threat that's "out there" somewhere and "could strike at any time". BOO! Did I scare you, cowboy?

So you're saying China is a more powerful superpower than are we?

"And since Iran policy isn't the product of this President,its (sic) the product the European Union"

My, my. I thought you people had nothing but scorn for those flaccid Europeans. Now all of a sudden they're cited by you as the font of all wisdom or something. Did I say there were no neocons or neocon sympathizers in Europe? Hey, Michael Ledeen spends most of his time in Italy. Just an example. I won't even go into Berlusconi and his leanings.

The humorous part is that our neocons spent a lot of time and effort trying to persuade all sorts of foreign countries and other entities that Iran was this big threat; when some countries and entities come around and start to buy into it, suddenly people like you say, "See? It wasn't our idea! They're saying the same thing!"

Yeah, and when I see an ad for a Lexus and, after seeing the ad, think for the first time, "I'll go buy a Lexus", when I get to the lot, the salesman there assures me that it was all my OWN idea.

"The role of the Bush Administration is, largely, "we support Britian, France, and Germany" Thanks for a good laugh. Too bad the Bush mal-administration didn't "support France and Germany" when those countries opposed the Iraq misadventure. Yeah, boy, so how are your "Freedom Fries" tasting? Or are you all ready to parle-vous-francais and just go all French, all of a sudden?

"And there's no way that the Soviet Union would give a nuclear weapon to a non-stage agent, because of the risk of that agent using it on the USSR." But the threat, we were told back then, was not "that the Soviet Union would give a nuclear weapon to a non-stage agent" (you sound so like a paid shill when you use that term), but that the Soviet Union would use the nuclear weapon on US. Directly. You are deliberately obfuscating. But then, that's what you Bush shills do best.

[TheVirginian]

120. Would it be possible to continue this conversation with someone else?

I have shown you a level of respect that has not been mutual in this conversation. I've been upfront with my opinion and the source of my opinion, and you have retorted, time and again, with unfounded attacks on myself and my political ideology (which is only slightly closer to the center than yours). You have now gone from considering to what I'm saying to finding the cleverest way of calling me a neocon hack. I would appreciate it if someone else who largely agreed with you on this issue, but is more capable of civility, would step in so I can continue this discussion.

[No Exit]

159. Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.

Aren't you going to come out with some sterling account of glorious military service on your part? C'mon!

You can't pull out of this discussion without an exit strategy. That would be insane!

Okay, let's put it to a vote. All those in favor of just leaving off right now, with nothing resolved and the likelihood of disaster breaking out, say aye.

What's that? You are NOT advocating simple retreat? You're not surrendering? You DO have a plan? (fingers in ears)LALALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

(Did you like my impersonation of the republican congressional majority?)

[TheVirginian]

181. It was swell.

Pointless, but I suppose swellness is an end unto itself.

[No Exit]

191. Now THAT'S an exit strategy!

And, yes, swellness is an end unto itself, at least among warmongering neocons such as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco.

But don't forget truthiness. That's an important principle, too.

[TheWatcher]

196. Why?

You are going to be just as ignorant, blind, uninformed, and lock-step with your party's line and propaganda with anyone else as you were with No Exit, who is pretty much too informed, intelligent, and armed with the facts for you to handle. He wasn't uncivil to you, the fact is you can't handle the facts, and your getting your ass handed to you, so you do what all little reptiles like you do. You attempt to change the subject, or desperately try to find someone to spew to who you might stand a better chance of controlling the argument with.

If there was any uncivil party in this exchange, it was you. You try to dictate what is "allowed" in discussion. You ignore the facts, and spew Propaganda that has been debunked by people with far more intelligence in their left thumbnail than you will ever have in your entire brain.

My message to you is if you want to fight Iran so bad, quit wasting your breath and the time of of the intelligent life on this board, who incidentally have much better things to do than kick your ass and shred your uninformed arguments like paper all day, and go ENLIST. Go Fight. Go get them Iranians and their Phantom Nucular Weapons which they do not possess.

You are joke. And it isn't funny anymore.

[TheVirginian]

203. Where was I uncivil?

Was it where No Exit accused me of being a fascist because I disagreed with him, or was it where he called me a bigot?

He--and you--are trying to put up restrictions on talking just as you accuse me of doing. You are trying to tell me that I can't log onto this board and express my opinion, because it disagrees with yours. The hypocrisy would be humorous if you weren't quite so serious.

I do appreciate my discussion with you two, though. It has convinced me that you two should be the spokespeople for the Democratic Party. We could run on a new platform-- nuclear missiles for all, and if you don't like it, you're a warmongering fascist with "less intelligence than I have in my left thumbnail".

[TankLV]

230. Here here.

Well said.

Pass the popcorn.

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hatrack]

106. Osirak, 1981 - or had you forgotten? nt

.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

131. Hmmmm, many countries are "a threat", if your basis is anti-US sentiment

and nuclear capabilities...China anyone? MKJ

[No Exit]

161. "Iran is a threat" because "everyone agrees" that it is a threat

That's your assertion here.

Pretty pathetic. According to this post by you, we must all accept on faith that "Iran is a threat".

A threat to WHOM? Please answer this question.

You try so hard to take the discussion away from your household god, George W. Bush. Really, it's quite touching the way you defend him--sort of like the way a mother bird decoys predators away from the nest of her young.

We are supposed to accept without question that "Iran is a threat".

But that assertion is tied to your god Bush as surely as a tire full of gasoline is tied around the neck of someone being "necklaced" to death. Sorry. It is not possible to discuss your false premise--that "Iran is a threat"--without discussing one of its chief authors, Bush.

The sanctions, once in place, will soften the target, Iran--the same way the embargo softened up the target of Iraq. Gotta soften them up before taking them over!

[No Exit]

79. Bullshit! MAJOR bullshit!

Bush voter here. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I loved my candidate. Gore? Phooey!

I did NOT look at the world "through the lens of 'I hate Bush'". I supported him.

Until 2003.

At that point, I realized that he was doing harm to this country.

I changed my view of him, and my view of him has been downhill ever since. NOT because of anything *I* am doing, but because of things HE is doing. DON'T blame the citizens for the multitudinous sins of the leader.

You may think that everyone here is someone who would have a knee-jerk hatred of all things republican, or all things Bush, but YOU ARE WRONG. Every day, I see more people come on here who are essentially conservative, but who have finally conceded that Bush is a pox on this country.

Perhaps YOU and your friends are the ones who are behaving in the knee-jerk fashion. PERHAPS YOU ARE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING THROUGH A LENS OF "I LIKE BUSH AND I LIKE THE REPUBLICANS AND I SCORN THE DEMOCRATS."

Perhaps the problem is with you, rather than with the poster you questioned. Don't react automatically with this "our guys" and "your guys" business. LOOK AROUND. They are sucking the life out of every American who is not a billionaire. Oh... and, Habla espanol? Better learn.

[TheVirginian]

84. Ummm.....

That's great and all, but nothing of what you posted has anything to do with Iran.

Unlike you, and some others on this board, my opinion of the proper course of action with Iran has everything to do with Iran, and nothing to do with the leadership of this country. I neither hate Bush nor like Bush. I think he's an ineffectual President and I disagree with him. But that couldn't matter less when talking about the real threat that a nuclear Tehran poses.

[No Exit]

95. Ummm...

YOU may not dictate what is discussed on this discussion board. You say you neither hate Bush nor like Bush. I do not believe you. I believe you like Bush and his administration very much. I notice you call him "the President" when in fact he is not a legitimate president, having stolen two elections. I note that you refer to certain of his minions by their cutesy and affectionate nicknames of "Condi" and "Rummy".

Why was Egypt's proposal--that there be language (in the U.N. findings) that there be a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East--so soundly and determinedly rejected by us? Why is there no public acknowledgement that there is already a nuke-armed nation right near Iran, a nation which is capable of stopping Iran if Iran began hostilities?

Even if Iran had its first nuclear weapon--and I do not concede that that is something they are likely to have before about 10 years, if at all--how could it possibly be a threat to US, who have THOUSANDS of nukes? To US--who are the only country that has ever actually deployed atomic bombs?

It's the bourse, not the alleged nukes. Don't fall into the trap. It's the bourse. Saddam Hussein began trading oil in euros instead of dollars shortly before his demise.

We lived with the Soviet Union for 40 years, and they had nukes and we had nukes. We never "had to" attack the Soviet Union. Surely you are not saying that Iran is anywhere near the threat the Soviet Union was.

The saber-rattling surrounding Iran is comparable to that which surrounded Iraq some years ago. Did you not learn anything from the way THAT business turned out? Do you see NO parallels??

[TheVirginian]

97. Ah, the joys of posting.

YOU may not dictate what is discussed on this discussion board. You say you neither hate Bush nor like Bush. I do not believe you. I believe you like Bush and his administration very much. I notice you call him "the President" when in fact he is not a legitimate president, having stolen two elections. I note that you refer to certain of his minions by their cutesy and affectionate nicknames of "Condi" and "Rummy".

I called him "the President" because he's the President. Its not that hard to figure out. And the first person to refer to them as "Condi" and "Rummy" was Erika, in post #57. Go accuse her of being a Republican in disguise. I'm sure she'll get a kick out of it, too.

Why was Egypt's proposal--that there be language (in the U.N. findings) that there be a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East--so soundly and determinedly rejected by us? Why is there no public acknowledgement that there is already a nuke-armed nation right near Iran, a nation which is capable of stopping Iran if Iran began hostilities?

Egypt's proposal of a nuclear-free zone is because Israel has nuclear weapons, and this isn't a referral on Israel, its a referral on Iran. Also, I wonder why Egypt wants Israel to get rid of its nukes? It probably has nothing to do with the three wars that Egypt has waged on Israel in the last fifty years.

Even if Iran had its first nuclear weapon--and I do not concede that that is something they are likely to have before about 10 years, if at all--how could it possibly be a threat to US, who have THOUSANDS of nukes? To US--who are the only country that has ever actually deployed atomic bombs?

Easy. Black market transactions to non-stage agents, who would have no problem setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world. Also, if Iran has nuclear weapons, it takes options off the table. No limited strikes. No sanctions. It gives Iran the power to blackmail the world over. I'm not willing to give them the keys.

The saber-rattling surrounding Iran is comparable to that which surrounded Iraq some years ago. Did you not learn anything from the way THAT business turned out? Do you see NO parallels??

Sure, I see some parallels. They're both countries that are in the Middle East, and George Bush is President. Do you not see the differences? Every other country in the world is on board. In fact, we're not even spearheading this issue; the EU is. Russia and China are on board. And we know that Iran has nuclear capability; its not just a guess based on false satellite images and bad intelligence.

The most irresponsible thing you can do is judge this situation by ignoring the facts and operating under a bias.

[No Exit]

108. Hard work, isn't it?

"Easy. Black market transactions to non-stage agents, who would have no problem setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world."

Are you paid or compensated in any way, by anyone, to post on any discussion forum? This statement sounds a lot like some persons I've seen who WERE. And btw, you needn't worry too much about the black market in weapons. Our patriotic friend, Dick Cheney, has a handle on that, never fear.

" Also, if Iran has nuclear weapons, it takes options off the table. No limited strikes. No sanctions. It gives Iran the power to blackmail the world over." Boo fucking hoo. AS IF we didn't have the "power to blackmail the world over". AS IF we didn't have the power to destroy any such blackmailer.

You sound like you just want to keep all the goodies of the world to yourself. Can't be letting those swarthy Persians or Arabs have any.

"Also, I wonder why Egypt wants Israel to get rid of its nukes? It probably has nothing to do with the three wars that Egypt has waged on Israel in the last fifty years." And Egypt is still there, even though Israel has its nukes. So if Israel and its hundreds of nukes weren't enough to destroy Egypt, how is Iran with one nuke enough to destroy us?

Don't cry, cowboy. It'll be all right! The big bad Persians won't gitcha!

"I called him "the President" because he's the President." He is not the President. He is a usurper who stole two elections.

"The most irresponsible thing you can do is judge this situation by ignoring the facts and operating under a bias." Physician, heal thyself. Incidentally, my views expressed here are my personal views. No one has paid me a dime to express them here. How about you? Have you been, are you being, or will you in the future be, compensated in any way for posting what you post on the internet?

[TheVirginian]

110. Its not everyday I'm accused of being a bigot.

Its nice to know the level of discourse I can expect.

But why stop there? Why not stop beating around the bush and just call me a freeper? I mean, if you really wanted to, you could just come out and say "YOU'RE A NEOCON FASCIST" instead of innuendo-laden sarcasm. All I've done is present a reasonable argument based on the facts of the matter. It happens to be my personal opinion. It happens to be a opinion shared by many people, including prominent members of the Democratic Party. If they were on this board, telling you about the threat Iran posed, would you call them a neo-con fascist, or imply that they were being bribed to toe the Administration's line? Would you accuse them to their face of being racist?

[No Exit]

169. How funny. You sound like Ahmadinejad.

You feel besieged. So you tell your opponent, "bring it on!" You wish for your opponent to step over that line, to go too far, because then you know you can play the victim to great advantage.

You want the majority of the listeners to rise up against your opponent.

Good luck. The people here--not to mention a great many people on conservative message boards, as well--really have lost all desire to defend those who would justify Bush's endless wars.

[TheVirginian]

182. I don't want anything except for you to accept that there is more than one

rational opinion. You see your opinions as right, and everybody else's as wrong. Let's recap how our many discussions have gone, shall we?

I say that I support the U.N. in investigating whether Iran is a threat. You say that you don't trust George Bush's lies. Since I don't agree with you that we can simply chalk this up as a Bush lie (since, you know, the entire world is getting involved on this), you accuse me of being a Bush-lover, of someone who is spouting pro-war propaganda, of someone who is racist against Muslims and Persians, as someone who betrays America, as a war-monger, and now as a martyr.

I vote Democratic. I opposed (and still do) the Iraq War. I oppose the Bush Administration. I oppose Republicans on the Hill. But because I'm concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons, I'm a neocon fascist?

I say that the threat from Iran, if they are seeking nuclear weapons, could be real. Even if they don't outright attack us, they could easily provide weaponry to terrorists in Central Asia. You respond to this point by saying that terrorist is a buzzword meant to control a population. Well, I guess that solves everything, doesn't it?

I say, let's stand in unison with Britian, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the many other countries who agree that this is a concern. You accuse me of pressing the launch button on a missile strike and casting the deciding vote to initiate a draft.

Somewhere in between "Let Iran do what they want" and "I'm a neocon fascist who wants to see the rest of the world as a parking lot" is miles and miles of grey area. This is lost on you, as you only see it in black-and-white. Either you're against the Bush Administration on everything they do, or you're a fascist.

And more to the point, you see the world in a different black and white: If someone comes to the table with a different point of view as yours, they must be wrong, and therefore they must be ridiculed and talked down to.

What a sad life you must live. Its this country's saving grace that people like you aren't allowed to run things.

[No Exit]

188. It solves a helluva lot.

Your characterization of what I said: "saying that terrorist is a buzzword to control a population."

Well, most of the time "terrorism" is brought up by your Bush administration, it is just that.

Of course, there MAY have been some OTHER reason why your friend Jeff Sessions paraded a 9/11 widow the other day, at the NSA wiretapping hearings, but... I doubt it.

"I don't want anything"... etc.

Well, *I* don't want anything except for you to come clean and admit that you are a Bush supporter. And if one is a Bush supporter, the next logical step is to hype "the Iran threat". (Boo!! Booga booga!!)

You completely ignore the HUGE disparities in power between Iran and the United States. You continually ignore these. You are a fearmonger.

The people here are too jaded, too smart, and too informed to listen to your fearmongering.

"You see your opinions as right, and everybody else's as wrong." That's what you accuse me of. But the fact is, the majority of people here have opinions which jibe with mine--not with yours. And I see THEIR opinions as RIGHT.

Do I believe you "vote democratic" or "oppose the republicans on the Hill"? No, sorry. I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion, my belief, is that that is not the truth. I believe you are spreading propaganda and fear.

You say you are opposed to war with Iran? With experts now saying that it is likely that the U.S. and/or Israel will attack Iran by March 28, I wonder how your hyping fear of Iran is helping you to act in accordance with your "opposition" to this upcoming war. If you were truly opposed to your household god's (Bush's) latest war, you would not be doing everything in your power to help spread fear and hype against Iran, a country which is much, much, much weaker than us.

Golly gee, I sense deception here...

[TheVirginian]

206. You sense deception because you disagree with me.

Have you noticed a pattern here?

You disagree with me, therefore Bush is my household god.

You disagree with me, therefore I'm fearmongering and warmongering.

You disagree with me, therefore I'm a neocon fascist.

You disagree with me, therefore all my other opinions mean nothing and I must be a Republican.

You disagree with me, therefore I'm racist.

You disagree with me, therefore I want to blow up Iran.

You disagree with me, therefore I shouldn't on this board.

You disagree with me, therefore you talk down to me.

You disagree with me, therefore you call me a liar.

And I thought this was supposed to be the party of inclusion and tolerance. I guess you're only included and tolerated if you go along with what everybody else says.

[No Exit]

211. No, I sense deception because I see the "terrorism" hype for what it is

I didn't always see it so clearly. After 9/11, I was hoodwinked, too.

But after a while, I began to see the very obvious pattern which has since been pointed out by people on both conservative websites, and on this website. Bush got problems? Do a terror alert! There were even campaign cartoons about it--on CONSERVATIVE websites. "Uh-oh... Bush's polls are down... time to start scaring the crap out of everyone again!"

No one can say that somewhere, someone will not commit some atrocity. But if our intelligence services, which are PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS, cannot accurately predict and prevent such an attack, it's time to: a)force improvement, and if that is unworkable or impossible, then b)stop worrying all the f**king time.

If we made it through the time when the Soviet Union was armed with nukes, we can make it through having the much smaller, much less powerful Iran possibly develop ONE stinking "nuke" within the next 10 years. Though you ignored it before, I'll tell you again: I remember the Ayatollah Khomeini. We survived.

It boggles the mind to see Kool-aid drinkers go from one minute thumping their chests and talking proudly about our "military might" or "shock and awe", and then to watch them seamlessly go into an hysterical hissy fit about "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE". Republicans are the worst cowards I've ever seen.

"And I thought this was supposed to be the party of inclusion and tolerance."

Well, it is. You'll have to make allowances: I'm a new member, and I come from a republican background. They haven't civilized me completely yet, so you may get some verbal attacks. It's something I learned from back when I argued republican points on the net. (But I certainly will never espouse such wrongheaded views again.)

Know what *I* thought? I thought Jesus said that each other human being was my neighbor. And I thought he said not to kill my neighbor. The Iranians are my neighbor. Now, the republicans claim to be a party full of Christians. Why on earth are a bunch of Christians screaming for sanctions or smackdown or attack or other drastic measures against Iran? Why would Christians want for US and our friends, such as Israel, to be allowed to have numerous nuclear weapons, but be unwilling for other humans to have the same? That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

You say you don't want to blow up Iran. Yet it is just such irresponsible fearmongering as yours that will lead to our blowing up, or fighting with, Iran. People will be killed. This includes both our people and the Iranians. Hell, even a few Israelis may be killed. Why do you want people to die? Is it because you feel very sure that YOU won't be one of those who will die? That's not a very Christian sentiment--to care only about your own life and safety, while caring nothing that the lives and safety of others.

[TankLV]

231. Surrrrr you are - because you say so...

Riiiiight.

[High Plains]

150. "It gives Iran the power to blackmail the world over."

No. It would give Iran the power not to be blackmailed.

Hmmm, wonder why we haven't attacked North Korea?

[No Exit]

160. That's right! Why are they so upset simply because

the Iranians insist on defending themselves from a rogue nation? (That would be us--yes, Junior has turned us into a rogue nation.)

[Mr_Spock]

126. A nuclear threat that WE have made possible throuigh OUR weakness

That weakness being Bush's ALREADY FAILED Iraq policy.

DO you think we should give this lying mass murderer even more military action to fumble?

NO, NO, and I repeat

NO!!

[whathappened]

135. ah who has been the

only country who hs nuked another country , think now , is it usa

[Mr_Spock]

125. They are able to rattle their sword BECASUE BUSH MADE US VULNERABLE!!

They are simply taking advantage of our weakness.


DO you think we should destroy the entire world now that we are vulnerable and every Tom (ME), Dick (SA) & Harry (NC) is now going to rattle our cage??


THAT's EXACTLY how a Bushbot is supposed to react.

THINK before you react here - this could be the end of the USA if we're not careful...

[humbled_opinion]

201. WOW !!!

This post makes the most sense on this entire thread...

[dailykoff]

33. It took you five years to figure that out? (n/t)

[No Exit]

81. LOL! I'm very proud that it only took me THREE years!

Ain't I a smart one.:)

[No Exit]

75. Somehow, I just knew

that you had a low post count. Just an observation.

It's not about nukes. WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF NUKES. THOUSANDS! MANY OF THEM ARE READY TO BE DEPLOYED INSTANTLY! Israel's got plenty, too.

For God's sake, if that doesn't give us ample protection from a country of the size and abilities of Iran, what the HELL would???

Iran MAY be working on its first nuke. MAY be.

Gee, I just don't know why a poster would assume that everything Bush says is false. Maybe it's the fact that Bush said Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" (didn't you get SICK of the constant repetition of that phrase?? I did--even back when I believed they DID have some such thing), and it was 100% false. Maybe it's the fact that Bush said the Iraqis would welcome us, and they didn't. Maybe it's the fact that Bush told his good friend Pat Robertson that there wouldn't be any casualties, and in fact there were and are. Maybe it's the fact that Bush and company hired a slick PR firm to sell the Iraq war, and that Andy Card spoke of the Iraq war as a "product", saying the new "product" shouldn't be introduced in the slow month of August. Maybe it's the fact that Bush said Iraq was linked to Al Quaeda, when it wasn't. Maybe it's the fact that Bush said "In order to listen to people's conversations, you have to have a warrant, you have to ask a judge" when in fact he had neither and was listening in on people's conversations. Maybe it's the fact that Bush promised to rebuild New Orleans but has now forgotten that promise. (Ask the people who are there in New Orleans.) Maybe it's the fact that Bush and his minions said Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi diplomat in Prague, and he didn't. Maybe it's the fact that Bush said Saddam had sarin gas, and he didn't.

I ALWAYS VOTED REPUBLICAN. I VOTED FOR NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, BUSH I, DOLE, YOU NAME IT. I VOTED FOR YOUR GEORGE W. BUSH IN 2000. I AM TO THIS DAY STILL WELCOME AS A POSTER ON FREEREPUBLIC--THOUGH I WOULDN'T WIPE MY FOOT ON THE PLACE. I ASSURE YOU I AM NOT A "HIPPIE" NOR ANY OF THE OTHER TERMS WITH WHICH THOSE WHO DISTRUST BUSH ARE BRANDED. Neither are the NUMEROUS CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES WHICH OPPOSE BUSH AND HIS WARS.

And I'm telling you, this man is a bigger liar than Clinton ever was. He is a plague on this country and he needs to GO. Iran is NOT a threat to us in any way that requires preemptive military action by us. Iran is a threat only to certain VERY RICH people, because Iran is starting an exchange in which oil shares will be traded in euros instead of in dollars. Shortly before his demise at our hands, SADDAM HAD DONE THE VERY SAME THING: HE HAD TRADED OIL IN EUROS INSTEAD OF DOLLARS.

"THOU SHALT NOT TRADE OIL IN ANY CURRENCY EXCEPT DOLLARS." That is the first commandment of your god Bush.

WAKE THE FUCK UP. I was a conservative. BUSH/CHENEY MUST GO. NOW. WE MUST IMPEACH THEM BEFORE THERE'S LITERALLY NOTHING LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY.

[Mr_Spock]

124. Yes, every word out of Bush's mouth is now suspect.

I wouldn't follow him to the local store for an ice cream.

[Fovea]

129. Iran's latest moves, what brings them about?

It is an error, IMO to think that Iran desires the military conflict that it is currently edging towards.
If Iran sounds hostile, it is most likely because Iran is being threatened.

Iran thinks it needs nukes for deterrance, from the US and from Israel, both of whom posess nukes, and express a willingness to use them. We are engaging in the very sort of provocation we did in Iraq, pre invasion. Our policy is unilateralist and pre-emptive. With the amount of fire power we have camped next door to them, and our history/rhetoric, what would you do in Iran's place?

It is useless to look at Iran without considering the effect of blowback. You wouldn't have Islamists without Savak. You wouldn't have Whabbists without GulfWar1.

Whether you respect Islam as a religion, or Arabs and Persians as cultures, we need to start assuming that these are legitimate states, whose soverignity we cannot simple dismiss. We need to start working with the statist elements in the region and give them more reasons to seek stability than to encourage their radicals to scapegoat the west.

How will invading Iran accomplish this?

[TheVirginian]

153. "Our policy is unilateralist "

Not in this instance, which is the at the heart of my point. People here are assuming I want to give Bush a blank check to invade Iran. I don't. That's the absolute last thing I want to happen. But when the rest of the world and the U.N. is standing up and saying "Iran is a threat", I think, instead of saying "George Bush opposes Iran therefore I support Iran", we should give it consideration.

[No Exit]

164. "The rest of the world", my foot.

Countries such as Russia are bought off with oil interests, and other countries are bought off or extorted in various ways... and we're supposed to assume they just decided suddenly that "Iran is a threat", for some non-cynical reason, some honest and uncalculating reason. Not exactly. If you think that, then you truly are a babe in the woods when it comes to politics.

Junior and the neocons go all out to extort and/or persuade various countries to vote with them at the U.N., and finally reach a modicum of success, and you say "See? It's not Junior and the neocons--everyone is saying it!"

Yes, and I see an attractive Lexus ad on TV and think "Hey, I'll buy a Lexus." I go down to the Lexus dealer and a salesman pampers and cajoles me, and I buy a Lexus. The salesman assures me it was all my own idea.

Right! :rofl:

[TheVirginian]

187. That's sound reasoning there...

I love it.

"Russia is bought off by oil considerations. You see here I have a link to prove it."










"Oh, and that goes for everybody else, too. Just assume it. Its less hassle that way."

Could you possibly even think of how the Bush Administration would "cajole", "threaten", or otherwise get that many countries on board with us, including China? Do you even know the slightest thing about any of those other countries? Of course not. You just know that Bush is evil. And Russia likes oil. Therefore, everybody's being coerced into this.

Seriously, you should look into publication writing. It would be the grandest pamphlet I ever read:

"Reasons why we should oppose Iranian referrel to the U.N.:

#1: Bush is a liar.

#2: See #1"

[No Exit]

214. Not bad.

So many things should be opposed because Bush is a liar. For example, a couple of years ago, Bush reassured Americans (to paraphrase): "See, when we do surveillance, there has to be a w-a-r-r-a-n-t. That means you have to have a j-u-d-g-e approve it." He didn't spell the words, but he did mouth them very slowly; obviously he was quite sure that Americans knew little about these Big Complicated Things like "judges" or "warrants".

And even as he mouthed those words, he was lying. Even as he mouthed those words, he was surveilling people, in OUR jurisdiction, without a warrant.

Then there was the time he excitedly told us that Saddam had sarin gas! A lie.
Then his partner, Cheney, told everyone that Mohammed Atta had met with the Iraqi ambassador in Prague. A lie.
Then there was the time he told us, in the State of the Union, that Saddam had sought enriched uranium from Niger. A lie.
Then there was the time Bush's appointed spokesman--his agent--Scotty-potty McClellan, told us that Karl Rove and Scooty-boot Libby had not leaked Valerie Plame's name. A lie.
Then Bush's Office Wife, Condoleezza Rice, told us we were gonna get nuked if we didn't stop that bad Saddam. "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud." A lie.
Then Bush told his blowbuddy Pat Robertson that there wouldn't be casualties in our merry little war in Iraq. A lie.
Then there was the Mission Accomplished moment. A lie.
And just lately, we see Bush acting all humble and "aw shucks" about the resounding failure of his rob-Social-Security plan. Yet, whaddya know, there it is, in the proposed budget he just submitted: plans to begin "privatizing" (read: "pirating") Social Security. Whoop, he lied again.

It's gotten to the point that if Bush or one of his helpers says something, you can almost bank on the opposite of it being the truth.

Bush and his minions have gone individually to numerous countries and have extorted, cajoled, or threatened them to make them not honor the principles of the International Criminal Court which mandate them to arrest an accused war criminal who is on their soil. They have had to do this just so the Bush criminal can travel. They had to do something similar some months ago when Rumsfeld was going to be in Germany--seeing as how Rumsfeld is a war criminal.

So you think he doesn't have the pull to extort/cajole/threaten certain other countries about other matters?

"You just know Bush is evil."

Are you saying he's not?

[TheVirginian]

221. You just confirmed everything I've been saying:

"It's gotten to the point that if Bush or one of his helpers says something, you can almost bank on the opposite of it being the truth."

That right there comprises about 95% of your reasoning against supporting the U.N. Because Bush and Cheney do as well. Everything else is just justification for allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, just so you don't have to be on the same side as Bush.

Its bad enough that you just proved me right, its even worse you don't even know it.

As I said before, its fine that you have such disagreement with this administration that you automatically, in a knee-jerk fashion, take the opposite position on everything they do. However, I'm looking at this situation, and I'm looking at more than just the public statements of the Bush Administration. Perhaps if you were able to expand your thinking beyond "The opposite of what the Bush Administration says is true", you'd be able to see what I see.

I don't count on that happening any time soon.

[No Exit]

226. If you think that, then your reasoning power is sadly lacking.

I have repeatedly handed you specific instances which show WHY the Bush regime should not be trusted. You, all along, have accused myself and others here of a knee-jerk dislike for Bush.

It is not knee-jerk. He earned our dislike. He earned our mistrust. These feelings on our part are the result of logic. We see what he has done, we judge him accordingly.

You have conveniently forgotten that I have repeatedly told you that I used to support the Bush administration. I ceased to do so when the regime gave me ample reasons to abandon it.

You're looking at "more than just the public statements of the Bush administration." Oh, are you privy to some PRIVATE statements of the Bush administration? (I know I'll never get an answer. You're not one for answering questions.)

My thinking was "expanded" back when I didn't think that "the opposite of what the Bush administration says must be true"-- I was wrong back then.

"Supporting the U.N." Puh-leeze. The Bush/Cheney regime has gone out of its way to NOT support the U.N. If you haven't picked up on this, you haven't been paying attention.

Another trait of your average middle-aged male Bush supporter is that he just plain likes to argue. I see that trait amply displayed in your posts, and in your refusal to even acknowledge the numerous actual examples of why this regime is not to be trusted. Your insistence on proclaiming "I'm right, see?" really marks you as such a Bush supporter. I've encountered your kind before.

[TheVirginian]

227. You are missing many, many things

Which is the reason for this confusion here.

First, I'm not defending Bush, I'm defending the U.N.'s actions. Bush and Cheney just happen to agree with it as well.

Second, your response is absolutely knee-jerk. In fact, its the definition of knee-jerk. Granted, the process it took you to reach the conclusion that everything out of this administration must be wrong was a long one. But you're at that point now, which means that the facts of the case don't matter to you. Alternative opinions and worldviews don't matter to you. Nothing matters to you, except for insisting that Bush and Cheney are wrong. That is what it means to have a knee-jerk reaction.

More than that, though, my point is that you are basing your stance on Iran on nothing other than your dislike for Bush. Which you have confirmed, repeatedly, which makes your opinion on Iran invalid.

[High Plains]

149. Why on earth do you think Iran would attack the United States?

[No Exit]

165. Probably for the same reasons he no doubt thought Iraq

was going to unleash horrific "weapons of mass destruction" on the most heavily-armed nation in the world.

Man, these neocons and their followers are the biggest scaredy-cats I've ever seen. I guess it fits in with their pathological fear of military service...

[TankLV]

228. Everything bunkerboy says is a LIE. That's already been proven.

If he said the sky was blue or water was wet, I'd have to verify it first.

So, basically, yes, I doubt at first glance EVERYTHING that LYING WAR CRIMINAL ever says.

Only an idiot would behave otherwise.

We were already lied to for the first Iraqi bushwar. NOT ONE allegation he has said has turned out to be true, from terror alerts, to the reasons for invading. How many are there now - 12?

[napsi]

28. You assume I agree(d) with the Iraq war. You assume wrong because I never

believed Iraq was a threat to us. I do believe a nuclear Iran is an incredible threat especially with the man thay have calling the shots right now. I don't support putting troops into Iran but I do support some kind of intervention be it diplomatic, spooks, or targeted strikes that will kepp them honest.

[Erika]

30. Iran has a missile capable of a 1,250 mile range

Please explain why that country is a risk to us. There are many other countries totally capable of taking care of the risk. It's not our problem, nor was Iraq.

[napsi]

36. A nuclear Iran is capable of hitting us

through terrorism. Perhaps not a missle but maybe a well placed nuke in a container ship or some other method. It is the same fear that Bush put into us about Iraq but in that case it was completely unfounded. In Irans' case, it is completely possible if they are allowed to continue enriching uranium. This time it seems......the whole world is on board this issue.

[Erika]

39. Get real

Let their neighbors control them. When W starts sealing the border you might think that there is a real threat and a real action to curtail terrorism. Until then, Homeland Security is a joke.

Let Iran's neighbors deal with them. We have neither the will nor the money.

[TheVirginian]

41. How about we let the U.N. deal with them, and we'll support the U.N.?

The U.N. seems to agree with every non-oppresive country in the world that Iran is a serious issue.

[Erika]

43. How about we back out when they are not a threat to us?

Might be a strange concept to you, but not Pat Buchanan

[TheVirginian]

50. "Back out"? What are we involved in?

At this point, we're involved in diplomatically supporting Britian, France, and Germany's efforts at defusing the situation.

I also don't understand why you don't think a radical oppresive tyranny with nuclear weapons isn't a threat. The Iranian President has made his intentions well-known: he wants nuclear weapons, and he wants to attack the U.S. and the West. I would at least consider that cause for concern.

[Erika]

53. A missle of 1,250 miles and his neighbors can control him

It's not our problem. Pat Buchanan agrees. We are not the world's policeman. We have neither the troops or the revenue to be so.

[TheVirginian]

55. I don't undestand why you think his neighbors can control him.

Which of his neighbors? How, exactly, can they control him? And why do you think I'm advocating sending troops on the ground? Right now, I'm advocating standing in unison with the U.N. and every other reasonable country in the world. Can't we at least agree on the front that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a bad thing?

[Erika]

59. It's none of our business. Get the hint.

He's not a threat to us. Read Pat Buchanan.

[TheVirginian]

77. I see. So if we ignore them, they'd ignore us?

I would hope you wouldn't be that naive. If so, then thank God you're not a policymaker in this country.

[No Exit]

118. No--they'd just keep on selling us their oil and making money.

I pity your neighbors. You seem to see "enemies" everywhere and to live in a state of continuous paranoia.

[TheVirginian]

122. When you speak condescendingly towards someone...

Do you imagine that it produces anything other than ire? Do you think that, reading what can only be construed as a personal attack on me, I am now shamed because you posted an assumption? Do you feel superior now that you have adequately postured yourself on a higher moral plane than me? Would it please you if I addressed you as "O learned sire" from this point forward?

[No Exit]

166. Physician, heal thyself.

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hadrons]

61. so TheVirginian, explain why Iran would nukes knowing they would ...

be nuked in return??? North Korea has nukes already and they haven't used them and they're a lot more unstable than Iran

[TheVirginian]

78. A couple of things,

First off, I don't feel comfortable, when it comes to nuclear weapons, justifying anything by what North Korea has done.

Second, I don't neccesarily buy that North Korea is "a lot more unstable" than Iran. Not just any country's President will say things like "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth" in public statements. Not just any country's President will replace 40% of their diplomatic corps with hardliners. Not just any country's President will react to a nuclear showdown by doing the exact opposite of what the bulk of the world's power wants them to do.

Third, Iran doesn't have to nuke. Just having them takes options off the table, including limited military strikes and sanctions, which means that Iran can literally blackmail the world over. And it still wouldn't mean that we are out of the woods, because Iran has numerous dealings on the black market, and it wouldn't be a stretch to consider the possibility of a nuclear warhead being sold to a terrorist in Central Asia without anybody knowing about it.

While there's a lot to be said about Mutually Assured Destruction, its not exactly a scenario that you want to enter into.

[No Exit]

168. Not just any country's president would say things like

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" or "Saddam has sarin gas!" Not just any country's president would replace 40% (actually, it's probably more) of their defense department with hardliners. Not just any country's president would send John Bolton, a U.N. hater-hardliner, to the U.N. as our "ambassador". Not just any country's president would gratuitously invade a weakened country, doing exactly the opposite of what the bulk of the world's PEOPLE wants him to do.

Don'tcha get it yet? It appears that Ahmadinejad has to appeal to HIS loony fundies. Just as Our Pretzeldent feels the need to sometimes appeal to the hysteria of his OWN loony fundies. It's called "rabble-rousing".

Surely you're not fooled by the inflammatory speeches made to the fundie "wackos" or to the "troglodytes" (credit to Jack Abramoff)?

You call it "blackmail" when Iran has it. Funny, you don't call it that when Israel or the U.S. have it. You're starting to sound like an older brother who doesn't want his little brother to grow any bigger, because if the younger one did grow as big as the older one, the older one wouldn't be able to bully his little brother any more.:nopity:

[TheVirginian]

183. Do you think the U.S. would use nuclear weapons?

If you do, then you are too far removed from reality and too uneducated for me to have this discussion with you.

[No Exit]

215. Speaking of being condescending,

you're doing it.

Scott Ritter thinks we would. (Oh, I can't WAIT for you to begin mouthing the Approved Talking Points Against Scott Ritter.)

Seymour Hersh thinks we would.

Got news for you. The neocons who control our government are far enough removed from reality to, yes, use nuclear weapons.

[TheVirginian]

222. I didn't ask if Ritter or Hersh think we would.

I'm asking you, do you see the United States using nuclear weapons? I want to hear YOUR opinion, not somebody else's.

[No Exit]

224. Unlike you, I do not consider myself an authority on everything.

I look to persons whose opinions I trust, when I want to get a handle on an issue.

They think the current regime in power in the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. I think the current regime in power in the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. I already have the distinct impression that the cabal which currently infests our government, especially our defense department (which should revert to its old name, War Department), will stick at nothing to protect their personal fortunes, and the personal fortunes of their puppetmasters.

[TankLV]

233. Umm Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind quickly.

And the fact that YOUR crazies in OUR White House have SAID they would - repeatedly, as well as implemented UNILATERALLY without any congressional imput, policy for using nukes as REGULAR WEAPONS.

But don't let FACTS get in the way of your arguments, not matter how purile and ridiculous they are!

[EFerrari]

66. A radical oppressive tyranny with nuclear weapons is a threat.

So, let's impeach the bastard.

If I were the Iranian president, I'd damn well arm myself, too, because the American government is completely out of control. It would be my duty to protect my people, would it not, from the predations of the Bush regime.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

80. The premise that the head of state has an obligation

to protect his people is entirely rational.

The proposition that Bush, who called our Constitution "a goddam piece of paper" is a radical is so obvious as to barely be worth mentioning.

And, by the way, he's not my President. He is a thug that daily puts American lives at risk.

:hi:

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BookemDano]

225. Excellent

Erika you are soo correct its amazing how shrub can make even some otherwise I am sure intelligent people actually believing its for our safety!!We need to stay the hell out of the Middle East it is more apparent every day!!!

[daleo]

45. Define "take us out"

Define "first chance they get".

Would they attack the U.S. with their one atomic bomb, knowing that they would face utter destruction in return? Stalin didn't. Mao didn't.

[Voltaire99]

62. Thanks for sharing.

The Liebermanesque imperial paranoiac wing of the party is far too seldom heard from, if you ask me. Don't be shy--we all love a world war here!

[No Exit]

71. Sure, they'll take us out.

Sure, they, who (depending on whom you believe) may be on the way to getting their first nuke, will "take out" a country which has THOUSANDS of nukes on hair triggers. (That's us.) A country which is one of their best customers for their oil. (That's us, too.)

Sure, this FLEA, this GRAIN OF SAND, this PARTICLE OF DUST just KNOWS it can "take the U.S. out."

"War is a racket."--Gen. Smedley Butler

[salin]

72. Would you support a Draft in order to accomplish this?

There can be no serious talk about taking more military action when our troops are spread to the breaking point - unless there is serious talk about a draft. Back in WWII there was a draft, my father left college before the draft to join up because there was a belief that the threat was that dire and serious. If as a country we feel this is that serious, then this should be discussed seriously per foreign policy (and ironically per bushco - this seems to more legit as a threat than Iraq ever was).

[VegasWolf]

145. Frist is an idiot. Russia and China hold veto power and are saying they

will not support military action in Iran. This is just another Bush wet dream to try and prop his sagging numbers.

[tatertop]

151. If you support this war, please enlist, I will send you a nice card

[Name removed]

178. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWatcher]

193. Then ENLIST

Why are you wasting our time here, and yours?

[No Exit]

216. (sound of crickets chirping)

Gee, they sure get quiet when someone uses the "E" word...

[awoke_in_2003]

25. beginning to feel a little drafty?

either that or the neocons will just have to be contented with "shocking and awe'ing" them. Of course that would be the best way to do it(in their minds), those missles generate a whole lot of profit.

[Erika]

27. I was never more shamed than when we

shocked and awed the Iraqi populace who had no power to harm us. I will never forget the pic of the 13 year old boy who we shot off his arms and legs in our magnificent shock and awe campaign.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. I hear you

it is my hope that in my lifetime we somehow evolve beyond the caveman mentality that our country still hangs on to. Of course, the pessimist in me says this will never happen.

[Erika]

35. Yeah, let's discuss and make peace

Not sending "We will kill you" messages. It is a touch cave man.

[napsi]

40. After learning history and the plight of humanity......

you actually believe "peace" is an achievable goal? Sure, there have been lulls in history but there will always be some asshole somewhere that wants to kill us or enslave us. This fact will never change. Forgive me if I would rather fight than lie down.

[Erika]

47. You mean the war on terror is unwinable

and we can expect our troops to continue to die while W diminishes our civil liberties and drains our coffers on an unwinable war. While the rich war entrepreneurs make out like bandits. No, thanks.

[awoke_in_2003]

52. No, peace is not achievable

because their is no profit in it. However, how can Iran enslave or kill us? The only people they could possibly threaten is their neighbors, one being Isreal. And as far as that goes, fuck Isreal, they are big boys and can handle themselves. Our military isn't there to protect them. You want to protect the homeland, bring them home. We have 6000 mile of unprotected borders, and only 7% of all cargo coming into our country is actually inspected. Don't want to be killed or enslaved? Then bring home the protectors.

[Erika]

56. Agreed 1000%

The tunnel between Mexico and the U.S. was big enough to ship in enough dirty bombs to destroy this country. W is doing very little about that.

But we are supposed to be concerned about Iran who has only a 1,250 mile missile. Don't quite think so.

[awoke_in_2003]

58. I hear ya

these asshats that support the bushies are always talking about fighting the war on terra, and homeland security, while applauding the bush admin for doing exactly the opposite. Our border are so porous that it is disgusting.

[entanglement]

155. Has it occurred to you how similar you and that putative asshole are?

n/t

[No Exit]

170. Lie down for WHAT???

Sheesh, you'd think we were actually threatened by some country which MIGHT be on the way to getting Baby's First Nuke.

You remind me of the scene in Gone With the Wind where the barbecue breaks up as the young men all ride away to join the army, giving rebel war whoops as they go.

Forgive me if I'm ruining everyone's brandy and cigars and "dreams of victory".

Oh, we'd be "victorious", all right. But Americans would have to die. Are you going to enlist?

And what would we gain? Why, we would have protected the assets of a handful of rich people! A worthy cause, to be sure!:sarcasm:

[gerrilea]

34. We are going to war not for oil but for the dollar's stability.

I haven't posted a a long time...too busy working and working oh and again working...

But the fact is that in March Iran plans on trading their oil for Euro's and not the almighty dollar...Iraq was about to do the same thing and we went in..

You guys (and girls) should know this...it will start WWWIII unfortunately but most Americans don't know this fact...it's about the "Petro-Dollar"...

The dollar's power comes from the fact that all oil transactions are made with it...the dollar has no economic force without it...we don't back our money in gold or any precious metal...so it would become worthless...

That's the reason we will invade or attack Iran or any country that does not trade oil in dollars...

[Erika]

37. Agreed but

we have run out of American troops and our deficit is even bothering the conservatives.

[Heewack]

112. The bourse theory just doesn't hold any water.

"The dollar's power comes from the fact that all oil transactions are made with it...the dollar has no economic force without it...we don't back our money in gold or any precious metal...so it would become worthless..."

The Euro isn't backed by gold either.

To claim that 5% of the world's oil being traded in Euro's is suddnely going to diminish the power of the dollar or make it become suddenly worthless is a ridiculous claim by those that have birthed this theory. There is nothing in reality that could lead to that conclusion. The dollar didn't become the petro currency out of the neccesity of power but the necessity of stability. Iran trading their oil in Euros would have little to no effect whatsoever on the strength of the dollar. Ultimately the world would like to see two to three reserve currencies. As soon as confidence in their stability becomes widely accepted this will no doubt take place. The problem is that the Euro is too young to have built that confidence. And the talk last year of several EU nations scrapping the Euro after the EU Constitution defeat didn't help matters either.

I have seen nothing to date that would suggest this oil bourse theory has any credibility. To me it just sounds like people flaoting a theory based on a subject that most people know very little about. Write it convincingly and people will believe it, no matter how incorrect it is. That seems to be the standard so far.

[gerrilea]

136. It's too bad that you believe your own line of BS but...here goes..

To clarify my position I will admit that the stability factor is important in any currency...but the facts are very simple...If as you say that if only 5% of the world's oil is traded in Euros and not in Dollars may not make much of a difference...at first...but the monopoly we have had on the control of oil will be begin to crack...You said nothing of the fact that Iraq was about or had done the same thing...

Currently the dollar's only power is created by oil...and you are mistaken and naive to brush this point off so quickly...I must also state that you are completely wrong to believe your own *hit...the trading of oil for dollars was done for power and control...our power and control...NOT STABILITY...that was the excuse at the time...but we had the atomic bomb and no one else did...at the time...please re-read your history books...

I am a history teacher and I must say you must be a plant for the neocons here...too bad.

Oil = The US Dollar...Period...Oil is the only backing our currency has now...and in light of our outrageous deficits and our inability to increase our population to the levels such as China or India leaves us no real way to repay our creditors...

The Right Wing religious zealots that are lead by the neocons know this simple truth...we need more people to pay taxes...the BS about abortion is just the cover story...to mislead the masses. Reality sucks sometimes but that is it...

When we came off the gold standard in 1962...the only faith and power our money had was left upon the backs of the American people's hard work and taxability...

We are losing the population war and without the masses to work (and thus pay taxes)...we will not be able to pay our bills...

I'm sure you listened to B's SOU Speech...he wasn't patting the American people on the back by saying we were the hardest workers in the world...he was attempting to send a message...a very clear message to the world...We will repay our debits...I guess you don't see things as clearly as I do here...hope this explains my bourse theory a little better...

[Heewack]

142. Hmmmm...

"Currently the dollar's only power is created by oil...and you are mistaken and naive to brush this point off so quickly...I must also state that you are completely wrong to believe your own *hit...the trading of oil for dollars was done for power and control...our power and control...NOT STABILITY...that was the excuse at the time...but we had the atomic bomb and no one else did...at the time...please re-read your history books..."

Trading the oil for dollars nets us almost nothing. As I pointed out in another post trading a commodity in any given currency is can last as long as it takes to exchcange that currecy to another. Iran could easily exchange ALL of their dollars paid into Euro's ten seconds after they are paid. The whole idea that oil being traded in dollars is some powerplay is nothing but a ruse. There is nothing, and I stress nothingto back it up. The reason the dollar was used is because we are the largest buyer of oil and at the time had the most stable currency. That is a fact.

What is the Euro's power created by? What is the Yen's power created by? The dollars power comes from the fact that we are the largest marketplace/economy in the world. The dollar is not backed up by oil. If it was there would be a set amount of oil a dollar was worth and that simply isn't the case. How much oil is a dollar worth? It's whatever the marketplace has determined it to be, just like the Euro, the Yen, or the Pound.

All the petro dollar does is set one standard for the marketplace to trade under. It's a matter of efficiency. We gain little to nothing of being the fiat currency for oil. Everyone pays the same price.

"Oil = The US Dollar...Period...Oil is the only backing our currency has now...and in light of our outrageous deficits and our inability to increase our population to the levels such as China or India leaves us no real way to repay our creditors..."

Again, what amount of oil is a dollar worth? This is such a ridiculous assertion that anyone with at least some upper level economics education would see through the ignorance that it is born in.



"but the monopoly we have had on the control of oil will be begin to crack...You said nothing of the fact that Iraq was about or had done the same thing..."

LOL! We don't have a monopoly on the control of oil. If we did we wouldn't be paying so much for it. We pay just as much as anyone else. I didn't mention Iraq and their change to the Euro for payment because it was just as much a non-factor then as it is today. But let's say they is a "crack in the monopoly", what is to suggest that a 5% would suddenly cause a collapse as many put forth?


""I am a history teacher and I must say you must be a plant for the neocons here...too bad."

Whoa! I must have missed the obvious connection here bewteen what you do for a living and me being some sort of a plant. Maybe you could clarify that a bit better.

"The Right Wing religious zealots that are lead by the neocons know this simple truth...we need more people to pay taxes...the BS about abortion is just the cover story...to mislead the masses. Reality sucks sometimes but that is it..."

I'm sorry, but that is just plain weak.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the IOB, but perhaps you might want to look at our immigration policies that are alllowing mutliple times more people in than are aborted. That's where the new tax payers will be coming from.


"When we came off the gold standard in 1962...the only faith and power our money had was left upon the backs of the American people's hard work and taxability...

We are losing the population war and without the masses to work (and thus pay taxes)...we will not be able to pay our bills..."

This is another area where the whole theory falls completely apart. The faith and power of our money comes from the strength of our economy. Nothing more, nothing less. Europe is losing population at a much faster rate than we are, although we aren't really losing at this time. The Euro is not backed by gold either, and not by "oil" either. It's a currency in its infancy that has not yet gained confidence to become a fiat currenecy. Hopefully it will so it can take some strain off of the dollar.

"he was attempting to send a message...a very clear message to the world...We will repay our debits..."

I don't think that has ever been called into question by any of our creditors. Ever.


"I guess you don't see things as clearly as I do here...hope this explains my bourse theory a little better..."

It explains the theory in a little more detail but it doesn't help make it any more rooted in fact. I wouls suggest a little research to better educate yourself on the need for the dollar to have other fiat currencies. Pay special attention to the dollar figure we think we gain by being the fiat currency. It's in the $10-15 billion dollar range. Hardly enough to start a war over.

I would also suggest a call to your favorite representitive and ask them about the threat of the IOB and if they think that is why the U.S. is in its current posture. Surely, if several hundred internet sleuths can figure it out they would know too.

I still stand behind what I said earlier, and that is that this theory is not based in sound knowledge of economics in any way whatsoever. It is complete and total BS, and nothing more than a symbolic move.

I guess people must find some deeper meaning to soothe their conscience because they can't fathom what is being told to them. Unfortuantely it leads them to accept any theory placed in front of them as long as it is well written, regardless if it makes any sense. This IOB theory is just that.

[Heewack]

146. Another thing that is ridiculous

About that theory is it takes all of the onus off of the chimp. If the theory were plausible then any president would be duty bound to have carried out that war or face the collapse of the American economy. That is simply ABSURD. You can't tell me Gore would have gone into Iraq, and if he hadn't and faced the total collapse of the U.S. economy how do you think that would be welcomed by the U.S. population? Similarly, if the economy faces collapse the chimp must take military action against Iran. There would be no other choice.

[gerrilea]

148. You're right...my point exactly!

I don't want to sound absurd...but the two parties are no different...Jimmy Carter was the only president who tried to tell the American people the truth about oil and our future...he wanted to diversify our dependency on energy and it's source...not just on oil...

Yes I do believe Gore would have had to go to war...there is no exception here...our system is on the edge of collapse...

I would like to believe that Gore however may have been forced to overthrow Hussein...in a coup...not in a war...but Bush's friends wanted the oil reserves in Iraq too...so, he got his cake and ate it too...

[gerrilea]

147. I think we are saying the same thing almost...

We both seem to be saying the same thing but for different reasons...The power of the Dollar is as I said based on the backs of the American people and the faith of our hard work and our ability to pay our debts.

The Euro's power is created by the combination of the countries involved and their "buying power" as one unit...And this goes for the Yen...Am I not correct here? Without that faith, world currencies mean nothing...but again we would begin to loose that trust the rest of the world has placed in our people to work and contribute to our economic system...

So to answer your question which you already have answered yourself is this...oil being traded for dollars give faith and stability to our currency...now...45 years ago it was based on gold and silver...

You are mistaken as I understand the current population levels in America cannot sustain the unrealistic deficits and debt incurred by the current administration...we have around 24 million illegals here working and some pay taxes...we need another 50 million more tax paying workers to sustain our CURRENT debt...realistically...

Over the last 25 years we have aborted approximately 34 million babies... even if those babies were born and healthly and became tax paying citizens...we would still fall short...by over 25 million taxpayers...

You appear to have some knowledge of economics yet you have not addressed these facts...or worse yet ignored what I am saying...follow through with your own logic here...the point you have made and I have clarified is the same thing...almost...I just believe we are going to war because of this simple fact...the dollar has been loosing is value over the past 6 years under Bush and and other country that doesn't stay on board will be destroyed...as in Iraq...

You claim Iran's move will be only symbolic...I do not believe that at all...from a completely monetary focus...it may have a limited effect...but it only takes one domino to fall for the rest to go...think about it...it's quite a bit more than economics...

And as for the cost of oil...it's so high now because the only way to make real money is to create a false scarcity or instability in the product...thus the outrageous profits of Bush's friends in oil...there is a bigger picture...hope you see it...

[No Exit]

219. It's not so much whether the bourse would really harm

someone's wealth.

The point is, it is a fact that Bush/Cheney and their friends do NOT want oil futures to be traded in any other currency besides the dollar.

You may be right in stating that the bourse--at this "beginner's level-- will not harm most of us (or most of the West) economically. In fact, I hope you are right. But that leaves out the consideration of whether it will harm the personal fortunes of certain powerful, highly-placed, (western) people and corporations. If it is going to cause harm to the personal fortune of some powerful person or entity, that person or entity will use all their/its pull to prevent the bourse from happening. I suspect that the Bush holdings, and perhaps the Cheney holdings, and perhaps those of their very powerful friends, will be harmed by the bourse. And therefore, in their minds, the bourse must be stopped.

I note that Saddam had begun trading oil in a currency other than dollars. When you come back on here to tell me I'm "all wrong", please take into account that Saddam had done this--and look what Bush/Cheney did to him.

It may just be that Bush/Cheney and their rich friends wish to nip this idea (trading oil in a currency other than the dollar) in the bud, by making examples of those who dare to try it.

While at this early level such trading may not be harmful economically to the U.S. financial powers-that-be, if trading oil in something other than dollars becomes widespread, it may begin to seriously cut into their wealth. So they would want to stop it NOW; they would want to make an example of those who try it (Iraq, Iran), in order to stop the idea in its tracks.

Bush/Cheney and their fellow rich oil people are not just going to consider whether this bourse, this small beginning, will cut into their wealth. They are also going to consider whether this small beginning could pave the way to some FUTURE trend which will cut into their wealth. Therein lie their reasons for wanting to punish Iran for even thinking of trading oil shares in something other than dollars.

And, Bush/Cheney being the cowards that they are, they will use someone else's blood to fight Iran over this--ours.

[Lorien]

130. While I doubt that the dollar would become worthless, BushCo did rush to

war with Iraq just prior to the date that they were to switch from trading in dollars to trading in Euros (a similar switch will soon happen in Iran). it's definitely a change that they are strongly opposed to.

[Heewack]

134. I think it was shortly after the switch.

Realistically though nothing is stopping Iran from receiving their oil money in dollars and then the next minute exchanging it into Euro's. They may already be doing that. The change to the Euro is nothing more than symbolic.

It's like if you buy gold anywhere in the world with dollars, Euro's, or Yen, it's still worth the same. How it is purchased is of little relevance.

[gerrilea]

138. it's not Symbolic...it's very real...

and our dollar will mean nothing...please read my reply to your previous post...maybe that will help you out...to understand..

[dailykoff]

44. Iran is acting legally. We are not.

Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and is entitled to develop a nuclear energy program. They are acting within the law of the NPT treaty. Bush and Frist are threatening to break it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

[Erika]

49. Good info

Thanks.

[deadparrot]

46. Sounds good. How old are Frist's kids? nt

[Voltaire99]

63. Why ask if Congress has the "political will" for wanton attacks?

History is a guide to some things, you know.

[EFerrari]

67. Congress has exactly enough political will to defend

their massive corruption.

[TomClash]

68. I'm sure the "Good Doctor" will be leading the charge nt

[johncoby2]

69. Yea. right . And Terri Shiavo wasn't in a persistant vegetative state....

[No Exit]

70. Indictment a possibility against Frist.

Because of his violations of SEC rules. Can't come soon enough to suit me.

[teryang]

73. I see the "thought leaders" are here in force

The drum beaters for war with Iran. Hey, go enlist!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

132. No kidding, offering "rational" arguments of the eminent danger of Iran.

Just the beginning wisps of the marketing of WWIII. MKJ

[No Exit]

167. Every wingnut think tank in Washington must be going all out! n/t

[Vinca]

88. Whose military? It can't be ours - we're booked.

The talk of war and Iran is deja vu all over again. I don't think Dubya will be happy unless he drops a nuke during his reign. That's all he can do at this point and you can bet he's contemplating it.

[kurth]

103. Okay. Major General Dr. Frist, you and your sons go first!

[rhett o rick]

105. What would Rove do?? Have Israel attack Iran in 2007.

We are committed to supporting Israel. We will even use tactical nuclear weapons and the IP Imperial President will ask congress for an extension of his term in office. The hell with the Constitution, we all know it doesn't apply during war. And we certainly are at war. Not so much with terrorist but with corp elitists. Russia and China will stay out at this point. They are waiting until we implode.

[leesa]

113. Yup. Can't have Iraq building a power plant, can we?

Same scam as Iraq. Will stupid Americans fall for it again?? Fell for it in Afghanistan. Fell for it in Iraq. Will they fall for it in Iran?

We are Irans biggest customer. If they use nukes to make their power, they can sell their oil for less. It's cheaper to steal it though. Of course, this never works, does it.

[TheVirginian]

115. Actually, China is Iran's biggest customer. n/t

[Lars39]

184. Doesn't virtually every country that does nuclear power make bombs?

Seems like I remember seeing that on a documentary about Yucca Flats.

[lebkuchen]

116. Stripes headline a few days ago

stated the Bush was going to downsize the army reserve. That meant to most army folks that Bush would be relying on active duty more than he already has.

The handwritin's on the wall: deployment--this is your life.

I hope I live long enough to see the after-effects of Bush's folly.

[No Exit]

217. I hope I live long enough to see the criminals jailed.

[BiggJawn]

119. Ya THINK so, Sparky???

You'd have to be a total idiot who never pays attention to anything besides "Survivor" not to know that dropping bombs on Tehran is a very real possibility.

All the rhetoric, all the dick-shaking, (or clitty wiggling, in Condom-Sleezee's case)is EXACTLY the same shit they fed us before they bombed Bagdhad.

Once the motions are gone through and the stockpile of Mk 82's is back up to full, away they go!

[tatertop]

152. This illegal and insane War is coming

[BiggJawn]

156. No Doot Aboot it.

Then Syria, then Quatar, then Yemen, and Saudi Arabia for grins... It's all laid out for any who have eyes to see on the PNAC website.

[tatertop]

175. I think Iran might be the last stop for the war train

They will tie us up and bog us down and
cut our oil and kill our troops and wreak havoc
on our economy. And we will be fucked.

[Mr_Spock]

123. What a friggin' joke.

What a friggin' joke.

I suppose we may drop some bombs on them, but we ain't got no soldiers left for any sort of invasion, so that's off the table.

[Overseas]

127. And Frist says he is an honorable man, too.

And I wonder if he supports our using Depleted Uranium weapons in Iran, too, as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Since he is such an honorable Doctor. Gotta fight fire with fire eh?

Funny how those who supported arming Sadaam in the 80's to keep Iran in check then turned around and smashed Sadaam in 2003. Did Iran no longer need the strong Iraqi army to keep them in check?

[wordpix]

174. "so are they all, all honorable men"--Shakespeare, being sarcastic

[ananda]

133. Let Bush and all GOP lead the way

straight into combat in Iran.

Let them walk the walk; practice what they preach.

[nolabels]

163. If them cowards were leading the way we would all still be under rocks

The draft dodging wimps x(

I don't consider the Necks out in heartland to be true pugs, I just consider them tragically misinformed

[mitchum]

137. Well, that motherfucker can serve as a medic then

[KamaAina]

140. Cats for Peace say No to Frist!

Meow.

[Sewsojm]

144. Wake Up America!!

Will it ever End??

[rhett o rick]

176. Israel will make the first move. Then we must protect

our 51st state with war. my guess is tactical nuclear weapons will be used to see if we can get away with it. WW III has already started and middle class America will lose.

[DrZeeLit]

179. These people are truly crazy. I hope just the quote impacts midterms. n/

[donkeyotay]

192. Round up the GOP and send them over there

They'll have the country on their knees in no time. Look what they've done here; who could have imagined they could destroy America in under 5 years. And notice that all the actors have either been promoted or slithered off into the tall grass. Richard Perle anyone?

[cboy4]

198. How pathetic that a physician like Frist is so excited about

killing. :wtf:

[dave29]

199. but then we'll have to remove the feeding tube from Iraq

:shrug:

[triguy46]

200. "Keep your eye on the dancing lady...."

I feel like we're getting sucked into 3 card monte. They keep trying to suck us into the threats of destruction by third world nations gambit while in our mind we know that we're going to get screwed.

I'm significantly less threatened by Iran then by the erosion of civil liberties through a monarchical executive branch.

[Merrick]

202. Is this country not going down the toilet fast enough?

they gotta start poking at it with a stick now? we can't even win in Iraq much less afford it.

[Kierkegaard]

208. Kierkegaard's 4 special wishes for cat killer!

I wish you...

a level of prosperity that requires filtering through human waste, seeking corn kernels and peanuts for nutritive sustainence...

a level of comfort equal to that of a person covered in gangrenous festering sores over every inch of their body...

a level of happiness equal to those residents of New Orleans whom watched their lives literally wash away before them as the government did nothing...

at last, a level of self-loathing worthy of a party that has lied to achieve, pillaged for greed, thoroughly disgraced and cemented themselves into history by dismantling an entire nation in only 5 years...

[flyarm]

212. fuck frist ..let him send his own kids ..and all those pharm peoples kids!

and send the tax break peoples kids!

fuck him!

fly

[Massachusetts]

218. "Frist says "

Frist= Milque toast

[Roland99]

223. Does he have videotape evidence?