You read it here first boyz and gurls.

[Blown 472]

The Bombs of March
Countdown to War with Iran?
By MIKE WHITNEY
Iran will defend itself if it is attacked by the United States or Israel.
Defending one's country against unprovoked aggression is sanctioned under international law and is a requirement of true leadership. We would expect no different if either the United States or Israel was attacked.
The Sharon and Bush administrations' have done an admirable job of poisoning public opinion against Iran; interpreting President Ahmadinejad's comments as a potential danger to Israel's welfare. But such statements, however offensive, are commonplace in the Middle East and cannot be construed as a credible threat.
In fact, Iran has not demonstrated any territorial ambitions nor is it involved in the occupation of any foreign country as is true of both the United States and Israel.
Media-Hype; beating the war drums, again
The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in Iran's defense.
As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."
Nuclear weapons?
Perhaps, the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors don't? If so, they should step forward and reveal the facts. More likely, however, they are simply following in the tradition of mentor Judith Miller whose scurrilous front-pages articles misled the nation to war with Iraq.
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Not even George Bush would make that claim.
There's also no evidence that Iran has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. These are the two issues which should be given greatest consideration in determining whether or not Iran poses a real danger to its neighbors, and yet, these are precisely the facts that are absent from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in the last few days.
IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei has repeatedly stated that his team of inspectors, who've had the opportunity to "go anywhere and see anything", has found nothing to corroborate the assertions of the US or Israel.
On the other hand, we know that the U.S. has developed a new regime of low-yield "usable" nuclear weapons to destroy underground bunkers. We also know that the militarists in the Pentagon have threatened to use nuclear weapons in a "first strike" preemptive attack, and that the main players in the Defense Dept. unanimously believe that nuclear weapons should be used as part of America's strategy for global security.
Iran claims that developing nuclear weapons runs counter to their religious beliefs, while the Bush administration (as per the Nuclear Posture Review) believes that nuclear weapons are an integral part of the war on terror. Rumsfeld has even shaken up the Pentagon to further surround himself with like-minded people who support this basic thesis.
Perhaps, our fear of Iran is misplaced?
Presently, the administration is trying to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for violations that date back more than 2 years. Since then, there have been no violations and Iran has willingly complied with strict enforcement of its treaty obligations under the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) as well as other "confidence-building" measures which it freely accepted as a sign of good-will.
In truth, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under the terms of the NPT and has agreed to do so in a manner that is consistent with the strict rules of the IAEA. Iran will not, however, give up its "inalienable right" to convert uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making fuel for use in nuclear power plants.
No other nation except Iran has been asked to forgo its rights under the NPT. The Bush administration expects the UN to annul parts of the treaty simply to accommodate its unfounded suspicions. But, why should Iran agree to be treated like an underling just to satisfy Bush? After all, Iran initially signed the NPT as a way of reducing nuclear weapons while Israel, the U.S., and other nations were busy building a new generation of nukes.
Besides, the conversion process takes place in front of IAEA inspectors and cameras that are set up to film the entire procedure. The IAEA is required to report any violations to the UN Security Council for punitive action. The watchdog agency was very successful in analyzing the true state of Iraq's "alleged" nuclear program. There's no need to suspect that they won't succeed here as well. (Israel, Pakistan and India all avoided this regimen and developed nuclear weapons secretly)
The Last Straw
Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a critical role in disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq war, has been equally disingenuous regarding Iran.
"For two and a half years, we've been working with Iran and the rest of the international community to bring Iran into compliance with its very clear obligations not to do anything that leads to suspicions they are developing a nuclear weapons capability."
Straw knows, of course, that Iran has not violated its treaty obligations for over two years and has been in full compliance since then. His statement only confirms what reasonable people already know; Washington wants another war.
The Bush administration knows that there's no hope of passing a Security Council resolution for sanctions against Iran. Neither Russia nor China would agree to penalties nor is there any proof of wrongdoing. The case will simply be used to increase public suspicion and fear while Israel-Washington put the final touches on their battle plans.
It is worth noting, however, that Iran will be attacked without a shred of evidence that they have nuclear weapons, a nuclear weapons program, or even a long-range plan for hostilities against the US or Israel. In other words, they are completely innocent.
Now that the administration has abandoned the internationally recognized benchmark of an "imminent threat", it has also disposed of any other reasonable claim to justify unprovoked aggression. Iran will be attacked without pretext and without congressional or UN authorization invoking the executive authority to prosecute the war on terror by "all necessary and appropriate means".
The determination to attack Iran goes back more than a decade to now famous policy documents (PNAC) which support the idea of integrating Iranian resources into the global system while eliminating potential adversaries of Israel in the region. This first phase is intended to defang the regime and leave it vulnerable to future invasion or regime change.
The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes by Israel on perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites. Both Israel and the US have signaled to Iran that retaliation will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In fact, the Pentagon hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries in Latin America and Asia.
If Iran does respond with force, there's no telling how things will play out. The markets could nosedive, the dollar could fall precipitously, and vital oil shipments could be indefinitely disrupted. (Read the business page and see how jittery many analysts are) If the conflagration goes nuclear, then we can expect that China, Russia and Venezuela will take firm steps to demonstrate their disapproval. Oil shipments from Venezuela may be cut off while China stages a destructive sell-off of its $769 billion in foreign-exchange.
Then, of course, there's the likelihood that the attacks will draw the Iraqi Shiites into an alliance with the Sunni-backed resistance making occupation of Iraq even more tenuous. Or, perhaps the Mullahs will deploy state-sponsored jihadiis across the globe targeting American energy facilities and commercial interests. In any event, there could be hefty price to pay for Washington's recklessness.
Whatever the cost, the attack seems likely to be carried out sometime on or before March 2006 when Iran plans to open its new oil bourse. The new exchange which directly challenges the continued dominance of the greenback in the oil trade (the largest commodity traded in the world) poses an "existential threat" to the well-being of western financial institutions and elites.
Beyond the media subterfuge of "nuclear weapons" and "non-compliance", the empire is marching resolutely to war; voluntarily risking nuclear holocaust to preserve the system of privilege and concentrated wealth.

[canuck1]

Stevey is going to spin.....

[Steve 1]

Stevey is going to spin.....
Crackhead I see where you and Bents loyalties lay ,but not to worry we will protect you traitorous wimps!!

[canuck1]

Crackhead I see where you and Bents loyalties lay ,but not to worry we will protect you traitorous wimps!!
Doesn't it kill you to be wrong all the time Stevey

[Steve 1]

You guys need to stop reading that leftist drivel and join the real world! Of course an education would not hurt either!

[Jeanyus]

I would like to counter that BS with this letter written by an Air Force general.
This WAR is for REAL! To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11,
2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.
The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country.
It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world! Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.
There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The frightening question that remains is "Why does that reality seem so blatantly obvious to so many (the majority of this nation) yet a (very vocal) few cannot seem to comprehend it (or simply refuse to for some massively foolish reason)?".

[canuck1]

Jeanyus
great post but one question I have for you
How do you win a war against a religion?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

You don't canuk. You DO win a war against religious ZEALOTS WHO WANT TO KILL YOU FOR THEIR RELIGION. How you ask? Just as Gen Patton advised. "Let the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" or in this case, his/her cause.

[Jeanyus]

Jeanyus
great post but one question I have for you
How do you win a war against a religion?
If I knew the answer to that question, I would have Condaleeza Rice's Job.
For starters I would take out the third biggest army in the word, who happen to be Muslims, and run by a Faschist DICKtator (that would be Iraq and Sadam).
Then I would keep a lot military forces in the area, to reach out and stop Iran or Syria from causing trouble. (kinda like what Bush is doing now)
I would set up a country, to keep the enemy occupied, you know supply them with military goodies, to keep the Palistinians occupied, and at bay.
Kind like a sacrificial piece. (like Isreal)
In WW II we discoverd that an army that uses suicide attacks will have hard time succeding, because after a while you run out of poor dumb bastards willing to die. ( the japaneese, ran out of Kamakazies)
If we could set up just 1 , democratic government , in that region, it would end the radical Muslim rule. Once the people see what it's like to live free, the Radicals would be thrown out.
Or we could always go the route of the crusaders, and wipe out every other religion.

[Old Texan]

If I knew the answer to that question, I would have Condaleeza Rice's Job.
For starters I would take out the third biggest army in the word, who happen to be Muslims, and run by a Faschist DICKtator (that would be Iraq and Sadam).
Then I would keep a lot military forces in the area, to reach out and stop Iran or Syria from causing trouble. (kinda like what Bush is doing now)
I would set up a country, to keep the enemy occupied, you know supply them with military goodies, to keep the Palistinians occupied, and at bay.
Kind like a sacrificial piece. (like Isreal)
In WW II we discoverd that an army that uses suicide attacks will have hard time succeding, because after a while you run out of poor dumb bastards willing to die. ( the japaneese, ran out of Kamakazies)
If we could set up just 1 , democratic government , in that region, it would end the radical Muslim rule. Once the people see what it's like to live free, the Radicals would be thrown out.
Or we could always go the route of the crusaders, and wipe out every other religion.
Good post and I agree. Our loudmouth minority doesn't understand this principle like a lot of other things they don't understand.
In a perfect world there would be no conflicts and everyone's farts would smell like roses. :rollside:

[QuickJet]

If I knew the answer to that question, I would have Condaleeza Rice's Job.
For starters I would take out the third biggest army in the word, who happen to be Muslims, and run by a Faschist DICKtator (that would be Iraq and Sadam).
Then I would keep a lot military forces in the area, to reach out and stop Iran or Syria from causing trouble. (kinda like what Bush is doing now)
I would set up a country, to keep the enemy occupied, you know supply them with military goodies, to keep the Palistinians occupied, and at bay.
Kind like a sacrificial piece. (like Isreal)
In WW II we discoverd that an army that uses suicide attacks will have hard time succeding, because after a while you run out of poor dumb bastards willing to die. ( the japaneese, ran out of Kamakazies)
If we could set up just 1 , democratic government , in that region, it would end the radical Muslim rule. Once the people see what it's like to live free, the Radicals would be thrown out.
Or we could always go the route of the crusaders, and wipe out every other religion.
That's a great post.

[HighRoller]

Jeanyus
great post but one question I have for you
How do you win a war against a religion?
Once you realize you are the object of the religion's hatred and you have been attacked, you engage the members of said religion wherever and whenever possible and destroy them, preferrably before they get to our country. In other words, we do what we are doing in Iraq as we speak. Kill terrorist cockroaches by the dozens on their own turf before they can get in one of our airplanes and kill thousands of our brothers, sisters, Moms and Dads.
Next question?

[Blown 472]

Once you realize you are the object of the religion's hatred and you have been attacked, you engage the members of said religion wherever and whenever possible and destroy them, preferrably before they get to our country. In other words, we do what we are doing in Iraq as we speak. Kill terrorist cockroaches by the dozens on their own turf before they can get in one of our airplanes and kill thousands of our brothers, sisters, Moms and Dads.
Next question?
What about the people that kill people here under the guise of religon?

[HighRoller]

Who?????

[Blown 472]

Who?????
Anti abortion nut jobs that blow up clinics.

[Jeanyus]

What about the people that kill people here under the guise of religon?
You say your not a liberal, but you have all the liberal moves down pat. First throw out an article written by some crackpot. Then when your point of view get shreded with rational comments, you throw out a curve ball comment like the one above.

[Jeanyus]

Anti abortion nut jobs that blow up clinics.
How many people have died in these bombing attacks? I thought this thread was about WW 3. Typical Liberal, saying stuff just to hear the sound of your own voice.
I suppose all the babys that were killed in the abortion clinics, are meaningless. My argument on abortion is "to bad your parents didn't believe in abortion". In that case I'm pro abortion.

[Blown 472]

You say your not a liberal, but you have all the liberal moves down pat. First throw out an article written by some crackpot. Then when your point of view get shreded with rational comments, you throw out a curve ball comment like the one above.
Ah no, nice try thou. If in fact it is a war agianst religon then we should look at all religons.

[Jeanyus]

Ah no, nice try thou. If in fact it is a war agianst religon then we should look at all religons.
Typical liberal comment. We are being attacked by radical Islam. So lets go wipe out some Buddists.
How about this for a stoopid liberal thought. We are being attacked by Muslims, so If we stop Christianity, then the mean Muslims will stop.

[Blown 472]

Typical liberal comment. We are being attacked by radical Islam. So lets go wipe out some Buddists.
How about this for a stoopid liberal thought. We are being attacked by Muslims, so If we stop Christianity, then the mean Muslims will stop.
Attacked by radical islam? but yet we continue to buy oil from them. How does that work?

[Jeanyus]

Attacked by radical islam? but yet we continue to buy oil from them. How does that work?
You got a gas guzzler boat and a hot rod. Do I have to explain how to put gas in them?

[Blown 472]

You got a gas guzzler boat and a hot rod. Do I have to explain how to put gas in them?
Nope got it but since we are at "war" with "islamist radicals" why do we keep giving them money?? don't you find that strange?

[Steve 1]

Again Bent the answer is simple :YOU LIBERALS (you know that vast all encompassing FILTHY word meaning everything but good) Have the Fags let us drill and build refineries limit the fuel to only 3 gasoline blends and use more nuclear Power along with developing the Oil shale (11/2 trillion barrels) in one deposit alone..Anything else??

[Jeanyus]

Nope got it but since we are at "war" with "islamist radicals" why do we keep giving them money?? don't you find that strange?
We don't give them money. We buy oil. Americans cant do anything without using gas or diesel. Sand toys boats motorcycles hot rods, fuel guzzling trucks to pull all these toys.( I'm not putting down toys, just stating facts)
We even have gas powered blenders to mix drinks.
Of course you bieng a Liberal, have a perfect solution, you just wont tell us what it is, while you criticise every effort, to change things, or to try and make things better.
You want to have fuel, we cant drill in the US or offshore, we cant build refineries in the US, but lets bitch and gripe about buying foriegn oil, and about protecting our interests in the middle east. Doesn't make sense.
We could win the war on terror overnight, buy developeing good affordable cars that don't run on gasoline, but that will never happen, look at our kids test scores (Future invevtors).

[Blown 472]

We don't give them money. We buy oil. Americans cant do anything without using gas or diesel. Sand toys boats motorcycles hot rods, fuel guzzling trucks to pull all these toys.( I'm not putting down toys, just stating facts)
We even have gas powered blenders to mix drinks.
Of course you bieng a Liberal, have a perfect solution, you just wont tell us what it is, while you criticise every effort, to change things, or to try and make things better.
You want to have fuel, we cant drill in the US or offshore, we cant build refineries in the US, but lets bitch and gripe about buying foriegn oil, and about protecting our interests in the middle east. Doesn't make sense.
We could win the war on terror overnight, buy developeing good affordable cars that don't run on gasoline, but that will never happen, look at our kids test scores (Future invevtors).
Typical liberal comment. We are being attacked by radical Islam. So lets go wipe out some Buddists.
How about this for a stoopid liberal thought. We are being attacked by Muslims, so If we stop Christianity, then the mean Muslims will stop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you are contridicting your self, we are at war with radical islam but yet we need them to fuel our cars, so we are having a selective war? how does that work??

[Jeanyus]

Typical liberal comment. We are being attacked by radical Islam. So lets go wipe out some Buddists.
How about this for a stoopid liberal thought. We are being attacked by Muslims, so If we stop Christianity, then the mean Muslims will stop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you are contridicting your self, we are at war with radical islam but yet we need them to fuel our cars, so we are having a selective war? how does that work??
Turn on the news and pay attention, you will see how its done.

[Blown 472]

Turn on the news and pay attention, you will see how its done.
Nope, I want your answer on the selective war agianst radical islam.

[Jeanyus]

Nope, I want your answer on the selective war agianst radical islam.
Refer to post #10 in this thread. Typical lib a guy answers a question, and the liberal keeps asking the question, because he dosen't agree with the answer.
I gotta go, It's fun for a little while, argueing with liberals, but gets boreing after a while. Hard to have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

[Blown 472]

Refer to post #10 in this thread. Typical lib a guy answers a question, and the liberal keeps asking the question, because he dosen't agree with the answer.
I gotta go, It's fun for a little while, argueing with liberals, but gets boreing after a while. Hard to have a battle of wits with the unarmed.
Funny I was thinking the same thing. tata

[Old Texan]

Attacked by radical islam? but yet we continue to buy oil from them. How does that work?
The radical Islamists are a small group of terrorists. And we don't buy oil from them.
The bulk of the Arab/Muslim world are good people with cultural differences from ours. Overall they are good moral people and want world peace just like us. In their ranks are people that sympathize with the terrorists just like there are people in our country that sympathize with Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.
Unfortunately some of the extremist sympathizers are Arab world leaders and it is these people we must focus on for the good of all people wanting stability and peace.
Blown has expressed the solution to rid the world of Saudi Arabia and Israel. This won't solve the problem of ridding the world of the core problem, extremists who belive violence is their answer.
I don't see it as a war on religion. That is just avoidance of the issues. The terrorist ilk know no borders nor are prevalent to a particular society. We will never eliminate all extremists as they will find a way to hide and grow back like rats and cockroaches.
The real solution is common sense and agreement among the vast majority that just want peace and prosperity for themselves, their families, and their friends around the world of all cultures. That is the real goal andsolution. Reality though is what we have and what we must deal with to make the world safe from those filled with senseless hate.
A good step would be to stop the political liberal/conservative, religious, cultural, racial, and other dividers that cloud the issues. Whoever solves that problem will no doubt win the ultimate Nobel Prize. No one ever said it was easy.

[Blown 472]

The radical Islamists are a small group of terrorists. And we don't buy oil from them.
The bulk of the Arab/Muslim world are good people with cultural differences from ours. Overall they are good moral people and want world peace just like us. In their ranks are people that sympathize with the terrorists just like there are people in our country that sympathize with Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.
Unfortunately some of the extremist sympathizers are Arab world leaders and it is these people we must focus on for the good of all people wanting stability and peace.
Blown has expressed the solution to rid the world of Saudi Arabia and Israel. This won't solve the problem of ridding the world of the core problem, extremists who belive violence is their answer.
I don't see it as a war on religion. That is just avoidance of the issues. The terrorist ilk know no borders nor are prevalent to a particular society. We will never eliminate all extremists as they will find a way to hide and grow back like rats and cockroaches.
The real solution is common sense and agreement among the vast majority that just want peace and prosperity for themselves, their families, and their friends around the world of all cultures. That is the real goal andsolution. Reality though is what we have and what we must deal with to make the world safe from those filled with senseless hate.
A good step would be to stop the political liberal/conservative, religious, cultural, racial, and other dividers that cloud the issues. Whoever solves that problem will no doubt win the ultimate Nobel Prize. No one ever said it was easy.
Yes and no, after 9/11 didn't the gubment pinpoint all the flyers? where they not from saudi? didn't they learn their hatered in state sponsered skools? but yet no bombs, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did sryia or iran but yet they are beating the war drums for them. And in reguard to israel, some day we will dummy up and stop fighting their battles for them. One more thing isn't wahabism taught in the skools in saudi? if that anit radical I don't know what is.

[Steve 1]

Yes and no, after 9/11 didn't the gubment pinpoint all the flyers? where they not from saudi? didn't they learn their hatered in state sponsered skools? but yet no bombs, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did sryia or iran but yet they are beating the war drums for them. And in reguard to israel, some day we will dummy up and stop fighting their battles for them. One more thing isn't wahabism taught in the skools in saudi? if that anit radical I don't know what is.
As usual full of crap and out of touch with reality! Try again dope head!

[Jeanyus]

Yes and no, after 9/11 didn't the gubment pinpoint all the flyers? where they not from saudi? didn't they learn their hatered in state sponsered skools? but yet no bombs, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did sryia or iran but yet they are beating the war drums for them. And in reguard to israel, some day we will dummy up and stop fighting their battles for them. One more thing isn't wahabism taught in the skools in saudi? if that anit radical I don't know what is.
So instead of destroying the 3rd biggest (Muslim) army in the world, you would take out Saudi Arabia, and Isreal. Brilliant military move (sarcasm) Thank goodness you are not running the country.
We already occupy Saudi, why on earth would we bomb them. Thier government is in power because the US military protects them. That would be why the 9/11 attackers were Saudi, They hate us because they cannot overthrow the government, and set up a Taliban type regime.
Do I have to explain everything?
If we want to destroy Saudi Arabia we would not have to fire a shot, just pull our military out and let them destroy each other.

[Blown 472]

So instead of destroying the 3rd biggest (Muslim) army in the world, you would take out Saudi Arabia, and Isreal. Brilliant military move (sarcasm) Thank goodness you are not running the country.
We already occupy Saudi, why on earth would we bomb them. Thier government is in power because the US military protects them. That would be why the 9/11 attackers were Saudi, They hate us because they cannot overthrow the government, and set up a Taliban type regime.
Do I have to explain everything?
If we want to destroy Saudi Arabia we would not have to fire a shot, just pull our military out and let them destroy each other.
Yes, but you said we are at war with radical islam, and we have a proven fact the people that attacked us were from county x and we attack country z, why is that?
Thought you had to leave?

[Steve 1]

Nutcase because Iraq was involved ! as well as Iran!

[Blown 472]

Nutcase because Iraq was involved ! as well as Iran!
PROVE IT.

[Steve 1]

NO you prove they were not! I am not wasting my time educating a Liberal. BTW I have posted that info before ,but is evident your head is empty by your hand and desire!

[Blown 472]

NO you prove they were not! I am not wasting my time educating a Liberal. BTW I have posted that info before ,but is evident your head is empty by your hand and desire!
nothing but hot air, I would put you on ignore but your stupidity is far too much fun to read.

[Steve 1]

nothing but hot air, I would put you on ignore but your stupidity is far too much fun to read.
I would say the same to you bent a complete Idiot who thinks Iraq was not a home to Al Qaeda and Iran aside from helping the 9/11 Hijackers is concealing some of them (Al Qaeda) also. That on top of a terrorist supporting country! Your move Punk!

[bigq]

Nope got it but since we are at "war" with "islamist radicals" why do we keep giving them money?? don't you find that strange?
Your making the mistake, although not a stretch that all Muslims are of the "islamic radicals"group. Not all of them are like that and it seems like a good majority of the population wants a democracy of some type. that takes an money for the government to run so the oil provides that.

[canuck1]

Your making the mistake, although not a stretch that all Muslims are of the "islamic radicals"group. Not all of them are like that and it seems like a good majority of the population wants a democracy of some type. that takes an money for the government to run so the oil provides that.
So why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?

[canuck1]

The radical Islamists are a small group of terrorists. And we don't buy oil from them.
The bulk of the Arab/Muslim world are good people with cultural differences from ours. Overall they are good moral people and want world peace just like us. In their ranks are people that sympathize with the terrorists just like there are people in our country that sympathize with Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.
Unfortunately some of the extremist sympathizers are Arab world leaders and it is these people we must focus on for the good of all people wanting stability and peace.
Blown has expressed the solution to rid the world of Saudi Arabia and Israel. This won't solve the problem of ridding the world of the core problem, extremists who belive violence is their answer.
I don't see it as a war on religion. That is just avoidance of the issues. The terrorist ilk know no borders nor are prevalent to a particular society. We will never eliminate all extremists as they will find a way to hide and grow back like rats and cockroaches.
The real solution is common sense and agreement among the vast majority that just want peace and prosperity for themselves, their families, and their friends around the world of all cultures. That is the real goal andsolution. Reality though is what we have and what we must deal with to make the world safe from those filled with senseless hate.
A good step would be to stop the political liberal/conservative, religious, cultural, racial, and other dividers that cloud the issues. Whoever solves that problem will no doubt win the ultimate Nobel Prize. No one ever said it was easy.
Same question for you.....why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?

[Old Texan]

Same question for you.....why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?
I assume the country of which you speak is Iraq. Iraq under Saddam is a rogue dictatorship full of corruption and PROVEN links to al Quaida inspite of the liberal spin to the contrary.
Another known fact gone unreported was the probable coup by Saddam's rogue son who had gained major control of a powerful faction from within the country. He woiuld have supportted and helped fund terrorists.
This on top of the fact that UN sactions had not been fulfilled and the general consensus including the now backsliding Dems, was that Saddam had, used, and would continue to use WMD's. And yes WMD's were found and there is great evidence and belief more were smuggled out of the country. The short mindedness of Dems and libs is the fact a majority of Congress voted to attack Iraq but true to form the flip flop on their support and earlier committment. When the going gets tough the libs turn and run.
Now questions for you:
Is the world better off with Saddam removed from power?
Would you rather see Saddam in power? If so do you agree with his way of governing Iraq?

[Old Texan]

Same question for you.....why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?
And furthermore, read this:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004242.htm

[canuck1]

I assume the country of which you speak is Iraq. Iraq under Saddam is a rogue dictatorship full of corruption and PROVEN links to al Quaida inspite of the liberal spin to the contrary.
Another known fact gone unreported was the probable coup by Saddam's rogue son who had gained major control of a powerful faction from within the country. He woiuld have supportted and helped fund terrorists.
This on top of the fact that UN sactions had not been fulfilled and the general consensus including the now backsliding Dems, was that Saddam had, used, and would continue to use WMD's. And yes WMD's were found and there is great evidence and belief more were smuggled out of the country. The short mindedness of Dems and libs is the fact a majority of Congress voted to attack Iraq but true to form the flip flop on their support and earlier committment. When the going gets tough the libs turn and run.
Now questions for you:
Is the world better off with Saddam removed from power?
Would you rather see Saddam in power? If so do you agree with his way of governing Iraq?
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Iran....
But since you asked:
the THEORIES on his son are just that
The UN Resolutions....The key word in that statement is UN...Not US. By doing what the US did it helped to focus the crazies hate on the US and others that helped it
WMD? You could find more on ONE aircraft carrier than they did in the whole country of Iraq
Is the world better off with out Saddam? Maybe But by attacking Iraq the US has pissed off most of the worlds Islamic Countries And crazies contained with in and in the long run that might be worse than Saddam. Think back to what Reagan did to Kadafy(sp)...It kept him in check
Is the average Joe in Iraq better off? Yes
no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
All political leaders should be scared of the people. we should have public hangings of a couple of randomly chosen polititians every year to keep them honest :rollside:

[Steve 1]

You neglected A hell of a lot of Saddam the’s the mass graves the terrorist ties the paying for terrorism the terrorist training sites the dual use material the constant violation of the cease fire agreement the constant violation of UN resolutions the constant threatening of neighbors the torture chambers the plastic shredders the wild dogs tearing people apart the rapes the murders the sanctions being worn away by people like you the plan to startup WMD production after sanctions lifted the 500 tons of yellowcake and a couple tons of enriched uranium the firing of WMD tipped missiles during the invasion the use of poison gas the mass murder of entire villages the invasion rape and pillage of Kuwait the greatest ecological disaster ever done by man the 700 oil well fires the oil in the gulf. And on

[Old Texan]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Iran....
But since you asked:
the THEORIES on his son are just that
The UN Resolutions....The key word in that statement is UN...Not US. By doing what the US did it helped to focus the crazies hate on the US and others that helped it
WMD? You could find more on ONE aircraft carrier than they did in the whole country of Iraq
Is the world better off with out Saddam? Maybe But by attacking Iraq the US has pissed off most of the worlds Islamic Countries And crazies contained with in and in the long run that might be worse than Saddam. Think back to what Reagan did to Kadafy(sp)...It kept him in check
Is the average Joe in Iraq better off? Yes
no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
All political leaders should be scared of the people. we should have public hangings of a couple of randomly chosen polititians every year to keep them honest :rollside:
the THEORIES on his son are just that
Nope, Uday was wounded by a car bomb when found out by Pop. They were at odds and he had enough backingto keep himself alive.
WMD? You could find more on ONE aircraft carrier than they did in the whole country of Iraq
Answered the question. The armament on 1 carrier is more than many nations entire military. Plenty of damage could be done.
no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
This remark scares me that anyone could even compare a ruthless dictator that slaughterd thousands, ran rape rooms, and took all wealth and public property for his own selfish use.
All political leaders should be scared of the people. we should have public hangings of a couple of randomly chosen polititians every year to keep them honest :rollside
Can't disagree with this theory, just as long as Hildabeast and Fat Teddy get first 2 spots.
Overall I just don't understand the paranoia that comes forth about government and our way of life. The US is in pretty great shape compared to the rest of the world. Ain't no other country I'd rather live in. Canada has problems but if you'd get the socilist doctrine thrown out you'd have solved the bulk of your issues.

[canuck1]

[U]no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
[QUOTE]This remark scares me that anyone could even compare a ruthless dictator that slaughterd thousands
On or off of their own soil? The British Empire and the US have done the same just to a lesser extent at home
ran rape rooms
not going to touch this one
and took all wealth and public property for his own selfish use.
Taxes come to mind here

[Old Texan]

On or off of their own soil? The British Empire and the US have done the same just to a lesser extent at home
not going to touch this one
Taxes come to mind here
Where is this Utopia you dream about? What country is your model?
US, Australia, or Canada are as good as it gets for me. I'm sure people of other nationalities have their preferences.
Would you prefer a Taliban like state in your country?
Taxes are inevitable and I expect to pay something for what I get. I get far more PO'd with how they are dispersed. That's why I do my part in community and at the voting booth.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Anti abortion nut jobs that blow up clinics.
Then we catch the people who do it, Gas, Electrocute, Shoot, or Hang (using a very tall gallows combined with a particularly SHORT rope) the guilty blown. It's a little thing called CRIME and subsequent punnishment. Try out Premeditated Murder (if you set a bomb, you KNOW it's going to kill anyone close), Arson (if the building catches fire) and about 27 lesser charges right down to trespassing.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Typical liberal comment. We are being attacked by radical Islam. So lets go wipe out some Buddists.
How about this for a stoopid liberal thought. We are being attacked by Muslims, so If we stop Christianity, then the mean Muslims will stop.
Don't forget the Taoists, and that evil "Tantric Sex" they came up with. The Hindus and their refusal to eat a cow (there's dangerous stuff there too). Nope, I got it ..... Blown's dream .... We need to open up the gas chambers again and wipe out the greatest evil walking the face of the world .... Judaism and while we are at it, just bulldose Israel untill it is below sea level.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Attacked by radical islam? but yet we continue to buy oil from them. How does that work?
Ask it again once YOU have set the example by converting all your toys to hybrid power, till then, don't ask why YOU keep supporting the terrorists by buying gasoline just as I do.

[canuck1]

[QUOTE]Where is this Utopia you dream about? What country is your model?
You asked about comparisons
US, Australia, or Canada are as good as it gets for me. I'm sure people of other nationalities have their preferences
Agreed..
Would you prefer a Taliban like state in your country?
No but at times it feels like one
Taxes are inevitable and I expect to pay something for what I get. I get far more PO'd with how they are dispersed. That's why I do my part in community and at the voting booth
yes.we get po'd as did the average joe in Iraq. and yes

[Blown 472]

Ask it again once YOU have set the example by converting all your toys to hybrid power, till then, don't ask why YOU keep supporting the terrorists by buying gasoline just as I do.
I am not the one saying we should wipe the muslim race off the face of the earth. So selective terrorist should be taken care of?? strange.

[Steve 1]

Bents whacked world!!
Christian’s bad
Jews very bad
Muslims good
Muslim terrorists very good

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Yes, but you said we are at war with radical islam, and we have a proven fact the people that attacked us were from county x and we attack country z, why is that?
Thought you had to leave?
Here's the problem with your Ironclad logic here blown ....
Man from Country X (USA) attacked us (USA)
We should have started to bomb and invade OURSELVES???? (Timmy McVeigh, DOMESTIC terrorist)
The controlling group OF THOSE SAUDIS you like to try to parade waas WHERE????? Afghanistan! We invaded there BECAUSE THE TALIBAN GOVT PROTECTED AL-QUAEDA. We destroyed the Taliban govt, replaced it, and then, INVADED A THREAT who was known to be very dangerous, and who was willing to supply any weaponry at his disposal to anyone who could use it against us. And HE HAD, at minimum, stocks of chemical weapons, these have been documented. Do you WANT 25 pounds of Sarin or Mustard Gas to be released on the NY SUBWAY SYSTEM in a half-dozen adjoi9ning stations at ohhh say.... 5:30 PM?? Not gonna get 3,000 dead, more like 30,000, and another 50k+ maimed (mustard forms an acid in water, your eyes, sinuses,and lungs are WET.) If you don't die from Mustard gas, it destroys your lungs and blinds you. Enjoy being 25 and having permenant emphysema for 60 years, while being blind.

[canuck1]

Ask it again once YOU have set the example by converting all your toys to hybrid power, till then, don't ask why YOU keep supporting the terrorists by buying gasoline just as I do.
I only support Canadian terrorists....

[Blown 472]

Here's the problem with your Ironclad logic here blown ....
Man from Country X (USA) attacked us (USA)
We should have started to bomb and invade OURSELVES???? (Timmy McVeigh, DOMESTIC terrorist)
The controlling group OF THOSE SAUDIS you like to try to parade waas WHERE????? Afghanistan! We invaded there BECAUSE THE TALIBAN GOVT PROTECTED AL-QUAEDA. We destroyed the Taliban govt, replaced it, and then, INVADED A THREAT who was known to be very dangerous, and who was willing to supply any weaponry at his disposal to anyone who could use it against us. And HE HAD, at minimum, stocks of chemical weapons, these have been documented. Do you WANT 25 pounds of Sarin or Mustard Gas to be released on the NY SUBWAY SYSTEM in a half-dozen adjoi9ning stations at ohhh say.... 5:30 PM?? Not gonna get 3,000 dead, more like 30,000, and another 50k+ maimed (mustard forms an acid in water, your eyes, sinuses,and lungs are WET.) If you don't die from Mustard gas, it destroys your lungs and blinds you. Enjoy being 25 and having permenant emphysema for 60 years, while being blind.
What country where the 19 flyers from??

[canuck1]

What country where the 19 flyers from??
Canada?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I am not the one saying we should wipe the muslim race off the face of the earth. So selective terrorist should be taken care of?? strange.
So, just since we have not invaded the entire arab speaking area of the world we are being selective? We DO NOT HAVE TO INVADE EVERYONE.
We removed a dangerous national leaader, the world's terrorist organizations have GONE TO IRAQ TO TRY TO NOT LOOSE IRAQ to a decent western government.
Democracy, freedom, knowledge, and growth are the killers of terrorism. We don't have to chase the terrorists blown. We hosted a tea party, and THEY HAVE ALL COME OVER TO PLAY.
Incedentally blown, since Iraq has 18 provinces (Kuwait NOT being #19), and 14 of them are quiet, safe, and ignored by the news, HOW ARE WE LOOSING? The terrorists will run out of fools to commit suicide before we run out of ammunition, OR soldiers (remember, they are volunteers, and MORE KEEP VOLUNTEERING).

[SmokinLowriderSS]

What country where the 19 flyers from??
And, had we invaded Saudi arabia, you'd be chanting "Saudi Arabia had no connection to 9/11/01". You have no point blown, forget it. done, again, as usual.

[Blown 472]

And, had we invaded Saudi arabia, you'd be chanting "Saudi Arabia had no connection to 9/11/01". You have no point blown, forget it. done, again, as usual.
Nope, proven fact down to the schools they went to they were from there. So we have 19 guys that killed how many people?? attacked the usa from a county that has radical islamists and we do nothing about it? why???

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Long ago I explained to you the Saudis are in trouble of their own with Al-Queda wanting the Al-Saud govt overthrown too. They are reaping that which they allowed to be sown blown, dust off a memory, or search up the thread. I'm not bothering again.

[Blown 472]

Long ago I explained to you the Saudis are in trouble of their own with Al-Queda wanting the Al-Saud govt overthrown too. They are reaping that which they allowed to be sown blown, dust off a memory, or search up the thread. I'm not bothering again.
Nope, I want you to tell me why we are not kicking the shit out of them. So americans died because "they have their problems"

[Steve 1]

Bent Americans died because of people exactly like YOU letting a problem grow by turning your back to it!

[Jeanyus]

Yes, but you said we are at war with radical islam, and we have a proven fact the people that attacked us were from county x and we attack country z, why is that?
Thought you had to leave?
I am typing this real slow, so that you will be able to keep up.
We attacked country Z because it was run by a madman. He had 3 million foot soldiers 5,000 tanks, 5,000 artillery pieces, all that military stuff is gone now, country Z is no longer the threat that it was.
I know I'm wasting my time, but DO YOU GET IT NOW ?!!!!

[canuck1]

I am typing this real slow, so that you will be able to keep up.
We attacked country Z because it was run by a madman. He had 3 million foot soldiers 5,000 tanks, 5,000 artillery pieces, all that military stuff is gone now, country Z is no longer the threat that it was.
I know I'm wasting my time, but DO YOU GET IT NOW ?!!!!
What country was that with all that power? Is an AK 47 an artillery piece?

[Blown 472]

I am typing this real slow, so that you will be able to keep up.
We attacked country Z because it was run by a madman. He had 3 million foot soldiers 5,000 tanks, 5,000 artillery pieces, all that military stuff is gone now, country Z is no longer the threat that it was.
I know I'm wasting my time, but DO YOU GET IT NOW ?!!!!
but that doesn't go along the country that attacked us and is trying to kill our way of life as they dont like our freedom. Did he fly the planes into the buildings? did he have the skools that taught the hatered those guys had?

[Steve 1]

canhole You do not get any news up there??

[Steve 1]

but that doesn't go along the country that attacked us and is trying to kill our way of life as they dont like our freedom. Did he fly the planes into the buildings? did he have the skools that taught the hatered those guys had?
Yes bent your hero saddam did his part!

[Blown 472]

You do not get any news up there??
Nope, maybe you should post a link with the info that saddam trained the flyers so we can read the rest of it.

[Jeanyus]

What country was that with all that power? Is an AK 47 an artillery piece?
That would be Iraq. Try to pay attention. You guys have an artillery piece, it's parked next to your tank, go to the military base and check it out.
I think the military base is behind one of your GAY wedding chappels, you know the big one, I thinks its called Fag Depot.

[Jeanyus]

but that doesn't go along the country that attacked us and is trying to kill our way of life as they dont like our freedom. Did he fly the planes into the buildings? did he have the skools that taught the hatered those guys had?
YES !

[Blown 472]

YES !
Prove it.

[Jeanyus]

Prove it.
Pick up any Koran and read it.

[Steve 1]

But Bent every single post you make is some leftist lie get a grip !!

[canuck1]

That would be Iraq. Try to pay attention. You guys have an artillery piece, it's parked next to your tank, go to the military base and check it out.
I think the military base is behind one of your GAY wedding chappels, you know the big one, I thinks its called Fag Depot.
Now that isn't very nice......fag depot is in California......they would be upset as Spaz is if you told them they were in Canada

[Blown 472]

Pick up any Koran and read it.
I have a copy thanks, funny I never ran across the part where is said saddam flew planes into buildings and had skools for angry men, perhaps you could post a link to some info on that?

[Steve 1]

Now that isn't very nice......fag depot is in Canada and we invite fags to come up here
??

[Steve 1]

I have a copy thanks, funny I never ran across the part where is said saddam flew planes into buildings and had skools for angry men, perhaps you could post a link to some info on that?
Thats because you have the Leftie selective reading syndrome and never heard a friday sermon in the middle-east grow up and stop listening to this jackass!
http://www.uploadyourimages.com/img/656595algoreandglowingorb.jpg

[Jeanyus]

Now that isn't very nice......fag depot is in California......they would be upset as Spaz is if you told them they were in Canada
Sorry

[canuck1]

Sorry
:rollside: :)

[Jeanyus]

I have a copy thanks, funny I never ran across the part where is said saddam flew planes into buildings and had skools for angry men, perhaps you could post a link to some info on that?
Here you go knock youself out. http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/quran.htm Pay attention to the part where it calls for the death of ALL infidells.
PS. acording to thier definition you and I are Infidells. If the president of the US wants to take out people who have taken a vow to kill me I'm OK with that.
I would hope he would take out the biggest threats first, say Afganistan. or how about the madman you know the one who had the huge military, you know the guy that invaded Kuwait, the one that ran people through shredders,and poured hot plastic on people, then peeled thier skin off. Whats his name, oh ya Sadam.

[Blown 472]

Here you go knock youself out. http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/quran.htm Pay attention to the part where it calls for the death of ALL infidells.
PS. acording to thier definition you and I are Infidells. If the president of the US wants to take out people who have taken a vow to kill me I'm OK with that.
I would hope he would take out the biggest threats first, say Afganistan. or how about the madman you know the one who had the huge military, you know the guy that invaded Kuwait, the one that ran people through shredders,and poured hot plastic on people, then peeled thier skin off. Whats his name, oh ya Sadam.
But that is still not a direct link to saddam attacking the USA. Please provide the truth to that.
Strange, all the aribic people I know don't call me one of them there infidels.

[Jeanyus]

But that is still not a direct link to saddam attacking the USA. Please provide the truth to that.
Strange, all the aribic people I know don't call me one of them there infidels.
I'm gonna pull a liberal move, and answer your question with a question.
Did Hitler attack the US? Was he a threat to the world?
PS the Arabic people are supposed "to lay in wait, for thier chance to kill the infadell". Your arab buddies are just licken thier chops.

[Boatcop]

Reading all 3 (so far) pages, it's obvious that there's a failure to communicate, so I'll try to paraphrase and clear things up.
1. Saudi Arabia and the 9-11 hi-jackers.
Every country has their radicals. We had Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and others. They were taught in our schools(sic). They became engrossed with in radical ideals and politics, and did things to damage property and kill people.
Same with Osama Bin Ladin and his followers. They broke away from their native Saudi and trained in other countries. Namely Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Iran (among others).
Do we bomb McVeigh's or Rudolf's home town. Of course not. Where they lived had nothing to do with it. Same with Saudi Arabia.
2. Iraq and our overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Sanctions were put on Iraq and Saddam, after the first Gulf War, where we turned back the invasion of Kuwait. The UN (meaning the world) placed those sanctions to protect the region. Saddam violated those sanctions. He was warned. Saddam violated them again. He was warned again, and violated them and warned and violated ad nauseum.
The UN enacted resolutions, again with a warning that if he didn't comply within a certain period of time, force would be used to make him comply. That time period allowed him to destroy or remove his WMD and evidence of their existence to another country, probably Syria.
The US, and forces from other countries, carried out the UN resolution, and took Saddam from power. If not for the terrorists, mostly from neighboring Iran and Syria (who DO NOT want a democratic nation in their region) attacking US troops, Iraqi civilians, infrastructure, mosques, schools, etc., kidnapping and beheading journalists and others, our job would have been done over a year ago.
The fact that Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps and sponsored terrorists, was just gravy. But the main mission, as authorized by, not only the United States Congress, but all but ordered (via Resolution) by the rest of the World (UN), was to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Are the efforts of the US and other nations against terror working?
All you have to do is ask this guy named Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI.

[Focker]

The Bombs of March
Countdown to War with Iran?
By MIKE WHITNEY
Iran will defend itself if it is attacked by the United States or Israel.
Defending one's country against unprovoked aggression is sanctioned under international law and is a requirement of true leadership. We would expect no different if either the United States or Israel was attacked.
The Sharon and Bush administrations' have done an admirable job of poisoning public opinion against Iran; interpreting President Ahmadinejad's comments as a potential danger to Israel's welfare. But such statements, however offensive, are commonplace in the Middle East and cannot be construed as a credible threat.
In fact, Iran has not demonstrated any territorial ambitions nor is it involved in the occupation of any foreign country as is true of both the United States and Israel.
Media-Hype; beating the war drums, again
The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in Iran's defense.
As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."
Nuclear weapons?
Perhaps, the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors don't? If so, they should step forward and reveal the facts. More likely, however, they are simply following in the tradition of mentor Judith Miller whose scurrilous front-pages articles misled the nation to war with Iraq.
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Not even George Bush would make that claim.
There's also no evidence that Iran has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. These are the two issues which should be given greatest consideration in determining whether or not Iran poses a real danger to its neighbors, and yet, these are precisely the facts that are absent from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in the last few days.
IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei has repeatedly stated that his team of inspectors, who've had the opportunity to "go anywhere and see anything", has found nothing to corroborate the assertions of the US or Israel.
On the other hand, we know that the U.S. has developed a new regime of low-yield "usable" nuclear weapons to destroy underground bunkers. We also know that the militarists in the Pentagon have threatened to use nuclear weapons in a "first strike" preemptive attack, and that the main players in the Defense Dept. unanimously believe that nuclear weapons should be used as part of America's strategy for global security.
Iran claims that developing nuclear weapons runs counter to their religious beliefs, while the Bush administration (as per the Nuclear Posture Review) believes that nuclear weapons are an integral part of the war on terror. Rumsfeld has even shaken up the Pentagon to further surround himself with like-minded people who support this basic thesis.
Perhaps, our fear of Iran is misplaced?
Presently, the administration is trying to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for violations that date back more than 2 years. Since then, there have been no violations and Iran has willingly complied with strict enforcement of its treaty obligations under the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) as well as other "confidence-building" measures which it freely accepted as a sign of good-will.
In truth, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under the terms of the NPT and has agreed to do so in a manner that is consistent with the strict rules of the IAEA. Iran will not, however, give up its "inalienable right" to convert uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making fuel for use in nuclear power plants.
No other nation except Iran has been asked to forgo its rights under the NPT. The Bush administration expects the UN to annul parts of the treaty simply to accommodate its unfounded suspicions. But, why should Iran agree to be treated like an underling just to satisfy Bush? After all, Iran initially signed the NPT as a way of reducing nuclear weapons while Israel, the U.S., and other nations were busy building a new generation of nukes.
Besides, the conversion process takes place in front of IAEA inspectors and cameras that are set up to film the entire procedure. The IAEA is required to report any violations to the UN Security Council for punitive action. The watchdog agency was very successful in analyzing the true state of Iraq's "alleged" nuclear program. There's no need to suspect that they won't succeed here as well. (Israel, Pakistan and India all avoided this regimen and developed nuclear weapons secretly)
The Last Straw
Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a critical role in disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq war, has been equally disingenuous regarding Iran.
"For two and a half years, we've been working with Iran and the rest of the international community to bring Iran into compliance with its very clear obligations not to do anything that leads to suspicions they are developing a nuclear weapons capability."
Straw knows, of course, that Iran has not violated its treaty obligations for over two years and has been in full compliance since then. His statement only confirms what reasonable people already know; Washington wants another war.
The Bush administration knows that there's no hope of passing a Security Council resolution for sanctions against Iran. Neither Russia nor China would agree to penalties nor is there any proof of wrongdoing. The case will simply be used to increase public suspicion and fear while Israel-Washington put the final touches on their battle plans.
It is worth noting, however, that Iran will be attacked without a shred of evidence that they have nuclear weapons, a nuclear weapons program, or even a long-range plan for hostilities against the US or Israel. In other words, they are completely innocent.
Now that the administration has abandoned the internationally recognized benchmark of an "imminent threat", it has also disposed of any other reasonable claim to justify unprovoked aggression. Iran will be attacked without pretext and without congressional or UN authorization invoking the executive authority to prosecute the war on terror by "all necessary and appropriate means".
The determination to attack Iran goes back more than a decade to now famous policy documents (PNAC) which support the idea of integrating Iranian resources into the global system while eliminating potential adversaries of Israel in the region. This first phase is intended to defang the regime and leave it vulnerable to future invasion or regime change.
The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes by Israel on perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites. Both Israel and the US have signaled to Iran that retaliation will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In fact, the Pentagon hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries in Latin America and Asia.
If Iran does respond with force, there's no telling how things will play out. The markets could nosedive, the dollar could fall precipitously, and vital oil shipments could be indefinitely disrupted. (Read the business page and see how jittery many analysts are) If the conflagration goes nuclear, then we can expect that China, Russia and Venezuela will take firm steps to demonstrate their disapproval. Oil shipments from Venezuela may be cut off while China stages a destructive sell-off of its $769 billion in foreign-exchange.
Then, of course, there's the likelihood that the attacks will draw the Iraqi Shiites into an alliance with the Sunni-backed resistance making occupation of Iraq even more tenuous. Or, perhaps the Mullahs will deploy state-sponsored jihadiis across the globe targeting American energy facilities and commercial interests. In any event, there could be hefty price to pay for Washington's recklessness.
Whatever the cost, the attack seems likely to be carried out sometime on or before March 2006 when Iran plans to open its new oil bourse. The new exchange which directly challenges the continued dominance of the greenback in the oil trade (the largest commodity traded in the world) poses an "existential threat" to the well-being of western financial institutions and elites.
Beyond the media subterfuge of "nuclear weapons" and "non-compliance", the empire is marching resolutely to war; voluntarily risking nuclear holocaust to preserve the system of privilege and concentrated wealth.
**** YOU

[INSman]

**** YOU
Yeah, what he said !! :)

[Blown 472]

Reading all 3 (so far) pages, it's obvious that there's a failure to communicate, so I'll try to paraphrase and clear things up.
1. Saudi Arabia and the 9-11 hi-jackers.
Every country has their radicals. We had Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and others. They were taught in our schools(sic). They became engrossed with in radical ideals and politics, and did things to damage property and kill people.
Same with Osama Bin Ladin and his followers. They broke away from their native Saudi and trained in other countries. Namely Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Iran (among others).
Do we bomb McVeigh's or Rudolf's home town. Of course not. Where they lived had nothing to do with it. Same with Saudi Arabia.
2. Iraq and our overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Sanctions were put on Iraq and Saddam, after the first Gulf War, where we turned back the invasion of Kuwait. The UN (meaning the world) placed those sanctions to protect the region. Saddam violated those sanctions. He was warned. Saddam violated them again. He was warned again, and violated them and warned and violated ad nauseum.
The UN enacted resolutions, again with a warning that if he didn't comply within a certain period of time, force would be used to make him comply. That time period allowed him to destroy or remove his WMD and evidence of their existence to another country, probably Syria.
The US, and forces from other countries, carried out the UN resolution, and took Saddam from power. If not for the terrorists, mostly from neighboring Iran and Syria (who DO NOT want a democratic nation in their region) attacking US troops, Iraqi civilians, infrastructure, mosques, schools, etc., kidnapping and beheading journalists and others, our job would have been done over a year ago.
The fact that Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps and sponsored terrorists, was just gravy. But the main mission, as authorized by, not only the United States Congress, but all but ordered (via Resolution) by the rest of the World (UN), was to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Are the efforts of the US and other nations against terror working?
All you have to do is ask this guy named Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI.
Show me a direct link to iraq and the 9/11 attacks as that is what we are talking about.

[Steve 1]

Bent stop reading that commie horsecrap that has you talking to yourself!

[Old Texan]

Show me a direct link to iraq and the 9/11 attacks as that is what we are talking about.
Blown your defense mechanism of "Show me" is not working. Your stubborness to admit is not working. Facts are facts.
Saddam was basically running a clearinghouse for terror. The facts have shown links to Mo Atta. Al Quaeda has been present in the country before, during, and after 911. They are a ghost organization and make no announcements as to their presence and ongoing plans. They change countries as needed because the hosts get restless knowing their presence invites attack by their enemies. It's all printed fact that doesn't make it into the paranoid subculture media to which you hold in such high esteem.
Or is your quest to see how much proof can be thrown your way only to be ignored?

[Jeanyus]

Show me a direct link to iraq and the 9/11 attacks as that is what we are talking about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/14/ixnewstop.html

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Show me a direct link to iraq and the 9/11 attacks as that is what we are talking about.
No blown, YOU SHOW ME where the administration claimed Iraqi responsibility.
No, don't show me where some pundit says the administrration says they claimed it, show me a dated, verifiable QUOTE, from a senior ranking member of the administration, saying that Iraq planned and/or caused the 11Sep01 WTC attack.
You will not find it. know why? Because such a quote does not exist. Why? No, not because they have sucessfully revised all the quotes on all the wire services, and all the news outlets, and all the blogs, but because IT WAS NEVER SAID. Find it and prove me wrong Blown, or shaddup about the BS. I am big enough to own up to being mistaken, I am correctable, BY VERIFIABLE FACTS. I pay no attention to accusation and inuendo, and even less to "appearance of impropriety".

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Reading all 3 (so far) pages, it's obvious that there's a failure to communicate, so I'll try to paraphrase and clear things up.
1. Saudi Arabia and the 9-11 hi-jackers.
Every country has their radicals. We had Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and others. They were taught in our schools(sic). They became engrossed with in radical ideals and politics, and did things to damage property and kill people.
Same with Osama Bin Ladin and his followers. They broke away from their native Saudi and trained in other countries. Namely Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Iran (among others).
Do we bomb McVeigh's or Rudolf's home town. Of course not. Where they lived had nothing to do with it. Same with Saudi Arabia.
2. Iraq and our overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Sanctions were put on Iraq and Saddam, after the first Gulf War, where we turned back the invasion of Kuwait. The UN (meaning the world) placed those sanctions to protect the region. Saddam violated those sanctions. He was warned. Saddam violated them again. He was warned again, and violated them and warned and violated ad nauseum.
The UN enacted resolutions, again with a warning that if he didn't comply within a certain period of time, force would be used to make him comply. That time period allowed him to destroy or remove his WMD and evidence of their existence to another country, probably Syria.
The US, and forces from other countries, carried out the UN resolution, and took Saddam from power. If not for the terrorists, mostly from neighboring Iran and Syria (who DO NOT want a democratic nation in their region) attacking US troops, Iraqi civilians, infrastructure, mosques, schools, etc., kidnapping and beheading journalists and others, our job would have been done over a year ago.
The fact that Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps and sponsored terrorists, was just gravy. But the main mission, as authorized by, not only the United States Congress, but all but ordered (via Resolution) by the rest of the World (UN), was to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Are the efforts of the US and other nations against terror working?
All you have to do is ask this guy named Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI.
Nicely and accurately summed up Boatcop, duly ignored by some.

[uclahater]

Jeanyus
Very good article!!!! :cool:
Blown is there anything you like about America :idea:

[canuck1]

Iraqs coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
Claims is the key word here and also being provided by a puppet government

[Steve 1]

Iraqs coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
Claims is the key word here and also being provided by a puppet government
They just had a election BTW Means a hell of a lot more than your lying leftist crap any day!

[canuck1]

They just had a election BTW Means a hell of a lot more than your lying leftist crap any day!
OK Spaz but that article was two years old and had about as much fact in it as one of your rants. If you read the first paragraph it is clearly stated "coalition government claims" Not anything to stake your bet on is it

[Steve 1]

OK I am a Idiot
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus120905.htm
Here from one of your papers !Now run along little guy!

[canuck1]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus120905.htm
Here from one of your papers !Now run along little guy!
????????

[Steve 1]

And Iran!
DUBAI, July 19 (Reuters) - An Iranian general collaborated with al Qaeda to arrange the transit through Iran of nine of the September 11 hijackers, the Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported

[Old Texan]

Excerpted from Canada Free Press article above:
I’m having a difficult time understanding how the Democrats manage to see everything either through the Vietnam window or the Watergate window. It is possible that there are only two realities for the Democrats, one being Vietnam and the other Watergate, as both these seem to coincide with a time when the Democrats were a force to be reckoned with? It’s as if the Democratic Party is slowly morphing into Alice in Wonderland’s tea Party. Question is, which better describes Howard Dean, the Mad Hatter or the March Hare? Maybe it all depends which window he happens to be looking through.
This is another thing I've about had my fill of: Comparison to Vietnam. I remeber well all the social misfits that toured the college campus speakers tour in the 60's-70's era. We listened to the drugged out ravings of Jerry Rubin, Abbe Hoffman, and Fonda's guy Tom Hayden. Also baby doc turned activist Dr. Ben Spock and activist defender of the infamous Chicago 7, Wild Bill Kunstsler. The after party was the place to be. Groupies, drugs, and music from Woodstock.
The party's normal venue was the Central Michigan campus 100 + year old Phys Ed building that doubled as the ROTC bldg. It had been liberated after the Kent State protests when the administration basically let it be occupied as security "fended off" takeover of the main admin hall.
The Student body activist leaders played good hosts and kept the national delegates high as kites until dawn. Old Ben was especially standout with his big grin and bald dome being polished by eager hippy coeds. I'll never forget a line I heard after one party by a 19 year old coed. Paul Puma was the campus movement pres and was a 5th yr Poly Sci major. To quote (inbest valley girl style),"Man, Paul was so stoked last night. He smoked a whole lid man."
Basically these guys are the predecessors to Howie Dean and John Kerry. All for the righteousness of the movement, down with government, "Revolution Man." Liberalism in it's infancy. Paranoia, contempt, complaints, and no f-ing plan.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/chicago7.html

[Blown 472]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/14/ixnewstop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
Funny, no other news orginazation could get this stunning info but these guys. Strange. And for all of yalls hand wringing and this and that, please answer a simple question.
A proven fact the flyers were trained in saudi, buy saudi funded skools, why no attack?? Think long and hard on this one.

[Blown 472]

Real Men Go to Tehran
By M. SHAHID ALAM
"Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran."
Senior Bush Official, May 2003
The United States and Israel have been itching to go to Tehran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. That Revolution was a strategic setback for both powers. It overthrew the Iranian monarchy, a great friend of the US and Israel, and brought to power the Shi'ite Mullahs, who saw themselves as the legitimate heirs of the Prophet's legacy, and, therefore, the true defenders of Islam.
As a result, the Iranian Revolution was certain to clash with both the US and Israel, as well as their client states in the Arab world. Israel was unacceptable because it was an alien intrusion that had displaced a Muslim people: it was a foreign implant in the Islamic heartland. But the US was the greater antagonist. On its own account, through Israel, and on the behalf of Israel, it sought to keep the Middle East firmly bound in the chains of American hegemony.
The US-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East had won a great victory in 1978. At Camp David, the leading Arab country, Egypt, chose to surrender its leadership of the Arab world, and signed a separate 'peace' with Israel. This freed Israel to pursue its plans to annex the West Bank and Gaza, and to project unchecked power over the entire region. The Arab world could now be squeezed between Israel in the West and Iran to the East, the twin pillars of US hegemony over the region's peoples and resources.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 ended this partnership. At that point, real men in Washington would have loved to take back Tehran from the Mullahs but for the inconvenience of Soviet opposition. But great powers are rarely stymied by any single development however adverse. It took little encouragement from Washington to get Iraq to mount an unprovoked invasion of Iran. In the twenti-eth century, few Arab leaders have seen the difference between entrapment and opportunity.
The war between Iran and Iraq served the United States and Israel quite well. It blunted the energies of Iran, diverting it from any serious attempts to export the revolution, or challenging American influence in the region. The Israeli gains were more substantial. With Egypt neutered at Camp David, and Iraq and Iran locked in a bloody war, Israel was free during the 1980s to do what it pleased. It expanded its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak, expelled the Palestinian fighters from Lebanon, and established a long-term occupation over much of Southern Lebanon. Israel was closer to its goal of commanding unchallenged power over the Middle East.
The end of the Cold War in 1990 offered a bigger opening to the United States and Israel. Freed from the Soviet check on their ambitions, and with Iran devastated by the war, the United States began working on plans to establish a military control over the region, in the style of earlier colonial empires. This happened quickly when, with American assurance of non-intervention in intra-Arab conflicts, Iraq invaded Kuwaiti in August 1990.
The US response was massive and swift. In January 1990, after assembling 600,000 allied troops in Saudi Arabia * about half of them American * it pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and mounted massive air strikes against Iraq itself, destroying much of its industry, power-generating capacity and infrastructure. The US had now established a massive military beachhead in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. It established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, continued its economic sanctions against Iraq, created a Kurdish autonomous zone in the north of Iraq, and, together with Britain, continued to bomb Iraq on a nearly daily basis for the next thirteen years.
With the US beachhead in place, where did the real men in the US and Israel want to go next? There was no secrecy about their plans. At a minimum, the Neoconservatives in the US and their Likud allies in Israel wanted 'regime change' in Iraq, Syria and Iran. This would be delivered by covert action, air strikes, or invasion * whatever it took * to be mounted by the US military. Israel would stay out of these wars, ready to reap the benefits of their aftermath.
The Likud plans were more ambitious. They wanted to redraw the map of the Middle East, using ethnic, sectarian, and religious differences to carve up the existing states in the region into weak micro-states that could be easily bullied by Israel. This was the Kivunim plan first made public in 1982. It would give Israel a thousand years of dominance over the Middle East.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 were the 'catalyzing event' that put these plans into motion. The US wasted no time in seizing the moment. Instantly, President George Bush declared a global war against terrorism. The first target of this war was Afghanistan, but this was only a sideshow. On January 29, 2002, the President announced his initial targets for regime change: the 'axis of evil' that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
The plan was to invade and consolidate control over Iraq as a base for operations against Iran, Syria and perhaps Saudi Arabia. This sequencing was based on two assumptions: that the invasion of Iraq would be a cake-walk and American troops would be greeted as liberators. The US invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003 and Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. It was indeed a cake-walk, and it appeared to television audiences that American troops were also being greeted as liberators. Understandably, the mood in Washington and Tel Aviv was triumphant. The US is unstoppable: it was time for real men now to go to Tehran.
Nearly three years after the Iraqi invasion, the real men are still stuck in Baghdad. Yes, there has been a great deal of talk about attacking Iran: plans in place for air strikes on Iran's revolutionary guards, on its nuclear installations and other WMD sites, and even talk of a ground invasion. There have been reports of spy flights over Iran and operations by special forces inside Iran. Israel too has been goading the US to strike, and if the US shrinks from this duty, threatening to go solo.
What has been holding back the real men in Washington and Tel Aviv? One reason of course is that the cake walk very quickly turned into a quagmire. The apparent Iraqi welcome was replaced by a growing and hardy insurgency, which has exacted a high toll on US plans for Iraq even though it was led mostly by Sunni Arabs. As a result, close to 150,000 US troops remain tied down in Iraq, with little prospect that they can be freed soon for action against Iran. Most Shi'ites aren't resisting the American occupation, but they are ready to take power in Iraq, and want the Americans to leave.
While the US cannot mount a full-scale invasion of Iran without a draft, it does possesses the capability * despite the Iraqi quagmire * to launch air and missile strikes at Iranian targets, using nuclear weapons to destroy underground weapon sites. On the other hand, despite its saber rattling, most analysts agree that Israel does not possess this capability on its own. Unlike Iraq, Iran has dispersed its nuclear assets to dozens of sites, some unknown. Then, why hasn't the US mounted air attacks against Iran yet? Or will it any time soon?
More and more, as the Americans have taken a more sober reckoning of Iran's political and military capabilities, they realize that Iran is not Iraq. When Osirak was attacked by Israel in June 1981, Iraq did nothing: it could do nothing. One thing is nearly certain: Iran will respond to any attack on its nuclear sites. Iran's nuclear program has the broadest public support: as a result, the Iranian Revolution would suffer a serious loss of prestige if it did nothing to punish the attacks. The question is: what can Iran do in retaliation?
Both the CIA and DIA have conducted war games to determine the consequences of an American air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to Newsweek (September 27, 2004), "No one liked the outcome." According to an Air Force source, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." In December 2004, The Atlantic Monthly reported similar results for its own war game on this question. The architect of these games, Sam Gardner, concluded, "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran."
What is the damage Iran can inflict? Since preparations for any US strike could not be kept secret, Iran may choose to preempt such a strike. According to the participants in the Atlantic Monthly war game, Iran could attack American troops across the border in Iraq. In responding to these attacks, the US troops would become even more vulnerable to the Iraqi insurgency. One participant expressed the view that Iran "may decide that a bloody defeat for the United States, even if it means chaos in Iraq, is something they actually prefer." Iran could also join hands with al-Qaida to mount attacks on civilian targets within the US. If Iranian losses mount, Iran may launch missiles against Israel or decide to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, options not considered in the Atlantic Monthly war game.
What are the realistic options available to the US? It could drag Iran to the UN Security Council and, if Russia and China climb on board, pass a motion for limited economic sanctions. Most likely, the US will not be asking for an Iraq-style oil embargo. Not only would this roil the markets for oil, Iran will respond by ending inspections, and accelerate its uranium enrichment. If Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear program, then it will, perhaps sooner rather than later, have its bomb. Once that happens, one Israeli official in the Newsweek report said, "Look at ways to make sure it's not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger." But the US and Israel have been pursuing that option since 1979.
It would appear that US-Israeli power over the Middle East, which had been growing since World War II, may have finally run into an obstacle. And that obstacle is Iran, a country the CIA had returned to a despotic monarch in 1953. Paradoxically, this has happened when American dominance over the region appears to be at its peak; when its troops occupy a key Arab country; when it has Iran sandwiched between US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and when it has trapped Iran inside a ring of US military bases running from Qatar, through Turkey and Tajikistan, to Pakistan.
Could it be that al-Qaida's gambit is beginning to pay off? It had hoped that the attacks of September 11 would provoke the US into invading the Islamic heartland. That the US did, but the mass upheaval al-Qaida had expected in the Arab streets did not materialize. Instead, it is Iran that has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion. As a result, it is Iran that now possesses the leverage to oppose US-Israeli aims in the region. Al-Qaida had not planned on a Shi'ite country leading the Islamic world.
It is possible that the US, choosing to ignore the colossal risks, may yet launch air attacks against Iran. President Bush could be pushed into this by pressure from messianic Christians, by Neoconservatives, by Israelis, or by the illusion that he needs to do something bold and desperate to save his presidency. By refusing to wilt under US-Israeli threats, it appears that the Iranians too may be following al-Qaida's logic. We cannot tell if this is what motivates Iran. But that is where matters will go if the US decides to attack or invade Iran.
No one have yet remarked on some eerie parallels between the US determination to deepen its intervention in the Islamic world and Napoleons' relentless pursuit of the Russian forces, retreating, drawing them into the trap of the Russian winter. It would appear that the United States too is irretrievably committed to pursuing its Islamic foe to the finish, to keep moving forward even if this risks getting caught in a harsh Islamic winter. On the other hand, the Neoconservatives, the messianic Christians, and the Israelis are convinced that with their searing firepower, the US and Israel will succeed and plant a hundred pliant democracies in the Middle East. We will have to wait and see if these real men ever get to add Tehran to their next travel itinerary * or they have to give up the comforts of the Green Zone in Baghdad.

[Steve 1]

Look at the crap you post bent !!!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Iraqs coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
Claims is the key word here and also being provided by a puppet government
The last bastion of those who can't stand sucess, and have to deny reality ... The term "Puppet Government".
I guess W Germany (and so by extension the current German govt), France, Japan, and Italy are all "Puppet Govts. since WE installed those too. The Iraqi govt has been making it's own decisions since late 2003, without those decisions being steered or altered by us. The US Govt HAS NOT BEEN telling the Iraqi govt what to do a-la Poland/Yugoslavia/Czecoslovakia of the 50's thru 80's. THOSE govts had direct marching orders ISSUED BY THE KREMLIN.
3 elections Canuck, 3!
Every one with a LARGER VOTER TURNOUT than any US Presidential election in the past 100 years (now THAT'S a sad embarasament).

[SmokinLowriderSS]

OK Spaz but that article was two years old and had about as much fact in it as one of your rants. If you read the first paragraph it is clearly stated "coalition government claims" Not anything to stake your bet on is it
Yes, "CLAIMS" ..... Now why? Aparently they learned a lesson on vetting paperwork before swearing to it from CBS. Good thing they aren't taking lessons from the now retired reporter or his director who STILL THINK a mid 70's IBM typewriter belonging to the US govt had superscript abilities like 2002 Microsoft Word.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Canuck, I posted the the link info 5 MINUITES after I read it, AN HOUR BEFORE I normally even get home from WORK. 3:43PM CST, I live 45 min from work and don't normally leave till 3:30 so don't cry to me or accuse me of yanking your chain for 12 hours. I was earning a paycheck since 5AM and spent the afternoon in family court while you 2 pi$$ed back & forth. I was trying to avoid the threadlocking you 2 caused. Enjoy

[Blown 472]

Yes, "CLAIMS" ..... Now why? Aparently they learned a lesson on vetting paperwork before swearing to it from CBS. Good thing they aren't taking lessons from the now retired reporter or his director who STILL THINK a mid 70's IBM typewriter belonging to the US govt had superscript abilities like 2002 Microsoft Word.
Now I am confuesed, if a paper makes a "claim" that is in your favor it is ok, but if there is a "claim" from something else that you don't agree with it is hogwash and liberal crap and you are going to rip it apart. Sorta double standard you have there. :rolleyes:

[Steve 1]

Bent the troll

[canuck1]

Canuck, I posted the the link info 5 MINUITES after I read it, AN HOUR BEFORE I normally even get home from WORK. 3:43PM CST, I live 45 min from work and don't normally leave till 3:30 so don't cry to me or accuse me of yanking your chain for 12 hours. I was earning a paycheck since 5AM and spent the afternoon in family court while you 2 pi$$ed back & forth. I was trying to avoid the threadlocking you 2 caused. Enjoy
Thank You for posting the link that we were asking Stevey for

[canuck1]

The last bastion of those who can't stand sucess, and have to deny reality ... The term "Puppet Government".
I guess W Germany (and so by extension the current German govt), France, Japan, and Italy are all "Puppet Govts. since WE installed those too. The Iraqi govt has been making it's own decisions since late 2003, without those decisions being steered or altered by us. The US Govt HAS NOT BEEN telling the Iraqi govt what to do a-la Poland/Yugoslavia/Czecoslovakia of the 50's thru 80's. THOSE govts had direct marching orders ISSUED BY THE KREMLIN.
3 elections Canuck, 3!
Every one with a LARGER VOTER TURNOUT than any US Presidential election in the past 100 years (now THAT'S a sad embarasament).
Was not the coalition government put in place by the military and not voted in? So it would seem that it was a puppet government untill the first elections were held

[Steve 1]

Thank You for posting the link that we were asking Stevey for
I was going to make you pay $$ fat mouth !!You must live in a cave no contact with the outside world except the local Party chief's Provada!

[Steve 1]

Was not the coalition government put in place by the military and not voted in? So it would seem that it was a puppet government untill the first elections were held
Again the Drowning rat tries to cling to a floating leaf!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Now I am confuesed, if a paper makes a "claim" that is in your favor it is ok, but if there is a "claim" from something else that you don't agree with it is hogwash and liberal crap and you are going to rip it apart. Sorta double standard you have there. :rolleyes:
I'm having trouble recalling me MAKING any claims to ANY effect on the info from 2 years ago. I haven't seen fit to chase the info and attempt to prove or disprove. Now, the 60-Minuites story I alluded to, was trashed LESS THAN AN HOUR AFTER IT AIRED! THAT story of falsified paperwork has been fully vetted, and proven to be forgeries. Yet Danny boy still thinks the STORY IS TRUE, even without proof. The broad still thinks the forgeries are NOT PROVEN TO BE FORGERIES YET, not in her mind.
Lessee ... I told ya where to find it, I made a post about the "puppet govt" crack, but, though I'm willing to bet the story IS true, I CANNOT AND WILL NOT CLAIM IT AS PROVEN BECAUSE I HAVE NOT CHASED IT DOWN YET TO CROSS-SOURCE IT OR FIND MORE RECENT INFO.
No, unlike you Blown, no double-standard exists here.
Here ya go, "The Israelis planted the papers".

[SnoopJonnyJon]

After reading this whole thread one thing keeps coming up that I disagree with, and that is refering to the enemy as "radical islam". The fact is, islam as a WHOLE is radical. It is not a peaceful religion, and it does not make sense to treat it as such. There isn't just a small number of people that want us dead, there are many MILLIONS. It is a left wing line often repeated that "all religions are equal". This however is an enormous load of crap. Christianity and Judaism are totally alone in that they are the only religions not founded upon lies. It's popular to claim that there is only a tiny fringe of muslims want to kill us, but its far more mainstream than the liberal media would ever admit. Only last month my sister was in an airport waiting to pick someone up, and this arab FAMILY (old ladies right down to small children, about 20 in all) saw her sitting there. She was just sitting there minding her own business and the men of the group came up to her and starting spitting on her feet. They started yelling out "filthy Jew" and told her that it would be worth blowing up the airport to kill her. Then stated "It would be worth blowing up every airport in the world to kill one Jew." And this is taking place in REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN, a little hole in the wall farming town. They did get arrested, but the incident never even made a mention in the local paper...
Another example that I PERSONALLY am aware of... not just reading an article, I actually know the man... is a man that I met on vacation in California as a child. I was about 13 at the time, so don't ask me too many extra details, because I just don't remember, but I will be sure to only give details that I do remember accurately. He was living in California selling clothes at outdoor flea-markets, but his wife and family still lived in Isreal. In the 80's he was a successful boxer and had qualified to fight in the Olympics. Well, some arabs discovered that his mother was half palestinian. Since he was part palestinian, they told him that if he fought in the Olympics for Isreal, they would kill his entire family. He chose not to fight, however his sister died in a bus-bombing shortly after. In a separate instance, he was in a bus-bombing and was one of only a couple survivors.
At the root of all conflict in the world is anti-semitism. This is how it always has been and will remain that way. Isreal will always be the most important country in the world, regardless of population or military power. Liberals would like to view this as though Isreal is the problem, if we simply give the anti-Christ what he wants (Isreal), he will leave the rest of us alone. But this is simply not an option. God gave the Jews Isreal, and it is the entire Christian world's duty to protect Isreal. It is essential to do so to be able to maintain our way of life, including the lives of secular humanistic liberals. Perhaps it would be possible to choose the side of the anti-Christ ( the old "can't beat em, join 'em philosophy), but I know which side of the battle I want to have been on when I die. But even for the totally God-less individual, we must still fight the muslims, because to them, everyone that isn't a muslim is the enemy.
How can you possibly fight a war when you don't even recognize the enemy? The muslims view us as the enemy, and until we recogniize that the ENTIRE muslim faith is the enemy, we don't have a chance.

[Blown 472]

After reading this whole thread one thing keeps coming up that I disagree with, and that is refering to the enemy as "radical islam". The fact is, islam as a WHOLE is radical. It is not a peaceful religion, and it does not make sense to treat it as such. There isn't just a small number of people that want us dead, there are many MILLIONS. It is a left wing line often repeated that "all religions are equal". This however is an enormous load of crap. Christianity and Judaism are totally alone in that they are the only religions not founded upon lies. It's popular to claim that there is only a tiny fringe of muslims want to kill us, but its far more mainstream than the liberal media would ever admit. Only last month my sister was in an airport waiting to pick someone up, and this arab FAMILY (old ladies right down to small children, about 20 in all) saw her sitting there. She was just sitting there minding her own business and the men of the group came up to her and starting spitting on her feet. They started yelling out "filthy Jew" and told her that it would be worth blowing up the airport to kill her. Then stated "It would be worth blowing up every airport in the world to kill one Jew." And this is taking place in REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN, a little hole in the wall farming town. They did get arrested, but the incident never even made a mention in the local paper...
Another example that I PERSONALLY am aware of... not just reading an article, I actually know the man... is a man that I met on vacation in California as a child. I was about 13 at the time, so don't ask me too many extra details, because I just don't remember, but I will be sure to only give details that I do remember accurately. He was living in California selling clothes at outdoor flea-markets, but his wife and family still lived in Isreal. In the 80's he was a successful boxer and had qualified to fight in the Olympics. Well, some arabs discovered that his mother was half palestinian. Since he was part palestinian, they told him that if he fought in the Olympics for Isreal, they would kill his entire family. He chose not to fight, however his sister died in a bus-bombing shortly after. In a separate instance, he was in a bus-bombing and was one of only a couple survivors.
At the root of all conflict in the world is anti-semitism. This is how it always has been and will remain that way. Isreal will always be the most important country in the world, regardless of population or military power. Liberals would like to view this as though Isreal is the problem, if we simply give the anti-Christ what he wants (Isreal), he will leave the rest of us alone. But this is simply not an option. God gave the Jews Isreal, and it is the entire Christian world's duty to protect Isreal. It is essential to do so to be able to maintain our way of life, including the lives of secular humanistic liberals. Perhaps it would be possible to choose the side of the anti-Christ ( the old "can't beat em, join 'em philosophy), but I know which side of the battle I want to have been on when I die. But even for the totally God-less individual, we must still fight the muslims, because to them, everyone that isn't a muslim is the enemy.
How can you possibly fight a war when you don't even recognize the enemy? The muslims view us as the enemy, and until we recogniize that the ENTIRE muslim faith is the enemy, we don't have a chance.
HOly shit load batman. Go eat some matzos and wail at the wall.

[HighRoller]

HOly shit load batman. Go eat some matzos and wail at the wall.
Wise words from Adolf Hitler Jr!!! Can you preach wise about how the Jews have conspired to end the world with their motion pictures?

[Steve 1]

HOly shit load batman. Go eat some matzos and wail at the wall.
You guys see ole Bent here is a homemade Muslim, which goes in line with this nazi thinking ----> The New Nazi. Or Islamic bomber ,coward and cave dwelling baby killer.
Let’s get this straight "Ole Bent one" The Jews have been around for what 5000+ years and in the mean time the other religions also were being practiced. THEN get this 1440 years ago God reappears –With me so far Bent?? I will try to type slowly.
NOW BENT Again; God reappears only in a Psychotic state this time stealing the Old pagan Arab moon gods name Allah Wait there is more This unfailing always CORRECT ALLAH says hold it I made a MISTAKE (got it?) before!!! this is the religion you should pratice ISLAM HELLO bent you still reading!!
Only this time the Illiterate pedophile Mohammed hears voices in his head and writes it in classic Arabic on leaves hides and anything else they could find laying around while stoned in his cave!
When the Qur’an itself is full of MISTAKES (But Bent how can this be?) in science, math, history again this from the alleged never wrong Allah, Like the earth is Flat., They conquered with gangs of rapists savages and murders with his allahs blessing.
They claim their Allah and our God are one the same WRONG!
The high God in their case would be satin

[Blown 472]

Wise words from Adolf Hitler Jr!!! Can you preach wise about how the Jews have conspired to end the world with their motion pictures?
Please refer your answer to bench racers.

[Steve 1]

Do you have a gurlfriend? get some in the last year?
gurl? what the fuccs that bent some ugly smelly hag you would visit!

[Jeanyus]

HOly shit load batman. Go eat some matzos and wail at the wall.
Words of wisdom from a true jackass.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

HOly shit load batman. Go eat some matzos and wail at the wall.
Ya see, once again, you hit blown with a pile of innoscent facts, each one relatively minor on their own, total them up into a big picture for them, and all he can spit up is profane BS. The usual, pathetic blown, beyond pathetic.

[Blown 472]

Ya see, once again, you hit blown with a pile of innoscent facts, each one relatively minor on their own, total them up into a big picture for them, and all he can spit up is profane BS. The usual, pathetic blown, beyond pathetic.
Did you even read that crap or are you just bandwagoning again?

[Steve 1]

Mohammed Bent!