Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 126

Thread: You read it here first boyz and gurls.

  1. #1
    Blown 472
    The Bombs of March
    Countdown to War with Iran?
    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.
    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.

  2. #2
    Stevey is going to spin.....

  3. #3
    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!!

  4. #4
    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

  5. #5
    Steve 1
    You guys need to stop reading that leftist drivel and join the real world! Of course an education would not hurt either!

  6. #6
    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!

  7. #7
    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)?".

  8. #8
    great post but one question I have for you
    How do you win a war against a religion?

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    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.

Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. You read it here first gurls and boyz, grab your ankles
    By Blown 472 in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-22-2006, 07:18 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-16-2006, 05:51 PM
  3. You read it here first boyz and gurls
    By Blown 472 in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-21-2006, 04:14 AM
  4. yo yo boyz
    By Blown 472 in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-14-2003, 04:20 AM
    By TUNNEL T 20.2 in forum Outboards
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-21-2003, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts