Such a beautiful mushroom cloud!

Got to ratchet up the tension. Try to get one more war going. Impeach these lunatics.

BTW, any attack on Iran conducted by Bushco can be blamed directly on Nancy Pelosi, the sell out Speaker of the House. Throw her out, even Cindy Sheehan would be a better congressman than Pelosi.

Openly bombing them would be a huge mistake. But through identification and pressure like this it will make Ahmedinejad administration look more bizarre and out of touch with the wishes of the powerless Iranian youth.

I keep telling folks, Islam is a demonic religion and the people living under it are unaware and continue to suffer. This is the devil's fake currency. And Hollywood is scared to death to portray the evils of Islamic movements in harming economies, peoples, and civilizations worldwide.

Philippines, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Thailand, Somalia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, you name it.....

The sad part is that liberals will jump in and defend them.

The number one threat in the world is Islamic radicalism followed by liberals who have no moral guides.

""The sad part is that liberals will jump in and defend them.""

No the stupid part is that right wing nuts will jump in and start wars with them.

Of course they are terrorists. It was Ahmedinejad himself who helped take our countrymen hostage in 1979!

Nuke 'em!

What moral guides? Your false religion and mis-placed patriotism?
You blindly support a "government" that is truly a terrorist organization. They pursue a policy of dominion over all humanity.

You are only 1/3 right. You forgot christians and jews.
None have morals. All should suffer for supporting their corrupt ideology.

"Throw her out, even Cindy Sheehan would be a better congressman than Pelosi."

Cindy could never be a better man than Pelosi, Danni.

"Got to ratchet up the tension. Try to get one more war going. Impeach these lunatics."

You talking about THESE lunatics. Danni???

"The deployment of the Basiji in the mine fields shows what one can expect from the Mullah-Regime By Matthias Kntzel

In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children's necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.

"In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela'at, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes could henceforth be avoided, Ettela'at assured its readers. "Before entering the mine fields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."[1]

The children who thus rolled to their deaths formed part of the mass "Basij" movement that was called into being by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The Basij Mostazafan the "mobilization of the oppressed" consisted of short-term volunteer militias. Most of the Basij members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically and by the thousands to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War has recalled, "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."[2]

The western media showed little interest for the Basiji perhaps because journalists could not be present during the hostilities or perhaps because they did not believe the reports. Such disinterest has persisted to this day. The 5000 dead of Saddam Hussein's poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja have remained in our memory. History has forgotten the children of the minefields.

Today, however, Ahmadinejad appears in public in his Basiji uniform. During the war, he served as one of the Basiji instructors who turned children into martyrs. The generation that fought in the Iran-Iraq War has come to power along with Ahmadinejad. He owed his election in Summer 2005 to the contemporary Basiji movement. In Fall, he announced a "Basiji Week." According to a report in the newspaper Kayan, some 9 million Basiji heeded the call, "forming a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long ... . In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out."[3] In his speeches, Ahmadinejad praises the "Basiji culture" and the "Basiji power" with which "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage." Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Chair of the Guardian Council, goes so far as to describe the very existence of Iran's nuclear program as a triumph of those Iranians who "serve the Basiji movement and possess the Basiji-psyche and Basiji-culture."[4]

Question for you Danni, sweetie, who HATES and DESPISES so much. Can you tell me where this quote comes from:

"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country or pretending that you love your country but despise your government."

The western media showed little interest for the Basiji perhaps because journalists could not be present during the hostilities or perhaps because they did not believe the reports. Such disinterest has persisted to this day. The 5000 dead of Saddam Hussein's poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja have remained in our memory. History has forgotten the children of the minefields.
===
Because they didn't exist.

Bit like Iraqis stealing the incubators in Kuwait city.

I don't have any idea but I think the truth of that sentence really depends on what government you are ruled by. Your own post right above demonstrates quite rightly that an Iranian might love his country but hate his government quite patriotically.

Get a clue JEST....we cannot invade or go to war with every nation that doesn't treat their people fairly or even humanely, do you want us to bomb China....there are plenty of human rights abuses there???
I say it again, reinstitute the draft, let all these right winger's kids be drafted and we'll see how anxious they are then to start some more unnecessary wars.
How is that last one you idiots started going????
Finish the disaster you started in Iraq before you start another on next door.

ODIE, the right uses any method necessary to justify more wars, even if they have to make shit up.

"I don't have any idea but I think the truth of that sentence really depends on what government you are ruled by. Your own post right above demonstrates quite rightly that an Iranian might love his country but hate his government quite patriotically."

It was Bill Clinton, Danni. I guess you disagree with him.

"Get a clue JEST....we cannot invade or go to war with every nation that doesn't treat their people fairly or even humanely, do you want us to bomb China....there are plenty of human rights abuses there???"

Hey, I agree with you. However, China isn't a threat to us...Iran IS. Especially if they develop that nuke. I'm not advocating an attack, just some kind of countermeasure. Making nice isn't going to work with those folks. Iraq wasn't the threat everyone THOUGHT it was, but now that we're there we would be compounding the mistake to just "leave."
Don't forget, Bosnia wasn't a threat, and neither is Pakistan where Obama wants to invade. You kinda have "selective" hate sometimes.

Clinton was wrong.

It wasn't the first time he was mistaken and in 1995 when he gave that speech it wasn't the last time he would be wrong either.

You can most certainly despise the actions of your government while loving your country. To say otherwise is a fallacy on its face and inaccurate as it pertains to the history of this great nation of dissenters.

China isn't a threat to us.

"Because they didn't exist.

Bit like Iraqis stealing the incubators in Kuwait city."

And like the Holocaust myth, and the fake moon landing, and Muslims flying planes into the WTC....Is this a myth too???

"In 1980, the Ayatollah Khomeini called the Iraqi invasion of Iran a "divine blessing." The war provided the perfect opportunity to Islamize both Iranian society and the institutions of the Iranian state. Within no time, Khomeini's fanatically devoted Revolutionary Guard the Pasdaran had been transformed into a proper army in its own right, complete with navy and air force. At the same time, the regime hastened to develop a popular militia: the Basij Mostazafan.

Within just a few weeks, teenage boys between 12 and 17 as well as men over 45 had been prepared for war. During training, lack of weaponry was compensated by a surplus of religious propaganda. When their training was done, each Basij received a blood-red headband that designated him a "Volunteer for Martyrdom."

On the battlefield, the Basiji, representing 30% of the armed forces as such, constituted the greater part of the infantry. The Pasdaran represented some 40% of the armed forces and the regular army the remaining 30%.[6] The members of the Pasdaran had generally obtained a higher level of education than the Basiji, who mostly came from the countryside and were often illiterate. While the Basiji were sent to the frontlines, the Pasdaran brought up the rear. As a rule, the Pasdaran would be sent into battle when successive waves of Basiji had already been killed off.[7]"

Here's a suggestion: Let's ask our good friends and close allies in Libya what to do about Iran. They'll know. Won't they?

China is a huge threat to this nation, or have you forgotten the tainted food and contaminated toys?

Are you saying that is purposful?

That's silly. China wants to build up their economy, we're one of the countries that send them the most money... if they keep screwing up like this, they'll lose a lot of business.

"if they keep... "

That is undoubtedly the single most obtuse remark I've read on the Retort this morning. We are so far into China's tank that I'm surprised we haven't forsaken knives and forks for chopsticks. "They'll lose a lot of business." Are you kidding? Better learn how to kow-tow and mind your manners, round eye.

""It was Bill Clinton, Danni. I guess you disagree with him.""

I don't care who said it, as my comments demonstrate, it is nonsense. Should the Iranian people not despise their government, should Iraqis not have despised Saddam???

""Hey, I agree with you. However, China isn't a threat to us...Iran IS.""

Just how is Iran a threat to the US???
And don't be foolish, China will be a threat to us, and we are financing the build up of their military for them, isn't that nice of us??

""Don't forget, Bosnia wasn't a threat, and neither is Pakistan where Obama wants to invade.""

Sorry to bother you with facts but we didn't invade Bosnia, NATO did.
Also Obama doesn't want to invade Pakistan, he just agrees with our law, and all of the Republican contenders for president who also would not rule out going in after Bin Laden or Al Quaeda in the event that Mushareff could not....which is exactly what Obama said contrary to your right wing dishonest mischaracterization of his words.
Y'all must be afraid of Obama, virtually all the righties find it necessary to lie about him, but then you probably don't realize you are lying since really you are just repeating right wing talking points. Clue...the talking points are lies.

? Better learn how to kow-tow and mind your manners, round eye.

I love the idiots who think we're just half a second away from being taken over by China. I know its not right to laugh at retards, but damnit I just can't help it with you Chinatards...

And we can't help it with you retards.

well according to michael ware this morning on cnn this doesnt mean anything anyway.....
that this doesnt mean we can do even the banking things that the article says......and you know those cnn reporters...they know everything about everything.....
he said it was like throwing a glass of water on a raging house fire, so why all the uproar from you socialist, anyway?

ohj yeah.........it might actually do something to help bring victory in the region....
well shit sherlock, we cant have none of that now can we?

And don't be foolish, China will be a threat to us, and we are financing the build up of their military for them, isn't that nice of us?

There is no military in the world, that is even close to standing up to the United States. Just because a bunch of savages know how to plant a couple bombs under dead dogs in Iraq, doesn't mean that any nation could go toe-to-toe against the full force of our Army, Navy and Air Force.

That doesn't mean we should seek war with China or Iran or whoever, we absolutely shouldn't. But if they were to ever choose war, we would literaly wreck them. Yes China is getting stronger, but they will always be playing catch up to our forces.

Question for you Danni, sweetie, who HATES and DESPISES so much. Can you tell me where this quote comes from:

"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country or pretending that you love your country but despise your government."

Posted by jestgettinalong


President Clinton said this. Danni doesn't dignify your patronizing tone, so I won't either.

He was responding to comments, past, current and future, like these. DeLay, as usual, was the biggest scumbag of all. Close thing, though.

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning ... I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

Just because a bunch of savages know how to plant a couple bombs under dead dogs in Iraq, doesn't mean that any nation could go toe-to-toe against the full force of our Army, Navy and Air Force.

My guess is you're probably not well informed about asymmetrical warfare. Pity.

Are you saying that is purposful?

"Y'all must be afraid of Obama, virtually all the righties find it necessary to lie about him, but then you probably don't realize you are lying since really you are just repeating right wing talking points."

Virtually ALL the righties are afraid of him??? Not this "rightie." First of all, he won't win the primaries and be the candidate, secondly, I still wouldn't be "afraid" of him. His election surely wouldn't destroy the country.
Yeah, Danni, I just repeat right wing talking points and lie and you just repeat left wing talking points and lie. Difference is, I don't "hate" the politicians, you, or your little friends. You have your panties wadded up ALL the time.

My guess is you're probably not well informed about asymmetrical warfare. Pity.

Posted by hayduke

Do you realize the United States military is rapidly approaching the era where we will not have to send soldiers into battle anymore. UAVs like the Predator are becoming outdated technology for us compared to what is coming out now. Is china even close to such technology? Hell we're starting to work on unmanned sea vessels... by the time China thinks they could put up a fight against us, we could destroy them without having a soldier close to their country... And soon we'll have the ability to knock out anything they try to send over the pacific as well...

There is no military in the world, that is even close to standing up to the United States.

True. But how's that working out in Iraq? How does that help when even five or ten Chinese or Russian nukes get through our defenses? Mutual Assured destruction takes care of the nuke problem as well as anything can. The Iraq problem is taken care of by either not doing it in the first place which is the best solution or, if doing it, don't fuck it up beyond belief.

Our problem is terrorism and asymmetric warfare. You can't bomb that into submission. You go after it in Waziristan and you co-operate with the rest of the world to stamp it out.

and let out little family here note that all of the dates given by bluein gave us were said PRIOR TO 9.11.........more proof that the left wishes that it would just go away and they have no clue that our world changed on that day. if they could get some use out of it though, you can bet that they would be talking about it all the time.,,

and more news...have you noticed that for the past several reports of bombings, that they have come more and more from the north and northwest parts of iraq.......away from bagdad and closer to iran....

maybe the supply lines from hitler with the bad suit are getting harder to keep up all the way to bagdad......

OR could it possibly be that we are running more and more of the enemy out of bagdad...........

no, guess not because that would be admitting growing success in the war DECLARED BY the congress of the US when they signed the order giving the pres the power to use force.

Now we're warning you that Iran is a fools errand and you're still not listening.


Ummm... no one is attacking Iran, and we're not going to. That doesn't mean they can't take a hardline stance against groups like their Revolutionary Guard. You guys have been saying we're going to war with Iran for the last year...

""Yeah, Danni, I just repeat right wing talking points and lie and you just repeat left wing talking points and lie.""

Go listen to Obama's statement. He never said what you said he said.
Then go find some statement by me that puts words in a Republican's mouth.
After that come back and apologize because you won't find such words.
If you want to take credit for the mischaracterization of Obama's words fine, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't knowingly lie, but have it your way, you lied about Obama.

""That doesn't mean they can't take a hardline stance against groups like their Revolutionary Guard.""

Just trying to goad them into attacking American troops in Iraq. Thereby justifying an attack on Iran. It is pretty obvious to the rest of the world what Bush is up to.

How does that help when even five or ten Chinese or Russian nukes get through our defenses?

They're not going to do that... just because the USSR is gone, doesn't mean MAD doesn't apply. Russia and China know that any nuclear attack will be responded to in kind, and we know that too. Russia, China, US, the UK, etc will never use nukes against each other.

Our problem is terrorism and asymmetric warfare. You can't bomb that into submission.

Right now, sure... But people were talking about war with China... We're not going to invade China, and they can't invade us, so we could bomb them into submission if they ever chose war with us (we're not going to choose war with them).

Just trying to goad them into attacking American troops in Iraq.

Why would saying, "Your revolutionary guard is a terrorist organization" cause them to attack our soldiers in Iraq? It would seem if they did that, then such a designation would be an accurate one.

Danni if Iran did attack and kill US soldiers in an unprovoked and preemptive strike would you support the United States responding?

Ummm... no one is attacking Iran, and we're not going to.

I've decided BLUEINBUSHLAND needs to IMMEDIATELY buy a ticket to D.C. and if Bush won't listen to him, jump into this campaign and run for president. I'm convinced he has all the answers.

If you believe our Government, which lies pathologically, then Iranians are all terrorists and we make and use the planets largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction just to defend ourselves. Given the White House response to the North Korean detonation, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon?

The truth is BushCo has killed more innocent people during the last five years than Israel, the previous Iraqi regime and al Qaida combined. We operate foriegn policy like armed gangsters imposing our will on weaker nations while leaving the more powerful ones alone. Like a bunch of fucking animals who haven't learned anything from teachers such as Jesus, Ghandi, or Martin Luther King.

Rob, I don't make comments on right wing hypothetical attacks. Especially incredibly stupid ones.

Rob, in this instance I hope to God you are right about that. I really wish I had your faith in the self control of this Administration.

It was pretty much exactly this time last year that every liberal here was saying we were on the precipice of war with Iran, especially with the midterm elections coming up... never happened.

Not going to, at least it won't be started by us. If Iran attacks us, then we should destroy them... Agree?

Rob, I don't make comments on right wing hypothetical attacks. Especially incredibly stupid ones.

Posted by danni


It wouldn't be right wing...

If Iran attacked and killed United States soldiers, would you support retaliation against Iran?

Just trying to goad them into attacking American troops in Iraq. Thereby justifying an attack on Iran. It is pretty obvious to the rest of the world what Bush is up to.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-15 09:58 AM | Reply |


but danni......iran is providing arms and support to people who are killing americans......cant you say that they have already started a confrontation?
or will you and others try and twist it into something that is our fault that they are training and arming our enemy?

""If Iran attacks us, then we should destroy them... Agree?""

So let's do everything we can to make them attack us right Rob??? That seems to be the Bush plan.

and I am looking forward to your answer to robs question.,.....this should be good

thats what I thought,.....you answer was NO answer but another question.....damn you socialist are sneaky...............hee hee

""but danni......iran is providing arms and support to people who are killing americans......cant you say that they have already started a confrontation?""

But we should just ignore Saudi Arabia where the majority of foreign fighters and weapons are coming from.
I'd really like to see some real documentation about how many arms and how much support is coming from Iran and causing American deaths.
I'm sorry, but Bush has a history of exaggerating threats and justifying war with false intelligence.
Fool America once shame on Bush
Fool America again shame on America.

"If you want to take credit for the mischaracterization of Obama's words fine, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't knowingly lie, but have it your way, you lied about Obama." Posted by DANNI


Here's what he said, Danni...and I happen to agree with him. Looks like he's threatening to go into Pakistan to me. SOMEBODY needs to.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qa'eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Barack Obama said at the Woodrow Wilson.

BL, liberals, including me supported the invasion of Afghanistan didn't we.

nuf said.

Question for y'all, if we are fooled by false intelligence into invading or bombing Iran who's fault is it? The Iranians, The administrations or your own???

I've decided BLUEINBUSHLAND needs to IMMEDIATELY buy a ticket to D.C. and if Bush won't listen to him, jump into this campaign and run for president. I'm convinced he has all the answers.

Posted by jestgettinalong


Jest...,

Surely, you do. I have no political experience, I don't have that kind of money. I could hardly do worse than the current incumbent, though. Could I?

I'd immediately make you Ambassador to Oz or Mordor since you live in a fantasy world anyway.

Rob,

If Iran entered the Iraqi stage as an army? Yes, I agree with you as that would be an overt act of war and most definitely actionable.

But the same argument of how tenable the retaliatory action would be, applies and begs the further question of the viability of war in both Iraq and Iran without re-instituting the draft.

Do you think it is possible to be at war on both stages and still keep the Draft off the table?

"I'd immediately make you Ambassador to Oz or Mordor since you live in a fantasy world anyway."

I would respectfully have to decline. You don't really think I would serve in YOUR administration, do you? You'd be happier with Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, I think.

So let's do everything we can to make them attack us right Rob???

All this administration said, is this group is a terrorist group. IF they are not, then the Administration will look silly when they don't attack right? But if they were to attack and kill Americans then it would seem the United States was right about them.

You still haven't answered the question.

I've decided BLUEINBUSHLAND needs to IMMEDIATELY buy a ticket to D.C. and if Bush won't listen to him, jump into this campaign and run for president. I'm convinced he has all the answers.

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-08-15 10:03 AM |


I thought tonyroma(little t) had already decided to do this.

It'll be hard for them both. Blogging, bitching, dreaming and assuming are difficult responsibilities to vacate just to be CIC.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qa'eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Barack Obama said at the Woodrow Wilson.

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-08-15 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you think it is possible to be at war on both stages and still keep the Draft off the table?

Posted by TreesGoneWild


It depends on the type of retaliation really. If it were just a quick retaliation with air strikes and thats all, kind of like Kosovo back in Clinton's admin, then I doubt we would need such an increase in soldiers. If we're talking a Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom style invasion of Iran, then most certainly we would need a draft... or one hell of coaltion...

That thought just comes to mind that I would hope NATO would fully back the United States if Americans were killed in an unprovoked attacked, so maybe we would have enough allied forces. If they didn't then what the frig is the point of NATO?

I dont believe that this was to attack them anyway but to tell the world that iran is behind arming and training terrorists suicide bombing bastards....

and to make it harder for them to get financing.....

its only the left wing wackos who believe its just to attack iran.

Jest, you do know the difference between a surgical strike against a target of value and an all out invasion of a sovereign nation, don't you?




Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-08-15 10:22 AM | Reply


Yes, one is an invasion and the other is a surgical strike, but both are attacks on a sovereign nation.
You wouldn't mind if Russia bombed a Washington DC Apartment Complex because we had a Chechen Warlord there would you?

Question for y'all, if we are fooled by false intelligence into invading or bombing Iran who's fault is it?

The only way I would support a preemptive attack on Iraq was if we were shown irrefutable proof, and I mean zero chance of error, that they were literally fueling missiles to attack our forces or allies... hell I'd almost prefer that they actually fired them and we knocked them out with patriot missiles.

Just Bush up there saying, "They're trying to get a nuke," will not lead me to support a campaign against Iran.

If Iran attacks first though, that's a completely different story, then any retaliation is justified.

"Do you think it is possible to be at war on both stages and still keep the Draft off the table?"

Pardon my jumping in here, but I don't think so. I thought it was a mistake when the draft was abolished back in '73.(?) Well, in the early '70's anyway, I retired in '75 and it was before that. Having a draft doesn't mean we have to draft when volunteers are filling the requirements, but in the instance you mention above, it would almost certainly be required. It would also alleviate the frequent rotations in Iraq. No politician would have the balls to reinstate the draft though.

101,

I think we'd have handed over the warlord instead of protecting him, don't you?

However, you wouldn't mind if Russia just invaded because we had a Chechen Warlord, would you?

"Jest, you do know the difference between a surgical strike against a target of value and an all out invasion of a sovereign nation, don't you?"

Yeah, an all out invasion includes air, sea, and land invasion. A surgical strike usually just includes air invasion or perhaps special warfare group invasion.

That thought just comes to mind that I would hope NATO would fully back the United States if Americans were killed in an unprovoked attacked, so maybe we would have enough allied forces. If they didn't then what the frig is the point of NATO?

Yeah, an all out invasion includes air, sea, and land invasion. A surgical strike usually just includes air invasion or perhaps special warfare group invasion.



Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-08-15 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

So now that they're terrorists, when does Bush start allying himself with them?

And sorry to have to point this out, but the majority of Iraqis, shia AND kurd, have stronger ties to Iran than to America, thanks largely to Poppy Bush and Dick Cheney telling the Iraqis to rise up, then following the saudi's instructions to leave them hanging (literally, in some cases) to prevent the shia from taking control of Iraq.

Remember the Iraq government's unanimous support for hezbollah last summer? Not quite the Mission Accomplished the neo-cons thought they were getting.

101,

I think we'd have handed over the warlord instead of protecting him, don't you?

However, you wouldn't mind if Russia just invaded because we had a Chechen Warlord, would you?

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-08-15 10:29 AM | Reply


We have rubbed Russia's nose in crap numerous times by not only dealing with Chechans that Russia considers terrorists, but by also hosting a few of the higher-ups (I believe they were Generals, and don't hold me to it, but I also believe the UK has had diplomatic relations with the same Chechans). We wouldn't hand them over because "we" don't see them as terrorists. Whether they are or not I don't really have an opinion on, but the scenario I laid out is fairly accurate.

I wouldn't want Russia doing a surgical strike nor would I want them to invade. Obama saying that (in public no less) was foolish. I know that common sense says we're actually sending Spec Op troops across the Paki border and "invading" sovereign territory already, but having a potential President actually discuss things like that freely is bad PR IMO.

Ah BL2,

Just noticed your reference to 9/11 and how the world changed that day.

The world changed for America that day. Pity President Bush was on vacation ignoring warnings of an impending major terrorist attack in NYC when we might have avoided it if he hadn't brushed them off with adolescent CYA remarks to the messengers. But you disagree with my view on that, I know.

But I agree with you that 9/11 was an epoch-defining event. Those of us who disagree with you about the response think that going after the perpetrators was the right and obvious thing to do. Instead President Bush and VP Cheney and the neocon ideologues abandoned that very necessary task and used 9/11 to push through their pre-existing agenda on Iraq. Which they proceeded to fuck up royally and now are in a defensive crouch whining about how unfair it is that they are hearing the same comments that they were dishing out when President Clinton chose to involve us in Serbia. On reflection, Inhofe was even worse than DeLay in that regard. Of course Clinton did it co-operating with our natural allies and its outcome, compared to Bush's Iraq clusterfuck, must be described as a qualified success at worst.

. Pity President Bush was on vacation ignoring warnings of an impending major terrorist attack in NYC when we might have avoided it

Ah... excpet that PDB you're talking of mentioned that surveillence for BOMBINGS was being conducted on Federal buildings in NYC... not sure if you know this or not, but there weren't any bombings...

Oh and there were attacks in Washington DC too...

Just an FYI

Instead President Bush and VP Cheney and the neocon ideologues abandoned

The thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan along with NATO must have missed the memo about abandoning Afghanistan...

That thought just comes to mind that I would hope NATO would fully back the United States if Americans were killed in an unprovoked attacked, so maybe we would have enough allied forces

Rob, unless Air Iran planes started hitting NY, we have no allies, other than Israel, for an attack on Iran. And we know how much the arab world loves working with Israel.
The saudis would gladly cheer us on from the sidelines, and sell us fuel at a reasonable mark-up, but there wouldn't be any saudi planes in the air. Even Blair said no to Bush on attacking Iran, and he's long gone. NATO is in afghanistan and that's about all we're going to get.
As for funding terrorists, aren't we still sheltering MEK terrorists in Iraq, so they can continue blowing up buses in Iran. Seems a little hypocritical to the rest of the world.

I wouldn't want Russia doing a surgical strike nor would I want them to invade. Obama saying that (in public no less) was foolish. I know that common sense says we're actually sending Spec Op troops across the Paki border and "invading" sovereign territory already, but having a potential President actually discuss things like that freely is bad PR IMO.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-15 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You do know the difference between a surgical strike against a target of value and overthrowing a government, don't you?"

Surely, I do. However, I believe an all out invasion OR a surgical strike COULD result in the overthrowing of a government, couldn't it? Wouldn't that be the overriding factor in our NOT violating Pakistani territory? (I DO believe though, that there are probably clandestine U.S. elements in Pakistan right now with Musharaff's knowledge.)

Republican candidates have said essentially the same thing, is it also wrong for them?

I disagree with your statement that a potential president should not acknowledge that he would authorize strategic measures to deal with the enemies of this country. You guys can't have it both ways, you can't deride Democrats for being soft on Terror and then in the next breath deride them for declaring that they would take decisive action against Terrorists where ever they may be.

I really don't get this whole up is down philosophy you have going on here.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-08-15 10:49 AM | Reply


If a Republican Candidate said it, he too was wrong.
Apparently just about everyone agrees that it was a stupid thing for Obama to say. As was his talk of nukes. He was simply trying to sound butch by talking about Pakistan after he mentioned nukes were off the table.
Musharaff is/was already wary of the US, and having some wet behind the ears Senator talking about invading sovereign territory isn't exactly helpful.
You'll have to explain this "up is down" philosophy to me because I've had perhaps 3 posts here and I believe as though you're adressing the wrong guy.

----(I DO believe though, that there are probably clandestine U.S. elements in Pakistan right now with Musharaff's knowledge.)----



I said so before... you were probably out taking a piss... that there ARE Amreekans with our army inside Pakistan.

Mushi said this on TV, 4 years ago. LOL. I saw it, everyone saw it.

Stay awake.

Instead President Bush and VP Cheney and the neocon ideologues abandoned that very necessary task and used 9/11 to push through their pre-existing agenda on Iraq.

Abolutely correct. They left enough in Afghanistan to lose or barely hang on so they could go after their real prize: Iraq.

Afghanistan didn't have good targets. Iraq had plenty of targets. Ask Rumsfeld. Afghanistan was the politically neccesary war to engage the American people. It worked.

Thanks Yav for completing the quote that Rob left unfinished. Gotta go now, work intervenes. Been great fun down in here in the virtual basement crossing swords with the evil Orcs, Jest, BL2, Rob et al. Thanks guys. Seriously, you make some good points although I disagree with most of them.

Nukes should be off the table when dealing with the terrorists in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan unless of course we are attacked using nukes. If we were attacked with nukes on either of those battlefields or here at home, which ever coutry(ies) aided and abetted the terrorists should be completely and totally destroyed!

Using nukes to deal with terrorists in those countries is an admission of failure which is likely to have dire consequences for us and the rest of the world. We don't live in a vacuum and just because we may be the world's only superpower doesn't mean that we are immune to counter attack.

""Apparently just about everyone agrees that it was a stupid thing for Obama to say.""

At the Republican debate they were asked WHO WOULD NOT go in after Al Quaeda if Mushareff couldn't and we had actional intel, none of the major candidates said they wouldn't, exactly the same as Obama.
Joe Biden pointed out that it is actually written into the authorization for action in Afghanistan legislation.
Seems pretty ironic that the same folks here arguing for bombing Iran pretend that Obama committed a heinous crime when he said he would go into Pakistan if he had actionable intel telling him where Al Quaeda could be attacked if Mushareff couldn't. And these are the people who alreade DID attack us while any attack from Iran is hypothetical only at this point.

Even Blair said no to Bush on attacking Iran, and he's long gone.

Pretty sure that was in the context of a preemptive strike. Not as a retaliation to an unprovoked attack resulting in the deaths of Americans.

The US Should label Dubya and His Administration Terrorists. That aught to fix them right up.

Larry

Pakistan is an Ally, Iran is not. See the difference?

Fedup,
I may be wrong (but I doubt it...), but Obama said "Under any circumstances" that nukes were off the table.

I guess the plan is to label everybody who doesn't kiss America's ass a terrorist. Eventually places like France and Canada will be on the list. Bush is a power mad lunatic.

Those people who want to vote for Giuliani I hope you liked the book 1984. Because that is what we will have here in America real soon.

little too late to impeach but our congress could really help by getting some balls and rejecting everything he can dream up.

I see we're back in Tora Bora today.

101,

Obama said he would not use nukes to fight terrorism under any circumstance.

The operative word there is terrorism.

If a country, such as Iran, made a unilateral attack on American forces, that would be an act of war, not terrorism.

There is a difference, and it is an important one.

Regardless, I think any sane person can agree that the use of Nuclear Ordinance should be reserved as an absolute last resort. One cannot reasonably respond to an IED with a nuclear warhead fired toward Tehran.

Let us hope that the US and China remain friends, at least on speaking and trading terms.

They have lots of nukes and they could pour millions, many millions, of servicemen into a ground war.

Imagine if you will what GWB would do if China invaded Taiwan...
it would be "so sorry Taiwan". We have a lot of talent in kicking the ass of third world countries (i.e. attempting to).

WW I and WW II ? You bet, we had a draft with millions in the service, and Russia, England, and other notables, with millions in arms, were with us. I guess that was "a coalition of the willing".

The citizens of any proud nation think they are the goodest in the land ROB !

Why Would You Use Nuke Against Terrorist ?

I have not seen Any Divisions Of Armory or Infantry, No Massive Fleets. So Using Nukes On Groups Of Terrorist Would Only Piss Off The Crazy Muslim Extremist More.

So The Nuke Issue Was Dumb To Even Be Brought Up.

-Sarge

The reason Bush won't take Nukes off the table, is the moron couldn't win a war against Iran without them. He already proved that by fucking up an unnecessary war in Iraq, which is 1/3 the country Iran is. Meanwhile Afghanistan and Pakistan are coming unglued, thanks to a Taliban resurgance.

Bush could fuck up an anvil.

Sarge,
Use your google skills and see which one of the countries you mentioned were active participants in fighting alongside of us (in other words, an active ally).

""Pakistan is an Ally, Iran is not. See the difference?""

Sure, Pakistan lets Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda hide out and Iran offered to help us catch them after 9-11.
It should be asked what would our relationship be with Iran had Bush not labeled them part of the Axis of Evil when they had not done anything to America or our allies??
THIS JUST IN.....
Venezuela supplying arms to terrorists in Iraq and joins Axis of Evil. Details at 11.

Sure, Pakistan lets Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda hide out and Iran offered to help us catch them after 9-11.

If the Repub Guard is a terrorist organization then what do you call shock and Awe? What do you call special operations or indescriminate bombing?

Beside I thought it was "war on terror" not "war on terrorists". Who else in the world are these idiots going to call "murderers who hate freedom"?

Don't you see? We need to fight the enemy here (Bush) before we can fight the enemy over there.

From the article""At the same time, it is intended to send a message to countries doing business in Iran that the United States is serious about isolating Tehran and is willing to slap sanctions on companies that continue to trade with Iran even if the United Nations is not, according to U.S. officials.""

and then what happens to China????

China Rushes Toward Oil Pact With Iran

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, February 18, 2006; Page D01

SHANGHAI, Feb. 17 -- China is hastening to complete a deal worth as much as $100 billion that would allow a Chinese state-owned energy firm to take a leading role in developing a vast oil field in Iran, complicating the Bush administration's efforts to isolate the Middle Eastern nation and roll back its nuclear development plans, according to published reports.


Seems to me that by labeling the Iranian military Bush is labeling a major supplier to China and other nations a terrorist. I think this will serve to make Bush more irrelevant than it will discourage the Chinese from doing business with whom they please.

As usual, some people miss the nuance the term "specially designated global terrorist organization".


It's a license to kill.


Wow.

BTW, any attack on Iran conducted by Bushco can be blamed directly on Nancy Pelosi, the sell out Speaker of the House. Throw her out, even Cindy Sheehan would be a better congressman than Pelosi.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-15 08:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni is totally correct.
Pelosi knuckled under and caved when she was at a dinner for AIPAC and they demanded she get rid of language in one of the bills before Congress that said Bush must FIRST make his case before Congress before launching war in Iran. Pelosi stripped that language out because we all know this Congress is not an independent body within our government but merely a rubber stamp for der Bush and the Israel's far right, neocon-infested Likud party when it comes to going to war.

By making Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist group" (which would be tantamount to China labeling the U.S. Army and the USMC "terrorist groups") Bush is able to suck Iran as a country-wide "terrorist group" under his 2002 authorization from Congress where he has permission to attack the terrorists "wherever they are and NOT have to first get permission from Congress.

Whose's next on the list of Bush's economic enemies? Notice when Iraq wanted its petro dollars to be in Euros Bush BOMBED them. Now Iran wants its petro dollars in Euros so Bush plans on NUKING them.

Iraq and now Iran are being labeled "terrorist countries" not because they are a danger to the U.S. and its citizens but only because Bush finds them to be personal "economic terrorists" when it comes his and his oil buddies' own personal oil business interests and that's all the reason he needs to decide to make himself the first president in U.S. history to pre-emptively nuke a country that has never attacked or threatened us.

Are we as citizens of a country run by a manman along with a cajoneless Congress going to just sit here at our keyboards and blog as the world explodes around us and radiation fallout starts to kill millions in the Middle East or are we going to make our voices heard in the streets? Something has to be done to make it known to our government that we are not going to let Bush take on the entire world for his globalist agenda while he grinds our military into dust with war after war deployments.

Cheney is putting all his muscle behind this effort to attack Iran. There is division within the administration and the Pentagon as to whether or not to nuke Iran. Many generals said they would walk out if Bush attacked Iran but it looks like Cheney may be winning as the propaganda about big, bad Iran and the continuing hints for a draft is coming on non-stop.

Bush may be biting way more than he can chew as Iran is not the weak military that Iraq was when it comes to having a military fighting machine.

I would respectfully have to decline. You don't really think I would serve in YOUR administration, do you? You'd be happier with Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, I think.

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-



I wanna go

I wanna go

I could be in charge of your fat interns and take care of thier cleaning needs.........or maybe the court composer.....

I am go good at this.

on a thread about iran being called what they really are, I can still get a dig in on blowjob billy and even mention dry cleaning....

thank you
thank you

he said bowing

My main fault with Bush as they didn't nuke Iran before going into Iraq. Iran has been funding the insurgency with Arms, allowing foreign terrorists to cross their borders into Iraq and have been caught redhanded supplying weapons and bombs to insurgents to kill American troops. F Iran. Let's turn that sand into glass MX warhead style!

Isn't there a Drudge Jr. for 14 year olds?

America! F**K YEAH!