I hope for once Bush thinks long and hard before listening to those who keep him inside of his bubble. WHERE is Congress? Why aren't other opinions being given -- DEMANDED that they be given -- by the Democrats in Congress and any anti-war in Iran Republicans? Or are there any?

If no one in Congress demands that Bush offer a damn good explanation WITH PROOF as to his reasons to fire nukes into Iran then ALL of Congress is just as complicit in this new war.

"Where is Congress....?"

That's right. Only Congress can authorize war. If Bush creates a new war solely or largely on his own authority, that is a Rubicon-crossing event, the only logical ending place being dictatorship.

It blows me away that apparently no one in Congress is even interested in asking any of the particulars regarding us sending nukes into Iran and blowing up their nuclear facilities. It's almost as though Congress feels it's a done deal -- we're going into another war -- and nothing more need be discussed and they could care less.

God forbid that maybe the citizens of THIS country would appreciate our elected respresentatives be the deliberative body they are suppose to be and perhaps discuss mundane matters like the use of nuclear weapons on Iran before dragging us into another war in the Middle East.

Nancy Pelosi folded like a house of cards the minute AIPAC frowned after they learned she had language inserted in a bill that would require Bush to present his reasons to Congress BEFORE unleashing nuclear weapons on Iran. Ms. Pelosi couldn't delete that language fast enough. She had to please her bosses in Israel

Buchanan wrote in this article:

Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.

There are few subjects on which I find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan, but this is one of them. You can see the groundwork being laid into place, piece by piece. Bush's hubris will not be threatened by reality, as long as other people are willing and compliant enough to let their sons and daughters be shoved into the meatgrinder. The clock's ticking: 1 year, 4 months, 24 days, 24 minutes and 32 seconds.

as long as other people are willing and compliant enough to let their sons and daughters be shoved into the meatgrinder. The clock's ticking: 1 year, 4 months, 24 days, 24 minutes and 32 seconds.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2007-08-31 08:35 AM |


How many 12 and 13 year old citizens of the USA are employed as mine sweepers against their will?

You can go back to(not that you're actually awake) sleep now.

How many 12 and 13 year old citizens of the USA are employed as mine sweepers against their will?

Do you believe everything you are told Incy?

Some statements are better left in one's ass.

I know quite a few whom would volounteer if the US were to be invaded.
Many children fought and died in the revolution and the uprising right here in the good 'ol US of A. "Children" snuck into the military to serve, or do you forget our own history?
Your argument is hollow.

I hope for once Bush thinks long and hard before listening to those who keep him inside of his bubble. WHERE is Congress? Why aren't other opinions being given -- DEMANDED that they be given -- by the Democrats in Congress and any anti-war in Iran Republicans? Or are there any?

Has the thought occured to you that maybe there is no attack on Iran forthcoming and that everyone in Congress and the White House knows this and that is why there isn't really any talk of this in Congress?

Or maybe that the president isn't likely to start a war in Iran with less then a year and a half left in his term?

Your argument is hollow.

Posted by gitmboy at 2007-08-31 10:57 AM |


Only because you possess little between your ears.

At what age can a US child be employed with power tools? Or sharp tools? Shit, how about any tools?

Did you hit your head Rob?

You are actually making sense this morning.

Nancy Pelosi should be removed as Speaker of the House because she removed the language from the Iraq funding bill which would have prohibited Bush from attacking Iran without Congressional authority. She bares the responsibility equally with George Bush if he does carry out an irrational and idiotic attack on Iran.

Buchanan Expects Attack on Iran.

Buchanan Prays For Attack on Iran.

Buchanan Hopes For Attack on Iran.

Buchanan Wishes For Attack on Iran.

Buchanan Campaigns For Attack on Iran.

Buchanan Helps Plan For Attack on Iran.

Buchanan Offers Reasons To Convince Public To Attack Iran.

Let me rephrase before you try to act like you don't get the point.

At what age can a US Child be employed in the use of power tools? Or sharp tools? Shit, how about any tools?

The u.s. world tour continues...someone get me a t-shirt.

Nancy Pelosi should be removed as Speaker of the House because she removed the language from the Iraq funding bill which would have prohibited Bush from attacking Iran without Congressional authority. She bares the responsibility equally with George Bush if he does carry out an irrational and idiotic attack on Iran.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-31 11:06 AM |


Danni, are you calling for her impeachment? Go ahead and use the word... it's okay.... What's good for the goose n all, ya know?

If you can call for the impeachment of a president that hasn't broken the law you can surely call for the impeachment of the speaker of the house who hasn't broken the law.

Or, you can just wake up a realize that none of the democrat senators that voted to go into Iraq did so because they were duped, but in fact did so because they know things that you, I and all other run of the mill citizens don't. I know it's difficult for you to comprehend, but, there's no difference when it comes to foriegn policy between either party, just politics.

This shit will be going on in the middle east until it's defeated or we're defeated, regardless it be a dem or a republican sitting in the big seat.

The u.s. world tour continues...someone get me a t-shirt.

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-08-31 11:10 AM | Reply


If it's not one of those 3/4 length sleeve shirts with the dates and cities do you still want one?

If it's not one of those 3/4 length sleeve shirts with the dates and cities do you still want one?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-31 11:15 AM |


Only if it comes with the shorpants.

If it's not one of those 3/4 length sleeve shirts with the dates and cities do you still want one?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-31 11:15 AM |


Only if it comes with the shorpants.

How Many NEOCON Chicken Hawks Will Sign Up For This Campaign ?

ZERO !!

-Sarge

This is a fantasy. The US is not going to attack Iran with nukes. It will be very surprising if they launch any kind of overt attack on Iran, yet alone a "nukular" one. Covert or outsourced, maybe. Forget Bush. He's a lame duck and an imbecile who can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly. Congress won't let him use nukes. The military won't. The people won't.

Buchanan has to keep saying stuff like this to keep the checks rolling in from TV appearances and the lecture circuit. Besides his true purpose, as always, is to point out that this country's foreign policy is too much influenced by Israel. Nobody except our resident Zionist would disagree with that, anyway

How many will sign up for a made up campaign that won't come to fruition? You're right, Zero, because they're too fucking smart to fall for some OP Eds by Pat Buchanan.

Here are the facts which you may or may not like nevertheless :

Bahrain is 80% Shia
The oil producing province in Saudi Arabia is majority Shia
Oil rich Iraq which will become "greater Iran" after the US leaves, is primarily Shia
and Iran itself is of course is Shia

In addition Iran controls both Hezbollah and Hamas who can both provide Iran with cover for various terror operations anywhere in the world. Want a bomb delivered to kill more then 200 Americans asleep in Saudi Arabia, just ask Hezbollah as was done during the Reagan years.

Every "moderate" Sunni country has expressed real genuine concern about Iran becoming nuclear. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf States, Algeria, Morocco have all been shopping for nuclear reactors as a direct result of Ahmadinejad.

If not stopped, Ahmadinejad will at some point achieve nuclear capability and be positioned to have tacit control of a large part of the world's oil supply.

In addition he will have triggered a nuclear arms race in an area where death /suicide = paradise and fulfillment of religious obligations.

Unless you believe Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions are just to create energy in a country that's awash in cheap oil, then you cannot dismiss the obvious threat to American and western security. Perhaps its way even France has made it clear that military action against Iran must be an option.

I guess it's time for another unsuccessful non binding resolution in an attemp to again remove the scales from the eyes of pacifists and traitors alike.

Buchanan has to keep saying stuff like this to keep the checks rolling in from TV appearances and the lecture circuit. Besides his true purpose, as always, is to point out that this country's foreign policy is too much influenced by Israel. Nobody except our resident Zionist would disagree with that, anyway

Posted by BlueInBushland at 2007-08-31 11:26 AM | Reply


I don't want to get into the whole liberal media debate, but can we agree that MSNBC is at the very least as left as Fox is right (mind you, I believe that MSNBC is much further and unapolagetically left than Fox is right)?
Pat is an MSNBC staple. If it weren't for him they'd have n other guests except for Racael Maddow and one of the guys from Best Week Ever.

Do you believe they have Pat on because he's the furthest right somebody can get and not be considered David Duke? I can't help but think they want to portray all people right of center to be as crazy as Pat.

I'm tired of hearing about how Israel is the cause of the U.S. middle east wars. Oil is the cause, period. That March 2001 meeting with the energy executives that Cheney won't release the minutes from? Odds on, it was a discussion of how the military will get a guaranteed supply of crude oil -- Iraq -- and the energy companies will (extremely profitably) be expected to develop it.

Remember in Gulf War I when the scuds landed in Israel? Baghdad would have been charred cinders if the U.S. had not stopped Israel from launching a retalitory blow (US troops were only in southern Iraq). And Iran would be the same today if the U.S. didn't tell Israel not to launch -- and rightfully so, Iran is not a threat to the US, but it it is a threat to Israel. (I don't recall a conference in Tel Aviv entitled "A World without Arabs and Persians").

Nine dollar a gallon gasoline? Good. It will break this addiction to oil once and for all and starve the terrorist-supporting governments to death -- you know, the ones Shrub claims are our allies like Saudi Arabia.

"rallying the Iranians behind the failing regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"

These rightnuts are always slipping in unproven and unprovable statements like this into their rants. Wishful thinking as foreign policy. Where have I come across that before? Oh, that's right. Those PNAC mission statements the signatories of which found their way into BushCo and got us into Iraq.

I say we let Iran and Israel have at it.

I couldn't care any less about the survival of either.

They are both pains in our asses. The US would be far better off if we just let them destory eachother. I'll bring the popcorn.

"rallying the Iranians behind the failing regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"

from the makers of "we have enough ground troops, they will lay down their weapons for a second time, greet us as liberators, do the hokey pokey and turn themselves around, oh, and they will all have hard-ons for American consumer spending based democracy"

"Besides his true purpose, as always, is to point out that this country's foreign policy is too much influenced by Israel. Nobody except our resident Zionist would disagree with that, anyway"

I think you overstate reality my friend ... most even here I believe, except the usual suspects, would disagree with your silly assessment.

Our foreign policy is influenced more by Israel then by oil supplies ? Hardly. It's always been about and always will be about oil, but so many people would rather believe its about Israel then the Saudis or the Gulf States who we need a whole hell of a lot more then Israel.

If you notice in the Buchanan piece he doesn't even mention oil and yet the Saudis have been openly and obviously freaked out about Ahmadinejad for years now.

Its much easier (and effective as can be seem by your silly post) to play on the irrational resentment of Israel (Jews) then it is to actually have to admit its all about oil, and Buchanan's been doing that effectively for years.

"
I couldn't care any less about the survival of either."

But would you care about $10 a gallon gas because while you fixate on Israel - the more likely scenario will be what I described above but what NO LEFTIE will dare address.

Bahrain is 80% Shia
The oil producing province in Saudi Arabia is majority Shia
Oil rich Iraq which will become "greater Iran" after the US leaves, is primarily Shia
and Iran itself is of course is Shia

I'll Be Very Honest If Bush Attack Iran Opposed To The Iraq The Outcome Would Have Been Much Different. A Majority Of Iranian Are Far Removed From It's Government. The PNAC Outline Would Have Succeeded,Poor Reasoning And Rational In Knowing The Saddam's "Iron Boot" Was The Only Thing That Kept Iraq Together. They Had Chosen The Wrong Country !!

This Campaign Will Not Work 5 Years later,Too Much Animosity Was Created By OIF, They Blew It.

-Sarge

Buchanan has disagreed with Bush's ME adventures from the start and he can be counted on to bash Jews.

He may well be conducting a course in child psychology .

Did you hit your head Rob?

You are actually making sense this morning.

Posted by Manypaths


It is the people who think we will preemptively attack Iran that have hit their head.

Now, here is the question... If Iran were to attack and kill US Soldiers preemptively, would Liberals support retaliating against such an act of war?

I'll Be Very Honest If Bush Attack Iran Opposed To The Iraq The Outcome Would Have Been Much Different. A Majority Of Iranian Are Far Removed From It's Government. The PNAC Outline Would Have Succeeded,Poor Reasoning And Rational In Knowing The Saddam's "Iron Boot" Was The Only Thing That Kept Iraq Together. They Had Chosen The Wrong Country !!

This Campaign Will Not Work 5 Years later,Too Much Animosity Was Created By OIF, They Blew It.

-Sarge

Posted by Sarge at 2007-08-31 11:50 AM |


I've made a vow to myself to address you at most only once per visit. You're pathetic and that sir(little s) is why you are where you are.

The present geographic conquest is extemely strateigic and necessary to the desired geopolitical outcome of a free world.

You're an embarssment.

You sir (little s) if in fact are still active ( I highly, highly doubt) are a detriment to anyone currently serving in the US military.

Do you tell them often they're dying for nothing and the cause is hopeless? Or do you just teach them to insert the barrel in their mouth before they pull the trigger?

If Iran were to attack and kill US Soldiers preemptively, would Liberals support retaliating against such an act of war?


If the government of Iran ordered its forces to attack US soldiers, that would be an act of war that we would be forced to retaliate against.

If Iran were to attack and kill US Soldiers preemptively, would Liberals support retaliating against such an act of war?


If the government of Iran ordered its forces to attack US soldiers, that would be an act of war that we would be forced to retaliate against.

If Iran were to attack and kill US Soldiers preemptively, would Liberals support retaliating against such an act of war?

I'm afraid that it would be impossible for some partisian hacks to ever accept that an attack by Iran would be "premptive". No matter what, it would be spun as if Iran had no choice or the US caused it.

My "silly" post, GZ, said that "this country's foreign policy is too much influenced by Israel", about as uncontroversial a statement as you coould get even if it is endorsed by Buchanan. It didn't say it was given more prominence in US foreign policy than oil. That really would have been "silly" because oil is what drives US foreign policy especially when you allow a bunch of corrupt oilmen to grab power in America.

When you say "The oil producing province in Saudi Arabia is majority Shia" I assume you mean the Eastern Province where the majority of Shia in Saudi live. They may or may not be more Shia than Sunnis in the Eastern Province but that seems unlikely and is irrelevant anyway. Only 5% of Saudis are Shia and Saudi Arabia is an autocracy run by a Sunni Royal Family.

The last thing Saudis needed was an oil rich Shia dominated regional rival in Iraq which is what we have created(or at least tried to). This may have been what BushCo intended all along but that's irrelevant too because of the giant fuckup they have made of it which has resulted in an empowerment of Iran they could only have dreamed of before we allowed our imbecile and his neocons free rein in the Middle East. Their current thinking may be that it can still all be fixed by nuking Iran or getting your buddies in Tel Aviv to do it for them, they are so stupid and living in an alternate reality that anything is possible. If the Israelis simultaneously empower that nutjob Netanyahu that would move Armageddon a bit closer too.

""No matter what, it would be spun as if Iran had no choice or the US caused it.""

Or...it might actually be that the US did cause it. How can you just assume that isn't the case??
With leaders like we have now how can anyone be sure of anything??? That's the problem when leaders lie to us, now we don't know whether to believe anything they say.

Fundamental Question:

Can the EUROPE, THE ME, North AFRICA and SW Asia afford for IRAN to have nuclear weapons? With their known ties to terrorist organizations and their outspoken mission for the destruction of ISRAEL can the WORLD really afford for then to have nukes?

And please do not give me the same BS answer about how the US is the only country to ever use them BLAH BLAH BLAH...

"You sir (little s) if in fact are still active ( I highly, highly doubt) are a detriment to anyone currently serving in the US military."

Puscubus,

You are a Coward !! So when you can tell me you have served 1 Second Serving My Country,The United States Of America Do Not Address Me! You Are A Chicken Hawk,do you serve? No, instead you run Your Ignorant Pie Hole Punk !

Always Talking About Fighting And Going To War And Never Have The Balls To Join The Military You Pussy !!

I Have 25 Years Of Honorable And Decorated Service To The United States Of America ! How Many Have You Served ?


I have served in the region have you?

By The Way Did I Say,Fuck You, Punk Ass Chicken Hawk Bitch ?!

-Sarge

The U.S. government is the bitch-boy of AIPAC and their shitty little country.

Truf

"The present geographic conquest is extemely strateigic and necessary to the desired geopolitical outcome of a free world.

You're an embarssment." -Incubus


You're a fucking loon. It's that kind of thinking that got us in this mess. Here's some reality for ya: The US does not have the resources, the military, nor the collective will of the people for a "geographic conquest". The PNAC and assorted nutball friends of theirs sold you this line of shit as a pretense to secure OIL! It's that simple. Not for one second did the prince of darkness or Darth Cheney or AIPAC or satan or whoever the fuck else is spewing this crap ever believe it. It's a con job, they just knew that enough red-neck, xenophobic, knucle-dragging, red-state ass-hats raised on Die Hard movies and GI Joe and Rush Limbaugh like you would be around and just DYING to be spoon fed their bullshit.

But hey! Don't let a little thing reality stop ya! ONWARD CHRISTIAN FUCKING SOLDIERS!!

Nothing will make the Military Industrial COmplex happier or raise the price of oil faster.

Lie about a girl, feel the full weight of the Federal Legal System with a partisan Chief Justice.

Waste more than a trillion dollars while accomplishing nothing, destroy our moral authority and trust throughout the world, kill hundreds of thousands, maim and displace millions, completely destroy Iraq's infrastructure and constrict its oil production with no forseeable personal consequence.

What has become of this country and the Nuremburg standards established after WWII?

"Can the EUROPE, THE ME, North AFRICA and SW Asia afford for IRAN to have nuclear weapons? With their known ties to terrorist organizations and their outspoken mission for the destruction of ISRAEL can the WORLD really afford for then to have nukes?"

TAKE ISRAEL OUT OF THIS and ask the same question.

How many here want Ahmadinejad to control a large chunk of the world's oil supply after obtaining a few new nukes in his arsenal?

Stop fixating on Israel for a few minutes and you'll soon realize those who are freaked out the most are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Gulf States, Jordan and ALL of them - including Algeria and Morocco, are currently shopping for their own nuclear reactors ... for their own "energy requirements" ...

This is about world oil supplies and whether you feel comfortable with Iran possibly controlling the prices since they could conceivably control a very large supply through their immediate influence in Iraq when the US leaves, followed by Saudi Arabia via the one third Shia population in the oil producing Eastern Province, Bahrain where it's 80% Shia, and all combined with Iran's own substantial production.

Before you all go off on Israel which the Iran issue actually has only peripherally to do with, contemplate the oil scenario which is the more likely scenario that will occur. Ahmadinejad is much more likely to strike out at the bigger Satan if it can and instantly unite and ignite the entire Muslim world into full scale and what will look like a winnable jihad against us.

Some of you on here talk a lot about how this war is only for OIL. Talk about spoon fed. Thats all the LEFT talks about so it gets regurgitated here.

Please show me how this country, or anyone else has benefited from this so called OIL GRAB!!!!

It hasn't happened yet. I haven't seen the oil of IRAQ paying for the war, or even being used to pay for the reconstruction of the country. So please, show me how this is all about OIL...

Now I will give you the WMD's, That was the main line for the war and we have to date been unable to turn up enough to even amount for a fraction of what they were supposed to have. Remember though at teh time everyone had access to the same evidence for the war and a lot of people LEFT/RIGHT signed off...

"But hey! Don't let a little thing reality stop ya! ONWARD CHRISTIAN FUCKING SOLDIERS!!"

Yes so why don't you deal with it yourself?

I've laid out the scenario that everyone, not JUST America but many others including now FRANCE agrees is a horrible possibility. This ISN'T Iraq which I was against, but just because that was idiotic doesn't mean this issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions ISN'T happening and unfolding before our collective eyes.

Open yours and you might notice it and do yourself a favor, LISTEN to those Sunni Muslim countries in the region like the Saudis, like the Egyptians, like the Jordanians and so on and think about what they are saying AND doing ie shopping nuclear reactors. Do you really want a nuclear arms race in a region where many celebrate martyrdom ?

Has the thought occured to you that maybe there is no attack on Iran forthcoming and that everyone in Congress and the White House knows this and that is why there isn't really any talk of this in Congress?

Or maybe that the president isn't likely to start a war in Iran with less then a year and a half left in his term?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-08-31 10:58 AM

Then why did Pelosi strip out the language she added to a bill that Bush must first make his case to Congress BEFORE any attack on Iran (and did so at the pushing of AIPAC).

Why has there been nothing but the same war talk build up non-stop towards Iran to make the Neocons' case for war that there was just prior to us attacking Iraq? The constant talk about Iranians being the cause of Bush's woes in Iraq, blah blah blah.

I would like to think you are correct about our Congress but this is the same gang that gave Bush a blank check for Iraq and continues to do so.

However, ROB, I hope you are right about this and I am wrong -- for our sake.

"How many 12 and 13 year old citizens of the USA are employed as mine sweepers against their will?
Posted by Incubus_Con"

My guess would be none. But seeing as how you rasied the subject, if you can shed any light on the topic please do so.

By the way, how much wood do you think a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could (or would) chuck wood?

Some of you on here talk a lot about how this war is only for OIL. Talk about spoon fed. Thats all the LEFT talks about so it gets regurgitated here.

Please show me how this country, or anyone else has benefited from this so called OIL GRAB!!!!

It hasn't happened yet. I haven't seen the oil of IRAQ paying for the war, or even being used to pay for the reconstruction of the country. So please, show me how this is all about OIL...

It WAS about oil but Bush couldn't even do that right. Now we American citizens have gotten nothing out of this war except 3700 plus dead soldiers and Marines and thousands of them wounded for life.

Bush got something, though -- war profiteering reconstruction contracts have made very, very rich men out of Bush's and Cheney's family members and and their close corporate pals and associates. Halliburton, anyone?

You're right -- we got nothing
Bush can't even do the oil grab right.

""I've laid out the scenario that everyone, not JUST America but many others including now FRANCE agrees is a horrible possibility.""

So then it shouldn't be too hard to convince NATO to deal with this problem instead of just the US.
We would probably do ourselves a big favor by announcing that we will no longer bare the burden of dealing with dangers in the ME alone.

How many 12 and 13 year old citizens of the USA are employed as mine sweepers against their will?
Posted by Incubus_Con"../.,

I have a Cuban buddy whose parents sent him here from Cuba in the 1980's when he was 13. At that time Castro was shipping many Cuban boys ages 13 and up over to Iran to fight and many families were sending their sons to the U.S. in order to save them being killed in the Iraq/Iran war.

Doc,

"By the way, how much wood do you think a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could (or would) chuck wood?"

Is Puscubus Crazy or What?, I looked all over for what he meant with the :

"How many 12 and 13 year old citizens of the USA are employed as mine sweepers against their will?"

I think he and Tad are Drinking That Shit from the same Wooden cup !!

-Sarge

Chris where did you get that information about Cuban boys being shipped to Iran???
I've never heard it before, I did a search and can find nothing about it.
I would really like to see some info about that.

You're right -- we got nothing
Bush can't even do the oil grab right.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-08-31 02:02 PM | Reply

Halliburton has done a good job at raping some contracts. They should and I think will be investigated and fined for the activities they have allowed to happen.

But Chris you sum it up when you say " You're right -- we got nothing"

The US has seen nothing from OIL so to say that it is all about OIL is factually incorrect. Not you per say but a lot of those on here that is their argument. ITS ABOUT OIL, I WIN!!!! Type mentality and its not.

As far as success, the invasion and subsequent taking of the country was one of the fastest most lopsided victories in military history. Where the administration has failed is in the reconstruction. We underestimated the insurgents and we failed to secure key areas initially. This along with greed corruption and a general hatred for America and the west has put our troops in harms way.

It doesn't help though when the news outlets do nothing but bash our troops, our missions, and tell the whole world how evil the US is. Things have gone wrong but we need to win the Propaganda war just as much as we need to win the hearts and minds of the IRAQI people. They watch the news as well. Do you think they would even hint at telling their people they are losing... I think not.

Chris where did you get that information about Cuban boys being shipped to Iran???
I've never heard it before, I did a search and can find nothing about it.
I would really like to see some info about that

Danni -


Straight from Armando's mouth. He told that story a few times and I wasn't all into politics at that time so didn't think much about the reason. But, don't forget that at that time the USSR was backing Iran and Cuba was the beneficiary of foreign aid from the USSR and totally dependent on them. It wouldn't suprise me at all if the USSR put pressure on Cuba to help send "enlistees" to fight the war in Iran.

I'll try and look up some stuff on that subject later and I'll post it here.
right now my coffee's ready :]

I don't think that Buchanan or Lieberman, even in concert (remember Jews For Buchanan in Florida?) will get us to nuke Tehran, but Bush has damfew folks "advising" him these days, so he might go for nuking Tehran. And then the time will REALLY be ripe for some coalition of REAL enemies to take this nation out. herm

HERM

don't think that Buchanan or Lieberman, even in concert (remember Jews For Buchanan in Florida?) will get us to nuke Tehran,)>>>

You're reading Buchanan wrong. He is dead set AGAINST us nuking Iran and thinks Bush is a fool if he does.

Some of you on here talk a lot about how this war is only for OIL. Talk about spoon fed. Thats all the LEFT talks about so it gets regurgitated here.

Here's a few reasons why people(not the LEFT) think Iraq was about oil.

Afghanistan(O.B.L. but no O.I.L.) which nobody had a problem with was abandoned prematurely in favor of invading Iraq(O.I.L. but no O.B.L.).

Bush and Cheney have lied about everything else under the sun as well as Iraq, WMD's and Al Qaeda links. Bush and Cheney are oil men as are many others in their administration. Energy interests were massive contributors to his campaign.

The little that has emerged from Cheney's energy meeting in early 2001 shows that the oil executives present discussed splitting the Iraqi oilfields up using charts of those oilfields provided.

Cheney continues to fight all attempts to make this information public.

The only thing our troops were told to guard when Baghdad fell was the oil ministry. Weapons depots, priceless antiquities, infrastructure, you name it were all left open to looters. See "No End In Sight", a non-partisan narrative of the whole sorry misadventure, if you doubt this.

Their other failed oil plot was attempting to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela. They fucked that up too, of course. Luckily the consequences there are not dead and maimed American soldiers, a nation of 25 million Arabs devastaed and $2 trillion already pissed into the desert sand or incurred in future liabilities.

It is just a coincidence that both Iraq and Venezuela have oil. and now Iran. Just a coincidence. It's about tyranny!!!

BIB, I have heard all of this. You can get it from any LEFTwing site on the web just about.

This is all speculative evidence and circumstantial at best and would never hold up in court or an impeachment hearing.

OIL is an important resource and I would say the reason it was secured was not for the BUSH OIL PLAN as some say I would say it was because the US realized that the OIL would be needed for IRAQ. IT is the really the only major export the country has and pretty much the sole source for the countries wealth.

Chavez has turned his country into a dictatorship... Nuff said on his dumb ass...

As far as WMD and Al Qaeda, everyone had access to the same evidence. Even the Democrats under Clinton believed that IRAQ had WMDs and ties to terrorist organizations. So to say it is just Bush and Cheney is not looking at it from all sides...

Danni,

Is it just a coincidence that IRAQ and IRAN were both fundamentalist states that have or are currently sponsoring terrorism.

Is it just coincidence that CHAVEZ has done nothing in Venezuela to stop the flow, traffic, production of illegal drugs to the United States.

There is more than oil. Try to see the global picture and impact...

Iraq was not a fundamentalist state. Saying it was does not make it true. Try to study history. You might learn something.

Halliburton has done a good job at raping some contracts. They should and I think will be investigated and fined for the activities they have allowed to happen.

They've ripped off billions and just may possibly have to pay a coupla million in fines fer that.

OUCH!

The US has seen nothing from OIL so to say that it is all about OIL is factually incorrect. Not you per se but a lot of those on here that is their argument. ITS ABOUT OIL, I WIN!!!! Type mentality and its not.

Actually, ...it is.

It's not just only about the oil, that's a gross over-simplification, but the reality remains that all ME foreign policy is and has been predicated on the need for oil since the 1930's.

Not being able to grasp that fundamental shows an exceedingly naive view of the situation.

Perhaps you mis-interpret "it's about oil" to mean it's about cheap oil prices foe most people? Get that notion outta yer head. It's about taking a once nationalised oil industry and parcelling it out to western oil interests to allow them to better control and hence profit from the global oil industry. It's also about staving off the death of the petro dollar, which seems inevitable now anyway.

It's also the US fighting a proxy war for Israel against wot they considered a threat, the regime of Saddam Husein.

The ultimate purpose the the pipeline projects in the area is to direct the oil in the area into the port of Haifa where Israel will control production and fill the massive supertankers regardless of wotever crap is going on outside their borders.

Does AIPAC have an unhealthy amount of influence on American Policy?

This is not in doubt.

Robertson is right there.

Is the pre-emptive strike on Iran's underground nuclear facilities just sabre rattling as Rob suggests or is it an inevitability?

Spud hopes this mad admin no longer has the power to attempt such a thing but has no doubt that they will try to do this thing if they can.

Unless Israel does it first, of course.

If Israel does take matters into it's own hands like it did with Saddam Hussein's attempts to go nuclear back in the nineties wot will the worlds reaction be this time?

The primary difference here being the fact that SH's nuclear program was above ground and thus far more easily destroyable than the alleged underground Iranian program which will require some very heavy and specific bombs to even attempt to destroy.

Also the Iranian have more than one site if reports can be believed.

Bombing Iran, if it occurs, will lead incrementally to another global conflict.

The world is watching for a false flag operation in Iran. Another Gulf of Tonkin like incident in which the rationale fer war is manufactured.

Iran would be idiots to attack the US pre-emptively and everybody knows it.

The US would be idiots to attack Iran pre-emptively too and not everybody knows it, it seems.

More's the pity.

Be Well.

NAVY Vet,

Thank You Brother !

-Sarge

""Is it just coincidence that CHAVEZ has done nothing in Venezuela to stop the flow, traffic, production of illegal drugs to the United States.""

ER...Venezuela, to the best of my knowledge, is not employed by the United STates to fight our "war on drugs."

As NavyVet told you Iraq wasn't a fundamentalist state.

So, puhleeeeez do try to come up with some new excuses.

It is oil, always was oil, always will be oil.

Rule #1. Follow the money.

DANNI

I did a quick search -- "cubans, iraq-iran war" and "young cubans sent to fight in iraq-iran war" and a couple others but nothing comes up (the minute you enter 'iraq iran' it jumps to today's stuff). anyway, i could look more later on. I just vividly remember being told that by Armando. He said other boys his age were being sent here for the same reason but I didn't know any of them personally, only him. There was no reason for him to lie about it.

Army,

Do you know that the fiftieth time you type "LEFT" anybody other than those who listen to rightwingradio nutjob ranters is going to subtract ten points for "acting like a partisan parrot" when they come to evaluate what you say.

How long does a series of events have to be before you discern a pattern? Or do you have some sort of vision problem and you only see it if it is occurring on your "LEFT".

As far as WMD and Al Qaeda, everyone had access to the same evidence. Even the Democrats under Clinton believed that IRAQ had WMDs and ties to terrorist organizations. So to say it is just Bush and Cheney is not looking at it from all sides...

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-08-31 02:44 PM | Reply |

Bullshit. Hindsight has proved that the info was obviously doctored by the powers that be. Lies, inventions and innuendos that at the time seemed to build a case for the invasion (but that fooled no one outside of the states) have been proven for what they are. So obvious was the fabrication that the administration subsequently tried to change the reason for invading 3 times.


If it's not for oil, pray tell, why did you kill 4000 of your countrymen, 100-500,000 innocent iraqis, destroy all of the u.s.'s int'l credibility while managing to blow a trillion dollars again?

Now, come on army of ignorance, if Chavez did that, the American Pharmeceutical companies would corner the market. And they dont sell high quality marijuana. Mostly man made poison.
Just so you know, marijuana is the largest cash crop in THIS country.

It doesn't help though when the news outlets do nothing but bash our troops,...

I never hear the U.S. media bash our troops -- in fact quite the opposite. I listen to CNN most of the time and the local and national news (but ususally do not turn in to the Fox cable news except for a few shows now and then). I can't recall one time when I heard them put our troops down.

They go out of their way to praise the troops over the most innane shit (like the Pols do) and then when one scandal comes along they are on it like flies on shit and run the story ad nauseam for months.

The press loves the "big mean soldier" story more so than the one of the medics taking care of both civilian and enemy Iraqi casualties and the like.

DANNI

If I knew where that guy could be reached now I'd phone him and ask him about it but don't know how to reach him now. Boy, looking back those were fun times then with that whole gang -- party hardy.

Are you kidding, 101? When their income is dependent on ratings the last thing advertiser-supported broadcast news outlets are going to do is bash the troops. Only the American flag comes anywhere near the troops in the no-bash sector. Even God(well religion, not the same thing at all) gets bashed, but not the troops or the flag.

Besides with an endless stream of very bashworthy GOP politicians being caught with their dicks waving about at the men's urinal or the bathroom stall the media hardly has time to bash anyything else.

Blue,
I wasn't kidding. How many stories about a Medal of Honor winner? How many front page stories about Abu Graib?
How many stories on the front page of a newspaper about a battle victory or a soldier saving a civilian life as opposed to the number of front page stories about a soldier killing a civilian?

No, I'm not kidding. Perhpas you could change my mind with some examples counter to mine?

"""No, I'm not kidding. Perhpas you could change my mind with some examples counter to mine?"""

Train wrecks sell papers, make for nice headlines. The rest is C section info...as in who gives a shit except for your aunt martha.

It's the nature of the beast.

DANNI...

So its ok then for Venezuela to traffic drugs that kill thousands of Americans but we only try to overthrow for the OIL RIGHT.

OIL OIL OIL... DANNI PLEASE SHOW ME PROOF, provide links showing us the US GOVERNMENT, everyday people, etc profiting and benefiting from all these vast oil supplies that we have conquered, most of you talk about the right wing talk show hosts yet other than left wing propaganda you can't provide 1 shred of proof other than your own conspiracy theories.

I will admit I was Wrong on Iraq in my previous post though. There were fundamentalist sects that had control of certain ethnic groups during the IRan-IRAQ war. IRAQ was concerned that they would side with IRAN, they did not, but the country as a whole was not "FUNDAMENTALIST".

Train wrecks sell papers, make for nice headlines. The rest is C section info...as in who gives a shit except for your aunt martha.

It's the nature of the beast.

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-08-31 04:24 PM | Reply

See that is the shame of it all... We focus on the good not the bad but Pancho your right about one thing Train wrecks do sell...

If Iran were to attack and kill US Soldiers preemptively, would Liberals support retaliating against such an act of war?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole



Absolutely.

Next question?

"Oil in Iran needs protecting . . . in 1914!"

A long, sad, stupid story.

We are not there for the oil? I agree. We must be there for the view, sand and beautiful women!

If we are not there for the oil, then there is a strong possibility we could invade Poland in the next 500 days...

Seriously, why will we not see cars with alternative fuels on a grand scale?

That's right, Jimmy! Because of corporate greed and the United States infrastructure is set up for oil.

We care about the Iraqi's so much. We want them to have freedom and do the hokey pokey.

Maybe if Darfur had a couple of gigantic oil deposits we could care about them too!

That's right, Jimmy! Because of corporate greed and the United States infrastructure is set up for oil.

So America's love for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is all the fault of corporate greed? No wonder this county in heading towards a shit storm.

Aof1,

How many oil poor dictators has Bush ignored ? How many oil rich Dictators does he support? Why do we support the vile sadistic Saudi dictatorship? Why were 14 of the 19 hijeckers Saudis? Why did the Saudis finance 9-11? Why does Bush hold Fauds hand?
These atrocties transcend Bush, the US has installed dictators in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Turkey, repeatedly against the will of the local peoples. Our "Middle East Enemies" consist of a variety of groups which have held off American Imperialism. Iran is a signature nation which has complied fully with International Law regarding its development of nuclear energy. Contrast that to Pakistan, India and North Korea, which have refused to sign on and developed nuclear weapons. What Shrub says makes absolutely no sense, if you have any memory or reasoning ability whatsoever.

Do you think its a coincidence that oil profits are at record levels with Bush/Cheney running amuk?

Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if their primary export is pickles?

Bush denied that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with oil to Barbara WaWa. But, what was the ONLY thing Bush said to the Iraqi people before he launched his illegal aggression and occupation? "Do NOT destroy the oil wells".

Did Cheney's task force have a detailed map of every oil well and a plan to protect them after invasion, while neglecting to secure major weapons depots?

Did the PNAC demand by letter that Clinton attack Iraq?

Did Cheney write an article which promoted an Iraq attack and lamented that he needed a "Pearl Harbor Event" to build public supportt for the idea?

Why has Haliburton left the United States?

The fact that a gang of NeoCon thugs have failed to secure the oil does not prove their intentions, only their failure.

"Why do we support the vile sadistic Saudi dictatorship?"

First of all it was not the US who installed the House of Saud in Arabia. It was the British.
And we support the Royal family for two very good reasons.
The alternatives would be far far worse.
Look into the Salafism if you'd like to see what and who would come to power in S Arabia.
You want to see "vile and sadistic" ?

"Why were 14 of the 19 hijeckers Saudis?"
See above

"Why did the Saudis finance 9-11?"

Which Saudis? ALL of them?
Wahabis /Salafists are in abundance and unless you like what you see in Iraq where we mistakenly removed the tyrant who kept the lid on, you will stop entertaining the idea of removing the Saudi Royals.

"Why does Bush hold Fauds hand?"

I think it might be the other way around

"These atrocties transcend Bush, the US has installed dictators in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Turkey, repeatedly against the will of the local peoples."

You need to read up a bit. We never "installed" Mubarak in Egypt who followed Sadat who we didn't install who followed Nasser who we didn't install who followed the coup of King Farouk.

In Iran we sure didn't install the Khomeini. Our guy was chased out and that was decades ago.

In Iraq it looks like we may not succeed there either although I think you would admit its better to have a guy on our side then a guy on the other side or maybe you disagree?

In Lebanon we support the guy who won the election. The people there were tired of being under the thumb of Syria and the last straw was Syria murdering one of the country's heroes. We merely support Sonora, and did NOT install him.

In Palestine, Abbas was appointed by Arafat who we certainly didn't install. We don't recognize Hamas which is a terror organization and will not abide by international agreements not to mention they throw people off roof tops who don't support them. Is that what you'd prefer?

We did not install King Abdullah who followed his father King Hussein who died of cancer and he followed his father who was a friend of the UK and was given the land - the same way the Jews were to establish Jordan. We had nothing to do with "installing him" and merely support him where we can.

Turkey? They just had an election and the guy with the most votes won. You think we installed him?

We didn't "install" a single leader of a country you named ... we support leaders who share our values as it should be or do you disagree? Would you rather we support those more interested in dragging civilization back to the 7th century?

You are terribly naive ... full of some very silly notions and lots of myths and BS that you seem to believe without checking further beyond the usual far left nonsense the depends on no one ever fact checking.

Do yourself a favor and FACT CHECK

First of all it was not the US who installed the House of Saud in Arabia. It was the British.

Maybe so. But is was Roosevelt who pledged to keep the Saudis in power in exchange for oil.

Turkey? They just had an election and the guy with the most votes won. You think we installed him?

Not directly. But it's no coincidence that he is Muslim.

Would you rather we support those more interested in dragging civilization back to the 7th century?

Better we keep them in the 7th century by bombing the shit out of them. Right GZ?

The only one talking about bombing Ray seems to be you

And come on Ray .. you pretend to know this subject and time and time again I've busted you as being the novice you are.

The fact is that everything I've said above happens to be exactly correct. We've not "installed" a single leader in these countries as was stated by another poster.

Busted me my ass, GZ. You ignore any facts that don't fit your Zionist bullshit. The only credible source in your mind is the Israeli propaganda mill.

The US was instrumental in installing the Shah of Iran but you conveniently left that one out. And I believe they had a hand in getting Saddam Hussein in power.

sorry , that was an extra big bong hot obviously. I think this this is more understandable

When it comes to you Ray, I feel like one of the Myth Busters. You know the show?

Have you given any thought yet whether your Israel fixation perhaps has come about from misconceptions and out and out myths ? Myths you choose to believe? Like the notion of endless US support since the second Truman voted in the UN as if it were some Jewish cabal behind all this, right ? You needed to believe this and meanwhile when I forced you to check it, you were wrong weren't you? Admit it Ray, It'll be good for you.

When you're wrong about a fundamental notion as you were, do you re-examine your original conclusions and question how many other conclusions its impaced on or do you just look for another reason to believe the same thing?

Just curious

The only one talking about bombing Ray seems to be you

You've been spending too much time reading the Israel press GZ. If you don't see it coming, you will, probably before the year is out. Remember where you first heard it.

It all culminates with the blitzkrieg on Iran. From that day on, all the little details of the past lead to this one moment. I've been telling you for years, that this won't be settled until one side reaches exhaustion. It's going to get ugly.

Raaay ... chill out, relax. I don't know if its happening or not but my guess is not. Nevertheless they want the rhetoric to maintain stridency obviously.

There's no drums of war in the Israeli press except from the usual crowd and that all means to me that the increased frequency of this "message" is being generated solely by sources right here in the US. I doubt there's the political will or capital to make an invasion like this but it should have been done instead of Iraq which I have to believe was all about the Bush family honor more then anything else.

Little Bush correcting an error he believes his daddy made that followed him into his own politics and that was failing to go to Baghdad and killing Saddam at the end of Gulf War II. Bush always wanted to "fix" that and show those boys Uday and Qusay that Jeg and George are no wusses ..

Jeg = Jeb (Duhhhh)

Bani

What's your take on it -- China dumping the dollar or another terrorist attack -- or BOTH???

GZ,

Everything the CIA does is couched in plausible deniability. But there is no question about Egypt and Turkey, both client states of the USA. Egypt, scratch that, Mubarek is second only to Israel in US foriegn aid receipts.

Local popular sentiment is often US foriegn policy backlash. Over and over again local populations have voted against US proxy Governments, in Turkey, Egypt and on and on. But the fact is the Egyptian and Turkish military depend on the USA for support and have repeatedly overthrown popular Governments with backing from the CIA. They don't care how many innocents they kill in the process and Iraq is a horrendous example of that Un-Democratic value.

The only one talking about bombing Ray seems to be you.

Are you kidding? The Neocon war drums have been going non-stop that Iran ia a danger and we need to take care of their possibly gaining nuclear weapon capability now. It is deja vu all over again -- the same words and scare tactics used in the leadup to the Iraq war. The Neocons' imitation of the same threats they used about Iraq in their current lead up to war in Iran would almost be humorous if it wasn't so deadly serious.

Bani
If there is an attack on September 21, there is a symbolism to the number 921. I would have thought this silly until someone noticed that dates of other attacks in Europe added up to 20, the sum of 9 and 11. Three weeks is not far away and by a remarkable coincidence, the Air Force and Navy are all prepared to knock out Iran in one day.

I don't think China would dump the dollar at this time. After the attack on Iran, all bets are off.

For what the kind of genocide the Bush/Cheney gang has planned, a major terrorist attack is the likely option. They need to scare the hell out of the American public to get the license to destroy Iran.

Bani

What's your take on it -- China dumping the dollar or another terrorist attack -- or BOTH???

Posted by CalifChris


At the moment I want to sell those options at $750 a pop, but that's a knee-jerk reaction to garnering some "easy money":>)

"China, reeling over losing $10 Billion in bad loans to the sub-prime mortgage collapse presently taking place, is going to dump US currency and tank all of Capitalism with a Communist financial revolution."

I'm still hysterically laughing at not only the idea but the very notion of some "end of Capitalism with a Communist financial revolution" - and that about sums up how little whoever invented these crazy theories knows about the Chinese.

Any business people here who have gone to China recently care to comment on this idea or are you also hysterically laughing?

Bani

Well, if you don't sell them someone else in the business would. It's not like you're "on the inside" and know with certainty about some terrorist event planned and making money that way. SELL!

is going to dump US currency and tank all of Capitalism with a Communist financial revolution.

GZ
I don't interpret "tank all of capitalism" as meaning the end of capitalism. The US government owes China over a trillion dollars and who knows how much toxic debt they bought from Wall Street. They've already threatened to dump dollars if Congress starts a trade war.

The US is very vulnerable to a run on the dollar. You have no idea how precarious this economy is.