Iran

Please Mr. Bush, let's not invade Iran.

It would never get passed, we have no more extra troops and the senate and house would NEVER allow it.

Iran, with 60 million people and a military to match, would be a most worthy adversary.

But Bush doesnt care about congress, remember? It's not a war, its an executively declared emergency requiring use of military strength by the president. He doesnt listen to Congress at all. Even less now that it's not completely in his pocket.

What troops is he going to use?

Personally, I am against the fact of pissing Russia and China off as well. They are actually working with us on the Iran issue and if we screw it up, I think there will be another 30 days of half staffed flags.

I heard Congressman Charles Rangel of NY recently introduced legislation to bring back the military draft in the US.

If the US invades Iran, it'll make Iraq look like a walk in the park...with an icecream sundae.

Toymented;307111 wrote:

I heard Congressman Charles Rangel of NY recently introduced legislation to bring back the military draft in the US.

He did that to avoid war. If we had to institute a draft, no one would support the war.

piercehawkeye45;307164 wrote:

He did that to avoid war. If we had to institute a draft, no one would support the war.

Boy, that's wishful thinking. GW might just take Rangel up on it and re-institute the draft on executive order.

GW doesn't have support for an escalation, but that's not stopping him, is it?

A draft would bring about the quickest possible end to this war. Simple as that.

I still don't support it though. A draft is NEVER justified.

This report claims;

A June 2005 Associate Press/Ipsos poll found that 27 percent of respondents supported the reinstatement of the military draft in the United States. Reinstatement of the draft was far more popular immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when 76 percent of Americans supported a renewed draft if it becomes clear that more soldiers are needed in the war against terrorism.

That 76% has an "if" clause in there, but it was an emotional time.

I would believe that 27% support the draft today, also. I'd also believe there's an equal number that are dead set against it.

The other 46%? I'd guess there are quite a few that don't give a shit one way or the other.....or anything else the government does, that doesn't effect them directly & immediately. You know them.... they're so self centered, making money and amusing themselves is all they know. What? 10%? 20%?

That still leaves a group larger than the yeas or nays, the swing group. Probably, if asked by a close friend, would state an opinion but feel it's up to the government to do what they have to do. Maybe feel a little helpless in the face of Uncle Sam or even afraid of pissing off business contacts by appearing to be on the wrong side. A bit of the love it or leave it, but never, ever, criticize it.

Where was I going? Oh yeah, don't assume a draft would stir up that much controversy...unlikely but possible. :tinfoil:

Being of draft age and obviously knowing kids of draft age I will tell you the two most quoted statements when it comes to Bush.

"Bush is an idiot"
"I don't really care, as long as I don't get drafted"

If their was a draft in the war against terror, colleges would riot. Parents would freak out, Bush would have the whole US population except maybe 10-15% not just against him, but out to kill him.

There will be no draft. I pointed this out here in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and I will now point this out in 2007.

Sorry Rich, I have to use you as a foil once again.

richlevy 3/2003 wrote:

My son is 17 years old. At the rate we are sending troops over, and with the possibility of a much larger than anticipated occupation force, there may be a draft in 2-3 years. For the first time in 20 years, there is a measurable chance that in the next 5 years I might be laying flowers in front of my son's name on some granite wall in Washington.

It's four years since this "in the next 5 years" statement and STILL the hand-wringing goes on.

richlevy 11/2003 wrote:

He can't afford for the economy to pick up in the South for the next 4 years. The other reason, besides patriotism, for the high rate of armed forces volunteerism in the South is the use of the armed forces as 'employer of last resort'.

With the army pounding sand in Iraq, everyone who signs up knows where they will be for the next 12 months. If recruitment levels fall too low, then the US faces the real prospect of reinstituting the draft.

Was he right about that? Or utterly and completely wrong on all counts? Since the economy has been strong for three years, are there no people wanting to sign up?

richlevy 11/2004 wrote:

Since the war in Iraq began I have mentioned that I told my 18-year-old son that I believed that there was a %20 chance that there would be a draft in the next six years, the time during which I think he would be eligible.

Considering recent developments, and comments from both Democrats and Republicans, I am now bumping that up to %25. The only unknown is the war in Iraq and the time and manpower required.

Rich's "only" unknown turned out badly. No draft yet. Could it be there was more Rich didn't know?

richlevy 6/2005 wrote:

The idea of not having a draft may go down in history as being the biggest campaign lie that Bush told.

You can hate him for his actual policies, or you can hate him for the policies you make up in your head.

Don't worry Rich, there is no chance your son will serve his country.

piercehawkeye45;307222 wrote:

Being of draft age and obviously knowing kids of draft age I will tell you the two most quoted statements when it comes to Bush.

"Bush is an idiot"
"I don't really care, as long as I don't get drafted"

If their was a draft in the war against terror, colleges would riot. Parents would freak out, Bush would have the whole US population except maybe 10-15% not just against him, but out to kill him.

I think you're overstating things quite a bit there PH. I think most everyone feels that way about the prospect of being forced to serve their country. You could insert whatever current Presidents name you wanted in that statement. It wouldn't matter one iota - NO parent wants their kid to die & no "kid"wants to go to war & die either - except maybe UG. But his kind are far and few between. The number of Americans who were around for WWI and WWII are few and unfortunately my generation and more so yours have lost the lessons they learned and fought for. We have reaped the benefits of their blood and been brought up in the freedom they died for. Stories told, yes, but the individual experience and learning is not ours to have - perhaps unfortunately.

Well here are some articles about a US-Iranian war. If I find more I will post them.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16169.htm

piercehawkeye45;307222 wrote:

Being of draft age and obviously knowing kids of draft age I will tell you the two most quoted statements when it comes to Bush.

"Bush is an idiot"
"I don't really care, as long as I don't get drafted"

If their was a draft in the war against terror, colleges would riot. Parents would freak out, Bush would have the whole US population except maybe 10-15% not just against him, but out to kill him.

That's wishful thinking. Do you think Bob Jones University would riot? How about Virginia Military? Utah? Texas A&M?

85% out to kill Bush? When at least half the people in the country wouldn't be affected? I don't think we have to worry about civil insurrection. :headshake

Of course it was exaggeration but the point is Americans won't take it likely. At least the ones affected by it.

No, the average American nowadays is as apathetic as a slug, until you pour salt on them.

xoxoxoBruce;307336 wrote:

I don't think we have to worry about civil insurrection. :headshake

While I appreciate your optimism, I do not share it. Fire up the draft and it'll be more than the occasional dingbat stalking the ranch in Crawford. Much more.

Nice articles, but they certainly are rather biased. Did you read the homepage and the link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm

I am aware of how bias it is but it gives the opposite side than what we are used to hearing so I thought it would be a nice balance. Here are two more articles by the way.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15564.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13590.htm

I thought of something while reading this and I was suprised I didn't think of this earlier.

The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

piercehawkeye45;307369 wrote:

I am aware of how bias it is but it gives the opposite side than what we are used to hearing so I thought it would be a nice balance.

Interesting reading indeed ph. Thanks for the links.

piercehawkeye45;307369 wrote:

Here are two more articles by the way.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15564.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13590.htm

I thought of something while reading this and I was suprised I didn't think of this earlier.

The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

I like it. This is a positive step. Based on Iran's response to our offer, we could determine their intentions. If Iran accepts our technological assistance and allows the inspectors unrestricted access, how can the US or the world deny a country the right to provide an energy source for its people's welfare?

However, any time you're generating with nuclear power, you will have plutonium getting made. If there's plutonium getting made, and any real progress toward a fuel rod reprocessing capacity, fission weapons are not merely a likely possibility. Even the presence of a plutonium reactor to use the Pu-239 etc for power generation shall not guarantee an absence of fissile nuclear weapons material in stockpile, awaiting the best misuse.

There's a lot of useless, even fatuous, blather about allowing Iran a nuclear power plant but keeping reprocessing and enrichment out of that country. Keeping monopolies is a foredoomed folly -- who the hell accepts a choice between getting our friends or ourselves nuked soon, or nuked some years later? Somebody who really wants to be remembered like Neville Chamberlain, I'd say.

The combination of the Ahmedinajad government and nuclear power alarms everyone but Kim Jong Il.

piercehawkeye45;307369 wrote:

The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

Iran already has oil. You suggest using something other than nuclear technology. Whatever it is, we'd be interested in seeing it in the UK before you start giving it to the Iranians please :)

Ibram;307095 wrote:

But Bush doesnt care about congress, remember? It's not a war, its an executively declared emergency requiring use of military strength by the president. He doesnt listen to Congress at all. Even less now that it's not completely in his pocket.

Absolutely.

piercehawkeye45;307083 wrote:

It would never get passed, we have no more extra troops and the senate and house would NEVER allow it.

The trouble is that we're sending 21,500 extra troops to the region anyway. We've already got several carrier strike groups in the Persian gulf and surrounding seas and there is another aircraft carrier on it's way.

Every news source that mentions the USS Stennis sailing to the Persian Gulf says that it is a warning to Iran, and I doubt that aircraft carriers would be very useful for calming sectarian violence in Iraq.

Antiwar.com also has a collection of evidence that we're edging toward a war with Iran.

Yes, after today I have realized that fact that we, against all logic and common sense, probably will go to war with Iran. If Iran does have those Sunburn missles, we are going to get raped in the Persian Gulf, there is no escape route.

Hell, Gary Hart believes the Iran invasion will be the "October Surprise" before the November elections.

Iran was always on Bush's hit list; he needs Iran to get that oil pipeline.
I sincerely hope with every fibre of my being, that he is kicked out of office and brought to trial for war crimes, and that no more British, American and Allied troops, along with thousands of innocent civilians, have to die for this insanity.

piercehawkeye45;307369 wrote:

...The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

It's more than that, now, for Iran. They feel it's a matter of principle that, as a soveriegn nation, they have the right to develop nuclear power. And it's a matter of saving face, to not knuckle under to the satanic Americans.

Yes, but that is the only thing I can see that will bring peace for certain.

Phil;307492 wrote:

I sincerely hope with every fibre of my being, that he is kicked out of office and brought to trial for war crimes, and that no more British, American and Allied troops, along with thousands of innocent civilians, have to die for this insanity.

You'd do better hoping for victory with every fiber of your being instead. Losing to the anti-Westerners will redound upon YOU.

Actually attempting to win a war, and one we DIDN'T start as you will recall, is hardly a "war crime."

When I hear things like this from people, all I can imagine is that they don't have the first idea where their true interests lie.

Wait, invading a soverign nation under false pretenses after an impartial UN group determined there was no reason to invade is not starting it?

Is Iran responsible in any way for all the insurgency going on now in Iraq? Do you think maybe, just maybe, that it is doing everything it can behind the scenes to make sure we are unsuccessful? Just askin.

Iran seems to want peace with the US

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070115/ts_nm/iran_iraq_dc_2

yesman065;307591 wrote:

Is Iran responsible in any way for all the insurgency going on now in Iraq?

Iran is responsible for supporting the insurgency just like the US is responsible for doing same for the IRA in Northern Ireland. If it was not obvious, the United States was the number one supporter of IRA terrorism. Before you listen to George Jr and Rush Limbaugh spin, remember what supported the IRA.

How much support did the US Government send to the IRA?

Urbane Guerrilla;307564 wrote:

You'd do better hoping for victory with every fiber of your being instead. Losing to the [COLOR="Red"]anti-Westerners [/COLOR]will redound upon YOU.

Oops! Time to jump off the democracy bandwagon eh?

So if Iran is responsible for the insurgency, then perhaps we should work to seal the border between the two countries. Perhaps things wouldn't be so bad if there weren't rabblerousers creating such disruptions. As long as we are dealing with this BS we aren't in Iran are we? Thats what Iran wants, right? Isn't it better for Iran to have the US fighting (and losing) the PR war in Iraq because so many want to forget the fact that the war on terror needs to be fought and I'd rather do it there than here.

tw;307608 wrote:

Before you listen to George Jr and Rush Limbaugh spin, remember what (????)supported the IRA.

For your information, Those and these were/are my thoughts tw, mine alone. I don't listen to George JR. nor Rush - in fact, it is YOU who seem to spend a lot of time listening to them since you know so much about what he thinks says and believes.
You constantly make assumptions about me and where I get my opinions and you have been WRONG every single time. So please stop it. It's really annoying and simply makes you look like more ignorant than you already are and trust me you don't need my help.

Urbane Guerrilla;307564 wrote:

You'd do better hoping for victory with every fiber of your being instead. Losing to the anti-Westerners will redound upon YOU.

Actually attempting to win a war, and one we DIDN'T start as you will recall, is hardly a "war crime."

When I hear things like this from people, all I can imagine is that they don't have the first idea where their true interests lie.

granted the USa didnt "start it", but have no doubt it was an INVASION, an ILLEGAL INVASION, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. the attack on twin towers was carried out by Saudi, or (wait for it) the CIA, but of course Bush's interests are already sorted there, so he went after the one Daddy couldnt bag.
i know for sure where my interests lie, and it isnt in some Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian warmonger.

Phil;307705 wrote:

the CIA

Snort.

Phil;307705 wrote:

the CIA,

LMAO, good thing you were only kidding - weren't you?

Undertoad;307489 wrote:

Hell, Gary Hart believes the Iran invasion will be the "October Surprise" before the November elections.

Almost time to put the patriotic magnet back on the car!

yesman065;307641 wrote:

So if Iran is responsible for the insurgency, then perhaps we should work to seal the border between the two countries.

I said completely opposite of what you are posting. Are you now telling me that the US government supported the IRA? I did not say that. Why do you reply as if I said that? Your reply only makes sense if you view nations as a monolithic block.

Iraq Study Group constructed a comprehensive plan to get out of Iraq. Insightful, comprehensive, and based in reality. Guess what. Neither Syria nor Iran have the 'enemy' attitude promoted by a mental midget president. So fools in this administration will promote lies so that you don't respect the only 'out' we have.

You have assumed an insurgency is fueled primarily by foreign forces. Did you read facts even in 2003? Iraq was chock full of ammunition dumps. So much not eliminated because America had too few troops (who made that stupid mistake?). So much munitions unguarded because America disbanded the Iraqi military. The insurgency is fueled by a country chock full of munitions. Where would external munitions come from? Jordan. Kuwait. Turkey. Smuggling is rampant because the US disbanded the military and deBaathified the country. Because the US has too few troops in country.

How does an anti-American president get you to blame someone else? Blame Syria and Iran. It is an old trip used by Hitler to rally his brown shirts. The Iraq Study Group has a workable solution. But first you must ignore George Jr lies and propaganda. Smuggling is also supplying the insurgency? Probably. And both Syria and Iran have interests in capturing what they call criminals; what we call mafia.

Instead the enemy of America blames Iran and Syria so that the biased among us will not demand the only possible solution from the Iraq Study Group.

tw wrote:

I said completely opposite of what you are posting. Are you now telling me that the US government supported the IRA? I did not say that. Why do you reply as if I said that?

UM, cuz you did! Read your own post! #37.

tw wrote:

Iran is responsible for supporting the insurgency just like the US is responsible for doing same for the IRA in Northern Ireland. If it was not obvious, the United States was the number one supporter of IRA terrorism.

tw wrote:

Iraq Study Group constructed a comprehensive plan to get out of Iraq.

Yes they did, but that is not yet the goal our Government set forth - We have not completed our objectives. If we leave now it will only make for a stronger and more dangerous Iran and Syria. The ISG was done by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) They are biased to that end - peace. Peace is great and we all want that eventually, but it is not yet time for peace. There are people who want to end our way of life and will do so the first chance they get.
Does the situation suck? Absolutely, but just because there is a lot of hard work ahead and a great unknown does not mean that we quit or give up. There is a much bigger picture here than just Iraq - it is the global threat of terrorism that must be shown we will not back down - period. I don't have any of the answers, I wish I did. But bitching and complaining (which is all you seem to do) is the worst thing that can happen right now. Our country cannot leave - we need another solution - perhaps you should put forth your efforts to that end instead of being so fucking negative.

You are completely blinded by your political parties views that it is borderline treasonous. You claim to be so freakin smart - prove it! Thought ideas and input are what is needed not degrading our elected leadership- that makes us look worse, accomplishes nothing, undermines our country and threatens our lives.

yesman065;307884 wrote:

UM, cuz you did! Read your own post! #37.

Well here is that post #37:

Iran is responsible for supporting the insurgency just like the US is responsible for doing same for the IRA in Northern Ireland. If it was not obvious, the United States was the number one supporter of IRA terrorism. Before you listen to George Jr and Rush Limbaugh spin, remember what supported the IRA.

Do you understand what the "US" is? Do you regard the entire nation as one big government? Even China is not that monolithic. To not understand what I have posted, you assume each nation as a monolithic block. Stop doing that. That was the point of post #37 that you still do not comprehend. You are still buying into this 'black and white' lie of evil Syria and evil Iran. Did you know, for example, that before "Mission Accomplished", Syria was a major source of spying for the US? How can this be if they were American enemies? Guess what. Eliminate that black and white world promoted by extremist rhetoric. Only a fool thinks Iraq is about Syrian and Iranian dominance.

Yes, there is political contesting between us. And there are also many political interests that we all share. Did you understand why your attitudes are so contradictory to what is published by the Iraq Study Group? Do you understand that you post disdain for other nations actively promoted on Fox News and by George Jr?

Does the situation suck? Of course. That was lessons of history and military science 101. That is why planning for the peace before war starts was so necessary - and not done by those who know only using political agendas. That is the point made so obvious in PBS Frontline's The Lost Year. Did you view it yet - or do you just somehow know it is communist inspired propaganda?

Funny how you only see bitching and never see solutions. Solutions were repeatedly defined. And since George Jr have made those solutions impossible, the Iraq Study Group is our only viable resolution. Did you read that either - or just know from what you heard?

There is a much bigger picture here than just Iraq - it is the global threat of terrorism that must be shown we will not back down - period.

And again you have been brainwashed by Fox News, CBN, Fox News, and other purveyors of wacko extremism. For if global terrorism really was the agenda, then when do you ask this question? "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Why so much silence from Yesman065? The #1 example of terrorism and Yesman065 does not ask that question weekly? Instead we are fighting bin Laden in iraq? Yesman065 - at what point do you see the irony of your own beliefs?

Getting bin Laden is not a political agenda promoted by Fox News and the mental midget. Stop associating yourself with such anti-Americans.

You are completely blinded by your political parties views that it is borderline treasonous. You claim to be so freakin smart - prove it!

What political party would that be? Since you made the statement, then you clearly know what my political party is. After all, Yesman065 would not post without first learning facts? Yesman065 would not label me treasonous without first learning facts - would he? Clearly you know what my political party is. Name it? Or is this another embarrassing question you will not answer.

I don't make any claims of being smart. I first learn facts before having an opinion. I also claim to confront what I regard as classic anti-Americans - those who somehow know without first learning facts. The soundbyte description of those same radical extremists? Liars.

If you think for one minute that we are somehow fighting terrorism in Iraq to keep it out of America, then you are clearly having an opinion not based in the facts and in the lessons of history. You are doing exactly what 'big dics' did in the 1960s to justify Vietnam. Conclusions that twisted politically biased speculations into proclaimed fact - the Domino Theory. Conclusions inspired because McCarthyism must be right. Learn from history. Did you read the Pentagon Papers? Making of a Quagmire? A Bright and Shining Lie? Why not?

How do you know that a president with a long history of lying is not lying again? Where are your facts? Meanwhile, instead of bitching, I am again posting solutions. One of them is for you to first learn before just knowing something. Posted is reading so that you learn lessons of history. These solutions were posted repeatedly previously. Did you learn from them?

I don't claim to be smart. I only conclude based upon facts, trends, numbers, history ... and with a total contempt for decisions based in a political agenda and biased speculations. Stopping terrorism in Iraq? Also true if you believe there is a light in the end of the tunnel. If you think Iraq is about stopping world wide terrorism, then you are using classic 'big dic' thinking promoted by America’s anti-American leadership.

The draft is a bad thing, conscription is not the answer. Pay your people well to attract them to the job, and train the hell out of them.

These "people" ( Islamic terrorists) are barbarians, and beneath our contempt.
I for one do not want to use my guns to defend my neighborhood against a bunch of "Islamic" nut cases. I would rather shoot Pepsi cans, and paper targets.
As fer as Israel is concerned, we need to remember that these people survived the holocaust,(yes Adolph it really happened) and do not want a repeat of history.

Right. The answer to the (patently ignored) question "How much support did the US Government give the IRA?" is "None at all", which breaks the IRA analogy in the case of Iran.

Iran, who is supplying the insurgency with materiel, currently in the form of shaped explosive charges that are specifically anti-tank. And expertise in the form of senior military personnel.

[Quote]the Iraq Study Group is our only viable resolution. Did you read that either - or just know from what you heard?[Quote]

[Quote]I don't make any claims of being smart. I first learn facts before having an opinion.[Quote]

[Quote]And again you have been brainwashed by Fox News, CBN, Fox News, and other purveyors of wacko extremism.[Quote]

I thought tw's point about the IRA was that the funding was coming from private Americans rather than the gummint? He has taken the density up a couple notches though...

tw wrote:

the Iraq Study Group is our only viable resolution. Did you read that either - or just know from what you heard?

If we are trying to get out - that was their recommendation. What did they offer as an alternative if we stayed? I read the report - did you?

tw wrote:

I don't make any claims of being smart. I first learn facts before having an opinion.

Well then stop acting like you are better than everyone else and writing like whatever you say is right, just and should be taken as gospel.

tw wrote:

And again you have been brainwashed by Fox News, CBN, Fox News, and other purveyors of wacko extremism.

OMG - And you are supposed to be Mr. Impartial? Get real - there is no one more biased to an extreme than YOU. You have your little agenda and you come here spouting your "facts", many of which are wrong, and then sidestep the actual point made until it is lost under mountains of misinformation and conjecture.

I have to stop if I keep going at this with you I'll probably get banned and you are certainly not worth that. I value this place too much

It's an analogy. "Just like".

Iran is responsible for supporting the insurgency just like the US is responsible for doing same for the IRA in Northern Ireland.

The US Gov tried successfully and unsuccessfully to stop it.

Private individuals in the US were - and maybe still are - the source of funding for many anti-US middle east terrorist organizations via fake charities, just like the IRA situation. It's no surprise. This is where the money is.

yesman065;307942 wrote:

I have to stop if I keep going at this with you I'll probably get banned and you are certainly not worth that. I value this place too much

tw drives everyone up the wall at some point. That is understood and will be available as evidence at trial.

Griff;307949 wrote:

tw drives everyone up the wall at some point. That is understood and will be available as evidence at trial.

Thats good to know cuz I sure as hell won't have any character references comin from here. - thanks

yesman065;307757 wrote:

LMAO, good thing you were only kidding - weren't you?

of course. it was the Illuminati ! :D

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9124194186333362123

i dont agree with the attacking of other members, but i mostly agree with TW's post above. why is it so hard to believe the govt's are not telling the truth and the whole truth? people should question their govts, and probe for the truth. there is enough information coming out to bolster the opinion that there is a hidden agenda in just about everything our govts do. try to imagine what theyre NOT telling us.

Phil;308067 wrote:

why is it so hard to believe the govt's are not telling the truth and the whole truth? people should question their govts, and probe for the truth. there is enough information coming out to bolster the opinion that there is a hidden agenda in just about everything our govts do. try to imagine what theyre NOT telling us.

I don't think any gov't ever anywhere told "the masses" all of what was/is going on. There are hidden agendas in every Gov't. I can honestly say that we probably don't want to know what they aren't telling us. For example, the London cell plot that was recently exposed. Having things like that happen or knowing they were about to potentially happen here in America would NOT be a good thing.

yesman065;308079 wrote:

I don't think any gov't ever anywhere told "the masses" all of what was/is going on. There are hidden agendas in every Gov't. I can honestly say that we probably don't want to know what they aren't telling us. For example, the London cell plot that was recently exposed. Having things like that happen or knowing they were about to potentially happen here in America would NOT be a good thing.

how so?

Uh, Mass panic, utter disorder, paranoia. . . Please?

yesman065;308100 wrote:

Uh, Mass panic, utter disorder, paranoia. . . Please?

well thats the key isnt it? not to panic and go in all guns blazing. wow. is America really that paranoid? whatever happened to demonstrations and protests?

There is a difference between that and talking about how a government supports terrorist.

Phil;308109 wrote:

whatever happened to demonstrations and protests?

I would.......but......that involves.......work.

It occurred to me tonight to wonder where Iran was getting its uranium, and Google came to my aid. The Iranians seem to be working any source they can get at; they're mining some modest reserves of rather low grade ore domestically and they're working on African sources, showing a good deal of enthusiasm for mines in Somalia -- though how much success they'd have, fishing in waters this troubled, I'm sure I don't know. Then there's the Tanzanian uranium smuggling incident, where a lot of stuff doesn't quite add up yet -- arguments, for example, over just how much radioactivity could have been detectable in and from the shipping container. The UN report on all this for some reason (possibly skanky, as UN corruption and favoritism are becoming better and better known) isn't talking about uranium, while Tanzanian officialdom is. Sounds like you ought to fly to Dar Es Salaam with your own Geiger counter and geologists' hammer and find out for yourself. I didn't even see anything on whether it was raw ore or yellowcake, but I might have missed something.

Domestic Iranian Uranium -- I'm a poet and I don't know it.

Two Iranians prospecting for uranium possibilities in Somalia -- link to a one-sentence mention included in a UN report detailing arms smuggling into Somalia in aid of both the Transitional Government and the Islamic Courts.

piercehawkeye45;308119 wrote:

I would.......but......that involves.......work.

thats exactly what these "leaders" want : apathy. it will be the undoing of many a nation.
a people should not fear their government - a government should fear the people. cant remember who said that, but its true.

I know V for Vendetta used that but I'm sure they got it from somewhere else.

By the way, that quote was sarcasm, yet it is sadly true.

Phil;309617 wrote:

thats exactly what these "leaders" want : apathy. it will be the undoing of many a nation.
a people should not fear their government - a government should fear the people.

The Middle East is a great example of that - too many of those countries have it back-asswards.

yesman065;309700 wrote:

The Middle East is a great example of that - too many of those countries have it back-asswards.

What do you mean by that?

What Phil said. "a people should not fear their government - a government should fear the people."

yesman065;309756 wrote:

What Phil said. "a people should not fear their government - a government should fear the people."

I'm pretty sure the American government doesn't fear it's people. Doesn't that make us back-assward?

If you think the government doesnt fear the people, just wait till election year rolls around. Fear of no votes (and therefore no JOB) is fear all the same, no?

piercehawkeye45;309770 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the American government doesn't fear it's people. Doesn't that make us back-assward?

I think they fear us plenty. Why else would they be saying all they do to appease us. If at some point they didn't, they certainly do now. They need us to remain employed, to have the power we entrust them with.

Why would Bush send a "surge" of troops when no one wants that? They may give us an illusion that we have power when in reality, it is just one big cycle.

piercehawkeye45;309902 wrote:

Why would Bush send a "surge" of troops when no one wants that?

Because he thinks the appearance of being a strong leader is as important if not more important than actually leading.

piercehawkeye45;309902 wrote:

Why would Bush send a "surge" of troops when no one wants that?

What, you think applying more force isn't going to make this better or something?

Everyone in the Mideast is counting on the soft Americans to fold up their tents and leave. Only problem is they are facing a President who will not fold - period. Just when it seems that everyone is saying quit - he steps it up. Then the insurgent violence goes up a notch too. All these Mid East wacko leaders suddenly start making statements to the world and on and on. . .
Hmm. Just an observation.

Thats bull, if he wanted to "step it up" he would have sent more than 20,000 troops. We are going from 130,000 troops to 150,000, not much of a difference. If he sent 100,000 I wouldn't be happy but I would at least see his point, but I don't get 20,000.

piercehawkeye45;309974 wrote:

Thats bull, if he wanted to "step it up" he would have sent more than 20,000 troops. We are going from 130,000 troops to 150,000, not much of a difference. If he sent 100,000 I wouldn't be happy but I would at least see his point, but I don't get 20,000.

Well 20,000 is like a 15 % or so increase - not a negligible increase.
Other Possibilities:
1) certain number needed for a specific task ie: securing Baghdad
2) didn't think he could get anymore
3) doesn't have anymore to spare
4)???

1) certain number needed for a specific task ie: securing Baghdad

And let the rest of the country rot. I keep my stance.

2) didn't think he could get anymore

You know that isn't true. He could have gotten a lot more if he wanted.

3) doesn't have anymore to spare

Same as before. The troops go in shifts, he has a lot more troops to spare.

Had a look at Iraqi Kurdistan lately, PH? Yeah, sure, big rot there. The place has been a success story since the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Baghdad isn't the only problem, it would be ignorant to think so.

Besides, why would we just put the minimum amount of troops to secure a city? If we overloaded the city with troops, the transition would be a lot easier. There is no good excuse to only send 20,000 troops. Go all out or go home.

yesman065;309840 wrote:

I think they fear us plenty. Why else would they be saying all they do to appease us. If at some point they didn't, they certainly do now. They need us to remain employed, to have the power we entrust them with.

Are you talking about 500 or so elected people that are so entrenched in the political scum, you'd play hell trying to dispose of them? Or by government do you mean the millions that occupy those desks, or benchs, or trucks, or tanks, and you can't do a damn thing about? :(

xoxoxoBruce;310143 wrote:

Are you talking about 500 or so elected people that are so entrenched in the political scum, you'd play hell trying to dispose of them? Or by government do you mean the millions that occupy those desks, or benchs, or trucks, or tanks, and you can't do a damn thing about? :(

I was referring to the elected officials

Since we're talking about Iraq in a thread about Iran, I thought I'd throw in this recent encouraging news about Afghanistan. Apparently Bush is beginning to realize that if you look like you are losing a war in a country, you better fix it before it's too late. He's focusing new attention on Afghanistan, which hasn't been doing very well lately.

I though I'd post it because it's rare for Bush do do something that makes sense.

From the Washington Post.

Bush Plans New Focus On Afghan Recovery
Extra $7 Billion Would Go to Security, Roads

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 25, 2007; A01

After the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion, the Bush administration is preparing a series of new military, economic and political initiatives aimed partly at preempting an expected offensive this spring by Taliban insurgents, according to senior U.S. officials.

Even as it trumpeted a change of course in Iraq this month, the White House has completed a review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. It will ask Congress for $7 billion to $8 billion in new funds for security, reconstruction and other projects in Afghanistan as part of the upcoming budget package, officials said.

That would represent a sizable increase in the U.S. commitment to the strife-torn country; since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban, the United States has provided a little more than $14 billion in assistance for Afghanistan, the State Department says...

...

Wow! That's pretty cool.

I hope it's not too late. The poppy crop has been harvested and sold, the Taliban(and their ilk) have collected their money and are arming to the teeth.
Do you think they will be dissuaded by new infrastructure? That's the first thing they'll blow up.

Funds for security? What's the plan, bribe the Taliban? Money doesn't make the place more secure, soldiers do. Whether it be military or Blackwater, there has to be boots on the ground to provide security and I haven't heard of the UN peacekeepers being reinforced.

What we should have been doing right along, is providing a way for the locals to make a living with something besides poppies. That would have prevented the Taliban from extorting the profits from the poppy crop to buy arms.

If you want to know the truth about Afghanistan, read a short article called The Perfect Evil by Michael Yon.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I know, I know, 3 parts, grumble, grumble......trust me, it's not long. :angel:

Here's another piece on Afghanistan, There be Dragons.

And the Canadians, Hiatus Corpus.

Or this pdf War: Canadian Style from the Toronto Star.

And The Long Road Ahead.

xoxoxoBruce;310984 wrote:

What we should have been doing right along, is providing a way for the locals to make a living with something besides poppies.

No, we should be doing what many radio talking heads have been discussing lately: look deep inside the heart of this great nation and ask "What would Ronald Reagan have done in this situation?"

He would have had the answer. :sniff:

Ronnie Rayguns would have nuked them, I suspect. :tinfoil:

How about doing business in a Virgin Market.

Dasht-E-Margo....Desert of Death.

Kitsune;310992 wrote:

No, we should be doing what many radio talking heads have been discussing lately: look deep inside the heart of this great nation and ask "What would Ronald Reagan have done in this situation?"

He would have had the answer. :sniff:

:eek: did you forget to take your meds?!

xoxoxoBruce;310984 wrote:

What we should have been doing right along, is providing a way for the locals to make a living with something besides poppies. That would have prevented the Taliban from extorting the profits from the poppy crop to buy arms.

spot on! the majority of the UK's heroin comes from Afghanistan, and this should ahve been tackled at the beginning, by helping to provide an alternative cash crop. the same thing is happening to South America with the coca crop, and that could easily be rectified. sorry, a little off-topic.

A nice thought -- but the difference between the money Yusuf Afghani can make from a field of wheat and a field of opium poppies is nothing short of astromomical, whether legal or no. Nobody has been able to wipe out this dollar difference nor even to close the gap.

piercehawkeye45;309902 wrote:

Why would Bush send a "surge" of troops when no one wants that? They may give us an illusion that we have power when in reality, it is just one big cycle.

To steal the oil and natural gas, duh!
Time to make the move.

Urbane Guerrilla;311157 wrote:

A nice thought -- but the difference between the money Yusuf Afghani can make from a field of wheat and a field of opium poppies is nothing short of astromomical, whether legal or no. Nobody has been able to wipe out this dollar difference nor even to close the gap.

the problem is that it has never been properly addressed. for example, coca could be used in a lift-me-up-tea, or in conference mints for the boring post-lunch sessions, or coca cake for hikers and walkers. of course, the strength and purity would have to be lessened so that it doesnt become addictve, like coffee, but the answers are there.
regards the opium plant, until you get to the top of the hierarchy, the cost of heroin in Afghanistan is miniscule compared to the cost when it gets to the UK. Afghanis are not getting rich from this: they are existing hand to mouth stylee.
off topic again, but needed to be brought up, i think.

for more on Coca, there is an excellent book available called THE BIG DEAL by Anthony Henman.

Urbane Guerrilla;311157 wrote:

A nice thought -- but the difference between the money Yusuf Afghani can make from a field of wheat and a field of opium poppies is nothing short of astromomical, whether legal or no. Nobody has been able to wipe out this dollar difference nor even to close the gap.

Not so because they have to pay the Taliban most of the profit for protection and marketing. But you couldn't know that, not being there.
I think I'll go with the opinion of the people that are there dealing with Bush's mistakes.:p

Competing with opium requires teaching Afghan farmers how to earn more money with alternative crops once we have demonstrated the credibility of an eradication program. Experimental farms in the southern region have had success with “cotton, fruit and certain vegetable crops,” according to Rashid. CDAG projects have overseen agricultural development that includes apricots, raisins, pistachios and walnuts, rice, corn and cotton.

Mr. Koch and others who know both the climate and the people in Afghanistan say that persuading the farmers to use drip systems for irrigation, or to train grapevines to trellises so that the vines and rows can be planted closer together, is a serious obstacle. But, these methods are essential to make vineyards a viable alternative to the poppy plant because the higher crop density increases profits. Despite inertia, it is possible to persuade farmers to try new ideas by subsidizing the work and giving them access to mentors like Koch, who can increase the odds of success with those first critical harvests. The confidence that is the chief by-product of success is also the only antidote to inertia. In just a few years, the vineyards depicted in the next two photographs will compete with opium poppy. Although he can’t say for certain at this point, Michael Koch believes that in the long run, these vineyards can probably earn more than opium poppies.

jump

The tragic irony with all of this is that after winning stunning military victory after stunning military victory in the early war – crushing and vanquishing the Taliban – instead of setting in to seal the victory, we squandered it and ran off to Iraq, and the Taliban re-inflated and returned. At the current rate we, the Brits, Aussies, Canadians, French, Germans, Italians, and all the rest who are there, will lose the war in Afghanistan. We must change course with great haste.

The alternative crops approach can work, and there are other ideas for alternative economies not mentioned here. People are thinking about it. But we are not moving fast enough on long overdue and badly mismanaged reconstruction efforts. We are not taking the opium threat seriously, and so we literally are subsidizing a deadly enemy with poisoned blood and dirty money. Western money will flow into Afghanistan whether we invest it wisely or not. We’ve seen what happens when we ignore the place.

Not to drag this back in but, I saw some cable tv last night. The nut is serious about attacking Iran, isn't he?

Griff;312058 wrote:

Not to drag this back in but, I saw some cable tv last night. The nut is serious about attacking Iran, isn't he?

He was serious about attacking China over a silly spy plane. How many saw what should have been obvious back then? He (really Cheney) is that Stalinmanic. Iraq was Pearl Harbored. Next on his well publicized list is Iran. Only a brown shirt did not see veins hanging from his teeth in 2001 - over a silly spy plane.

But then I even read his book. The word nut no longer applies. We long passed 'nut' when he (actually Cheney) wanted to attack China over a silly spy plane. He even promotes China as a next 'evil' - and brown shirts (ie Urbane Guerrilla) love it.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/013107.html

This guy thinks we will attack Iran in the next month.

The French will not pressure Iran, when push comes to shove:

http://story.news.ask.com//article/20070201/D8N0VEKO1.html

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] PARIS (AP) - President Jacques Chirac backtracked Thursday and said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, reversing earlier comments that Tehran's possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous."

"France, along with the international community, cannot accept the prospect of an Iran equipped with a nuclear weapon," Chirac's office said in a statement seeking to limit fallout from the French leader's remarks to the International Herald Tribune and two other publications.

"The Iranian nuclear program is opaque and therefore dangerous for the region," the statement added. It urged Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, and said the United Nations would respond to such a move by suspending sanctions and that negotiations with Tehran would resume.

The statement followed a remarkable morning of damage-control by Chirac's office, which took the unusual step of asking reporters to come over in person for a clarification about his comments that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would not be "very dangerous" and that if used on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed."
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]Chirac, who made the comments during a Monday interview, called reporters back the next day to try to have his quotes retracted.

The publications said the interview was tape-recorded and on the record.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

China will not pressure Iran, when push comes to shove.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/20449.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] BEIJING, Jan. 15 China is in talks and close to an agreement to invest $3.6 billion in a major Iranian natural gas field, which would see liquified natural gas for China.

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Gulfoilandgas.com reports the China National Petroleum Corp. is negotiating with Statoil of Norway on investing in a South Pars natural gas field.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]The SP14 project has 370 billion cubic meters of reserves.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]

The tentative agreement would have CNPC build a $1.8 billion LNG plant and $1.8 billion dedicated to exploring and producing gas.

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]If approved, China would get a dedicated 4.5 million tons of LNG a year from the plant.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]This comes as U.S. officials condemned Chinese investment of $16 billion into the North Pars gas fields and facilities.

A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the United States shouldn't get involved in trade negotiation with Iran.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Russia will not pressure Iran, when push comes to shove.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/21083.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] MOSCOW - Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced on Tuesday that Russia has delivered anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran that were a part of a defense deal inked by the two countries in 2005. Ivanov also said that Russia would consider further orders from the Middle Eastern country.

"We have supplied the modern short-range anti-aircraft systems TOR-M1 in accordance with our contracts," Ivanov confirmed. "Iran is not under sanctions and if it wants to buy defensive ... equipment for its armed forces then why not?"

Iran had inked an agreement in 2005 to buy 29 TOR-M1 missile systems from Russia in a deal believed to be worth $700 million. The TOR-M1 missile systems are capable or hitting airborne targets like cruise missiles or helicopters.


The United States had asked Russia to nix the defense deal in the light of the defiant position adopted by Iran over nuclear weapons. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the US feels that it is getting ready to make nuclear weapons. The standoff has been tense and hence Russia's sale will not be viewed favorably.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey had harsh words for this deal, "We don't think that it's an appropriate signal to be sending to the government of Tehran at this time, particularly when they are under U.N. sanctions for trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and when they continue to be in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions," he said.[/SIZE][/FONT]

British/Iranian opinion: US/UN pressure on Iran will only hurt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001703,00.html

Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world.

There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his best friends.

Worked for Castro...

tw;312095 wrote:

But then I even read his book. The word nut no longer applies. We long passed 'nut' when he (actually Cheney) wanted to attack China over a silly spy plane. He even promotes China as a next 'evil' - and brown shirts (ie Urbane Guerrilla) love it.

Well, well, well: the thread is officially over. Tw just stooped or slumped down to calling somebody a Nazi.

As for the "silly spy plane" thing, the only person talking like an attack on China was contemplated is again our very own delusive, dear ol' tw. He also fails to understand what's behind the Heinleinian remark "Men are not potatoes." Those of us who do understand this are shaking our heads at tw's take.

Your communist sympathies, and your virulent anti-Americanism, have never been more on display than in this post, tw. Always your bias is away from America and her worthwhile traits and towards all the evils of Communism, which you would like us to believe are good things. But then, you usually cover yourself with your own shit when you reveal your thoughts. Nithing.

Urbane Guerrilla;312307 wrote:

Well, well, well: the thread is officially over. Tw just stooped or slumped down to calling somebody a Nazi.

UG is using his menza grasp. Clearly a brown shirt could only be a Nazi. Because 1930 brown shirts supported the Nazi party, then 2002 brown shirts are also Nazis? Cheney would be angry with UG for his assumption.

Drivel, tw.

Urbane Guerrilla;313395 wrote:

Drivel

Ive wondered what UG was talking about. It's code!

http://www.levird.com - drivel spelled backwards.

This whole situation feels somewhat familiar. :fuse: