• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Iran Next?

Do you think GW will Attack Iran?

  • Yes- I agree we should...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes- but I don't think we should

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
The talk of all the Conservative and some of the Liberal media the last few days has been on the fact that they believe GW and the Washington neocons are planning an attack on Iran--sooner than later- at least within the next 12 months...

My only question is where are they going to get the manpower-- we already have Generals saying the troop availability is way over stretched and that morale/ability is suffering from more frequent and longer combat tours...I saw where GW was even approached by a Cobra Pilot yesterday-representing the troops and stating their problems with continued absence from their families caused by multiple and extended tours of duty....A couple days ago, I talked to a local young fellow that that had just returned from Iraq-- and he said that divorce rates amongst the Army were running at record rates....

Do I smell a draft????


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phase III of Bush's war
Patrick J Buchanan
Posted: September 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern




Those who hoped that – with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney – America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.

Today, the United States has 30,000 more troops in Iraq than on the day America repudiated the Bush war policy and voted the GOP out of power. And President Bush, self-confidence surging, is now employing against Iran a bellicosity redolent of the days just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

What gives Bush his new cockiness? The total collapse of the antiwar coalition on Capitol Hill and the breaking of the Congress.

Last spring, Bush vetoed the congressional deadlines for troop withdrawals, then rubbed Congress' nose in its defeat by demanding, and getting, $100 billion to support the surge and continue the war.

Before the August recess, Democrats broke again and voted to give Bush the warrantless wiretap authority many among them had said was an unconstitutional and impeachable usurpation of power. They are a broken and frightened lot.

Now comes evidence congressional Democrats have not only lost the pro-victory vote, but forfeited the peace vote, as well.

According to a Zogby poll the last week in August, just two weeks before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report, Americans, by 45 percent to 20 percent, give this Democratic Congress lower grades on handling the war than the Republican Congress it replaced.

Fifty-four percent of the nation believes, contra Harry Reid, the war is not lost. That is twice the support that Bush enjoys for his war leadership, a paltry 27 percent. But, by nine to one, Bush's leadership on the war is preferred to that of the Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.



And George W. smells it. He no longer fears the power of Congress, and his rhetoric suggests he is contemptuous of it. He is brimming with self-assurance that he can break any Democratic attempt to impose deadlines for troop withdrawal and force Congress to cough up all the funds he demands.

Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his War on Terror: First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran.

Do not take this writer's word for it. Hearken to the astonishing rhetoric Bush used at the American Legion Convention in Las Vegas against Tehran:


"Iran ... is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. ... Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. ... Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes. ... Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. ... We will confront this danger before it is too late."

Bush has repeatedly warned Iran to cease supplying Iraqi insurgents with arms and enhanced IEDs for attacks on our troops in Iraq.

How has Tehran responded to Bush's virtual ultimatums?


"The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months – despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq. ...
"Iran's leaders cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis."

This is a case for war. Indeed, it's an assertion by President Bush that Iran is colluding in acts of war against the soldiers and Marines and allies of the United States. What does he intend to do?


"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities. ... We've conducted operations against Iranian agents supplying lethal munitions to extremist groups."
This suggests that U.S. forces may already be engaged in combat operations against Iranians.

Who or what can stop this drive to war?

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran. Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, but the gist of it declared that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, laying the foundation for a confrontation.

What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think?

Nothing and no one.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57454
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Heres another article from today--this is a radical right wing sight, so take it for what its worth......

Cheney Orders Media To Sell Attack On Iran
Fox News, Wall Street Journal instructed to launch PR blitz for upcoming military strike

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 4, 2007


Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran from today, according to Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University.

The New Yorker magazine reports that Rubin had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.

"It will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects, writes Rubin, "It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”

Rubin subsequently confirmed with a second source that the propaganda coup had been launched and the individual, another top Neo-Con at a major think tank, had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/040907_cheney_orders.htm
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
He probably should attack Iran, but I doubt he really will. I think he is beat down by the media and Dem's and will leave Iran for the next president to deal with.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
He probably should attack Iran, but I doubt he really will. I think he is beat down by the media and Dem's and will leave Iran for the next president to deal with.


Yeah...and he's already said that he was gonna leave Iraq for the next Prez to deal with.

This man's an idiot and a hero in his own mind! He's proven he's dangerous to the world.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
He's proven he's dangerous to the world.

That is a good thing! Countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc....... Are dangerous to the United States. Good thing we have a president that is dangerous to them!

We saw what having a President (Bill Clinton) that was no danger to the rest of the world did for us. Thousands of people died because of his passiveness.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
He's proven he's dangerous to the world.

That is a good thing! Countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc....... Are dangerous to the United States. Good thing we have a president that is dangerous to them!

We saw what having a President (Bill Clinton) that was no danger to the rest of the world did for us. Thousands of people died because of his passiveness.


...and thousands have died cause this man is bull headed ....not meaning to offend any bulls!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
But, by nine to one, Bush's leadership on the war is preferred to that of the Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its (Democratic Congress) leadership on the war.

I think that about says it all..

My answer was no but I would have opted for No, but I think he should obliterate Iran's Navy, Air Force, Army, and Mosques...

Just to show that we still have more damn big bombs then any one else... and that mission could easily be handled by the Navy.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
But, by nine to one, Bush's leadership on the war is preferred to that of the Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its (Democratic Congress) leadership on the war.

I think that about says it all..

My answer was no but I would have opted for No, but I think he should obliterate Iran's Navy, Air Force, Army, and Mosques...

Just to show that we still have more damn big bombs then any one else... and that mission could easily be handled by the Navy.

Thats why I get mad when they talk draft. We do not need draft we need more jobs at home making bombs. We have enough soldiers already to push the buttons and fly the planes to bomb them back to the stone ages.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
we need a "No, but I think we should" choice. That would be how I would vote.


Nooooo...you can't flip flop!!!

Remember the ol' saying, " You're either with us or against us"!!!!


There are not any grey areas allowed in your conservative Rep. world!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
we need a "No, but I think we should" choice. That would be how I would vote.


Nooooo...you can't flip flop!!!

Remember the ol' saying, " You're either with us or against us"!!!!


There are not any grey areas allowed in your conservative Rep. world!!!

You lost me! The question is "Do you think GW will Attack Iran?" my answer is "NO, I do not think he will. But I think he should".

No flip flopping here! That is how I feel. And that is not an option on the poll above.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
No flip flopping here! That is how I feel. And that is not an option on the poll above.

I have felt that way when I cast votes in the elections before. "Isn't there someone worthy of my vote". That is going to be the only justice in the next presidential election, VOTING AGAINST BILLARY.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
GW is in Australia now and it sounds like Iraq may be the downfall of Australian PM John Howard too...The opposition party candidate Kevin Rudd is leading all the polls on a "get out of Iraq" promise for the Aussie troops....

Incidentally in the latest poll the majority of Australians (52%) think Bush is the "worst President in the history of the US"....

"Australians are not anti-American, they're anti the policies of George Bush, particularly the invasion of Iraq," Dr Marr said.

"Mr Howard has got it dead wrong when he says that opposing George Bush is opposing the American alliance.

"It is not that. Australians are sensible enough to know the difference between a dud president and good Americans."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/04/2023108.htm
 

MoGal

Well-known member
OT . I found this on one of the news sites I go to and it was listed under the comments section (those are almost better than the news article itself) ...... and I know people don't like cut and paste but this is from someone that is over there and seeing it first hand:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

“I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway.”

“I have become cynical only recently. I also don’t believe anyone will be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor. He will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea. Of course many of us can give you the 4H Club lecture on democracy in the Mid East. But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they have a clear idea of what the goal of this strike is, your answer would sound like something out of a think tank policy paper. But it’s not like Kosovo or when we relieved the tsunami victims. There everyone could tell you in a sentence what we were here doing.”

“That’s what’s missing. A real sense of purpose. What’s missing is the answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question. In fact, the discussion actually followed afterwards topside where someone in our group had to smoke a cigarette. The discussion was intelligent but also in lowered voices. It’s like we aren’t allowed to ask the questions that we always ask before combat. It’s almost as if the average seaman or soldier is doing all the policy work.”

She had to hang up. She left by telling me that she believes the attack is a done deal. “It’s only a matter of time before their orders come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST.” (Trapping is the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier, FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training).

She seemed lost. The first time in my life I have ever heard her sound off rhythm, or unsure of why she is doing something. She knows that there is something rotten in the Naval Command and she, like many of her associates are just hoping that the election brings in someone new, some new situation, or something.

“Yes. We’re gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussion that are going in is windowdressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what’s going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it’s all going to turn out.”
 

MoGal

Well-known member
While I realize its a lot of reading (especially if someone has ADD/ADHD but have patience and continue to read it) but it sheds a whole new light on things. While the "elite" in the US are wanting to exploit their oil, so does Israel and the whole war which we've been dragged into is over the oil and the water rites. We've shed a lot of blood over there because of oil and water rights.................. IMO

Here's the links and the first two are in no particular order.

http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10372

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18304.htm (also some of the comments after this article bring up interesting thought)

It’s the Water, Stupid, Not Oil!
September 2nd, 2007 by Ed Kent
[A member of the Israel_Palestine list who has just joined the Peace Efforts group posted three articles that indicate that a major conflict between Israel and its neighbors — Palestine and Lebanon — lies in the area’s scarce essential resource — water. The following websites which she provided sketch out the details of Israel’s dominance and the distress of Palestinians and Lebanese. Ed Kent]

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2002/03/05/and/

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2002/02/26/blood/

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/story/867DAF276349CE8CC22571F600642E70?OpenDocument
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I didn't have time to read in detail all responses but this weekend, after Iran claiming hey are at their goal capacity for uranium production there was also an article saying the Pentagon has drawn up a 3 day attack plan to attack Iran before they become armed with Nukes. The plan is not a pinprick, precise attack on Nuke facilities. It is to annihilate the Iran military, they figure weather you just go for the facilities or their whole military, the Iranian response will be the same. So I ask this, will we do this with or without our Nukes? I think it is legitimate use since it's to prevent them from having them, plus it shows that we are willing to use are biggest deterrent.
 

Steve

Well-known member
MOGal
what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build a nuke.

So it would have been acceptable for Hitler to have "a Nuke"????



"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map"




"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,"

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,"


as for the Cut and Paste,... if a carrier ever stops preparing for war, then I'll get concerned...
 
Top