Quantcast

'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
:spam:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.

The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for.

However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being.

Bush, the officials said, opined that Hizbullah's show of strength was evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence. They said that according to Bush, "the disease must be treated - not its symptoms."
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
My question would be:

Attack them with what?


Unless he's going to mobilize postal workers and Cub Scouts, the military is stretched just a tad thin...
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
My question would be:

Attack them with what?


Unless he's going to mobilize postal workers and Cub Scouts, the military is stretched just a tad thin...
as far as MAD goes, we haven't even cleared our throat

invasion's a no-starter
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
stand off weapons most likely.
IF we had absolutely postively correct info on Iran building a nukes...
IF we had absolutely postively correct info on where it was happening...
IF we had surgical strike weapons that would specifically destroy the nukes with little to no collateral damage...

Then I'd support destroying that facility, regardless of political consequences. I'd also support Obama's idea of sending in our own "terrorists" -- a special forces team to confirm and plant explosives on the facility itself.

Anything else tho, the PotUS can go fock himself as it really seems like a little child at play group who's made at his playmate and punches him in the face right before mom picks him up to go home.
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,139
1,377
Front Range, dude...
What about the Salvation Army? If he gets it on before the holidays and all...beat the rush, you know?

Just gotta start another mess for the inbound POTUS to clean up. Like there arent enough already.
Nice legacy, asshole...
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
looks like obama & dubya are sharing the same speechwriters:
Obama said:
If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen."

nytimes
Obama said:
"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust,"

chitrib
are you obamaphiles paying attention?
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
looks like obama & dubya are sharing the same speechwriters: are you obamaphiles paying attention?
If this is news, I'd be disappointed.

Obama actually has a very strong stance on Foreign Policy and terrorism. He simply would approach it differently than Bush Jr and much more along the lines of Bush Sr.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
looks like obama & dubya are sharing the same speechwriters: are you obamaphiles paying attention?
Iran is a threat, but not a threat directly to America, but alternatively a threat to our ideals and assets in the region.

If you step back and read it there isn't really a contradiction in his words.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
IF we had absolutely postively correct info on Iran building a nukes...
IF we had absolutely postively correct info on where it was happening...
IF we had surgical strike weapons that would specifically destroy the nukes with little to no collateral damage...

Then I'd support destroying that facility, regardless of political consequences. I'd also support Obama's idea of sending in our own "terrorists" -- a special forces team to confirm and plant explosives on the facility itself.

Anything else tho, the PotUS can go fock himself as it really seems like a little child at play group who's made at his playmate and punches him in the face right before mom picks him up to go home.
I hope we send in these guys!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29257
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Iran is a threat, but not a threat directly to America, but alternatively a threat to our ideals and assets in the region.

If you step back and read it there isn't really a contradiction in his words.
that's amazing you can work his fat veiny curtain spreader *and* type.
he won't have to shave for a month when you're finished
 
Apr 30, 2008
42
0
i honestly cant think or a quicker way for a congressman to commit political suicide than voting yes to go to war with iran. well maybe hookers but even then they're still respected.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
found another obama quote, that, while 4 yrs old, i believe reveals his rarely expressed conviction on iran:
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." . . .

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations. . . ."

source: chitrib via wayback machine
i'm actually o.k. w/ this. i understand he's trying to get elected, so that may very well explain why he's been far less hawkish. add to this his remarks on conditional strikes in pakistan to root out terr'ists & we may very well have a closet hawk in our midst.


...we can only hope for this kind of change...
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
add to this his remarks on conditional strikes in pakistan to root out terr'ists & we may very well have a closet hawk in our midst.
I've been trying to tell people this for months. In another thread, I quoted him as saying that he will not ignore terrorist, it's just that he'll go back to the older days of covert actions, diplomatic fallout be damned.

I started learning about this when a monkey posted about Brezinski (sp?) who is a top advisor and actually one of the guys that created the Taliban -- through covert actions.


Obama is one of them scary candidates that will definitely change the world. That change can go either way.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
yeah in my opinion, full scale military operations aren't the way to root out terrorism. Covert and blackops style is much better, after all, when you don't have to tell anyone about what your doing, you can operate with so much more freedom.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
yeah in my opinion, full scale military operations aren't the way to root out terrorism. Covert and blackops style is much better, after all, when you don't have to tell anyone about what your doing, you can operate with so much more freedom.
while true, you have to imagine there was a desire to do this one in particular in the public square to send a message to others. it seems col. quadaffi took note.

but yeah, i'd prefer to read about war in the history books, not above the fold.
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,151
1
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
while true, you have to imagine there was a desire to do this one in particular in the public square to send a message to others. it seems col. quadaffi took note.

but yeah, i'd prefer to read about war in the history books, not above the fold.
"They call him Col. Quadaffi. He sounds like he should own his own chain of terrorist chicken stores. 'C'mon down to Col. Quadaffi's Bomb in a Bucket. C'mon down. Bring the kids, get a grenade. C'mon down.

This is a man that had the audacity to say, 'This is a line of death. You cross it you die. Ok. This line, you die. This line, you die. You knock on my door, I'm not coming out."

-Robin Williams ('80's coke binge no doubt)
 

JewBagel

Monkey
Apr 22, 2008
229
0
oregon
Attacking Iran has been a plan of the neo-cons since the 80's, the initial idea of invading Iraq was cooked up in 1979. One of the first things the administration did when it got into office in 2001 was to start gathering "intelligence" to formulate a plan to attack Iraq. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and do not believe the government had any hand in 9/11 but I do believe they turned a blind eye to the information they received about a possible large-scale attack using planes on American soil because they needed an excuse to set their plan in motion. Just as soon as the towers were destroyed cheney was asked one of his advisers to start gathering intelligence to link al-queda to iraq.

Iraq was the initial target in their plan because it was "the beach front" to the middle east, a perfect place to set up base. Namely it has the largest oil reserves because of western intervention in the late 1800's when oil was first discovered there, Iraq is shaped the way it is for a reason. Known oil reserves in Iraq number somewhere around 120 billion barrel although many believe the number could be as great as 270 billion. Controlling Iraq is quite a strategic move, not only does it say "don't ever cross us" to all the middle easter countries it puts you in control of the largest oil reserves in the world and control of the largest fresh water reserves in the middle east, people can live with out oil but in a desert with out water...

Deep **** is happening over there, this is the beginning of the neo-cons "plan for a new middle east". Unfortunately for them the population hasn't been as easy to control as they anticipated and people are beginning to grow weary of the war and it's intentions. I seriously hope we don't attack Iran and am very very glad this presidents reign of terror is nearly over, but I don't rule out the possibility since the general public repeatedly shows it's ignorance towards foreign relations and true U.S. intentions.

If only people would stop being so ****ing lazy and read a book or two, we'd be quite a bit more informed. Check out "Oil Power and Empire" by Larry Everest, "Neo-Conned" a collaboration, "Rogue Nation" by Clyde Prestowitz , "Endgame" by Scott Ritter, or pretty much anything Noam Chomsky has written. I have read stuff by sh*t heads like Pat Buchanan mainly to find out the lies people who side with him will tell, no matter how irritating or frustrating it is to read. It's always worth your time to read both sides of an issue.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Attacking Iran has been a plan of the neo-cons since the 80's, the initial idea of invading Iraq was cooked up in 1979. One of the first things the administration did when it got into office in 2001 was to start gathering "intelligence" to formulate a plan to attack Iraq. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and do not believe the government had any hand in 9/11 but I do believe they turned a blind eye to the information they received about a possible large-scale attack using planes on American soil because they needed an excuse to set their plan in motion. Just as soon as the towers were destroyed cheney was asked one of his advisers to start gathering intelligence to link al-queda to iraq.

Iraq was the initial target in their plan because it was "the beach front" to the middle east, a perfect place to set up base. Namely it has the largest oil reserves because of western intervention in the late 1800's when oil was first discovered there, Iraq is shaped the way it is for a reason. Known oil reserves in Iraq number somewhere around 120 billion barrel although many believe the number could be as great as 270 billion. Controlling Iraq is quite a strategic move, not only does it say "don't ever cross us" to all the middle easter countries it puts you in control of the largest oil reserves in the world and control of the largest fresh water reserves in the middle east, people can live with out oil but in a desert with out water...

Deep **** is happening over there, this is the beginning of the neo-cons "plan for a new middle east". Unfortunately for them the population hasn't been as easy to control as they anticipated and people are beginning to grow weary of the war and it's intentions. I seriously hope we don't attack Iran and am very very glad this presidents reign of terror is nearly over, but I don't rule out the possibility since the general public repeatedly shows it's ignorance towards foreign relations and true U.S. intentions.

If only people would stop being so ****ing lazy and read a book or two, we'd be quite a bit more informed. Check out "Oil Power and Empire" by Larry Everest, "Neo-Conned" a collaboration, "Rogue Nation" by Clyde Prestowitz , "Endgame" by Scott Ritter, or pretty much anything Noam Chomsky has written. I have read stuff by sh*t heads like Pat Buchanan mainly to find out the lies people who side with him will tell, no matter how irritating or frustrating it is to read. It's always worth your time to read both sides of an issue.

Let's see now... there was an Amreican president who sent the US military on an ill concieved mission into Iran in the 70's...

what was his name & party affiliation again..??/






Oh!


HabitatForHumanityCarter - (D -Ga)