[$tinkle]

seeing how iran has a very unpopular president, a rising generation of western-influenced youds, a heavily outdated oil infrastructure matched only by sub-par oil (limiting petro-dollars to feed the mullah machine), iran is containable.

pesky, but containable.

 

[MikeD]

Yet, we manage to discourage things from turning our way at every possible opportunity.

 

[Silver]

seeing how iran has a very unpopular president, a rising generation of western-influenced youds, a heavily outdated oil infrastructure matched only by sub-par oil (limiting petro-dollars to feed the mullah machine), iran is containable.

pesky, but containable.

Seems like the perfect time to bomb then and stoke up nationalist fervor against the Great Satan.

It's the worst possible outcome, so looking at the Bush track record...

 

[N8 v2.0]

No worries, Obama is the Tehranian Candidate..

once he's elected Pres and the Grand Ayatollah flashes him the queen of diamonds at Camp David.. it'll be all over for us.

 

[JewBagel]

"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)"

wow, you're pretty ignorant. Although that did happen, who was it again that got elected and secured the release of "prisoners" as soon as he was elected by giving Iran millions of dollars in arms and then played them against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war attempting to assure mutual self destruction. In addition sponsored the terrorist organizations in south america (called the contras) which has decimated the region and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not to mention our actions down there made us the only country to be condemed by the World Court for international terrorism.

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






Oh!

Ronald McDonald Reagan (R - actor and A-list **** head)

 

[N8 v2.0]

fixed!

 

[JewBagel]

fixed!

I don't get it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I don't get it.

 

[JewBagel]

I read the excerpt that goes with that photo and I still don't get it, it just proves my point.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I read the excerpt that goes with that photo and I still don't get it, it just proves my point.

 

[Lowlight7]

wow, you're pretty ignorant. Although that did happen, who was it again that got elected and secured the release of "prisoners" as soon as he was elected by giving Iran millions of dollars in arms and then played them against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war attempting to assure mutual self destruction.

I don't want to sound like I'm siding with N8, 'cause I'm not, but...

The Iran-Iraq war started in 1980, before Reagan had even won the election. It started because of a 30-year border dispute, an attempt by Iran to incite a revolution among the Shia population of Iraq, and Iraq trying to seize the disputed border area during the chaos of the Iranian Revolution. The 52 embassy hostages in Iran were freed because of the Algiers Accords (involving the release of frozen Iranian assets and lifting of sanctions), not the Iran-Contra Affair. Iran/Contra was to negotiate the release of 6 American hostages taken by the Party of God in 1983.

The TOW missiles were given to anti-Khomeini politicians in the hope of bolstering their support in creating a pro-US Iranian government when Khomeini died or lost power.

Congress also approved millions in funding for anti-Sandinista groups toward the end of Carter's term. They continued funding them during Reagan's presidency, until 1983, and Reagan did secretly fund them additional money through the CIA. Before you pass judgement, you must remember that the Sandinistas were no Captain Kangaroos themselves, killing thousands in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica and particularly El Salvador, imprisoning thousands more for simple matters such as differing political views. Amnesty International has just as many allegations against them as the Contras. The Sandinistas were also Marxist and Cuban-backed, and it was the Cold War.

 

[JewBagel]

"The Iran-Iraq war started in 1980, before Reagan had even won the election. It started because of a 30-year border dispute..."

I know, those were the borders we set up around the turn of the century. When I get home later I'll pull out "Oil Power and Empire" and flip through the chapter on the Iran-Iraq war, although it was between them, it was the United States pulling the levers behind the curtain by periodically switching sides and funding both in different proportions throughout the fiasco.

I'm glad you pointed that out though, I'm glad to admit I'm wrong to get the facts straight. Currently I don't get as much pleasure reading time as I'd like and most of my brain is filled with useless textbook facts or bike knowledge. And I wish I hadn't said "wow, you're ignorant" but it really annoys me when people try to demean JC, yet act as if Reagan was the best president ever. Every president has done horrible things that rarely get attention but some have done much more than others. JC was an idealist and I wish he had stuck to some of his guns, esp. on issues like marijuana. He could have done a lot of good if the general population wasn't so susceptible to propaganda(in both political directions).

I'm glad you brought up the Sandistas, south america has been pretty much a **** show because of the backing from various US departments. The fact that we have the School of the Americas(as of 2001 WHINSEC) and that it is publically known just dumbfounds me. I like living in America and would never leave but I really want us to lose the postion of sole superpower and shrink down to say where Germany is so there would be a possibility of some accountability and of shutting down programs like the SOA.

 

[Lowlight7]

"The Iran-Iraq war started in 1980, before Reagan had even won the election. It started because of a 30-year border dispute..."

I know, those were the borders we set up around the turn of the century. When I get home later I'll pull out "Oil Power and Empire" and flip through the chapter on the Iran-Iraq war, although it was between them, it was the United States pulling the levers behind the curtain by periodically switching sides and funding both in different proportions throughout the fiasco.

IMO it was more of Britain in their haphazard colonial period and following cut-and-run policy, which unfortunately coincided with the Truman Doctrine.

During most of I-I, I recall we were getting most of our oil in the region from Kuwait. When Iraq seemed to be winning, we gave them aid to gain their favor and the favor of Kuwait who was also financing Iraq in the war. When Iran seemed to be winning we supported their moderates in the hopes they would take power. Neither country was producing much oil at the time, I always assumed that either of our desired outcomes would result in one less enemy and the return of our hostages, not oil discounts.

I'm glad you pointed that out though, I'm glad to admit I'm wrong to get the facts straight. Currently I don't get as much pleasure reading time as I'd like and most of my brain is filled with useless textbook facts or bike knowledge. And I wish I hadn't said "wow, you're ignorant" but it really annoys me when people try to demean JC, yet act as if Reagan was the best president ever. Every president has done horrible things that rarely get attention but some have done much more than others. JC was an idealist and I wish he had stuck to some of his guns, esp. on issues like marijuana. He could have done a lot of good if the general population wasn't so susceptible to propaganda(in both political directions).

I think Jimmy Carter was just one of the many who was a great candidate and a poor president.

 

[N8 v2.0]

f8ck! Is the President really ramping up for war with Iran...?!!!

Sure sounds like it..

"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said, adding loudly to add emphasis that he would do "everything" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremes. And challenges across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race," he told AIPAC's annual meeting in Washington.

Calling for "aggressive, principled diplomacy" to tackle the problem of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

"As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing -- if, and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."

Mmm... more...

Condoleezza Rice repeatedly referred to U.S. efforts to strengthen Israel's security. At one point, she said the thought of Israelis living in fear and insecurity was "simply unacceptable.”

Rice also referred to statements by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be erased from the map, and his convening of a conference that questioned the Holocaust. She also accused Iran of involvement in the sectarian bloodshed in Iraq.

Iran, she said, poses a threat both to Israel and the entire Middle East.

"A regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens, murders its neighbors’ citizens, and seeks to destroy a member of the United Nations should not be allowed to cross the nuclear threshold," Rice said. "As President [George W.] Bush told the Knesset, 'For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.'"

 

[$tinkle]

surgical strikes while the gulf bristles w/ superior firepower = teh good
invasion & occupation on any scale = teh mizerable failure

edit 1: i see what you did there
edit 2: must spread for n8

 

[ohio]

must spread for n8

doesn't even require an edit.

(and please, we know the one thing neight is a master of is the cut-and-paste quote)

 

[DaveW]

edit 2: must spread for n8

 

[jimmydean]

And so it begins.

Bush Doesn't Rule out Military Strike in Iran

President Bush on Wednesday raised unprompted the possibility of a military strike to thwart Tehran's presumed nuclear weapons ambitions, speaking bullishly on Iran even as he admitted having been unwise to do so previously about Iraq.

Two wrongs make a right, right? -GWB

 

[Defenestrated]

wooooooooooorld policeeee!

 

[skinny mike]

Two wrongs make a right, right? -GWB

i believe he subscribes to the "three lefts make a right" train of though...