Nuke Iran

He cannot prove anything because the facts speak for themselves.

How you can relegate my post to crop circles makes me wonder at your mental capabilities. Are you getting early demetia?

Either post an intelligent, sourced rebuttal or find a tree to s*it on.

U seem to be OBSESSED with proving your mental disabilities.





That 's it, boy !
Show us how u can hallucinate !



Really very fine; life is good here.
It feels GREAT to be an American.




Not much; we can spare 2 edifices,
and we lose more citizens on the nation 's roads, annually.




Really ?
What is the source of your information ?

Do u think thay 'll get to England
and tell u " Accept Islam or die " ??





Like I CARE what thay wear on their heads.




Do u think thay 'll drag u behind them,
in chains, when thay get to England ?
Do u think we shud rescue u AGAIN
when that happens ?

Will u grovel n beg for our help
again, as Churchill did ?




OK.




Not necessarily; maybe.
That 's not Y we invaded.




Yes.
It is attributable to our INDIVIDUALISM, libertarianism,
hedonism, rational analyses, and general contempt for authority.



Well, thay hit us below the belt, dishonorably,
in PEACETIME, without declaring war.
We were not expecting that.
It was like an abrupt loud noise, when one is sleeping.

Thay r lucky that we did not get more annoyed
than we did; we cud have nuked their favorite places,
if we felt like it. We still can.




I never thought that was rightfully our fight.




ME




U are just EMOTING, mindlessly.





ADMIRABLY !
It WILL.
Everyone we have blown up
has stopped causing us trouble.

It worked nicely with the nazis in Germany,
the fascits in Italy, the Japs, the commies,
the English; it has a GOOD track record.



I feel like I 'm arguing with Gracie Allen.
Your mind is in such a hopeless state of confusion
that I am skeptical that the powers of reason can
disentangle it.
You are lost in the bowels of collectivist emotion.
You are not a worthy adversary.
There is little merit in arguing with the mentally disabled.

Yeah; before W,
the world had no problems, Marion.

By your post, u define yourself.

David

They should rename this thread, "Battle of the Extremist Wack-a-doodles."

Actually George Bush seems to be the greatest ally the terrorist can have. The limited aid Saddam Hussein gave Humas pales in comparison to the aid Bush has given international terrorist by his invasion of Iraq.

The thread's topic title pretty well establishes that as the thrust of the discusion already - nothing there a rational being might take seriously. The whack jobs do serve a purpose, though ... good entertaiment is to be appreciated where ever it is found, and well-done slapstick is mighty fine entertainment.

That would be an unwarranted offense to extremist wack-a-doodles everywhere . . .

For the last several weeks,
I have been acutely aware of the BEAUTY
of this planet; everywhere I look,
I see raw beauty intensely manifesting itself:
my maple trees, the gentle, delicious wind, the Earth,
a confluence of all conspiring to create an ambience
almost glowing with beauty, evoking an ineffable bliss.

When I reflect upon my dear friends,
my fine dining SIG,
the splendor of the dens of successful
culinary hedonism that we habituate,
our travel around America to delightful,
informative conventions, with more fine dining,
the beauty of my real estate, of my gun collection, and of my gold coins,
I am moven to exult in a rapture of exceptional joy and well being.

A few days ago, one of my tenants told me that
he 'd been in an automotive collision; I 'd seen
the deformation of his car. He told me that he
had been moven to reflect upon his own mortality,
and what he considered a near brush with death,
resulting in his better appreciation of each day since.

I can only agree.
As free Americans, we have a lot to be glad about;
so much happiness, free for the taking

David

House votes 397-21 for "Iran Freedom Support Act"
April 27, 2006


As if Iraq isn't a big enough mess, the House of Representatives has just voted to 'hold Iran accountable and support a transition to democracy'. Sound Familiar? Only this time Iran is a democracy. They just held an election where their president was actually elected by the people. How refreshing.

After everything that has been exposed...the lies, the profiteering, the long list of war crimes, 397 'Representatives' gave Bush the go ahead on attacking Iran. Only 21 Patriots voted Nay. Sad to say but these are the only people we can trust...


Baldwin, Blumenauer, Boyd, DeFazio, Duncan, Flake, Hostettler, Jones (NC)
Kucinich, Leach, McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Oberstar, Obey, Olver


Paul, Rahall, Snyder, Stark, Taylor


The most disappointing aspect however is the fact that so many of our 'progressive' leaders in congress voted for this lie. John Conyers voted yay. Maxine Waters, Murtha, Bernie Sanders, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee all voted for it. On the hill today the Progressive Caucus is hosting a hearing on Iraq...


Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee will host a hearing on the Iraq War next Thursday, April 27, 8:30-11 a.m., in 2325 Rayburn House Office Building. The two Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are continuing to do what the "leadership" of both parties does not, respond to the demands of the majority of Americans, who disapprove of current policy.


Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee just voted yay on giving the green light for war on Iran. I can assure them that the demands of the majority of Americans are not in accordance with their vote on Iran. We are supposed to believe that these representatives 'can get fooled again'? Are they merely posing as the opposition in order to stall for Bush?

At least we have a small vocal group speaking out...


Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, said the measure reminds him of a 1998 congressional resolution that called for regime change in Iraq, which he thinks was the first step to the "very unpopular, expensive" Iraq war.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Oregon Democrat, noted all lawmakers "hate this regime," but he favors "strong, smart, constructive, diplomatic efforts" - characteristics that he says are not present in the bill.
"I am very worried about where this all ends," he said.

"It is bad for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there are things that are worse," such as giving the country a reason to use one, said Rep. Jim Leach, Iowa Republican.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich said the Bush administration has "made a mess of international relations," with the war in Iraq. "Don't we have enough problems in Iraq to clean up before setting the stage for another conflict with Iran?" the Ohio Democrat asked.


How is it possible that Bush is still getting away with promoting lies about Iran. How is he even still in office?

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22916

"Moven?"

How does anybody believe the "anti-war" Democrats when they claim to have voted for authorization for war in Iraq but didn't really think the Bush administration would abuse it, like they did? Of course, they knew. The guys behind the Bush curtain had already made their intentions known before they took over the White House. Anyone who voted for the war either supported the war, or they were just playing politics and betting on the American people to buy their ridiculous excuse should the whole thing turn out the way it has.
So, here they go, again. Different country. Same crap.

echi, " Of course, they knew."

Ahmadinejad offers to discuss 'everything'

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Monday, September 25, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in remarks published Sunday that his government was ready to put "everything" on the negotiating table, if those in the US government who talk about regime change in Iran abandon their plans.

"If they change their behavior, it is possible to talk about everything," the Iranian leader told The Washington Post. "It's the attitude and the approach of some American politicians that ruin things."

The comments came as world powers are considering imposing sanctions that would target Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile sectors if Tehran persists in refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. A diplomatic source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the sanctions were discussed by senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Asked if Iran was willing to take any steps to suspend uranium enrichment, Ahmadinejad said: "We think the American politicians should change their attitudes. If they think that by threatening Iran they'll have results, they are wrong."

Meanwhile, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, will visit Moscow on Monday for talks with his Russian counterpart on Iran's first nuclear reactor, officials said.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

The Russian-built Bushehr plant, worth almost $1 billion, is set to start generating energy in November 2007, said Sergei Novikov, spokesman for Russia's atomic energy agency, Rosatom. Russia could start delivering nuclear fuel to Iran by next March - six months ahead of the scheduled completion of the project, which Russia began building in 1998.

Novikov stressed that Aghazadeh, who is also an Iranian vice president, and Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko will talk exclusively about Bushehr and not about the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

"The plant is built under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency and, from the point of view of international law, Russia has nothing to fear," said Daniil Kobyakov of the PIR Center for Policy Studies in Moscow. "It's unilateral action by the US or Israel that [is] the most serious threat."

In an interview published in Saturday's edition of Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the UN should only consider sanctions if presented with "concrete and incontrovertible evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons and clear evidence that it is supporting international terrorism." - Agencies

Okay, then... Time to start building another "coalition".

Yes.
He had to clean up the mess
that his idiot father left behind.
( mess = Saddam n his evil princes )
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am moven to exult in a rapture of exceptional joy and well being.

Bush will find that he can't make up reasons to invade another country. Like he did with Iraq.

Thanks for the article.

Dire consequences if America attacks Iran
Iran Attack - Crisis Is Upon Us

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/245/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- A number of experts have concluded that despite the Bush administration's desire to attack Iran, the aggression would be too rash and the consequences too dire even for the irrational Bush administration.

Military experts point out that at a time when generals are calling for more troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be ill-advised for Bush to add Iran to the war theater. Experts note that Iran is well armed with missiles capable of attacking US ships and oil facilities throughout the Middle East and that Iran can direct its Shiite allies in Iraq to assault US troops there and set in motion terrorist actions throughout the Middle East.

Diplomatic experts point out that the US is isolated in its desire for war with Iran and has no ally except Israel, thus validating Muslim claims that the US is Israel's instrument against Muslims in the Middle East. Experts note that military aggression is a war crime and that US violations of international law isolate the US and destroy the soft power on which US leadership has been based. An attack on Iran could be the last straw for Muslims chaffing under the rule of US puppet governments in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Economic experts point out that the impact on the price of oil would be severe and the economic consequences detrimental. With the US housing bubble deflating, now is not the time for an oil shock.

It is difficult to take exception to this expert analysis. Nevertheless, the Bush administration continues to send war signals. Credible news organizations have reported that US naval attack groups have been given "prepare to deploy orders" that would put them on station off Iran by October 21.

How can Bush administration war plans be reconciled with expert opinion that the consequences would be too dire for the US?

Perhaps the answer is that what appears as irrationality to experts is rationality to neoconservatives. Neocons seek maximum chaos and instability in the Middle East in order to justify long-term US occupation of the region. Following this line of thought, neocons would regard the loss of a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf as a way to solidify public support for the war. US public anger at the Iranians could even result in US public support for a military draft in order to win "the war on terror."

The Bush administration could bring Congress around by announcing a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident or by orchestrating a "terrorist attack." However, this is unnecessary as Bush has prepared the ground for bypassing Congress with his propagandistic allegations that Iran, by arming Iraqi insurgents, sponsoring terrorism, and building nuclear weapons, is the major part of the ongoing "war against terrorism." Now that Iran is blamed for rising violence in Iraq, an attack on Iran follows as a matter of course. All Bush has to do is to continue with his lies in order to bring the American public to a new war hysteria.

Bush's attorney general has demonstrated that he has no qualms about validating any and all extra-legal powers that the White House requires for violating the US Constitution and international law. The congressional attempts to block illegal wiretapping and torture have failed. The Senate has refused to authorize torture, but the Senate has not prevented the administration from torturing detainees. The compromise leaves it to the White House to decide whether its interrogation practices are objectionable. In an editorial (September 22, 2006), the Washington Post concluded that "the abuse can continue."

Polls show that Bush administration propaganda has convinced a majority of inattentive Americans that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Polls show that a majority support an attack on Iran under this circumstance. The neoconservatives and their media allies have succeeded in causing the public to confuse Iran's legal nuclear energy program with a weapons program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors pour over Iran's nuclear energy program for signs of a weapons program, recently denounced a House Intelligence Committee report as "outrageous and dishonest." Written by the Republican neocon staff, the Republican report falsely alleges that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons grade last April and that the IAEA had removed a senior safeguards inspector to keep the alleged breach of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Pact secret.

Once again neoconservatives have shown that they will tell any and every lie to achieve their goal of attacking Iran. Jingoistic anti-UN Bush supporters will automatically believe the neocon lie and will swallow right-wing talk radio claims that the UN is protecting Iran's nuclear weapons program. As we learned from the Iraq hysteria, facts and experts are no impediment to the Bush administration's lies.

Rumsfeld's neocon Pentagon has rewritten US war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries. As the US paid a huge public relations cost in terms of world opinion and distrust of the US by endorsing the first use of nuclear weapons, the revision of US war doctrine must have a purpose. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=9255

Neocons claim that tactical nuclear weapons are necessary to destroy Iran's underground facilities. However, the real reason for using nukes against Iran is to intimidate Iran from retaliating and to threaten the entire Muslim world with genocide unless Muslims bend to the neocons' will and accept US hegemony over their part of the world.

In his speech to the United Nations, Hugo Chavez might not have been too deep into hyperbole when he described Bush as an example of demonic evil.

I thought this thread was locked? It should be.

Pachelbel's postings and rants aren't so much opinions as they are attacks.

Coming from someone so concerned about attacking anything or anyone, I find it very disengenous.

Crybaby